| Click for the Finfacts Ireland Portal Homepage |

Finfacts Business News Centre

Home 
 
 News
 Irish
 Irish Economy
 EU Economy
 US Economy
 UK Economy
 Global Economy
 International
 Property
 Innovation
 
 Analysis/Comment
 
 Asia Economy

RSS FEED


How to use our RSS feed

 
Web Finfacts

See Search Box lower down this column for searches of Finfacts news pages. Where there may be the odd special character missing from an older page, it's a problem that developed when Interactive Tools upgraded to a new content management system.

Welcome

Finfacts is Ireland's leading business information site and you are in its business news section.

Links

Finfacts Homepage

Irish Share Prices

Euribor Daily Rates

Irish Economy

Global Income Per Capita

Global Cost of Living

Irish Tax - Income/Corporate

Global News

Bloomberg News

CNN Money

Cnet Tech News

Newspapers

Irish Independent

Irish Times

Irish Examiner

New York Times

Financial Times

Technology News

 

Feedback

 

Content Management by interactivetools.com.

Analysis/Comment Last Updated: Aug 23, 2010 - 8:24:15 PM


Dr. Peter Morici: Investments by Sovereign Wealth Funds in the United States
By Professor Peter Morici
Feb 12, 2008 - 6:24:51 AM

Email this article
 Printer friendly page

Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. He is a recognized expert on international economics, industrial policy and macroeconomics. Prior to joining the university, he served as director of the Office of Economics at the US International Trade Commission.

Sovereign wealth funds from Asia and the Middle East, have been getting attention in recent times in the US, because major financial firms such as Citi, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, have had to go overseas for funds to strengthen balance sheets decimated by subprime-relates losses. In Europe, Swiss banking giant UBS has been thrown a lifeline by investment vehicles that are units of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Singapore.

Dubai International Capital Fund has acquired 3% of EADS, the parent of European commercial aircraft manufacturer Airbus, without triggering alarms but a significant stakebuilding by a Russian fund controlled from the Kremlin, would not be viewed benignly in Paris and Berlin.

The Wall Street Journal says that nine of the 10 biggest state-owned investment funds are arms of countries lacking full democratic rights -- China, Singapore, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Algeria and Libya. Oil rich Norway with its $341 billion fund, is the notable exception.

Last week, Prof Peter Morici gave testimony on Sovereign Wealth Funds to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which was created in 2000, to monitor, investigate, and submit to Congress an annual report on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, and to provide recommendations, where appropriate, to Congress for legislative and administrative action.

 

Statement to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission

Investments by Sovereign Wealth Funds in the United States

My name is Peter Morici. I am an economist and Professor of Business at the University of Maryland. Thank you for this opportunity to participate in these hearings. I will devote my remarks to the issues raised by the recent surge in investments by sovereign wealth funds in the United States.

What Is a Sovereign Wealth Fund?

In purest form, a sovereign wealth fund is a pool of resources, owned and/or controlled by a government, invested in public or private assets, including debt instruments, equities and direct investments in property.

Clearly, the China Investment Corporation (CIC) is an example of such an entity, but so too are national and subnational government interests in European industrial companies. In turn, the investments of CIC in Blackstone and European companies with part government ownership in U.S. companies would be examples of sovereign wealth investments in the United States.

Also, the California Pubic Employees' Retirement System (Calpers), which invests widely in equities, and similar foreign national and subnational government retirement systems around the world are sovereign investment funds. Those have holdings in U.S. companies.

My point is identifying sovereign wealth is usually easy, but identifying sovereign investments that should concern U.S. policymakers is difficult. Clearly, investments by the national government of China and its state controlled companies raise issues, but generalizing policy from those concerns is a tangle of string—pull one piece and you get more string than you anticipated.

U.S. and Foreign Government Policies

As a common law country and culture, much of U.S. policy must be deduced from piecemeal practice and by generalizing from fragments of legislation and policy directives. For example, the U.S. social security fund is not permitted to make private investments, in part, because Americans don't want the U.S. government engaged in allocating capital and influencing business decisions in the U.S. private enterprise system. However, U.S. state governments are permitted to do as they please—Calpers is a significant example, and it has not always been silent about the management of U.S. companies. The fact is, with its voting powers, it can't always be silent.

