Talk:Sovereign wealth fund
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sovereign wealth fund article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | The contents of the Sovereign investment fund page were merged into Sovereign wealth fund on 11 January 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Flag
editPlease be advised that flag next to the United Arab Emirates (Dubai World) is incorrect. That flag is acctually the flag of the Kingdom of Bahrain.
Concerns about SWFs
editSome of these points seem less concerning than others, as an example "As this asset pool continues to expand in size and importance, so does its potential impact on various asset markets", this seems like kind the point in some ways, as demonstrated by Norway's SWF where companies can be 'punished' for socially irresponsible activities by divestment, or rewarded by continuing to be part of the SWF.
The argument made by the Norway SWF page is that those with "non-market investment motives" may not be good for the market, but this is based on Beck's opinion published in 2008 -- in the meantime we've seen megafunds like BlackRock and Fidelity work on ESG concerns and act as activists for non-market investment motives. Non-market investment motives are much more of a reality than the theoretical idea they once were.
An investment to "secure control of strategically important industries" also seems like a straightforward benefit for the country with the wealth fund.
Other points such as lack of transparency do seem to be appropriately referred to as concerns.
I believe that this is WP:UNDUE. This section needs reworked to be able to show these observations more neutrally, given that these are not straightforward concerns, particularly depending on context they're viewed in. Oh no no no no no (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Early funds - Texas first?
editThe Early funds section says that the first funds where USA state funds and that Texas was the first, but the table has France as the oldest SWF and that within states of the USA Texas would be third. Some inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.223.214 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Texas PSF missing from table
editArticle body talks about Texas PSF as an early SWF and links to a page that suggests PSF is still actively a SWF with US$48 billion under management as of 2020, but PSF is missing from the table. Should it be present? 2600:1700:4636:0:5146:A1B2:AEF4:44A7 (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
List Inclusion
editAIMCo (Alberta Investment Management Corporation) is not considered a sovereign wealth fund. While AIMCo manages a significant amount of assets on behalf of Alberta's government and public sector entities, it doesn't fit the strict definition of a sovereign wealth fund.
Sovereign wealth funds are typically established to invest surpluses from a country or natural resource revenues. AIMCo, on the other hand, is primarily focused on managing the assets of pension plans, endowments, and Provincial government funds. AIMco is not permitted to operate outside of 1 Canadian Province.
Sovereign wealth funds are typically owned by the government. AIMCo is not. Exit2DOS2000 (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)