Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute

Investing in new energy infrastructure is a blossoming area for many sovereign investors. There are numerous risks inherent in these types of projects such as political risk, financing risk, and developmental risk. In the past, the China Investment Corporation (CIC) has invested in AES Corp. stock. AES Corp. and the CIC have partnered strategically and financially. Recently, the CIC and AES Corp have partnered in a Vietnamese infrastructure project. By partnering with the China Investment Corporation and Posco, AES Corp has lowered political risk in the project, since the deal is involving foreign governmental investors.  Vietnam has a growing economy in which energy demand has exceeded supply. Energy generation capacity is trailing behind demand.

After completion this will be the biggest private sector power plant in Vietnam and will set precedence for future foreign investment in Vietnamese infrastructure.

[Content protected for Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute Standard subscribers only. Please subscribe to view site content.]

[Content protected for Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute Standard subscribers only. Please subscribe to view site content.]

The Vietnam News Agency reports, “CapitaLand Viet Nam Investments Pte Ltd (CVI) has entered into a US$200 million joint venture with Japan’s Mitsubishi Estate Asia Pte Ltd (MEA) and an affiliate of GIC Real Estate, the real estate investment arm of Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, to invest in prime real estate development projects in HCM City and Ha Noi. CVI, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CapitaLand (Viet Nam) Holdings Pte Ltd, will take up a 50-per- cent stake in the joint venture, while the balance will be held in equal proportions by MEA and the affiliate of GIC Real Estate.

MEA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mitsubishi Estate Company Limited. CVI will inject a pipeline of projects into the joint venture, while CapitaLand will undertake project management for these projects. The first project will be an approximately 34,000sq.m site located in HCM City’s Thanh My Loi Ward in District 2.

The first phase of this project will be a residential development that will offer 962 apartments supported by approximately 7,700sq.m of retail space.”

Read more: VNA

[Content protected for Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute Standard subscribers only. Please subscribe to view site content.]

We have all witnessed the trend of some sovereign wealth funds raising private capital or creating sovereign wealth enterprises to act as an investment manager for private funds.  This article is to bring some clarity on why a number of funds are doing this.  With Mubadala raising $1.85 billion in medium term notes, Temasek Holdings multiple debt raises in denominated in multiple currencies, and Mumtalakat Holdings bond offering, it shows that SWFs are using their assets, not just their cash as an investment.

First off, most SWFs that are raising capital are the types of sovereign wealth funds that take large stakes in companies.  In addition, SWFs that hold large portions of their domestic industry would be the type of funds to engage in this behavior.  We most likely would not see the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority or the Norwegian GPFG raise capital or take on bank loans.  In some instances, SWFs experience shrinkage of money flows from their respective government; money in the private markets backed by SWF assets can increase their stability and investment performance.[Content protected for Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute Standard subscribers only. Please subscribe to view site content.]

[Content protected for Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute Standard subscribers only. Please subscribe to view site content.]

VNS states that “state equity in former State-owned enterprises that have been equitised remains poorly managed due to the overlapping authority of ministries and provincial governments, State Capital Investment Corporation deputy director Le Song Lai told a conference last week on management of state assets.

‘Even in equitised firms, ministries and provincial authorities still intervene in management, which undermines corporate governance and results in a lack of professionalism and accountability,’ Lai said.

The authorized representative of State capital in many of these enterprises has not been identified, said Tran Tien Cuong, director of the enterprise policy research department of Central Institute for Economic Management, with the result that a number of agencies, organisations and individuals were involved simultaneously in exercising State ownership rights. Too often, these agencies were exercising rights that, in fact, belonged to another agency, Cuong said.”

read more: VNS

[Content protected for Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute Standard subscribers only. Please subscribe to view site content.]

[Content protected for Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute Standard subscribers only. Please subscribe to view site content.]

[Content protected for Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute Standard subscribers only. Please subscribe to view site content.]