Carbon report SEB Concept Biotechnology

Transcription

1 Carbon report SEB Concept Biotechnology 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 lowcarbon 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 Concept Biotechnology 2

3 Carbon Report SEB Concept Biotechnology Report created on: Feb 27, 2018 Holdings Date: Dec 31, 2017 : NASDAQ Biotech Index Currency: EUR Industry Classification: GICS Company Breakdown Metrics: carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. revenue) Value: 200'232' EUR Fund Management Company: SEB Investment Management AB Executive Summary Carbon emissions Scope 1-2 Total carbon emissions incl. Scope 3 Relative Carbon Footprint (kgco2e / EUR 1'000 invested) Carbon Intensity (kgco2e / EUR 1'000 revenue) Weighted Average Carbon Intensity (kgco2e / EUR 1'000 revenue) Disclosing Titles by Weight (market value) 1' ' % 94.6% ' % 94.9% Total carbon emissions - measure the carbon footprint of a portfolio considering Scope 1-2 as well as Scope 3 emissions. *) - SEB Concept Biotechnology is associated with greenhouse gas emissions of 1'353.1 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 EUR 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 3.1% lower than the benchmark The Sectors Health Care, All other Sectors and (per GICS classification) in the portfolio make up 100.0% of the weight vs % of the contribution to emissions Sector Weight 5.4% Contribution to Health Care All other Sectors 0.0 Carbon Intensity Carbon 94.6% 100.0% 5 smallest contributors to the emissions of the fund are: emissions % of total Relative carbon footprint (kg CO2e / EUR 1'000 Invested) Innoviva % 0.0 Alkermes % 3.9 Eagle Pharmaceuticals % 0.3 Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Supernus Pharmaceuticals % % largest contributors to the emissions of the fund are: emissions % of total Relative carbon footprint (kg CO2e / EUR 1'000 Invested) Mallinckrodt % Mylan % 13.1 PDL BioPharma % 54.4 Amgen % 3.5 Qiagen (US) % 11.1 *) 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 Concept Biotechnology 3

4 Sector weighting and relative carbon footprint Weight Rel. Carbon Footprint tco2e / Mio EUR invested vs. Health Care 94.61% 94.91% % Relative Carbon Footprint Comparison Health Care 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. 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Biotechnology Life Sciences Tools & Services Pharmaceuticals 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 (%) Health Care % % 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 Concept Biotechnology saved 0.0 tco2e, while the stock selection harmed tco2e versus the benchmark. This explains a 0.0% outperformance through sector weighting and 69.6% carbon underperformance by stock picking. Interaction Effect: % Total 1' Carbon Underperformance Carbon Underperformance (%) 69.6 Attribution Analysis - Graph 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Health Care 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 Concept Biotechnology. 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 Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals 1.0% % Mylan Pharmaceuticals 5.1% 3.1% 11.1% PDL BioPharma Biotechnology 1.0% 0.1% 8.8% Amgen Biotechnology 8.8% 7.8% 5.1% Qiagen (US) Life Sciences Tools & Services 2.5% 1.0% 4.6% Grifols ADR Biotechnology 1.5% 0.5% 4.4% Amphastar Pharmaceuticals In Shire PLC markets ADR Pharmaceuticals 1.1% 0.1% 4.2% Biotechnology 3.3% 1.6% 3.8% Endo International Pharmaceuticals 1.3% 0.2% 3.6% Biogen Idec Biotechnology 9.1% 7.8% 3.1% Summary of 10 largest portfolio companies Company GICS Sub-Industry % of total Weight Carbon Data Analysis carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. revenue) Av. Sector Contribution Biogen Idec Biotechnology 9.1% 7.8% 3.1% Amgen Biotechnology 8.8% 7.8% 5.1% Gilead Sciences Biotechnology 8.5% 7.5% 1.2% Celgene Corporation Biotechnology 7.7% 8.1% 0.6% Mylan Pharmaceuticals 5.1% 3.1% 11.1% Alexion Pharmaceuticals Illumina Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Shire PLC markets ADR Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc Biotechnology 4.8% 3.7% 2.2% Life Sciences Tools & Services 4.6% 3.7% 1.2% Biotechnology 4.5% 5.3% 1.4% Biotechnology 3.3% 1.6% 3.8% Pharmaceuticals 2.7% 1.1% 0.7%

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% Health Care Scope 3 Scope 1&2 2'817 1'353 The graph below compares the total emissions (including Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3) between portfolio and benchmark Scope 3 Scope 1&2 2'817 1'353 1' *) 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 Biotechnology 61.4% 78.4% 41.2% Grifols ADR 1.5% 0.5% 4.4% Alkermes 0.1% 1.2% 0.0% AMAG Pharmaceuticals 1.0% 0.1% 2.3% Alexion Pharmaceuticals 4.8% 3.7% 2.2% Alnylam Pharmaceuticals 0.3% 1.7% 0.1% Amgen 8.8% 7.8% 5.1% BioMarin Pharmaceuticals 0.8% 2.1% 0.5% Biogen Idec 9.1% 7.8% 3.1% Celgene Corporation 7.7% 8.1% 0.6% Eagle Pharmaceuticals 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% Genomic Health 1.3% 0.2% 2.2% Gilead Sciences 8.5% 7.5% 1.2% Incyte 1.4% 2.7% 0.2% Myriad Genetics 1.3% 0.3% 2.8% PDL BioPharma 1.0% 0.1% 8.8% Regeneron Pharmaceuticals 4.5% 5.3% 1.4% Shire PLC markets ADR 3.3% 1.6% 3.8% United Therapeutics 2.6% 0.9% 2.0% Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc 2.3% 4.1% 0.6% Pharmaceuticals 20.9% 9.7% 48.6% Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc 2.7% 1.1% 0.7% Mallinckrodt 1.0% % Endo International 1.3% 0.2% 3.6% Horizon Pharma PLC 1.4% 0.3% 0.2% Mylan 5.1% 3.1% 11.1% ANI Pharmaceuticals 1.0% 0.1% 0.5% Akorn 0.9% - 1.0% Amphastar Pharmaceuticals In 1.1% 0.1% 4.2% Depomed 1.2% 0.1% 0.8% Impax Laboratories 0.7% - 2.5% Innoviva 1.3% 0.2% 0.0% Pacira Pharmaceuticals 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% Sucampo Pharmaceuticals 1.4% 0.1% 0.2% Supernus Pharmaceuticals 1.3% 0.3% 0.1% Teligent 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% Life Sciences Tools & Services 12.4% 6.5% 10.1% Qiagen (US) 2.5% 1.0% 4.6% Techne Corporation 1.7% 0.7% 1.4% Illumina 4.6% 3.7% 1.2% Luminex Corp 1.0% 0.1% 2.3% PRA Health Sciences 2.5% 0.8% 0.7%

9 Weight Carbon Data Analysis Company % of total carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. revenue) Av. Sector Total portfolio 94.6% 94.9% 100.0% ' Contribution 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 99 (n=4380) Peer Percentile 95 (Lipper Global Equity Sector Healthcare, n=44) 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