September 2008
 
 
Environmental, Social and Governance Research 
 
Unlocking sustainable alpha 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GLOBAL ECONOMICS & FI/FX RESEARCH 
GLOBALCREDIT RESEARCH 
 
GLOBAL EQUITY RESEARCH 
CROSS ASSET RESEARCH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exclusive partnership with 
 
 
140 German companies analyzed 
 
Environmental, social and governance criteria  
used to derive responsible investment decisions 
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG             ●              UniCredit CAIB Group

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
2
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 2
Contents 
3 
4 
5 
9 
13 
16 
20 
23 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
154 
Introduction  
Executive Summary  
ESG – Socio-economic drivers  
ESG – Investment analysis drivers  
ESG – Portfolio management drivers  
UniCredit ESG Research Methodology  
UniCredit ESG Research Methodology –  Conclusions  
Market Portfolio & Sector Profiles  
  23 Market Portfolio 
  28 Aerospace & Defence, Infrastructure & Logistics 
  35 Automobiles & Parts  
  42 Banks  
  49 Capital Goods  
  56 Chemicals  
  63 Construction & Materials  
  70 Consumer Goods  
  77 Financial Services  
  84 Insurance  
  91 Media  
  98 Pharmaceuticals & Biotech, Health Care  
105 Real Estate  
112 Software & IT Services, Semiconductors, Technology & Hardware  
119 Steel, Metals & Mining  
126 Telecommunications  
133 Tourism, Leisure & Services  
140 Utilities, Renewables  
147 Wholesale & Retail,  Fashion & Luxury Goods  
Appendix 1 – UniCredit ESG Research Methodology  
154 Step 1 – ESG rating  
160 Step 2 – ESG exposure  
161 Step 3 – ESG composites  
163 Step 4 – ESG risk  
165 Step 5 – ESG confidence 
168 Step 6 – ESG target price  
169 ESG style analysis  
170 ESG efficient frontier analysis 
172 Limitations to our methodology 
 
 
PLEASE NOTE THAT ESG COMPANY PROFILES ARE INCLUDED IN A CD  
IN THE LAST PAGE OF THIS PUBLICATION 
Completed on September 15, 2008 
 
 
 
Patrick Yves Berger, Equity Analyst (CAIB) 
+44 20 7826-7952  
patrickyves.berger@caib.unicreditgroup.eu  
 
Gerhard Schwarz, CEFA (HVB) 
+49 89 378-12421 
gerhard.schwarz1@unicreditgroup.de 
Andreas Heine, Equity Analyst (HVB) 
+49 89 378-16921 
andreas.heine@unicreditgroup.de 
Georg Stürzer, CEFA (HVB) 
+49 89 378-18252 
georg.stuerzer@unicreditgroup.de

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
3
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 3
Introduction 
 
 
We at UniCredit are proud to introduce in this publication the fruits of our new partnership with 
Munich-based oekom research, a Sustainability Research provider. Utilizing oekom's ratings
and expertise, we have assembled a Responsible Investment (RI) survey of our entire German
equity universe, comprising 140 stocks and featuring comprehensive sector reviews.  
Oekom research, active since 1993, delivers independent ratings and analysis on a screened 
universe of 1,000 companies across 40 countries through an experienced and multidisciplinary
team of 30 experts, encompassing 30 sectors on a global basis. UniCredit Global Research,
through a partnership agreement with oekom, has the exclusive right to produce and market RI 
Research utilizing oekom's published expertise. UniCredit's commitment to environmental, 
social and governance (ESG) principles is set out in our extensive series of Sustainability 
Reports, issued each year alongside the group's annual reporting structure. 
The concept of Responsible Investment (RI) is gaining momentum in the global financial 
system, with USD 84 bn of assets under management dedicated and over USD 15 tn committed 
to it. Although connotations vary from responsible, sustainable, ethical to socially responsible
investing (SRI), the underlying principle is common: the integration of ESG issues into 
traditional investment analysis and assessment.  
The challenge for investors remains on how to adapt best to the ongoing change, where the
currently dominant shareholder wealth maximization approach clashes with the stakeholder 
one. ESG risk analysis integration not only remains a challenge for mainstream financial
analysis, but also for portfolio management.  
Our research addresses these challenges by providing investors with an analytical framework
for ESG risk integration into modern portfolio management. The promotion of more sustainable 
investment markets and societies lies at the core of this report with the final goal being the
unlocking of a more sustainable performance measurement for financial markets: in other
words, the unlocking of sustainable alpha through ESG analysis. 
We prove through our methodology that, even at this stage of development, the implied equity 
risk premium for high RI-rated stocks is lower in certain sectors of the German economy. With 
academic research increasingly highlighting the positive relationship between ESG factors
and investment performance, we look forward to continue delivering added value to the
responsible investment research process with our newly formed partnership. 
  
 
 
 
 
Thorsten Weinelt, CFA  
Managing Director  
Global Head of Research & Chief Strategist  
UniCredit Global Research  
 
Robert Hassler  
CEO  
oekom research AG

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
4
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 4
Executive Summary 
 
 
The concept of Responsible Investment (RI) is gaining momentum in the global financial
system with USD 84 bn of assets under management dedicated and over USD 15 tn committed
to it. Although connotations vary from responsible, sustainable, ethical to socially responsible
investing (SRI), the underlying principle is common: The integration of environmental, social 
and governance (ESG) issues into traditional investment analysis and assessment. 
The RI movement has gone through profound changes over the past decades triggered by
major global social, political and economic events. The result of these events is materializing 
as a growing global consensus that financial markets must be embedded in broader frame-
works of social values and shared objectives if they are to survive and thrive. 
The challenge for investors remains on how to adapt best to the on-going change that is 
clashing the currently dominant shareholder wealth maximization approach with that of the 
stakeholder one. ESG risk analysis integration not only remains a challenge for mainstream
financial analysis, but also derived portfolio management.  
Our research addresses these challenges by providing investors with an analytical framework
for ESG risk integration into modern portfolio management. The promotion of more sustain-
able investment markets and societies lies at the core of this report with the final goal being 
the unlocking of a more sustainable performance measurement for financial markets: The
unlocking of sustainable alpha through ESG analysis. 
We have identified the following driving forces behind the proliferation of ESG analysis in the 
financial markets:  
Patrick Yves Berger 
Equity Analyst (CAIB) 
+44 20 7826-7952  
patrickyves.berger@ 
caib.unicreditgroup.eu  
 
 
 
● Socio-economic drivers. Public pressure waves continue to be a driving force for ESG
factor integration into the sustainable development agendas of OECD countries; yet sus-
tainable growth rates remain under pressure. Within an economic stakeholder analysis
framework, free markets remain inefficient without the internalization of social and envi-
ronmental costs on private/corporate level. Government recognition is increasing with ESG
compliant legislation being enforced on institutional investors’ fiduciary duties on an inter-
national scale.  
● Investment analysis drivers. ESG factors are framed within the risk management area of 
investment analysis. ESG associated liabilities can be significant, which is driving inves-
tors’ awareness of the ESG-value link. Global capital markets oriented ESG initiatives have
just started to surface, but membership growth rates are increasing at fast pace with RI 
dedicated funds following suit. 
● Portfolio management drivers. Portfolio efficiency gains or losses through ESG oriented 
investment methods remain a focus of discussion within the portfolio management context.
We highlight that academic research is driving forward ESG risk analysis by providing 
evidence that there is a positive relationship between ESG factors and investment per-
formance.  
● Unlocking sustainable alpha. UniCredit has teamed up with the sustainable investment 
rating agency oekom research to deliver an ESG oriented analytical framework within a 
portfolio management context. Our methodology concludes that ESG risks are increasingly
reflected in the risk profile of companies yet implied performance gains remain to be fully
realized by financial markets.

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
5
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 5
ESG – Socio-economic drivers 
Modern RI movement has 
evolved in the political  
climate of the ‘60s  
 
Although RI can be traced as far back as the 18th century to the religious society of the
Quakers, the modern RI movement seems to have evolved in the political climate of the
1960’s, and has been forming in the wake of sustainable development agendas in the OECD
world through waves of public pressure. Each of these waves expands the political and
business agendas and is then followed by “down waves” when public concern falls, and
implementation and consolidation take place. Three of these pressure waves have been
identified so far by the consultancy “SustainAbility” and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP): 
Three public pressure  
waves have expanded 
political/business agendas 
 
