And the Financial Times gives us a peek. However, there does not seem to be much to this story. The Treasury apparently is simply reaffirming its preexisting policy that its threshold for determining whether it review a transaction is not based on a hard number--generally, it has been thought that CFIUS, which reviews sovereigns welath fund transactions, would not undertake a formal review if the SWF's stake amounted to less than 10% of a company. However, practitioners (and their SWF clients) have understood that CFIUS takes a look at whether a transaction implicates control, which is not dependent on any set percentage of investment. Certainly, it is usually the case that an investment of 10% will not implicate control, but in practice CFIUS takes a look at whether even investments at less than 10% could be considered control transactions (which would then fall under their jurisidiction and require a formal review). There is so much at stake politically in these determinations, and it does not seem to me that CFIUS takes them lightly even at a less than 10% investment level. The new regulations will simply clarify this position, and I do not think that they will change the nature of CFIUS's practice.
The FT suggests that the new rules are problematic because they indicate that CFIUS is overly sensitive to Congressional complaints (Barney Frank, among others, has been suspicious of SWFs). In an article on SWFs that I am trying to finish up, I also argue that Congressional meddling in the CFIUS process is a concern. Again, though, the reports about the content of the rules only suggest a affirmation of existing practice, not a significant regulatory shift as a result of Congressional pressure.
| Bookmark
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38673/27913544
Links to weblogs that reference Sovereign Wealth Funds: New Treasury Rules Coming Soon:
1. Posted by Carlo Bonera on May 14, 2008 @ 7:07 | Permalink
There's another point. Linda Thomsen, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement suggested that SWFs pose an insider trading risk. Through the agency mechanism between the agent (external private fund managers) and the principal (SWFs administrators), related to the asset allocation choices, it’s possible to stress the risk of conflict of interests when managers deal with both SWFs’ asset management and national/foreign individual/institutional portfolios at the same time. I found an interesting article about this risk and its implications on National Sovereignty at www.intuslegere.eu.
- fedgovernor on The Oil Mark
- Jake on The Oil Mark
- Cathy on The Oil Mark
- laborprof lpb on Bailout, Uni
- fedgovernor on The Oil Mark
- Brandon P. on BYU v. Utah
- David on What makes a
- Cathy on The Oil Mark
- Vic on Fleischer 1,
- Michael on BYU v. Utah
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |






