Carbon report SEB Nordamerikafond Små och Medelstora Bolag

Transcription

1 Carbon report SEB Nordamerikafond Små och Medelstora Bolag Report created on: February 27, 2018 The carbon footprint provides a historic snapshot of the emissions from the equity holdings of the fund. The calculations are not comprehensive and indirect emissions, e.g. from suppliers, are based on reported data or estimates of emissions. The metric says nothing about how the portfolio contributes to a low-carbon society. For further information about the metric, see

2 Contents Executive Summary 3 Sector weighthing and relative carbon footprint 4 Relative Carbon Footprint Comparison 4 Sector Analysis & Stock selection 4 Attribution Analysis 5 Summary of 10 largest absolute contributors 6 Summary of 10 largest portfolio companies 6 Scope 3 overview 7 Company sector & breakdown 8-9 Carbon Barometer & Carbon Ranking 10 Carbon Report - SEB Nordamerikafond Små och Medelstora Bolag 2

3 Carbon Report SEB Nordamerikafond Små och Medelstora Bolag Report created on: Feb 27, 2018 Holdings Date: Dec 31, 2017 : Frank Russell 2500 (Net Return) Currency: SEK Industry Classification: GICS Company Breakdown Metrics: carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. revenue) Value: 1'671'041' SEK Fund Management Company: SEB Investment Management AB Executive Summary Carbon emissions Scope 1-2 Total carbon emissions incl. Scope 3 Relative Carbon Footprint (kgco2e / SEK 1'000 invested) Carbon Intensity (kgco2e / SEK 1'000 revenue) Weighted Average Carbon Intensity (kgco2e / SEK 1'000 revenue) Disclosing Titles by Weight (market value) 23' ' % 100.0% 48' ' % 95.9% Total carbon emissions - measure the carbon footprint of a portfolio considering Scope 1-2 as well as Scope 3 emissions. *) - SEB Nordamerikafond Små och Medelstora Bolag is associated with greenhouse gas emissions of 23'762.5 tons per year. Relative carbon footprint - is a normalized measure of the portfolio's contribution. - It enables comparisons with a benchmark between multiple portfolios, over time and regardless of portfolio size. Carbon intensity - allows investors to measure how much carbon emissions per SEK of revenue are generated. - It therefore measures the carbon efficiency of a portfolio per unit of output. This report analyses the portfolio of securities in terms of the carbon emissions and other carbon related characteristics of the underlying portfolio companies, and compares this data to the performance of a relevant respectively chosen market benchmark. The portfolio s intensity is 13.3% lower than the benchmark The Sectors Industrials, Utilities and Materials (per GICS classification) in the portfolio make up 32.0% of the weight vs. 87.9% of the contribution to emissions Sector Weight 20.1% Contribution to 12.1% Carbon Intensity 48.6 Carbon 68.0% 15.5% 3.4% 8.4% 33.2% 39.2% Industrials Utilities Materials All other Sectors 5 smallest contributors to the emissions of the fund are: emissions % of total Relative carbon footprint (kg CO2e / SEK 1'000 Invested) Abiomed % 0.0 Simpson Manufacturing % 0.0 AMN HEALTHCARE SERVICES % 0.1 Cognex % 0.1 REINSURANCE GROUP OF AMERICA % largest contributors to the emissions of the fund are: emissions % of total Relative carbon footprint (kg CO2e / SEK 1'000 Invested) Alliant Energy 6' % Matson 5' % Eagle Materials 2' % Kirby 2' % MDU Resources 1' % 64.8 *) Scope 1 emissions are directly generated by company's operations, whereas indirect Scope 2 emissions are related to the company's energy consumption. Scope 3 emissions include other indirect emissions including e.g. business travel, use of company's products sold, investments, and goods and services purchased. Carbon Report - SEB Nordamerikafond Små och Medelstora Bolag 3

