Connect with us

Business

How sparsely populated Norway amassed $1.8 trillion

Published

on



Of all the world’s sovereign wealth funds, Norway’s is one of the most unusual. These giant, state-linked investment vehicles tend to pick and choose what assets they hold to manage risk, maximize returns and further national strategic interests. Not so with Norges Bank Investment Management, which largely tracks global indexes in order to generate an income from the country’s oil and gas revenues. 

Launched in the early 1990s to invest mostly in bonds, the fund has grown to become the largest of its kind by acquiring small equity stakes in thousands of companies across the world. 

With $1.8 trillion of assets, the fund now generates far more income for the Nordic country’s 5.6 million population than oil and gas production. There are growing concerns that the economy has become so dependent on the income from the fund that domestic industries are becoming less innovative and dynamic as a result.

There’s also been criticism of the fund’s passive approach to investing the nation’s wealth, which leaves it with few tools to adapt to the ebb and flow of global capital. This was underscored in April when it reported its biggest loss in six quarters amid the market turmoil unleashed by US President Donald Trump’s threatened trade tariffs. 

What’s special about Norway’s sovereign wealth fund?

The fund stands apart from many of its peers due to its strict investment rules. 

Firstly, it must always invest outside Norway — a rule designed to avert the risk of “Dutch disease,” where resource wealth can end up destabilizing the domestic economy by inflating the local currency and making it harder for other national industries to compete. 

Whereas wealth funds in many other nations act partly to stimulate domestic industries or invest strategically to enhance a country’s soft power abroad, NBIM has limited scope for active investing. The equity portion of the fund, which makes up 70% of the total, holds stakes in the 8,700 listed companies in 44 countries that comprise the FTSE Global All Cap index. As a result, it now owns about 1.5% of listed stocks worldwide. The fixed-income portion of the fund tracks Bloomberg Barclays indexes, with 70% allocated to government bonds and 30% to corporate securities.

Other wealth funds are freer to adjust their priorities and how they achieve them. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is increasingly focused on private equity and data-driven investing, while Mubadala Investment Co. plays a central role in diversifying the emirate’s economy through stakes in health care and finance. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund is leading the kingdom’s Vision 2030 transformation plan, with major bets on mining, gaming and technology. Singapore’s GIC Pte is ramping up its US exposure and taking on more risk in private markets.

What are the origins of Norway’s wealth fund? 

Norway discovered significant oil and gas reserves in the North Sea in 1969, and today is western Europe’s largest producer of the fossil fuels. Anxious to avoid the instability, corruption and weak economic growth experienced in other resource-rich economies, the government imposed heavy taxes on the energy sector and placed strong regulatory controls on the industry. In 1990, after years of political debate, Norway’s parliament created the Petroleum Fund to ensure that oil revenues would benefit current and future generations. The first capital transfer to the fund was made in 1996. As it spread its investments across the world, it shifted gradually to explicitly supporting the national pension system, and was renamed the Government Pension Fund Global in 2006. The fund is managed by NBIM, the asset management arm of Norway’s central bank. 

How did Norway’s wealth fund get so big?

Early on, the fund was padded out with cash from oil taxes, licensing fees and profits from the state energy company. Initially limited to investing in bonds, its mandate expanded over time. Today, it’s the world’s biggest single owner of listed shares. 

The government can’t just grab what it wants from the fund. No more than 3% of its value can be diverted annually to the national budget, a rule intended to preserve the wealth for future generations. The rest is kept for new investments.  

When comparing its investment returns with those of other sovereign wealth funds, the Norwegian fund achieved a relatively average performance over the five years to 2023, returning 7.45%, according to research consultancy Global SWF. That’s less than Abu Dhabi fund Mubadala, at 10.1%, and China Investment Corporation, with 8.6%, but higher than the 4.5% return for Singapore’s Temasek and 5.2% for the Korean Investment Corporation. 

How has the Norwegian fund’s mandate evolved?

The fund has increased its investments in equities over time and added real estate and renewable energy infrastructure. It has also emphasized sustainability and responsible investing, with a growing focus on environmental, social and governance factors — an approach that’s not changed in response to the US Trump administration’s backlash against “woke capitalism.”

