Green Investments

It is time to change how Norway's Oil Wealth is managed

Norway has reached a critical point in how its oil wealth is managed. There is now an active debate not just on the investment strategy of the Oil Fund, but also on the governance mechanisms by which this oil wealth is managed.

The first debate has been driven in part by the launch of a 2013 Re-Define report that was critical of the Fund’s investment strategy. The second debate is driven by a secretive investment in Formula 1 that went wrong and has been recently exposed by Dagens Naeringsliv (DN)

Solutions to the first debate include selling out of fossil fuels, investing in the green economy, seeking out illiquid assets such as infrastructure and investing half the portfolio outside OECD economies. The solution to the second is to set up a Parliamentary Council for the Oil Fund “Stortingets Råd for Oljefondet” (SRO).

While the debates have originated independent of each other, they are intimately related. The Oil Fund is owned by Norway’s Parliament on behalf of Norwegian citizens. The Parliament defines the investment objective of the Fund as “maximising the purchasing power of the fund capital, given a moderate level of risk.” Under the present governance arrangements, this objective is translated into investment guidelines by the Ministry of Finance that are then followed by Norges Bank Investment Management, which actually invests the funds.

Norway's SWF - A risky strategy that locks in low returns

This piece is the latest salvo in my on-going public debate with Norway's Ministry of Finance, that lays out the investment strategy for its $750bn sovereign wealth fund, now the biggest in the world. It appears in today's Aftenposten in response to comments by the Deputy Minister of Finance in the same newspaper.  

Norway’s future is intimately linked to how well the GPF - its $750bn sovereign wealth fund, already 150% of GDP and rising - is run. Under the 4% spending rule, as much as 15% of all government spending already comes from the GPF. Hence, returns on GPF investments and the final size of the GPF are probably more important for Norway’s economy than any other single policy.  Yet, there is little scrutiny of the merits of the GPF’s investment strategy, which is deeply flawed.

Secretary Singsaas is correct to say that GPF strategy should be based on evidence and my report provides exactly the kind of analytical basis that is necessary to improve the present approach. She agrees that there is a financial case for the GPF to make more investments in the green economy and in developing countries, but suggests incremental actions that are too little too late. The central recommendations of my report are not addressed.