In the previous column, I noted several positive features of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Act of 2021. I also outlined several potential downsides such as the possibility for employing unnecessary financial consulting in the face of a legally-mandated passive investment strategy, the power relations between the officers of the Fund and government given the degree of control in the Guyanese society, and the abandonment of the macroeconomic committee that could have served the wider society by providing relevant information. One point I did not make, but is worth mentioning, is consulting and advising fees could eat way a large share of the annual rate of return on the Fund.