The ten disclosure walls: what sovereign funds leave out

Most sovereign and state funds will tell you who runs them and what their mandate is. Far fewer will tell you how they have done over the long run. Across all 231 fund profiles, each scored item by item, 57.6% publish no long-term return at all, while only 7.4% publish nothing on governance and mandate. Leave out the proposed funds that hold no money yet and the long-term return gap is still 52.4%.

What we measured

Every profile on this site checks 10 things a reader should be able to find in public. Each one scores 1 if the fund publishes it in full, 0.5 if it publishes part of it, and 0 if nothing is published. Each profile shows the scoring date and the evidence behind the items. This is our own rubric, not any outside index or score.

The 10 items:

1. Total assets
2. Annual return
3. Long-term returns (for example 5, 10 or 20 years)
4. Asset allocation
5. A geographic or sector split
6. A holdings or deal list
7. Audited statements
8. Governance and mandate documents
9. Named leadership
10. A regular reporting cadence

We call an item where a fund scores 0 a "wall": the point where a reader looking for that information hits nothing.

Finding 1: the walls, from highest to lowest

Source: our dataset (all 231 and the 206 operating funds) from the same item scores. Basis: our 10-item rubric.

We show both columns because the 25 proposed or not yet operating funds score 0 on almost everything. They have no money to report on. Taking them out gives a fairer picture of operating funds.

Finding 2: the "who" is public, the "how well" is not

The pattern is clear. The items funds publish most are the ones about structure: the legal mandate and governance documents (77.7% publish them in full) and who runs the fund (76.2%). Those are often set out in law or on a government website anyway.

The items they publish least are about results. Only 26.7% of operating funds publish a full long-term return record. Only 42.2% publish a full annual return. And 52.4% publish no long-term return at all.

That matters because a single year's return says very little about a fund meant to last for decades. Several of the most open funds on our list publish long records. Temasek and GIC both report 20-year returns, and Norway's NBIM reports a return series running back to 1998.

Finding 3: about one in six operating funds does not publish its own size

Total assets is the first item on our list, and 17.5% of operating funds score 0 on it (source: our dataset). For these funds every size figure you see is an estimate by someone else.

This is not only a small-fund problem. Our profiles record that the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the Kuwait Investment Authority, the Qatar Investment Authority and GIC do not disclose their assets. GIC publishes long-term returns but not its size.

Finding 4: each type of fund has its own weak spot

The average item score differs by type of entity. Here are four items where the gaps are clearest (1.0 would mean every fund in the group publishes the item in full).

Source: our dataset. The 5 central bank reserve arms are left out of the table because the group is small; they average 0 on the holdings item.

• Sub-national funds (US states, Canadian provinces, Brazilian and Nigerian states and others) are the most likely to publish their total assets, at 0.83, but the least likely to show where the money is invested by country or sector, at 0.26. Many publish a balance in a state financial report and little else.
• State holding companies are the most likely to list their holdings, at 0.74. That fits: a holding company usually owns a named set of companies. But they are the least likely to publish their total assets in a form we can use, at 0.67, partly because a group balance sheet is not the same as an investment portfolio.
• Core national funds sit in the middle on most items and are the most likely to publish a long-term return, though even here the average is only 0.42.

What a wall does and does not mean

A score of 0 means the item is not published on the fund's website, in its reports, by its regulators or in reputable press, on the date shown. It does not mean the fund keeps no records. Many funds report in full to their government, parliament or auditor but not to the public. Our profiles describe those reporting lines where they are public. Our Brunei Investment Agency profile, for example, records a legal duty to submit audited accounts to the Sultan in Council, with a secrecy clause for staff.

What this means

If you are reading a ranking or a news story about a fund, check which of these items the fund actually publishes. Where a fund scores 0 on total assets or returns, any figure you see comes from someone else, and you should look for the basis and the date. Each of our profiles shows the 10 items and the evidence behind them, so you can see the walls for yourself.

For how scores vary by size, see does a bigger fund publish more?. For the regional view, see which regions publish the most?.

Caveats

1. Our rubric, our scoring. It measures public disclosure on the date in each profile, not governance or performance.
2. Zero means "not published". It is not a statement that the information does not exist.
3. Proposed funds. We show results with and without the 25 proposed or not yet operating funds.
4. Half points. An item scored 0.5 counts as neither a wall nor a full pass in the tables above.
5. Profiles are updated. This page is refreshed as funds publish more.

Methods note

Population: all 231 profiles, each with all 10 items scored on the 0, 0.5 or 1 scale and a stated total equal to the item sum; 206 when the 25 proposed or not yet operating funds are removed. Share scoring 0 is the count of 0 scores divided by the population. Tier averages are simple means of item scores. The disclosure table covers all 231 profiles; tier averages include every tier. Full method: methodology.