Carbon report SEB Nordamerikafond Småbolag

Transcription

1 Carbon report SEB Nordamerikafond Småbolag 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 Carbon Barometer & Carbon Ranking Carbon Report - SEB Nordamerikafond Småbolag 2

3 Carbon Report SEB Nordamerikafond Småbolag Report created on: Feb 27, 2018 Holdings Date: Dec 31, 2017 : Russell 2000 Growth Currency: SEK Industry Classification: GICS Company Breakdown Metrics: carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. Value: 1'719'190' 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 Weighted Average Carbon Intensity (kgco2e / SEK 1'000 Disclosing Titles by Weight (market value) 13' ' % 81.8% 11' ' % 94.8% Total carbon emissions - measure the carbon footprint of a portfolio considering Scope 1-2 as well as Scope 3 emissions. *) - SEB Nordamerikafond Småbolag is associated with greenhouse gas emissions of 13'194.3 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 43.1% lower than the benchmark The Sectors Industrials, Information Technology and Consumer Discretionary (per GICS classification) in the portfolio make up 55.8% of the weight vs. 92.3% of the contribution to emissions Carbon Intensity Carbon 44.2% Sector Weight 11.0% 22.2% 29.9% 22.5% Contribution to 7.7% 7.9% 54.5% Industrials Information Technology Consumer Discretionary 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) HEALTHEQUITY % 0.0 Exact Scinces Corp % 0.2 Lendingtree % 0.1 WINGSTOP % 0.1 CARE.COM % largest contributors to the emissions of the fund are: Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings emissions % of total Relative carbon footprint (kg CO2e / SEK 1'000 Invested) 2' % Apptio 1' % 80.9 Air Transport Services Group 1' % 54.7 Pure Storage Class A % 47.3 Saia % 24.0 *) 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 Småbolag 3

4 Sector weighting and relative carbon footprint Weight Rel. Carbon Footprint tco2e / Mio SEK invested vs. Industrials 22.23% 17.69% % Information Technology 22.55% 22.42% % Consumer Discretionary 11.04% 13.88% % Energy 1.56% 0.94% % Health Care 13.58% 21.85% % Telecommunication Services 1.13% 0.83% % Financials 8.70% 5.93% % Materials 1.01% 4.58% % Relative Carbon Footprint Comparison Industrials Information Technology Consumer Discretionary Energy Health Care Telecommunication Services Financials Materials 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% Air Freight & Logistics Apparel Retail Automotive Retail Casinos & Gaming Construction & Engineering Construction Materials Data Processing & Outsourced Services Electronic Components Industrial Machinery Internet Software & Services Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Restaurants Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals Trading Companies & Distributors Trucking 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 Underperformance 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 Småbolag harmed tco2e, while the stock selection harmed tco2e versus the benchmark. This explains a 19.3% underperformance through sector weighting and 61.3% carbon underperformance by stock picking. Interaction Effect: % Carbon Underperformance Total 13' ' '695.2 Carbon Underperformance (%) Attribution Analysis - Graph 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% 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 Småbolag. 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 Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings Apptio Air Transport Services Group Pure Storage Class A Weight Carbon Data Analysis carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. Av. Sector Contribution Air Freight & Logistics 1.0% % ' ' Internet Software & Services 1.0% 0.1% 15.5% 1.7 1' ' Air Freight & Logistics 0.9% 0.1% 9.6% ' Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals 0.9% 0.1% 8.4% Saia Trucking 1.3% 0.1% 5.9% ' MARTEN TRANSPORT Trucking 1.0% - 4.2% BOOT BARN HOLDINGS MATADOR RESOURCES Granite Constructions Apparel Retail 0.8% - 3.1% Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Construction & Engineering 1.0% 0.3% 2.8% ' % 0.2% 2.0% Tower Semiconductor Semiconductors 1.0% - 1.9% Summary of 10 largest portfolio companies Company GICS Sub-Industry % of total Weight Carbon Data Analysis carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. Av. Sector Contribution KLX Inc Aerospace & Defense 1.5% - 1.0% NV5 Global Construction & Engineering 1.5% 0.0% 0.4% Mercury Systems Aerospace & Defense 1.4% 0.2% 0.1% Granite Constructions Moelis & Company A MASTEC Quanta Services Construction & Engineering Investment Banking & Brokerage Construction & Engineering Construction & Engineering 1.3% 0.2% 2.0% % 0.1% 0.1% % 0.3% 1.8% % - 0.6% Novocure Health Care Equipment 1.3% 0.1% 0.1% Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings General Merchandise Stores 1.3% 0.2% 0.4% Saia Trucking 1.3% 0.1% 5.9% '

