<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sovereign loss funds &#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:40:10 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rockon</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/#comment-134515</link>
		<dc:creator>Rockon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4199#comment-134515</guid>
		<description>I would not worry about the ADIAs of this world, save your ammunition for the experts at Calpers.. Well, of course, off limits for the CFR.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would not worry about the ADIAs of this world, save your ammunition for the experts at Calpers.. Well, of course, off limits for the CFR.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: econ.kz &#183; Суверенные фонды несут потери</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/#comment-122072</link>
		<dc:creator>econ.kz &#183; Суверенные фонды несут потери</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:05:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4199#comment-122072</guid>
		<description>[...] политикой соответствующего суверенного фонда, но в среднем суверенные фонды инвестируют около половины.... Это объясняется тем, что несмотря на периодические [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] политикой соответствующего суверенного фонда, но в среднем суверенные фонды инвестируют около половины&#8230;. Это объясняется тем, что несмотря на периодические [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Personal Effects &#187; Blog Archive &#187; it quacks! it waddles! its a DUCK!</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/#comment-120419</link>
		<dc:creator>Personal Effects &#187; Blog Archive &#187; it quacks! it waddles! its a DUCK!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4199#comment-120419</guid>
		<description>[...] brad setser says theres a good chance, if u got 500b of investment, u wld have lost 90-140 of it..hahaha..think temasek and gic! : http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] brad setser says theres a good chance, if u got 500b of investment, u wld have lost 90-140 of it..hahaha..think temasek and gic! : <a href="http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bsetser</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/#comment-120381</link>
		<dc:creator>bsetser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:30:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4199#comment-120381</guid>
		<description>fair point re: the funds of funds of some european/ swiss banks.  they certainly could be managing some SWF money.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>fair point re: the funds of funds of some european/ swiss banks.  they certainly could be managing some SWF money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Preachy Preach</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/#comment-120372</link>
		<dc:creator>Preachy Preach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:54:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4199#comment-120372</guid>
		<description>The following anecdote, I think, exemplifies the few years I spent having a signficant Middle-Eastern SWF as a client. Some details slightly amended to preserve the guilty.

The purchase of a high-profile leisure facility. The man we were dealing with on the transaction side admitted that, while he had not changed his job, he had been part of six different reporting lines in eighteen months. The closing meeting where the valuation professional brought in had looked at room occupancy rates, what the market would bear in terms of service charges, location of said facility, etc. and came up with a valuation in the range of, say, 50-75m. There was significant IP inherent in this facilities brand name. An IP expert at the same meeting reckoned that if every last drop of goodwill was wringed out of the worth of this name (something the current owners simply weren&#039;t doing), this IP was worth, at most, 25m.

At the end of the meeting, the valuation expert actually had to stand up and point out, explicitly, to the SWF representatives that the price on the table was 100m. There was a polite, but conclusive, dismissal of this point. No matter how bad the investment looked (and the other side were reaming them on every single point in the transaction I was aware of), they were going to go ahead with it, come hell or high water.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The following anecdote, I think, exemplifies the few years I spent having a signficant Middle-Eastern SWF as a client. Some details slightly amended to preserve the guilty.</p>
<p>The purchase of a high-profile leisure facility. The man we were dealing with on the transaction side admitted that, while he had not changed his job, he had been part of six different reporting lines in eighteen months. The closing meeting where the valuation professional brought in had looked at room occupancy rates, what the market would bear in terms of service charges, location of said facility, etc. and came up with a valuation in the range of, say, 50-75m. There was significant IP inherent in this facilities brand name. An IP expert at the same meeting reckoned that if every last drop of goodwill was wringed out of the worth of this name (something the current owners simply weren&#8217;t doing), this IP was worth, at most, 25m.</p>
<p>At the end of the meeting, the valuation expert actually had to stand up and point out, explicitly, to the SWF representatives that the price on the table was 100m. There was a polite, but conclusive, dismissal of this point. No matter how bad the investment looked (and the other side were reaming them on every single point in the transaction I was aware of), they were going to go ahead with it, come hell or high water.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rien Huizer</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/#comment-120351</link>
		<dc:creator>Rien Huizer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:13:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4199#comment-120351</guid>
		<description>Brad, 

Point taken,(see also reply to Canned Heat)! Re Madoff, it appears that the losses (whatever they may turn out to be) are not so much losses by banks acting as principal, but as agent for their private banking clients. They may rsult from client claims and especially from loans made against Madoff collateral. Looks like the sort of money machines built out of CDO assets and money market liabilities the banks had on their own off-balancesheet balance sheets. Who knows what CIC&#039;s subsidiaries (the state banks) my have done . Bright Sparks flying!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brad, </p>
<p>Point taken,(see also reply to Canned Heat)! Re Madoff, it appears that the losses (whatever they may turn out to be) are not so much losses by banks acting as principal, but as agent for their private banking clients. They may rsult from client claims and especially from loans made against Madoff collateral. Looks like the sort of money machines built out of CDO assets and money market liabilities the banks had on their own off-balancesheet balance sheets. Who knows what CIC&#8217;s subsidiaries (the state banks) my have done . Bright Sparks flying!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rien Huizer</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/#comment-120349</link>
		<dc:creator>Rien Huizer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:06:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4199#comment-120349</guid>
		<description>Canned Heat,

