The chief executive of Coca-Cola, Muhtar Kent, threw cold water on its archrival PepsiCo’s decision to acquire its bottling subsidiary last year. So it came as some surprise this week to see Coke copying the transaction, with a takeover bid of about $13 billion announced for Coca-Cola Enterprises’ North American bottling operations.





Zhu Min was appointed special adviser to the managing director of the I.M.F.





The about-face does not mean the decision is not financially and strategically sound. The 1980s-era smoke-and-mirrors trick of spinning off asset-heavy businesses to focus exclusively on its secret-formula concentrate is outdated. Nonetheless, Mr. Kent seems like a charlatan for so recently dismissing the idea after Pepsi beat him to the punch.

The numbers work for both Coke and its bottler. That is a bit surprising given they also did when Coke spun it off. Coke cleverly avoids paying cash for the assets it is acquiring. It will cancel its 34 percent stake in Coca-Cola Enterprises, worth $3.4 billion, assume $8.9 billion of debt and absorb about $600 million of unfunded pension liabilities.



In return, Coke will get control of a bottling system that needs to adapt. The separation of the bottler from the syrup was applauded by Wall Street back when fizzy drinks were growing fast and the Wal-Marts of the world didn’t have huge market share.



But consumer behavior has changed. American customers want a variety of noncarbonated beverages, like the Dasani brand of water and Powerade energy drinks from Coke, which the bottlers don’t look after.



And more shoppers buy drinks at superstores, which are more efficiently served by fewer large trucks from warehouses rather than tens of thousands of Enterprises dispatches from bottling plants. While this will require retooling, Coke still says it can squeeze out $350 million of synergies.

So why all the glum faces from Coca-Cola shareholders? They sliced nearly $5 billion off its market cap. True, Coca-Cola Enterprises engineered a sweet deal. But there was only one plausible buyer for the assets, so it’s hard to argue Coke was swindled. And Coke is paying about the same multiple of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization that Pepsi paid for its bottling assets.

Coke investors may simply resent being surprised. While the company’s reversal of a longtime strategy looks sensible, it came out of left field. Mr. Kent, and his predecessor, Neville Isdell, discounted Pepsi’s deal. A chief executive who changes his mind shows either great intellectual flexibility — or a tendency to waffle.

It’s no secret that China would like to match its rising financial weight with a greater say in the institutions that oversee the global economy.

That includes a larger formal voice in the International Monetary Fund.

For years, China has been shut out of influential positions at the I.M.F., which is dominated by Western countries. So the appointment this week of Zhu Min as a special adviser to the I.M.F. managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a welcome sign of change.

China may have preferred garnering a more senior position. When Mr. Zhu was promoted to be a deputy governor of China’s central bank late in 2009, the assumption in China was that he would soon become a deputy managing director at the I.M.F. (Asia’s top job at the I.M.F. has long held by Japan.)



China may have unseated Japan as the world’s largest holder of foreign reserves, but the fund’s board doesn’t appear ready to replace Japan just yet. This may be seen as entrenched interests resisting change. But it also reflects practical experience. When the I.M.F. last year expanded its emergency borrowing program by $500 billion, Japan contributed $100 billion before China committed $50 billion.



As an adviser, Mr. Zhu will not have direct influence in driving the fund’s policy agenda. But he may have impact on the margins. He can offer guidance on how the I.M.F. can improve its bonds with Asian emerging markets — a relationship that was strained when the I.M.F. doled out remedies during the 1997 currency crisis. As a former executive at a large state-owned bank, he has knowledge of China’s financial system.



Mr. Strauss-Kahn has made it clear that he favors giving emerging markets a greater say at the fund. But he cannot change the balance of power overnight at the I.M.F., which has been the subject of protracted negotiations. Mr. Zhu’s appointment may help speed up the process. But China is still some way from taking its place at the I.M.F.’s top table.