Chinese SWF: a subtle assault on the US dollar?

Jim Willie (a notable gold proponent) submits an interesting essay on China's influence in the currency and commodity markets.

Gold bugs say that the price of gold and other commodities has been held down by parties interested in maintaining the credibility of the US dollar. Willie thinks that the entry of a large Chinese sovereign wealth fund may foil such market manipulation in future, especially since the Chinese can back their hedge fund loans with their US Treasury holdings. An attempt to break a Chinese-held commodity position, if successful, could lead to a selloff of Treasuries and so crater the bond market, leading to raised interest rates and/or a drop on the dollar.

Between a rock and a hard place. This is what it is to be a debtor.

Murky support for the dollar

Brad Setser looks at data from the US Treasury International Capital System (TIC), trying to work out what's been going on in the money supply and why the dollar hasn't collapsed in all this brouhaha. Setser, who gave evidence to a Congressional committee last year, admits that the picture is not clear, despite his expertise.

He thinks real purchases of Treasury securities (2000 - mid-2007) are about double the official amounts, and points out that when the dollar weakens, it is supported by further buying from central banks. Also, Americans have sold a lot of foreign equities recently and the money has come home.

A significant change in the pattern is the reduction of private holdings of Treasury securities - more and more, the support is coming from official sources, as the following graph suggests:

This seems to me like another straw in the wind: "power to the people", not.

Foreign powers calling the tune on the US economy

... foreign central banks now are in a position where they can influence, through their asset allocation, the allocation of credit inside the US economy.

... says Brad Setser.

Authoritarian governments are winning

From Brad Setser's blog.

I've said before now that 2003 was the year the UK and USA blew it, with reckless credit expansion.

USA $800 billion subsidy to Asian investors

Read Karl Denninger on how the Fed has been forced to prop up shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to please foreign equity holders such as China.

Further comment from Mish.

The taxpayer pays all - and presumably we're looking to do something similar here, to keep the banking show on the road.

This may be the time when those predictions about the Dow hitting 9,000 and gold breaking through $1,200 start to come true.

The end of democracy

Simon Watkins and Helia Ebrahimi in The Mail on Sunday (p.58) give a graph showing that sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) purchased over £20 billion worth of British business in the last three years, and report a prediction that SWFs will own £6 trillion of world assets by 2015.

Wikipedia estimates the world's stockmarket capitalisation at $51 trillion and bonds at $45 trillion. Taken together, in sterling terms, that's about £49 trillion. So in seven years' time, sovereign funds are expected to control 12% of the market. This is significant: you'll recall that and EU countries require declarations of shareholdings at various levels between 2 and 5 per cent (3% in the UK), as seen in Appendix 5 of this document, and anyone owning over 1% of a company's shares has to declare dealings if the company is the subject of a takeover bid.

My hazy understanding of democracy is that it includes two crucial elements, namely, the vote, and the right to own personal property. We're losing both. What is our freedom worth when collectively, governments not only employ large numbers of people directly, but many more of them indirectly, through ownership of the businesses for which they work?

What does the vote matter? Here in the UK, we have had a coup by a small, tightly organised (and unscrupulous, even if and when principled) group who have realised that what matters is the swing voter in the swing seat, and nothing else. "What works is what matters" - a slogan that, superficially, seems simply pragmatic, but actually slithers away from identifying the principal objective: you can only tell if it works, when you know what you want it to do. And under our first-past-the-post system, with constituencies determined (how? and who is on the committee?) by the Boundary Commission, I could vote for the incumbent or the man in the moon, but I'm going to get a Labour Party apparatchik in my ward.

And I don't think the system will be reformed if "the other lot" get in, either: "Look with thine ears: See how yond Justice rails upon yond simple thief. Hark in thine ear: Change places, and handy-dandy, which is the Justice, which is the thief?" Structural issues matter: we are cursed by the psephologists, spin doctors and databases.

And as for property, when sovereign wealth funds go from being the tail that wags the dog, to becoming the dog, multinational businesses will be less concerned to satisfy the local shareholder, who may also be an employee. Big MD (or Big CEO) will have his arm around the shoulders of Big Brother.

We worry so much about wealth, and forget what it's for: not just survival, but independence, respect, liberty. Now, the peasants are fed, housed, medically treated, given pocket money, have their disabilities catered for, their children taught, and their legal cases expensively considered. So many of them are fat, enforcedly idle, addled with drink and drugs, chronically ill and disabled, negligent of their offspring and familiar to the point of contempt with the legal system. Despite (because of) their luxuries, they suffer, like the declawed, housebound cats in some American dwellings.

What matters is what works; these outcomes don't matter, except that they work for a class - which I think is becoming hereditary - that seeks, retains and services power. I have said to friends many times that we are seeing the reconstruction of a pan-European aristocracy, disguised as a political, managerial and media nexus.

The American Revolution was about liberty, not wealth, and it is one of the few major nations where the mice did, for a long time, succeed in belling the cat; there was a period here, too, when Parliament could call the King's men to a rigorous account. Now, even in America, the abstract networks of money and power are turning the voters into vassals of the machine that sustains them. As here, the political issues there will soon be welfare, pensions, Medicare and other elements of the badly-made pottage for which we sell our birthright.

