Introduction

Does investing in ESG truly mean investing "better"? Will my money go toward companies I actually support? Will I save the planet through my investments? These simple, almost naive questions allow us to confront the ESG marketing promise with financial reality: you invest in a "green" ETF to protect the planet, only to discover it contains... an oil company.

The rise of responsible investing—embodied by Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) criteria—represents a profound shift in 21st-century financial markets. ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds), preferred for their liquidity, transparency, and low costs, have become the primary vehicle for democratizing these strategies for both the general public and professional investors.

However, this popularization comes with increasing complexity. The years 2024 and 2025 were marked by growing regulatory pressure, a questioning of the "automatic" ESG outperformance observed over the previous decade, and a crackdown on greenwashing led by European and American regulators.

This article focuses on ESG ETFs. Our goal is not simply to look at past returns, but to understand the architecture of sustainable indices and how methodological choices (regarding sectors, factors, or company size) influence how these funds behave in terms of risk and return. We will also examine management fees (TER) and hidden costs in detail, then see how the new 2025 regulations are changing investment opportunities. Finally, we will analyze the actual performance of these ETFs to determine if these financial tools are truly viable over the long term.

⚠️ Important Information – Responsible Investment

ESG criteria (Environmental, Social, and Governance) constitute neither a universal standard nor a guarantee of financial performance or measurable positive impact. ESG methodologies vary significantly between index providers and rating agencies, which can lead to vastly different portfolio compositions for funds that are otherwise presented as comparable.

Part I: The Methodological Architecture of ESG Indices

The goal of an ESG ETF is to faithfully replicate a stock index established according to strict rules that go beyond standard financial criteria (the well-known Environmental, Social, and Governance factors). Unlike traditional indices, which are based solely on the market capitalization of companies, ESG indices incorporate more subjective selection criteria. Understanding this index "mechanics" is essential, as it creates the differences in performance and risk observed between various ESG ETFs.

1.1 ESG Strategies: From Negative Screening to Positive Impact

The universe of ESG indices varies in intensity, ranging from simple exclusion to impact-oriented research. Each approach has distinct implications for tracking error and portfolio diversification.

1.1.1 Exclusion (Negative Screening)

This approach, historically the oldest, is based on the "do no harm" principle. It consists of removing companies involved in activities deemed harmful or controversial.

• Exclusion Mechanisms: Indices apply filters based on revenue thresholds. For example, an exclusion may apply if a company derives more than 5% or 10% of its turnover from tobacco, controversial weapons, thermal coal, or oil sands.
• Norm-based Exclusions: Beyond sectors, exclusions also target corporate behavior. Violations of the United Nations Global Compact principles (human rights, labor, environment, anti-corruption) constitute a standard exclusion criterion for the majority of MSCI and S&P indices.
• Implications for the ETF: ETFs based on simple exclusion (often called "Screened" or "Ex-Controversies") maintain a very high correlation with the parent index (e.g., MSCI World), as they only eliminate a marginal fraction of the total market capitalization. The cost in terms of tracking error is low, but the extra-financial impact is also limited.

1.1.2 "Best-in-Class" Selection (Positive Screening)

More sophisticated, this methodology does not settle for merely avoiding the worst performers; it seeks to favor the "top students" within each economic sector.

• Philosophy: The idea is not to structurally penalize sectors that are polluting but indispensable (such as energy or materials), but rather to invest only in the most ESG-efficient companies within those sectors.
• MSCI SRI Construction: The MSCI SRI (Socially Responsible Investing) index aims to select the top 25% of companies with the best ESG scores in each GICS (Global Industry Classification Standard) sector, while maintaining a neutral sector weighting relative to the parent index. This allows for the construction of a diversified portfolio that structurally resembles the broad market but with superior ESG "quality."
• S&P 500 ESG Construction: S&P’s approach is similar but targets broader coverage, aiming for 75% of the market capitalization of each industry group. Companies are ranked by descending ESG score and selected until the 75% threshold is reached. This ensures an extremely low tracking error compared to the standard S&P 500, making this index attractive to institutional investors wary of deviating from their benchmark.

1.1.3 Integration and Tilting (Adjusted Weighting)

Instead of a binary exclusion (in/out), this method adjusts the weight of constituents based on their ESG score.

