Archive for April, 2009



Australia’s National Security and SWFs

Ashby Monk

A new paper by Dr. David A. Anderson and Major Richard Mogg published in Small Wars Journal investigates the threat to Australia’s national security posed by SWFs (specifically China’s SWFs). With extensive military experience in both the U.S. and Australia, the authors provide some interesting insights into how Western armed services perceive SWFs. While the authors dampen most threats, one of their findings is potentially inflammatory:

“It appears that in the case of certain Chinese Government investments in the Australia resource industry that the intention of the Chinese Government is access to and control of resources, rather than investing only for profit.”

If true, this would leave many in Australia feeling pretty uncomfortable about China’s ongoing interest in their country’s natural resources. Nevertheless, the authors conclude:

“SWFs offer both threats and opportunities to global finance and geo-politics. As such, SWFs present a dilemma as nations want to attract the benefits of foreign investment, while also safeguarding against the threats of foreign government influence. SWF investment in Australia has offered many benefits to Australia by recycling trade imbalances and providing investment capital for development of infrastructure in the energy and resource sectors.”

Russia’s Disappearing SWF

Ashby Monk

Russia may be forced to return to international debt markets for the first time in a decade, according to Catherine Belton of the FT, in order to meet looming budget deficits. This of course implies that the massive reserves that Russia built up over the past decade will be tapped out:

“…it lost one third of reserves, or $200bn, battling a run on the rouble at the end of last year, while the remaining $384bn could be stretched covering budget deficits for the next three years.”

By implication, this means that Russia’s National Welfare Fund may–at least temporarily–cease to exist in 2012/13. It simply will not have any assets left to manage!

Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment Patterns and Performance

Ashby Monk

William Megginson just alerted me to his new paper (written with Bernardo Bortolotti, Veljko Fotak and William Miracky), which uses a proprietary dataset (the Monitor-FEEM Sovereign Wealth Fund database) to analyze investment patterns exhibited by SWFs. The paper offers up some interesting findings:

“We find that a large number of acquisitions are clustered in the finance and banking sector. Using stock price returns as a proxy for firm profitability, we find that target firms underperform during the year preceding SWF investments; accordingly we conclude that SWFs tend to invest in underperforming firms, possibly to minimize political opposition. On average, stocks of targeted corporations exhibit positive abnormal returns of about 0.9% over the three day period including the day on which the SWF investment is announced, the previous and the following day. This could indicate either that investors welcome SWFs as shareholders or the price reaction could merely be a liquidity effect resulting from a temporary-but quite large-increase in demand for target firm shares. While, in cross-sectional analysis, we offer some evidence against a liquidity effect, we will clarify this in subsequent research. Certainly we think it plausible that investors are welcoming SWF investments, as many investments effectively inject new capital in distressed firms.

 Good reading for a long weekend…

Withdraw and Regroup?

Ashby Monk

After the financial roller coaster of the past two years, many SWFs had simply decided to withdraw and regroup; their risk appetites disappearing in the face of considerable losses. There are indications that this is now changing, and SWFs’ appetite for risk may be resurfacing. Nevertheless, asset management policies within this funds may have been permanently altered:

“It is more than likely that the targets they will choose eventually would have specific strategic significance for their own economies,” said Mirtchev, who is also a senior economic adviser to the Kazakh prime minister.”

I agree. On the one hand, these funds are increasingly inward looking; contributing to the domestic stimulus packages in various countries. On the other hand, having been burned in the financial sector, it looks as if some SWFs will shift their focus towards strategic resources.

“Singapore’s Temasek, like other Asian and Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds, is digging for deals in mining and oil, as it licks its wounds from financial sector investments that have soured in a global crisis.”

These two trends–domestic aid and strategic investing–are revealing of the relationship between SWFs and their sponsoring governments. Rather than being independent institutions with a clear mandate to ‘generate returns’, many SWFs look very much a part governments’ broader domestic and geopolitical tool kit. Indeed, the SWFs’ mandates appear much more complex than simply investing assets for profit…

SWFs in the European Union

Ashby Monk

Philippe Gugler and Julien Chaisse just posted a paper pertaining to SWFs’ investment in the EU on SSRN.

