Welcome to this session, which will be about the Oil Fund.

And you have already applauded the first two participants: Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg and popularly known as the Oil Fund manager, the leader of NBIM, Nicolai Tangen. Please give both of them a big round of applause.

We shall, in line with the Oil Fund's ethos of being the most open fund in the world, discuss the money that we have set aside and invested around the world.

And we shall delve into a more turbulent world, talk about the emphasis between ethics and profit, and how a gigantic fund that has frameworks governed by politicians should not, however, become political.

In short, we shall talk about the Government Pension Fund Global, popularly called the Oil Fund.

We shall talk about the 20,000 billion kroner as of June 2025 that we have invested in interest-bearing securities, some real estate, 8374 companies around the world.

My name is Torbjørn Røe Isaksen. I am the political editor at E24.

And we shall start by, somewhat simplified, probably 8374 companies minus 11.

And then, uh, we can start with you, Nicolai Tangen. Uh, the title you have chosen is "Oil Fund in Turbulent Times." So, congratulations on a very well-timed event.

Yes, it's a fantastic opportunity to be here with the Finance Minister and shed light on these very important points. So, a warm welcome to everyone.

I think we should just start, start Nicolai, by you giving us, I think we should do it right now, that you just give us a short overview. What are we talking about when we talk about the Government Pension Fund Global, the Oil Fund, and what is NBIM, which you lead? Go through that very briefly.

Very good. Uh, the Oil Fund is the most fantastic, the most fantastic invention we have in Norway, set up, uh, in your time.

And, uh, 20,000 billion is an absolutely unfathomable amount.

We own 1.5% of almost 9,000 companies all over the world. We own almost 1,000 properties and a lot, a lot of government bonds.

And NBIM, that is Norges Bank Investment Management. We are 700 people working all over the world. 300 in Oslo, 140 in London, over 100 in New York, and then we also have Singapore.

So we move the money around. The money works, in a way, uh, all day long. It works 23 hours. It sleeps one hour. That's the hour before New Zealand wakes up.

And can you just briefly also, so that we have it in place. Uh, when one says that the fund is an index-proximate fund, what does that mean?

Um, one of, one of the reasons the Fund has been a great success is that we have a very good and strict mandate from the Ministry of Finance that tells us how we should be invested.

And we adhere to that and do not deviate very much. And that is very important.

Okay. And then we will go into, we will start first before we lift our gaze and look forward. We start with the matter that has characterized much of Norwegian public life in the last couple of weeks.

And I think many have noticed what has happened. That is, the discussion about investments in Israeli companies.

But I think many still wonder why what happened, happened, and whether, uh, for me, at least, it's not entirely clear whether a mistake was made or whether it's just something one subsequently sees that we could have done differently here, or now it's time to withdraw.

Uh, I'll turn to you first, Tangen.

Yes. First of all, we must say that what we see in Israel is a humanitarian tragedy, and it is something that affects all of us, we who work in the fund, so it is, uh, absolutely terrible at least.

We are invested in Israel, and we shall be invested in Israel in a, uh, by showing increased diligence.

So we are invested in, uh, about 40 companies there.

And, uh, what has happened then, which has been the issue recently, is that, uh, we, uh, have gone, uh, through the companies, uh, again and seen that the assessment we made in May was good enough.

At that time, there was one company that we classified as, uh, medium risk, which subsequently turns out to be high risk because there were closer ties between the company and the warfare than we saw at that time.

So what we have done now is to bring the management home.

We previously used so-called external managers, i.e., managers who live in Israel. We have terminated those relationships and then we have brought the management home to Norway.

And then we have sold out of 11 companies that were not in this index that we answered about.

But, but has, has a mistake been made? Was it wrong, that is, a breach of the ethical guidelines to invest in, among other things, this one company mentioned in 2023?

No, we, it's difficult to, in a way, call it a mistake, but we take self-criticism that the assessment we made in May, in retrospect, uh, was not good enough.

And we also say that we should have brought that management home earlier.

Those are really the things we, we must take criticism for.

Uh, Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg, in May this year, uh, you answered a special rapporteur in the UN that you were, paraphrasing, confident that the Oil Fund does not contribute to Israel's violations of international law.

That same spring, specifically on June 4th, there was a discussion in the Storting. Then you said much the same.

You said, among other things, that you had, quote, confidence that the Council on Ethics and Norges Bank follow up guidelines in a good way.

You said, quote: "We have good guidelines that will ensure that we get out of companies that contribute to violations of international law.

How do you think those statements from a few months ago stand now?

First, I think we should all acknowledge that what is now happening in Gaza is so terrible that what we, uh, have set up as a system for managing the pension fund, it is now being challenged in the strongest possible way.

Uh, for that, I believe we have arrangements in place to prevent us from investing in wrong companies.

But thirdly, when there then arises uncertainty about whether those arrangements are working as they should, whether we are following the ethical guidelines as we should, as happened last week, then we must take action immediately.

And that's what we did.

Uh, we sent a letter to Norges Bank and the Council on Ethics. We had two meetings with them, uh, last week.

Uh, and, uh, then the Pension Fund itself has now made decisions, uh, which I believe are important and good and which reduce the risk of us being in the wrong companies.

In addition, we have asked them to review their mandate, uh, how they manage that mandate, to see if any adjustments are necessary.

Whether adjustments are necessary, we will also look at that.

I still believe we have a good system.

Uh, but if there is doubt about whether that system is working, then we will see if we should sharpen and improve the system.

But is it, is it correctly understood then that, uh, when you, the Ministry of Finance, sent this response to the UN, you were in the Storting and answered the Storting about this or participated in a debate and answered the Storting, then, then neither the Ministry of Finance nor you knew that the Oil Fund was invested in companies that then perhaps may have contributed to violations of international law?

That is, first one must distinguish the two letters, two completely different things.

For the one was about whether it was against international law that Norway, that is, whether Norway violated international law. We are very confident that we do not.

Another question, which is what was discussed in the Storting, is whether the fact that we have invested in companies contributes to the companies, uh, uh, no, that contributes to states, that is, Israel, violating international law.

So there is quite a big difference between whether Norway violates international law and Israel violates international law.

And those are two different questions.

Uh, well, that is, what we knew was that there were many lists, and we have received those lists, uh, the Pension Fund, the Council on Ethics, Norges Bank, and gone through the lists, and they have contributed to us withdrawing from a number of companies.

What became clear about a week ago was that perhaps that review had not been as thorough as it should have been.

And then we are careful that that review is thorough.

So, so we must keep the following in mind. It will happen again that we are in a company we should not be in.

Uh, that is the whole point of the Council on Ethics, that they review companies, assess them.

Uh, and then they can, or I am quite confident that they will again come across companies that they believe we should withdraw from.

But to withdraw from them, we must almost have been in them.

Uh, so that we cannot, uh, exclude that also in the future there will be situations, uh, where we need, uh, that is, the Council on Ethics' assessment, uh, and that it will lead to Norges Bank's Executive Board, which makes the final decision, deciding that these and those companies shall be withdrawn from.

One, one of the things that we are going to talk about today and which you have also warned against, perhaps not exactly in those words, but it is a type of politicization of the fund.

And when this matter came up, then it is such that the Ministry of Finance and you as a minister, uh, send what has been called a political signal to the fund.

Many perceive it as a very clear message.

And then the question really is, could the Oil Fund have done anything other than what they have now done, or is it in reality a political override of the fund?

No, it is not. I am concerned that when we govern, we govern in a very orderly manner.

We establish mandates. We establish guidelines for the Council on Ethics.

Uh, and then we have given the Council on Ethics the authority to give advice.

And then it is Norges Bank that makes the final decision.

Those things must be clear.

But when uncertainty arises about whether the system is working, whether they are delivering in relation to the guidelines, then we have a dialogue.

Uh, and now we see that Norges Bank, the Pension Fund, is acting to remove that doubt.

Uh, but I try to emphasize that I do not think this is the last time we will be in a situation, uh, where action must be taken.

And a lot of our system is precisely set up so that the Council on Ethics assesses companies and recommends withdrawal.

But if the fund had come to a different conclusion or the Council on Ethics, would it realistically have been possible without creating a crisis system?

