[HN Gopher] Norway wealth fund to vote for human rights report a...
___________________________________________________________________
Norway wealth fund to vote for human rights report at Microsoft,
against Nadella
Author : saubeidl
Score : 295 points
Date : 2025-11-30 13:40 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| pbiggar wrote:
| Since it doesn't say it in the article, the human rights they're
| referring to is that Microsoft was caught providing Azure
| services to the Israeli army's unit 8200, which used them to
| surveil millions of hours of Palestinian calls.
|
| Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Palantir are all providing cloud
| and AI services to Israel which it uses it the genocide in Gaza
| and the continued military occupation of Palestine.
|
| - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/09/microsoft...
|
| - https://www.972mag.com/microsoft-8200-intelligence-surveilla...
|
| - https://afsc.org/newsroom/unprecedented-investor-action-dema...
|
| - https://countercurrents.org/2025/11/microsoft-ignites-protes...
| reactordev wrote:
| Yes, let's go after US Steel because some guy with a gun shot
| up a school.
|
| Unless Microsoft is directly supplying the software which
| surveils instead of just "general purpose compute" this isn't
| as big as Norway would want you to believe. They can just
| terminate the accounts as violations of terms of service and
| claim that millions of users use azure cloud to serve websites
| and content, the dance will go on.
|
| I don't think punishing the steel maker for a gun maker who
| sold it to a distributor who then sold it to a nut job should
| be liable for the nut job. This is the same for tech. Sub
| contractors for Israel government got Azure hosting and subbed
| it out to Palantir to plant their platform inside (gun maker)
| and then sold it to Israel (nut job).
|
| Palantir on the other hand...
| Scarblac wrote:
| The Norway wealth fund is a co owner of Microsoft, like
| everyone with shares. Google says they own 1.35%, worth 50
| billion.
|
| If they want Microsoft not to provide "general compute" to
| the Israeli army then they can try to get a majority of
| Microsft owners to go along with it.
|
| I think that's not the same as pressure on Microsoft from the
| outside.
| isodev wrote:
| It's so black and white, it's a question of signals and
| eventually consequences. Even if the vote doesn't pass,
| that's not the primary objective here I think.
| nmridul wrote:
| Yes, its general purpose compute. But if you or me use Azure
| for illegal purpose (pirated content, tax evasion, violence
| etc etc..), for sure Microsoft won't be sitting idle.
| pbiggar wrote:
| It's relevant because Microsoft, like all big companies, have
| Human Rights Pricinples and such that are part of the
| company. It's basically impossible to get big institutional
| investment without it.
|
| The issue is that they were caught not following their
| practices, and then lying about it. So the shareholders are
| asking that they produce a report about whether they are
| following their own human rights principles.
|
| And Satya is resisting it, because it is very clear that they
| are not following them, as workers [1] have been calling out
| for years now. Many leaked documents have shown that
| Microsoft actually embeds employees directly with the IDF and
| makes millions in service contracts with them. [2]
|
| [1] https://noazureforapartheid.com/ [2]
| https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/microsoft-azure-israel-top-
| cu...
| pjmlp wrote:
| For anyone that is still green on company politics, all
| company principles are check boxes that form part of an HR
| circus of yearly compliance trainings, and marketing for
| young employees that are naive enough to think they mean
| anything.
| bvan wrote:
| Perhaps this reflects your experience, in your part of
| the world. In some parts of the world, principles and
| ethics do count, and don't change on a dime (as they do
| in the US).
| pjmlp wrote:
| Several European countries.
|
| Regardless of the part of the world, corruption happens
| when the right price gets negotiated.
|
| It can be money, a favour, need to help someone in need,
| needing to meet specific sales KPIs,...
| reactordev wrote:
| Shhhh, you'll scare away the new hires that have to pay
| the interest on the loans they were told would get them
| there.