• Mechanism: In an index like the MSCI ESG Universal, a company with an excellent ESG score will have its market weight multiplied by a factor (for example, 1.5 or 2.0), while a company with a mediocre ESG score will see its weight reduced (for example, 0.5) without necessarily being excluded.
• Advantage: This method allows for very broad exposure to the economy while sending a market signal (capital allocation) in favor of virtuous companies. It often incorporates the concept of "ESG momentum," rewarding companies whose ratings are improving, even if they remain low in absolute terms.

1.1.4 The Thematic Approach

At the far end of the spectrum are thematic strategies that do not seek diversification but rather pure exposure to a secular trend (e.g., Clean Energy, Water, Gender Equality). These thematic indices are often highly concentrated (30 to 100 holdings) and deviate radically from broad market indices. The risk is at its maximum here. For instance, a "Clean Energy" ETF can exhibit volatility twice as high as that of the global market.

1.1.5 Summary of ESG Index Construction Strategies

The following table summarizes the different methodological approaches to building an ESG ETF, from the simplest to the most specialized.

If we rank these index construction strategies by the intensity of ESG rules and their deviation from the broad markets, here is a visualization:

1.2 The Data War: Divergences and Methodologies of Rating Agencies

The validity of any ESG index relies entirely on the robustness of the data provided by extra-financial rating agencies. Unlike credit ratings (Moody's, S&P, Fitch) which converge at a rate of over 99%, ESG ratings show a weak correlation, often between 0.30 and 0.60 according to academic studies. This "aggregate confusion" poses a major challenge for the comparability of ETFs.

1.2.1 MSCI ESG Research: Financial Materiality

MSCI dominates the ESG index market for ETFs. Its methodology is based on an assessment of financially material risks.

• AAA to CCC Scores: Companies are rated on a relative scale (Gaussian curve by industry). A company rated AAA in the oil sector is not "clean" in absolute terms; rather, it manages its environmental risks better than its peers.
• Industry Adjustment: Scores are normalized by sector. This means an "ESG" portfolio may contain oil or mining companies, provided they are the "least bad" in their category.

1.2.2 S&P Global (CSA): The Granular Approach

S&P relies on the Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA), inherited from the acquisition of RobecoSAM.

• Detailed Questionnaires: The CSA is based on highly detailed questionnaires sent to companies, covering hundreds of data points. Unlike MSCI, which relies heavily on public data, S&P values direct corporate responses.
• Non-Disclosure Penalty: Historically, S&P assigns minimal scores to unanswered questions, which penalizes companies (often smaller ones or those in emerging markets) that lack the resources to complete the full questionnaire.

1.2.3 FTSE Russell: Transparency and Exposure

FTSE Russell uses a model based on three pillars (E, S, G) and 14 themes.

• Exposure Intensity: A key feature is that rating requirements increase with risk exposure. A mining company (high environmental exposure) must answer many more indicators and meet higher standards than an IT services company to achieve the same thematic score.
• Public Data Only: FTSE Russell prioritizes public data and does not rely on private questionnaires, favoring transparency and auditability.

1.2.4 Implications of Divergence for Investors

The low correlation between these agencies means that an ETF replicating an MSCI index may have a radically different composition than an ETF replicating a FTSE or S&P index for the same geographical universe.

• Concrete Example: Tesla has been excluded from the S&P 500 ESG index due to social and governance issues (employee treatment, autonomous driving), while remaining well-rated by MSCI for its positive environmental impact.
• Selection Risk: Investors must therefore choose their ETF not only based on region (World, US, Europe) but also based on their preferred rating "philosophy" (financial materiality vs. societal impact vs. disclosure).

1.2.5 Tesla: A Case Study in Divergence

Tesla is often cited as the textbook example of clashing methodologies:

• MSCI ESG Research: Tesla maintains a BBB rating (down compared to its Chinese competitors). It remains well-rated for its "positive environmental impact," but its scores are weighed down by corporate governance and labor relations.
• S&P Global: Its score is 28/100 (December 2025 update). After being excluded from the S&P 500 ESG index in 2022 due to controversy risks, it was reintegrated in 2023 following improvements in its environmental data disclosures.
• Sustainalytics: Tesla presents a "Medium" ESG risk with a score of 24.8.

1.2.6 Comparison of Rating Agency Methodologies

Rating agencies show significant differences in how they assess a company's sustainability.

1.3 Structural Biases: Size and Sector

The application of these methodologies creates persistent structural biases within ESG ETF portfolios.

1.3.1 The Size Bias (Large Cap Bias)

There is a documented positive correlation between a company's size and its ESG score.

• Reasoning: ESG reporting is expensive. Large multinationals have dedicated teams to optimize their scores, respond to questionnaires, and publish sustainability reports compliant with global standards (GRI, SASB, TCFD). Small-cap companies, even virtuous ones, often lack the resources to formalize their practices, resulting in lower scores (known as "Disclosure Bias").
• Consequence: ESG indices tend to overweight mega-cap stocks, further increasing market concentration.

1.3.2 Sector Bias (Tech vs. Energy)

This is the most visible bias and has the most significant impact on performance.

• Technology: The tech sector, which is not intensive in physical capital or direct emissions, naturally benefits from high ESG scores. Companies like Microsoft, NVIDIA, or Adobe are pillars of ESG indices.
• Energy and Utilities: Conversely, carbon-intensive sectors are structurally underweighted or excluded, except in strict "Best-in-Class" approaches or transition-specific indices.

1.3.3 The AI Paradox: How ESG Champions Became Energy Guzzlers

Since 2024–2025, the sustainability reports of Big Tech companies have shown a clear break from their past trajectories:

• Surge in Emissions: In 2025, Microsoft and Google admitted to massive increases in their greenhouse gas emissions (approximately +30% and +48% respectively compared to 2020), primarily due to the construction of new data centers for AI.
• Water Consumption: AI requires intense cooling. By 2026, the "water footprint" has become a major downgrade criterion for rating agencies such as MSCI and Sustainalytics.
• Resilience: However, thanks to their financial power and investments in next-generation carbon-free energy (nuclear, geothermal), they often manage to mitigate the damage to their overall scores compared to the rest of the market.

This issue could become more prominent in 2026–2027 and pose a significant sector risk for ESG ETFs.

1.3.4 Structural Biases in ESG Portfolios

The application of ESG criteria mechanically creates imbalances compared to traditional stock indices.

Part II: Performance Analysis

The performance analysis of ESG ETFs is often clouded by ideological debates. However, empirical data covering the 2015–2025 period reveals clear trends, showing that relative performance is cyclical and depends less on corporate "virtue" than on sector and factor characteristics.

2.1 Performance History (2015–2025): A Story in Three Acts

Act 1: The Golden Age (2015–2021)

During this period, ESG indices consistently outperformed traditional indices.

• Drivers: The chronic underperformance of the energy sector (low oil prices) and the surge of Big Tech (FAANGs) favored ESG portfolios, which were structurally overweight in Tech and underweight in Energy.
• Perception: This anchored a mistaken belief among investors that ESG generated structural and automatic alpha.

Act 2: The Rude Awakening (2022)

The year 2022 marked a violent shift. The invasion of Ukraine propelled energy prices, making the oil and gas sector the year's big winner.

• Consequence: ESG indices, having excluded or underweighted these stocks, suffered notable underperformance. Simultaneously, rising interest rates penalized growth stocks (Tech)—a double blow for ESG portfolios.
• Figures: In 2022, the MSCI World SRI outperformed the MSCI World by more than 4 percentage points (-22.12% vs. -17.73%).

Act 3: Normalization and Rebound (2023–2025)

Since 2023, the trend has reversed again, albeit with higher volatility.

• Tech Rebound: The Artificial Intelligence (AI) craze benefited tech giants (NVIDIA, Microsoft), which are pillars of ESG indices. This allowed ESG ETFs to close the gap and outperform again in 2023 and the first half of 2025.
• 2025 Performance: For the full year 2025, ESG indices post robust performances. The MSCI World SRI shows a 10-year annualized return of 12.38%, very close to or slightly higher than the MSCI World (12.45%), proving that over a full cycle, ESG has not destroyed value.

2.2 Performance: Decomposing Return Sources

To understand the performance of an ESG ETF, one must use a factor-based lens. "Outperformance" or "underperformance" is rarely explained by the ESG factor itself, but rather by collateral biases.

2.2.1 Sector Bias

This is the dominant explanatory factor in the short and medium term.

• Technology (Overweight): ESG indices often have a technology exposure 3% to 5% higher than standard indices. This makes them sensitive to interest rates and innovation cycles.
• Energy (Underweight): Exposure to the fossil fuel sector is often halved, or even zero in SRI indices. This acts as a hedge against falling oil prices but as a drag during energy supply shocks.

2.2.2 Factor Bias (Style Bias): Quality and Growth

Researchers (Scientific Beta, EDHEC) have shown that ESG scores are strongly correlated with the "Quality" factor.

• Quality Factor: Companies with high ESG ratings tend to be profitable, low-debt, and stable. The Quality factor has historically delivered superior risk-adjusted returns over the long term. Much of the apparent ESG alpha is actually "Quality" alpha in disguise.
• Growth Factor: Due to the tech bias, ESG is often a bet on the "Growth" style. This explains its underperformance during periods of reflation or rotation toward "Value."

2.3 Risk-Adjusted Performance: Volatility and Drawdown

While ESG does not guarantee superior returns, it often offers better defensive characteristics outside of energy crises.

• Reduction of Tail Risk: Companies with good governance and social practices are less prone to catastrophic scandals (fraud, major environmental disasters) that can destroy shareholder value overnight.
• Drawdowns: Historically, ESG indices like the MSCI World SRI have shown slightly lower maximum drawdowns during systemic financial crises (excluding specific commodity shocks).

Summary Table of Comparative Performance (Estimated Data Year-End 2025)

Note the slight outperformance of the S&P 500 ESG due to its optimization mechanism, in contrast to the more restrictive MSCI World SRI, which sacrifices a portion of returns for greater ESG purity.

In conclusion, it is essential to emphasize that the performance of ESG strategies should not be interpreted as an "ethical premium" or a moral reward granted by the market. Quantitative analysis demonstrates that outperformance, where it exists, is almost entirely explainable by structural factor biases. By filtering companies based on governance and risk management criteria, ESG indices mechanically end up overweighting Quality (strong balance sheets, high margins), Growth, and Low Volatility factors. Consequently, the investor does not reap the rewards of virtue, but rather the fruits of an indirect exposure to robust financial characteristics that have historically tended to outperform.

Part III: Analysis of TER (Total Expense Ratio) and Hidden Costs

The historical argument that "ethics are expensive" long hindered the adoption of ESG ETFs. A detailed analysis of market data for the 2024–2025 period shows a rapid erosion of this premium, although important nuances remain.

3.1 Fee Convergence: The Myth of the "Green Premium"

The democratization of ESG has triggered a price war among ETF issuers (BlackRock/iShares, Vanguard, Amundi, DWS/Xtrackers).

3.1.1 Direct Comparison in Developed Equity Markets

The cost gap (TER) between "vanilla" (standard) ETFs and their ESG counterparts has narrowed significantly, sometimes reaching parity in the most liquid markets, such as U.S. equities.

Data compiled from prospectuses and factsheets.

Analysis: For "Screened" indices (simple exclusion), the additional cost is now zero or negligible (1 basis point). Issuers are absorbing extra licensing costs to maintain market share. For more complex indices like SRI (selective Best-in-Class), fees remain very competitive (around 0.18% - 0.25%), making financial arbitrage almost non-existent for retail investors.

3.1.2 Persistence of Costs in Thematic and Active Strategies

Unlike "Core" indices, thematic ETFs (Climate, Water, Hydrogen) maintain high fees, often ranging between 0.45% and 0.75%. These products require more active research and bespoke indices that are often more expensive to license; furthermore, they have lower Assets Under Management (AUM), preventing the same economies of scale seen in broad index giants.

3.2 Beyond the TER: Implicit and Transaction Costs

The TER only tells part of the story. ESG indices have structural characteristics that can generate hidden costs for the investor.

3.2.1 Portfolio Turnover Cost

ESG indices have a structurally higher turnover rate than traditional market-cap indices.

• Mechanism: During quarterly reviews, a company may be excluded not because its size has changed, but because its ESG rating has slipped or a controversy has emerged. The index must then sell this security and buy another to replace it.
• Impact: Every transaction generates brokerage fees and bid-ask spreads within the fund, which erode the Net Asset Value (NAV). Although not included in the TER, these costs are reflected in the net performance. For a highly selective SRI index, turnover can reach 15-20% per year, compared to less than 3-5% for a standard cap-weighted index.

3.2.2 Liquidity Drag

During massive rebalancings of ESG indices (followed by billions of dollars in assets), managers must buy or sell securities simultaneously.

• Risk: In less liquid segments (Small Caps or certain Emerging Markets included in ESG indices), this buying/selling pressure can move prices unfavorably just before execution, creating an "impact cost" that weighs on performance.

3.3 Data Economics and the Role of Index Providers

A significant portion of ESG ETF fees pays for the intellectual property of index providers. MSCI, S&P, and FTSE operate in an oligopoly. The complexity of collecting and processing ESG data justifies higher licensing fees than for a simple stock index. This is why, even as asset managers' margins shrink, the floor for ESG fees remains dictated by the cost of data.

Part IV: Regulation and the Fight Against Greenwashing

The operational environment for ESG ETFs was radically transformed by a wave of regulations in 2024 and 2025, aimed at protecting end-investors from misleading promises. This regulatory sequence has redrawn the map of available products.

4.1 Europe: The Seismic Impact of ESMA Guidelines

Europe, a pioneer with the SFDR (Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation), toughened its stance in 2024 via the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).

• Fund Naming Rule: In May 2024, ESMA published strict guidelines. To use terms like "ESG," "Sustainable," or "Impact" in its name, a fund must invest at least 80% of its assets in investments meeting the promoted environmental or social characteristics.
• "Paris-Aligned" Exclusions: Even more restrictive, any fund using environment-related terms must apply "Paris-Aligned" index exclusions. This means the strict exclusion of companies deriving more than 1% of their revenue from coal, 10% from oil, or 50% from natural gas.
• The "Great Renaming": Consequently, throughout 2025, approximately two-thirds of European ESG funds had to either change their names (dropping the "ESG" label) or significantly tighten their investment methodology to comply. Major managers like Amundi, BlackRock, and DWS had to revise hundreds of prospectuses, creating a discontinuity in performance and strategy histories.

4.2 United States: The SEC and Political Polarization

Across the Atlantic, the dynamic is twofold: federal regulatory pressure and local political resistance.

• SEC Enforcement: The SEC has intensified its actions against greenwashing, sanctioning managers (such as DWS or WisdomTree) for discrepancies between their marketing claims and actual investment processes. In 2025, the focus was on verifying that "ESG" funds actually applied promised exclusions, particularly regarding fossil fuels.
• The Anti-ESG Backlash: In the U.S., the term "ESG" has become politically toxic in some Republican states. This has led to "Greenhushing," where asset managers continue to integrate ESG criteria for risk management but remove the term from marketing documents to avoid political retaliation or the withdrawal of state pension fund mandates.

4.3 Consequences for Investors: More Clarity, Fewer Choices?

This regulatory rigor is a double-edged sword.

• Cleansing: The market is undeniably healthier. An ETF labeled "ESG" in Europe in 2026 offers a much higher guarantee of purity than in 2021. The risk of inadvertently investing in coal via a "green" fund has drastically decreased.
• SFDR Complexity: The distinction between "Article 8" funds (promoting ESG characteristics) and "Article 9" funds (with a concrete sustainable investment objective) remains a source of confusion. Many funds were downgraded from Article 9 to Article 8 out of legal caution, blurring the lines for savers. To use an analogy: Article 8 is a restaurant that offers some vegetarian dishes, while Article 9 is a 100% vegetarian restaurant.

Part V: The Investor Experience – From Theory to Practice

For the end-investor, whether retail or institutional, choosing an ESG ETF in 2026 is not merely a mathematical equation. It is a trade-off between convictions, costs, and simplicity.

5.1 Retail vs. Institutional: The Information Gap

There is a marked asymmetry in the adoption and understanding of ESG products.

• Institutional Investors: They primarily use ESG as a risk mitigation tool and for regulatory alignment. They favor "Optimized" or "Climate Transition" approaches that minimize tracking error.
• Retail Investors: They are often motivated by ethical values (not financing weapons, protecting the planet). They are more likely to be disappointed by "Best-in-Class" strategies that include "clean" oil companies. Studies show persistent confusion among retail investors regarding what an ESG score truly signifies. The decline in ESG enthusiasm among young American investors in 2024–2025 illustrates this fatigue in the face of complexity and a lack of clarity.

5.2 The Challenge of Personalization vs. Standardization

An ETF is, by definition, a standardized product. However, ethics are personal.

• The Impossibility of "Bespoke": One investor may wish to exclude nuclear power but support transitional fossil fuels, while another may want the exact opposite. ESG ETFs impose a methodological consensus that never fully satisfies everyone.
• Direct Indexing: To address this, we are seeing the emergence (though still costly) of direct indexing, allowing wealthy investors to own securities directly and apply their own exclusion filters, thereby bypassing the rigid structure of the ETF.

5.3 Selection Process for the 2026 Investor

Faced with a plethora of options, investors should adopt a structured approach:

1. Identify the primary goal: Is it risk-adjusted performance (choose "ESG Screened" or "Leaders" ETFs) or impact (choose "SRI" or thematic ETFs)?
2. Verify the label and category: In Europe, prioritize Article 8+ or Article 9 funds for genuine sustainable intensity. Check if the fund follows Paris-Aligned Benchmarks (PAB).
3. Monitor sector exposure: Review the monthly Factsheet to check the weighting of Technology and Energy. If the ETF is 35% Tech, it must be balanced by other assets in the overall portfolio.
4. Accept divergence: Understand that ESG investing involves accepting periods of underperformance (as in 2022) in hopes of better long-term resilience.

5.4 Summary and Strategic Guidelines

To navigate today’s offerings effectively, your choice must align with your dominant priority: expressing your convictions or seeking market efficiency.

Priority: Ethics and Impact ("ESG Purity")

• Recommended Indices: Look toward the MSCI SRI (Socially Responsible Investing) family or Paris-Aligned Benchmarks (PAB). MSCI SRI is particularly restrictive, selecting only the top 25% of the most virtuous companies in each sector.
• ETF Type: Search for funds classified as Article 9 under SFDR, which guarantee a concrete sustainable investment objective (the "100% vegetarian restaurant").
• Points of Caution: Expect higher tracking error and increased portfolio concentration, which can lead to higher volatility than the broad market.

Priority: Performance and Risk ("Market Efficiency")

• Recommended Indices: Favor ESG Screened (simple exclusion) indices or the S&P 500 ESG. S&P’s approach, which retains 75% of the market capitalization of each sector, offers a risk/return profile extremely close to the parent index.
• ETF Type: Article 8 funds or Tilting strategies (adjusted weighting) are ideal here. They allow for an improvement in the overall ESG score of your portfolio without sacrificing sector diversification.
• Points of Caution: These funds may include controversial sectors (such as energy) if they meet "best-in-class" criteria, which may create a gap between the fund and your personal moral expectations.

Conclusion and Outlook

By 2026, ESG investing via ETFs has reached the "age of reason." Illusions of easy and systematic outperformance have dissipated, replaced by a more mature understanding of risk and return mechanisms.

Analysis proves that cost is no longer a barrier: the convergence of TERs makes ESG accessible without a major price penalty for "Core" strategies. Similarly, financial performance, while volatile and cyclical, proves competitive over the long term, driven by Quality and Growth factor biases that historically create value.

However, the real challenge now lies in clarity, due to the fragmentation of rating methodologies and the complexity of regulations. The risk of greenwashing has receded, but it has been replaced by a risk of "misunderstanding": the investor believing they are buying impact when they are only buying risk reduction.

The future of ESG ETFs will likely be shaped around two poles: very low-cost "ESG integrated" products on one side, and more expensive, more active thematic and impact strategies on the other. For the investor, the key to success will lie in the ability to align ethical expectations with the mathematical reality of the chosen indices.

⚠️ Regulatory Disclaimer

This article is provided for strictly informational and educational purposes. It does not constitute an investment recommendation, an incentive to buy or sell financial instruments, or personalized financial advice within the meaning of current regulations.

Investing in ETFs, including so-called ESG or sustainable ETFs, involves risks of capital loss. The value of investments may fluctuate up or down depending on market conditions.

ESG criteria are based on methodologies specific to each index provider or rating agency and may change over time. The integration of ESG criteria guarantees neither financial performance nor a measurable positive environmental or social impact.

Before any investment decision, it is the responsibility of each investor to ensure that the intended product is compatible with their personal situation, financial objectives, and risk profile, and to refer to the official regulatory documentation (prospectus, KIID, KID).

Updated on: 02/03/2026