As Pearls and Irritations blog points out, our SWF is tiny compared to most western nations with huge a natural resource endowment. Getting a fund of the same order of magnitude would require a resource rent tax and/or appropriately sized royalties which have been successfully fought off over the decades.
Norway's fund must not have investment holdings in its own country to avoid conflicts of interest. I would be interested to know what our policy is.
What fierce reaction? Apart from the two you mentioned I can't see much else response apart from their usual supporters repeating their sentiments.
A minor quibble, but when you say the fund invests in renewable projects etc, you might confuse some of us who think you are saying that the fund will buy shares in these projects and add them to the funds holdings to contribute TO revenue raised by the fund. What I think you mean is that revenue FROM fund will help pay for nation building projects and will be an investment in a broader sense with returns in tax revenue and less financial goals like a sustainable environment.
The Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis still lives, albeit weakly so. The weakest form of the ECMH holds that there is no remaining useful information in market prices. In other words, tomorrow's prices only reflect tomorrow's events, which of course can include random changes of sentiment or the consequences of various butterfly wings. To rephrase: Chartists are selling voodoo. I think that this is still generally believed.
It shouldn't be simply a matter of maxing out at the casino. Large funds like this have the potential to shift the needle by investing in social-environmentally-positive enterprises and divesting from polluters, human rights abusers, dealers in addiction and death, and tax dodgers.
Just like a lot of other govt run things, we should have kept the infrastructure and sold off the retail business, then we could have done what we wanted with the infrastructure
A few points:
As Pearls and Irritations blog points out, our SWF is tiny compared to most western nations with huge a natural resource endowment. Getting a fund of the same order of magnitude would require a resource rent tax and/or appropriately sized royalties which have been successfully fought off over the decades.
Norway's fund must not have investment holdings in its own country to avoid conflicts of interest. I would be interested to know what our policy is.
What fierce reaction? Apart from the two you mentioned I can't see much else response apart from their usual supporters repeating their sentiments.
A minor quibble, but when you say the fund invests in renewable projects etc, you might confuse some of us who think you are saying that the fund will buy shares in these projects and add them to the funds holdings to contribute TO revenue raised by the fund. What I think you mean is that revenue FROM fund will help pay for nation building projects and will be an investment in a broader sense with returns in tax revenue and less financial goals like a sustainable environment.
The Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis still lives, albeit weakly so. The weakest form of the ECMH holds that there is no remaining useful information in market prices. In other words, tomorrow's prices only reflect tomorrow's events, which of course can include random changes of sentiment or the consequences of various butterfly wings. To rephrase: Chartists are selling voodoo. I think that this is still generally believed.
Yes, weak form is still doing OK. But it has little or no relevance for policy.
“It is the norm, rather than the exception for such funds to take account of national policy objectives in their investment decisions.”
Appropriately so.
Chalmers says that one of these national objectives is addressing climate change.
I sarcastically posit that this is not a genuine objective of the LNP.
It shouldn't be simply a matter of maxing out at the casino. Large funds like this have the potential to shift the needle by investing in social-environmentally-positive enterprises and divesting from polluters, human rights abusers, dealers in addiction and death, and tax dodgers.
Just like a lot of other govt run things, we should have kept the infrastructure and sold off the retail business, then we could have done what we wanted with the infrastructure