2017年-PIIE彼得森国际经济研究所_Uneven_Progress_on_Sovereign_Wealth_Fund_Transparency_and_Accountability_27页_316kb

POLICY BRIEF Summary: PB 16-18 Uneven Progress on Sovereign Wealth Fund Transparency and Accountability

Authors

• Sarah E. Stone: Junior economics and English major at Williams College; summer 2016 intern at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
• Edwin M. Truman: Senior fellow at the Peterson Institute; former assistant secretary of the US Treasury for International Affairs and director of the Division of International Finance at the Federal Reserve.

Purpose

This Policy Brief updates and expands on previous SWF scoreboards, using adjusted data to assess the transparency and accountability of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) in 2015. It evaluates the progress made by countries and their fund managers and highlights the role of the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds (IFSWF) in promoting transparency.

Key Findings

• Diversity in SWF Transparency: The 60 SWFs scored in this edition show significant variation in their transparency and accountability levels. Some have high scores, while others are low.
• Improvement Over Time: Despite the variation, many SWFs have substantially improved their scores over the past decade, indicating that progress is achievable.
• IFSWF Membership and Transparency: IFSWF members generally score higher than non-members, showing the Forum's positive influence. However, only 32 (actually 31) of the 60 funds are members of the IFSWF.
• SWF Growth: SWF assets under management have grown by 125% since 2007, reaching $6 trillion. However, the growth has slowed, and some funds have seen declines due to factors like lower oil prices and reduced inflows.

SWF Characteristics

• SWFs are government-controlled and often established for economic stability, long-term investment, or fiscal surpluses.
• Many SWFs are invested abroad, which has drawn international attention due to concerns about transparency and potential disruption.
• Some SWFs, like the Alaska Permanent Fund, have clear links to citizens, while others, such as those established by royal decree, have less transparent connections.

SWF Scoreboard Overview

• The 2015 SWF scoreboard includes 60 nonpension SWFs from 43 countries and 9 government pension funds (GPFs).
• New funds are included, such as the Peru Fiscal Stabilization Fund and the Mexican Fund for Petroleum Stabilization and Development, to provide a broader view of SWFs in developing countries.
• The scoreboard elements have evolved over time, with some elements being dropped or modified, which affects historical comparisons.
• Scores are adjusted based on the availability of current information, meaning past scores are not necessarily reflective of current practices.

SWF Asset Data (Table 1)

• Total assets under management: $9,294 billion.
• Foreign assets: $6,063 billion or 65.3% of total assets.
• Top SWFs by total assets:
  • Norway's Government Pension Fund-Global: $888 billion (all foreign).
  • China Investment Corporation (CIC): $810 billion (24% foreign).
  • Abu Dhabi Investment Authority: $700 billion (all foreign).
  • Kuwait Investment Authority: $566 billion (342 billion foreign).
  • Hong Kong Exchange Fund: $459 billion (all foreign).
  • Singapore GIC Private Ltd.: $344 billion (327 billion foreign).
  • Temasek Holdings: $250 billion (175 billion foreign).
  • Qatar Investment Authority: $242 billion (all foreign).
  • United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi: Mubadala Development Company and International Petroleum Investment Company.
• Notable exceptions:
  • Kazakhstan's National Fund has been drained and is not scored due to lack of transparency.
  • Algeria's Revenue Regulation Fund has seen a decline in oil revenues, leading to domestic-only investments.
  • Norway's Government Pension Fund-Global has seen withdrawals and currency appreciation, affecting its size in dollar terms.

2015 Scoreboard (Table 2)

• The 2015 SWF scoreboard includes 15 new funds.
• Scores range from 93 to 55, showing uneven progress.
• IFSWF members generally score higher than non-members.
• Norway's Government Pension Fund-Global scores 98, indicating high transparency.
• New Zealand Superannuation Fund scores 94.
• US funds such as the Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund and Texas Permanent University Fund are now included for better assessment of US SWFs.

Conclusion

• Transparency and accountability are crucial for the political and economic legitimacy of SWFs.
• The scoreboard highlights the need for better disclosure and standardization in SWF operations.
• While some SWFs have improved, many still fall short of expectations, and the IFSWF needs to expand its membership and enforce greater transparency.

Additional Notes

• The scoreboard is not a measure of perfection but a benchmark.
• The FSB has issued policy recommendations for SWFs, focusing on financial stability and transparency.
• Data limitations exist, with some SWFs requiring estimates due to limited public information.