I don't think we should speculate now.

We have had a good conversation. We have had a good dialogue.

Uh, uh, Norges Bank has delivered quickly on the letter I sent that day.

There was uncertainty about whether the guidelines were fully as they should be.

Uh, and then it is also very important that we, we want the same.

It is not such that we work on the same team. Norges Bank, the Council on Ethics, the Pension Fund, and the government and the Storting.

Uh, we want a large fund that shall be invested in many companies, because that is good for the Norwegian economy.

And then we want that fund to invest in ways that do not conflict with ethical guidelines.

Uh, and then we will have some challenges sometimes. We have had them before, we have had them again. We have them now.

We will have them in the future.

And then we must adjust the use of instruments and the assessments.

And especially when there is such a terrible war as it is in Israel, then we must be especially diligent.

And that is what I perceive that Norges Bank is now.

We shall, we shall soon move on a bit. With, with this as a backdrop that, that came with it.

But I have a couple more questions, and that is that you have been very clear that you have confidence in both the Oil Fund, uh, in the Council on Ethics in the Oil Fund, uh, the system there, the Executive Board of Norges Bank, which is the board for the Oil Fund.

And then it is an obvious question that if you have confidence in the system, why was it then necessary to connect so closely politically?

Why was it, it was to assure ourselves that the arrangements we had in place were working and doing their job quickly, and then I believe in talking together.

That is, we are in, we are part of the same, uh, state that manages these funds together.

And then we have slightly different tasks and roles and slightly different mandates.

But it would have been strange, uh, if we, on Tuesday, I think it was, uh, experience that there is such great uncertainty about whether the arrangements put in place are delivering as they should.

Then it is wise to talk together.

We found a way to handle it.

Uh, and then we have received the first measures now this week adopted by Norges Bank, no, by the Pension Fund.

Uh, and then, and then, uh, there will be more.

Uh, and then I think it is a good Norwegian custom to talk together, but nevertheless be concerned about responsibilities and roles and who makes which decisions.

It was a decision made by the Pension Fund, but it is something we have had close dialogue with them about to understand their assessments.

Have, have any of your decisions in this process been influenced by the fact that there is an election campaign?

No, I don't think so.

Uh, and I say that because this would have been serious regardless.

Uh, it is characterized by the fact that we cannot be in a situation where there is doubt about whether we are violating the guidelines that are set for Norway not to invest in companies that contribute to violations of international law.

Uh, and I believe that first and foremost out of consideration for the people who see and experience the suffering in Gaza, the illegal occupation in the West Bank.

But I also believe because I am concerned that we can also in the future have the world's largest pension fund that invests heavily in shares.

Uh, and then the only way to ensure that is that we also have, uh, rules and guidelines that people trust will be adhered to, and if that doubt arises, then we must remove that doubt.

Now, now, over the last few years, there have been two very special, or extraordinary was the word used about this situation related to the war in Gaza.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine also created an extraordinary situation in the Oil Fund, that there were international sanctions and the government decided that the fund should withdraw.

And if we then look forward, there is reason to believe that perhaps we, perhaps we live in a world where more extraordinary things will happen.

Starting with the Finance Minister, and then Tangen can also join in. Are we equipped for that kind of world with the fund we have today?

With some exceptions, with some reservations, with some problems along the way, we have now for 30 years managed this in a, uh, very good way in the sense that no other country has managed anything close.

Uh, to take all the income from natural resources, sell them, and then save all the money, uh, and use nothing of the oil income.

The only thing we use is the financial return from the fund itself.

Uh, and then we have received a very good return for the community by being placed in shares.

Uh, and that is, I, it was controversial at the time I was Finance Minister when we made the decision to invest in shares in 1997.

Uh, at that time, many warned us that it would not work, it would become too political.

I believe it has worked, but we have, that is, encountered some problems along the way.

We will certainly have problems in the future as well.

Uh, and therefore we have, therefore we have continuously adjusted the system.

I am absolutely sure we will adjust it in the future.

Exactly what adjustments we should make, how we should change, uh, the arrangements we have to take care of the fund. Uh, that is not something I, we should not conclude on today.

