SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TobagoJack who wrote (70432)1/18/2011 4:07:45 AM
From: elmatador  Respond to of 218897
 
China's Hu heads to United States
(AFP) – 1 hour ago

BEIJING — Chinese President Hu Jintao headed to the United States on Tuesday, Xinhua news agency reported, for a visit that comes at a time of tension and stress in Sino-US relations.

Hu was to begin the visit in Washington with a private dinner on Tuesday evening in the White House residence, hosted by US President Barack Obama and to be attended by only a few senior officials from each side.

Obama will then lay on the pageantry of a state visit on Wednesday, including talks in the Oval Office and a state dinner, before Hu heads to Chicago for talks with business leaders. The visit will end on Friday.

Chinese state media reported Tuesday, citing unnamed sources, that a series of deals was expected to be signed during the visit, including the sale of Boeing aircraft to China, where the aviation sector is booming.

Another possible major deal in the works is one that would see China help the United States develop its high-speed rail network, the China Daily said.

In September last year, then California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said during a visit to Shanghai that he hoped China would invest in his state's future high-speed rail network.

Other agreements signed would focus on bilateral trade, energy, environmental protection, infrastructure building, and cultural exchanges, the China Daily said.

Chinese and US businesses on Monday signed deals worth $600 million in the southern state of Texas, China's Xinhua news agency reported.

Both sides are keen to put a fresh face on their testy ties.

China on Monday unveiled a 60-second promotional video in New York City's Times Square featuring basketball great Yao Ming and pianist Lang Lang. Hu also plans to meet with ordinary Americans during his Chicago stop, Beijing said.

Obama is meanwhile rolling out the red carpet and 21-gun salute that his predecessor George W. Bush reserved for the leaders of democracies.

The two sides nevertheless recognise the deep divisions that have cropped up over the past year -- on the value of the yuan, the yawning trade gap, human rights, US arms sales to Taiwan and maritime rivalries in the Pacific.

In a rare interview with foreign media ahead of the trip, Hu acknowledged the "differences and sensitive issues" between the two nations, but said cooperation would serve both sides.

"We both stand to gain from a sound China-US relationship, and lose from confrontation," he told the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal in a written interview.



To: TobagoJack who wrote (70432)1/18/2011 5:41:37 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218897
 
Capital moves to China. Leaves vaccum behind. Low taxes revenue, which causes States $2,500bn pensions shortfall.

States warned of $2,500bn pensions shortfall

By Nicole Bullock in New York

Published: January 17 2011 22:00 | Last updated: January 17 2011 22:00

US public pensions face a shortfall of $2,500bn that will force state and local governments to sell assets and make deep cuts to services, according to the former chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund.

The severe US economic recession has cast a spotlight on years of fiscal mismanagement, including chronic underfunding of retirement promises.

“States face cost pressure, most prominently from retirement benefits and Medicaid [the health programme for the poor],” Orin Kramer told the Financial Times. “One consequence is that asset sales and privatisation will pick up. The very unfortunate consequence is that various safety nets for the most vulnerable citizens will be cut back.”

Mr Kramer, an influential figure in the Democratic party and still a member of the investment council that oversees the New Jersey pension fund, has been an outspoken critic of public pension accounting, which allows for the averaging of investment gains and losses over a number of years through a process called “smoothing”.

Using data from the states, the Pew Center on the States, a research group, has estimated a funding gap for pension, healthcare and other non-pension benefits, such as life assurance, of at least $1,000bn as of the end of fiscal 2008.

Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, said in his state of the state speech last week that, without reform, the unfunded liability of the state’s pension system would rise from $54bn now to $183bn within 30 years.

Mr Kramer’s estimates are based on the assets and liabilities of the top 25 public pension funds at the end of 2010. The gap has risen from an estimate of more than $2,000bn at the end of 2009. He also used a market rate analysis based on the accounting used by corporate pension funds rather than the 8 per cent rate of return that most public funds use in calculations.

Pension liabilities are not included in state and local government debt figures.

Concerns about the financial health of local governments have sparked warnings of a rise in defaults for cities and towns and a sell-off in the $3,000bn municipal bond market where they raise money. Last week, the interest rate on 30-year top rated municipal debt rose above 5 per cent for the first time in about two years. Amid the volatility, New Jersey had to cut the size of a planned bond sale.