4 Sector weighting and relative carbon footprint Weight Rel. Carbon Footprint tco2e / Mio SEK invested vs. Industrials 20.11% 16.10% % Utilities 3.44% 2.88% % Materials 8.45% 5.92% % Consumer Staples 3.04% 2.86% % Energy 1.97% 4.02% % Consumer Discretionary 8.11% 12.21% % Health Care 13.79% 10.69% % Information Technology 17.00% 15.73% % Financials 19.84% 14.18% % Others 4.25% 10.80% % Relative Carbon Footprint Comparison Industrials Utilities Materials Consumer Staples Energy Consumer Discretionary Health Care Information Technology Financials Others Sector Analysis & Stock Selection The graph below shows how the carbon allocation in the portfolio differs from the average of each sector. Sectors have been defined using the GICS classification at the Supersector/Industry Group level. 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Agricultural Products Apparel, Accessories & Luxury Goods Building Products Construction Machinery & Heavy Trucks Construction Materials Electric Utilities Environmental & Facilities Services Food Retail Marine Metal & Glass Containers Multi-Utilities Oil & Gas Equipment & Services Railroads Semiconductors Specialty Chemicals GICS Sub-Industry, Average GICS Sub-Industry 4

5 Attribution Analysis The two principal reasons why the carbon exposure of the portfolio may differ from the benchmark are due to sector allocation as well as stock selection decisions. Sector allocation decision will cause the carbon intensity of the portfolio to diverge from the benchmark where the sectors are either carbon intensive or low carbon. If the portfolio is overweight in carbon intensive sectors the portfolio is likely to be more carbon intensive than the benchmark. However, if the stocks within a carbon intensive sector are the most carbon efficient companies, it is possible that the portfolio may still have a lower carbon footprint than the benchmark. Sector Allocation Sector Selection Sector Allocation Contribution to Out/ Underperformance Sector Allocation Contribution to Out/ Underperformance (%) Stock Selection Contribution to Out/ Underperformance Stock Selection Contribution to Out/ Underperformance (%) Energy % % Materials % % Industrials % % Consumer Discretionary % % Consumer Staples % % Health Care % % Financials % % Information Technology % % Telecommunication Services % % Utilities % % Others % % Total % % Explanation: The Outperformance of the portfolio is based on the effect of over/underweighting certain sectors and selecting more/less carbon intense stocks within each sector for each of the underlying holdings. A positive number indicates that the effect increased the greenhouse gas emission (in tons of CO2e) and a negative number indicated a decreasing effect. In this case, the sector weighting of SEB Nordamerikafond Små och Medelstora Bolag harmed 87.9 tco2e, while the stock selection saved tco2e versus the benchmark. This explains a 3.0% underperformance through sector weighting and 25.3% carbon outperformance by stock picking. Interaction Effect: % Total 23' '848.3 Carbon Outperformance Carbon Outperformance (%) 11.8 Attribution Analysis - Graph 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% Energy Materials Industrials Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Health Care Financials Information Technology Telecommunication Services Utilities Others Sector Stock Total 5

6 Summary of 10 largest absolute contributors The tables below show the 10 largest greenhouse gas contributors and the 10 largest holdings respectively of the SEB Nordamerikafond Små och Medelstora Bolag. Carbon Data section explains your, i.e. the amount of greenhouse gases that the portfolio finances from the company s overall emissions, relative to company ownership. You can further see what % of the overall portfolio GHG emissions each company accounts for and if the company s GHG emission number was disclosed by the company or approximated. In the Analysis section, the emissions are stated and the Average Sector allow a comparison of the greenhouse gas intensity of a company against its respective sector, i.e. the amount of GHG emissions that an investment of the same size would have financed, would it have been invested in the overall sector rather than the specific company. The effect on the portfolio can be found under Contribution: This is a measurement of how much a specific holding raises or reduces the carbon footprint of the portfolio. Company GICS Sub-Industry % of total Weight Carbon Data Analysis carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. revenue) Av. Sector Contribution Alliant Energy Electric Utilities 1.9% 0.2% 26.3% ' ' ' Matson Marine 1.5% 0.0% 21.2% ' ' ' Eagle Materials Construction Materials 1.5% 0.1% 11.5% ' ' ' Kirby Marine 1.4% 0.1% 10.6% ' ' ' MDU Resources Multi-Utilities 1.5% 0.1% 6.9% ' ' ' Ingredion Agricultural Products 1.6% 0.2% 5.1% ' Genesee & Wyoming Railroads 1.9% 0.1% 4.7% ' Martin Marietta Materials Superior Energy Services Clean Harbors Construction Materials 1.5% - 2.6% ' Oil & Gas Equipment & Services Environmental & Facilities Services 1.0% 0.0% 2.1% % 0.1% 1.3% ' Summary of 10 largest portfolio companies Company GICS Sub-Industry % of total West Pharmaceutical Services SEI Investments Company WEX Inc Weight Carbon Data Analysis carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. revenue) Av. Sector Contribution Health Care Supplies 2.7% 0.2% 0.5% Asset Management & Custody Banks Data Processing & Outsourced Services 2.6% 0.2% 0.0% % 0.1% 0.0% Alleghany Reinsurance 2.4% 0.2% 0.0% Wintrust Financial Corp Broadridge Financial Solutions Wabtec Regional Banks 2.4% 0.1% 0.1% Data Processing & Outsourced Services Construction Machinery & Heavy Trucks 2.3% 0.2% 0.1% % 0.1% 0.1% Woodward Industrial Machinery 2.2% 0.1% 0.5% Signature Bank Regional Banks 2.1% 0.2% 0.0% STERIS PLC Health Care Equipment 2.1% 0.2% 0.1%