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 3' '000 7'188 3'885 1' '772 3' The graph below compares the total emissions (including Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3) between portfolio and benchmark Scope 3 Scope 1&2 27'913 13'194 33'441 11'533 *) 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. Av. Sector Contribution Oil & Gas Equipment & Services 0.5% 0.2% 1.6% US Silica Holdings 0.5% 0.1% 1.6% Oil & Gas Exploration & Production 1.0% 0.6% 2.8% ' MATADOR RESOURCES 1.0% 0.3% 2.8% ' Construction Materials 1.0% 0.4% 0.3% ' SUMMIT MATERIALS 1.0% 0.3% 0.3% ' Aerospace & Defense 2.9% 1.0% 1.2% KLX Inc 1.5% - 1.0% Mercury Systems 1.4% 0.2% 0.1% Construction & Engineering 7.3% 1.6% 6.5% ' Dycom Indus 1.0% 0.3% 0.3% Granite Constructions 1.3% 0.2% 2.0% MASTEC 1.3% 0.3% 1.8% NV5 Global 1.5% 0.0% 0.4% Primoris Services 0.9% 0.1% 1.4% Quanta Services 1.3% - 0.6% Industrial Conglomerates 1.0% 0.1% 1.0% RAVEN INDUSTRIES 1.0% 0.1% 1.0% Industrial Machinery 4.8% 4.2% 1.6% Kornit Digital 0.9% - 0.2% Esco Technologies 0.9% - 0.3% John Bean Technologies 0.9% 0.3% 0.3% Kadant 1.0% 0.1% 0.3% Welbilt INC 1.0% - 0.4% Trading Companies & Distributors 2.1% 1.2% 2.0% BMC Stock Holdings 1.1% 0.0% 1.5% SiteOne Landscape Supply 1.0% 0.2% 0.5% Air Freight & Logistics 1.9% 0.3% 32.0% ' ' Air Transport Services Group 0.9% 0.1% 9.6% ' Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings 1.0% % ' '291.5 Trucking 2.3% 1.0% 10.2% ' ' MARTEN TRANSPORT 1.0% - 4.2% Saia 1.3% 0.1% 5.9% ' Homebuilding 2.8% 0.8% 0.9% CAVCO INDUSTRIES 0.7% 0.1% 0.1% INSTALLED BUILDING 1.0% 0.2% 0.2% Topbuild 1.1% 0.1% 0.6% Casinos & Gaming 2.3% 1.3% 3.0% BOYD GAMING CORP 1.1% 0.2% 1.7% Red Rock Resorts Class A 1.1% 0.2% 1.3% Leisure Facilities 1.0% 0.4% 0.2% Planet Fitness Cl A 1.0% 0.3% 0.2% Restaurants 0.9% 2.5% 0.0% WINGSTOP 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% Education Services 1.0% 0.8% 0.1%

9 Weight Carbon Data Analysis Company % of total carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. Av. Sector Contribution CHEGG 1.0% 0.1% 0.1% General Merchandise Stores 1.3% 0.5% 0.4% Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings 1.3% 0.2% 0.4% Apparel Retail 0.8% 0.3% 3.1% BOOT BARN HOLDINGS 0.8% - 3.1% Automotive Retail 1.0% 0.7% 0.3% CAMPING WORLD HOLDINGS 1.0% 0.1% 0.3% Health Care Equipment 2.3% 3.9% 0.1% Novocure 1.3% 0.1% 0.1% Cryoport 0.5% - 0.0% Integra Lifesciences Holding 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% Health Care Supplies 3.1% 1.6% 0.8% Merit Medical Systems 0.9% 0.2% 0.2% OraSure Technologies 1.1% 0.1% 0.1% West Pharmaceutical Services 1.1% - 0.5% Managed Health Care 0.9% 0.7% 0.0% HEALTHEQUITY 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% Health Care Technology 0.9% 0.9% 0.1% Omnicell 0.9% 0.2% 0.1% Biotechnology 5.4% 8.4% 0.5% Exact Scinces Corp 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% Foundation Medicine 0.8% 0.1% 0.2% IGNYTA INC 1.0% 0.1% 0.1% JUNO THERAPEUTICS 1.0% - 0.1% Repligen 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% Ultragenyx Pharmaceuticals 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 3' Pharmaceuticals 0.9% 3.7% 0.7% CATALENT 0.9% 0.5% 0.7% Regional Banks 4.7% 2.0% 0.1% FCB FINANCIAL HOLDINGS 1.2% - 0.0% HOME BANCSHARES 1.1% 0.3% 0.0% Pinnacle Financial Partners 1.2% - 0.0% Sterling Bancorp/De 1.2% - 0.0% Thrifts & Mortgage Finance 1.0% 0.8% 0.0% Lendingtree 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% Investment Banking & Brokerage 2.4% 0.6% 0.1% Evercore Partners 1.0% 0.3% 0.1% Moelis & Company A 1.3% 0.1% 0.1% Insurance Brokers 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% ehealth 0.6% 0.0% 0.1% Internet Software & Services 5.5% 5.0% 15.9% 1.7 1' Alarm.com Holdings INC 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% Apptio 1.0% 0.1% 15.5% 1.7 1' '530.0 Box Class A 1.0% 0.2% 0.2% CARE.COM 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% Etsy 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% Instructure 0.9% 0.1% 0.1% NEW RELIC 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% IT Consulting & Other Services 1.9% 1.1% 0.6% Mantech International Corporation 0.9% - 0.3% Virtusa 0.9% 0.1% 0.3% Data Processing & Outsourced Services 2.1% 1.3% 1.0%

10 Weight Carbon Data Analysis Company % of total carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. Av. Sector Contribution Syntel 0.9% 0.1% 0.3% WNS Holdings ADR 1.2% - 0.6% Application Software 2.9% 4.7% 0.1% Broadsoft 1.1% 0.2% 0.1% Callidus Software 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% Zendesk 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% Communications Equipment 1.0% 1.7% 0.2% Silicom 0.5% - 0.0% LUMENTUM HOLDINGS 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals 0.9% 0.6% 8.4% Pure Storage Class A 0.9% 0.1% 8.4% Electronic Equipment & Instruments 1.5% 0.8% 0.4% ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES 0.6% - 0.1% FARO Technologies 0.8% 0.0% 0.3% Electronic Components 2.9% 0.8% 0.9% LITTELFUSE 0.9% 0.4% 0.2% Rogers Corporation 1.0% 0.3% 0.4% II-VI 1.0% 0.1% 0.3% Semiconductors 3.8% 2.8% 2.3% Tower Semiconductor 1.0% - 1.9% Monolithic Power Systems 1.0% 0.4% 0.1% Power Integrations 1.0% 0.2% 0.3% SILICON LABS 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% Alternative Carriers 1.1% 0.5% 0.4% Vonage Holdings 1.1% 0.2% 0.4% Total portfolio 81.8% 94.8% 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. 10

11 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 10 (n=4380) Peer Percentile 8 (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 11