As for Bombardier Yossarian in Catch-22, the first step back to our liberty is to stop believing in the benevolence of the system.

BTW: the man who wrote "The Anarchist Cookbook" later converted to Christianity. The one thing not to do with the system is to try to smash it - you'll only get something worse.

Will sovereign wealth funds support the market?

BBC Radio 4 broadcast an interesting programme on sovereign wealth funds tonight. Is it not possible the oil exporting and trading surplus nations will be looking for a home for their capital, at the same time as private investors and overborrowed institutional investors are trying to cash out?

If so, the real story is not yet another impending market crash, whose effects may in any case be softened by an influx of new money that has political motive and so is not so narrowly focussed on a fair market price; instead, the major issue may be that, just as the West's industrial base has been hollowed-out, so its equity base may be attenuated in the same way.

In other words, our countries are like a man who has lost his job and is just about to find out that his pension scheme has been raided.

USA / UK Sovereign Wealth Funds?

Shares are supposed to be the best long-term investment, better than bonds or cash. The usual concern is the time horizon of the investor. Who lives longer than a state like America or Britain?

Foreign governments with trade surpluses (based on artificially low currency exchange rates and stupid overspending by the West) are building up trillions in reserves and eyeing our companies and real estate. If our own leaders aren't willing to rebalance the world economy, the least they can do is get a piece of the action.

Why not?

Debt and slavery

Doug Noland sees the debt crisis spreading to the corporate sector; David Jensen writes a letter to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, including very telling graphs of mounting debt and the bubble in the financial markets; Michael Panzner discusses a piece from the Financial Times on the threat of a downgrade of America's historic AAA credit rating, and refers to the weakening of the USA's military pre-eminence; Sol Palha worries about the acquisition of Western assets by sovereign wealth funds ("Slowly but surely America and Europe are going to be owned by foreigners. The irony is that Congress is trying to keep immigrants out of this country but right in front of their eyes foreigners are slowly gobbling up huge chunks of this country.").

All this leads me to Jeffrey Nyquist's grim, but compelling latest piece. He despairs of the irrelevance of mainstream political discussion, especially as the polling process rattles on, and paints a far greater picture. I think you should read it all, but here are a few extracts:

What is happening in the news today, what is happening in the markets and in the banking system, has profound strategic implications... There are no invulnerable countries... If a government does not see ahead, make defensive preparations, establish a dialogue with citizens, lead the way to awareness and responsibility, then the nation stumbles into the next world war unarmed and psychologically unprepared.

Even worse, today's politics has become a politics of "divide and conquer" in which one constituency is played off against another: poor against rich, non-white against white, the secular against the religious. Before a positive outcome is possible, we must have unity and we must have reality.

It's more comfortable to ignore the crying of Cassandra, but maybe Nyquist is like Churchill in the pre-WWII political wilderness, trying to prepare us for the next conflict. We in Britain only just made it, and how we have paid for that struggle ever since.

But it was a price worth paying. History would have been very different, and very horrible I am sure, if Churchill had listened to some in his Cabinet in 1940 who advised him to make a deal with the Nazis. He said, “If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.” It's a line that even now has tears pricking my eyes. The appeasers were silenced by the sound of deeply-moved men banging their fists on the Cabinet table in agreement and applause.

My worry is that I don't see men of that calibre now. As Lord Acton said in a letter to a bishop, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Commenting on the House of Commons after the Great War, Stanley Baldwin remarked on the presence of "A lot of hard-faced men who look as if they had done very well out of the war". Today, the faces are softer, the hair expensively dressed, the manner relaxed and affable, but behind it all one senses cold-hearted, selfish betrayal. To be charitable, it may be that our leaders and ex-leaders don't fully realize the negative consequences of all their deals, compromises and consultancies.

As our reckless debt is progessively converted into ownership, we may find out how much we took our freedom for granted. It's a lot harder to get back.

The Bible has something to say on this, too (and no, I'm not a preacher, this is to show that the issues endure throughout history): Leviticus, Chapter 25 deals with debt, buying and redeeming slaves, and how the chosen people should be treated differently from the heathens - for the latter, enslavement is perpetual.

We need recession, to avert total disaster

In a sock-to-the-jaw article that I think everyone should read, Nadeem Walayat shows the political-economic forces tides beating against our cliffs and undermining our liberty and prosperity. Like me, he sees sovereign wealth funds as part of this process.

It seems that we must wish our own countries a spell of hard times, in order to stimulate the changes that will defend us from permanent ruin.

Sovereign wealth funds: a tidbit

Adrian Ash in Financial Sense:

BCA Research in Montreal thinks that "sovereign wealth funds" owned by Asian and Arabian governments will control some $13 trillion by 2017 – "an amount equivalent to the current market value of the S&P500 companies."

Sovereign wealth funds and national prosperity

I have had a comment (on an earlier piece about sovereign wealth funds) from a Shromon Das, who gives his view on SWFs here and a follow-up today here.

