First try to understand the mechanisms that allowed the development of such funds. The emergence of SWFs result of macroeconomic imbalances that we have created. The trade surplus generated by some emerging economies, coupled with large inflows of capital on their soil, have enabled these countries to accumulate huge reserves exchange. We observed this phenomenon from China to Qatar via Russia.

Conversely, the trade balance of the vast majority of European countries and the United States has become increasingly negative. By consuming more and more, these countries are in debt. Would also increase spending by states and growing budget deficits.

The size of SWFs has exploded in recent years, from

1600 billion in 1999 to $ 7000 billion in June 2008, according to the International Monetary Fund. Some even claim the figure of 10 000 billion dollars. This explosion is mainly explained by increased macroeconomic imbalances that we have just quoted.

These foreign exchange reserves have also been facilitated by the willingness of some countries to protect themselves against financial crises, especially against speculative attacks on exchange rates. One can cite in this context the Thai Baht crisis in 1997, and that of the Mexican peso in 1994.

In this context, some countries with large foreign exchange reserves have chosen to focus part of their surpluses (mostly invested in government bonds) to classes of riskier assets. For example, real estate, stocks or commodities ... These countries therefore have established sovereign wealth funds for this purpose. These funds meet many goals: intergenerational investment, diversification of investment, political will to protect the supply of raw materials.

This type of fund has been particularly developed in countries producing and exporting raw materials. Nearly 50% of foreign exchange reserves of these countries have been transferred to SWFs. This represents billions of dollars in 1500 on the 2,000 billion recorded in these structures, according to the IMF.

These funds are now the source of considerable controversy in rich countries because of their investments in U.S. and European exchanges and magnitude of such media events.

The beginning of the financial crisis has been marked by such significant stakes in Western banks. GIC of Singapore took 8.6% stake in UBS and 4.4% stake in Citigroup. Qatar Investment Authority is back at 8% stake in Barclays. There are many examples of Merrill Lynch in London Stock Exchange (LSE) through Morgan Stanley or the defunct Bear Stearns. 2007 was marked by nearly 100 billion dollars of investment in these players, mainly in financial institutions but also in EADS, Sony, Total or in property (source: European Central Bank).

These new investors have grown very rapidly given the exponential growth of foreign reserves. Recall that in the late 90s, emerging countries had almost no reserves in their central banks. These reserves neighbor, then 1 000 billion dollars against nearly 6 000 billion dollars in 2008, according to the ECB and the IMF (exchange reserves do not include the sums transferred and invested in SWFs). Today, these economic agents, due to their increasing size, investors are becoming unavoidable. We must learn to deal with them, what states are beginning to developing legislation in this regard.

The Abu Dhabi Investment Council (UAE) alone accounts for between 400 and 800 billion dollars. The SAMA (Saudi Arabia) 300 billion dollar, the Kuwait Investment Authority 213 billion. It is estimated that these funds represent between 2000 and 3000 billion dollars, the equivalent of Gross Domestic Product of France! These are mainly distributed on the Arabian Peninsula in East Asia and Russia.

The opaqueness and "expansionist" of these new financial structures has led to strong political reactions. These funds have also been a way for our governments to develop a degree of crystallization around the evolution of macroeconomic balance of power that occurs gradually. Crystallization accompanied very often critical of an undervalued yuan, or against "abuse of power" of countries possessing raw materials such as Russia. It is true that these are huge freshly invested reflect a change in the distribution of wealth. We understand they may seem relatively stressful for households that we are.

However, entrust these funds in a global perspective: the importance of money they are now becoming more relative. With 3 000 billion, these funds do not suffer the comparison with the 50 000 billion dollars invested each year by the asset managers.

Let us not forget that foreign exchange reserves of emerging countries that have been placed in safe assets issued by U.S. and European governments have helped fund the massive debt of these countries. They have therefore contributed to maintain (artificially) our lifestyle. These new SWFs thus participate in the wealth creation of our business by investing in relatively long periods. They provide capital and opportunities for development of infrastructure that need to always grow to survive. They promote it in the spirit of capitalism ... and not that of an assistantship dedicated to serious difficulties.

Remains a serious concern: to show ownership of our industrial and financial florets become Chinese, Arabic or Russian; through these funds. The France she can bear to be progressively dispossessed of some symbols (Arcelor ...)? Can we not react, even entire move our economy in the hands of owners at the other end of the world?

But keep in mind that these new risks are a backlash. As we said in the beginning, these funds are only one resulting from dysfunctional macroeconomic dangerous, is for rich countries in debt without ever ... ever repay.

The economic agents that we are (states and households) should be aware that it is unhealthy to live beyond our means. It would be wise to remain or become owners of our production .... Other open questions then .... The growth rate of debt was not there a way to voluntarily offset the decline in real wages? Declining real wages did not permit it to increase the share of wealth for shareholders? These questions need to rethink the functioning of our economy.