Although Mr Kramer said some local governments would experience “severe strain”, he did not foresee mass defaults.

“I don’t assume that you will have that level of defaults just because there are various remedies, including asset sales, that you can engage before you have to default,” he said. “States have an interest in their major municipalities not defaulting.”

The state of Pennsylvania, for example, last year advanced money to Harrisburg, its capital, so that the cash-strapped city could avoid a default on its general obligation bonds.

In February, Illinois, which is facing an unfunded pension obligation of at least $80bn, plans to sell $3.7bn of bonds to pay for its annual contribution.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

States warned of $2,500bn pensions shortfall
By Nicole Bullock in New York

Published: January 17 2011 22:00 | Last updated: January 17 2011 22:00

US public pensions face a shortfall of $2,500bn that will force state and local governments to sell assets and make deep cuts to services, according to the former chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund.

The severe US economic recession has cast a spotlight on years of fiscal mismanagement, including chronic underfunding of retirement promises.

“States face cost pressure, most prominently from retirement benefits and Medicaid [the health programme for the poor],” Orin Kramer told the Financial Times. “One consequence is that asset sales and privatisation will pick up. The very unfortunate consequence is that various safety nets for the most vulnerable citizens will be cut back.”

Mr Kramer, an influential figure in the Democratic party and still a member of the investment council that oversees the New Jersey pension fund, has been an outspoken critic of public pension accounting, which allows for the averaging of investment gains and losses over a number of years through a process called “smoothing”.

Using data from the states, the Pew Center on the States, a research group, has estimated a funding gap for pension, healthcare and other non-pension benefits, such as life assurance, of at least $1,000bn as of the end of fiscal 2008.

Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, said in his state of the state speech last week that, without reform, the unfunded liability of the state’s pension system would rise from $54bn now to $183bn within 30 years.

Mr Kramer’s estimates are based on the assets and liabilities of the top 25 public pension funds at the end of 2010. The gap has risen from an estimate of more than $2,000bn at the end of 2009. He also used a market rate analysis based on the accounting used by corporate pension funds rather than the 8 per cent rate of return that most public funds use in calculations.

Pension liabilities are not included in state and local government debt figures.

Concerns about the financial health of local governments have sparked warnings of a rise in defaults for cities and towns and a sell-off in the $3,000bn municipal bond market where they raise money. Last week, the interest rate on 30-year top rated municipal debt rose above 5 per cent for the first time in about two years. Amid the volatility, New Jersey had to cut the size of a planned bond sale.

Although Mr Kramer said some local governments would experience “severe strain”, he did not foresee mass defaults.

“I don’t assume that you will have that level of defaults just because there are various remedies, including asset sales, that you can engage before you have to default,” he said. “States have an interest in their major municipalities not defaulting.”

The state of Pennsylvania, for example, last year advanced money to Harrisburg, its capital, so that the cash-strapped city could avoid a default on its general obligation bonds.

In February, Illinois, which is facing an unfunded pension obligation of at least $80bn, plans to sell $3.7bn of bonds to pay for its annual contribution.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.



To: TobagoJack who wrote (70432)1/18/2011 5:45:36 AM
From: elmatador  Respond to of 218897
 
As capital moves, it is diverted as China’s lending hits new heights
By Geoff Dyer and Jamil Anderlini in Beijing and Henny Sender in Hong Kong

Published: January 17 2011 22:15 | Last updated: January 17 2011 22:15

China has lent more money to other developing countries over the past two years than the World Bank, a stark indication of the scale of Beijing’s economic reach and its drive to secure natural resources.

China Development Bank and China Export-Import Bank signed loans of at least $110bn (£70bn) to other developing country governments and companies in 2009 and 2010, according to Financial Times research. The equivalent arms of the World Bank made loan commitments of $100.3bn from mid-2008 to mid-2010, itself a record amount of lending in response to the financial crisis.

The volume of overseas loans by the two banks indicates how Beijing is forging new patterns of China-led globalisation, as part of a broader push to scale back its economic dependency on western export markets.

The financial crisis allowed Beijing to push the commercial interests of its energy companies by offering loans to producer countries at a time when financing was hard to come by.

The agreements include large loan-for-oil deals with Russia, Venezuela and Brazil, as well as loans for an Indian company to buy power equipment and for infrastructure projects in Ghana and railways in Argentina.

