Commentary: Investment in the United States two room losses 450 billion who should endorse

Lingo's repeatedly postponed "two-room" reform program eventually came to the news. The Treasury is planning to propose a plan to gradually weaken Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's central role in the U.S. housing market and eventually close or completely privatize the two mortgage lenders. In fact, in June 2010, "two rooms" because the stock price is too low from the New York Stock Exchange, the asset "wasted" has become a hot topic for overseas investors, the "two rooms" to hold the Chinese capital in a spate of reports, some people expect China to invest in "two-room" bond losses may be (February 11, the International Finance newspaper) for China, 450 billion dollars is a huge number. By 2010 China's foreign exchange reserves balance of 2.84 trillion U.S. dollars as a benchmark for accounting, 450 billion U.S. dollars relative to China's foreign exchange reserves of 16%.　　If the current U.S. dollar and the exchange rate of RMB 1:6.58 to make a simple conversion, to 1.3 billion Chinese, relative to each Chinese to take out nearly 2270 yuan. This should be a joke, China's investment in the United States "two-room" bond is "driving in the BMW, riding a bicycle out." Recently, "Two rooms ' toxic bonds", "no return" These keywords frequently appear in some domestic and foreign media. Now, of course, people are more concerned about how many "two-room" bonds China currently holds. Since both sides are secretive, the outside world is hard to know.　　So far, both the United States and the Chinese authorities have not disclosed, after all, too sensitive. Still, one thing is for sure, the return of the two-room bond to the New York Stock Exchange will no doubt significantly reduce its liquidity, and it will become increasingly difficult for China to sell in the future, with more value likely to remain on the books.　　While Chinese officials have called on the US government to secure the "two-room" bond, the US government has been overwhelmed and Chinese lenders have been deeply caught up in the "two-room" bond. As we all know, in the past 40 years, the United States "two houses" is almost the lifeblood of the national economy. The financing system of the US real estate market has always been the joint participation of the public sector and the private sector. The "two rooms" buy mortgage claims from Bank of America and other lenders, then package them for securitization and sell them to investors who do not suffer losses when mortgage borrowers default. It was the backing of the government that attracted many foreign investors.　　But today's "two-room" Bond has become a hot potato, good-looking but worthless. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the State administration of foreign exchange has been wary of the public's concern about the safety of China's huge "two-room" bond holdings. In July 2010, the National Security Administration issued a statement saying that the U.S. "two-room" bonds are currently servicing normal, price stability.　　The "Two rooms", a government support agency approved by the U.S. Congress, are underwriting and buying about 50% of the U.S. residential property market, critical to the US housing market and the US economy. The implication is that people worry about the "two-room" bonds held by China.Days. Moreover, some experts in the country are still hopeful that the U.S. government will pay for the "two-room" bonds. They think the U.S. government will not sit idly by and let the two houses go bankrupt. "Two rooms" are too important for us real-estate financial markets to issue bonds that are held not only by foreign investors like China but also by commercial banks in the United States.　　If the "two houses" collapse, will immediately be transmitted to U.S. commercial banks, a new crisis, leading to a complete shutdown of the U.S. real estate market. But the US side has another view that China's investment in "two-room" bonds is a huge loss. Republican lawmakers, led by Sen. McCain, argue that the risks of subsidizing foreign investment should not be based on American taxpayers ' money.　　A think-tank in the United States has also pointed out that if China makes unwise investments, it should bear the consequences, not the American taxpayer, since the "two-room" bond, which is a "non-government-guaranteed bond", has received higher interest than the government debt, and should not benefit from the bailout policy. This is a terrible signal. It clearly tells us that it is very unlikely that the U.S. government would put more money into the "two bedrooms". It is worth mentioning that the United States Congress is the final arbiter, once the United States House and Senate agreed to include "two rooms" in the financial entities may be liquidated. This means that China's holdings of "two-room" bonds will be wiped out.　　In other words, China's investment in the "two rooms" of the 450 billion U.S. dollar losses can only be in their own pocket. Now, what is the most incomprehensible thing for the Chinese public is whose advice is to focus so heavily on "two rooms"? Why is there no risk prevention? People also want to know, if this huge investment if out of the wrong, or poke a big problem, whether accountability, who should endorse? Of course, for 450 billion of billions of dollars in the huge losses, any treatment of anyone seems so pale and useless, we should do, I am afraid to try to recover as much as possible to save the loss, or learn from the lessons, in the future as little detours.