| nradov wrote:
| In my experience working at several US health IT
| companies, company principles for following HIPAA rules
| (especially patient privacy) were taken seriously at all
| levels and considered more than just compliance check
| boxes. Regardless of the ethical issues, if you get a
| reputation for being sloppy and the trade press writes
| negative articles then that can kill your sales pipeline.
| NickC25 wrote:
| >Many leaked documents have shown that Microsoft actually
| embeds employees directly with the IDF.
|
| Are you sure it's not the other way around?
| saagarjha wrote:
| > Unless Microsoft is directly supplying the software which
| surveils instead of just "general purpose compute" this isn't
| as big as Norway would want you to believe. They can just
| terminate the accounts as violations of terms of service
|
| They did: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-
| issues/2025/09/25/update-...
| Cpoll wrote:
| Doesn't the article you linked contradict that? It sounds
| like they're claiming they only provided general purpose
| blob storage.
|
| > First, we do not provide technology to facilitate mass
| surveillance of civilians. We have applied this principle
| in every country around the world, and we have insisted on
| it repeatedly for more than two decades. This is why we
| explained publicly on August 15 that Microsoft's standard
| terms of service prohibit the use of our technology for
| mass surveillance of civilians.
| jakupovic wrote:
| So helping with blob storage or not helping at all? Can't
| be in dual state.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Actually we should as well, given the shady deals some of
| them make with politicians, which create a set of cascading
| events that end up in school shootings as if they were good
| old saloon fights.
| 15155 wrote:
| Should we start regulating 3D printers and CNC mills next?
| zimpenfish wrote:
| If the number of people killed by guns made at home with
| 3D printers or CNC mills gets to the same ballpark as
| those killed by commercial guns, sure, it's a
| conversation to have.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Probably yes, if everyone starts building guns with them.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Thoughts and prayer will surely work this time.
| mayneack wrote:
| If Microsoft were providing "general purpose compute to Iran"
| the US would sanction them.
| reactordev wrote:
| I definitely agree with you.
| orochimaaru wrote:
| And the US would be right to prosecute Microsoft because
| there are US sanctions against Iran. There are no US
| sanctions against Israel. Israel is also considered and
| important ally. So, industry cooperation with defense on
| both sides is legal.
| arccy wrote:
| currently legal is the lowest bar, it doesn't mean it's
| moral to support a genocidal state.
| reactordev wrote:
| This is the current conundrum. It's perfectly legal (and
| politically recommended) to support this genocidal regime
| in the name of some guy who lived and died 2000 years
| ago. Can't have the dark skinned terrorists perform their
| cult like rituals on the floor of their beloved sacred
| holy sites (shared by all three might I add).
|
| It's faith-based warfare disguised as a terrorist fight
| and the AI is in full force flooding feeds of aid when
| the reality is it's a god damn wasteland.
| orochimaaru wrote:
| That's a nice story spun by the lobbyists in the US and
| Europe (if there is such a thing in Europe). But said
| person 2000 years ago was crucified by the Romans at the
| request of the Jews.
|
| There are Jews of every color - so feeding this as a
| white vs brown fight is incorrect.
|
| I don't belong to (nor believe) in any of the 3 religions
| in this fight. But historically the other two (Christians
| and Muslims) have been very genocidal.
| grafmax wrote:
| It's more akin to an arms manufacturer knowingly supplying a
| genocidal regime.
|
| As for targeting Palantir _instead_ , boycott, divestment,
| and sanctions is most effective when it targets _all_ the
| complicit players.
| drzaiusx11 wrote:
| Any export increases of gun metal grade, high carbon steel
| should be a red flag these days to stateside corporations
| operating in war zones. Structural steel is a low carbon
| steel that has more 'give' and is easier to weld. It's
| obvious which is which.
|
| In Sweden's case, however, even pre-war they were already
| exporting 40% of Germany's demand for raw ore which increased
| to 50% during wartime iirc. So Germany already had the
| infrastructure necessary to process the raw materials into
| steel, and at scale scale beforehand.
