rns Jul 4, 2010:

:)) Remember the Brittenburg!

It all looks like a speech-to-text software glitches; will be proofread out I think.

Rachel Douglas Jul 4, 2010:

Thanks ... to you, too, including for that transcript - which has some rather novel interpretations in it, I must say. Such as "eminently durable" for what was obviously "eminently doable", and the 1997 "force amendment of the IMF" (!) for "Fourth Amendment." But, of course, that's what copy-editors/proofreaders are for.

rns Jul 4, 2010:

Supporting my point that `issue' is just another name for `allocation'; by English-speaking participants I meant participants of the discussion — http://www.forumspb.com/upload/shorthand/shorthand_120_en.pd... — which defines the immediate context and where English speaking participants don't use 'issue' referring to using SDR as a backing for reserve/world currency.

Thank you Rachel for a very interesting discussion.

Rachel Douglas Jul 4, 2010:

Supporting what? I was only trying to respond to your question: "Do English-speaking participants, if any, say `issue', too, when referring to SDRs?" In any event, I think EADB has ample material now, on which to base his/her translating decision.

rns Jul 4, 2010:

SDR issue is just SDR allocation in disguise Supporting quotes (all from cited sources)

'SDR issuance' is called a 'A one-time SDR allocation' — http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-564205

The G20 also committed to "ratify urgently" the 1997 agreement to _*issue*_ SDRs to former Soviet-block countries. — http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-564205 — that was actually allocation because in 1997 nobody would even think about disrupting the Bretton Woods.

To issue SDRs, Soros proposes the creation of an independent subsidiary
of the IMF (because only the IMF, with 85 percent backing of its member
countries, can issue SDRs) — http://upsidedownworld.org/GlobalReviewRom.htm — 'only the IMF can issue SDRs' and that's 2004, when IMF actually only allocated SDRs.

In http://www10.emergingmarkets.org/article.asp?ArticleID=23091... denomination in SDR is the issue. :)

Immediate context — http://www.forumspb.com/upload/shorthand/shorthand_120_en.pd...

Nobody speaks about SDR issue, other than эмиссия in the passage cited in EADB's question.

They discuss reserve currency and weights of USD, EUR and other currencies in SDR. Because in order to issue reserve/world currency, you need to allocate SDRs first.

Rachel Douglas Jul 4, 2010:

Oops. I forgot, I don't have an entry, I was supporting the "issuing" part of Michael's. Anyway, "allocation" is used for an existing IMF function. "Issue" is also used:
http://www.forexpros.com/news/forex-news/imf-considers-optio...

"Prior to the summit SDR issuance attracted the support of former senior US Treasury official Ted Truman. ... The US has traditionally resisted the use of SDRs, but this time Truman admits, 'A one-time SDR allocation would dramatically build confidence in co-operative solutions to the global recession.'"
http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-564205
... and tons of other examples, including from books and .edu sites, if you look it up.

But for the future scheme, it's absolutely "issue," because they're talking about setting up, in essence, a world currency. So they use the term used with currencies, and in Russian that's эмиссия.
http://www10.emergingmarkets.org/article.asp?ArticleID=23091...

"To issue SDRs, Soros proposes the creation of an independent subsidiary."
http://upsidedownworld.org/GlobalReviewRom.htm

Rachel Douglas Jul 4, 2010:

2rns Yes, and they (we) do already, not only in the future. But especially when talking about this particular future scheme. I'll put examples under my entry.

rns Jul 4, 2010:

Well, I think the discussion was more about issue vs. allocation of SDRs whether in future or now so "фондовый" in fact didn't mattered as much because `issue' would appear in Michael's answer anyway.

I think even when they tell about the future scenario they use "эмиссионный" or "эмиссия" just because someone didn't bothered to get `allocation' translated right. Because translation is hard.

Do English-speaking participants, if any, say `issue', too, when referring to SDRs?

Ethan Bien (asker) Jul 4, 2010:

my mistake I may have made a mistake in posting this that led the discussion astray. Фондовый was my addition; as you see in the original, it's not there. I thought it was helpful context, but I was wrong! Mea maxima culpa!

rns Jul 3, 2010:

I do agree that the BRIC is eager to do something new to SDR. However, I doubt that a quasi-world currency can be made by issuing securities or making something issuable as securities. That would be too easy :). Still, I don't say that's impossible, I'm just deeply skeptical. That doesn't mean, however, that nobody would ever try, if history is any clue.

So, I'm with Rachel Douglas that there is the future devised by the BRIC as to quasi-world currency. It's all true :). I just doubt that it's related to (issuing) securities.

As for the __available__ context, we have 2 forward looking statements connected with __И, кроме того, второй момент, с моей точки зрения__. This, to me, shows that the speaker is not very sure that the relative weights of EUR and USD will be affected by hypothetical SDR "issue". The speaker may well be eager to know who will be stupid enough to start making SDR issuable. All the above is just a speculation to demonstrate that the available context just isn't enough and we have to let the EADB decide based on the information provided.

Rachel Douglas Jul 3, 2010:

A future scenario What rns says is all true, yet the context has "это вопрос масштабов эмиссии SDR". That, together with the fact that the venue is a BRIC discussion, strongly suggests that the speaker/author is talking about a _future_ scheme, under which one would talk about "issuing" SDRs the way one now talks about issuing currencies.

I'm talking about the "immediate context," because we haven't seen the particulars of cases where the author used "фондовый".

rns Jul 3, 2010:

SDR aren't securities because (1) SDRs are assets
(2) SDRs are not considered liabilities

So, as non-securities, they can't be 'issued', at least now. To make them issuable, they shall be made securities, i.e. liabilities of the IMF or another issuer rather than assets. And, reserve and quasi-world currency hardly relate to securities anyway. That's rather monetary policy.

special drawing right (SDR)
An international reserve asset created by the IMF to supplement other reserve assets that are periodically allocated to IMF members in proportion to their respective quotas. SDRs are not considered liabilities of the Fund, and IMF members to whom SDRs are allocated do not incur actual (unconditional) liabilities to repay SDRs allocated.

http://www.ecb.int/home/glossary/html/glosss.en.html#112

Ethan Bien (asker) Jul 3, 2010:

Thanks, that was very informative.

Rachel Douglas Jul 3, 2010:

Role of SDR in reserve currency schemes It sounds as if your text is talking about the various "multiple reserve currency" schemes, heavily promoted among the so-called BRIC group by some of the financial strategists who invented them. One such scheme would involve elevation of the SDR to the status of a quasi-world currency, or unit of account for a basket of reserve currencies. Here's an article talking about that:
http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2009/09/24/reserve-currencies-...

So, in the sentence you gave as "immediate context," it's not referring to SDR creation or allocation as defined to date, but rather a new status for the SDR, and "эмиссионный" is being used in the way it's used for currencies. Thus, in that context I think your and Michael Kislov's "issuing center" would be fine, or even simply "Who would be the issuer?" ... For other places, where the phrase includes "фондовый", it might be "securities," but the particular context would be needed to tell.