Giving meaning to your savings, yes! But how to go about it given the heterogeneity of funds offered in life insurance? “It is almost impossible to date with traditional offers,” says Ariel Le Bourdonnec, insurance campaign manager at the NGO Reclaim Finance, which seeks to “put finance at the service of the climate”. However, two neobanks intend to change the situation.
“For us, going into life insurance was logical. We thus offer a simple way to invest ethically,” relates Maëva Courtois, the founder of Hélios, which just launched in January in partnership with Goodvest, an investment company committed to the environment. Today, this product is reserved for new customers. But 10% of those already present, out of the 25,000 accounts opened to date, have said they are interested and will be able to access them in the coming months. Green-Got, which defines itself as “a banking alternative that finances the ecological and energy transition”, also launched in February. The company has just finished absorbing more than 20,000 subscription requests, with an average collection per customer of 6,000 euros. These two offers offer turnkey management, with carefully constructed portfolios.
A drastic selection of funds
The two fintechs were very selective, relying in particular on the expertise of Carbon4Finance, co-founded by media personality Jean-Marc Jancovici. “Our goal is clearly to go beyond greenwashing that we observe at all levels, among management companies but also among traditional bancassurance providers, who are moving too slowly on the subject, notes Joseph Choueifaty, co-founder of Goodvest. There are nearly 8,000 funds integrating extra-financial criteria today. We have only listed 28.” Fourteen of them have integrated the portfolios managed by the fintech, the others offer reallocation opportunities if certain currently favored products deviate from the specifications.
“99.6% of funds did not pass our requirement criteria,” adds Andréa Ganovelli, general manager of Green-Got. “This is, in our opinion, the strictest method on the market.” It notably includes rigorous exclusions on fossil fuels. “These approaches are very interesting for savers who struggle to see things clearly, analyzes Ariel Le Bourdonnec. The two establishments are offering for the first time units of accounts selected according to a methodology that we consider to be up to the challenge. This allows us to go much further than the ISR and Finansol labels, which are not demanding enough in our eyes.”
Significant costs
In addition to the meaning given to your savings, the product remains classic. For both contracts, Generali operates, which guarantees you protection in the event of failure of these neobanks. Be careful though: Hélios and Green-Got only offer units of account, no euro funds with guaranteed capital! It remains to study the performance possibilities. Due to the youth of these offers, there is little history. Green-Got indicates, however: “In 2023, we saw a performance on the four portfolios of between 4.32% and 9.71% over the year, net of fees.” At Goodvest, last year, returns reached between 4.63% and 11.43%, depending on the risk profile. The two players agree on one point: focusing on energy transition issues constitutes a guarantee of resilience and better results in the future.
But if the performances are promises, the costs are certainties. For the contract alone, they amount to 1.6% of total outstandings per year at Green-Got, and 1.5% for managed management contracts at Hélios/Goodvest. Specific fund fees are added to this. Note that the first favors active management while the second integrates ETFs – listed index funds – which replicate market indices. The Green-Got approach is, in fact, more expensive but it allows the inclusion of unlisted – or private equity – and real estate, for better diversification. Two different strategies, in the name of the same philosophy.