|
| In modern warfare, those same foundaries would make easy
| aerial targets due to the massive heat output from the
| bessimer process required to make steel from raw ore.
| orochimaaru wrote:
| Palantir is a data and ml platform. They don't create point
| solutions for people. The solutions created are owned by the
| people contracting Palantir. If you hate on Palantir - you
| can hate on pretty much all industry in the west - oil and
| gas for supplying fuel, farmers for supplying food,
| consulting companies for consulting for the government,
| general population for paying taxes, etc.
|
| This entire thing is just political showboating. I mean feel
| free to not buy food and fuel.
| whatshisface wrote:
| If these companies were breaking laws against big people
| (facilitating investment fraud, payment processing for
| terrorists) nobody would consider these methods of
| deflection for a second - it's only because the laws are
| being broken to hurt small people that the concept of
| aiding and abetting or acting as a willing accomplice is
| considered not relevant.
|
| (Human rights are common law.)
| et-al wrote:
| The parent poster's example was more apt with US Steel.
|
| Palantir on the otherhand is a well known defense
| contractor and its stock price is arguably propped up by
| the US Department of Defen -- I mean WAR -- having an
| infinite budget.
|
| Don't be licking Thiel and Karp's boots.
| orochimaaru wrote:
| I'm not. But I don't have qualms about working at
| Palantir or any US defense contractor. If the work is
| legally allowed then I'm not going to second guess my
| source of income.
| bogwog wrote:
| > I don't think punishing the steel maker for a gun maker who
| sold it to a distributor who then sold it to a nut job should
| be liable for the nut job
|
| Nobody thinks that, because it's ridiculous. This is a false
| equivalence. Isolated crimes are inevitable, and impossible
| to solve with any single thing.
|
| But when it comes to genocide, you can stop or at least limit
| it by going after the suppliers who equip the group with the
| tools to carry it out. Microsoft is one such supplier, and
| they know exactly what they're doing. If our government isn't
| going to do something, an activist shareholder is a decent
| alternative.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > the human rights they're referring to is that Microsoft was
| caught providing Azure services to the Israeli army's unit
| 8200, which used them to surveil millions of hours of
| Palestinian calls.
|
| That's what I thought initially too, but seems this is about a
| different human rights issue, particularly in Saudi Arabia:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46097244
| pbiggar wrote:
| If you'd like to know more about Microsoft's human rights issues,
| I had a lead campaigner discuss it with me on my podcast
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A95asBbCNZo
| embedding-shape wrote:
| With a 1:16:29 runtime, could you at least share what parts are
| relevant to this submission, the very least timestamps? Even if
| I'd speed it up by 4x it'd take 30 minutes to listen to all of
| it.
| pkos98 wrote:
| Or you ask Gemini to do this for you (timestamps were removed
| when formatting into markdown)
|
| Based on the podcast "Microsoft: Powering Israel's Genocide?
| | Hossam Nasr," here are the main human rights issues alleged
| against Microsoft:
|
| 1. Complicity in Military Operations - The podcast claims
| Microsoft is a key tech provider for the Israeli military,
| specifically using the Azure cloud platform to run combat and
| intelligence activities. - It alleges Microsoft sells AI
| services (including OpenAI models) to military units like
| "Mamram," which are linked to automated targeting systems
| used to accelerate lethal strikes.
|
| 2. Surveillance and Infrastructure - Microsoft is accused of
| hosting roughly 13.6 petabytes of data used for mass
| surveillance. - The "Al-Munassiq" app, used by Palestinians
| to manage movement permits, reportedly runs on Azure and is
| described as a tool for collecting vast amounts of
| surveillance data. - The company reportedly sells technology
| directly to illegal settlements in the West Bank.
|
| 3. Internal Labor Rights & Suppression - The speaker alleges
| a double standard and discrimination against Palestinian and
| Arab employees. - Microsoft is accused of "weaponizing" HR
| policies to fire workers (including the podcast guest) for
| organizing vigils or protesting the company's military
| contracts.
