Several countries are keeping their economies away from SWFs due to the matter that some investments are brute diverted for political seek to make a get promise of of run of profitably important assets. It has been observed that OPECs have been diverting large pool of funds in acquiring strategic assets and investing in important sectors in the heavens of infrastructure, telecom, cartoon and media across developed countries. After much challenger from US Congress, Abu Dhabi’s Investment Authority had to refrain from its ADIA Dubai Port after 9/11 unease attacks. Do you know about Bridgewater ct?
China Investment Corporation’s $5 billion stake in Morgan Stanley and acquisition of Citigroup by Abu Dhabi Investment Authority for $7.5 billion was deeply criticized after the recent subprime crisis.
Lack of transparency continues to be a major matter for nations that are experiencing increasing SWF funding in their economies. SWFs are creature criticized for inadequate disclosures not in the make distant off from size and source of funds, investment objectives and their holding in private equity funds. While in the U.S., these concerns are addressed by the Exon-Florio Amendment to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, European Union preferred to avoid SWF funding. Some experts opine that such a distress is unwarranted if we compare the size of SWFs assets ($2 trillion) considering the size of global investment funds assets ($20 trillion) and securities traded in dollars ($50 trillion).
IMG tried to quarters this business of transparency and governance by issuing the Santiago Principles in 2007, a set of 24 voluntary principles to ensure transparency and hermetically sealed governance by sovereign deafening quantity funds (SWFs). However, enormously few SWFs have been taking into consideration these principles seriously.