For one reason that it has gone so well is that now we have made changes, we have done it regularly over these 30 years, we have had thorough investigations.

We have had thorough dialogue with all involved, Norges Bank, the Pension Fund, the Storting.

Uh, and then we have, uh, uh, made decisions.

So I am open to the idea that we will make new decisions about how we organize this in the future, but we will do it in the same thorough way as we have done in the past, because that has secured the fund for 30 years.

Uh, Tangen, NBIM or the Oil Fund's task is to earn money responsibly and within ethical frameworks.

And this has become increasingly important for the Norwegian state budget as well.

It is a large part of our welfare budget.

And then, seen from a purely economic financial perspective, which is your main task, what are the biggest threats to the fund going forward?

Uh, or challenges, you can certainly say if one is to keep.

Maybe just say one thing first. Why are we so well equipped for the future?

Yes, because we are extremely broadly diversified with our investments all over the world.

And then we have a very long-term view on what we do.

And the best way to get through big ups and downs is to be broadly exposed and have a long time horizon and then a good mandate from the Ministry of Finance so that we, uh, are, in a way, a bit tied to the mast.

What can go wrong?

Yes, well, on our, uh, websites, we then come with such stress tests.

Yes, for example, a fragmentation of the world is very negative.

Yes, we see that, in a way, now, but the market has not yet gone down.

Trade barriers, extremely negative.

That is happening now. The market has not yet gone down.

So things are happening in the world now that one would think would have an even greater effect on, uh, the financial market.

And it has not, it still has not had that.

But it can happen.

And it is not such that the fund just goes into the sky at all times.

We will see, uh, large variations here and at some point it will go down for many years in a row.

I would like to move us on a bit to another topic. We have touched upon it a little, but there came an NHU Norwegian public inquiry expert group, uh, a few years ago. Uh, the Sverdrup Committee, as it is popularly called.

Uh, and they, they, uh, wrote that the Oil Fund, whether we want it or not, will increasingly shape the perception of Norway.

Uh, and I think it is difficult for many to really understand.

We have such a large Oil Fund of 20,000 billion kroner.

It is politicians, it is democratically governed in the sense that politicians set the framework.

At the same time, successive governments are very, very concerned that there should certainly be no politics with this fund.

So can you say something about that balancing act, Stoltenberg, why are you and several others, this is a relatively easy majority, so concerned about this so-called politicization then, or that it should become foreign policy or politics?

Because we are concerned with avoiding a situation where all individual investments in almost 9,000 companies are interpreted into a political context.

Uh, and where we should invest more or less depending on, uh, political preferences or what kind of relationship we have with various countries.

I have met many heads of government, uh, who have asked about this fund, and many of them have asked us to invest more, and they have even shown us individual companies they would like us to invest in.

Uh, and that creates a sense of security.

It creates an arm's length distance.

That I can then say no, it is not the government, it is not the finance minister, it is not the prime minister who decides that.

We have a system, we have a pension fund, we have Norges Bank, uh, and, and that is where it is decided.

And that, that I am absolutely sure makes us less vulnerable, Norway, to pressure.

Uh, and it makes us get a better fund for all Norwegians who then get safer and better returns.

Uh, and it also goes a bit the other way, doesn't it?

Uh, we are concerned that there should be a high threshold for us to make political decisions concerning the fund.

So we have made some decisions.

We have, for example, uh, withdrawn from Russia, but we did that because many countries had a common, uh, policy of implementing sanctions against Russia.

We have not introduced unilateral economic sanctions from the Norwegian side against Israel.

We shall withdraw from companies that contribute to the illegal occupation, but we shall not withdraw from all Israeli companies just because they are Israeli.

Those are two different things.

So having that distance has made it easier to manage the fund well.

But that, that was difficult for, yes, we are not going into the foreign policy part of it, I think.

But I would like to ask another question because we have, we have not unlimited time here because, uh, the Oil Fund says that trust is the fund's foundation.

One is very concerned about that, and trust is a very big word.

And then it is a question for us who are sitting here, if we are representative and you are representative, is it such that we should be, this is somewhat related to ethics and profit, is it such that we should be proud of the fund, or should we simply reconcile ourselves with the fact that the fund, within these certain frameworks, should earn as much money as possible?