The World Bank has been trying to find ways to co-operate with Beijing to avoid escalating competition over loan deals. China itself has been one of the biggest recipients of World Bank loans in the past.“One of the topics I have been discussing with the Chinese authorities is how we can work with them to share our mutual experience to support other developing countries, whether in south-east Asia or Africa,” Robert Zoellick, World Bank president, said on a visit to China last year.

CDB and EximBank provide more preferential terms than the World Bank and other lenders for certain deals that are strongly supported by Beijing, but offer terms that are closer to international standards for less politically sensitive deals. They also tend to impose less onerous transparency conditions.

The flurry of Chinese lending to oil producers has already caused some anxiety in the US about energy security. According to Erica Downs, a China expert at the Brookings Institution, the impact on US interests is mixed. “CDB’s [energy] loans indicate that Chinese lenders are likely to be more concerned about good economic policymaking in recipient countries and they are not reducing the amount of oil available to the US,” she said. “On the other hand, CDB’s loans are empowering anti-American regimes in Latin America.”

CDB and China EximBank do not publish figures for overseas loans. They declined to comment. The World Bank said it was working closely with China and welcomed “an important and growing partnership”.

The statistics were collected by examining public announcements by the banks, the borrowers or the Chinese government.

An adviser to CDB said the volume of lending suggested by public statements understated the real level of the bank’s new loan commitments to developing countries.

The World Bank figures are for the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, the bank’s main lending arm, and the International Finance Corporation, which lends to the private sector. They do not include the International Development Association, which makes grants and low-interest loans. China also gives financial aid to other developing countries, but provides little detail.

Beijing has also used offshore lending by CDB and EximBank, which have a mandate to further the interests of the Communist Party and the Chinese state, to accelerate its goal of making its currency more international. For example, half of the $20bn loan it extended to Venezuela was denominated in renminbi and intended for purchases of Chinese goods and equipment. In other cases, the foreign currency in the loans has come directly from China’s foreign exchange reserves.



To: TobagoJack who wrote (70432)1/20/2011 7:09:52 AM
From: tntpal1 Recommendation  Respond to of 218897
 
The Mechanism of China's Silver Accumulation

Seeking Alpha
January 10, 2011

I was gratified to see how well my recent article (Is China Behind The Big Silver Short Dec 25th, 2010) was received, when over 50 websites worldwide picked it up in the first 24 hours. But I am afraid that a fair bit of confusion was created by that article, which I want to clarify here.

First, I am not presenting this as fact. I am presenting this as a theory that explains the observable facts.

With no transparency in the banking industry, we will never get a chance to see the swap books of JP Morgan (JPM) or HSBC (HBC) to find out which of their clients are shorting silver, or how much of the money behind silver shorts comes from JPM’s own proprietary trading desk; and this is how it SHOULD be.

But the presumption IS that the CFTC is monitoring these books, and would perform their duty to investigate any clearly manipulative and excessively large short positions not being held by legitimate hedgers of mine production. Sadly, we cannot depend on the CFTC to put fair, realistic position limits in place, or even to enforce the unrealistic position limits already in place. These position limits are far too high compared to annual silver production, or to above ground silver inventories, to actually succeed in limiting anything.

The CFTC is just another captured “regulatory agency” like the SEC and there will never be any transparency in the shady operations of the mega banks. So, let’s look at the circumstantial evidence available to us and build a case against them, just as any criminal investigator would: By using method, means, motive, and opportunity.

METHOD:
Last week’s article never intended to state that China had a net short position in silver. The title of the article was in question form, and the body of the article explained my theory that the Chinese have both long and offsetting short positions in silver, which may result in combined net position of zero. I stated that the Chinese were using these opposing positions, in which China may hold the same exact number of long COMEX future contracts and short COMEX future contracts. That would result in no net long or short position, as a mechanism whose purpose is to accumulate silver metal and dispose of excess U.S. dollar reserves. These reserves are constantly accumulating in the Chinese Central Bank month after month as a result of the persistent trade deficit.

