Conversely, the owner should require a higher return on investments with higher risk. The absence of this excess return will reflect social losses. It is important to bear in mind that the government can choose the composition, the required return and the risk profile with regard to its financial investments without taking into account the funding requirements of Norwegian companies. By the same token, Norwegian companies can choose their debt and equity structure independent of the government’s financial investments. The capital market serves as an intermediary between the government as investor and enterprises seeking capital. This market makes it possible to separate the government’s choices from companies’ choices. The distribution of the government’s financial investments and the choice of corporate funding structure should not be based on the notion that we are living in a barter economy. The Norwegian capital market is part of a Nordic market, which is being increasingly integrated into an international capital market. Capital markets are a very efficient tool for channelling funds from savers to investors. Direct strategic ownership could nevertheless be the best solution if it generates a high return and the government has a solid basis for exercising its role as owner. There is some room for doubt concerning both points. The government has often neglected its demanding role as owner. A number of shortcomings stand out with regard to the way government ownership is managed.
Offerings include round-the-clock real-time fund transfers with shorter settlement times and no intermediaries. Contour, a global trade finance network of banks, corporates and trade partners, has established its Future of Finance Lab in Singapore. It will conduct research to develop novel, digitally native trade finance solutions. Nansen is a Singapore-based company that analyses more than 100 million blockchain wallet addresses across the world. It provides insights on blockchain network activities and visibility on transacting parties, thereby helping to improve transparency in the digital asset ecosystem globally. Digital asset activities involving payment services must be licensed under the Payment Services Act. We recognise there is some frustration about MAS’ licensing process. Some industry players have described it as “a slow and tedious ordeal”; others as a “bugbear for the fast-moving space”. Given how new the digital asset industry is, it has not been easy for industry players or for MAS. On MAS’ side, we closely scrutinise licence applicants’ business models and technologies, so that we can better understand the risks. On the part of applicants, many are not familiar with managing the risks of facilitating illicit finance. MAS engages the applicants closely to assess their understanding of our rules and their ability to meet our standards. This takes a considerable amount of time – but it is necessary. MAS cannot compromise its due diligence process just to make it easy for digital asset players to get a licence.