Investinor’s fundamental struggle stems from a schizophrenic mandate
The fund is tasked with two contradicting goals: supporting the companies that will build Norway's future while simultaneously generating the highest possible returns. On paper this sounds like responsible management. In practice it is an impossible goal that punishes Investinor for doing exactly what it was created to do
If a project were 100% safe and profitable, private investors would be fighting to fund it. In those cases, Investinor should not step in. If it did it would be competing unfairly with the private sector, displacing capital that is already available (a point many fund managers seeking Investinor’s support often complain about)
Therefore, if Investinor should not invest in what is obviously profitable, its reason for existing lie in the "grey zone"
Investinor should focus on projects that make investment sense (meaning they are viable and have potential) but fall into three areas where private capital usually doesn't go:
- Projects with high technological risk: Where the innovation is so disruptive that the market hasn't validated it yet
- Projects with very long-term returns: Development cycles that exceed the typical 10-year patience of a conventional fund
- Projects of national interest: Strategic sectors that Norway needs to develop for its sovereignty and economic future
If DD is done correctly and the project still fails, resulting in a loss, it doesn't necessarily mean the State is a bad investor. It means a real risk was taken in pursuit of a higher goal. In the startup world, once the model's viability and the team's competence are secured, final success is up to the market and the team execution. Since startups are the riskiest financial assets in existence, Investinor’s role is, by definition, to embrace the extreme risk within that category
That is why I defend Investinor’s 1BNOK loss. If the fund never lost money, it would mean it isn't doing its job. If it only reported profits, it would mean that it is only betting on "sure things" that would have found funding anyway, failing in its public duty
This is also why limiting Investinor to a FoF would be a mistake. Private VC, though it markets itself as risk capital, is actually deeply risk-averse. They don’t like technological uncertainty or long timelines, seeking only market risk (testing if a customer will buy). This results in slow, marginal innovation that acts as a handbrake on real progress. Private capital prioritizes quick returns. Norway needs a vehicle that prioritizes the future
True exponential innovation will only happen when we free science and tech from the pressure of immediate profit and when we create an environment where taking real risks is not penalized
Investinor does not deserve to be dismantled. It deserves to be freed from its contradictory mandate. It needs the capital, the trust and the political space to embrace the risks necessary to build Norway’s next economy