● Wave 1 “Governments” (peak 1969-73): Focused on government policy and regulation.
Special focus on the Vietnam War, environment and natural resources limits. Increased
number of NGOs and environment ministries being formed. 
● Wave 2 “Markets” (peak 1988-91): Focused on the integration of the environmental and
socio-economic aspects of “sustainable development.” Introduction of assessment tools for
remaining competitive. 
● Wave 3 “Governance” (peak 1999-2004): Focused on globalization and a range of
governance and scaling issues linked to responsible globalization. 
PUBLIC PRESSURE WAVES 
1961 Amnesty International founded / World Wildlife Fund founded
1962 Silent Spring published
1969 Friends of the Earth founded
1970 Earth Day
1971 Greenpeace founded, First "modern" RI fund (Pax World Fund)
1972 UN Stockholm Conference / Limits to Growth published
1973 Arab Oil Embargo / Watergate / Seveso Disaster, Italy
1978 Second Oil Shock / OECD State of the Environment Report
1984 Bhopal Disaster, India
1986 Chernobyl Disaster, Ukraine / Rhine Disaster, Europe
1987 Our Common Future published / Montreal Protocol
1988 Green consumer movement launched
1989 Exxon Valdez Disaster, Alaska / Berlin Wall
1990 Earth Day 20
1991 Gulf War
1992 UN Earth Summit, Brazil
1995 Brent Spar / Shell Nigeria / Moruroa nuclear tests
1996 ‘Mad Cow’ Disease, UK / Nike Sweatshops
1997 Kyoto Protocol
1998 GM Foods Controversy, UK and EU
1999 Battle of Seattle
2000 Millenium / CSR and SD on WEF Agenda
2001 G8 Meeting, Genoa / September 11
First wave
peak
First
downwave
Second wave
‘Markets’
Second wave
peak
Second
downwave
Third wave
‘Governance’
1758 Quakers establish RI oriented investment guidelines relating to slavery
1928 First RI fund is created (Pioneer Fund)
Low interest
Medium interest
2002 WSSD, Johannesburg / Enron scandal
2003 Gulf War II, Iraq / Paramalat scandal
2004 Shell reserves / Train bombings 
High interest
First wave 
‘Governments’
 
 
Source: SustainAbility & UNEP, Socially Responsible Investment A Global Revolution  
 
by Russel Sparkes, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 6
Stakeholder theory had priority 
before the fall of communism  
 
These historic pressure waves have contributed to the recognition of the industrialized world
that markets must be embedded in broader frameworks of social values and shared objec-
tives if they are to survive and thrive. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, it was in the
best interest of capitalism and participating corporations to show respect for the system’s
stakeholders as there was always some danger of countries going communist if majorities felt
that capitalism was massively unfair. 
Stakeholder theory addresses 
morals and values in organiza-
tional management  
 
In this context, a stakeholder can be defined as anyone who in anyway depends upon the
firm/corporation with the term itself being a component of stakeholder theory, which is an
organizational management theory that addresses morals and values in managing an
organization.  
 STAKEHOLDER THEORY MODEL  
 
THE FIRM
G overnment
Media
Competitors
Special  Interest  Groups
Customers
Employees
Financiers
Communities
Suppliers
Consumer Advocate Groups
Secondary 
Stakeholders
Primary 
Stakeholders
 
 
Source: Managing For Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation, and Success  
 
by R. Edward Freeman, UniCredit Global Research 
Advance of capitalism has 
delivered mixed results 
 
Once, however, capitalism was unleashed into new markets in the early 1990s, the bounda-
ries between the public and private sector became increasingly flexible with the roles of 
governments being scaled back. The advance of capitalism provided significant economic
growth on a global scale, especially in Emerging Markets, driven by rising exports and foreign
direct investments. 
However, this economic growth has been heterogeneous with only 20% of global countries
having managed to sustain 3% annual growth rates from 1990 to 2005 with 17% seeing their 
economies contract. Furthermore, 54% of global countries show lower growth rates in the
period 1990-2005 than compared to the period 1970-1990 on a GDP per-capita basis.

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 7
ADVANCE OF CAPITALISM HAS DELIVERED MIXED RESULTS WITH POVERTY REMAINING WIDESPREAD 
Average annual GPD per-capita growth rates from 1970-2007 by 
continental breakdown (constant local currency)  
 
 
World Economic Pyramid 
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Africa
Asia
Australia
and Oceania
Europe
North
America
South
America
Average GDP per capita growth 1970-1990 (%)
Average GDP per capita growth 1990-2007 (%)
 
4,000  (62%)
2,000  (31%)
500  (7%)
< USD 3,260
USD 3,260 to    
USD 20,000
> USD 20,000
Individual annual income
(2005 USD in Purchasing Power Parity)
Market type
Population in 
millions
Survival markets
Emerging markets
Mature   
markets
 
Source: United Nations, World Bank, World Resources Institute, Bloomberg, UniCredit Global Research 
Global unease about poverty 
has reached critical mass 
 
Given this uneven globalization trend and government role scale-backs, global unease about 
poverty, equity ownership distribution and marginalization has begun to reach critical mass 
today (62% of world population), with some of the most disruptive economic events of this
decade arguably intimately connected to unresolved problems of poverty and inequality. 
Focus has shifted 
from stakeholder to share-
holder wealth 
 
We believe that these rather negative globalization effects indicate a shift from the stakeholder 
wealth maximization approach maintained before the 1990s to the currently dominant shareholder 
wealth maximization approach. A key difference between both approaches lies in how negative
externalities are accounted for in the wealth creation process with the economic principle 
underlying the stakeholder theory representing the economic core of the global RI movement.
Stakeholder theory  
focuses on internalization  
of negative externalities 
 
The economic position of proponents of the stakeholder society represents a recommendation
that management and directors internalize the externalities that their decisions impose on 
various groups. An externality represents the impact on any party not directly involved in an 
economic decision. Adopting a utilitarian approach, management should maximize the sum of
the various stakeholders’ surpluses, which could imply trading-off short-run sacrifices for the 
prospect of higher long-term profits. 
STAKEHOLDER IMPOSED EXTERNALITIES REPRESENT AN ECONOMIC COST  
External costs and benefits in voluntary economic exchanges  
 
Supply and demand diagram with negative externalities  
Money
Firm
Production external 
cost or benefit
Costs imposed on others 
involuntarily or benefits 
received free
Consumption 
external cost or 
benefit
Consumer
Product
Voluntary 
Economic 
Exchange
 
Price
Quantity
Ideal equilibrium 
reflecting social costs
Social cost
Private cost
Demand
Actual equilibrium in 
an unfettered market
QS
QP
PS
PP
 
 
 
Source: Loyola Marymount University, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 8
Negative externalities  
indicate that free markets  
are inefficient 
 
From an economic supply and demand perspective, the marginal private cost is less than the 
marginal social or public cost by the amount of the external cost (vertical distance between
the two supply curves), which could represent, for example, the cost of pollution. If consumers 
only take into account their private cost, transactions will occur at price Pp and quantity Qp, 
instead of the more efficient price Ps and quantity Qs. This reflects the idea that the marginal
social benefit should equal the marginal social cost, i.e. production should be increased only
as long as the marginal social benefit exceeds the marginal social cost. The result is that a
free market is inefficient since at quantity Qp, the social benefit is less than the social cost, 
implying that society as a whole would be better off if the goods between Qp and Qs had not 
been produced. This theory implies that stakeholder imposed externalities are not merely an
ethical but economic problem. 
Stakeholder view  
represents core of  
fiduciary duty 
 
Although the stakeholder society view faces strong opposition by financial economists, which 
believe that maximizing shareholder value has major advantages over the pursuit of alternative 
goals, its message lies at the core of any institution’s fiduciary duty.  
Underlying risk factor  
of institutional portfolios  
linked to overall economic 
performance 
 
Fiduciary duty requires that institutional investors put their clients or beneficiaries long-term 
interests before their own. Due to sheer size, many institutional funds cannot easily liquidate
or accumulate significant holdings, being forced to index the bulk of their portfolios. Within a
portfolio management context, this restricts the options of institutional investors to follow
modern financial theory and diversify their portfolios away from the index. The result is that 
the underlying risk factor of the portfolio is linked to the long-term performance of the overall
stock market, which is driven by the performance of the economy. 
Given the economic framework explained above, it is therefore in the best interest of institu-
tional investors to minimize negative externalities and encourage positive ones by the firms in 
their portfolios in order to avoid what economists call the free-rider problem.  
LEGISLATIVE REFORMS ARE RESHAPING FIDUCIARY DUTIES OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 
US Institutional vs. household share of corporate equities 1945-2007 (%)  
Key fiduciary duties and ESG disclosure obligations  
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Households (%)
Institutional (%)
 
Key fiduciary duties of 
institutional investors
Duty to act for a 
proper purpose
Duty to act 
prudently
Act reasonably
Apply special 
knowledge and skill
Consider the 
sustainability 
of investments
Consider relevant 
considerations
Take proper advice
Diversify
Act with care, skill and 
diligence re someone 
else’s investment
Australia
Germany
France
Italy
United 
Kingdom
Jurisdiction where ESG disclosure obligations apply
Austria
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Belgium
Carry out the terms 
of the trust
Act in the best interests 
of the beneficiaries
 
Source: US Federal Reserve System, UNEP & Freshfield Bruckhaus Deringer, Eurosif, UniCredit Global Research 
Legal reforms are taking  
ESG factors into account  
 
In light of growing institutional ownership of publicly traded equities, legal reforms towards a
stakeholder society have already taken place in several countries: Investment decision-
makers are being legally obliged to disclose the extent to which they take stakeholder view
related factors such environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues into account for
securities valuation.

