What I am not sure about is why these aren't part of the same article. Maybe I missed something in my initial reading but here it is...<p>Norway wealth fund trims overweight tech investments<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/norway-wealth-fund-trims-overweight-tech-investments-2023-08-16/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/norway-wealth-fund-tr...</a>
The surge is not solely caused by AI. So, there is headline-ese and there is underlying ground truth, which to me is more unclear.<p>They felt they were heavy in tech stocks. They sold out. That means they booked some of the spectacular profits from Tech stocks having ignored the longterm trends and returned above-normal for a long period: If they bought in early then this was always latent.<p>Booking this profit will now incur the best kind of problem: what to (re)invest it in, this time round. There would be a case to be made for a play into green steel, or into pharma (there will be a LOT more vaccines emerging for all kinds of problems) or even world-wide aged care homes, which are facing a surge in Boomers moving in.<p>Or lithium mines. Vanadium mines.<p>Or they could buy back into tech, although why they would is unclear. Maybe they want to back some other players? I wouldn't personally go big into NVIDIA but I could understand them spending in chip fab companies or the tool makers behind them.<p>What they really do, is they invest in themselves. This fund helps underpin Norway's lifestyle. It ain't cheap, being a western social-welfare economy with more EV than anyone else per-capita, close to the Arctic circle.<p>I don't think they want to invest in North Sea Oil.