Only that this is a temporary situation, and that while SWFs use the same money as private investors do they may choose to move funds to their own countries or to their countries allies and clients more readily for political reasons.

I think this is significant enough to justify something other than a "don't worry, be happy" view of the world's capital markets.

What might be instructive is an analysis on how politicians in the past have treated similar funds. The US example is the uses and abuses of state pension fund systems. There is always pressure to invest these funds in domestic boondoggles or dying industries. (At one time, the Alabama pension fund controlled US Air, for no good reason anyone could really figure out)

State pension funds also are pushed by politicians to interfere in corporate governance. (CALPERS likes to do this) And finally, there have been some fascinating scandals with respect to these things. (The one that comes to mind is the scandal in Ohio regarding pension fund investments in rare coins, thhat disappeared when some of the rare coins turned up missing.)

I think you hit the highlights. About the only thing you didn't mention was the lack of transparency and accountability in in non-OECD markets, rendering investments there extremely risky. As well, adequate legal protection for foreign investors, including sovereign wealth funds, is often lacking.