The old man is a caricature of Jens Stoltenberg (who seems to be running the Norwegian economic machine rather well nowadays, controversial or not)
Which is exactly why you wouldn't put it in a company with a ridiculous valuation.
This is about valuation not ESG
If nothing else, at least these should be choice of users to let them choose based on their values and requirements.
Pensioners should get the same amount regardless of investments, as long as there is enough funding, which it seems there is for the moment.
Of course, if someone wants to risk their own money, they can invest in whatever they want. They can even sell their pension for a cash lump sum and invest that.
> "but our job is to earn money and we can't do that if you hippies keep standing in the way with your morals"
What these clowns conveniently forget is that their job is not just "to make money" but to make money over a span of decades and centuries in the case of the sovereign funds. A long term investment fund that optimizes for the next quarter at the expense of the long term is a bad fund.
And so the ESG and woke "hippie bullshit" is nothing more than the basic capitalism of maximizing your gains by 2100 by not destroying the one planet all your companies are on.
Long term funds do not have the luxury of being passive owners. If they take no role in management, that role will instead by taken by whatever short-term owner walks in next. They don't care about the value by 2100, they just want the company to tear the copper out of it's own walls so they can sell with a profit by next quarter, retail even sooner.
ESG is just another phony way for someone to manipulate stock prices, because it's decided by some committee with arbitrary and opaque ways. And that's why no one takes it seriously any more.
In turn you also want democratically elected politicians above that saying “yes, but the people want their money made ethically, so you can’t do that”.
The job of the police is arresting people who break the law, but similarly to your money manager, you really don't want them to do this regardless of anything else, there is more things to consider than just "do everything you can to arrest people", and hopefully the same for your money manager. But also, I might be too European to understand the true value of "money grow regardless of society cost at large".
In a good system both sides fight for their interests, and the outcome is some middle road compromise that optimizes for everyone's benefit.
This leaves room for individuals to act in accordance with their morals above and beyond the law.
> Norway is the 5th largest weapons and defense manufacturer
> while the so called Oil Fund doesn't directly invest in them, Kongsberg is 50% state owned.
> Glad Norway's oil fund has some sense and is above the virtue signaling of the Danes.
> so called Oil Fund
[1] https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/fs_2603_at_2025.pdf
[2] https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/fs_2512_top_100_2024.pdf
[3] https://nordicdefencereview.com/operating-in-more-than-40-countries-kongsberg-norway-2024-performance-review-and-growth-outlook-kongsberg-norway-2024-results-and-growth-trajectory/
[4] https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/6052795/aerospace-and-defense-in-norway
[5] https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2025/sipri-top-100-arms-producers-see-combined-revenues-surge-states-rush-modernize-and-expand-arsenalsOf course it does not mean that its stock price will crash after the IPO, stock markets in the US especially are not exactly behaving rationally.
> Norway is the 5th largest weapons and defense manufacturer
What's the issue with that? Unilateral disarmament would be an exceptionally stupid idea for any country and then you do need need someone to produce weapons for your military and those of your allies.
How would you know if they are doing those moves because it's what they believe in, vs it's just a position they'd like to broadcast publicly?
In my mind, a symbolic gesture would be to speak against Tesla and SpaceX without actually doing something, that'd be "virtue signaling" in my mind, but since they're actually doing something, a practical action to not just speak but also not invest into those companies, doesn't it stop being "virtue signaling" at that point?
I get the cynicism about performative acts vs. authentic values but where's the line? Putting your money where your mouth is has to count for something.
No, thats hypocrisy.