• 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.

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

                    You seem confused. Let me be clear:

                    • I have no criticism for the Finnish Parliament or their choice of soft drink selection.

                    • I have no belief that a government office cafeteria is equally as complex as a pension fund.

                    Now if you’ve made it this far, why are Finland choosing not to support Pepsi? Let’s look to the article:

                    The Finnish parliament will no longer carry Pepsi products as the American soft drink giant continues to support the Russian economy by continuing its operations in the aggressor country

                    So, from the article, the Finnish Parliament have taken a stand against Pepsi because Pepsi won’t cease operating in Russia. And Pepsi Co failing to stop their operations in Russia is bad. Right?

                    Still with me? Great.

                    Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund also isn’t ceasing their operations (by way of their investments) in Russia.

                    Again: where is the equivalent outrage? Why isn’t anyone taking a stand against Norway for not divesting? They said they would, but haven’t. The amount is pennies when compared to their other investments. So why are they hanging on to them? Why don’t they do what they said they would? And why isn’t anyone speaking out against them for failing to divest, especially while their former PM is leading NATO?

                    Hope that helps!