atans1

Posts Tagged ‘SWFs’

Our SWFs: Learn from the Arabs?

In GIC, Temasek on 12/05/2010 at 5:39 am

Ahmad al-Sayed, chief executive of Qatar Holding, told the Financial Times that the acquisition of Harrods was part of a strategy to acquire “prestigious top-performing businesses and to buy them at the right point in the cycle”.

Qatar Holding is the primary vehicle for Qater’s strategic and direct investments. It is an arm of Qatar Investment Authority (QIA), which was founded in 2005 to strengthen its economy by diversifying into new asset classes.

Temasek’s investment strategy centres around four themes:

• Transforming Economies

- We invest in industry sectors that correlate with the economic transformation of the country

• Growing Middle Income Populations

- We find opportunities in companies and industries whose growth is fuelled by the increasing purchasing power of middle income populations

• Deepening Comparative Advantages

- We tap the potential of competitively-positioned companies

• Emerging Champions

- We identify companies proving to be best-in-class, be it regionally or globally.

GIC simply says, The group strives to achieve good long-term returns on assets under our management, to preserve and enhance Singapore’s reserves.

Note nothing about trying to time investments. Maybe thaz why they messed up big-time on Merrill Lynch, Citi and UBS. Even MM admitted that much saying they went into too early into financials.

Now Qatar’s  track record is not that great either: but at least it sets out a benchmark on which it can be judged.And it shows it is aware of the importance of timing.

BTW a lot of Buffett’s skill is in knowing when to be greedy.

GIC’s strategy is

SWFs’ big equities bets underperform

In GIC, Investments, Temasek, Uncategorized on 01/05/2010 at 6:16 am

Companies do badly after foreign sovereign wealth funds buy their shares, according to”Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment Patterns and Performance” by Bernardo Bortolotti, Veljko Fotak and William Megginson, reports the FT.

When an SWF invests, the target company’s share price often jumps in the days surrounding the investment, the research found, but over the following year or two, the share price significantly underperforms its peer group.

SWFs usually take significant stakes in companies – the median stake, according to the research, is 8%, the average 14% – and frequently buy the shares directly from the companies rather than on the open market. After two years, the average investment had lagged its peers by 10%.

“They’re giving cash to the companies and taking a large passive stake. All the literature shows this is a bad idea,” said Prof Megginson. The exception that proves the rule is the Norwegian Government Pension Fund, which makes small scale investments in publicly traded shares.

When its results are stripped out of the data, the negative impact of SWF investment looks worse, with an average underperformance of 13.55%.

The findings support the academics’ “Constrained Foreign Investor Hypothesis”, which predicts that foreign investors, particularly SWFs, will find it difficult to hold directors of companies to account because political considerations make them reluctant to antagonise management.

Political concerns may also deter them from selling shares in companies that are not performing according to expectations, removing another possible feedback mechanism that might improve the management of a company.

The underperformance that follows such passive ownership is a problem for other shareholders as well, said MrPeter Butler, chief executive of Governance for Owners.

“It’s the free-rider problem. SWFs are relying on other shareholders [being engaged owners] and holding directors to account. Either they get something for nothing, or nobody does it and the shareholders suffer,” Mr Butler said.

The new research will likely cause some debate, particularly as it flatly contradicts other studies that showed companies benefiting from SWF investment. Nuno Fernandes, professor of finance at IMD and a Lamfalussy research fellow of the European Central Bank, recently published a paper showing SWF investments led to a significant outperformance by the company. Prof Fernandes reported that further research led him to conclude SWFs were actually very good at monitoring companies where they had invested, as well as opening up new markets for the companies and helping them lower the cost of capital.

So Temasek and GIC be warned.

A Contrarian Trade or Betting against SWFs?

In Energy, GIC, Temasek on 29/12/2009 at 5:43 am

Maybe it is time to buy the banks? Like John Paulson who is long BoA (Remember he correctly predicted the sub-prime credit crisis in 2007. That reaped him a US$3 billion profit.)

In a story from Fortune: “The next wave of sovereign wealth fund investments is likely to look very different from the flurry that occurred before the crisis. For one, the funds have drastically cut back on banking assets. Just 16% of the deals they made this year involved the financial sector, down from 48% in 2008, according to Barclays data. (Remember Temasek’s and GIC’s investments in Merrill Lynch (BoA), Barclays and UBS; and Temasek’s sales of BoA and Barclays.  GIC  only made wagga($) on Citi and it could get diluted there on its remaining holdings.)

And short or sell natural resources.

“Meanwhile, including China Development Bank, which received a capital boost from China Investment Corp., more than 50% of sovereign wealth funds’ investments were in the natural resources sector, up from a mere 8% the year before. Huey Evans points to the Chinese government’s investments in Rosneft and Petrobras (PZE), oil companies that agreed to send the country fuel in exchange for loans.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 186 other followers