Archive for February, 2010



CIC and Intel: State of the Art Venture

Ashby Monk

The (soon to be) world’s largest SWF has just teamed up with the world’s largest provider of chips that run personal computers. On Friday, Intel Capital, which is the investment arm of Intel, announced that it had signed an agreement with the CIC to launch a global search for co-investment opportunities in innovative technologies:

“The agreement, intended to pair the resources of CIC with the technology expertise of Intel Capital, will identify and support strategic investments in pioneering companies across a wide array of technology sectors including cleantech, software and services, mobility and digital home, among others…While the scope of investment opportunities will be global, there will be cross border opportunities that will benefit both the U.S. and China.”

According to Arvind Sodhani, who is President of Intel Capital and the executive vice president at Intel:

“This collaboration, combining the unique advantages of Intel Capital and CIC, will help drive the next generation of innovative technologies throughout the world.”

In my opinion, this is a very interesting partnership; CIC will bring the cash and Intel will bring the expertise. It’s a powerful combo. The details of the agreement are still a bit sketchy, but it looks like the two will search for private equity type investment opportunities outside of China. By the sounds of things, they will focus their search on companies looking for second round, mezzanine or bridge financing rather than seed or start-up capital. I would expect CIC to be in a “limited partner” type position in a new, dedicated Intel Capital PE fund…but I’m really just guessing at this point.

More generally, I think this is another indication that the CIC is maturing as an investor, recognizing the domains where it might not have the expertise to make sound investments and forging partnerships to overcome this deficiency. It’s a smart move. As a wise man once told me, the more you know, the more you know you don’t know…at the very least, CIC is starting to know what it doesn’t know, which means it knows a lot. I wouldn’t have said the same thing in 2007

Weekend Reading

Ashby Monk

Richard G. Little of the University of Southern California’s School of Policy Planning and Development has an interesting new paper out entitled, “Towards a New Federal Role in Infrastructure Investment: Using U.S. Sovereign Wealth to Rebuild America.”

The paper’s premise is that the US has to address years of chronic under-investment in infrastructure. In order to do this, Little want’s to tap into the public pension and social security savings in order to match long-term investment capital with long-term investments in infrastructure (which the US desperately needs). As he says:

“The core idea of the proposal is to utilize a combination of public and institutional pension funds, individual retirement accounts, and other private investment capital, together with Social Security Trust Funds to capitalize a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) that would provide senior debt to fund projects and programs supported by user fees or other reliable and sustainable revenue streams.”

So long as this new entity remains commercially oriented, it’s a reasonable idea; public pension funds have indeed been moving into infrastructure at an increasing rate, driven in large part by the desire to find assets that better match their long-term liabilities. So, Little has a tenable position, but it’s hard to imagine US policymakers agreeing to use the Trust Fund in this way…even if I tend to think the SSTF should be restructured to allow for some more aggressive investments.

Get the paper here.

Alberta Forecast: Rain Today, Sun Tomorrow

Ashby Monk

The Canadian Province of Alberta will incur a record budget deficit of C$4.7 billion for 2010/2011, as it plans to increase spending on health care and education without raising taxes. This will be followed by a forecast deficit of C$1.1 billion next year before returning to a surplus in 2012-2013. Clearly, the difficult economic times are taking a toll on resource rich Alberta, as with all Canadian provinces for that matter. Still, Alberta can turn its SWFs for respite, which is a luxury not shared by the other provinces.

Alberta actually has a plethora of official “Savings and Investment Funds”. These range from the well known, such as the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, to the obscure, such as the Heritage Medical Research Endowment Fund or the Heritage Science and Engineering Endowment Fund. One of these funds, called the Sustainability Fund, was set up in 2003 to smooth resource revenues and government expenditures to protect future budgets against the costs of emergencies, disasters, or sudden down-turns in revenue. Basically, it’s a classic stabilization fund, and it is coming in handy right now:

“Over the course of these three short years, the province will drain its Sustainability Fund that stood at $16.8 billion at the end of 2009 to a forecast $2.8 billion by the end of 2012-2013.”

While some have balked at ‘breaking the piggy bank’, Finance Minister Ted Morton does a nice job of explaining this draw down:

“It’s called a rainy-day fund for when it rains, and I’m here to tell you it’s been raining all over the world for the past 18 months and what happens in the rest of the world affects us here in Alberta.”