|
| 4. Historical Context - The discussion references Microsoft's
| history of providing tech to ICE (Immigration and Customs
| Enforcement) in the US as part of a broader pattern of
| supporting "systems of oppression."
|
| Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A95asBbCNZo
|
| Prompt: " According to this podcast:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A95asBbCNZo
|
| What are the main human rights issues of Microsoft?"
|
| Used Gemini 3 (Thinking) via WebUI
| zahlman wrote:
| No parts of it are relevant to this submission, because (as
| others explained to you elsewhere in the thread) the
| submission is about Norway objecting to Microsoft doing
| business with Saudi Arabia, whereas GP is about attacking
| Microsoft's ties to Israel.
|
| (For some reason, doing business with Saudi Arabia is not
| counted as evidence against the "Zionist", "genocide" etc.
| etc. narrative.)
| tialaramex wrote:
| > (For some reason, doing business with Saudi Arabia is not
| counted as evidence against the "Zionist", "genocide" etc.
| etc. narrative.)
|
| Why would "Saudi Arabia treats workers badly" be evidence
| against the idea that Israel is committing genocide ?
| zahlman wrote:
| "Microsoft puts capital into Arabic countries" is
| evidence against "Microsoft has connections to Israel for
| ideological reasons".
| tialaramex wrote:
| Probably you're not cynical enough. Israel is led by the
| same guy as last century, Saudi Arabia has been run by
| the same rich assholes since before my mother was born.
| The "ideology" involved is the same in both cases:
| wealthy, powerful old men are assholes. Microsoft is
| willing to turn a blind eye to them being assholes, to
| get $$$
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > Norway's $2 trillion wealth fund said on Sunday it would vote
| for a shareholder proposal
|
| > Microsoft management had recommended shareholders voted against
| the motion.
|
| Ok, cool, but what about the reasons for those actions? What kind
| of lazy journalism is this? I guess it's nice that we know that
| something is happening, but what about reaching out to people and
| asking them _why_ so people can actually understand? For the love
| of Adam Smith, at least mention the involved countries!
| kps wrote:
| https://collaborate.unpri.org/group/35676/stream
|
| Saudi Arabia
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Thank you for providing actual source! Ever thought of
| creating and running an alternative to CNBC?
|
| Funny how most of the comments in this submission assumes
| it's about Israel, telling in more ways than one. This is why
| reporting has to be accurate :)
| grafmax wrote:
| Yeah it does seem there's some confusion. Here is the
| similar proposal referencing Israel from earlier this year
| (perhaps a source of some of the confusion):
|
| https://collaborate.unpri.org/group/35681/home
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| "things happen"
| aunty_helen wrote:
| Some more context, KSA is spending up large, think 100s of
| projects a week, for their vision 2030 where they will have
| spent 100b on software systems and AI.
|
| These are govt contracts and a lot of them have strict data
| sovereignty restrictions. Google has a big data center there
| for the exact reason to mop up this work. They also have an
| AI lab there.
| tdeck wrote:
| I think this kind of article is written by a bot these days.
| aunty_helen wrote:
| Boards will always recommend to vote against shareholder
| proposals by default. 1000:1
|
| Having a large shareholder indicate they will go with a
| shareholder proposal is the newsworthy part. It indicates
| there's something that should be being addresssed by the board
| which isn't already, which is publicly embarrassing for them.
|
| I helped build a system that would estimate the vote for these
| large institutional investors because if a board tables a vote
| and a institutional investor votes against it, it's a really
| bad look.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Ask for a refund lol
| JauntTrooper wrote:
| Some additional details: The proposal was submitted by an
| individual shareholder.
|
| She requests that the Board "commission a report assessing the
| implications of siting Microsoft cloud datacenters in countries
| of significant human rights concern, and the Company's strategies
| for mitigating these impacts."
|
| She specifically cites the 2024 completion of a Microsoft
| datacenter in Saudi Arabia, citing a "State Department report
| [that] details the highly restrictive Saudi control of all
| internet activities and pervasive government surveillance,
| arrest, and prosecution of online activity."
