Well-informed sources revealed to Reuters that the Saudi Public Investment Fund signed a new revolving credit facility, questioning Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's economic growth claims.
According to the sources, Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund, has signed a $10 billion multi-currency revolving credit facility with a group of 17 banks, which it said gives it access to extra capital that can be deployed quickly when needed.
Reuters reported last month that PIF could raise between $13 billion and $15 billion, according to one source. Sources said the one-year facility could be renewed four times.
The fund, the engine of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s economic transformation plans for Saudi Arabia, manages a portfolio worth $400 billion. It has boosted its firepower through several funding sources in recent years, including a $40 billion transfer from central bank reserves last year.
Sources had said the new loan would be used for general corporate purposes. A revolving loan is one that can be drawn, repaid and drawn again during the agreed lending period.
PIF started raising bank debt in 2018 with an $11 billion facility, followed in 2019 by a $10 billion loan which is then repaid last year.
The report questions previous statements made by Prince Mohammed, the architect of Saudi Vision 2030, in which he claimed that the wealth fund plans to pump at least 150 billion riyals ($40 billion) into the local economy each year through 2025.
There have been calls for an investigation into the huge investment made by the Saudi Public Investment Fund, controlled by Prince Mohammed, in Affinity Partners, a private equity firm set up by Jared Kushner months after he left the White House and his job as special adviser to Trump, his father-in-law.
In doing so, the kingdom’s de facto ruler ignored the warnings of the Saudi fund’s own advisory panel. It worried about Affinity’s inexperience: Kushner was in real estate before his White House stint, and his track record of investments was widely considered not particularly good. It was concerned that the new company’s due diligence on operations was “unsatisfactory in all aspects”, and that it was charging “excessive” fees, according to a report in the New York Times.