This ability to draw on past savings has helped Alberta to do something that none of the other large Canadian Provinces have managed:

Alberta will be the “…the first among Canada’s four largest provinces to balance its budget, a year before British Columbia and Quebec.”

Indeed, Ontario, in particular, is facing a tough time filling in its C$25 billion deficit. In fact, it is apparently considering selling off some of its state “jewels”, such as the (highly profitable) LCBO.

In sum, Alberta’s sovereign wealth funds have prevented calamitous economic actions in the province. Perhaps their success in managing their budget through this crisis will prompt other governments that previously were doubtful about the benefits of SWFs to think again? In a way, Alberta has just illustrated the benefits of having a fund that can underwrite a public purpose and facilitate long-term planning. This seems pretty appealing, when compared to the apparent failure of many Western politicians and financial institutions to look beyond the present election or fiscal quarter.

Still, the fact that Alberta has so many SWFs makes me wonder if they have gone too far the other direction. There must, at some point, be a trade-off between accumulating sovereign wealth and allowing this wealth to filter through to the people. I’m not quite sure Alberta has this right. After all, the Province’s $13 billion Heritage Fund remains untouched. How many SWFs do you need?

China’s PLA Offers Interesting Advice On Reserve Management

Ashby Monk

Not many people would turn to China’s People’s Liberation Army for advice on foreign exchange reserve management. But that apparently doesn’t mean the PLA isn’t willing to offer some. Indeed, it had some pretty inflammatory ideas on the issue yesterday. According to a Reuters article, senior military officers (including two Generals) want China to sell U.S. bonds to punish Washington for its latest round of arms sales to Taiwan.

It’s hard to know what to make of this story. For example, I don’t know what sort of influence these Generals have in Chinese policy making. As Blake Hounshell said this morning,

“Are they on the fringe? Respected insiders? Hard-liners with a growing following? That kind of information would be helpful for those of us who aren’t intimately familiar with internal Chinese politics.”

Still, I think the story is fascinating, especially coming off the news last week that Russia had approached China over the summer with an idea to cause economic mayhem in the USA by selling US Treasuries en masse.

In order to better understand the issue, I turned to an extremely knowledgeable colleague of mine in the UK. This person’s reply was very interesting, so I’ve gotten permission to copy it below (on the condition that I keep this individual anonymous due to some sensitivities associated with  his/her current position):

“As you say, fascinating. But on the surface hardly an outrageous or impossible idea. It presupposes that China is prepared to take any financial loss on the assets as a fair price for the diplomatic gain – but if they do the analysis and are prepared to pay that price, then there is in theory nothing to stop them. As I have said before, the reserves are a national asset and it is quite legitimate to use them in any way China sees fit to achieve their national aims.

The key sentence is [in the Reuters article] “For example, we could sanction them using economic means, such as dumping some U.S. government bonds”. I made this very point at a conference at [deleted]– I asked what the White House would do if it received a call from Beijing saying that “unless the USA did XX or desisted from YY by a given deadline, China proposed to sell all its dollar assets without concern as to price”.

We came to a conclusion then that it was in fact something of a hollow threat. To start with, the US authorities (via the Federal Reserve) can buy any dollar bonds the Chinese wish to sell: it will explode the Fed’s balance sheet, but it can be done. It is more problematic if the Chinese sell dollars on the FX market, as the US authorities cannot simply buy them all, as they do not have enough foreign currency and could not mobilise their gold fast enough. So the dollar’s exchange rate would spike sharply down, before (probably) spiking back up again to near the level it started at – offset a bit because one would assume that having just utilised their dollars in this way, China would not immediately buy them back and so the main forced buyer of dollars would be removed from the market.

But what are the longer term consequences of doing this? Firstly, anyone whose currency is pegged to the USD (and that includes most of OPEC) gets a huge bout of volatility in their national financial management, and secondly, markets generally are thrown into turmoil. And the important point is that it is not only the US that suffers from this; others suffer too, including states that China does actually want or need to keep friendly (eg oil exporters).

So even China is constrained a little bit by the effect of their actions on others. And dumping dollars will most certainly affect others alongside the US.

Incidentally I think China could well do more damage to the US, and at less cost to itself, if it over time decided to demand other currencies for its exports and demand the right to pay in other currencies for its imports. Eventually, when the Renminbi is convertible and a usable international currency, it will demand the superpower’s right to use its own currency in trade, but until then, what do you think the effect would be if they unilaterally declared that they would only accept euro or yen in payment for international trade. They would find ready suppliers of oil priced in euros in Iran, Venezuela and Russia to name but three countries, and it would not take very much more to seriously call into question the dollar’s role as a reserve currency.