7 Scope 3 Overview The following section provides a top-down approximation of the financed scope 3 emissions from each sector. The purpose of this analysis is to give an order of magnitude of the emissions in the portfolio on a sector level and should not be used as a basis for comparing two individual companies. All emissions are in tco2e metrics. The following graph shows the financed Scope 1+2 emissions in relation to the Scope 3 emissions of the portfolio. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Energy Materials Industrials Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Health Care Financials InformationTelecommunication Utilities Technology Services Scope 3 Scope 1&2 6' '126 3'691 25'150 9'306 2' '469 1' '650 7'881 The graph below compares the total emissions (including Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3) between portfolio and benchmark Scope 3 Scope 1&2 54'533 23' '133 48'408 *) The methodology includes Scope 1, 2 and Scope 3 upstream and product use downstream. 7

8 Company Sector & Breakdown This table presents all holdings in the portfolio, sorted by sector, following the logic from the sections above. It shows how each company contributes to the overall portfolio footprint. It allows you to see which stocks are the greatest contributors to the portfolio s emission in absolute as well as relative terms. The -/+ signs on the far right indicate if a specific holding raises or reduces the carbon footprint of the portfolio. This helps with portfolio optimization and in managing the overall carbon portfolio footprint without comprising the chosen sector allocation. Weight Carbon Data Analysis Company % of total carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. revenue) Av. Sector Contribution Oil & Gas Equipment & Services 2.0% 0.5% 3.1% ' Oceaneering International 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% Superior Energy Services 1.0% 0.0% 2.1% Specialty Chemicals 3.9% 1.3% 1.1% ' AXALTA COATING SYSTEMS 1.9% 0.1% 0.5% ' RPM/OHIO 2.0% 0.1% 0.5% ' Construction Materials 3.0% 0.2% 14.0% ' ' ' Eagle Materials 1.5% 0.1% 11.5% ' ' '402.9 Martin Marietta Materials 1.5% - 2.6% ' Metal & Glass Containers 1.5% 0.6% 0.4% Aptargroup 1.5% 0.1% 0.4% Building Products 3.3% 1.6% 0.1% ' Fortune Brands Home & Security 1.7% 0.2% 0.1% Simpson Manufacturing 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% Construction Machinery & Heavy Trucks 4.0% 1.0% 0.3% WABCO Holdings 1.8% 0.2% 0.2% Wabtec 2.2% 0.1% 0.1% Industrial Machinery 3.8% 3.3% 0.6% Snap-on-tools 1.6% 0.2% 0.2% Woodward 2.2% 0.1% 0.5% Trading Companies & Distributors 1.3% 1.5% 0.2% MSC Industrial Direct 1.3% 0.1% 0.2% Environmental & Facilities Services 1.3% 0.4% 1.3% ' Clean Harbors 1.3% 0.1% 1.3% ' Research & Consulting Services 1.5% 0.5% 0.0% Dun & Bradstreet New 1.5% 0.1% 0.0% Marine 3.0% 0.1% 31.8% ' ' ' Kirby 1.4% 0.1% 10.6% ' ' '210.1 Matson 1.5% 0.0% 21.2% ' ' '750.0 Railroads 1.9% 0.1% 4.7% ' Genesee & Wyoming 1.9% 0.1% 4.7% ' Housewares & Specialties 1.1% 0.1% 0.2% Newell Rubbermaid 1.1% - 0.2% Leisure Products 1.7% 0.4% 0.3% Brunswick Corp 1.7% 0.1% 0.3% Apparel, Accessories & Luxury Goods 1.5% 0.7% 0.6% Gildan Activewear (USD) 1.5% - 0.6% Publishing 1.9% 0.3% 0.2% John Wiley & Sons 1.9% 0.1% 0.2% Distributors 1.9% 0.1% 0.5% LKQ Corporation 1.9% - 0.5% Food Retail 1.5% 0.2% 0.3% Alimentation Couche-Tard -B 1.5% - 0.3% Agricultural Products 1.6% 0.3% 5.1% ' Ingredion 1.6% 0.2% 5.1% ' Health Care Equipment 4.7% 2.1% 0.2% '

