North Dakota House Bill HB1330

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/25
• Refer: 1/13/25
• Report Pass: 2/12/25
• Engrossed: 2/17/25
• Refer: 2/18/25
• Report Pass: 3/26/25
• Refer: 3/28/25
• Report DNP: 4/14/25

Caption

The prudent investor rule.

Impact

The implications of HB 1330 are significant for the regulations surrounding state investments. By giving preference to local investment firms, the bill seeks to stimulate the local economy while ensuring that state funds support businesses within North Dakota. Additionally, the divestment clause targeting Chinese companies reflects a growing national sentiment to reconsider economic ties with China, aiming to reduce perceived risks associated with these investments.

Summary

House Bill 1330, known as the prudent investor rule amendment, proposes changes to the investment strategy for the state's legacy fund. It underscores a preference for investment firms with a presence in North Dakota and introduces the possibility of divesting from companies based in China. The amendment aims to align state investments with local economic priorities while addressing geopolitical concerns regarding investments in Chinese entities.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding the bill appears to be largely supportive among legislators who argue it is a necessary step toward responsible investment that safeguards state interests. Proponents argue that prioritizing local firms will not only boost the state's economy but also promote investment decisions that align with the values and preferences of North Dakotans. However, the mention of divesting from Chinese companies may evoke concerns about potential impacts on investment returns and the overall breadth of options available to the state investment board.

Contention

Notably, the bill also introduces points of contention regarding foreign investments and their implications. Critics might argue that the provision to divest from Chinese companies could limit the state’s investment portfolio and alienate certain profitable opportunities. Additionally, this stance may trigger debates over economic nationalism versus global economic engagement, reflecting a broader conversation about the role of state investment policies in the context of international relations.