What's new

China Story Turns Negative

IndoCarib

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 12, 2011
10,784
-14
14,695
Country
India
Location
Antigua And Barbuda
The fight to save the euro is under way, but some investors already have moved 5,000 miles east, to what they see as the next threat: a slowdown in China, the world's second-biggest economy.

Preparing for a tempering of China's explosive growth isn't as simple as betting against the yuan, whose value is tightly controlled by the Chinese government. Instead, investors are targeting the currencies of Australia, Brazil, South Korea and other countries dependent on China's demand for raw materials and other goods.


Increasingly, they are putting on positions that would profit from a weakening in the likes of the Australian dollar and Brazilian real. That is putting pressure on these currencies, which rose in the first half when investors were more optimistic about global growth, but have more recently experienced volatile swings.

George Papamarkakis, co-founder of London-based hedge fund North Asset Management LLP, said he is concerned about declining investment in China's real-estate sector and what that will mean for demand for iron ore from Australia. Iron ore is the primary ingredient in steel, which is used in construction. Thanks in part to the iron-ore trade, China is Australia's biggest trading partner.

Mr. Papamarkakis, who manages some $200 million, is preparing to short, or bet against, the Australian dollar once again. He cashed out this trade in October after the Australian dollar had fallen more than 10% from its 2011 high as Europe's debt crisis sent investors scrambling to reduce risk. If it climbs against the U.S. dollar to $1.04 from near $1.02 now, he is likely to take out bets against the currency. Late Friday in New York, the Australian dollar was at $1.0218 from $1.0167 late Thursday.

"In China, the growth mix will be less investment-led, which should be negative for the commodity currencies like the Australian dollar," he said. His fund is up 20% this year.

Mr. Papamarkakis isn't alone. Roughly 17% of net positions held by currency funds are negative bets against the Australian dollar, as of Nov. 30, according to JW Partners, a research and advisory firm that tracks the performance of 27 funds that have a combined $20 billion under management in currency strategies.

That is a reversal from March, when 9% of these investors' net positions were positive bets on Australia's currency. The Brazilian real has undergone a similar reversal, with investors switching from 3.5% net positive positions in March to 0.5% against in November. Meanwhile, investors soured on the Korean won, going from holding 3.95% of investments in net positive positions, to 2.3% against over the same period. The switch occurred as the real and won slumped from highs against the dollar in late July and early August to lows for the year in September and October. Late Friday in New York, the dollar was at 1.8175 reis compared with 1.7993 reis late Thursday, and was at 1,145.30 won compared with 1,132.20 won.

"We have noticed a significant change in growth expectations, with moods going from quite optimistic to rather negative," JW Partners' Luca Avellini said, adding the negative Australian dollar position is "the most significant short position managers have."

Stephen Jen, founder of SLJ Macro Partners LLP, said he is looking at the tensions in Europe and how they may spill over to China and other emerging-market countries. He said he is "worried about people who aren't worried," given the direction the world economy appears to be headed.

He said there is a high likelihood that this year's popular currency bets, including those that would profit from the strengthening of the Australian dollar, Korean won and Brazilian real, could quickly come undone, especially as some central banks change course. After raising rates five times this year, Brazil's central bank in August began cutting rates to help its slowing economy.

"We're moving into a quite dangerous phase," he said, referring to the prospect of rising volatility in currency markets.

China, though, is taking steps to shore up its own economy. Recently, some capital-reserve requirements for banks were loosened to encourage lending. China has a track record in sustaining growth: Its economy continued to expand following the 2008 financial crisis thanks to a big government spending program. Continued growth in China would support the riskier currencies. Even as its economy slows, China still is projected to rank as one of the world's fastest-expanding economies.

In October, China saw its first monthly outflow of foreign currency since 2007. China also is expected to post weak export figures in its latest report on Saturday. And on Friday, the yuan dropped to the lower end of its government-controlled trading range for the eighth-straight session, a sign investors fear China might guide its currency lower to make its exports more attractively priced.

"There's a problem building in China," said a New York hedge-fund trader who manages about $250 million. The move to cut bank requirements "is a sign that they're panicking about something," he said.


China Story Turns Negative - WSJ.com
 
what's that something?


http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...ssor-censored-saying-china-economy-troub.html

Lang’s speech has received support from several commentators. For example, Professor Frank Xie at the University of South Carolina, doesn’t believe the official figures produced by lower level officials and believes it entirely plausible China’s economy is in recession.

Cheng Xiaonong, an economist and former aide to ousted Party leader Zhao Ziyang, says there is enormous waste and corruption in China, and money is not properly spent on quality-of-life systems such as education, welfare and healthcare.

