• 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.