|
| The Board opposes the proposal because it believes Microsoft
| already discloses extensive disclosures on key human rights
| risks, and has an independent assessment each year of how they
| manage risks and its commitment to protecting freedom of
| expression and user privacy. They also re-iterate the need to
| comply with local laws and legally binding requests for customer
| data.
|
| The proposal is non-binding, so the Board doesn't have to act on
| it even in the unlikely event it gets majority support (ESG
| proposals rarely do, especially in this environment). In practice
| many Boards do choose to act on majority-supported non-binding
| shareholder proposals, though, because many shareholders will
| vote against directors the following year if they don't.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > Microsoft already discloses extensive disclosures on key
| human rights risks, and has an independent assessment each year
| of how they manage risks and its commitment to protecting
| freedom of expression and user privacy
|
| Where can one find those extensive disclosures, especially for
| year 2024/2025? I'd love to hear how Microsoft are protecting
| freedom of expression and user privacy in a country like Saudi
| Arabia, which has a track record of excelling at whatever you'd
| call the opposite of those two things.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-
| responsibility/rep...
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-
| responsibility/hum...
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-
| responsibility/rep...
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-
| responsibility/rep...
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-
| responsibility/gov...
| embedding-shape wrote:
| I guess you're familiar with those resources since you're
| claiming those mention Microsoft's approach to protecting
| freedom of expression and user privacy in Saudi Arabia.
| Could you please be kind and provide direct links to
| that/those page(s)? I opened and read through the links,
| but probably it's in some sub-page? Didn't manage to find
| anything about it.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I think the closest thing to what you're looking for is
| over at https://aka.ms/HumanRightsReport
|
| Every step along the way, Microsoft picks "key"
| areas/terms/subjects, so they're only covering a few
| human rights that they convinced themselves are most
| important. Within each covered item, you'll find a couple
| of paragraphs that explain why complying can be
| problematic if they want to make more money, and a few
| lines of manager speak and links to "projects" and
| "partnerships" that vaguely promise to accomplish vague
| goals on a vague timeline with no mention of what happens
| if they fail their goals.
|
| Countries and specific risks are not named. Microsoft may
| as well be helping Netanyahu organize optimal genocide
| directly and they'll still be able to barf up some
| manager speak to explain why they're trying real hard,
| honest!
|
| Their statements are full of talk like:
|
| > Our commitment to the rule of law carries with it the
| legal obligation to comply with applicable local law.
| When we face requests from governments to provide user
| data or remove content, we work to respect the rights to
| privacy and freedom of expression by assessing whether
| the government requests are valid, legally binding,
| compliant with applicable law, and consistent with
| international laws, principles, and norms on human rights
| and the rule of law.
|
| (in other words: they'll just ask legal if they should
| comply with government requests and that's supposed to
| protect your freedom of speech)
|
| And gems like:
|
| > The GNI Board concluded that we met our commitment to
| GNI to make "good-faith efforts to implement the GNI
| Principles with improvement over time.
|
| (in other words: we've managed to convince the GNI board
| that we really care)
| aunty_helen wrote:
| This is the canned response for advising against a
| shareholder proposal. We're already doing x, no need to vote
| for this nitwits shareholder proposal.
|
| Another example that was written almost exactly the same,
| when a shareholder asked what Caterpillar were doing to avoid
| their machinery being used for deforestation in at risk
| locations.
|
| If you've heard of activist investors, this is their battle
| ground. Buying enough of a company, tabling votes and then
| getting their preferred board candidates and shareholder
| votes put through.
| elygre wrote:
| Is the full proposal available online?
| aunty_helen wrote:
| Check the latest proxy statement for the AGM. This is where
| these votes are brought up in advance and then at the meeting
| they're voting on, along with board seats.
| JauntTrooper wrote:
| Yes. Here is the proxy statement with the proposals: https://
| www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0000789019/0...
