high taxation of production profits and skills transfer requirements, which were in many ways in keeping with norwegian traditions. the roots can be traced back to concession policy and hydropower management, and to the post - war focus on collective solutions. it was also broadly recognised that economic gains from the use of natural resources, economic rent, should be returned to society. the value of the fund is now more than three times annual mainland gdp. the fund has grown bigger than total net household wealth, including housing wealth ( chart 9 ). this means the fund has an interesting distributional aspect. while the richest decile controls half of household wealth, we all benefit from the fund. norges bank chart 9... and larger than household wealth. share of mainland gdp. 1 ) percent net household wealth economic perspectives 13 february 2020 gpfg value 1 ) at 30 september 2019. net household wealth is the sum of net value of household assets from the financial accounts and an estimate of the value of their dwellings. sources : ministry of finance, statistics norway and norges bank the fund ’ s investment management model is also designed to enable future generations to benefit from this wealth. first, there has always been broad political consensus about the development of the fund ’ s strategy. the strategy changes have been based on thorough studies. all important decisions are taken by the government and endorsed by the storting ( norwegian parliament ). norges bank has an advisory role. the authorities have stood fast at the crossroads even during demanding periods. this has served us well. a good example is the decision in 2007 to increase the equity share from 40 to 60 percent. this important change was implemented by making large purchases of equities in the period to june 2009, about the time when markets bottomed out after the financial crisis. in retrospect, we can see that the fund bought equities on the cheap in that period, and has posted large gains over the past decade. second, norges bank ’ s mandate is clearly defined. the capital is to be invested with one – and only one aim : the highest possible return at an acceptable risk. there has been broad political agreement that the fund should not be used to promote other objectives. a clear and unequivocal objective enables the fund ’ s owners to evaluate norges bank ’ s performance as investment manager. if there were several different objectives, they would have to be weighed against each other. that would be a demanding task for an investment manager. political

it is constructed differently. we are a eurosystem, while supervision is not. for the supervisors there are still a lot of national regulations to respect. if a supranational body like the single resolution mechanism ( srm ) were to use only european law, things would be clear. that would be our preference. but in supervision sometimes national law prevails and there is still a lot of divergence between national laws that the single supervisor has to respect. how would you centralise the whole thing? different agencies exist, such as the european banking authority ( eba ), the european securities and markets authority ( esma ) and the european insurance and occupational pensions authority ( eiopa ). but they only have what is essentially a coordination role at the moment. the single supervisory mechanism ( ssm ) at the ecb has the effective supervisory function for banking. for all the agencies, there are proposals for improvement on the table. for securities markets, another important piece of draft regulation is the european market infrastructure regulation 2 ( emir2 ). if we have to contact 25 different regulators or supervisors in order to get a picture of who and what in the single market is allowed and under what conditions, it would be extremely cumbersome. from that point of view, we welcome an increase in efficiency at european level. we consider the completion of the banking union important for the single market and the single currency, in other words, one market, one banking supervisor and one security supervisor in the medium term. that should be accompanied by one deposit insurance system as well. but i understand those who say, “ let ’ s first clean up all the remaining negative elements from the past before we accept a sharing of responsibility at european level. that is exactly what we are doing now by pushing for the resolution of non - performing loans. we ’ re trying to put supervisory standards on the same level. it is not enough to assign only the responsibility to the european level, we also need a level playing field in terms of the tools and their implementation. the commission de surveillance du secteur financier1 ( cssf ) has recently expressed its concern about its sanctioning powers. what do you think of director general claude marx ’ s statement? i don ’ t know this statement. according to european law, the authority for criminal cases is still a national affair. when it comes to administrative sanctioning, that ’ s another issue. some propose setting up a sanctioning authority