I hear a lot of convincing arguments about why we shouldn’t worry about the Kremlin’s sovereign wealth ambitions. After all, Russia’s $150 billion stabilization fund is comparatively tiny considering the returns that Gazprom and Rosneft are bringing in (though the dire lack of transparency of these state-owned firms make any estimation of capital management difficult), and Moscow’s practically silent announcement in early February that $32 billion of this fund will be carved out for some more adventurous speculative investing in equities and bonds passed through unnoticed by the media. Considering that the “scary” UAE Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund wields $875 billion, dwarfing any sense of threat from the Russian government managed fund, the histrionics seem unwarranted. Furthermore, some Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds have +30 year records of non-political capital appreciation seeking conduct – and according to many brokers, there is not a sense that these guys are getting calls from the president’s office about what to buy and sell. Despite these assurances, politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are calling for more information and clearer rules – often with good reason in my opinion. However when do these calls for transparency go too far, and result in hypocritical protectionism?