|
| You have to scroll down a bit to page 83 to get to the one
| the article is referencing.
| lenkite wrote:
| Good way to break up a behemoth and let the pursuit of Digital
| Sovereignty be initiated everywhere!
| hrnnnnnn wrote:
| Norway isn't part of the EU.
| sigil wrote:
| Are human rights concerns running cover for more
| straightforward financial interests here? Norway and Saudi
| Arabia are both petrostates with large sovereign wealth funds.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Not in this case.
|
| Norway's SWF has become increasingly politicized [0] due to
| the death of the center and the rise of the populist left and
| right, which is a common issue for any SWF in a Western
| Democracy. The same thing happened with CalPERS, the Alaska
| Permanent Fund, Australia's Future Fund, and the Ontario
| Teacher's Fund as well because these funds are not firewalled
| off from politicians, thus making them ripe for a populist
| conversion into ideologically activist funds (this is a both
| sides problems - as can be seen in California [1] and
| Florida's [2] case).
|
| A major reason why the gold standard of SWFs are funds like
| Singapore's Temasek, Japan's GPIF, or South Korea's KIC is
| because they work hard to _remain_ technocratic in nature and
| single minded about their goal: provide an economic base for
| self sufficiency for their citizens should adverse economic
| crises hit, along with the economic cushion to underwrite
| social security and welfare programs.
|
| At some point for an SWF, too much "democracy" just becomes a
| hinderance to the underlying mission, which in Norway's case,
| building a SWF to support Norwegian state pensions in
| perpetuity once their oil wealth dries up.
|
| Complaining about "woke/ESG investments" (like in Florida) or
| stunting about "human rights abuses" (like in CalPERS or
| Norway's case) doesn't actually shift the needle one way or
| the other because most other institutional investors (public
| and private) are much more single-minded about their aims,
| and a number of funds and LPs have begun to reject
| investments from politicized SWFs because of the headaches
| associated with a fund that wasn't supported to be an
| activist fund dealing with an internal conflict over becoming
| one or not.
|
| SWFs are a fundamental weapon in a government's economic
| arsenal, and using them in a non-strategic but politically
| popular manner leads to you only stealing the future from
| your kids - as can be seen with the woes the Alaska Permanent
| Fund now faces due to populist promising of constantly
| raising the Alaska dividend.
|
| [0] -
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-04/norway-
| el...
|
| [1] - https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_55fa
| f935-...
|
| [2] - https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2023/governor-ron-
| desan...
| bjourne wrote:
| That's not true. Both Japan's and Singapore's fund follow
| ESG guidelines. Avoiding Israeli investments is no more
| "woke" than avoiding investing in tobacco companies. It's
| only "politicized" because you don't agree with their
| politics.
| alephnerd wrote:
| I'm not complaining about ESG - I think it's an
| overloaded term that fell prey to populist attacks from
| the right, as I pointed out in my Florida example.
|
| What I'm saying is the primary goal of a sovereign wealth
| fund is to invest in developing an economic cushion for
| it's home country no matter the cost. This is why the
| GPIF and KIC heavily invested in China and each other
| despite both counties fighting trade wars amongst
| themselves. And similar to how Temasek heavily invested
| in Malaysia in the 1980s-90s despite virulently anti-
| Singaporean and anti-Chinese sentiment in Malaysia back
| then.
|
| In all honesty, it's people like you like you who have
| lead politicans on both the right and the left to realize
| that turning SWFs into a political football yields
| electoral wins while ignoring the long-term impact it
| has.
|
| And this specific case in the article is about
| Microsoft's investment in KSA which is unrelated to the
| Israel-Gaza Conflict. And in all honesty, when the far
| right end up winning in Norway in 2-3 election cycles,
| they'll do similarly stupid shenanigans with the GPF.
|
| Non-experts do not have to have a say in every single
| nitty gritty decision. At some point, governance needs to
| be left to the administrators. And not everything needs
| to be a moral battle or culture war.
