De nordiska pensionsfonderna - en komparativ studie av ländernas buffertfonder
Sammanfattning: There are a few dozen state-owned funds in the world that, to some extent, managecapital belonging to its citizens, collectively called Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF).During the middle of the 20th century most of the Nordic countries created funds thattoday are to be called SWFs. These are intended to act as supplements to the alreadyestablished pension systems in the form of buffer funds. Previous research on the Nordiccountries’ pension funds refers to the welfare systems in the countries as a unit; thecountries have been referred to as a category of “welfare regimes”, “family of nations”and applicants of the “nordic model” to name a set of terms for the systems. However,it could be that the Nordic countries’ buffer funds differ, implying that the countrieshave not implemented such a homogeneous systems as stated. This report thereforeintends to investigate whether this is the case through a comparative study of threecountries’ funds: Sweden, Norway and Denmark.Previous studies on the subject have identified multiple factors that affect the possibilityof return. Four of the most frequently mentioned were chosen to be studied: Corporatesocial responsibility (CSR), salaries, restrictions on holdings and investment strategies.Furthermore, the countries’ buffer funds differ markedly in returns. This report carriesout a literature study to find information on how the mentioned factors affect thereturn. This combined with the collection of empirical data primarily based on thecountries’ legal texts and the funds’ annual reports in order to be able to demonstrateany differences among them. This theoretical literature study is then woven togetherwith the collected empirical data and forms the basis for the analysis. The differencesbetween the funds are linked to the different returns the funds achieve.There are great differences in which way the funds manage their assets. Denmark’s ATPfund stands out as different in relation to Sweden’s AP funds and Norway’s NBIM fund.ATP distinguishes itself with larger performance-based salaries, higher risks and moreshort-term strategy, which has led to higher management costs. Differences in the factorsstudied, together with non-analyzed factors, contribute to the spread of the returns thefunds perform. It can be concluded that the Nordic countries cannot fully be considered“welfare regimes”, “family of nations” or applicants of the “nordic model” with regardto their buffer funds.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)