In contrast, in China and Europe, national and subnational governments make investments expressly for the purposes of promoting industries and affecting competitive international outcomes among businesses. Often, earning a decent return on capital is not a motivation; rather, the objective is creating employment or establishing a national presence in an industry that the market would not otherwise support.

Sometimes the results have strong and lasting effects on the U.S. economy through international commerce and competition. For example, Airbus is a strong competitor today, but McDonnell Douglas no longer exists as an independent entity.

Sovereign wealth fund investments could have the capacity to influence important U.S. investment decisions—the choice of location of major production facilities in the United States or abroad; similarly, the location of R&D facilities; and the structure of investments by U.S. firms that may compete with companies domiciled in the home countries of sovereign wealth funds.

For example, how would a major CIC investment in a major U.S. automaker affect the location of facilities to produce small cars that could be made and exported from China? Or the location of an auto design facility? Chinese inward foreign investment policies have already had such effects. Given the size of Chinese sovereign holdings of U.S. dollars seeking investment opportunities, those issues will quickly move from the hypothetical to tangible.

The influence of sovereign wealth on the U.S. economy through the political process is another issue that will soon emerge. New York banks are busy selling significant minority interests to sovereign wealth funds. The employees of those banks are significant sources of campaign contributions for both political parties, because those banks have large numbers of employees that may contribute the maximum amounts permitted under campaign financing laws.

Through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the U.S. government has the means to review and screen sovereign investments; however, the recent rush to invest in U.S. banks by sovereign funds and the CFIUS response provides yet further indication that that agency is fairly passive. It seems great public controversy and Congressional out cry are necessary, as was the case in the proposed Dubai Ports investments in the United States, to spring CFIUS into meaningful action.

Nevertheless, with the massive overseas holdings of dollars created by U.S. trade deficits and the intervention in currency markets by foreign central banks, investments by sovereign funds in the U.S. economy will present troubling issues. After all, why would the U.S. government permit a foreign sovereign fund to invest in U.S. companies and wield influence when it does not permit the U.S. social security fund to do the same?

Yet, with all the dollars the United States has chosen to print and leave abroad, it can hardly deny completely sovereign investments in the United States.

Shaping U.S. Policy

Clearly, some sovereign investments are more troubling or benign than others, and I believe the answers to two sets of questions should help in identifying investments that should be the focus of concern and perhaps screened out.

First, does the sovereign entity share U.S. values about the role of markets and state intervention in managing its national economy and the global economy?

In China for example, sovereign investments have the purpose of creating a socialist market economy, with specific industrialization objectives. Investments by these Chinese entities in U.S. companies pose much greater issues than, for example, investments by Canadian provincial government pension funds.

U.S. experience with large, direct sovereign investments, beyond pension funds, is limited. Investments by sovereign entities whose governments have announced specific goals to cultivate competitors to U.S. enterprises raise much more poignant issues than those whose purposes are to merely earn a profit to finance pensions.

Second, does the sovereign entity share U.S. political values or does it see itself in competition with the West?

China remains an autocratic state. The United States offers to the world democracy and markets, while China offers order and prosperity as justification for shunning democracy and controlling markets.

Large investments by such a government in the largest U.S. industrial financial institutions would create important concerns regarding the independent decision making of U.S. banks. The potential to compromise the allocation of large U.S. investments and the enduring independence of U.S. political figures should not be denied.

Investments could be denied in the United States by U.S. corporations or moved abroad to appease foreign minority interests, and U.S. banks could choose to allocate loans away from U.S. companies that compete with foreign companies favored by sovereign investors.

The United States has campaign finance laws, because Americans believe campaign money can influence legislation and public policy; hence, major holdings by sovereign funds in U.S. banks that are now emerging should be a focus of attention. It is hard to imagine that U.S. executives will not be sensitive to the political concerns of large shareholders when they choose candidates to support for public office.

An Awkward Corner

The United States is in a box.