Without pretending to technical expertise in this area, I can envisage implications for a growing ownership of equities by governments. One effect may be to reduce volatility in large-capitalisation stocks, since national treasuries can take a longer view than the individual investor.

But there must also be concern about the possible use of ownership for political purposes. For example, I wonder at the UK's having allowed foreign enterprises to take over some of our energy and water supply companies.

I began this blog for investors, but increasingly I think the real story is not about how some may make (or protect) their fortunes, but about the implications for ordinary citizens.


Today I drove past the site of the former Rover car plant in Longbridge, Birmingham. The firm was on its way out years ago and a venture capital company called Alchemy offered to take it over, cut its size and specialise in a line of sports cars. The rest of the land could be redeveloped - housing and retail. The surplus workers would have their pension rights and redundancy payouts honoured, and some could still look around for employment in other plants.

But there was an election coming (2000), so the government chose to encourage a management buyout instead. Thousands of jobs were saved, supposedly. Besides, it was said (I seem to recall) that the site was too polluted for residential development, anyhow.

Well, Rover did go bust anyway (after a £6.5 million "bridging loan" to prevent its collapse immediately before the 2005 General Election). The workers didn't get the redundancy payments they'd have had from Alchemy in 2000, and their pensions were hit too. Anyone still interested in car work elsewhere would then be five years older, in an industry that some believe discriminated on the basis of age prior to new legislation in 2006.

A Chinese firm, SAIC, has picked over the carcase, with special attention to any designs and other paperwork that might help with setting up an alternative in the Far East. And now the site is being cleared - for residential and retail development.

There is a big, shiny new building on the Bristol Road in Longbridge - a JobCentre Plus.


Where, in all this, were the working people's long-term interests really considered, even by their political representatives?

Crescendo crisis

Today's Daily Reckoning UK directs us to this article on FT.com, which says that sovereign wealth funds will support (if not boost) share prices in a "crescendo of investing".

Bully for the fund managers. But I say again, consider the implications for the West, which is losing control of its debt and now looks set to start losing control of its assets.

Sovereign wealth funds: debt-for-equity swapping

A $20 American Eagle gold coin from 1914

Bill Bonner, reflecting on news from the International Herald Tribune such as this, notes yesterday that sovereign wealth funds are taking advantage of the falling dollar to buy US assets:

As the dollar goes down, Americans become poorer…and their assets become cheaper...The foreigners have huge piles of dollars which are losing value... Doesn’t it make sense for them to use the dollars to buy American assets?

The Arabs must think so... They [are] making offers on the Nasdaq…the London Stock Exchange…and the Carlyle Group, a US buyout firm.

China , meanwhile, recently took a big stake in Blackstone, another big corporate chop shop. Buying up the buyout firms is a particularly important omen, we think. It allows the foreigners to take up more and more US (and UK) assets without getting their name in the paper. And it allows Anglo-Saxons the soothing flattery of thinking that their assets are becoming more and more sought after…it takes their minds off the sour news, that foreigners are using their mountains of trashy dollars to get control over genuinely valuable assets…and that Americans will increasingly be working for foreigners…

A potentially dangerous form of debt restructuring is in progress. As small businesses yield to huge corporations, increasingly foreign-owned, could Big CEO become the new Big Brother? Will the excesses of consumerism end in our descendants serving in a modern version of bonded labour?

More on Brad Setser

Further to the last, it's worth struggling through Brad Setser's presentation to the Congressional committee even if (like me) you're not an economics buff.

In essence, he says that America has gotten away with its continuing trade deficit over the last few years, for several reasons:

• the effective interest rate on foreign debt held by the US, is higher than on loans made by foreigners to America


• foreign equities have had higher yields and better capital appreciation, so US overseas investment has done better than foreigners' share holdings in America


• the weakening dollar has amplified the effects in both points above


• foreign central banks' willingness to buy US debt has kept US interest rates low, making Americans' debts easy to service and fuelling share and property booms

But it can't go on for ever. Either America's debts will continue to increase, or foreign sovereign wealth funds will buy more and more equities, or both. If foreigners slacken in their support for US debt, interest rates will rise; and losing equities to foreign owners takes away from America's future wealth and income.

Setser concludes:

The US will likely both have to sell more equity to the rest of the world and pay a somewhat higher interest rate on its external debt than it has recently...

While rapid central bank reserve growth and large official financing of the US deficit can help the US postpone the necessary adjustment, the longer the adjustment is deferred, the greater the long-term risks...

Bringing the US deficit and emerging economy surpluses down without tremendous costs will also take time. If the US and the world are to adjust gradually, they need to get started.

Yet again, I wonder whether the UK's enormous purchases of US dollar-denominated securities since June 2006 make sense for Britain.

Another thought: seeing two late market interventions last week, Dan Denning in The Daily Reckoning Australia (3 August) speculated that there may be "...in the financial market a buyer of last resort who comes in to goose the indexes at critical times, when investor confidence is especially fragile."

Rather than the Plunge Protection Team, could it be foreign sovereign wealth funds buying-in on the dips? Maybe that's why the Dow has bounced back 286 points today, as I write.