Live data from Hacker News

Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

cbc.ca

61–70 of 120 posts

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it matter if volatility is lower than the market? Future payments in the short term are covered by inflows. You might as well maximize the returns now so that in the future when it's not covered by inflows you've acrewed a larger return.

> Future payments in the short term are covered by inflows. is that similar to the Ponzi scheme pattern, though?

Ponzi schemes always make current payments out of current inflows. The first 10 people get paid from the inflows from the next 100 people who get paid from the next 1000 people and so on, until you run out of people to sign up and the last group is left holding the bag. This is how Social Security works in the US because it started out by making payments to people who never paid in and was premised on the early 20th century fertility rate of >3.5 instead of the current ~1.6 to keep the system from collapsing, which is why the "trust fund" is running out of money -- it never had enough to cover future payments to begin with.

Whereas having individual years when the fund pays out more than it collected in interest is not a problem as long as that's not what happens on average.

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#62

This makes sense once you see the list of Canadian companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_in_C... #1 is Brookfield Corporation. The now prime minister of Canada headed the ESG there. He is also an international central banker.

I guess we shouldn’t do anything because Brookfield exists.

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#63
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems fine as long as they can show lower volatility than market while still being close in return? Did they?

No lol https://youtu.be/DQgqEFOc894?t=267

This youtuber appears to be anti-active management. CPPIB is underperforming their own benchmarks and charging substantial active fees.

> Where 20 years ago the CPPIB had just 150 employees and total costs of $118-million, it now has more than 2,100 employees and total expenses (not including taxes or financing costs) in excess of $6-billion.

But...they don't appear to be terrible v. their peers, but that might be an indictment of pension funds.

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#64

This makes sense once you see the list of Canadian companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_in_C... #1 is Brookfield Corporation. The now prime minister of Canada headed the ESG there. He is also an international central banker.

I guess we shouldn’t do anything because Brookfield exists.

I guess we should do stupid corrupt things because Trump exists.

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We achieved superior risk-adjusted returns" as an excuse for sovereign fund underperformance is nonsense. PE (depending on how levered it is) inherently has lower volatility than buying public stocks. If your fund gets consistently lower returns than if you had just stuck everything in a 60/40 portfolio, the whole endeavor has failed.

I really like the ideal of just chucking it all in VTI (or, since it's Canada, some other equivalent). But does it still work at that scale? Or does the fund exert its own gravitational field on the index in question?

The gravitational field of indexes that large is one of the reasons why it works. The stock price of a company will generally increase when it's added to a major index because there are now so many more people trying to buy it as part of the index.

The risk is nominally that if you ever wanted to move a fund that large into some other investments, the act of selling would lower the price of the assets in the fund. But that's what happens no matter what you invest that amount of money in. But then widely distributed whole-market indexes would tend to mitigate that.

The real problem with this is that it disconnects what people invest in from the fundamentals of the companies. Promising companies don't get as much investment if they're not in an index, and mismanaged companies get too much if they are.

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#66
post #16

This is a great way to sidestep the political process to fund popular projects. The political constraints will ensure returns are middling, so unless they subsidize with tax breaks on dividend income I think it would be a poor commercial investment. Whether its perfect or not, it almost has to be better than the current status quo.

How are you going to have a Sovereign Wealth Fund when you're in debt ~300% to GDP? Are they going to fund their "wealth" with debt? This is an oxymoron. You aren't "rich" if you have $1M and you owe $4M. You're a con-man living a lie that will crush you eventually. And by the way, if you have -$3M, sorry, but you're the last person I want to invest money with... Norway gets to have a wealth fund because they have a…

Canada has tens of trillions of dollars in natural resources it could choose to monetize at any time.

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#67
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it matter if volatility is lower than the market? Future payments in the short term are covered by inflows. You might as well maximize the returns now so that in the future when it's not covered by inflows you've acrewed a larger return.

> Why does it matter if volatility is lower than the market? Because I can trivially beat the market by ~100% by going long on 3:1 margin. The volatility is why that's a bad idea. One time out of five, the consequence of that investment strategy is 'The market had a crash and I lose everything '. 'Lol, YOLO' is not a great investment strategy for a well-ran country.

> One time out of five, the consequence of that investment strategy is 'The market had a crash and I lose everything'.

Which is why that strategy doesn't actually beat the market. Keep using it for 30 years and you're bankrupt.

Whereas if you put your money in a major index 30 years ago and left it there, or even 50 or more years ago, what result? Are you even in a bad place if you put all your money into the market in 1926 and left it there for 100 years?

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#68
post #44

A sovereign wealth fund makes sense if fund with profits from exploiting our natural resources. That is how Norway did it

And Norway has north of 2 trillion in that fund for about 5M people... Like, well done. Impressive financial planning at that scale

Yep. Long term greedy nation taught by the best at Goldman Sachs. Thank you guys!

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we shouldn’t do anything because Brookfield exists.

I guess we should do stupid corrupt things because Trump exists.

What’s Trump got to do with this?

If you invest anything in the Canadian market you probably hold some Brookfield.

Carney’s investments are in a blind trust.

What more could be done, in your view?

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#70
post #38

If this is run anything like the CPP, it will underperform both the market and their own benchmarks yet lead to executives awarding themselves huge bonuses.

different risk profile

They've underperformed their risk-adjusted benchmarks.

> But the CPP fund didn’t just underperform the indexes last year. It has done so, on average, ever since it switched to active management. That’s the admission you find buried on page 41 (it was on page 39 last year): since fiscal 2007, “the Fund generated an annualized value added of negative 0.2 per cent.” Compound that 0.2 per cent annual shortfall over 19 years, and it adds up to more than $70-billion in forgone income, on assets that now total $714-billion. [0]

[0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-cppib-pensio...

Post reply on HN