The brilliance of this mechanism is that it could allow the Chinese to secretly drain physical silver metal inventory away from the COMEX without spiking the market price of silver. Such actions would hurt their producers and exporters. They merely need to hold their long contracts to maturity and take delivery of the physical silver, while selling their short contracts before maturity for cash. They'd then use the proceeds to buy more short contracts with maturities further into the future (roll their shorts forward for longer dated shorts). The money the Chinese lose on the shorts (paper) as the silver price gradually climbs can just be considered additional acquisition cost on the longs (silver bars).

MEANS:
We Americans have been accumulating Chinese produced goods for many years now, about four times the amount of American goods being consumed by the Chinese. We settle the difference in U.S. dollars, a good deal for the U.S.: We trade freshly printed paper for scarce resources and labor. The Chinese already pay for all the American goods they require by exchanging a greater quantity of their own goods. This way they are constantly accumulating U.S. dollar reserves in the Chinese Central Bank, and they'll want to find a way to use or invest these dollars so they don’t sit idle.

As these dollars continue to build up in China, the Chinese have accumulated nearly a trillion dollars worth of U.S. Treasury bonds, and another trillion dollars worth of U.S. Agency bonds (bonds of Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB), Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) and Ginnie Mae). All these bonds pay a below market rate of interest because they are implicitly or explicitly guaranteed by the U.S. government. However, it still amounts to more than allowing the reserve dollars to remain idle in the Chinese Central bank.

MOTIVE:
But now the Chinese realize that:

1. The principal returned on their maturing bonds is worth less and less every time because of the incessant quantitative easing (money printing) by the federal reserve, which is a form of gradual default

2. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and even the U.S. Treasury may default outright on their bonds at some point in time

3. Hard assets and commodities represent a safer store of value than fiat currency

One measure that the Chinese have taken is to reduce their purchases of U.S. Treasury Bonds, even though the trade deficit with the U.S. continues at high levels. In January 2008, China was the single largest buyer of U.S. Treasury Bonds, with purchases totaling $153 billion. In September 2008, the Chinese became the largest holder of U.S. Treasury bonds, surpassing the Japanese for the first time.

By June 2009, China became a net seller of U.S. Treasury bonds, and their purchases have continually moved to the shorter maturities. According the U.S. Treasury Website, Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds have declined by about 4% year over year from October 2009 to October 2010, even though they have been steadily accumulating treasuries since July 2010.

According to a recent Bloomberg article, China imported 209 metric tons of gold during the first ten months of 2010, compared to 49 tons imported in all of 2009. Even though they are the world’s biggest gold producer, they exported zero tons in 2009. Only India consumes more. Although India’s gold consumption is mainly in the form of jewelry, this is deceptive. The Indians may wear it around their necks and wrists, but they use it as more of a savings account, especially in rural India. The savings of Chinese citizens amount to about 40% of their personal income, so what more perfect vehicle than gold bullion to protect their savings from inflation and government instability?

In April 2009, China’s Central Bank announced that they had covertly accumulated 454 tons of gold since 2003, raising the official figure on Chinese gold reserves from 600 tons to 1054 tons in one day, after remaining unchanged for six years.

Since the Chinese are wisely accumulating gold, why not silver? We have no public announcement by the Chinese Central Bank to go by, or any official figures of their silver holdings (if any), so we need to see if we can form a theory based on the available facts.

The Chinese have a long established cultural affinity for silver. Silver began to be used as a currency in Guangdong, China in 1423 when it became legal tender for payment of taxes. Provincial taxes had to be remitted to the capital in silver after 1465. In 1914, the National Currency Ordinance established the Silver Dollar as the national currency of the Republic of China. In 1949 the incoming Communist regime took China off the silver standard, but there are still many Chinese alive today who can remember a time when silver was used as money in China. In 2004, China legalized private ownership of gold and silver bullion for its private citizens, and in 2008 they began actively encouraging their people to invest their retirement savings in gold and silver. The Chinese word for “bank” uses the same symbol as silver.

So the primary motive of the Chinese Central Bank in accumulating silver is to wisely transfer dollar reserves to tangible assets (as they have already admitted they are doing with gold) to protect themselves against the out of control money printing by the Fed.

Another motive is to start an asset backed currency at some time in the future. As the U.S. dollar is continually overprinted by the Fed, its days as the world’s reserve currency are numbered. The Chinese are just biding their time, trying to cash in as much of their U.S. debt holdings (while they still maintain SOME purchasing power), before the day when the Yuan ultimately becomes the world’s reserve currency by default. The first steps have already been put into place, for example through the currency swaps and bilateral trade agreements with Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, Turkey and Russia. These countries all have natural resources that China needs, and are markets for exports of Chinese finished products.