But my general conclusion is that it is probably a good thing the PLA are not running China’s FX and reserve management policies!

On the last point, I definitely agree!

Temasek Launches Seatown

Ashby Monk

Temasek, the Singaporean SWF, has just announced an interesting organizational innovation. It is launching a new asset management company called Seatown Holdings (…Seatown is the English translation for Temasek…), which will be a wholly owned global investment company. In all likelihood, it will be funded out of Temasek’s recent debt issues. Here’s what we know:

According to Bloomberg: “Temasek Holdings Pte has set up a wholly owned global investment company run by its chief strategist Charles Ong that will employ a variety of strategies investing in assets ranging from stocks to bonds.”

According to the WSJ: “…people familiar with the situation said that the new company could have an investment capital of around US$3 billion which would invest in emerging markets with a focus on Asia.”

What’s going on here? Why does Temasek, an investment company, need a new investment company? There are few reasons that jump to mind:

  1. Ho Ching, Temasek’s chief executive, said in a speech last year that she envisaged opening Temasek up to “sophisticated co-investors.” Perhaps this new company is the vehicle to facilitate this co-investment.
  2. Perhaps Temasek wants to be more aggressive by diversifying into other asset classes or taking on investments that would traditionally be reserved for hedge funds (such as a long-short strategy).
  3. Related to the second point, by setting up a new “private sector” vehicle that has co-investors, Temasek (or I should say Seatown) could justify paying market rates for the best talent.
  4. Perhaps this is a tool to facilitate domestic legitimacy. Remember, Temasek had a rough time during the financial crisis. Like many SWFs around the world, it was facing a crisis of legitimacy at home.  This new entity is perhaps a way to legitimize (in the eyes of Singaporeans) some of the risky operations that Temasek wants to engage in by co-opting investors that already have attained legitimacy in the eyes of the public. If things go bad, Temasek can then point to these other, respected investors as willing participants, which could mute suggestions that Temasek itself was making poor decisions.
  5. Perhaps setting up Seatown is a way for Temasek to engage in politically sensitive investments abroad, such as in resource companies or infrastructure, without sparking geopolitical concerns. The inclusion of private investors (as well as funding from debt issues) will give Westerners considerable assurance that Seatown is investing only for profit; not for strategic, national objectives.

But this is all just speculation. Unfortunately, true to form, Temasek is keeping mum about Seatown (at least officially). So we’ll have to wait to get more details. Nonetheless, it’s a very interesting development.

Iran Unveils New SWF

Ashby Monk

I reported here last month that Iran was considering establishing a new SWF, which would be focused on domestic development,  to replace their old SWF, which was a contingency fund. Yesterday, the government unveiled its plans. According to the Oil Minister Massoud Mirkazemi yesterday:

“It is necessary to invest in the country’s oil and gas development projects, particularly in joint fields with the neighboring states…The National Energy Fund, with the help of the resources of four local banks and the Central Bank, has been established to help finance major parts of the oil industry’s activities…Several rounds of talks were held in this regard and it was approved by the president…”

As this suggests, the new fund is really only focused on developing the resource industry, which is a bit different from their original plan a month ago. Still, Iran’s resource industry does need help. The country is the fifth largest exporter of crude oil, but it has the second largest proven oil and gas reserves. What gives?

Due to geopolitical tensions surrounding its nuclear ambitions, Iran has not been able to attract the foreign investments needed for expansion and modernization. As a way to side-step the problem, the government is apparently creating a new SWF that will have an explicit mandate to invest in the domestic energy sector.

It’s an interesting ploy, but the new SWF will, in my view, create some serious problems for the domestic economy. Specifically, Iran has a serious inflation problem; in 2008 it was well above 20 percent.  In order to contain this, Iran needs macroeconomic tightening; the establishment of a domestic oriented SWF does not fall into the category of “tightening”.

In fact, the whole point of setting up commodity based SWFs is to smooth resource revenues, avoid domestic inflationary pressure, and prevent “Dutch disease”. This is done by investing assets, for the most part, internationally. By taking the oil revenues and then explicitly directing them into domestic industries, Iran may aggravate their economic woes.

CIC Reveals US Investment Portfolio

Ashby Monk

Apparently, the CIC just filed their first 13-F disclosure with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It’s a remarkable development, as it offers some insights into both the improving standards of the CIC’s internal governance and also offers a glimpse into the SWF’s “secretive” international portfolio. Normally, I’d have a lot to say about this, but it seems Rachel Ziemba beat me to it. Here are some highlights from her extensive analysis:

“The move is significant both from a financial disclosure perspective, showing as it does the CIC’s continued commitment to disclose information about its portfolio in line with other institutional investors (13-F’s are required of investment managers managing over US$100 million in assets, and report their U.S. long positions, including options and shares), but also because it allows a glimpse into a part of the Chinese government’s foreign asset portfolio.”

“Beyond, three large stakes in Teck Resources (US$3.4 billion at the end of 2009), Morgan Stanley (US$1.7 billion) and Blackrock (US$0.7 billion), the exposures to individual stocks are relatively small.”

“Finally, from a governance perspective, this illustrates that the CIC continues to be at the forefront of disclosing its holdings meeting legal obligations. A cursory search of the SEC database suggests that most Middle Eastern funds do not yet seem to make such filings, which are perhaps made by their external managers.”

“This underscores the importance the CIC and China’s political leaders seem to have put on complying in their own way with the Santiago principles, the voluntary code of practice for sovereign wealth funds. Doing so, should ease concerns about the investment management approach allowing regulators to focus on those investments that might pose national security or competition concerns.”

See the whole article here.

Weekend Reading

Ashby Monk

There is a new IMF Working Paper out by Aaron Brown, Michael Papaioannou, and Iva Petrova entitled, “Macrofinancial Linkages of the Strategic Asset Allocation of Commodity-Based Sovereign Wealth Funds.” The paper analyses the links between the investment strategies of a commodity-based SWF and the macroeconomic framework of the owner country. Check it out.

Updates

Ashby Monk

I’ve updated the “Healthy Competition” page today; removing a couple of websites that are no longer active and putting two new ones up. Check it out.

Also, I’ve updated the “about” page. I hadn’t touched it in a year, but some things have changed.

Finally, I was interested to see that the Email Subscriptions (on the right side-bar of the website) have been quite popular. If there are any issues / problems with the way the posts arrive in your inbox, let me know. I’ll try to sort it out. Thus far, I think they look pretty good, actually.

SWF: A Sign of Stability

Ashby Monk

After my (long) post yesterday on the International Finance Corporation and the Sovereign Funds Initiative, I was interested to see today that the IFC has announced plans to invest upwards of $2 billion in sub-Saharan Africa this fiscal year. However, what I found most interesting was Lars Thunell’s — who is the CEO of the IFC – opinion that political risk is becoming less of an issue for investors in Africa, noting that countries such as Angola and Rwanda could see 7 percent growth this year:

“If you look at the number of conflicts, it’s come down dramatically in the past 10-15 years, which is one of the reasons for the stability. We also have a new generation of leaders coming in, some of them are very very good…But you still have natural resources, you have corruption, nationalisation. There will still be political risk, you can’t shy away from that.”

It’s interesting that he singled out Angola as a country that the IFC is now interested in investing in. As the Economist recently noted, “After four decades of strife, Angola was a basket case.” But, Thunell is right, things have changed dramatically for the better. With almost a decade of peace, Angola’s economy has exploded thanks to its generous resource endowment. In fact, the country is now China’s biggest supplier of oil, ahead of  Saudi Arabia and Iran. Nonetheless, corruption is still rampant and this new wealth hasn’t flowed through to average citizens. So, some structural reforms are still required.

However, Angola has started to make some of these necessary reforms, in particular to better manage their resource wealth and avoid the types of corruption that eventually leads to capital outflows. As noted in previous posts, this has included the creation of a new SWF. Inspired by Norway’s SWF, Angola has set out to instill “good governance” in the management of its resource endowment. According to a recent IMF article, Angola’s SWF  represents an important structural reform to set up an…

“…institutional framework that de-links the fiscal stance from volatile short-term oil revenues and to avoid future boom-bust cycles.”

Given how vulnerable the Angolan economy was to resource price volatility–the economy was one of the world’s fastest growing in 2006 and 2007 before collapsing with the fall of oil prices in 2008–the SWF will be an important tool in smoothing out this volatility to facilitate long-term planning. This stability will in turn attract outside capital into the country.

Apparently, having a SWF is a signal that your country is stable enough to invest in.

« Previous PageNext 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