By running up large trade deficits and tolerating foreign government intervention in currency markets, the United States has contributed to large dollar overhang abroad—much of it in the hands of sovereign funds. Investments by those funds in Treasury securities helped keep long-term interest rates artificially low, and helped facilitate the real estate bubble and subprime crisis now besetting U.S. banks.

U.S. banks, owing to questionable lending practices, need massive infusions of capital, which are difficult to find solely from domestic or private sources. We will likely hear from bankers in that foreign sovereign capital will not have any influences different from those of U.S. shareholders. However, we need ask why should foreign sovereign shareholders behave differently in the United States than they do at home? The Chinese government is not a neutral investor in China, and it should not be expect to be a neutral investor here.

Similarly, if the U.S. government wishes not to continue to have growing pressure from sovereign funds to invest in the United States, the U.S. government must finally address the massive U.S. trade deficit and foreign government intervention in currency markets that help finance sovereign investments. After all that is how these sovereign funds are amassing so many dollars to invest in the United States.

Peter Morici,

Professor,Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland,

College Park, MD 20742-1815,

703 549 4338 Phone

703 618 4338 Cell Phone

pmorici@rhsmith.umd.edu

http://www.smith.umd.edu/lbpp/faculty/morici.html

http://www.smith.umd.edu/faculty/pmorici/cv_pmorici.htm

Related Articles
Related Articles


© Copyright 2010 by Finfacts.com

Top of Page

Analysis/Comment
Latest Headlines
Disastrous 44-year War on Drugs and ignoring the evidence
HSBC & Tax Evasion: France/ Belgium issued criminal charges; UK/ Ireland nothing
Analysis: Germany world's top surplus economy; UK tops deficit ranks
Facts do not always change minds - can even entrench misinformed
Finfacts changes from 2015
Facts of 2014: Guinness not Irish; 110 people own 35% of Russia's wealth
In defence of dissent and Ireland's nattering nabobs of negativism
Dreams of European Growth: France and Italy facing pre-euro economic problems
Globalization's new normal needs permanent underclass - Part 1
MH17 and Gaza: who is responsible?
Israel vs Palestine: Colonization set for major expansion
Aviva Ireland's 'fund' runs dry and life cover to die for
We wish Martin Shanahan - new IDA Ireland chief - well but...
Ireland as an Organised Hypocrisy is in lots of company
Dr Peter Morici: Friday’s US jobs report won’t alter Fed plans to raise interest rates
Own Goal: Could FIFA have picked worse World Cup hosts?
Ireland: Spin and spending will not save bewildered Coalition
Irish Government parties set for 2-year vote buying spending spree
European Parliament: Vote No. 1 for Diarmuid O'Flynn in Ireland South
Dr Peter Morici: US April jobs report may show 215,000 added in April
Dr Peter Morici: Hardly time to call Obamacare a success
Celtic Tiger RIP: Change in conservative Ireland six years after crash
Dr Peter Morici: Five things to know about the Fed’s obsession with inflation
In age of acronym/ Google, Trinity to rebrand as 'Trinity College, the University of Dublin’
Hoeness case part of ‘painful’ change for Swiss bankers
Dr Peter Morici: The Cold War was only on vacation
Dr Peter Morici: US economy drags on Obama's approval ratings; Don’t look for changes in Washington
Dr Peter Morici: Bitcoin debacle shatters the myth of virtual money
Dr Peter Morici: US Tax Reform: Eliminate the income tax and IRS altogether
Wealth threatens the simple life in Gstaad, Switzerland
Irish journalists get cash payouts over 'homophobic' defamation claim
Irish academics get lavish pension top-ups as private pensions struggle
Dr Peter Morici: Inequality is President Obama’s highest priority, but solutions are naive
The Finfacts Troika: Better times ahead and a hangover to forget?
Dr Peter Morici: Volcker Rule arrives with the hidden jewel in Dodd-Frank financial reforms
Ireland's toothless fiscal watchdog threatens to bark
Analysis: Germany's current account surplus - - Part 2
The end of western affluence?
Bono's hypocrisy on Africa, corporate tax avoidance in Ireland
France like Ireland is run for the benefit of the old