The multi-trillion-dollar ESG fund industry faces a regulatory problem. By the end of 2025, funds with net assets of $1 billion or more must comply with the amendments to SEC Rule 35d-1, better known as the “names rule.” It requires funds with names that include ESG terms have at least 80% of the fund invested in assets that aligned with those terms. The amendments strengthen prospectus disclosure requirements, and mandate that terms used in the fund’s name suggesting an investment focus be consistent with their plain-English meaning or established industry use. My guest today will explain how ESG has become a meaningless term to investors. The result has been massive flows to ESG funds that have large holdings in oil companies, agricultural chemical manufacturers and similar companies that many investors are not aware of. Fund managers are struggling to explain what is going on, as they must to comply with the names rule. Show ResourcesHere are some links to learn more about Jason and Reflection Asset Management: Reflection Analytics Launches Digital Platform for Comprehensive ESG Audit and AnalysisSEC Adopts Rule Enhancements to Prevent Misleading or Deceptive Investment Fund NamesReflection AMReflect website