Each sector may be in financial surplus or deficit, but the surpluses and deficits must, in accounting terms, sum to zero (although in terms of available statistics they may not, because of errors and omissions); every piece of deficit is necessarily matched by a piece of surplus. Typically, one might envisage the savings surplus of the household sector being channelled through the banks and financial markets to fund a deficit in the corporate sector, arising from its capital investment and working capital needs. In this context the deficit in the corporate sector seems perfectly acceptable. Why, then, should a deficit in the public sector raise particular anxiety? Isn't the situation where the public sector has a funding need analogous to that where private sector corporate entities have such needs? Not necessarily so. A number of factors may differentiate the two situations. What are these factors and what are the special considerations which may apply in the case of the public sector deficit? •  First, when assessing the impact of different deficits one may need to look behind them, to associated developments in the real economy. For example, a financial deficit may reflect, at one extreme, spending on current consumption, and particularly on imports with no resulting benefit to domestic employment; or it may reflect, at the other extreme, investment which generates jobs and greater efficiency within the domestic economy.
That is in line with the intention in our advice from 2017 and will contribute to reducing the exposure of the state’s wealth to oil price risk. 1/2  BIS central bankers' speeches  The report to the Storting on the Government Pension Fund provides for among other things the possibility of investing in unlisted renewable energy infrastructure within the environmental mandates. As we have indicated previously, Norges Bank will approach investment opportunities and build expertise gradually. Investments in unlisted infrastructure will be a topic for the Executive Board’s work on the new strategy plan to apply from 2020. On 10 April 2015, the Central Bank Law Commission was appointed. Precisely four years later, the Government put forth a proposal on a new central bank act. At that time, the Storting had already endorsed retaining Norges Bank as the operational manager of the GPFG. For Norges Bank, the proposal on a new central bank act entails a number of changes, such as increasing the capacity of Norges Bank’s Executive Board in the area of capital management. Norges Bank has already made considerable strides in adapting the internal organisation to the changes ensuing from the new central bank act. The main exposures that are decisive for the GPFG’s long-term performance are decided by the Ministry of Finance and anchored in the Storting. This year’s report to the Storting on the GPFG includes several measures to further develop the investment strategy. But the objective remains firm: The highest possible return at an acceptable risk.