Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (24325)	3/6/2008 11:29:07 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

California's Sovereign Wealth Fund By BENN STEIL March 7, 2008 Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt recently spelled out a few policy principles for sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), the most important of which was this: "Invest commercially, not politically." Mr. Kimmitt's concern is that "governments could conceivably employ large pools of capital in noncommercially driven ways that are politically sensitive." Anyone interested in evidence of such behavior needn't look beyond America's borders. If California were a national economy, it would be the eighth largest in the world. And its Public Employees' Retirement System, Calpers, with $259 billion in assets, would rank fifth among the world's SWFs. Combine it with the $169 billion California State Teachers' Retirement System (Calstrs), and California runs the second largest SWF in the world, just behind the United Arab Emirates. Calpers is a political entity in every sense of the word. Its board is comprised of four members of the state political hierarchy, two appointees of the governor, one appointee of the legislature and six elected members -- all six of whom have long ties to organized labor, including the board president, Rob Feckner, who is also executive vice president of the California Labor Federation. Calpers's investment policies are politically driven, often dictated by the legislature, and even involve foreign policy goals. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to tame the behemoth in 2005 by forcing public employees to join a defined-contribution pension plan. But he was driven into retreat by strong union opposition, and last October he joined the effort to politicize investments by signing legislation to force Calpers and Calstrs to divest about $3.4 billion in stock of companies that do business in Iran. A Calpers spokesman estimated the likely divestment transaction costs to fundholders to be about $17.8 million. In total, investment politics have cost fundholders vastly more in recent years. Restrictions on the investments Calpers can make in developing countries have cost the fund approximately $410 million, according to a staff memo issued last year. That's equal to 2.6 percentage points in returns. The staff has long bristled at political interference, but their concerns are perhaps better viewed as economic interference with the state's foreign policy agenda. Developing-country investment restrictions based on political factors and labor practices began in earnest in 2002 under the direction of then-state treasurer and Calpers board member Phil Angelides. These quickly put 14 of 27 such countries examined by Calpers off limits. When the Philippines was proposed for exclusion in 2004, its stock market and currency plunged. Spurred into action by the Philippine ambassador and heeding a call from Sacramento priests, six busloads of Filipino-Americans besieged a Calpers investment meeting, forcing officials into an embarrassing volte face. Mr. Angelides nonetheless called for Calpers to increase "positive pressure" on foreign governments. "It would be a mistake to walk away from an activist policy," he said. When looking for the results of "positive pressure" exerted by Calpers's board, it is best to look close to home. In 2006, the Los Angeles Times revealed that individuals associated with three U.S. venture-capital firms donated money to the Democratic gubernatorial campaign of Steve Westly, who as state controller and Calpers board member had helped the firms land multi-million-dollar investments from the fund. A 2002 New York Times piece raised similar concerns about Calpers investment beneficiaries who donated tens of thousands of dollars to the election campaigns of Mr. Angelides and former Gov. Gray Davis. The fund touts "good corporate governance." But the actual investments it trumpets typically relate to labor and environmental practices, not shareholder concerns. In February, Calpers's chief investment officer, Russell Read, highlighted the California Initiative Program, which directs capital to "companies that employ workers who live in disadvantaged areas," and a new $2.5 billion investment program for environmentally friendly forest projects. Mr. Read justified the program by stating that "investing in forests is an important move to guard against inflation." At least someone is holding the Federal Reserve to account. California's newest political target is, interestingly, sovereign wealth funds. A bill pending in the state assembly would restrict Calpers and Calstrs from investing in private-equity firms, or in any funds managed by such firms, if they are owned in whole or in part by SWFs. The assembly is clearly concerned that other governments will use their investments to pursue political agendas. Now, where could they have gotten that idea? Mr. Steil is director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, and co-author of "Financial Statecraft" (Yale University Press, 2006). online.wsj.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (24325)	4/2/2008 11:28:10 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Oil Refinements April 2, 2008; Page A14 The latest in the series of pointless gestures that constitute Congressional energy policy came yesterday, when executives from five major oil companies were paraded before Ed Markey's House hearing on global warming. They served as political props for Members to denounce rising gas prices, ventilate Dick Cheney conspiracy theories and otherwise advertise their ignorance of the markets they purportedly oversee. Democrats, for instance, might rejoice over higher energy costs, which is precisely the eco-policy they've been advocating for years. Until Congress finds a way to abolish the price mechanism, paying more for gasoline is the only signal that will tell Americans to cut their consumption. How exactly do Democrats think a carbon tax or cap-and-trade regime is going to work? The oil executives performed a public service by pointing out other economic realities. About 70% of the price of gasoline is determined by the global price of crude, which is rising because of world-wide demand and volatility in the commodities markets, not to mention the Federal Reserve's easy-money policy. Congress might also look to its gas mandates and the corset it has laced around domestic production. It's true that industry profits are at a record high, but oil is a classic boom-and-bust business, which is why billions in capital investments are folded back into exploration and production. Besides, the industry's effective tax rates are in the neighborhood of 40% to 44%. Over the past five years, Exxon Mobil's total U.S. tax bill exceeded its U.S. revenues by some $19 billion. Mr. Markey also used the occasion to threaten special tax increases, grilling the executives about $18 billion in "subsidies," which are actually a tax deduction that Congress itself extended to all manufacturers, including Big Oil. And he demanded that the companies commit 10% of profits to renewable energy. But as an Exxon vice president put it, fossil fuels are still going to account for at least two-thirds of the world's energy consumption in three decades and whatever scientific progress is made, the practical prospects for alternatives remain "very, very small." online.wsj.com