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 9
ESG – Investment analysis drivers 
Stakeholder society approach 
aligns with sustainable 
development concept 
 
The stakeholder society approach and related fiduciary duty strive for the long-term sustain-
ability of investments in order to lower the cost of the prior mentioned externalities. This
approach is very much in line with the concept of sustainable development, which is defined 
by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) as development that
“meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs.” 
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME 
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research 
Triple bottom line follows 
sustainable development 
framework 
 
To convert the concept of sustainable development into a financial framework, stakeholder 
value-driven investors not only consider the economic performance of a company (traditional 
“bottom line”), but they also add environmental and social performance to the analytical 
framework to derive a “triple bottom line.” An emerging risk factor for consideration in the triple 
bottom line analysis is the environmental, social and governance risk (ESG risk). 
ESG risk definition 
 
ESG risk can be defined as the risk to a company’s market valuation resulting from environ-
mental, social and governance factors.

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 10
ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL & GOVERNANCE RISK DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES  
E
S
G
Risk created by the operational 
decisions made by the company 
managers, including decisions 
concerning the products and 
services to offer and the pro-
cesses
to use in producing 
those products and services
Risk derived from the company's 
various policies and practices 
regarding human resources, con
tractual arrangements and the 
workplace
Risk stemming from flaws in 
corporate governance policies 
and procedures with direct and 
material effects on a company's 
value in the marketplace
Environmental
Social
Governance
Carbon emissions, greenhouse gas 
emissions, disclosure / 
measurement and reporting
Climate change; effect on company 
/ risk exposure / opportunities
Ecosystem change
Facilities citing environmental risks
Hazardous waste disposal / 
cleanup
License to operate in communities
Pollution
Renewable energy
Resource depletion
Toxic chemical use and disposal
Animal welfare 
Child labour
Community relations
Discrimination
Diversity (employee / Board 
diversity)
Facilities, citing social risks
Genetically modified organisms
Living wage disputes
Predatory lending
Political contributions
Political risk of involvement in 
troubled markets, markets
Sexual harassment
Shareowner advisory vote on 
executive compensation
Slave labor
Cumulative voting
Dual-class shares
Executive compensation (pay for 
performance, pay equity)
Majority voting
Poison pills
Say on pay
Separation on chairman/CEO 
position
Shareowner rights
Staggered Boards
Takeover defences / market for 
control
DESCRIPTION
EXAMPLES
 
 
Source: CFA® Program Curriculum Volume 5 Level 3 2008/Risk Management by Don M.Chance, Kenneth Grant, and  
 
John Marsland, Environmental, Social, and Governance Factors at Listed Companies by CFA Institute, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG associated liabilities  
can be significant 
 
Although ESG factors are mostly perceived as extra-financial factors, the associated liabilities 
can be significant, with extreme cases resulting in corporate collapse (Enron) or causing
significant shocks to global financial systems (US subprime meltdown). 
ESG ASSOCIATED LIABILITES CAN BE SIGNIFICANT AND REMAIN IN LEGISLATIVE SCOPE 
Maximum litigation related market value dollar losses  
on US stock market 1996-2007 (USD bn)  
 
Number of top 10 court case types filled from 2003-08 against highest 
25 MCAP S&P 500 constituents, classified by ESG criteria*  
388
190
47
149
224
365
768
1,483
2,068
643
704
349
193
587
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
1H 08
Subprime filings
Options backdating
filings
All other filings
1997-2007 average
1997-2007 average 
(USD 703 bn)
362
293
669
2000-07 losses as 
average % of S&P 
500 MCAP
8.5%
 
Environmental
26.9%
Social
60.2%
Governance
12.9%
*  ESG case type classifications: Social (includes product liability, personal injury, employment and foreclosure linked litigations), Environmental (Asbestos),  
 
   Governance (General contract, securities, patent, ERISA, fraud) 
  
 
 
Source: Cornerstone Research, Bloomberg, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 11
ESG initiatives are starting 
to surface in global capital 
markets 
 
Initiatives that reach a global consensus in terms of assessing ESG risk and promoting it have 
only started to surface in the global capital markets, backed by institutional frameworks mainly
developed by the United Nations over the past 50 years. 
ESG GLOBAL CONSENSUS FRAMEWORK: KEY PLAYERS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND INITIATIVES 
COMPANIES
- Lead the way by 
implementing ESG principles 
and improving reporting and 
disclosure
Promotes ESG disclosure 
for companies
UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL
COMPACT (UNGC)
CONSULTANTS
- Combine ESG
research with 
industry level
- Research support
demand and
awareness building
MERCER
Supports ESG awareness 
building
ACCOUNTANTS /
EDUCATORS
- Facilitate standardization
- Facilitate high -level
thinking and training on ESG 
issues
INTERNATIONAL 
ORGANISATION FOR 
STANDARDIZATION
Provides standards for social 
responsibility
PENSION TRUSTEES/GOVERNMENTS/MULTILAT. AGENCIES
- Consider integrating mandates and selection of managers
- Proactively consider in PF investment
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
ON CSR
Promotes CSR practices 
amongst members
REGULATORS / STOCK
EXCHANGES / GOVERNMENTS
-Implement reporting standards
- Listing particulars
NGOs
- Provide 
objective 
ESG
information 
on companies 
to the public 
and the 
financial 
community
GREENPEACE
Provides ESG information 
on companies
INVESTORS / ASSET
MANAGERS
-Reward ESG research
Integrate ESG factors in research 
and investment processes
UNITED NATIONS 
PRINCIPLES FOR 
RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT 
(UNPRI)
Promotes ESG research for 
buy-side
ANALYSTS / BROKERS
- Incorporate ESG factors into 
mainstream research
ENHANCED ANALYTICS 
INITIATIVE (EAI)
Promotes ESG research for sell side
DOW JONES
Provides SRI indices for stock 
markets
More 
sustainable 
investment 
markets and 
societies
 
 
Source: UNGC, UNPRI, EAI, Mercer Consulting, ISO, European Commission, Greenpeace, UniCredit Global Research 
UNPRI and UNGC  
key initiatives 
 
Two key initiatives that have established a key ESG risk link between asset owners, asset managers
and corporations are the United Nation’s Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI) and Global
Compact (UNGC).

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 12
KEY ESG INITIATIVES ARE SEEING STEADY AND SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN SIGNATORIES 
United Nations Global Compact participants  
(number of participants)  
 
United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment signatories 
(number of signatories)  
5,928
3,332
1,221
754
288
113
37
4,746
1,704
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2008*
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
8Y CAGR
76%
0
 
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2006
2007
2008
2Y CAGR
113% 
AUM     
>USD 15 tn
405
65
* 1H/2008 
 
 
Source: UNGC, UNPRI, UniCredit Global Research 
UNPRI AUM over USD 15 tn 
 
Both networks have seen a steady and significant increase in signatories since their inception,
with the UNPRI’s current committed assets of over USD 15 tn representing 28.3% of global
assets under management (AUM) of mature market institutional investors (USD 53 tn in 2005 
as per IMF estimates). 
ESG-VALUE LINK RECOGNISED BUT POLICIES REMAIN TO BE FULLY INTEGRATED BY SIGNATORIES 
UNPRI signatories with RI/ESG issues integrated into a broader 
investment policy and with an independent RI/ESG policy  
(%, number of signatories)  
 
 
Proportion of value that mainstream, SRI, pension and church fund 
investors consider to be at risk from ESG issues for sectors  
12%
30%
23%
24%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Asset owners
Investment managers
2007
2008
 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Leisure goods
Household goods
Banks
Pharma & biotech
Food & drug retailers
Travel & leisure
Construction & materials
Food producers
Mining
Chemicals
Forestry & paper
Automobiles & parts
Electricity
Gas water & multiutilities
Oil & gas producers
No impact
Less than 5% of value
5% to 10% of value
10% to 25% of value
Over 25% of value
 
 
 
Source: UNPRI, EIRIS, UniCredit Global Research 
RI growth trend  
likely to continue 
 
With the RI/ESG policy gap still to be filled by the UNPRI’s signatories and investors’ existing 
risk awareness to sector differing ESG-related issues, the global growth trend observed in RI 
dedicated AUM is likely to continue in the long-term.

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 13
GLOBAL RI-DEDICATED AUM HAVE SEEN SIGNIFICANT GROWTH OVER THE PAST YEARS 
Global RI AUM by geographic exposure (USD bn)  
 
Global RI AUM by funds’ incorporation (USD bn)  
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Latin America
Asia
Australia
US
Euro
Global
8Y 
CAGR
115%
 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Latin America
Asia 
Australia
US
Euro
8Y 
CAGR
115%
 
 
 
Source: Bloomberg, Eurosif, Morningstar, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG – Portfolio management drivers 
ERP integral part  
of financial efficiency 
 
The main driver for efficiency in the current financial system is the desire of market players to
maximize excess returns over cost in a competitive environment. Here costs are primarily 
determined by the cost of business operations and the cost of capital, with the equity risk 
premium (ERP) being an integral part of company valuations. 
ERP on the rise since 2000 
 
Throughout the 1990s, the global economy benefited from the peace dividends that followed
the cold war, but since 2000 there has been a significant increase in the ERP. 2007 currently 
represents the high since the market liberalization of the 1990s. 
HISTORIC ANNUAL S&P 500 ERP & CORRELATION MSCI WORLD VS MSCI EMERGING MARKETS 
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
 Yearly implied ERP of US S&P Index
Average ERP 1990-2007 of US S&P Index
10Y rolling correlation MSCI World and MSCI Emerging Markets (rhs)
 
 
Source: Damodaran, Bloomberg, UniCredit Global Research 
ERP rise linked to ESG factors  
According to the UNGC’s “Gearing-up” report, several external shocks contributed to the 
current rise ERP such as ecological disasters (environmental risk), terrorism (social risk) and 
corporate scandals (governance risk).