When the dollar, pound and euro implode from overprinting, the world will need a new reserve currency, and will not trust another one consisting of nothing but unbacked fiat paper. By accumulating a huge cache of gold and silver, the traditional, historical monetary metals, the Chinese will be ready to back the Yuan when the world’s oil exporters will be demanding payment in hard assets. The level of gold/silver redeemability chosen for the Yuan will determine the value of all other world currencies from that day forward, by their free market exchange rate with the Yuan.

A third motive for the Chinese to be accumulating silver now is the increasing necessity of silver as a raw material for high tech goods produced in China. There is no substitute for silver in many applications, and the demand is the most inelastic of any commodity. China would like to dominate future production of solar panels, switches, flat panel TV’s, computers, cell phones, GPS units, batteries of all kinds, especially hybrid car batteries, silver bearings, silver solder, and the list goes on. A ready stockpile of silver will protect the productive capacity Chinese industry in the face of expected future silver shortages.

OPPORTUNITY:

I now consider it much more likely that the Chinese Central Bank has it’s short COMEX silver position with HSBC bank, the largest international bank in China. The bank is known to have a huge silver short position, (which is unlikely to be a legitimate producer hedge) and probably has its corresponding long COMEX silver position with JP Morgan, although this might also be with HSBC. I am just speculating that keeping the positions at two different banks, under two different names, would help to camouflage China's strategy of accumulating precious metals and dumping U.S. dollars. With all the global banking secrecy, there is never any shortage of opportunity to unload a bunch of U.S. dollars. But their window of opportunity is closing because of the historically low inventory levels of silver at the COMEX.

This opportunity appears to be coming to an end with looming delivery defaults at the COMEX. In September 2010, there were 3002 silver contracts standing for delivery at the COMEX on first notice day, August 30, 2010. Of those, 84% of the holders (2519 contracts totaling 12.595 million oz) actually took physical delivery,

In the next delivery month, December 2010, there were were 17,208 contracts standing for delivery on first notice day, November 26, 2010. Presumably 16%, or probably more, were talked into settling in cash, likely at a hefty premium to the contract’s value based on spot. Using the same 84% ratio of contracts that actually took delivery in September then, that leaves 72.3 million ounces of silver actually delivered to long contract holders by the COMEX in December 2010. A figure representing more than six times as many silver bars as delivered three months earlier in September. As of January 6, 2011 the COMEX released inventory figures of only 48.9 million remaining ounces of silver registered for delivery.

There is an internet rumor going around that billionaire hedge funds (on the advice of former JP Morgan traders and in competition with the Chinese) settled their December long contracts at expiration for large cash premiums by posting the necessary cash and demanding (threatening) to take physical delivery on their long contracts. This would help explain the 9% gain in the price of silver during November, on top of a 14% gain in September and a 9% gain in October. In that time, silver never once fell below the 20 day, 50 day, or 200 day Moving Average during those three months.



Here is a link to a financial message board. On it, an apparent market insider posted Wednesday that the participants were so happy with their easy COMEX silver profits in December that they plan to make much larger purchases of COMEX silver long contracts in the last few weeks of February, 2011, and stand for delivery in March, the next delivery month for COMEX silver.

I will be looking at the March COMEX silver delivery figures with great interest, and will not be at all surprised to see major gains in the February and March price of silver. The post also warns of a planned takedown of gold (and indirectly, silver) during the month of January in order to cover some of their silver shorts (scare investors into selling their silver) in time to minimize the banksters’ pain in March. This is portrayed as a desperate, last resort tactic since there are enough existing gold inventories available for the banksters to work with, but no silver and buying silver on the open market would only spike the price...

Are the Chinese really this brilliant? This would explain a Chinese strategy in play to obtain Silver at below market prices while divesting themselves of the U.S. dollar & its ongoing demise...
- Any comments on this article, Jay?



To: TobagoJack who wrote (70432)1/20/2011 10:10:19 AM
From: Roebear  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 218897
 
A prescient call Jay, though 1330 might hold if 1340 does not.

Currently debating the wisdom of Silver volatility aka Double Edged Sword

Best,
Roebear