| Teever wrote:
| > What I'm saying is the primary goal of a sovereign
| wealth fund is to invest in developing an economic
| cushion for it's home country no matter the cost.
|
| Obviously there has to be some nuance there. It wouldn't
| be a good idea for Norway to dump their entire SWF into
| the Russian economy even if their economic analysis
| showed that this was the most prudent thing to do with
| the money.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Absolutely!
|
| And national security is absolutely intertwined with the
| operation of a SWF, but these are very nuanced
| discussions that cannot be decided willy nilly based on
| electoral whims.
|
| These are complex and nuanced topics that cannot be
| resolved via simple populist retorts, which only puts
| strategy at the backseat at the expense of electoral
| short-termism.
|
| And this is why examples like Florida's "anti-woke
| investment" law which lead Florida to miss out on a
| significant amount of green and renewable investment
| opportunities that equally red Georgia took advantage of,
| and California's complete opposite "banning of all
| greenhouse gas adjacent industries" lead CalPERS to take
| a significant beating despite similarly progressive funds
| in Colorado and Oregon continuing to invest in ONG
| adjacent sectors.
| integralid wrote:
| >What I'm saying is the primary goal of a sovereign
| wealth fund is to invest in developing an economic
| cushion for it's home country no matter the cost
|
| Primary? Yes. But Norway's fund explicitly and
| consistently claims that it cares about environment and
| societal effects of it's investments. Everything else you
| say follows from this premise, but Norway's fund
| stubbornly refuses to invest "no matter the cost".
|
| >In all honesty, it's people like you like you who have
| lead politicans on both the right and the left to realize
| that turning SWFs into a political football yields
| electoral wins while ignoring the long-term impact it
| has.
|
| In all honesty, people like you like you - who believe
| it's morally OK to support any atrocity as long as it
| makes money - make the world a progressively worse place
| by ignoring long-term global impact of those decisions.
| vidarh wrote:
| Talking about th "death of the centre" in the context of
| Norway shows a lack of understanding of Norwegian politics,
| and even more so of the relatively broad consensus over
| ethics rules for Norway's wealth fund.
|
| E.g. the recent tightening of rules over investment in
| Israel saw the centre-left social democrat led government
| criticised by parties across the political spectrum.
|
| This is common for Norway, where there often is broad,
| cross-party consensus on these things.
| PerryUlyssesCox wrote:
| Norway's wealth fund's annualized return is only 6.6% since 1998.
| https://www.nbim.no/en/investments/returns
|
| Is this poor performance due to this kind of active management?
| lovich wrote:
| Perhaps the people of Norway value certain behaviors over
| maximum returns
| cromka wrote:
| They probably need to maintain fluidity at any given moment,
| given this is a retirement fund. So no crazy but risky returns
| in portfolio. And this issue here is likely also about risk
| mitigation.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Not sure if you're American, but investment funds in other
| countries, especially those with "hints of socialism" usually
| don't put "profit above all else" like is common in America,
| hence "good enough" is usually just that, good enough.
|
| Seems they're doing exactly what is expected of them, staying
| around the benchmark index, so that sounds pretty good:
|
| > The fund has outperformed the benchmark index set by the
| Ministry of Finance by 0.24 percentage point since 1998.
| ta12653421 wrote:
| haha, LOL, OP talks nonsene: The 6.6% is actually quite good
| for such a hevicle!
| firefax wrote:
| "Only" 6%?
|
| Bonds (a safe investment) are usually at ~2%.
|
| A conservatively allocated growth fund doing 6% is pret-t-y
| good.
