Capital Preservation and Current Spending with Sovereign Wealth Funds and Endowment Funds: A simulation Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Peer review for authors is attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an important contribution to the study of SWFs.
However, I would recommend a more nuanced approach to the study of SWFs and its broader implications. This article is about SWFs with the Norwegian SWF as a case. Do the findings travel (ie have broader explanatory power for other SWFs)? For doing this I would welcome a brief engagement with this matter:
It should be acknowledged that there is considerable variation among SWFs – in terms of their funding source, governance and mandates. There are saving funds, stabilization funds, development funds, investment corporations.
Different SWF mandates have different implications for performance in regard to wealth preservation and budget contribution.
The variation of SWFs is also reflected in their different governance. There are SWFs that own the assets that they manage (e.g. Temasek) while others (e.g. Sing GIC) do not own the assets they manage but manage the assets on behalf of state agencies (e.g. MinFin).
see Braunstein, J. (2022). Capital choices: sectoral politics and the variation of sovereign wealth. University of Michigan Press.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf