Still, it's only recently that SWFs have become major players on the financial stage.
In 1990, the funds held just $500 billion in assets combined. Today, that figure is about $3.5 trillion. For comparison purposes, that's more than all of the assets controlled by all of the hedge funds in the world. And by 2012, the figure will be at least $10 trillion, according to estimates by the International Monetary Fund.
The primary reason for this explosion is, in a word, oil. As its price has soared from less than $25 a barrel in 2002 to more than $125 a barrel today, the value of sovereign wealth funds held by oil-rich nations has skyrocketed. And this trend isn't expected to change any time soon.
The new power of SWFs has been on graphic display during our recent mortgage crisis. They've essentially rescued the international financial system by injecting tens of billions of dollars into troubled banks. Citigroup, for instance, raised about $20 billion from a consortium of SWFs from Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Singapore. UBS secured nearly $10 billion from a Singapore fund that now controls 9% of the bank. Merrill Lynch took in about $11 billion from SWFs from Kuwait, Singapore and South Korea. And even august Morgan Stanley got $5 billion from China's SWF.
These investments are steadying global financial markets by ensuring that none of these key banks goes under. But there are important questions to ask about the increasing influence that sovereign wealth funds have over our economy. As SWFs grow in size, they will be in a position to control large swaths of the global business world. That means foreign governments, which control the funds, will increasingly own sizable stakes in companies in such important industries as computer technology, aerospace and biotechnology.
These kinds of investments raise "profound questions" of geopolitical power, as former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers pointed out a few months ago at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Summers' essential complaint is that there is no way of knowing if there is a political agenda behind a country's investment in these essential industries.
To that end, the International Monetary Fund is trying to draft a code of "best practices" that SWFs can adopt voluntarily. The funds generally have been resistant to the idea, although Abu Dhabi and Singapore have signed an agreement with the Treasury Department that lays out principles for the countries' funds to be more transparent and not politicize their investments.
But on a practical level, the growing influence of SWFs really brings up much more basic concerns. What does it mean for Americans to have decisions about our jobs, our home loans, our school loans and so on to ultimately rest with foreign governments? What does it mean to surrender this level of control over our own economy?
The trouble is, we don't know. And that raises perhaps the most important question of all: What if the cure to our mortgage crisis is more deadly than the disease itself?
