• Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The value of their investments is lower because they’ve been pulling out of Russia. The article you sent says they’ve slashed the value down by 90%, and they’re still going. Liquidating hundreds of millions in stocks while getting a decent value out of them takes time, and so far they’ve done a pretty good job selling off 90% of their Russian holdings with just a few more millions to go

    • snipvoid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Let’s break down that January 31, 2023 article once more:

      1: The investments in Moscow listed equities dropped from $2.7 billion to a mere $300 million.

      It would be laughably naive to think this is purely because they’ve been ‘pulling out’ of Russia. By all means, review the article and let me know if it states the exact reason for the decrease in value.

      2: By December 31, 2022, Norway still had shares in 51 Russian companies.

      It’s September 2023. If they were aggressively pulling out, wouldn’t they have zero investments by now?

      Nice try.

      • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Timelines for individual retail investors are significantly shorter than timelines for multibillion dollar sovereign wealth funds with fiduciary obligations.

        • snipvoid@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          And yet all the investments, their value, and what percentage of ownership the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund possess are all publicly available on their website.

          If I filter by ‘Russia’, they still show 51 companies. Today. Let’s look at their top five, which you can also view by accessing their own data.

          Highest Percentage of Ownership:

          1. Lenta International Co PJSC: 2.25%
          2. Rosseti Centre PJSC: 2.69%
          3. Ufaorgsintez OAO: 0.99%
          4. Segezha Group PJSC: 1.16%
          5. Bank St Petersburg PJSC: 1.76%

          Highest Amounts of Investment in NOK:

          1. Gazprom PJSC: 731,368,780
          2. LUKOIL PJSC: 536,571,485
          3. Sberbank of Russia PJSC: 523,299,961
          4. Novatek PJSC: 118,267,597
          5. Surgutneftegas PJSC: 76,130,966

          ^ these alone = ~$185,140,710 USD.

          What fiduciary obligations does a pension fund have that is somehow more complex, important, and forgivable vs obligations belonging to Pepsi Co?

          • hypelightfly@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What fiduciary obligations does a pension fund have that is somehow more complex, important, and forgivable vs obligations belonging to Pepsi Co?

            I largely agree with what your saying but this part is ridiculous. The Finnish parliament has no obligations to serve/sell Pepsi. It’s not an investment it was literally having the drink available. That’s not at all comparable to the fiduciary duty of a pension fund.

            • snipvoid@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, but now tell me how the richest pension fund in the world, currently valued in the trillions, has such fiduciary obligation that it can’t divest ~$300 million of Russian investments.

              Make it make sense.

                • snipvoid@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I did not. Happy to help!

                  My original comment (to which you responded) regarding the obligations of Pepsi Co were highlighting a critical comparison between a corporate drinks manufacturer and the pension fund. The Finnish Parliament can do what they like. If they’re doing it because Pepsi Co hasn’t fully pulled out of Russia, and thus Pepsi deserves to be shunned, what does Norway deserve?

                  If action is mandated for entities that don’t divest from Russia, then it must equally be applicable to all entities where this is true. Otherwise, hypocrisy.

                  • hypelightfly@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes, you did. That’s the part I largely agreed with. The part I don’t agree with is fiduciary funds obligations not being more complex than serving drinks in your cafeteria/restaurant.