9 Weight Carbon Data Analysis Company % of total carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. revenue) Av. Sector Contribution STERIS PLC 2.1% 0.2% 0.1% LivaNova 1.4% 0.1% 0.1% Abiomed 1.2% 0.2% 0.0% Health Care Supplies 4.6% 0.8% 0.6% COOPER COMPANIES 1.9% 0.2% 0.1% West Pharmaceutical Services 2.7% 0.2% 0.5% Health Care Services 2.9% 0.6% 0.0% AMN HEALTHCARE SERVICES 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% MEDNAX 1.3% 0.1% 0.0% Life Sciences Tools & Services 1.6% 0.9% 0.2% Bio-Rad Laboratories 1.6% 0.1% 0.2% Regional Banks 8.0% 6.9% 0.1% ' Bank of the Ozarks 1.6% 0.1% 0.0% Signature Bank 2.1% 0.2% 0.0% Sterling Bancorp/De 1.9% 0.1% 0.0% Wintrust Financial Corp 2.4% 0.1% 0.1% Asset Management & Custody Banks 2.6% 0.7% 0.0% SEI Investments Company 2.6% 0.2% 0.0% Insurance Brokers 1.6% 0.4% 0.0% Brown & Brown 1.6% 0.1% 0.0% Multi-line Insurance 1.7% 0.4% 0.1% Fairfax Financial Holdings 1.7% - 0.1% Property & Casualty Insurance 1.6% 1.4% 0.0% White Mountains Insurance Group 1.6% 0.1% 0.0% Reinsurance 4.5% 0.9% 0.0% ' Alleghany 2.4% 0.2% 0.0% REINSURANCE GROUP OF AMERICA 2.1% 0.2% 0.0% Data Processing & Outsourced Services 6.3% 1.5% 0.2% ' Broadridge Financial Solutions 2.3% 0.2% 0.1% Jack Henry & Associates 1.5% 0.2% 0.0% WEX Inc 2.5% 0.1% 0.0% Application Software 4.6% 2.8% 0.1% ' Ansys 2.0% 0.3% 0.0% Ellie Mae 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% Manhattan Associates 1.5% 0.1% 0.0% Electronic Equipment & Instruments 4.1% 1.4% 0.1% Cognex 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% FLIR Systems 1.5% 0.1% 0.1% National Instruments 1.5% 0.1% 0.1% Semiconductors 2.0% 1.8% 0.0% SILICON LABS 2.0% 0.1% 0.0% Electric Utilities 1.9% 0.9% 26.3% ' ' ' ' Alliant Energy 1.9% 0.2% 26.3% ' ' '901.7 Multi-Utilities 1.5% 0.3% 6.9% ' ' ' MDU Resources 1.5% 0.1% 6.9% ' ' '294.9 Others 4.2% 10.8% 0.2% ' Alexander & Baldwin 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% Retail Opportunity Investments 1.9% 0.0% 0.1% Weingarten Realty Investors 1.5% 0.1% 0.1% Total portfolio 100.0% 95.9% 100.0% ' ' Note that the weighting for the benchmark will not always total 100% as the stocks shown are only for those held by the portfolio. 9

10 Carbon Ranking This is a standardized ranking of the fund based on the productís weighted average carbon intensity using two peergroups. One consisting of all other funds in the database (global percentile) and one where the fund is ranked taking the specific Lipper Global Classification into account (peer percentile). The ranking is based on percentiles and ranges from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Global Percentile 31 (n=4380) Peer Percentile 35 (Lipper Global Equity US Sm&Mid; Cap, n=40) The carbon footprint provides a historic snapshot of the emissions from the equity holdings of the fund. The calculations are not comprehensive and indirect emissions, e.g. from suppliers, are based on reported data or estimates of emissions. The metric says nothing about how the portfolio contributes to a low-carbon society. For further information about the metric, see 10