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 14
ESG inclusion in LT economic 
development policies should 
ensure low ERP 
 
Although the effect of these external shocks is difficult to quantify, intuitively there is a
relationship suggesting the need of a long-term economic development policy framework 
accounting for ESG-related risks to ensure low ERPs over time. 
Emerging markets  
increase pressure 
 
With increasing participation of less ESG-compliant emerging markets in the global financial system, 
the pressure to adopt such policy frameworks on a global scale is increasing and clarified through
challenging, ongoing negotiations such as the Doha Development Round or the post-Kyoto Protocol.
ESG-value link is being 
increasingly recognized 
 
The link between ESG factors and company valuations described above is not only being 
increasingly perceived as part of investment analysis/assessment by the investment commu-
nity, but is also being addressed through increasing participation in ESG-oriented financial 
analytics initiatives such as the Enhanced Analytics Initiative (EAI). 
ESG-VALUE LINK INCREASINGLY RECOGNISED WITH ESG ANALYTICAL INITIATIVES GAINING MOMENTUM 
Investors principal motivation for paying more attention to ESG 
factors (% of total investors surveyed)  
 
 
EAI members total AUM (USD tn) 
1.7
64.2
28.0
6.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Gain short term
upside benefits
Avoide short term
downside risks
Avoid long term
downside risks
Gain long term
upside benefits
 
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2004
2005*
2006
2007
2008*
* 1H 
 Source: AQ Research & AXA Investment Managers, EAI, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG faces resistance by 
traditional financial theorists  
 
Although the June 2008 publication of the CFA Institute’s “Environmental, Social, and 
Governance Factors at Listed Companies – A Manual for Investors” could indicate the start of 
ESG risk analysis integration into mainstream financial analysis/theory, the movement still
faces resistance by traditional finance theorists in the context of portfolio construction. 
MPT FOLLOWERS CHALLENGE ESG PORTFOLIOS HIGHLIGHTING RI BENCHMARK UNDERPERFORMANCE 
 
Markowitz’s efficient frontier  
 
Annualized 5Y average relative monthly performance of RI bench-
marks vs. underlying market indices by region (%,USD)* 
RISK
EXPECTED RETURN
RISK FREE ASSET
EFFICIENT FRONTIER
MARKET PORTFOLIO
 
 
-1.4
-1.2
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
US 
EU 
GLOBAL
* Global region includes (Bloomberg tickers): 4GGL, 4GL1 (vs. FTR1DEV); W1SGI (vs. W1DOW); ETHIGL, ETHIEGL, ECAPGP (vs. SPGLOB); ISRIITR (vs. MXWO). EU 
 
includes: 4GEU (vs. FTR1DEUR); 4EU5X, T4EU5X, SUBE, AESK (vs. SX5E); 4GUK (vs. ASX); E1SGI, KEMSSRIE (vs. SXXP), ETHIEU, ETHIEEU, ECAPEP (vs. SPE). 
 
US includes: KLDDSI, KLDSSI, CALVIN (vs. SPX), 4GUS (vs. FTR1NA); A1SGI (vs. INDU) 
 
 
Source: Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management by Frank K. Reilly and Keith C. Brown, Bloomberg, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 15
CAPM believes that the ESG 
portfolios underperform 
 
Followers of Markowitz’s modern portfolio theory (MPT), who believe in the capital asset pricing model 
(CAPM), generally argue that ESG-oriented portfolio strategies are likely to underperform over the long-
term because ESG-oriented portfolios are subsets of the market portfolio. Under CAPM, the market 
portfolio will outperform all subsets of itself if markets are efficient. The lack of outperformance by RI 
benchmarks relative to non-RI benchmarks is highlighted as supporting evidence for this argument. 
NEW THEORIES BACKED BY ACADEMIC RESEARCH SUGGEST ESG ANALYSIS ADDS VALUE 
 
ESG efficient frontier  
 
Academic studies findings on ESG factors link to investment 
performance  
Risk
Expected return
Risk-free asset
Efficient frontier
Market portfolio
ESG
Risk
ESG risk adjusted
efficient frontiers
 
 
Negative
15%
Positive
50%
Neutral
20%
Neutral - Negative 
5%
Neutral - Positive
10%
 
 
 
 
Source: UNEP & Mercer, UniCredit Global Research 
Academic research identifies  
a positive link between ESG 
factors and investment 
performance 
 
On the other hand, other financial theorists such as Moskowitz argue that ESG-oriented portfolios 
could outperform market benchmarks because they incorporate important information not widely 
understood by the markets, which is not represented in the existing efficient frontier. This view is
gaining momentum and recent ESG-focused investment performance research highlights 
evidence that there is a positive relationship between ESG factors and investment performance. 
ESG oriented investment 
methods vary 
 
We believe that the key to reconcile the different financial points of view is to recognize that 
ESG-related portfolio construction processes and investment methods vary within the global 
RI movement, therefore finding advocates on both sides with regard to their efficiency. 
ESG-ORIENTED INVESTMENT METHODS  
THEMATIC / COMMUNITY / 
PROACTIVE INVESTING
Investments are selected, which 
offer ESG related long-term 
growth prospects 
Degree of portfolio diversification
Degree of ESG and financial research integration
SHAREHOLDER ENGAGEMENT/ 
ACTIVISM
Investments are included in 
portfolio to use voting rights 
attached to ordinary shares 
for asserting ESG objectives
SCREENING
Negative/positive screening 
excludes/includes
certain securities from investment  
consideration based on  
social/environmental criteria
Investments in all 
sectors of the 
market are 
selected with focus 
on identifying 
best ESG rated 
securities
ESG RISK 
OPTIMISATION
Portfolio 
construction based 
on using internal
market correlations 
to minimize risk of 
ESG exclusions
"BEST-IN-CLASS" 
STOCK SELECTION
Investments in all 
sectors of the 
market  are selected 
with focus on 
identifying  best 
ESG rate securities
Lower
Higher
Higher  
 
Source: Socially Responsible Investment A Global Revolution by Russel Sparkes, 
 
Social Investment Forum, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 16
UniCredit ESG Research Methodology 
We focus on ESG-financial 
performance link 
 
UniCredit’s ESG research approach is focused on determining a clear link between ESG and
the financial performance of covered companies within a generally accepted valuation and 
risk framework. The goal of the methodology is to develop a measure of performance on an
ESG risk-adjusted basis, which we have called sustainable alpha. 
 
 
Gordon Growth model: 
g
i
Rˆ
1
Div
0
P
−
=
;  
where: 
i
Rˆ = expected return on stock i 
1
Div = dividend next period 
0
P = current stock price 
g = growth rate in dividends and long-term earnings
LT value drivers can be 
influenced by ESG factors  
 
Based on the Gordon Growth model, the two key components of a company’s long-term value 
can be derived through its dividends and its required return on equity, with the sustainable growth
rate expected to be equal among competitors in the long-run. Both a company’s dividends 
and required return on equity can be significantly influenced by ESG-related risk factors. 
Examples include an increase in the required return on equity due to corporate governance-related
agency problems or a reduction in earnings due to environmental-related litigation expenses. 
Addressing ESG risk can  
lead to shareholder value 
enhancement 
 
In general, addressing ESG-related risks can lead to more sustainable investment opportuni-
ties, offering higher long-term returns on equity, which result in higher dividend yields based 
on constant payout ratios. Managing risks better than peers through ESG factor incorporation
will also likely lead to a lower risk premium for capital raised, leading to lower required rates of
return. With both dividend yields and required returns decreasing, shareholder value is 
enhanced. 
ESG FACTOR INTEGRATION INTO MAINSTREAM FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 
Stakeholder view
(ESG factors)
g
R
Div
P
i−
= ˆ
1
0
Environmental 
management
Products & service
Eco-efficiency
Staff relations
Social/Cultural 
management
Relations with external 
stakeholders
Sales
Costs
Tax rate
Investments
Risk premia
Financing structure
Div1
ˆRiˆRi
Shareholder view 
(financial factors)
 
Source: Sustainable Asset Management, oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
We identify ESG risk as cost  
of equity differentials  
 
The core of our ESG research approach is the philosophy that companies that address rising 
ESG risk factors better than their competitors are able to reduce their relative risk profile. Risk 
within the above-constant growth valuation framework can be expressed through the required 
return on equity, which we can substitute for the stock’s cost of equity. Our ESG research 
therefore focuses on variations in risk profiles, i.e. the cost of equity, of companies that 
address ESG-related factors relative to those that do not. The variation of dividends due to 
ESG risks remains a component of individual company modeling in our methodology.

