American and European pension funds do not act like Sovereign Development Funds (SDFs) - they tend to act under a mandate of "wealth safeguarding", and tend to target dedicated asset pools without short-term liabilities. A fund like CalPERS has an added issue that it has become hyper-politicized.

The only North American pension funds I can think of that act like SDFs is the Ontario Teacher's Venture Growth arm, but they've begun pulling back from venture and growth funding.

> But the US in general hates "state owned enterprises" in the form that China has

We don't need a China style model tbh.

A coordinated trust banking model with a controlling stake owned by an agency or ministry like in Japan and South Korea is probably a better analogue for the US - in most cases we have the IP, human, and financial capital, it's coordination that is lacking. The issue is antitrust fundamentalists would balk at that kind of government enabled consolidation. The IRA and CHIPS would have been steps in the right direction, but who knows now with this admin. They are discussion SWFs but I do not trust their ability to execute.

I would love In-Q-Tel to transition into something similar for Cybersecurity and Enterprise SaaS, but they have issues.