_
Le Quotidien d'Oran, mercredi 20 février 2008
C’est donc l’Australie qui, la première, vient d’ouvrir le feu sur les fonds souverains qui persisteraient à rester sourds aux critiques et mises en garde les concernant à propos de leur opacité. En effet, Canberra vient d’édicter six règles destinées à «améliorer la transparence» des investissements étrangers réalisés sur son sol. L’un des points les plus importants concerne le fait que les autorités australiennes examineront de près le niveau d’autonomie du fonds souverain vis-à-vis du gouvernement de son pays. On comprend le souci des dirigeants australiens. S’ils ne refusent aucun investissement étranger, ils souhaitent tout de même avoir un droit de regard sur les entrées de capitaux qui seraient motivées par une décision politique extérieure.
Cette exigence résume à elle seule le grand bras de fer qui se profile entre, d’une part, les nations industrialisées et, de l’autre, les fonds souverains arabes, russe et asiatiques. Les premières aimeraient que les seconds soient plus transparents, rendent publics leurs avoirs, détaillent leurs stratégies d’investissement et ne taisent pas leurs opérations. Autant de «demandes» que les fonds souverains considèrent comme une atteinte à leur liberté d’autant que d’autres investisseurs, à commencer par les fonds spéculatifs ou «hedge funds», ne se voient imposer aucune contrainte. De même, ne comprennent-ils pas cette soudaine levée de boucliers alors qu’ils existent, pour certains d’entre eux, depuis plusieurs décennies.
En fait, c’est bien parce que les fonds souverains ont changé qu’ils inquiètent. Jusqu’à ces dernières années, ils investissaient leurs avoirs dans des placements sûrs et peu risqués à l’image des bons du Trésor américains voire européens (notamment le «bund» allemand). Mais leur stratégie a quelque peu changé depuis le début du siècle. Ces fonds n’hésitent plus à faire leurs emplettes sur des segments un peu plus risqués mais a priori plus rémunérateurs comme le marché boursier ou celui des changes. Deux environnements jugés stratégiques par les nations industrialisées.
Pour ce qui est des Bourses, la crainte est que des fonds souverains opèrent un contrôle rampant des fleurons des économies industrialisées. Une telle peur s’est par exemple matérialisée lorsque le fonds souverain d’Abu Dhabi (Abu Dhabi Investment Authority ou Adia) a déboursé plus de 7 milliards de dollars pour acquérir 4,9% du capital de Citigroup, la première banque américaine. A l’époque, de nombreuses informations ont fait état du fait que Adia aurait souhaité prendre une part plus grande dans «Citi» mais qu’il a renoncé parce que toute acquisition de plus 5% du capital de la banque aurait permis à la Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC, le gendarme boursier américain) de mettre son nez dans la transaction.
Face aux critiques, les fonds souverains arabes ont des réponses quelque peu différentes. Celui du Koweït, l’un des plus anciens au monde puisqu’il a été créé en 1953, met en avant sa relative transparence et son fonctionnement autonome vis-à-vis des autorités politiques. Il faut dire que ce fonds a connu une cuisante expérience lorsqu’il avait tenté de prendre le contrôle du pétrolier britannique BP dans les années 1990 avant de faire machine arrière face au refus de Margaret Tatcher d’accepter une telle opération. Quant aux autres fonds, qu’il s’agisse de celui d’Abu Dhabi, de Dubaï ou du Qatar, ils ne peuvent guère se targuer de leur transparence et encore moins d’une autonomie par rapport aux familles régnantes. En effet, il est toujours difficile de faire la part des choses entre les avoirs du fonds et ceux des dirigeants.
Du coup, ces fonds avancent un autre argument assez convaincant. Ils répètent à l’envi que leurs investissements sont destinés à préparer l’après-pétrole et qu’il ne s’agit pour eux en aucune façon de prendre le contrôle des économies occidentales. Une manière intelligente de se différencier d’autres fonds, notamment russe et chinois, qui eux ne cachent guère leur volonté de s’imposer en tant que bras armés de leurs gouvernements.
Akram Belkaïd
mercredi 20 février 2008
FT : Setting rules for sovereign wealth
_
February 18 2008 18:54
The timing looks suspicious. Australia may well have been looking at how to deal with sovereign wealth funds before this month’s $14bn dawn raid by the Chinese state-owned mining company, Chinalco, on shares in Rio Tinto, the Anglo-Australian mining group. But the six principles set out by Canberra for subjecting state-controlled investors to greater scrutiny are as much a result of its desire to protect strategic assets as they are a model of corporate governance.
The proposed screening programme will look at whether a sovereign fund investing in an Australian company operates at arm’s length from its government. Financing and governance arrangements will be examined too.
The emergence of sovereign wealth funds, some controlling the vast foreign exchange reserves of oil-rich Middle East nations, has been beneficial for the target companies in which they have invested. US banks suffering the effects of the global credit squeeze have been able to tap desperately needed capital. Many funds, moreover, are sophisticated, long-term investors, less sensitive than private equity and hedge funds to volatility in financial markets.
But the political influence these funds could wield, if they acquired controlling interests, raises valid concerns. Especially when so few funds publish even management structures or investment objectives.
For Australia, whose economic boom is founded on strong Asian demand for its natural resources, this lack of transparency is a problem. China is one of Rio’s biggest customers. It has every right to invest in an industry on which it depends. Equally, Canberra may be justified in raising pressure on the Chinese to be more open. But it is also in Australia’s interest to be seen to behave fairly.