Looks like you know a little more than most of us. Once again, some of these funds (ADIA used as a generic term for large money with some sovereign or ruling family flavor and managed far from the public eye) should be able to act more opportunistically than a very bureaucratic public pension fund, but of course the extent to which they do, is as unknown (except to people who know a little more). And, yes, honor and shame can be important components of their inventive structures. And of course the only visible evidence (visible from space by now) of less than conservative investment is the UAE construction site called Dubai. Anyway, I should not have brought it up..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Canned Heat,</p>
<p>Looks like you know a little more than most of us. Once again, some of these funds (ADIA used as a generic term for large money with some sovereign or ruling family flavor and managed far from the public eye) should be able to act more opportunistically than a very bureaucratic public pension fund, but of course the extent to which they do, is as unknown (except to people who know a little more). And, yes, honor and shame can be important components of their inventive structures. And of course the only visible evidence (visible from space by now) of less than conservative investment is the UAE construction site called Dubai. Anyway, I should not have brought it up..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Canned Heat</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/#comment-120342</link>
		<dc:creator>Canned Heat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4199#comment-120342</guid>
		<description>As someone who knows a little (not a lot) about how these SWF are invested, they are no better than the typical US public pension plan.  Except for the Saudis, which have a Swiss mentality about investing, they have 50% or more in equity and had been upping their hedge fund and private equity allocations for several years.  The Middle Eastern ones are headed by connected family members and, since these are shame and honor societies, the goal is to reach consensus and keep egregious mistakes hidden.  Westerners are hired to make most of the investment decisions--there simply aren&#039;t enough trained Middle Easterners to do the job.  The European and Asian SWFs are more technocratic and have enough local talent to run them decently.  
There is nothing special that they are doing.  They are no different than any other large pot of money managed for or by a country or a US state--they have no special advantage.  Size allows them to lower costs in terms of percentage of assets, but it also takes away any ability to be nimble.  The end result is a lot spent on governance (which is very necessary--the worst thing that could happen would be if the money were stolen) with little to no alpha to show for it.  They also have no special insight into the world.
Central banks funds are different.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As someone who knows a little (not a lot) about how these SWF are invested, they are no better than the typical US public pension plan.  Except for the Saudis, which have a Swiss mentality about investing, they have 50% or more in equity and had been upping their hedge fund and private equity allocations for several years.  The Middle Eastern ones are headed by connected family members and, since these are shame and honor societies, the goal is to reach consensus and keep egregious mistakes hidden.  Westerners are hired to make most of the investment decisions&#8211;there simply aren&#8217;t enough trained Middle Easterners to do the job.  The European and Asian SWFs are more technocratic and have enough local talent to run them decently.<br />
There is nothing special that they are doing.  They are no different than any other large pot of money managed for or by a country or a US state&#8211;they have no special advantage.  Size allows them to lower costs in terms of percentage of assets, but it also takes away any ability to be nimble.  The end result is a lot spent on governance (which is very necessary&#8211;the worst thing that could happen would be if the money were stolen) with little to no alpha to show for it.  They also have no special insight into the world.<br />
Central banks funds are different.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Judy Yeo</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/#comment-120338</link>
		<dc:creator>Judy Yeo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:09:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4199#comment-120338</guid>
		<description>aww, brad, they probably did in some form, after all most of the &quot;smart&quot; banks did invest in madoff, this isn&#039;t a comment on their &quot;smarts&quot; as the times has reminded its readers
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article5348653.ece

in fact, didn&#039;t spielberg have some exposure too? boy, in such times you really got to wonder if the old boys club atmosphere of banking has really taken on new aspects?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>aww, brad, they probably did in some form, after all most of the &#8220;smart&#8221; banks did invest in madoff, this isn&#8217;t a comment on their &#8220;smarts&#8221; as the times has reminded its readers<br />
 <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article5348653.ece" rel="nofollow">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article5348653.ece</a></p>
<p>in fact, didn&#8217;t spielberg have some exposure too? boy, in such times you really got to wonder if the old boys club atmosphere of banking has really taken on new aspects?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sovereign Wealth Funds = Sovereign Loss Funds&#8230;For Now. &#171; HEC Paris Private Equity and Venture Capital Club Blog</title>
		<link>http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/14/sovereign-loss-funds/#comment-120330</link>
		<dc:creator>Sovereign Wealth Funds = Sovereign Loss Funds&#8230;For Now. &#171; HEC Paris Private Equity and Venture Capital Club Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:56:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4199#comment-120330</guid>
		<description>[...] Wealth Funds = Sovereign Loss Funds&#8230;For&#160;Now.  Here&#8217;s an excellent post from Brad Sester&#8217;s blog &#8220;Follow the Money&#8221; from the Council on [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Wealth Funds = Sovereign Loss Funds&#8230;For&nbsp;Now.  Here&#8217;s an excellent post from Brad Sester&#8217;s blog &#8220;Follow the Money&#8221; from the Council on [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
