Which regions publish the most? Transparency by region and by IFSWF membership

Europe publishes the most and the Middle East the least, on our 10-item disclosure score, with Australia and the Pacific second. And in every region, funds that are full members of the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds (IFSWF) score higher on average than funds that are not members. The gaps are real, but the reasons behind them are not as simple as "this part of the world is open and that part is closed".

What we measured

Each fund profile on this site carries our own transparency score out of 10. It checks 10 things a reader should be able to find in public: total assets, annual return, long-term return, asset allocation, a geographic or sector split, a holdings or deal list, audited statements, governance and mandate documents, named leadership, and a regular reporting cadence. Each item scores 0, 0.5 or 1. This is our rubric, not any outside index or score.

We used 206 scored funds: every profile, each with all 10 items scored on the 0, 0.5 or 1 scale and a total that matches its items, excluding the 25 proposed or not yet operating funds. The regions are our own grouping, not the UN's. The Middle East and Africa are separate, and Turkiye and the Caucasus sit where our profiles place them.

Finding 1: a spread of almost three points between regions

Source: our dataset. Basis: our 10-item score.

Europe has both the highest mean and the highest median, with Australia and the Pacific second on both. The Middle East has both the lowest mean and the lowest median, 4.0. The gap from top to bottom is 2.72 points on the mean (our arithmetic: 7.74 minus 5.02). Africa and Asia sit almost level on the mean, but Africa's median of 7.0 is higher, which points to a group of strong African publishers alongside a tail of low scores.

Finding 2: type of entity explains part of the gap

Regions hold very different mixes of entities. North America is almost all US state and Canadian provincial funds. Europe has many state holding companies. The Middle East has a large number of holding companies alongside its national funds. So we split each region by our tier grouping.

Source: our dataset. Asia also has 3 central bank reserve arms (mean 4.50), and Africa and the Middle East 1 each (7.50 and 5.50), not shown. Small cells, such as one European sub-national fund, should not be read on their own.

Three things stand out.

1. In the Middle East, holding companies pull the average down. Core national funds there average 5.58, a little below Africa's 5.87. The 16 state holding and development entities average 4.81 with a median of 4.0, the same as the regional median.
2. In Asia it runs the other way. Asian holding companies average 6.74, well above Asia's core national funds at 5.28.
3. Latin America's national funds publish well; its sub-national funds do not. Its 11 core national funds have a median of 8.0 and a mean of 7.14, which points to a group of strong publishers and a few that publish little. Its 6 sub-national funds, mostly Brazilian state and municipal funds, average 4.75.

Finding 3: IFSWF full members score higher

Source: our dataset. Every scored fund has a membership status. Basis: membership as shown on the IFSWF members page on the dates recorded in each profile.

Full members average 1.60 points more than non-members (our arithmetic: 7.57 minus 5.97). Associates score lower than non-members, but there are only 8 of them.

Finding 4: the membership gap holds inside every region

The obvious question is whether membership just tracks geography. It does not seem to. In every region with full members, they score higher on average than non-members in the same region.

Source: our dataset.

The gap is smallest in Europe, where non-members already publish a lot, and largest in Latin America and the Caribbean, North America and Australia and the Pacific. Several cells are small, so treat the size of each gap with care.

How many members does each region have?

Across all 231 entities on our list, including proposed funds, full IFSWF members by region are: Africa 9, the Middle East 8, Asia 7, Europe 7, Australia and Pacific 4, Latin America and Caribbean 4, and North America 2 (source: our dataset). North America has 43 entities and only 2 full members, because most US and Canadian state-level funds are not members.

What this means

Membership and disclosure go together, and the data does not show which comes first. Funds that already publish a lot may be the ones that choose to join. Funds that join may then publish more to meet the Santiago Principles. Either way, if you are looking for a fund that publishes its numbers, IFSWF full membership is a better clue than region alone. Full members outside Europe whose profiles cite a report dated 2025 or later include the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the Alaska Permanent Fund (source: each fund's profile).

For the size question, see does a bigger fund publish more?. For which items funds leave out, see the ten disclosure walls.

Caveats

1. Our score, our rubric. It measures public disclosure on the date in each profile. It is not a rating of governance or performance.
2. Membership is not a cause. This is an association, not proof.
3. Regions are our grouping. Different groupings would give different averages.
4. Small groups. Many region and tier cells hold fewer than 10 funds.
5. Membership lists change. We record the date we read the IFSWF members page in each profile.

Methods note

Population: 206 scored funds (all 10 items scored on the 0, 0.5 or 1 scale, with a stated total equal to the item sum; the 25 proposed or not yet operating funds excluded). Score: sum of the 10 items. Region and IFSWF status: from each fund's profile. Means and medians per group; no weighting by size. Full method: methodology.