as for your point, I would note that many emerging market central banks and SWFs don’t seem to want hedge funds to disclose the amount of sovereign money that they manage, or seem to want to push the hedge funds that they have invested in to disclose more about their portfolios. EMs are now in a position where they could use their financial leverage to change the regulatory regime if they so wanted. the CIC supposedly has put some money into a set of hedge funds.

more generally, i think the core question — setting aside the point that those managing public money should be able to explain how they are managing the public’s money to their own citizens — is whether the right regulatory regime for sovereign investment is the same as the right regulatory regime for private investment, or whether sovereigns are special. I would note that public money in the US usually is managed very transparently (see truman’s paper). And I think the only viable system for managing a massive increase in sov. investment in the us equities is one that brings that money into harmony with existing us domestic practice, even if that means EM sovereigns have to change. Yes, that means the US is pushing people around a bit, but the US never wanted this much sovereign asset growth …

Rogers: I moved to Asia because my daughters are going to grow up in the 21st Century, and I think they’re better off in Asia than in the U.S. They’re certainly better off at least knowing about Asia … knowing Mandarin. No matter what happens to them, they certainly could spend their whole lives in the U.S., but I want them to have the exposure to – and the knowledge of – what’s happening in Asia because, in my view, Asia’s certainly the future.

And I think that anybody born in 2003 or 2008 needs to understand Asia. They need to understand America, too, but I cannot give my wife Paige and our children that knowledge [of Asia while] living in New York, or anywhere in America. I can only give them that that knowledge and skill living in Asia. So here we are!

http://www.handelsblatt.com/News/Boerse/Rohstoffe-Devisen/_pv/_p/203855/_t/ft/_b/1417475/default.aspx/eine-region%2c-eine-waehrung.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=amNSWi_QJPsc&refer=asia

China’s GDP May Grow 10.4% in First Quarter

Gross domestic product rose 10.4 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier, according to the median estimate of 24 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, after expanding 11.2 percent in the previous three months. The statistics bureau is due to release the figure at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow.

If Korea can offer this kind of detailed disclosure, I don’t see why others cannot follow suit.

The real question to me is, "Why should large reserve accumulators be obligated to disclose more?" This is an almost tired analogy, but why should LDCs be required to disclose more when hedge funds in the US are not even being asked by the US Treasury to disclose more through regulation?

Speaking of South Korea and hedge funds, it’s the same deal with the policy response from the IMF in the wake of the housing bubble – excess foreign borrowing is bad when done by Korean firms, but it’s OK when the US floods the system with more liquidity:

The Committee welcomes the actions taken by the central banks of the advanced economies to provide liquidity support to ease strains in interbank markets, and calls for continued vigilance to deal with the financial turmoil.

I think Sammy the beggar should just shut up and be glad that it can still con so many into this rip-off game, although they appear to be wising up a bit.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ip4B8SRWMnW5jyh2_90n4h2Tg5Ow

The Daily Telegraph reported earlier Tuesday that a Chinese state-linked investment fund had built up a BP stake worth almost 1.0 billion pounds (1.24 billion euros, 1.96 billion dollars). The paper, which did not cite its source, also reported that the same Chinese fund was behind the purchase of a 1.0-percent stake in French oil and gas group Total earlier this month.