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 17
We expect ESG risk integration 
to result in sustainable alpha  
 
ESG risk adjustments are therefore expressed as differences in the cost of equity that would 
affect traditional expected returns, i.e. traditional target prices. Taking ESG risks into account
would therefore provide more sustainable return expectations for securities, leading to more
“sustainable alpha” in the context of investment assessment: 
 
 
ESG
k
0
P
0
P
ESG
TP
e
sustainabl
α
−
−
=
 
where: 
ESG
TP
= the estimated ESG risk-adjusted target price 
0
P = current stock price 
ESG
k
= the estimated ESG risk-adjusted cost of equity 
Key steps of our methodology  
The key steps of UniCredit’s ESG research methodology to unlock sustainable alpha can be 
summarized as follows: 
UNICREDIT ESG RESEARCH METHODOLOGY  
matrix to 
determine stock 
specific ESG risk 
exposure
ESG 
exposure
ESG 
composites
ESG 
risk
ESG 
confidence
ESG   
target price
Oekom
research 
provides stock 
rating based 
on 
environmental, 
social and 
governance 
criteria
Prime/Not 
Prime stock 
specific sector 
ESG 
composites are 
created through 
market value 
index 
construction
UniCredit's
target prices are 
amended for 
ESG risk 
adjustments 
based on 
constant growth 
valuation 
modeling
ESGEi
ESGRsectori
TPESG
ESGCsectori
ESG
ESG
e
sustainabl
k
P
TP
−
0
α
METHODOLOGY STAGES
METHODOLOGY STAGES DESCRIPTION
DERIVED INPUT VARIABLES FOR SUSTAINABLE ALPHA FORMULA
2
3
4
5
6
ESG 
rating
1
e
Cost of equity 
(CoE)  
differentials 
between 
Prime/Not 
Prime sector 
composites 
are determined 
through ICAPM 
modeling
Confidence 
level for CoE
differentials is 
determined 
through 
hypothesis 
testing
Qualitative 
ESG rating 
is converted into 
quantitative score 
through scoring
matrix to 
determine stock 
specific ESG risk 
exposure
=
P0
−
matrix to 
determine stock 
specific ESG risk 
exposure
ESG 
exposure
ESG 
composites
ESG 
risk
ESG 
confidence
ESG   
target price
Oekom
research 
provides stock 
rating based 
on 
environmental, 
social and 
governance 
criteria
Prime/Not 
Prime stock 
specific sector 
ESG 
composites are 
created through 
market value 
index 
construction
UniCredit's
target prices are 
amended for 
ESG risk 
adjustments 
based on 
constant growth 
valuation 
modeling
ESGEi
ESGRsectori
TPESG
ESGCsectori
ESG
ESG
e
sustainabl
k
P
TP
−
0
α
METHODOLOGY STAGES
METHODOLOGY STAGES DESCRIPTION
DERIVED INPUT VARIABLES FOR SUSTAINABLE ALPHA FORMULA
2
3
4
5
6
ESG 
rating
1
e
Cost of equity 
(CoE)  
differentials 
between 
Prime/Not 
Prime sector 
composites 
are determined 
through ICAPM 
modeling
Confidence 
level for CoE
differentials is 
determined 
through 
hypothesis 
testing
Qualitative 
ESG rating 
is converted into 
quantitative score 
through scoring
matrix to 
determine stock 
specific ESG risk 
exposure
=
P0
−
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 18
ESG rating 
 
1. ESG rating. In order to assess the ESG risk profile of securities for our covered universe in 
Germany, we have formed a partnership with oekom research, a leading provider of infor-
mation on the social and environmental performance of companies, sectors and countries.
Oekom provides Corporate Responsibility Ratings, which follow an ESG analysis frame-
work, allowing for best in class classifications by industry/sector. 
OEKOM CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY RATING EXAMPLE 
 
 
Source: oekom research 
ESG exposure 
 
2. ESG exposure (ESGEi). The second step in our methodology to unlock sustainable alpha 
is to convert oekom’s qualitative ESG ratings into quantitative ESG scores. Scores are 
used to determine a stock’s specific exposure to any relevant ESG-related risk adjustments 
that are highlighted in proceeding steps. 
STEP 2 – ESG EXPOSURE (ESGEI) CALCULATION EXAMPLE 
Stock 
Daimler
ESG rating 
B-
ESG matrix derived score for rating 
2
ESG scoring status 
ESG Leader
Maximum score possible within ESG scoring status 
7
ESG score/maximum score possible 
2/7 = 0.286
ESG exposure - ESGEDaimler (%) 
 28.6 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research 
ESG composites 
 
3. ESG composites. In order to filter any risk differentials between positive/negative ESG-
rated stocks, we use oekom’s Prime/Not Prime investment status ratings to construct sec-
tor composites for proceeding analysis. 
ESG risk 
 
4. ESG risk (ESGRsector i). In order to determine risk differences between “Prime” and “Not 
Prime” rated stocks, we have focused on the cost of equity as the main risk gauge for our analy-
sis as described above. This step in our methodology focuses on calculating cost of equity 
for sector-specific “Prime” and “Not Prime” composites to highlight any observed differ-
ences, which will be incorporated at a later stage in our traditional valuation methodologies.

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 19
STEP 4 – ESG RISK (ESGRSECTOR I) CALCULATION EXAMPLE 
Sector 
Automobiles & Parts
Sector Prime composite average cost of equity (%) 
9.5
Sector Not Prime composite average cost of equity (%) 
12.9
Difference in CoE Prime - Not Prime (bps) 
-340
Difference relative to Not Prime CoE 
-3.4/12.9 = -0.264
ESG risk - ESGRsector Automobiles & Parts (%) 
-26.4
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence 
 
5. ESG confidence (ESGCsector i). This step builds on the observed differences in the cost of 
equity for composites. The aim is to determine a confidence level for the mean difference 
between a sector’s “Prime”/”Not Prime” composite results. 
STEP 5 – ESG CONFIDENCE (ESGCSECTOR I) CALCULATION EXAMPLE 
Sector 
Automobiles & Parts
H0 
μDiff = 0
Ha 
μDiff = μ1 - μ2 ≠ 0
Mean CoE Sector Prime composite (%) 
9.5
Mean CoE Sector Not Prime composite (%) 
12.9
Mean difference (%) 
-3.4
Significance level (%) 
5.0
Sample size 
60
Degrees of freedom 
59
Sample variance 
1.1
Standard error 
0.1
Test statistic 
24.9
Critical value 
2.0
Conclusion 
Reject Ho
p Value 
 0.0 
1 - p value 
1.0 - 0.0 = 1.0
ESG confidence - ESGCsector Automobiles & Parts (%) 
100.0
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research 
ESG target price 
 
6. ESG target price (
)
ESG
TP
. The final step in our methodology to unlock sustainable alpha 
consists in determining how observed adjustments in the cost of equity (given a “Prime”/”Not 
Prime” investment status) will affect stock target prices. 
STEP 6 – ESG TARGET PRICE (TPESG) AND SUSTAINABLE ALPHA (αsustainable)  
CALCULATION EXAMPLE 
Stock 
Daimler
P0 (EUR) 
43.4
Target price 12M TP (EUR) 
62.0
Cost of equity ke (%) 
10.1
Long-term growth rate gLT fixed (%) 
2.0
Implied long-term EPS to reach TP (EUR) 
4.6
ESG exposure - ESGEDaimler (%) 
28.6
ESG risk - ESGRsector Automobiles & Parts (%) 
-26.4
ESG confidence ESGCsector Automobiles & Parts (%) 
100
ESG risk-adjusted cost of equity kESG =  
ke[1+(ESGEDaimler)(ESGRsector Automobiles & Parts)(ESGCsector Automobiles & Parts)] 
0.101[1+(0.286)(-0.264)(1.0)] = 0.0934
kESG (%) 
9.3
New 12M TP by substituting original ke for kESG (TPESG) 
[4.6/(0.093-0.02)](1+0.093) = 68.9
Sustainable alpha 
[(68.9-43.4)/43.4]-0.093 = 0.495
αsustainable (%) 
49.5
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research 
 
 
For a detailed description of each step in the UniCredit ESG Research Methodology for
unlocking sustainable alpha, please refer to Appendix 1.

