This report shows public data only. Is this your organisation? If so, login here to view your full report.

Jupiter Asset Management

PRI reporting framework 2020

Export Public Responses
Pdf-img

You are in Indirect – Manager Selection, Appointment and Monitoring » Monitoring

Monitoring

SAM 05. Monitoring processes (listed equity/fixed income)

05.1. When monitoring managers, indicate which of the following types of responsible investment information your organisation typically reviews and evaluates

ESG objectives linked to investment strategy (with examples)

Evidence on how the ESG incorporation strategy(ies) affected the investment decisions and financial / ESG performance of the portfolio/fund

Compliance with investment restrictions and any controversial investment decisions

ESG portfolio characteristics

How ESG materiality has been evaluated by the manager in the monitored period

Information on any ESG incidents

Metrics on the real economy influence of the investments

PRI Transparency Reports

PRI Assessment Reports

RI-promotion and engagement with the industry to enhance RI implementation

Changes to the oversight and responsibilities of ESG implementation

Other general RI considerations in investment management agreements; specify

None of the above

LE

FI - SSA
FI - Corporate (financial)
FI - Corporate (non-financial)
FI - Securitised
ESG objectives linked to investment strategy (with examples)
Evidence on how the ESG incorporation strategy(ies) affected the investment decisions and financial / ESG performance of the portfolio/fund
Compliance with investment restrictions and any controversial investment decisions
ESG portfolio characteristics
How ESG materiality has been evaluated by the manager in the monitored period
Information on any ESG incidents
Metrics on the real economy influence of the investments
PRI Transparency Reports
PRI Assessment Reports
RI-promotion and engagement with the industry to enhance RI implementation
Changes to the oversight and responsibilities of ESG implementation
Other general RI considerations in investment management agreements; specify
None of the above

05.2. When monitoring external managers, does your organisation set any of the following to measure compliance/progress

ESG score or assessment

ESG weight

ESG performance minimum threshold

Real world economy targets

Other RI considerations

None of the above

LE

FI - SSA
FI - Corporate (financial)
FI - Corporate (non-financial)
FI - Securitised
ESG score
ESG weight
ESG performance minimum threshold
Real world economy targets
Other RI considerations
None of the above

05.3. Provide additional information relevant to your organisation`s monitoring processes of external managers. [OPTIONAL]

          Please see response to SAM 02.5.
        

SAM 06. Monitoring on active ownership (listed equity/fixed income)

06.1. When monitoring managers, indicate which of the following active ownership information your organisation typically reviews and evaluates from the investment manager in meetings/calls

Engagement

Report on engagements undertaken (summary with metrics, themes, issues, sectors or similar)

Report on engagement ESG impacts (outcomes, progress made against objectives and examples)

Information on any escalation strategy taken after initial unsuccessful dialogue

Alignment with any eventual engagement programme done internally

Information on the engagement activities’ impact on investment decisions

Other RI considerations relating to engagement in investment management agreements; specify

None of the above

LE

FI - SSA
FI - Corporate (financial)
FI - Corporate (non-financial)
FI - Securitised
Report on engagements undertaken (summary with metrics, themes, issues, sectors or similar)
Report on engagement ESG impacts (outcomes, progress made against objectives and examples)
Information on any escalation strategy taken after initial unsuccessful dialogue
Alignment with any eventual engagement programme done internally
Information on the engagement activities’ impact on investment decisions
Other RI considerations relating to engagement in investment management agreements; specify
None of the above

(Proxy) voting

Report on voting undertaken (with outcomes and examples)

Report on rational of voting decisions taken

Adherence with the agreed upon voting policy

Other RI considerations relating to (proxy) voting in investment management agreements; specify

None of the above

LE

Report on voting undertaken (with outcomes and examples)
Report on voting decisions taken
Adherence with the agreed upon voting policy
Other RI considerations relating to (proxy) voting in investment management agreements; specify
None of the above

SAM 07. Percentage of (proxy) votes

07.1. For the listed equities for which you have given your external managers a (proxy) voting mandate, indicate the approximate percentage (+/- 5%) of votes that were cast during the reporting year.

100 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated.

07.2. For the listed equities for which you have given your external managers a mandate to engage on your behalf, indicate the approximate percentage (+/- 5%) of companies that were engaged with during the reporting year.

Number of companies engaged
Proportion (to the nearest 5%)

07.3. Additional information [OPTIONAL]

          The Jupiter Independent Funds Team engaged in a year-end data gathering exercise which requested the provision of a range of data, from pure voting statistics through to ESG & engagement reports for the previous year. Taking all the funds held within Jupiter Merlin, 93% are signatories of the UN PRI and 95% are signatories of the UK Stewardship Code; 93% did not engage in stock lending and votes were placed on 98% of resolutions of the underlying companies held within the Jupiter Merlin Portfolios (data for year end 2019, for the Unit Trusts excluding Jupiter Merlin Real Return).  
As has been previously mentioned, the Jupiter Independent Funds Team recognises that ESG reporting is evolving: it differs widely by asset class, region, fund house, fund team and portfolio manager.  This therefore requires the Team to evolve our own processes of ESG data collection and reporting, something that is constantly under review.  Moving forward we are looking to produce a more standardised method of evaluating managers through the use of a broad questionnaire, which will be sent in anticipation of our meetings. It must be noted however that we do not seek to compromise our case-by-case approach of assessing managers, but we hope that it will provide an ability to both compare our underlying managers on a more level playing field whilst also learning more of the intricacies that each of them face. This is just one example of how we aspire to improve our data collection and analysis going forward in order to better serve our clients.
        

Top