And is the proposal to completely abandon the bar, similar marketing and sales to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, and accumulate resources constantly, not being discuss?
Connection with the energy transition
will such a direction for spending NWF funds as green projects be approv?
I think this question should be addressed to the government.
How will the CBR’s macroprudential policy change in connection with the need to finance the energy transition?
A few days ago, the Bank of England published a report on this topic, and it says that financial regulation is not the best tool for stimulating the energy transition, but in terms of reducing risks, both transition and climate, it is certainly the right tool. But on the other hand, it is clear that if you work to reduce risks, then this to some extent stimulates companies to implement projects that reduce their own risks and allow them to get cheaper financing.
However, regulators have a risk-based
view, and we are looking at the situation from this perspective.
What regulators in the major countries, Europe and save time and money: by using artificial the US, are doing is they’ve issued “supervisory expectations” to their banks, meaning they’ve said that banks should build climate america email risk management into their risk management framework.