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 20
UniCredit ESG Research Methodology –  
Conclusions 
We conclude that ESG risks are 
reflected in risk profile, but not 
fully in performance 
 
Our methodology concludes that ESG risks are increasingly reflected in the risk profile (cost 
of equity) of securities, yet implied performance gains remain to be fully incorporated by the 
market. We believe that this conclusion is in line with the global trend of recognizing ESG 
issues as important value factors, but its integration into formal investment analysis and 
assessment processes lags behind. 
Overall, a negative relationship 
between ESG status and risk 
premium has been identified 
 
From an overall market perspective, there is a negative relationship between a company’s
ESG investment status and its risk premium, i.e. a higher ESG rating/score implies a lower
risk premium for the stock. Lower CoEs for Prime composites can be observed for 60% of
sectors analyzed, which allow for Prime/Not Prime composite creation. This percentage is
broadly in line with the conclusions from the previously mentioned ESG performance analysis 
research, which concluded that there is a positive correlation between a company’s ESG
behavior and an impact on its bottom line. 
Prime stocks show 5.1% lower 
CoE in relative terms  
 
On the overall “Market Portfolio” level, which includes all stocks in our German covered universe, 
the CoE of Prime rated stocks is 5.1% lower in relative terms than that of Not Prime stocks. 
LOWER ERP FOR PRIME STOCKS OBSERVED FOR 60% OF SECTORS, TREND INCREASING 
ESG/risk relationship overview by sector – relative CoE differential 
between Prime-Not Prime sector composites (%)  
 
ESG/risk relationship overview by sector – relative CoE differential 
between Prime-Not Prime sector composites (%) on 5Y & 3Y basis 
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
C.&M.
Telco
Steel
IT
TL&S
Auto
Banks
Chemicals
Market Portfolio
Capital G.
Pharma&H.
Cons. G
Insurance
Aero.&Infra.
Utilities
Negative ESG/Risk relationship
Positive ESG/Risk relationship
 
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Pharma&H.
Insurance
Capital G.
Cons. G
Aero.&Infra.
Utilities
ESG adjustment to CoE (5Y)
ESG adjustment to CoE (3Y)
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research 
Sectors with positive ESG/risk 
relationship are partially 
moving to a negative one 
 
We cannot identify any decided pattern in the remaining 40% of sectors, which do not show a
negative relationship between their ESG investment status and risk premium. However, we
can identify a clear pattern based on time-horizon analysis that these sectors are moving
towards lower CoEs for Prime relative to Not Prime rated stocks. In comparison to a 5-year
observation period, 67% of these sectors demonstrate a narrowing CoE differential for Prime
rated stocks (lower CoE) relative to Not Prime stocks (higher CoE) over a 3-year period. We
believe that this trend follows the increasing integration of ESG factors into investment
analysis and assessment as highlighted in prior sections of our report.

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 21
SOURCE OF ESG RISK ALMOST EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN BETA AND ERP 
ERP and beta differentials between Prime/Not Prime sector 
composites  
 
ERP and beta differentials contribution to ESG risk-adjusted CoE  
(as % of total change) 
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
C.&M.
Telco
TL&S
IT
Steel
Auto
Banks
Chemicals
Market Portfolio
Capital G.
Pharma&H.
Cons. G
Insurance
Aero.&Infra.
Utilities
-0.9
-0.7
-0.5
-0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
ERP difference (bps,lhs)
Beta difference (x,rhs)
 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cons. G
Steel
IT
C.&M.
Insurance
Telco
Banks
Aero.&Infra.
Market Portfolio
Chemicals
Auto
TL&S
Utilities
Pharma&H.
ERP contribution
Beta contribution
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research 
Source of ESG risk adjust-
ments is almost evenly split 
between beta and ERP 
 
We took a look at the two key CoE building blocks, which on a market portfolio basis suggests 
that the source of ESG risk adjustments is almost equally distributed between systematic 
(beta) and security (ERP) risk. On the market portfolio level, beta and ERP adjustments 
contribute 51% and 49% to the overall change in the CoE, respectively, which translates into
a 22 bp lower ERP and 0.1 lower beta. Referring to our prior ESG/ERP relationship analysis
in the “Portfolio management drivers” section, the building block results clarify that systematic 
risk (beta) is also an important factor in ESG risk analysis. 
POSITIVE ESG RATINGS TRANSLATING ONLY PARTIALLY INTO INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE 
Equal weighted Market Portfolio ESG composites’ 5Y annualized 
daily performance (EUR, %)  
 
Market Portfolio ESG style analysis (% of total performance 
contribution)  
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Composite B
Composite Prime
Composite D
Market Portfolio
Composite Not Prime
Composite C
Composite A
 
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite A
Composite B
Composite C
Composite D
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research
ESG risk reductions translate 
only partially into performance 
 
From a performance point of view, the observed ESG risk reductions translate only partially into
portfolio performance figures. On a 5-year horizon, the Market Portfolio’s Prime composite A has
outperformed the overall Market Portfolio, yet the overall Prime rated composite has under-
performed the market and its Not Prime peers.

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 22
Market performance mainly 
driven by bottom tier rated 
stocks 
 
Our ESG returns-based style analysis reveals that the overall market portfolio had only an 
average 26.9% exposure to top-tier ESG rated composites (A+B) performance, which implies 
that returns were mainly driven by bottom-tier ESG rated composites (C+D). Although this can 
mainly be explained through low representation of Prime stocks in the overall market portfolio 
(21.7% of total number of stocks), it could still be interpreted as a lack of portfolio efficiency 
due to ESG best-in-class portfolio construction constraints. 
PRIME ESG ORIENTED PORTFOLIOS SHOW EFFICIENCY GAINS RELATIVE TO UNDERLYING MARKET/SECTOR BENCHMARKS  
Market Portfolio ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
 
Sharpe ratio comparison of Prime composites vs. sector benchmarks (x)
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.68); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.56)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
5
10
15
20
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Pharma&H.
IT
Banks
TL&S
Auto
Insurance
Portfolio
C.&M.
Utilities
Steel
Cons. G
Chemicals
Aero.&Infra.
Capital G.
Telco
Prime composite
Sector benchmark
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research 
Portfolio efficiency losses 
concerns not warranted on 
market portfolio level  
 
Our ESG-efficient frontier analysis reveals that concerns regarding this possible portfolio
efficiency loss are not warranted on the Market Portfolio level with its Prime composite
reflecting a 29.9% higher Sharpe ratio than the underlying market portfolio benchmark. 
Portfolio efficiency losses 
warranted for some sectors 
 
However, concerns are warranted on sector specific levels. Overall, the split is slightly in favor
for portfolio efficiency gains compared to losses related to Prime security allocation. 60% of
risky portfolios that have their equity portion allocated to sector Prime composites rather than
the underlying market benchmark portray efficiency gains as measured through the Sharpe
ratio while the remainder misses out. 
Please see appendix 1 for more detailed explanations underlying the calculations for the
results presented.

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 23
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Market Portfolio & Sector Profiles

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 24
ESG overview – Market Portfolio  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG -TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of ESG Leader rated sectors (%)* 
Aero. & Infra.
Auto
Banks
Capital G.
Chemicals
Construction & 
M.
Cons. G
Financial S.
Insurance
Media
Pharma & 
Health C.
Real E.
IT
Steel
Telco
TLS
Utilities
Retail
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
TP upside (%)
TPESG-TP (%)
 
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Utilities
Cons. G
Sustainable alpha (%)
* MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
The overall market portfolio scores an average ESG score of -2.0, with both Social & Governance (-1.9) and Environmental 
performance (-2.2) labeling the market as an ESG Laggard. Only 2 (11%) out of our 18 (100%) sectors are able to break into
ESG Leading territory, which includes the “Utilities, Renewables” and “Consumer Goods” sectors. The average relative
ESG risk adjustment to the cost of equity for the market portfolio is -5.1 with a 100% ESG confidence level. Adjusting these 
findings to stock specific ESG ratings yields an average ESG risk adjustment of 13.5 bp for the market. The overall impact of 
these ESG risk adjustments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of 0.3% for the overall market portfolio.
From an ESG style analysis point of view, top tier rated ESG stocks (A+B) contribute an average 26.9% to the overall sector
performance with risk-adjusted performance (Sharpe ratio) for Prime stocks being 29.9% higher relative to the market bench-
mark based on our ESG efficient frontier analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
We still fear that a sustainable improvement in the parameters for German equities will require more time. Despite the already 
extremely low level of business expectations, we would not yet interpret this as a positive medium-term signal. The ongoing credit 
crisis and the persisting inflationary pressure are key features of the current cycle that are impeding a stimulus from monetary 
policy and thereby preventing an ideal-typical recovery in the coming months. Since, furthermore, the earnings revisions trend 
continues to point south, we still see no clear trigger for a sustained recovery in equity market valuations. Barring a stabilization of 
leading indicators and a more sustained economic stimulus, we think the German equity market still has to find a bottom. While 
there are indeed chances of higher share prices at the end of the year (our targets stand at 6700 for the DAX and 8800 for the 
MDAX), the persisting stress factors argue for further setbacks in the coming months. For that reason, we think the danger of 
new lows for the year has not yet been banished. Against this backdrop, we continue to recommend a defensive positioning. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY ESG SCORING STATUS 
SECTOR 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
SECTOR TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (ESG Leader status) 
Utilities, 
Renewables 
– wind energy has developed into one of the 
fastest growing markets 
– record solar earnings in 2008 
– high exposure to Renewable companies with 
environmental friendly policies and operations 
Consumer 
Goods 
– major global sporting goods groups expected 
to remain on growth track beyond 2008  
– strong growth expected in Emerging 
Markets 
– detailed guidelines covering human rights, social 
responsibility, health and safety standards 
Bottom sustainable alphas (ESG Laggard status) 
W. & Retail, 
F& Lux. G. 
– ST outlook remains weak, macroeconomic 
factors still a strong headwind  
– decline in oil prices could improve 
sentiment 
– lack of transparency regarding labor, health and safety 
standards 
Pharma. & B, 
Health Care 
– defensive characteristics in non-cyclical 
markets with predictable growth  
– reimbursement systems, new 
product launches, exposure to USD 
– lack of transparency regarding standards of 
responsible marketing, data protection and labor 
Media 
– Challenging outlook with increasing online 
business competition and economic downturn  
– Pay TV business still in growth 
process 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to reduce 
energy consumption in production of media content 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 25
ESG rating overview – Market Portfolio 
ESG market portfolio scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
C+
13.1%
C
10.9%
C-
12.4%
D+
13.9%
D
24.1%
D-
14.6%
B+
0.7%
A
0.7%
B-
7.3%
B
1.5%
A-
0.7%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research  
Environmental review 
On environmental issues, only (11%) of all sectors are able to break into the Environmental Leader category with the average
market score well into the Environmental Laggard category. Best environmental performers include the “Utilities, Renewables” 
sector with its high exposure to Renewable energy companies and the “Consumer Goods” sector, whose composites show a 
strong focus on adopting environmental policies. The worst environmental scores can be attributed to the “Media” and “Real 
Estate” sectors. Key weaknesses within the Media sector are composites’ lacking measures to reduce energy consumption
while the Real Estate sector shows shortcomings in efficient energy management of property portfolios. 
Social & Governance review 
The market’s Social & Governance performance lags its environmental one with only the “Consumer Goods” sector clearly
breaking into Leader territory. Key strengths worth highlighting within the sector constituents are comprehensive risk assess-
ments of products, detailed guidelines covering areas such as human rights, social responsibility or health and safety and a
focus on clear measures to check key suppliers’ compliance with company specific labor, health and safety standards. Bottom
Laggards are again the “Real Estate” and “Media” sector showing weaknesses through lacks of transparency regarding stan-
dards of business ethics or limited public information on social and ethical issues. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
Utilities, Renewables – high share of revenues originating from 
renewable energy production 
Consumer Goods 
– implementation of group-wide policies regarding staff rela-
tions/labor standards 
Consumer Goods 
– presence of systems/policies to moni-
tor/measure resource consumption  
or reduce environmental pollution 
 
