a specific incident or more fundamental aspects of its operation. a global listed company that is criticised for its activities will almost without exception include the gpfg as one of its shareholders. questions will sometimes be asked about why the fund is invested in the company and what action is being taken to follow up the fund ’ s investment. if questions are often raised about whether the gpfg is being managed in what is considered a responsible manner, support for the investment strategy may be affected. this could in turn increase the risk that we will not achieve our primary objective of enabling current and future generations to benefit from norway ’ s petroleum wealth. the number of questions related to individual investments cannot be reduced by diversification. on the contrary, the number will increase with the breadth of the gpfg ’ s investments. the portfolio contains a large number of companies that could run into difficulties. a possible way of managing this type of risk is to exclude companies from the portfolio. ethical guidelines for the exclusion of companies from the gpfg were established by the norwegian authorities as early as in 2004. under the guidelines, the gpfg must not be invested in companies producing tobacco or certain types of weapons, or with significant coal - related operations. companies may also be excluded if there is an unacceptable risk that the company contributes to or is responsible for certain types of behaviour. the gpfg ’ s guidelines for excluding companies show that there is some money norway says no to. there are some products and some types of behaviour the gpfg ’ s owners do not want to be involved in, whether or not they contribute to financial return. in 2015, the ministry of finance decided that the responsibility for excluding companies, based on criteria laid down by the political authorities, should be transferred to norges bank. the executive board ’ s decisions are based on recommendations and assessments provided by the council on ethics, which is independent of both the ministry and norges bank. chart 10 : exclusions are not insignificant at the beginning of 2018, 133 companies, corresponding to a market value of around nok 200 billion, had been excluded from the gpfg. 8 this is a substantial amount, but only a small share of the fund. there is an inherent paradox in using exclusion as a responsible investment instrument as it transfers ownership shares to investors who do not regard the company as problematic in the same way. being invested in the company and at the same time exercising active ownership is therefore a possible alternative to exclusion. the ethical guidelines

same time reiterate that some risk is worth undertaking. broad support for important principles in the management of the gpfg is a strength that will stand the fund in good stead the next time turbulence erupts in financial markets. 1 dimson e., p. marsh and m. staunton ( 2018 ) credit suisse global investment returns yearbook 2018 / e. dimson e., p. marsh and m. staunton ( 2002 ) triumph of the optimists : 101 years of global investment returns, princeton university press. 2 dimson e., p. marsh and m. staunton “ long - term asset returns ” in financial market history, edited by d. chambers and e. dimson. 3 the figures are annual figures and the percentage falls are therefore smaller than for measurements from the peak to the trough on a monthly basis. 4 the government petroleum fund, annual report 2002. norges bank. 5 see discussion note 1 / 2017, international diversification for long - term investors, nbim 6 dimson e., p. marsh and m. staunton : credit suisse global investment returns yearbook 2018. dimson e., p. marsh and m. staunton. triumph of the optimists : 101 years of global investment returns, princeton university press, 2002. 7 ibid. 8 estimated market value in the fund ’ s benchmark index if the companies had not been excluded. 6 / 6 bis central bankers'speeches