我最近发现自己是一群资产所有者之间的坦诚讨论的幸运主持人 - 主要是sovereign wealth funds创新投资和公共养老金——国防部els and creative approaches to deal sourcing. One of the Giants in the room, whom I‘ll anonymize to protect the innocent, was opining on his fund’s approach to accessing emerging market economies. This individual was thirty seconds into a description when another individual in the room caught his eye. He stopped. “You know what,” he said, “The fund that we learned this from is in the room...” And he gestured to another Giant.
转到后者，我问它是什么激发了他的基金采取了这种创新的方法。这个人感谢我的问题，并感谢绅士从第一个巨人那么仁慈，然后他停了......对于更长时间的主持人感到什么感觉。他的最终反应值得等待：“国家生存，”他说。“我们必须是创造性的，这样做的事情。如果我们对此诚实，我国的未来就取决于我们找到了推动开发的新方法。我们做到了。“
困惑？是的，这是可以理解的。这是基本上出现了什么：超越的标志性的公共养老金基金，以纯粹的金融动机和专业化归功于一个主权发展基金 - 一个人公开承认它具有战略叠加 - 激励其方法。说什么？
It’s largely for this reason that I became interested in主权发展资金如图称，我们认为这些组织通常可以作为金融市场变革的重要催化剂。Admittedly, my views on this matter have been clouded by the 18 percent dollar returns generated by Temasek since it launched 40 years ago and the 14 percent dollar returns Malaysia’s Khazanah has generated since its reorganization in 2004 and the double digit decennial returns generated by many other SDFs, such as the Palestine Investment Fund or the Public Investment Corporation of South Africa. More to the point, some of these funds (though clearly not all) have posted remarkable returns while doing things in their local economies that could be described as “off the beaten financial path.”
正如我所看到的那样，大多数机构投资者亚博赞助欧冠都从真正的经济中取消了他们未来的实际经济，他们未能看到他们未来的繁荣与他们正在融资的经济体系之间的联系。他们购买产品而不是资产，投资经理不是公司。在长期投资者和长期价值创造之间的这种脱节导致基本问题我们的资本主义制度。
But with SDFs, there’s a remarkable opportunity — in fact, it’s a requirement — to re-root investment organizations in the “real,” and to take a limited pool of capital and create wealth in general terms. SDFs aren’t burdened by the constraints or complications that can come with traditional portfolio theories. In fact, they are empowered by their additional necessities. Their extra-financial mandates are, in a way, a license to think outside the box and to take on big problems. It’s also often permission to develop internal capabilities. Why? If there were financial products for sale in a region or market offering “development,” the government wouldn’t need an SDF in the first place. Being the first investors in to a new industry or geography demands such professionalism.
Is it crazy that a strategic investment vehicle would outperform pure financial investors? Not really.研究表明该公司风险资本在自然战略方面创造了更多价值，而不是纯粹的财务。你怎么问，你呢？事实证明，企业VC的战略重点是吸引赞助公司关键参与者的时间和注意。反过来，这又推动了增加的协调和知识共享，这导致双向价值创造......以及更好的整体结果。
当我听到人们说，没有思考时，我不断划伤我的脑袋，这种影响或发育投资侵蚀财务回报。返回侵蚀显然是战略投资的可能结果不佳，但我没有看到这两个必然相关联。相反，我认为战略覆盖为投资组织的许可证，以获得高度创造力。我认为创造力是长期投资成功的最重要的建筑块。
In sum, you can either view the strategic objective of SDFs as a distraction from running traditional financial models, or you can view it as a unique opportunity to cultivatestructural alpha。也许我是一个天真的乐观主义者，但我经常坐在后一阵营。I genuinely believe that a strategic overlay can help bolster a well-governed fund’s returns by giving the investment organization a longer duration mindset, a closer link to the real economy (from which all economic value will ultimately emerge), a mandate to build internal capabilities and a license to innovate. And so, I think it natural that highly professional “financial investors” are now looking to strategic investors for inspiration and advice.