 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
Media 
– lack of measures to reduce energy 
consumption 
Real Estate  
– lack of transparency regarding standards of business ethics or 
limited public information on social and ethical issues 
Real Estate 
– shortcomings in efficient energy manage-
ment of property portfolios 
Media 
– lack of policies regarding equal opportunities, non-discrimination 
Financial Services 
– lack of transparency regarding environ-
mental management systems 
W. & Retail,  
F& Lux. G. 
– shortcomings regarding labor, human rights business ethics policy 
implementation 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 26
ESG rating overview charts – Market Portfolio 
TP and TPESG upside (%) 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Capital G.
Telco
Financial S.
Insurance
Banks
C.&M.
IT
Chemicals
Utilities
Steel
TL&S
Cons. G
Aero.&Infra.
Real E.
Media
Auto
Pharma&H.
Retail
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
Market upside to financial TP (%)
Market upside to TP ESG (%)
 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Utilities
Cons. G
Auto
Aero.&Infra.
Chemicals
Insurance
C.&M.
Pharma&H.
Banks
Steel
IT
TL&S
Capital G.
Telco
Retail
Financial S.
Media
Real E.
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Utilities
Cons. G
Aero.&Infra.
Auto
Insurance
Chemicals
C.&M.
Pharma&H.
Steel
IT
Banks
TL&S
Capital G.
Telco
Retail
Financial S.
Real E.
Media
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Average
 
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Cons. G
Aero.&Infra.
Auto
Utilities
Banks
C.&M.
Insurance
Pharma&H.
Chemicals
Steel
IT
Capital G.
Financial S.
TL&S
Telco
Retail
Media
Real E.
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps) 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Telco
Auto
TL&S
Chemicals
Cons. G
Utilities
Insurance
Aero.&Infra.
Pharma&H.
Banks
Retail
Capital G.
C.&M.
IT
Financial S.
Media
Real E.
Steel
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Average
 
0.98
1.03
4.13
4.35
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 27
ESG sector composites overview – Market Portfolio 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY ESG SCORING STATUS 
 
Sector 
ESG 
score
Implied ESG exposure – 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk ESGRsector i  
(%) 
ESG confidence –ESGCsector i 
(%)
ke*
kESG*
TP upside 
(%)*
TPESG upside 
(%)* 
αsustainable  
(%)* 
ESG Leader status 
 
 
 
Utilities, Renewables 
1.8
29
-5.1 
0.0
9.0
8.9
23.0
24.0 
15.0 
Consumer Goods 
1.3
14
-5.1 
0.0
8.3
8.2
16.3
17.4 
9.1 
ESG Laggards 
 
 
 
Automobiles & Parts 
-0.4
-20-14
-26.4 
100.0
9.9
9.5
8.4
12.8 
3.3 
Aerospace & Defence, Infrastructure & Logistics 
-0.6
-20
-5.1 
0.0
10.2
10.2
16.8
16.2 
6.0 
Chemicals 
-1.1
-20
-7.8 
100.0
9.4
9.3
29.3
31.1 
21.8 
Insurance 
-1.3
-20
-5.1 
0.0
9.9
9.9
43.3
43.4 
33.5 
Construction & materials 
-1.5
-40
-46.3 
100.0
9.8
10.1
36.4
33.8 
23.7 
Pharmaceuticals & Biotech, Health Care 
-1.9
-40
-5.1 
0.0
9.2
9.3
11.0
9.8 
0.5 
Banks 
-2.1
-40
-11.1 
100.0
10.1
10.2
35.0
33.9 
23.7 
Steel, Metals & Mining 
-2.4
-40
-38.0 
100.0
10.2
12.0
49.0
23.3 
11.3 
Software & IT Services, Semiconductors,Technology & Hardware 
-2.4
-40
-37.1 
100.0
9.7
10.0
38.1
32.8 
22.8 
Tourism, Leisure & Services 
-2.5
-60
-35.8 
100.0
10.8
10.5
18.5
22.2 
11.7 
Capital Goods 
-2.9
-60
-5.1 
3.8
9.5
9.7
67.3
62.6 
52.9 
Telecommunications 
-3.4
-60
-41.9 
100.0
9.9
9.1
42.0
59.5 
50.4 
Wholesale & Retail, Fashion & Luxury Goods 
-3.4
-60
-5.1 
NA
9.7
9.9
5.9
3.5 
-6.4 
Financial Services 
-3.9
-80
-5.1 
NA
9.5
9.9
59.6
53.8 
44.0 
Media 
-4.3
-80
-5.1 
NA
9.8
10.2
19.0
13.4 
3.2 
Real Estate 
-4.9
-100
-5.1 
NA
9.1
9.5
22.9
15.9 
6.4 
* MCAP weighted  
 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
-0.67
-0.64
-0.61
-0.58
-0.55
-0.52
-0.49
-0.46
-0.43
-0.40
-0.37
-0.33
-0.30
-0.27
-0.24
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite A
Composite B
Composite C
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.68); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.56)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
5
10
15
20
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 28
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Aerospace & Defence, Infrastructure & Logistics

