• snipvoid@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    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
      0
      ·
      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.