“The rapid growth of sovereign wealth funds risks provoking a protectionist response by industrialised countries, notably within the EU. The European Commission’s approach calls for a code of conduct ensuring transparency and that the basic motives for the investment of these sovereign wealth funds become clear and that the funds themselves apply good corporate governance.”

Download here.

Working Group to Become Forum

Ashby Monk

The International Working Group’s meeting in Kuwait just wrapped up. The result: the IWG will transition into the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds (Forum). Indeed, recognizing that the Santiago Principles were a work in progress, the IWG saw the ongoing need for exchanging views and experience. The Forum–which is not a formal supranational authority and shall not have any legal force–will meet at least once a year and facilitate dialogue among funds as well as recipient countries, the European Commission, the OECD, representatives of other multilateral organizations, and the private sector. According to the Kuwait Declaration:

“The Forum will act as a platform for:

1 – exchanging ideas and views among SWFs and with other relevant parties. These will cover, inter alia, issues such as trends and developments pertaining to SWF activities, risk management, investment regimes, market and institutional conditions affecting investment operations, and interactions with the economic and financial stability framework;

2 – sharing views on the application of the Santiago Principles including operational and technical matters; and

3 – encouraging cooperation with investment recipient countries, relevant international organizations, and capital market functionaries to identify potential risks that may affect cross-border investments, and to foster a non-discriminatory, constructive and mutually beneficial investment environment.”

The Forum’s leadership has already been elected, with Mr. David Murray, Chairman of Australia’s Future Fund Board of Guardians, the first Forum Chair. Mr. Jin Liqun of the China Investment Corporation and Mr. Bader Mohammad Al-Sa’ad of the Kuwait Investment Authority were also elected to be deputy chairs of the Forum.

This is an interesting development: The Forum will be an industry group of sorts with a more permanent mandate than the IWG.

SWFs’ Home Bias

Ashby Monk

Shai Bernstein, Josh Lerner, and Antoinette Schoar have just written a paper documenting a clear home bias in SWF investments. That institutional investors have a home bias in their equity investments is not a new idea. In fact, Coval and Moskowitz’ study of the mutual fund industry showed that managers can generate substantially higher returns from local investments (within 100 kilometres of fund headquarters) by exploiting informational advantages. However, Bernstein et al.’s paper suggests that SWFs’ local investments have nothing to do with generating higher returns (quite the opposite).

These authors offer up two competing interpretations for the home bias: 1) SWFs have a value function that includes more than just financial and commercial criteria–the social returns from SWF investments are important factors for SWF decision-makers; and 2) politicians are distorting investment decisions in favor of their own agendas, which may run counter to acheiving financial returns. The authors seem to find the second interpretation more compelling:

“SWFs where politicans are involved have a much greater likelihood of investing at home than those where external managers are involved.”

Moreover, they find that where politicians are involved, there is a much greater likelihood of worse performance. This is a result that also matches what we know about the pension fund world; immunizing the influence of politicians on pension plan investments is crucial for achieving target returns.

Deep Thoughts by Lou Jiwei

 Ashby Monk

Today’s China Daily has an op-ed written by CIC  Chairman Lou Jiwei, which touches on the financial crisis, the CIC’s ongoing development as an institutional investor and various other deep thoughts. Of particular interest was his interpretation of the CIC’s response to the global economic turmoil: 

“While allocating long-term strategic assets properly, we have adjusted the annual asset allocation strategy in a timely manner by voluntarily slowing down the pace of investment in stocks and setting a cash-based prudential investment strategy. As a result, we kept a relatively high cash-asset ratio and avoided significant risk and losses. On the whole, CIC had a small book loss on its foreign investments in 2008.”

Another  (albeit more cyinical) interpretation would be that the CIC got burned on its first two major overseas investments and was forced to take a time-out before making any more investments. It was during this time-out that global financial markets collapsed. Indeed, even if the Blackstone and Morgan Stanley deals never make money, they may still be viewed as home runs for the simple reason that they likely prevented the CIC from losing much, much more money in a disastrous market.

« Previous Page


About

This website is a project of Professor Gordon L. Clark and Dr. Ashby Monk of the School of Geography and the Environment at the University of Oxford. Their research on sovereign wealth funds is funded by the Leverhulme Trust and The Rotman International Centre for Pension Management.

RSS Feed

 RSS

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 295 other followers

Latest SWF News

Visitors Since August 2010


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 295 other followers