> the global financial system did in fact go very very badly wrong (and not for the first time).

And has since tripled from pre-GFC peaks. Markets are cyclical, you think funds haven't baked that into their models?

> I wish to imply that (1) things change, and (2) that a current state of competent management is not something that can be assured forever.

Competency in management is a passed down skill, not an innate skill that someone alone possesses. From what I've observed by working with them directly, all SWFs hire the best people across the world, without discriminating based on nationality (except for Chairmanship). As long as the global talent pool exists at the same standards or higher, these funds will have the manpower required to manage. In most cases, they even paid better than most private investment firms, and all of them paid more than tech, management consulting or investment banking. A lot of their venture arms were led/advised by former tech entrepreneurs for instance.

> After all, I would not imply that you think that Lloyds bank lost so much market cap because “some dude” was planning their business strategy

LBG lost so much market cap precisely because some dudes, the CEOs, failed in planning their business strategy well. All of the UK banks messed up big time during the GFC, and hence all of them are failures right now. Barclay's is only standing now because the Qataris bought into it. But that's one sector in one country alone.

> This implication was illustrated with one of many historical examples of nations and empires thought indefatigable at their peak which are now no more

None of Norway, the UAE or Singapore are empires. If you want to talk about nations, France, Spain, Norway, Sweden, etc still exist as independent nations even after so many centuries right? In almost all cases, they've even bumped up their GDP, even if not by much, in spite of losing their colonial holdings.

> I believe that was caused by teams of highly brilliant investors applying a Nobel-prize winning formula.

You're talking about Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) collapsing, which happened in 1997. Those Nobel-winning guys failed by betting massively on Russian securities, believing that Russia would open up after USSR dissolution. Again, the focus on one strategy alone.

Point was, you are focusing on one investment alone in all examples. Meanwhile, these SWFs are vastly diversified across various security products. As I said before, if you want to take down any SWF, you would have to take down the global economy. That would mean taking down BOTH USA and China, which these countries are invested into. Even if only one country collapsed, these funds will survive because they are that diversified. While the GFC punished most of the finance industry, these funds survived because they were highly spread out. If the USA AND China were to collapse though, I doubt the free market concept would even exist by then. That would mean no more FAANG, no more tech companies, no more cushy SV jobs, heck, no more HackerNews. I doubt (and they doubt too) that the USA and China would let such a collapse happen though - as we've seen in the GFC era, and currently in the C19 era.

> however it was also used by British people in the sense of never ending dominance

Their mistake, classic British hubris. Not to mention, as I've said before, neither the UAE, Norway, Singapore, etc consider themselves as empires in this day and age. On the contrary, all of these places are extremely cautious about the future - the UAE fund constantly worries about oil drying up and began investing into renewables research around the world since the early 2000s, Singapore worries constantly about global warming and Malaysia cutting them off, Norway's SWF worries too much about being too dependent on oil revenues...