In drawing up individual rules for dealing with sovereign funds, the risk for recipient nations is that they lose the goodwill of investing countries. A much better course is to draw up a global code of conduct.
Work has started on this. The International Monetary Fund has already asked Singapore, Norway and Abu Dhabi to come up with disclosure benchmarks for sovereign wealth funds. Levels of transparency vary. Abu Dhabi’s fund does not disclose even the amount of assets it controls, let alone how it is run. Norway’s fund has exemplary disclosure standards.
If adopted widely, the Norwegian approach could eliminate the need for national regulation and act as a stabilising force in financial markets. It promises better results than a descent into protectionism.
_
February 18 2008 18:54
The timing looks suspicious. Australia may well have been looking at how to deal with sovereign wealth funds before this month’s $14bn dawn raid by the Chinese state-owned mining company, Chinalco, on shares in Rio Tinto, the Anglo-Australian mining group. But the six principles set out by Canberra for subjecting state-controlled investors to greater scrutiny are as much a result of its desire to protect strategic assets as they are a model of corporate governance.
The proposed screening programme will look at whether a sovereign fund investing in an Australian company operates at arm’s length from its government. Financing and governance arrangements will be examined too.
The emergence of sovereign wealth funds, some controlling the vast foreign exchange reserves of oil-rich Middle East nations, has been beneficial for the target companies in which they have invested. US banks suffering the effects of the global credit squeeze have been able to tap desperately needed capital. Many funds, moreover, are sophisticated, long-term investors, less sensitive than private equity and hedge funds to volatility in financial markets.
But the political influence these funds could wield, if they acquired controlling interests, raises valid concerns. Especially when so few funds publish even management structures or investment objectives.
For Australia, whose economic boom is founded on strong Asian demand for its natural resources, this lack of transparency is a problem. China is one of Rio’s biggest customers. It has every right to invest in an industry on which it depends. Equally, Canberra may be justified in raising pressure on the Chinese to be more open. But it is also in Australia’s interest to be seen to behave fairly.
In drawing up individual rules for dealing with sovereign funds, the risk for recipient nations is that they lose the goodwill of investing countries. A much better course is to draw up a global code of conduct.
Work has started on this. The International Monetary Fund has already asked Singapore, Norway and Abu Dhabi to come up with disclosure benchmarks for sovereign wealth funds. Levels of transparency vary. Abu Dhabi’s fund does not disclose even the amount of assets it controls, let alone how it is run. Norway’s fund has exemplary disclosure standards.
If adopted widely, the Norwegian approach could eliminate the need for national regulation and act as a stabilising force in financial markets. It promises better results than a descent into protectionism.
_
FT : Australia to step up scrutinity of wealth funds
_
Financial Times, Tuesday February 19, 2008
Peter Smith, in Sidney with additional reporting by Henry Sender in New York.
Australia is to step up its scrutinity of investments made by sovereign wealth funds in what is believed to be the first case of a coutry taking concrete action to vet the activities of increasingly prominent investors.
The government published six principles it said were intended to "enhance transparency of Australia's foreign investment screening regime".
The country will in future consider wether "an investor's operations are independent from the relevant foreign government". In keeping with that principle, its Foreign Investment Review Board will consider whether prospective investors operate at arm's length from the government.
This couldprove challenging for many sovereign wealth funds. With the notable exception of Kuwait, most Middle Eastern sovereign funds receive allocations of money and make investments at the behest of ruling families. There is little distinction between these families' private wealth and public money.
Sovereign wealth funds, large governments investment vehicles, have been in existence for decades, but have attracted attention after a string of high profile investments in banks on both sides of the Atlantic.
In Australia, a company owned by Aluminium Corporation of China, the state-owned aluminium group, and Alcoa of the US, recently spent $14bn to buy 9% of Rio Tinto, the Anglo-Australian mining group that has rejected a hostile $147bn offer from rival BHP Billiton.
Wayne Swan, Australia's treasurer, said the rules were not aimed at China. A top Chinese official last mounth said the developed world should not discriminate against funds from developing nations or subject them to "financial protectionism".
_
Financial Times, Tuesday February 19, 2008
Peter Smith, in Sidney with additional reporting by Henry Sender in New York.
Australia is to step up its scrutinity of investments made by sovereign wealth funds in what is believed to be the first case of a coutry taking concrete action to vet the activities of increasingly prominent investors.
The government published six principles it said were intended to "enhance transparency of Australia's foreign investment screening regime".
The country will in future consider wether "an investor's operations are independent from the relevant foreign government". In keeping with that principle, its Foreign Investment Review Board will consider whether prospective investors operate at arm's length from the government.
This couldprove challenging for many sovereign wealth funds. With the notable exception of Kuwait, most Middle Eastern sovereign funds receive allocations of money and make investments at the behest of ruling families. There is little distinction between these families' private wealth and public money.
Sovereign wealth funds, large governments investment vehicles, have been in existence for decades, but have attracted attention after a string of high profile investments in banks on both sides of the Atlantic.
In Australia, a company owned by Aluminium Corporation of China, the state-owned aluminium group, and Alcoa of the US, recently spent $14bn to buy 9% of Rio Tinto, the Anglo-Australian mining group that has rejected a hostile $147bn offer from rival BHP Billiton.
Wayne Swan, Australia's treasurer, said the rules were not aimed at China. A top Chinese official last mounth said the developed world should not discriminate against funds from developing nations or subject them to "financial protectionism".
_
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)