Public HTML RI reports - PRI reporting framework 2020

Ohman

PRI reporting framework 2020

Basic information [OO 01 - 09] Asset class implementation gateway indicators [OO 10 - 12] Peering questions [OO LE 01 - HF 01]

Strategy and Governance

Investment policy [SG 01 - 04] Objectives and strategies [SG 05 - 06] Governance and human resources [SG 07 - 08] Promoting responsible investment [SG 09 - 11] Outsourcing to fiduciary managers and investment consultants [SG 12] ESG issues in asset allocation [SG 13 - 15] Innovation [SG 18] Communication [SG 19]

Direct - Listed Equity Incorporation

ESG incorporation in actively managed listed equities [LEI 01 - 10] Implementation processes [LEI 01 - 10] (A) Implementation: Screening [LEI 04 - 06] (C) Implementation: Integration of ESG factors [LEI 08 - 10] ESG incorporation in passively managed listed equities [LEI 11] Outputs and outcomes [LEI 12 - 13]

Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership

Overview [LEA 01] Engagement [LEA 02 - 08] Outputs and outcomes [LEA 09 - 11]

Direct - Fixed Income

ESG incorporation in actively managed fixed income [FI 01 - 12] Implementation processes [FI 01 - 03] (A) Implementation: Screening [FI 04 - 06] (B) Implementation: Thematic [FI 07 - 09] (C) Implementation: Integration [FI 10 - 12] ESG incorporation in passively managed fixed income [FI 13] Fixed income - Engagement [FI 14 - 16] Outputs and outcomes [FI 17 - 18]

Confidence building measures

Confidence building measures [CM1 01 - 07]

Export Public Responses

You are in Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership » (Proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions

(Proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions

LEA 12. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

12.1. Indicate how you typically make your (proxy) voting decisions.

Approach

We use our own research or voting team and make voting decisions without the use of service providers.

Based on

Our own voting policy

Our clients` requests or policies

Other (explain)

We hire service providers who make voting recommendations and/or provide research that we use to guide our voting decisions.

We hire service providers who make voting decisions on our behalf, except in some pre-defined scenarios where we review and make voting decisions.

We hire service providers who make voting decisions on our behalf.

12.2. Provide an overview of how you ensure that your agreed-upon voting policy is adhered to, giving details of your approach when exceptions to the policy are made.

Öhman Fonder's CEO is responsible for corporate governance issues. The CEO, or the CEO appoints, shall once a year report to the Board of Directors statements made by the fund company at individual AGMs. Monitoring of general meetings takes place with internal system support. When the agenda is published, the analyst is informed who evaluates the proposals on the agenda and decides whether voting is required. Voting can take place through a proxy, a custodian bank or through a personal attendance at the general meeting. Which approach is chosen is determined on a case-by-case basis. In cases where the fund company has a different opinion and decides to vote against a proposal, it must be communicated to the company prior to the general meeting.

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

LEA 13. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed (Not Applicable)

LEA 14. Securities lending programme

14.1. Does your organisation have a securities lending programme?

Yes

14.3. Indicate how the issue of voting is addressed in your securities lending programme.

We recall all securities for voting on all ballot items

We maintain some holdings, so that we can vote at any time

We systematically recall some securities so that we can vote on their ballot items (e.g., in line with specific criteria)

We recall some securities so that we can vote on their ballot items on an ad-hoc basis

We empower our securities-lending agent to decide when to recall securities for voting purposes

We do not recall our securities for voting purposes

Other (specify)

14.4. Additional information. [Optional]

LEA 15. Informing companies of the rationale of abstaining/voting against management

15.1. Indicate the proportion of votes participated in within the reporting year in which where you or the service providers acting on your behalf raised concerns with companies ahead of voting.

100%

99-75%

74-50%

49-25%

24-1%

Neither we nor our service provider(s) raise concerns with companies ahead of voting

15.3. Additional information. [Optional]

LEA 16. Informing companies of the rationale of abstaining/voting against management

16.1. Indicate the proportion of votes where you, and/or the service provider(s) acting on your behalf, communicated the rationale to companies for abstaining or voting against management recommendations. Indicate this as a percentage out of all eligible votes.

100%

99-75%

74-50%

49-25%

24-1%

We do not communicate the rationale to companies

Not applicable because we and/or our service providers did not abstain or vote against management recommendations

16.4. Additional information. [Optional]

LEA 17. Percentage of (proxy) votes cast

17.1. For listed equities in which you or your service provider have the mandate to issue (proxy) voting instructions, indicate the percentage of votes cast during the reporting year.

We do track or collect this information

Votes cast (to the nearest 1%)

0 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

Of the total number of ballot items on which you could have issued instructions

Of the total number of company meetings at which you could have voted

Of the total value of your listed equity holdings on which you could have voted

We do not track or collect this information

17.2. Explain your reason(s) for not voting on certain holdings

Shares were blocked

Notice, ballots or materials not received on time

Missed deadline

Geographical restrictions (non-home market)

Cost

Conflicts of interest

Holdings deemed too small

Administrative impediments (e.g., power of attorney requirements, ineligibility due to participation in share placement)

Client request

Other (explain)

We have criteria for when to vote and no company met these criteria. In companies where Öhman on the record day for the general meeting owns> 2% of the votes, and that we have identified reasons to vote.

17.3. Additional information. [Optional]

LEA 18. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions

18.1. Indicate whether you track the voting instructions that you or your service provider on your behalf have issued.

Yes, we track this information

No, we do not track this information

18.4. Additional information. [Optional]

LEA 19. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions

19.1. Indicate whether your organisation has a formal escalation strategy following unsuccessful voting.

Yes

19.2. Indicate the escalation strategies used at your organisation following abstentions and/or votes against management.

Contacting the company’s board

Contacting the company’s senior management

Issuing a public statement explaining the rationale

Initiating individual/collaborative engagement

Directing service providers to engage

Reducing exposure (holdings) / divestment

Other

19.3. Additional information. [Optional]

LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions

20.1. Indicate whether your organisation, directly or through a service provider, filed or co-filed any ESG shareholder resolutions during the reporting year.

Yes

20.7. Additional information. [Optional]

LEA 21. Examples of (proxy) voting activities (Private)

Previous Section Next Section