You, as in Trump (not you a reader), cook a sovereign wealth fund into birth, mere days into office, cooked along with Treasury and Commerce heads you named - and the scent of things is it got speced out & kicked around as an idea in some form, by somebody, before the election, and is not this day a Zuesian birth of Athena on the spot. (Where trying that is not recommended.) Others doing sovWealth funds even were likely consulted, with or without a paper trail.
All I know is what's reported on the web, so let's have a look -
CBS News, "Trump orders the creation of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund. Here's what that means." That headlining is one for the books. Immoddest to a fault, with hubris dripping from its final sentence.
Projecting a year's time to set it up, an idea only now, and, "Here's what it means"?
Tone that headline down to scale, please; and saying that, let's have a look. (I'd never be pretentious to do a premature "here's what it means," but aside from nit picking that detail, the story text is helpful):
Mr. Trump signed an executive order that charges Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick, Mr. Trump's nominee to lead the Commerce Department, with beginning a process [,,,]
Bessent said the creation of the fund will "monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet [...] within 12 months, putting U.S. assets to work for Americans." The treasury secretary said the Trump administration will study best practices around the world to develop the fund.
Sovereign wealth funds generally use a nation's reserves and invest the funds to generate returns, which can be used to address deficits, pay down debts or bolster savings. It's unclear what types of safeguards would be placed around a U.S.-owned investment fund to ensure it has transparent reporting obligations and that the investments aren't benefiting political allies.
Amen.
Other countries that have a sovereign wealth fund include China, Singapore, New Zealand, Norway and Saudi Arabia, among others.
Norway's sovereign wealth fund, the Government Pension Fund of Norway, is the largest in the world, with assets valued at $1.7 trillion, a substantial figure for a country of 5.5 million people. The Norwegian government is only permitted to spend a small part of the fund each year, but the total amounts to nearly 20% of its annual budget.
As a bet, I'd wager that Hong Kong has a big say in China's SWF.
And that explains in my mind why readership of Crabgrass is high among somebody with posslibly advance notice of things to be cooked, in Norwar, Singapore, Hong Kong. Somebody might have known something, with a paper record?
Anyway, if Jared Kushner is not picked to run it at a fee, etc., and other guardrails against nepotism or crony favoritism are built in, it looks like it could be a good idea. The devil being in details, and we have had Elon sniffing around government accounts with no real cause to be doing so per his DOGE duties, unless his sole motive was to start a clawback of wrongly paid out money, to go into the gov's SWF, (presuming he knew of it before the order was signed), time sequence being what it is and readers can check which came first, Elon's sniff or the order. If Elon claws back money ill spent, it's a service and not a looting for personal benefit, and he's helpful despite the egregious salute to a triumph of will.
One observation, with investment assets finite, Treasuary and Commerce being headed by two with private sector investment fund ties, and Soros running asset management, a SWF would create a demand spike, leading to an upward asset pricing cycle, and those holding portfolios would see the value perhaps skyrocket, while handling the administration and building of the SWF's demand spike.
I.e. insiders and others holding/managing portfolios, Jarad Kushner and the Saudis included, could see a pecuniary enhancement - an asset price spike - from a U.S. SWF, and that's a factor deserving hearings. It would be nest feathering without any self dealing between the beneficiaries of the demand spike doing self-dealing of a wrongful kind. Of course, other mischief is also possible, so a mere executive order is no fix for wrong profiteering which is baked into the pie. From size of the pie.
But what do I know? Just an old guy with opinions knowing what the web tells me and little else. Possibly wrong about supply-demand price shifts, with the web silent of actual or potential motives for Republicans of wealth to fashion a SWF.
Hearings are worth holding, and Bondi-Patel will not be likely independent investigators. A special prosecutor is an option. With inspector generals gone, what other options hold?
Trust me? That's a hornets' next. Jack Smith would be a better Special Prosecutor appointment than Bill Barr. Beyond that, others hold powers I do not.
All for now.
UPDATE: Why do I get reverberations of privatizing Social Security when I scan web stuff about a SWF formed by those who managed funds? Privatizing Social Security was touted, but opposed, and so far went nowhere. Isn't this privatizing Social Security tarted up to look different, but no different?
FURTHER UPDATE: This is not a post trashing having a SWF, which, if done cleanly and wisely might work out nicely, it is to wave a warning flag about cleanly and wisely, without even side benefits to insiders or allies.
The purpose of this update - 11:56 AM Tuesday, February 4, 2025 - is to post the Blogger statistics reader/nation data, last 24hr -
 |
| click the image to be able to read it |
There is no surprise that when a Trump inspired SWF is discussed that readers from nations already administering SWF arrangements would be curious. They have experience of pitfalls to avoid and they need to contemplate the SWF space having a new entrant which could be a massive new player changing the rules and practices of best economic conduct and management. It would change the playing field if/when it happens, and a universal worry is a big player in SWF space doing unpredictable and possibly unwise stuff. It is like the banking community of central banks having to be aware of one another's conduct for the economy the remain smooth worldwide, and stable long term when, as with Norway, a pension pool is the SWF purpose. That long term perspective has to treasure stability.
FURTHER: Another concern is why have an SWF unless a major wealth stream is anticipated, and if that, what source. A worry is always federal lands at risk of exploitation, disproportionate in terms of wealth generated for private sector players from mining or other resource exploitation, where still with the disproportions the income stream would be large. Why simply paying down the debt is not the answer? Well, the thinking has to be "We're so smart that our gambling the money will pull in more than debt service, yielding a net gain, rather than our gambling the SWF stupidly and facing a net loss." Nice thinking. And if needed, policy could be adapted to create a world event rescuing a bad SWF bet, and that could be a lead-in to big mischief. A host of scenarios have to be considered before pulling the trigger. On actually having an SWF, in fact and not in contemplation via a signed piece of paper.