That is the point. It should not make the world better. What are your thoughts on that?

Yes, but I mean it's not one or the other.

It is possible to be proud of an oil fund that earns a lot of money, but which earns it in a good and ethical way.

And that is what we do.

So I think that now, but that is what we should be most proud of.

Absolutely everything in this country.

Uh, yes, plus a few other things we should be proud of.

But, but it is absolutely fantastic.

Yes, but it is, it is not that difficult to, it is not that difficult to applaud for 3 million kroner per Norwegian.

We appreciate that.

What can, in a way, if one is concerned about, because it is also natural, isn't it?

It is very natural, uh, in a, in a political world.

So that one then wishes, when one has a large wallet, one also wishes that the fund should not only have ethical frameworks, but contribute to something good.

So can, in a way, now we are very concerned about, like, protecting the fund from that kind of political considerations or it should not become Norwegian foreign policy.

But can it be, Finance Minister, that one more clearly places a political responsibility?

Russia is an example.

There, it is the government that says sanctions.

This is not an economic question. This is politics.

Is it the government that makes the decision?

The Oil Fund does something else.

That one more clearly separates politics and what the fund should do.

Yes, but I mean that is precisely what we do.

That is, we adopt some political frameworks.

We withdraw from Russia as part of a political sanction.

We say that there shall be no nuclear weapons, there shall be no coal.

Uh, we have other clear guidelines.

Those are the politicians who decide.

Uh, and within those frameworks, it is Nicolai Tangen and the Pension Fund and Norges Bank's task to ensure the best possible return, uh, with the least possible risk within the political and ethical frameworks we have decided.

So I don't really think this is that complicated.

What is complicated is when you are in borderline cases, for example, when we have these guidelines that we shall not be in companies that contribute to states violating international law, then there are gray areas, difficult trade-offs.

Uh, and we will experience individual cases in the future as well where we see that it is put to the test and perhaps decide to withdraw from a company we have been in.

So, so but the principle, the arrangement, I believe is quite, uh, well organized and built on very clean and clear, uh, relationships in who has which responsibility.

Uh, is there, is there anything if, if, if, uh, if you could redesign the fund, start completely anew, is there anything you would have done differently?

No, it's not like I have a clear list for that.

We could perhaps have gone into shares even faster, but I remember it. We thought it was very scary to buy 40% of, that is, use 40% of the fund in shares.

That was, well, just remember that it was extremely controversial.

Uh, and then I remember we had a round also in, that is, it goes from 0 to 40% shareholding.

That was controversial in '97 and then we had a round with Kristin Halvorsen then. She was Finance Minister when we went to 60.

Uh, and in retrospect, we could perhaps, it is possible to calculate, but had we perhaps dared a little more earlier, then the fund could have been even larger.

On the other hand, then we would have, in a much younger or earlier in the fund's history, perhaps experienced more challenges than we are experiencing now.

And that could have undermined the entire fund.

So I think the very gradual approach has actually been quite wise.

Uh, on the one hand, one sees that there is, there has been a relatively broad consensus in Norwegian politics about the frameworks around the fund.

But then we see that criticism comes.

Now the matter we talked about initially, that is, the war in Gaza, is one thing.

Uh, some, especially perhaps on the left, believe that there the fund must have stricter ethical guidelines, perhaps, perhaps somewhat simplified, become more ethical.

Uh, from the opposite side, from the other side of politics, one believes, for example, that the fund should be able to invest in nuclear weapons, Frp had a proposal for that.

So the question is, as political finance minister, can we maintain this consensus?

I think it's possible, that is, I, that is, I am optimistic when I say that.

I don't think so. We have never had 100% agreement on the fund.

Uh, we have had disagreement at each of the major decisions, for example, in relation to what we should invest in, there have always been some parties that have been against.

Uh, we have had disagreement about the design of ethical guidelines, when they should come, how comprehensive they should be.

Uh, and we will have discussions in the future as well, but the main line, namely that Norway shall have a large financial fortune placed abroad, that there shall be some political frameworks for it, but otherwise it shall be managed without political interference, I am very optimistic about that.