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| The higher the potential return, the higher the risk.
|
| Let's say Norway invested all the money into a wager on a
| football game, and they won, resulting in a 100% return. They'd
| be lucky, and they'd be idiots.
| ecommerceguy wrote:
| I'd like to see them pull all support for Bitcoin and crypto
| related "companies". As we all know, bitcoin's only use cases are
| scamming little old lady's out of thousands of dollars at atm's
| and speculation. It is not an investment vehicle, it is not a
| currency.
|
| If someone at the NWF is reading this, please take this into
| consideration. Let's start to take action against the fraud and
| grift, and try to make humanity a little better, one step at a
| time.
|
| Thank you.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| After decades of Bitcoin, how can you not know that it is the
| principal currency for darknet markets - ie the ability to
| purchase psychedelics without being involved with drug dealers?
| chhxdjsj wrote:
| HFSP
| datavirtue wrote:
| Right now an elderly person is jamming cash into a Bitcoin ATM
| for a scammer. Fact.
| aeternum wrote:
| Europe in general has become the world leader in tech company
| extortion. If you run a tech company, be very careful about
| selling into that market. You should generally have an army of
| lawyers before making the leap.
| lloydjones wrote:
| How so?
| flohofwoe wrote:
| Investing 50 billion into a company and then requiring at least
| a minimal amount of accountability about the company's business
| practices is called 'extortion' now? That's hell of a hot take
| :) If the company has completely lost its moral compass when
| doing business, it is entirely normal for shareholders to be
| worried about the company's future.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| You invest momey to make even more money. Did MS broke any US
| laws making more money for Norway? No.
|
| If Norway has an issue with Microsoft, they should sell their
| shares in MSFT. Considering they're not doing that, they are
| being dramatic for drama's sake.
| NLips wrote:
| What do you think shareholder meetings are for?
| nothrabannosir wrote:
| You mean the EU regulating their market, right? I think TFA is
| about shareholder voting rights. Two different things.
|
| _> Norway 's $2 trillion wealth fund said on Sunday it would
| vote for a shareholder proposal at the upcoming Microsoft
| annual general meeting requiring for a report on the risks of
| operating in countries with significant human rights concerns._
|
| The Norway sovereign wealth fund is a large pension fund
| holding the profits of exploiting their natural oil reserves.
| It's not related to the EU.
| aeternum wrote:
| IMO it's not different, I've been at multiple companies
| shaken down by these kinds of groups. It goes like this:
|
| 1) A) Shareholder proposal bullied through via questionable
| means like buying votes from index-fund vote providers (or
| endowment/pension/wealth funds) that put other interests
| ahead of fiduciary interests. (and/or) B) Weak but expensive-
| to-fight lawsuit
|
| 2) But don't worry, we have a consulting arm that will do the
| reports for you. If you pay them, we can guarantee it
| satisfies the shareholder proposal, and we will drop the
| lawsuit.
|
| Sometimes human rights, sometimes ADA, sometimes
| environmental, the playbook is basically the same.
| blibble wrote:
| they're a shareholder
|
| it's THEIR company
| LunaSea wrote:
| And the US is a world leader in corporate warfare supported by
| the three letter agencies.
| udev4096 wrote:
| Crooks blaming crooks! What an irony
| voidfunc wrote:
| As a shareholder, I dont care. The line just needs to go up.
| perbu wrote:
| You are not a sovereign wealth fund representing a whole
| country, though.
| AGI-slop wrote:
| Its a bit late for Norway wealth fund to be concerned about human
| rights in tech companies dealings. Potentially damaging to
| Microsoft exposing how many children were __potentially__ killed
| or tortured with aid of Azure datacentres. That could damage
| Microsoft and potentially the wealth fund!
| flyinglizard wrote:
| Don't forget the kids that were - potentially - saved by these
| very same Azure datacenters.
| AGI-slop wrote:
| Yes 100% transparency, stop hiding in the dark, let bring
| these operations fully into the light
| metalman wrote:
| further proof that exporting your contradictions is never good
| business, and tellingly, nobody is saying that it is a bad
| financial move to isist on change or disinvest, only that there
| "logic"isn't correct
| rcbdev wrote:
| Thankfully, Norway's SWF does not own any IBM stock.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20240424201226/https://www.redha...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-30 23:01 UTC)