'Sovereign wealth fund maybe good for US, but not India'

Image
Press Trust Of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Jan 20 2013 | 8:47 PM IST

Warning that capital flows can reverse, a Sebi study said India should not set up a sovereign wealth fund (SWF) using the high foreign exchange reserves hovering around $250 billion.

"India's foreign exchange reserves are built on capital account inflows and hence it is subject to capital flight ... funding an SWF from capital account surplus is risky since the capital flows can reverse their direction any time," said a report prepared by officials of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi).

A Sebi official, however, said that the views expressed in the report were of the authors and not of the regulator.

SWFs are government-controlled pools of assets designed as a vehicle of foreign portfolio investment. These funds invest in a large array of assets for a relatively longer time horizon. Arguing against setting up of an SWF by India, the report, appearing in the market regulator's April bulletin, said in the absence of a proper management in place, "the SWFs could be misled to promote domestic political or foreign policy objectives, which contradict with the guidelines of Santiago principles."

The Santiago principles lay down the code of conduct for transparent and non-political functioning of SWFs.

The study also raised concerns about "corruption or even underperformance" due to mismanagement of SWFs.

Meanwhile, while giving a clean chit to SWFs, the report said the US should welcome such investments from foreign governments to defend the home economy, particularly amid the grim global outlook.

"When the protagonist of capitalism (the United States) is in danger and the US government is funding the corporate sector through bail-out packages, SWFs should not be treated as untouchable," it said.

In many west European countries and the US, it is widely believed that the governments through SWFs are not only looking for economic benefits but may be attempting to achieve political influence as well.

However, the report said, "... There are no evidences so far to suggest political or other motive behind investments by SWFs in other countries."

Increased protectionism in the form of different restrictions on the activities of SWFs is not going to benefit the recipient as well as the investor countries, the report added.

 

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: May 05 2009 | 12:48 AM IST

Next Story