And that is because the large majority of parties, but also the large majority of voters, see that this is extremely important for Norway.

Uh, I am now finishing the work on next year's state budget, uh, when I am not at Arendalsuka.

Uh, and, uh, and to put it this way, more than every fourth krone in that state budget comes from the return of that fund.

Uh, uh, and that means that, right, every fourth nursing home bed, every fourth pensioner, every fourth, uh, officer in the armed forces, every fourth stretch of road we have built in this country is paid for by the return of that fund.

Uh, and that is an enormous advantage we have compared to all other countries.

Uh, and therefore it is such that when you travel around, people are quite envious of that fund.

And it's a bit of luck because we found oil, but it's also a lot of good political work because we saved the oil revenues and placed them as a fund and can now live off the return.

So economically, Tangen, it's actually not a fund that lasts forever even though one often says that the Oil Fund should have an eternity perspective.

So if you look ahead the next 10 years, now we are going within, within landing very soon.

Uh, if you look ahead the next 10 years, what is, what is the economic financial, what is the nightmare scenario, something we can, can warn the growing generations against and what, as you see it, is the best case, that is, what should we strive for?

Yes, uh, the worst that can happen is a terrible situation, uh, that is, for example, much worse than the pandemic.

That is, if you really got a terrible pandemic that, uh, took down the financial markets and that was of the nature in the country so that you got much less oil fund and but actually had to increase costs and increase, uh, expenses, then the funds do not last very long.

But can you, now I was perhaps a bit unclear, but can you, can you say something if it is a bit more related to what we do also, because one thing is something like external things. There comes a big war, a meteor, something like that.

But are there any wrong choices we can make in your opinion?

No, I don't think so.

No, I don't see that as the biggest danger, one must wait for the biggest, that is, it is difficult to reduce spending in a country that is used to spending a lot of money, of course, and then if something really bad happens that causes the financial banks to crash properly and we continue to spend a lot of money.

That is the negative scenario here.

I don't think we make individual choices in the Oil Fund that will be, uh, catastrophic.

And then what is the best that can happen?

Yes, that is just a continuation of what has happened in recent years.

It is absolutely unfathomable, that is.

Yes, but I just want to say, when my predecessor, uh, said goodbye, the fund was 10,000 billion.

And I thought, is it a good idea to apply for that job?

It can only go downhill.

And now it is 20,000 billion.

Good.

No.

No. That is, I think, I think we must think that it is not, you cannot hide that fortune.

There are no safe places to, there are no 100% safe places to place.

That is, I, I was a student in the 80s and wrote my master's thesis on optimal oil extraction paths and management of oil wealth.

Uh, and I have said several times before that I got somewhat strange results because I got the result that you should buy oil on the spot market in Amsterdam and pump it back into the continental shelf.

Uh, uh, so therefore it is strange that I am here now.

But it was from that, wasn't it?

But the point was that the alternative is to leave the oil there.

That is certainly not a safe placement and to believe that the oil will be worth more in 50 years and then pump it up in 50 years.

On the contrary, it may be worth very little in 50 years due to climate.

Uh, so we have pumped it up.

Then we get a lot of cash.

Uh, and then that money must be placed somewhere.

And I think it is difficult to imagine a better and safer placement than to think that we should own about 1-2% of almost all the world's companies.

That is, of all the world's productive capital.

Uh, that is not entirely certain either.

Uh, but tell me about a safer placement and we will consider it.

Now, now I can reveal, now we are out of time, but I can reveal that the Finance Minister has, has begged to be allowed to say something about the action rule.

Uh, so then now we have, you were supposed to do it now, you said when you got the floor, but you can be allowed to say something. Three sentences at the very end.

Yes, it is, it is a way to destroy that fund, it is to take out too much money.

Uh, and, right, what makes this fund very unique is that we place all the oil money there.

Uh, that we place so much in shares.

But the third is that we have decided to only take out the real return.

And that is what the action rule is about.

Uh, it is that we do not take out too much.

So things will go well for us in this country if we follow the action rule.

That was what I wanted to say.

Then we say thank you very much to Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg and Oil Fund manager Nicolai Tangen.