What are the Norwegian fund’s ethical investing principles? 

Since 2004, the fund has operated under ethical guidelines set by the finance ministry and approved by parliament. An independent Ethics Council oversees the guidelines, which prohibit investments in companies involved in “gross corruption” or serious violations of human and labor rights, or that contribute to severe environmental damage. They also exclude companies that produce certain weapons, such as nuclear arms and cluster bombs. 

Some 67 companies had been dropped from the fund by the end of 2024 due to their conduct. These included Indian firm Adani Ports, for its business with the armed forces of Myanmar, and the communications company Bezeq, for its activities in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are illegal under international law. A further 104 companies have been removed from the fund because of what they sell: The fund’s guidelines prohibit investments in the cannabis industry, tobacco and coal. It also avoids companies that are responsible for “unacceptable greenhouse gas emissions” — even though the fund itself is infused with income from the sale of fossil fuels.

Will the Norwegian wealth fund change its investing mandate? 

NBIM reported a 0.6% loss on its investments — equivalent to $40 billion — in the first three months of 2025. The market downturn has deepened since then in response to President Trump’s sweeping US tariffs, sparking a debate in Norway over how to protect the fund from a more unpredictable economic climate. About 40% of the fund’s equity holdings are in the US, and some Norwegian politicians say it should shift more investments to Europe so it’s less exposed to volatile US markets. US bonds made up 9% of the fund’s holdings at the end of 2024. Norway’s finance minister, former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, has said the fund remains committed to its long-term strategy while “continuing to assess risk management options.”

Norway’s conservative opposition has proposed revising the fund’s guidelines to allow it to buy shares in companies that make nuclear weapons. The current restriction precludes the fund from investing in much of the European arms industry, which is in line for a profit windfall as governments embark on the biggest rearmament since the Cold War in response to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Norway currently supplies about 30% of Europe’s gas, and some politicians have called for more cash transfers from the fund to support the government in Kyiv, arguing that Norway’s oil and gas industry has made massive profits from the European energy crisis that followed Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. 

The fund’s leadership has argued repeatedly for adding private equity to its investments, a call that the finance ministry has rejected, wary of the sector’s high fees and relative lack of transparency. The debate is ongoing.

What does Norway do with the wealth fund’s available profits?

Some of them go to support Norway’s extensive welfare system, which provides free education and health care, subsidized child care and generous sick leave. Norway ranks third on the UN’s global Human Development Index, after Iceland and Switzerland. In 2024, transfers from the fund accounted for roughly 20–25% of the national budget. The government has proposed to transfer 50 billion kroner ($4.85 billion) from the fund to support the government of Ukraine. 

What’s the fund’s impact on Norway and the world?

The fund has been a financial buffer that enabled the country to weather fluctuations in oil prices and the economy and maintain the country’s fiscal stability. 

The fund has furthered Norway’s soft power by promoting sustainable business practices worldwide. In June 2024, its managers voted against Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk’s record high compensation package of $56 billion that’s since risen in value and has been contested in court. The fund issues its voting intentions five days before the annual meetings of the companies it invests in, and opposed board recommendations in 5% of shareholder votes in 2024. 

Yet there’s a debate about how reliant Norway has become on the money generated by the fund. Critics say it’s making the country’s political leaders complacent and its population less productive. They point to data showing national productivity has worsened relative to other wealthy nations in the past two decades. The government is spending growing sums to subsidize sick leave for workers, and student test stores have been on a downward trend. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Senate Dems’ plan to fix Obamacare premiums adds nearly $300 billion to deficit, CRFB says

Published

on



The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.

With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.

“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.

The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.

CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.

Reversing recent guardrails

MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.

The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.

The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.

MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.

The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.

“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.

The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.​

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix–Warner Bros. deal sets up $72 billion antitrust test

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market. 

The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of ThronesFriends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.  

That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.

“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”

By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump. 

Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.

The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”

European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.

The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.

Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.

Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation. 

“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.

Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.

The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.

Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. 

Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of AI reasoning models comes with a big energy tradeoff

Published

on



Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.

AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.

The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.

The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives

More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.

Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said. 

The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.

“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”

To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.

The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.” 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.” 

Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.

Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.