“Cheng says that for the last decade the Chinese regime has accumulated its wealth primarily by promoting real estate development, buying urban and suburban residential properties at low prices (or simply taking them), and selling them to developers at high prices,”

He also says the regime’s officially published GDP of 9% is a fabrication, and that according to his calculation is actually decreased 10%. In addition, the officially published inflation rate of 6.2% is false. According to Lang the real inflation rate is 16%.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
what's that something?

1. china have benefited from its demographic edge but as its going away it is facing problems and the demographic edge will be over by 2015.

2. china is overwhelmingly dependent on exports to lift its people our of poverty, to feed its people and to get develop but as EU is in recession it is having negative impact on china.

3. Because of its huge and world's biggest population and dependent on other nation's economy is causing china huge discomfort and social unrest in china.

4. Because of china's bullying its neighbors and because of over exploitation of Africa both the neighbors and Africa are looking for other partner for security, growth.

5. china is trying to save EU so that the collapse of china can be stopped.
 
2. china is overwhelmingly dependent on exports to lift its people our of poverty, to feed its people and to get develop but as EU is in recession it is having negative impact on china.

this has posed a tricky situation and interesting question for me.

They ( china) heavily depend on exports to countries that don't like them and many of them are forming alliances ( military pacts) with each other and the US, specifically with China in mind. So the question is --- given that China pisses off these countries much too often, is being dependent on them economically is very risky strategy?

The risk is further illustrated with the fact that for a country to sustain itself off - from being so dependent on exports, it needs to have internal local consumption be at 50-60% i.e. it's own people buying products and services.

However, China's internal consumption is at very low 30% ...so ain't like they can claim to substitute export loses with self consumption.
 
this has posed a tricky situation and interesting question for me.

They ( china) heavily depend on exports to countries that don't like them and many of them are forming alliances ( military pacts) with each other and the US, specifically with China in mind. So the question is --- given that China pisses off these countries much too often, is being dependent on them economically is very risky strategy?

The risk is further illustrated with the fact that for a country to sustain itself off - from being so dependent on exports, it needs to have internal local consumption be at 50-60% i.e. it's own people buying products and services.

However, China's internal consumption is at very low 30% ...so ain't like they can claim to substitute export loses with self consumption.

lmao i don't think you get it.

China and Russia are fortress Eurasia. We have food, water, oil, coal, gold, lumber, and the manufacturing capability to turn it all into products, including military ones to protect the above. Who is more at risk, the exporter, or the importer?

That's like asking, who is more powerful, you or the grocery store? You might say, well, I give the grocery store business.

But when there's a crisis, you'll find out who is more powerful, you or the grocery store, especially when the grocery store owner is armed.
 
lmao i don't think you get it.

China and Russia are fortress Eurasia. We have food, water, oil, coal, gold, lumber, and the manufacturing capability to turn it all into products, including military ones to protect the above. Who is more at risk, the exporter, or the importer?

That's like asking, who is more powerful, you or the grocery store? You might say, well, I give the grocery store business.

But when there's a crisis, you'll find out who is more powerful, you or the grocery store, especially when the grocery store owner is armed.

you should stay out of economic related topics, seriously. that was embarrassingly naive ...
 
lmao i don't think you get it.

China and Russia are fortress Eurasia. We have food, water, oil, coal, gold, lumber, and the manufacturing capability to turn it all into products, including military ones to protect the above. Who is more at risk, the exporter, or the importer?

That's like asking, who is more powerful, you or the grocery store? You might say, well, I give the grocery store business.

But when there's a crisis, you'll find out who is more powerful, you or the grocery store, especially when the grocery store owner is armed.

Is China food surplus? No
Is China water surplus? No
Is China oil surplus? No
Is China coal surplus? No

yes, china assembles all components manufactured in Korea, Japan, Taiwan.

And sorry, Russia is not Tibet where "armed" China can walk in.

Russia is more "armed" than China.
 
It is weird that someone think China is short of food.
Maybe we should cut the Yalutsangbu from running to india to save some water.

maybe WE should go back and help them do that? afteral WE know that overt emotional reaction is very much the WE style of all things chinese... ;)
 
Is China food surplus? No
Is China water surplus? No
Is China oil surplus? No
Is China coal surplus? No

yes, china assembles all components manufactured in Korea, Japan, Taiwan.

And sorry, Russia is not Tibet where "armed" China can walk in.

Russia is more "armed" than China.

We buy resources from Russia and sell them finished goods. Russia is the grocery store, we're the factory that supplies the grocery store. Both are more powerful than the customer.

But since we're not water and food surplus we should dam the rivers going into India. Since we're short of space on landfills, we should dump nuclear waste into all rivers flowing into India that can't be exploited.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom