Posts Tagged 'Alaska'

Frontier Finance: Juneau, Alaska

Ashby Monk

As I noted recently, the new players in global finance (i.e., SWFs) are coming from cities and regions without a history of financial services, which creates some real challenges for running a modern financial institution. From a research project perspective, I find this a remarkably interesting opportunity: How do you set up a world class institutional investor when finance has been something of an industrial afterthought in your country or city?

Anyway, one of these ‘frontier outposts’ is Juneau, Alaska, which is home to the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. And, this morning, I came across a neat little article by Katie Spielberger that offers a peak behind the APFC’s curtain to see how it actually operates in this distant location. Of particular interest was the way Chris Cummins, a senior portfolio manager, characterized the location of the APFC as an advantage:

“In the New York area there are a lot of people within the industry and there’s a lot of chatter … that subconsciously or consciously might influence your process…Being removed from it kind of gives you a clearer view where you can formulate your own thoughts and opinions … As Warren Buffett said, that was the benefit of being in Omaha, Nebraska.”

Chris is channeling Tony Gray’s book ‘A Thousand Miles from Wall Street‘, which argues that being outside of financial centers can offer portfolio managers much more clarity in their investment decision-making. Anyway, Chris went on to say:

“We’ve done a pretty good job. Over the past five years our fund, the fixed income portfolio, has outperformed 75 percent of like managers, so that’s pretty darn strong, doing that from a little place in Alaska…We’re proud of that. That’s important to us, that we put up some strong numbers.”

And you should be, Chris. Being on the frontier of finance isn’t all bad!

Who is the King of SWFs?

Ashby Monk

I wonder if you asked a US Senator or Congressman which country sponsored the most sovereign funds in the world, what would he or she say? China? No doubt it would be one of the top responses, as it has three well-known funds (CIC, SAFE, and NSSF) and a variety of lesser known funds (CADF). How about Russia? That would probably be a popular guess too with the Reserve Fund, National Welfare Fund and the new Russian Direct-Investment Fund. Those with a bit more knowledge, however, would likely say the United Arab Emirates; with ADIA, ADIC, EIA, IPIC, Mubadala, RAKIA, and a couple of other hard-to-define entities, it’s a fair bet that UAE is the world leader in the number of sovereign funds. But how many US policymakers would ever say that the country with the most sovereign funds in the world is…the USA?

Well surprise, US policymaker, there’s a solid case to be made that the United States is in fact the king of SWFs. No, I’m not talking about public pension funds; I’m talking about funds that would meet the IMF’s definition of a SWF. Impossible? Not so. US states are big into permanent and rainy day funds. It’s just that these funds have been hanging out under the radar. For example, the SWFI only managed to count three US funds. But, trust me, they’re more out there. For proof I refer you to this report on the Alaska Permanent Fund‘s webpage from 2008. I only came across this for the first time yesterday, but I realized in reading it that it listed some US funds that I had never even heard of. In addition, I realized that this report didn’t manage to find all of the US funds that I know about. Perhaps (since the US is such an outspoken proponent of sovereign fund transparency) the US funds are soooo transparent that most of the world simply looked right past them. In addition to flagging up a bunch of new American funds, the APF report also makes the remarkable claim that the State of Texas sponsored the very first SWF in the world (in the 1800s)! (Sorry Kuwait!)

So, without further ado, here’s a list of American sovereign funds that combines the APF’s report with my own knowledge. And based on the fact that these funds keep popping up, I’m guessing this isn’t even a complete list:

  • Alabama: The Alabama Trust Fund was set up in 1986 and acts as a sort of permanent fund in anticipation of the eventual decline of oil and gas royalties to the state.
  • Alaska: The Alaska Permanent Fund was set up in 1976 with a spending and saving mandate. In 1980, Alaska set up the APF Corporation to manage all the Fund’s investments.
  • Louisiana: The Louisiana Education Quality Trust Fund was set up in 1986 to save and invest off-shore revenues for education. The LEQTF has both a Permanent Fund and a Support Fund as subsidiaries.
  • Montana: The Montana Permanent Coal Tax Trust Fund (PCTTF) was set up in 1978. The PCTTF actually has six (!) sub-funds, of which the state’s Permanent Fund is the largest. The Montana Board of Investments manages the combined assets.
  • New Mexico: The State actually has four different permanent funds that are all jointly managed by the State Investment Council (which is itself larger than the New Zealand Superannuation Fund). Apparently, the Land Grant Permanent Fund goes back to 1910!
  • Oklahoma: The State recently approved a new rainy day fund that will see gross production tax collections above a three-year average sequestered in the new stabilization fund. This fund will join the pre-existing “Rainy Day Fund” in Oklahoma, which already has around $600 million.
  • Texas: Remarkably, the State of Texas has two permanent funds going back to the 1800s! The Permanent School Fund (1854) and Permanent University Fund (1876). These are likely the first sovereign type funds ever created. The State also has a Rainy Day Fund that was set up in 1988 with the idea of sequestering all oil and gas production taxes exceeding 1987 levels. It’s worth roughly $10 billion today.
  • Wyoming: The Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund was established in 1974 to receive the state’s 1.5% excise tax on coal, petroleum, natural gas, oil shale, and other minerals. The Wyoming State Loan and Investment Board manages the funds (along with the assets from several other state permanent funds).

For a fascinating graphic of sovereign fund creation, click this remarkable timeline:

An interesting thing to point out is that many of these funds are tied to education, much in the same way sovereigns today are often tied to pensions or other contingent future liabilities.

In sum, it’s clear the American states have found these funds extremely useful in helping to manage their resource revenues over time. Moreover, Ben Bernanke’s recent pronouncements about the utility of these types of funds suggests that more US states may become sponsors in the coming years. And given that some of these funds have been around for over a 100 years, the “permanent” moniker seems to have legitimacy. In other words, they probably aren’t going anywhere.

All this leaves me with a final thought for US policymakers: If you find yourself tempted to express concern over the rise of SWFs around the world, perhaps you should first ask yourself why the United States has more funds than any other country, and why the United States was perhaps the first country in the world to set up such a fund?

Who Deserves Credit for the Big SWF Idea?

Ashby Monk

If you follow me on Twitter, you’ll know that I’ve been playing some SWF word association games. Well I’ve got another one for you: If I say, ‘governments that kicked off the SWF era’ or, how about, ‘governments that deserve credit for the big SWF idea’, what would you say?

At first blush, I’d expect you to come out with “Kuwait” or “Abu Dhabi” or “Singapore” or (if you’re really good) even “Kiribati”. But I can pretty much guarantee that you wouldn’t say, “the UK” or “USA”. After all, SWFs aren’t Western, right? In fact, they represent challenges to Western hegemony, don’t they? They’re products of emerging market imbalances, aren’t they?

Well, maybe I’m late to the party here, but I think credit for the ‘big SWF idea’ actually resides with…the UK and the US. I know that seems odd and runs counter to our current notions about SWFs. But let me — a self-proclaimed history dimwit — give you a history lesson (or at least try to).

It’s widely noted (and accepted) that Kuwait was the first country, in 1953, to set up a SWF. In this case, the acclaim for this remarkable decision is often given to the forward thinking ruler of Kuwait at the time, Sheikh Abdullah Al-Salem Al-Sabah. In his wisdom, he apparently decided that the money should be set aside for the long-term welfare of the people of Kuwait. And I don’t doubt that. Rather, I’d simply note that this SWF, which was known at the time as the Kuwait Investment Board, was established eight years before the country attained independence from the UK. And, moreover, the fund was set up in London. So, at the very minimum, we can assume that the Brits had some influence over this decision (and may in fact have had the ‘big SWF idea’).

The second country to set up a SWF, in 1956, is widely accepted to be Kiribati. In this case, a fund was set up for phosphate mining revenue. The history buffs among you will recognize that Kiribati was still under British rule at the time (until 1971 actually). And it is known that the British administration was behind the levy on phosphate exports that ultimately led to the Kirabati Revenue Equalisation Reserve Fund. So, once again, the Brits were there at the beginning.

Now things start to get really interesting. Any guess as to what the third country was to set up a SWF in 1958? To be fair, that’s sort of a trick question, as it was sponsored by a sub-national government: the US state of New Mexico and the State Investment Council. And do you know who set up the fourth SWF in 1974? The US State of Wyoming and the Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund. And North America wasn’t done yet, as the next two SWFs to pop up were in Alaska and Alberta in 1976. In short, the Brit’s Anglo-American cousins in North America also played an important role in legitimizing SWFs in these early years.

Now, it’s true that Singapore set up Temasek in 1974, but, at the time, it was really just a holding company and not technically an international portfolio investor. (And, by the way, Singapore was also a British Colony until 1961, so there was probably some remaining British influence.) It’s also true that the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority was established in 1976, but, there again, it’s probably reasonable to suggest the Brits had some influence in that decision (as the UAE had a ‘special treaty’ with the UK until 1971).

All that being said, I don’t want to give the Brits too much credit here. After all, they didn’t bother to set up a SWF of their own when oil revenues came pouring in from the North Sea! (A decision that still irks Scotland something fierce). To be sure, this would be a very welcome pool of cash today.

I guess I just find it interesting that the first SWFs were set up under the purview of British and American governments. Over time, the West has come to see SWFs as “foreign” and “non-Western”. And yet, they were ultimately British and American creations; the idea and their legitimacy actually came from the West!

And, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Both countries were already home to global financial centers (New York and London) thanks to the financial capital flowing out of pre-funded pensions and into asset managers’ coffers. Let’s also not forget that Markowitz unveiled Modern Portfolio Theory in a 1952 Journal of Finance article. As such, these countries were clearly in a ‘financial state of mind’, which means it wouldn’t have been too far a leap for these governments to see an opportunity to use financial markets in innovative ways. Enter the SWF.

Papua New Guinea: Lessons Learned

Ashby Monk

Papua New Guinea has the dubious distinction of having been the sponsor of a failed SWF: the Mineral Resource Stabilisation Fund. Originated in 1974 to hold the proceeds of a the Panguna Copper Mine – and later expanded to include all tax, royalty and dividend payments from major mining and oil projects in the country – the MRSF proved to be poorly designed and governed for its mission and, ultimately, it was shut down in 1999 due to excess draw-downs.

Today, this failure offers PNG some unique insights as it contemplates its looming LNG bounty and will clearly affect its new plans for LNG revenues. And, perhaps surprisingly, PNG has once again decided that a SWF is the way to go with its new resource strategy.

On cue, the country’s National Research Institute has just published  a new report by Peter Johnson that lays out how the country can overcome the resource curse (and its past SWF failure) by setting up a well-designed SWF. (There is also a nice interview available on Radio Australia that details some of the report’s findings.)  Specifically, Johnson examines the cases where SWFs have (and have not) worked in order to tease out lessons for PNG. As he says in his radio interview, his intention was to take some of the best international examples and adapt them to PNG’s unique “flavor and focus”, all the while avoiding the mistakes made by countries (including his own) that have had SWF flops. So, for example, he writes about the failure of the MRSF, describing its main problem as follows:

“A lack of sound governance and poor service delivery ultimately led to the fund being mismanaged and wasted.”

In addition, Johnson examined the Timor Leste Wealth Fund, the Kiribati Revenue Equalisation Fund, and the Alaska Permanent Fund for insights on developing a new fund specifically for PNG.

On a broader note, it’s become standard practice for potential SWF sponsors, such as PNG, to reach out to other countries that already have SWFs in order to learn from their experience. For example, Natsuko Waki of Reuters has a nice article this morning that describes how Angola, Ghana and Nigeria have looked to Asia and the ME for SWF inspiration:

“…they are also increasingly looking at developing Asian and Gulf nations, where funds are often managed in an opaque but strategically efficient manner, which may suit Africa better.”

But, as Natsuko notes, there is no simple “cut and paste” model for these funds. And, in the case of PNG, Johnson seems to get it, which is why he has come up with a list of specific objectives and constraints that any new PNG SWF will need to achieve:

  • “broadening PNGs economic base to avoid the destabilising effects of future commodity price shocks;
  • stabilising the macro-economic environment through investing revenues offshore;
  • creating a political will for institutional reforms to substantially improve policy development, monitoring and auditing of government expenditure;
  • integrating resource revenues into the Budget framework;
  • creating a sense of ownership by the people of PNG;
  • following the design of the Sovereign Wealth Fund on the SWF Generally Accepted Principles and Practices (Santiago Principles);
  • creating a clear purpose and objective for how the revenue is to be used; and
  • maximising the financial returns subject to appropriate risk.”

That all seems pretty straightforward and sensible (if ambitious). So, the real question then is how a new SWF can achieve all this. And this is where things get interesting: apparently Johnson doesn’t think that a single SWF can do all of the above – which is why he thinks PNG will need two separate SWFs. Here’s his logic:

“The first fund (the Future Fund) will have a long-term savings objective and the second fund (a stabilisation fund) will have a macro-economic stabilisation objective. The first fund imposes a great degree of restraint on expenditure, while the second fund allows for a high degree of expenditure flexibility. The funds can be used for development expenditure while at the same time contributing to macro-economic stabilisation.”

Johnson suggests that SWFs shouldn’t try to do too much, lest they fail at all of it. Instead, he argues that SWFs should have well-defined mandates that don’t allow for too much flexibility in decision-making. And, I have to say, I agree. And before you throw up your hands at the idea of two SWFs in one country, consider that the State of Oklahoma has managed to justify to its voters having two SWFs. So why not PNG? Perhaps two SWFs will succeed where one has already failed…

Oklahoma Loves SWFs

Ashby Monk

Back in January, I reported that the State of Oklahoma was considering a new SWF that would mitigate financial fallout from volatile oil and natural gas prices. Yesterday, the new fund was overwhelmingly approved in the House (86-4) and is expected to soon pass in the Senate.

This new policy will see gross production tax collections above a three year average sequestered in the new stabilization fund. If collections drop below the three year average, the fund will deposit the difference into the general revenue fund. This fund will join the pre-existing “Rainy Day Fund” in Oklahoma, which already has around $600 million.

It is quite interesting to see a single US state with two SWFs. What is it about Oklahoma that makes SWFs so appealing? I see two factors:

  • It is rich in natural resources; the state is the second biggest producer of natural gas in the US and fifth in crude oil. As such, its economy is dependent on commodity prices, which explains the stabilization fund.
  • Politically, the state leans Republican in national elections. Also, the House Speaker (who proposed the new SWF) is a Republican. However, the state has had a Democratic governor since 2003. So, perhaps the new SWF represents a policy tool implemented by Republicans (i.e. fiscal conservatives) to discipline the spending of a Democratic governor?

Whatever the case, Oklahoma now joins Alaska, Alabama, New Mexico and Wyoming as US states that sponsor SWFs.


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 328 other followers

Latest SWF News

Visitors Since August 2010


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 328 other followers