JAMESTOWN — The 12th District Republican delegation will introduce the Legacy Fund Transparency Act in the next Congress that would require the State Investment Commission to publish all investments in the North Dakota Legacy Fund on its website. We plan to do so.
Sen. Cole Conley, R-Jamestown, said the Legacy Fund Transparency Act is important because citizens need to know where their money is being invested.
“Every citizen should be able to go online and see where billions of tax dollars are being spent,” he said. “In the internet age, that makes sense. The public and the media don’t have to file formal public records requests to see where their money is invested around the world.”
Rep. Bernie Satrom (R-Jamestown) said increasing transparency about how Legacy Fund money is invested is not a new project for the 12th District delegation.
“We’ve been talking about transparency for a long time and working towards it,” he said. “I’m very concerned about where the money is going to be invested.”
Satrom said the Legacy Fund’s funds are invested in more than 60 foreign countries, including Argentina, China and Thailand.
“…virtually everywhere except North Dakota,” he said. “And most of my colleagues in Congress don’t know.”
Rep. Mitch Ostley (R-Jamestown) said his 12th District delegation wants to know where Legacy Fund money is being invested.
“As members of Congress, some people want to have microcontrol to the point of choosing where to invest their money, and that’s not necessarily what we do, but the need to know is very, very important.” he said.
A poll released by the North Dakota News Cooperative in February found that 84% of voters want the state investment commission to list investments in legacy funds on its website or elsewhere instead of requiring residents to request formal documentation. It turned out that they wanted to publish it at a location. .
In 2010, voters in North Dakota approved a measure creating the Legacy Fund, a permanent source of state revenue from the finite national resources of oil and natural gas, according to the state Department of Finance’s website. According to the North Dakota Retirement Investment Authority website, 30 percent of taxes on oil produced and extracted in North Dakota is transferred to the Legacy Fund each month.
The Legacy Fund had more than $11.1 billion outstanding as of July 31.
12th District Senate Democratic candidate Olivia Schloegel said she supports transparency and accountability.
“Some of the strategic techniques that legacy funds and investors use have precedent where people have set values for how they spend their money,” she says. “We have to be careful… there is a trade-off between having the best bargaining power and the best return on investment in legacy funds.”
olivia schloegel
Contribution/C photo
He also said concerns about some investments from legacy funds are valid.
“I shudder to think that I might be investing in an international company that I don’t personally agree with,” she said. “We need to think clearly about transparency mechanisms…”
Ostry said the North Dakota Department of Retirement Investments has received public records requests regarding the legacy funds.
“They are not sharing public records requests where these funds are being invested,” he said.
Bismarck’s attorney, Torrie Jackson, wrote in a column in the North Dakota News Monitor that he requested a list of all domestic and foreign holdings and investments made by each private money manager hired by the state investment commission. Ta.
“I also asked Chicago-based firm 50 South Capital to invest, which along with five out-of-state companies they selected, will be part of a legacy fund that will be invested in North Dakota. ” he wrote.
Jackson requested an opinion from North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley on Feb. 9 on whether the North Dakota Retirement Investment Authority violated open records laws, Jackson wrote in an email to the Jamestown Sun. said. He said he expected a written opinion to be issued soon.
“We have not received any comments at this time,” he said. “According to the Attorney General’s website, it typically takes 120 to 180 days to prepare an opinion on public records violations.The wait for this opinion lasts 250 days.The Attorney General’s Office is busy with many competing priorities. I understand that this is a difficult place, and I appreciate that. The Assistant Attorney General has been very responsive to my requests for regular updates, but it’s still frustrating to wait this long. I will.”
He said the Legacy Fund is nearly double the state’s biennial general fund budget and that “taxpayers will not be able to afford it, especially in light of revelations that Legacy Fund money was invested in Russian oligarchs and companies controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.” “People have a right to know where their money is being invested.” .
“I don’t think any North Dakotan would be happy with a financial advisor who refuses to disclose where their IRA (individual retirement account) or 401(k) is invested,” he said.
In a letter to Lt. Gov. Tammy Miller, chair of the State Investment Commission, Conley said Jackson’s request is a “test case” for Congress on what information can be hidden from the public. ”, he said. Mr. Conley asked why Mr. Jackson was denied information about foreign investments in categories such as “world regions,” “international regions,” and “emerging market regions,” while others in countries ranging from Argentina to Thailand. I asked him if he had been denied information about his investments.
“It appears that you have disclosed investments by some asset managers but not others,” he wrote.
Conley also wrote that as a lawmaker responsible for overseeing state government agencies, he would like to review legacy fund investments himself. He wrote that exemptions under North Dakota Century Code 44-04-18.4 are often used to avoid compliance with open records laws.
In a response to Conley’s letter, Miller wrote that Jackson was not denied information about foreign investments in categories such as “world regions,” “international regions,” and “emerging market regions.”
“If Mr. Jackson had asked for an explanation of these investment categories, he would have learned that if a particular investment, such as a commingled fund, is at risk in multiple countries, it would be listed by regional category. “Otherwise, RIOs would have to make changes to their listings, which would result in less transparency because there would be a record from the administrator,” she wrote. “In addition, important additional information regarding the countries exposed to such funds is available in reports published by RIO on its website.”
In his column, Jackson wrote that as of November 30, 2023, the legacy fund’s investment list includes investments of “over $160 million in ’emerging market regions’ and over $520 million in ‘global regions.’ It contains some interesting items, such as: and nearly $46 million in “international regions.”
The investment lists for these legacy funds do not indicate the countries in which the asset managers have invested, only that the investments are categorized into “World Regions,” “International Regions,” and “Emerging Market Regions.” An additional $2.3 billion has also been identified, indicating the fund managers who received that money, but not how it was spent.
The $800 million involved 11 commingled funds. In a response to Conley, Jan Murtha, executive director of the North Dakota Department of Retirement and Investments, said her office could not provide him with “holding level data” for the 11 commingled funds. I wrote it. “Holding Level Data” refers to stocks and bonds held by Legacy Funds.
A commingled fund is a holding within a portfolio, Murtha wrote.
“In a commingled fund, the investment is the pooling of assets from multiple investors into a single account, and the commingled fund holdings are the result of that pooling,” she wrote.
Murtha also denied Conley’s request for legacy fund investment data, citing North Dakota Century Law 44-04-18.4.
“The Assistant Attorney General assigned to us previously stated that under North Dakota’s Open Records and Meetings Act, there is no exception that would allow disclosure of confidential information to individual members of Congress based solely on their status as members of Congress. “I was of the opinion that,” she wrote. “Accordingly, RIO is unable to provide holding level information for the 11 commingled funds beyond the information referenced herein.”
