Sovereign wealth funds around the world want to establish a trade body to represent and promote their interests with Western governments.

The idea came after two days of discussions in Santiago, Chile, where the representatives of 26 funds agreed to a set of principles that will govern their future behaviour.

Sovereign funds have become a source of controversy after the purchase of stakes in some of the most prominent companies in Europe and the United States. The funds, which typically are owned by resource-rich countries, have invested more than $60 billion (£28.2 billion) in the banking system during the past year, buying stakes in companies such as Citigroup and UBS. Last year, a Qatari fund attempted a £10 billion takeover of J Sainsbury, the supermarket chain. The bid collapsed.

Politicians have expressed concern about the motivations of sovereign wealth funds and about their lack of transparency. There is a suspicion among many Western governments that the funds buy companies for the strategic benefit of their countries rather than simply for financial gain.

In an attempt to pre-empt regulations limiting their activities in Western markets, 26 funds have drawn up the list of principles to guide them. The funds, which have been led in the discussions by the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and GIC, of Singapore, will publish the guidelines at a meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) next month. Ideas include encouraging the funds to explain their investment criteria and recommending that they avoid buying stakes in sensitive companies, such as Western defence contractors.

They will also vote on setting up a standing committee that will update the guidelines and liaise with Western governments and institutions such as the World Bank and IMF on issues of concern.

However, the principles agreed in Santiago are also notable for what is excluded. There will be no requirement on funds to reveal their size, investment holdings, what companies they are bidding for or how they vote on company resolutions.

As a lack of transparency is one of the key concerns of Western governments, the guidelines may do little to alter perceptions of the funds as secretive market manipulators. They refused to give more information because they felt that it was unfair for them to reveal data that other investors would not be required to make public.

Hamad al-Hurr al-Suwaidi, a director of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, said: “A lot of discussion focused on the need to preserve the economic and financial interests of the [funds] so as not to put them at a disadvantage when compared to other types of investors such as hedge funds, insurance companies and other institutional investors.”

The Generally Accepted Principles and Practices, as the agreement is known, was not allowed to be called a code of practice or rules of conduct because the funds did not want to imply that they needed controlling. A source involved in the Santiago discussions said that the funds would not accept anything that implied guilt or bad behaviour in the past.

For the same reason, the principles will be voluntary. The IMF had made a move to monitor compliance with the principles but this has been rejected by the SWFs. “There will be no policeman because one is not needed,” a source said.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive