Hi Peter, thanks for the additional comments, although our discussion is becoming somewhat circular.

- It would be great to be totally unbiased when conducting analysis, but that seems impossible given our human nature. We can only try to be as open-minded, thorough, and data-driven as possible.

- Regarding the "quick and dirty" ESG metrics: our data is from a dedicated ESG provider that aggregates ESG scores from the major data providers, which essentially represents meta-scores.

- Classic equity factors like value or momentum are backed by hundreds of academic research papers, although that doesn't mean consistent outperformance. There is much less evidence for ESG, which would make the scientifically-minded investor somewhat cautious.

- Our research simply highlights that ESG portfolios have large factor and sector bets, which in the short-term may go either way. Given the composition of the factor exposures (negative Value, Size, Momentum, positive Low Vol & Quality) and higher costs for ESG products, this would indicate underperformance in the long-term, assuming these exposures remain constant.

Best regards, Nicolas