Mahani and Izzatina (2009) address five distinct sets of issues: the pattern of foreign direct investment (FDI) flows between East Asia and the USA (Section 2); the determinants of US FDI flows into East Asia (Section 3.1); the formulation of FDI policies in East Asian economies (Section 3.2); policy issues for Asian economies (Section 4); and US policy issues (Section 5). Unfortunately, these five topics remain poorly integrated in the final draft, perhaps because it is impossible to integrate them successfully in a single, journal-length paper. The paper is thus somewhat confusing and it is sometimes difficult to see how the various topics are related to the authors' key messages, or for that matter, to discern what the key messages are. For example, in the abstract, the authors state, “Bilateral free trade agreements with the USA are the likely channel for these [FDI policy] changes . . .” and then in Section 4.1 they state that “Bilateral FTAs are regarded as better than multilateral agreements as a way of opening the services sector.” However, this point is never mentioned in the conclusion, and the authors never acknowledge the fact that any proposal to use bilateral FTAs as a means of opening up the services sector is likely to be highly controversial to many, if not most international economists. The fundamental problem with any bilateral FTA is of course the potential to create inefficiencies through trade diversion, and this important drawback to a policy of promoting bilateral FTAs is never acknowledged. The authors are correct to emphasize the potential benefits of further liberalization of restrictions on inward FDI in Asian host economies, but I think there is a serious potential for creating large, offsetting inefficiencies if bilateral FTAs are relied on to facilitate liberalization. Rather I would have preferred more emphasis on the benefits of unilateral liberalization, both as they relate to past experience and the potential effects of future policies. On a more mundane point, the focus on FDI stocks in Section 2 is not very appropriate if the goal is to evaluate the extent of US multinational corporation (MNC) activity in Asia and related policies. This is because FDI stocks are related to not only the real activity of affiliates (as a source of financing purchases of fixed assets) but also to liquidity preferences of affiliates receiving the FDI (e.g. their demand for financial assets in a host country) and the structure of their finance sources (local vs. foreign sources of equity [defined in a balance sheet sense to include reinvested earnings] and loans). For example, note that the FDI stocks only accounted for 17 % of all liabilities (=assets) on the books of non-bank affiliates in East Asia in 2004 (US Department of Commerce, 2008). In this respect, I think that focusing on sales or employment of affiliates would have been more useful in this context. One important point that the analysis totally misses is that a large portion of US FDI in non-manufacturing was in petroleum extraction, especially in Indonesia where mining accounted for three-fifths of the FDI stock in 2004. In addition, although the paper does acknowledge that local sales were very large in China, it fails to sufficiently emphasize the importance of local sales region wide. For example, in 2004, local sales accounted for two-thirds or more of all sales by majority-foreign affiliates in Japan (90%), China (74%), Korea (89%), Taiwan (73%), and Thailand (71%); about half in Hong Kong (45%), Indonesia (49%), and the Philippines (57%); and over one-third in Malaysia (42%) and Singapore (34%), according to the US Department of Commerce, 2008). These facts are also inconsistent with the statement that “the major motive for US investment in East Asia is to export to the MNCs' home and to other third countries” in Section 3.1. The paper does contain a number of useful discussions, especially on the need for further policy liberalization, improved education, and further institutional development in host East Asian economies. Unfortunately, these discussions are mixed in with confusing points, such as those mentioned earlier, which means that the reader should be careful to check underlying details when using this article.