Talk:Sovereign wealth fund/Archive 1

Archive 1

CIC

Changed China Investment Company to China Investment Corporation. It has been called both but its official name is China Investment Corporation. --Amadaninternational (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgotten worlds second / first largest pension fund: the Dutch

The article and/or list has forgotten the worlds second / first largest pension fund: the Dutch pension fund of the Netherlands. It sometimes surpasses the Norwegian or already has a long time. Nunamiut (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_Pensioenfonds_ABP

• Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP ("National Civil Pension Fund"), frequently referred to as ABP, is the pension fund for government and education employees in the Netherlands. For the year ended 31 December 2007, ABP had 2.7 million active participants and assets under management of €216 billion ($313 billion), making it the largest pension fund in the Netherlands and among the three largest pension funds in the world [1].

I am Dutch and I can say that all the Dutch pension funds, such as ABP and PGGM/Zorg&Welzijn are pension funds and in no way sovereign wealth funds. In no list do these pension funds appear as SWF's and also the way these pension funds are managed, differs significantly from SWF's. So it is correct that the Dutch pension funds (as well as several other large pension funds from around the world) do not appear on the SWF's list. Schalkcity (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Pension Funds vs SWFs

Somebody added a bunch on pensions funds to the list of Sovereign Wealth Fund. Pensions funds are not technically jhgjSWFs and so i proposal removing them. Does anyone oppose this? Thanks --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that info doesn't belong in this article, but could be moved to the main Pension fund article in the same format. —IncidentFlux _{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 02:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok i removed the pensions funds and put them on the pension fund page. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice, thanks, looks good. —IncidentFlux _{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 21:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree, a pension fund invested in equities or other tangible assets is still a SWF, if its run by the national government, or a quasi national government organization. The SWF of Norway is officially called the "Government Pension Fund of Norway", and is listed as a SWF by the Economist. It doesn't matter what the interest or principle is used for. We should just use the lists in the Economist and in other SWF tracking websites as the criterion for inclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please see a talk page I've just set up below to see as it's quite relevant to the discussion above. Thoughts welcome.127rahmat (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There should be a distinction made between SWFs and strategic investment arms/agencies of the government.

SWFs manage the reserves of their respective countries whereas strategic investment arms have to 1) raise their own capital; or 2) work off a one-time "endowment" of state owned enterprises from the government. The list of SWFs on this wiki page should exclude institutions such Khazanah Nasional and SCIC of Vietnam. Thoughts welcome on whether a new wiki page should be set up for this. 127rahmat (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the distant past, but nowadays it seems that many SWFs = "strategic investment arms/agencies of the government", so I don't think it's necessary for a new wiki page to be set up for "Strategic Investment Arms/Agencies" or "SIAs".--Ujongbakuto (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - my only concern is that of the negative press that SWFs sometimes get and also for the SIAs it is, at the same time, not as easy given they often have to raise their own funds through capital markets. It's important I think to distinguish the two types of agencies.127rahmat (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Australia's FutureFund

One could argue that the Origin of Australia's FutureFund is commodity-related as the mining boom was the key driver of the excess tax revenues that are used to fund it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.147.6 (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

SAMA Foreign Holdings

Right now the date of inception is listed as n/a, while its article says 1952. If this is to be n/a, I think a footnote explaining why would be helpful. Rigadoun (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Solidium

Concerning Solidium, just do a Google search and you get articles like this, this and this that call it a SWF. That is doesn't appear in the SWFI is of no consequence; they could've simply missed it. (Why this first says Finland doesn't have a SWF and then lists Solidium nevertheless is beyond me. "Jos tädillä olisi munat niin se olisi setä.") --vuo (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

On what is considered a SWF, there seems to be some controversy. Solidium's founding minister, Jyri Häkämies comments in Suomen Kuvalehti that Solidium is not really a sovereign wealth fund, because SWFs invest domestic capital abroad just to make money. Solidium, on the other hand, is designed as a vehicle to implement the government's stock ownership policy, which includes other targets than profit, such as the security of infrastructure. So, this would make it a state investment company. Yet Solidium has been described in multiple sources as a SWF (e.g. "Creating Value of State-Owned Commercial Assets", several tech sites). So, the question is that the text in lede declares: A sovereign wealth fund (SWF) is a state-owned investment fund investing in real and financial assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate, precious metals, or in alternative investments such as private equity fund or hedge funds. Sovereign wealth funds invest globally. Where is this sourced? If investing oil money abroad is really a requirement for being a SWF, who says so? --vuo (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources for the numbers

The numbers in the table come from the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute. I wonder how reliable it is and if we can back-up with another source. Limit-theorem (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Tosun's comment on this article

Dr. Tosun has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

It would be good to include links to some books written about SWFs. There are few about the Alaska Permanent Fund that I know of. For example, Saving for the Future: My Life and the Alaska Permanent Fund by Dave Rose and Charles Wohlforth. I wish there was more discussion on how SWFs impact the fiscal systems in those countries with sizable SWFs.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Tosun has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Michael Daugherty & Odd Stalebrink & Mehmet Tosun, 2006. "The Impact of Institutional Characteristics on the Use and Effectiveness of Rainy Day Funds: A Pilot Study of Municipal Governments in West Virginia," Working Papers 06-012, University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Economics;University of Nevada, Reno , Department of Resource Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds

Hi – I noticed today that User:24.22.226.17 has blanked my input on the this article Diff and then similarly eradicated my edits regarding the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds from all articles in Wikipedia (see [1] [2] [3] [4] for just some). The reasons given was it somehow violates wiki policy and was self promotion. I am asking what the rational was for this here. This may have been done as vandalism but I want to give the user a chance to respond here before I make that assumption and revert the edits, after all WP:IPs are human too and we were all WP:NEWBIES once. I’ve left a message on the users talk page to bring him/her here to responded.

A quick look at my profile shows that I’m a user of 8 years standing with thousands of edits under my belt and advanced user permissions. This is not a new account created by someone to ‘self-promote’ an organisation I’d never heard of before I found WP:REDs on here and realised there was a large number of articles which link together though an legitimate international organisation which is missing from Wikipedia. In this case the edits I made simply reflected other lists, such as the List of sovereign states showing the United Nations or the List of countries by oil production showing OPEC members, to name just two. I didn’t have time to create a full article about the organization, so I did a three line sub here as I feel it is entirely reasonable to have on a page about sovereign wealth fund the fact that a number of those funds have come together to create an organisation to promote best practice within their field.

My edits were WP:GOODFAITH contributions which were all properly referenced and which have now been removed. One interesting thing I couldn’t help but notice is that the they were removed without using the undo button. Preventing the system automatically notification me of the removals and therefore making me think they may have actually just been vandalism. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 11:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Social Security

Social Security is a "national pension fund" where the money collected each year is spent each year, so is not a sovereign wealth fund that actually accumulates wealth. The source you use is called "Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute", but it clearly distinguished SWFs from other national pension trusts like Social Security. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge

• Support' merge; there is a long-standing proposal to merge Sovereign wealth fund and Sovereign investment fund, the former being more developed and being the obvious target. The 'investment' article attempts to make an unreferenced distinction between them, but the descriptions on both pages seem identical, or so similar that they are best discussed on the same page. Klbrain (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"important but inconsequential"

Section Sovereign wealth fund#Depletion of SWFs uses this phrase, which seems internally contradictory. Should be clarified. 108.28.68.152 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)