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 29
ESG overview – Aerospace & Defence, Infrastructure & Logistics  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
FRA GR (H,C+)
DPW GR (B,C)
RHM GR (B,D+)
MTX GR (H,C)
EAD FP (H,C+)
-4.0
-3.5
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
FRA GR
(H,C+)
EAD FP
(H,C+)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
This sector scores slightly below the ESG Leaders territory with an average ESG sector score of -0.6. The environmental 
performance (-0.2) seems to be dragging the score downwards relative to the sector’s slightly better Social & Governance score (0.0).
Overall, only 40% of stocks are able to obtain a Prime status, which would include EADS (Hold, C+) and Fraport (Hold, C+). 
We stress that there is no negative ESG/risk relationship within this sector. Using the general portfolio ESG risk-adjustment 
variables and taking into account stock specific ESG ratings, the ESG risk adjustment for the sector has been determined at 7.2 bps. 
The overall impact of these ESG risk adjustments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of -0.6% for the 
overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point of view, there are no top tier rated ESG stocks (A+B) with contributions of C
and D rated stocks 95.9% and 4.1%, respectively. Risk-adjusted performance (Sharpe ratio) for Prime stocks has been deter-
mined to be 66.9% lower relative to the sector benchmark based on our ESG efficient frontier analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
The short-term weaker GDP growth, lower consumer spending and rising airline ticket prices – intended to offset high fuel costs – as 
well as the increasing difficulties of airlines’ ability to finance aircraft deliveries will impact prospects for airline traffic in 2009 and 
beyond. This could lead to a slight decline in air traffic, which has not been seen since 2001-2002. The “propensity to travel” has 
risen materially above the peak of prior cycles. It is possible (and indeed likely) that it will decline again in 2009 and 2010. 
Reflecting our more bearish view of air traffic for 2009 and 2010 as well as based on aircraft delivery forecasts for 2008 and 2009, we 
think commercial aircraft OEMs are still set to deliver cumulatively 280,000 excess seats into the airline system over and above 
required levels by the end of 2009. This is equivalent to around 1,800 excess aircraft, representing around 90% of Airbus-
Boeing combined delivery forecast for 2008-2009. If our analysis is correct, then the emergence of negative air traffic figures in 
2009 will clearly impact demand for spares and aftermarket for commercial aerospace companies. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
Fraport 
(Hold,C+) 
Higher growth of passenger traffic in 2008 
Retail & Properties segment biggest 
profit driver  
+ transparent social and environmental reporting 
EADS 
(Hold,C+) 
Power8 Plus to save EUR 1.0 bn after 2010  
Commercial aerospace risk; mainly 
2009 in focus 
+comitted to reduce CO2, Nox and noise emissions of 
products 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
MTU Aero 
Engines 
(Hold,C) 
Cautious about commercial aerospace cycle  
EBITDA guidance of EUR 390 mn 
(2008e) 
- lack of transparency regarding ecological life cycle 
assessment of products 
Rheinmetall 
(Buy,D+) 
Solid growth in Defence business 
Strong Defence numbers in Q3 and Q4 
- lack of transparency regarding product recycling 
Deutsche 
Post (Buy,C) 
Strong cash flow 
Special payout or share buyback 
- lack of transparency regarding the percentage of diesel 
vehicles equipped with particulate filter 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 30
ESG rating overview – Aerospace & Defence, Infrastructure & Logistics 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-1.0
0.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
C+
25.0%
C
50.0%
D+
12.5%
D
12.5%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
Apropos environmental issues, the majority (60%) of the Aerospace & Defence, Infrastructure & Logistics companies we 
analyzed fell into the Environmental Leaders category. However, taking average environmental scores, the group ended up in
the Environmental Laggards category. Highest scoring Environmental Leader is EADS (B-) with key strength its commitment to 
reduce CO2, NOx and noise emissions. At the other end of the scale, the worst score was given to Rheinmetall (D+) with one of 
its main weaknesses a lack of transparency in product recycling. 
Social & Governance review 
Regarding social issues, the percentage distribution between Soc. & Gov. Leaders and Soc. & Gov. Laggards is the same as for
the Environment with 60% of the companies we analyzed regarded as Social & Governance Leaders. Based on average scores
the sector lies exactly between our Leaders and Laggards categorization. The top company from a social perspective is
Deutsche Post (B-) with key strength of a group-wide implementation of safety management systems. Rheinmetall (C-) and 
MTU Aero Engines (C-) were meted out the worst social score with key weaknesses being the lack of transparency regarding
standards complying with labor safety and health issues vis-à-vis their suppliers. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORY’S ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
EADS  
(B-) 
+ committed to reduce CO2, Nox and  
noise emissions of products 
Deutsche Post  
(B-) 
n/a 
MTU Aero Engines 
(C+) 
+ implementation of a certified environmental 
management system at all major installations 
with significant environmental risks 
EADS  
(C+) 
+ detailed policy on staff relations and labor standards 
Fraport  
(C+) 
+ comprehensive environmental policy 
Fraport  
(C+) 
+ detailed corporate guidelines covering important areas related to 
social responsibility, human rights, health and safety 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
Rheinmetall  
(D+) 
– lack of transparency regarding product 
recycling 
MTU Aero Engines 
(C-) 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to check compliance of 
key suppliers with labor/health and safety standards 
Deutsche Post  
(C-) 
– lack of transparency regarding the percentage 
of diesel vehicles equipped with particulate filter 
Rheinmetall  
(C-) 
– lack of transparency regarding supplier standards with regard to 
labor/health and safety issues 
MTU Aero Engines 
(C+) 
– lack of transparency regarding ecological 
life cycle assessment of products 
EADS  
(C+) 
– investigations regarding business ethics in recent years, e.g., 
regarding insider trading 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 31
ESG overview charts – Aerospace & Defence, Infrastructure & Logistics 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
DPW GR
RHM GR
FRA GR
EAD FP
MTX GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-4
-3
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
2
EAD FP
FRA GR
MTX GR
DPW GR
RHM GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EAD FP
MTX GR
FRA GR
DPW GR
RHM GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
2
2
3
DPW GR
EAD FP
FRA GR
MTX GR
RHM GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
EAD FP
FRA GR
DPW GR
MTX GR
RHM GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
6.31
1.37
4.09
0.87
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 32
ESG sector composites overview – Aerospace & Defence, Infrastructure & Logistics 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EAD FP 
EADS 
Hold 
C+ 
14.3
-5.1
0.0 
11.1 
11.0
16.4
16.0
16.1
-2.4
-1.6
-12.6 
FRA GR 
Fraport 
Hold 
C+ 
14.3
-5.1
0.0 
9.5 
9.4
40.0
45.0
45.4
12.6
13.6
4.2 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
MTX GR 
MTU Aero 
Engines 
Hold 
C 
-20.0
-5.1
0.0 
10.5 
10.6
24.7
20.0
19.8
-19.0
-20.0
-30.5 
DPW GR 
Deutsche Post 
Buy 
C 
-20.0
-5.1
0.0 
9.7 
9.8
16.2
21.5
21.2
32.7
31.2
21.4 
RHM GR 
Rheinmetall 
Buy 
D+ 
-60.0
-5.1
0.0 
10.0 
10.3
41.3
50.0
48.3
21.2
17.0
6.7 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
4.60
4.68
4.75
4.82
4.89
4.96
5.03
5.11
5.18
5.25
5.32
5.39
5.46
5.54
5.61
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 1.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite C
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.25); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.75)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 33
Performance – Aerospace & Defence, Infrastructure & Logistics 
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%) 
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
EADS 
EUR 
16.40 
24.8
11.0
51.2
-33.0
13,362 
8.0
20.6
-19.8
-25.5
14.4
28.8
3.4 
1.3 
MTU Aero Engines 
EUR 
24.70 
48.1
18.7
94.7
-24.1
1,284 
-1.0
3.2
-45.1
-36.9
5.5
11.4
-21.8 
-10.1 
Rheinmetall 
EUR 
41.27 
62.9
35.7
52.3
-13.5
1,486 
-4.3
-17.3
-25.8
-24.7
2.2
-9.1
-2.5 
2.0 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
66.0
-23.5
  
0.9
2.2
-30.2
-29.0
7.4
10.4
-7.0 
-2.3 
Deutsche Post 
EUR 
16.20 
24.1
14.7
48.5
-9.1
19,644 
1.4
-14.0
-18.8
-30.5
7.9
-5.8
4.4 
-3.7 
Fraport 
EUR 
39.95 
56.6
36.6
41.6
-8.4
3,662 
-11.6
-3.0
-15.9
-26.8
-5.1
5.2
7.3 
0 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
45.0
-8.8
  
-5.1
-8.5
-17.4
-28.6
1.4
-0.3
5.8 
-1.9 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-11.6
8.0
-4.3
1.4
-1.0
-20
-10
0
10
20
EADS
MTU Aero
Engines
Rheinmetall
Deutsche
Post
Fraport
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
7.9
14.4
5.5
2.2
-5.1
-10
0
10
20
EADS
MTU Aero
Engines
Rheinmetall
Deutsche
Post
Fraport
-30.5
-24.7
-36.9
-25.5
-26.8
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
EADS
MTU Aero
Engines
Rheinmetall
Deutsche
Post
Fraport
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 34
Valuation overview – Aerospace & Defence, Infrastructure & Logistics 
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
EADS 
-41.5 
12.0 
9.7
139.2
3.2
4.1
0.42
0.27
0.25
9.3
3.0
2.9
312.6
5.6 
4.8 
MTU Aero Engines 
14.5 
6.8 
7.8
7.8
4.2
4.5
1.15
0.71
0.66
7.6
4.4
4.6
12.2
6.3 
6.8 
Rheinmetall 
15.2 
9.2 
8.7
6.9
4.4
4.3
0.74
0.53
0.51
6.9
4.9
4.9
11.3
7.8 
7.6 
Germany average 
14.8 
8.9 
8.6
10.7
3.8
4.3
0.77
0.50
0.47
7.8
3.9
3.9
17.3
6.4 
6.2 
Deutsche Post 
19.7 
6.5 
7.8
7.6
4.3
4.6
0.51
0.38
0.37
5.9
4.3
4.1
10.2
6.2 
5.6 
Fraport 
23.5 
16.9 
22.2
3.8
8.1
9.1
2.34
2.25
2.54
9.4
8.0
8.7
16.3
13.4 
15.9 
Germany average 
21.6 
11.7 
15.0
5.7
6.2
6.9
1.43
1.32
1.45
7.6
6.1
6.4
13.2
9.8 
10.8 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
EADS
MTU Aero 
Engines
Rheinmetall
Deutsche Post
Fraport
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
5
10
15
20
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
EADS
MTU Aero 
Engines
Rheinmetall
Deutsche Post
Fraport
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
0.64
0.95
0.87
0.83
1.03
1.05
0.85
0.70
0.57
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e
X
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 35
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Automobiles & Parts

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 36
ESG overview – Automobiles & Parts  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
BDT GR (B,D+)
ZIL2 GY (B,C+)
GMM GY (H,C-)
LEO GY (B,B-)
RUK GY (B,D)
BMW GR (B,B-) DAI GY (B,B-)
POR3 GR (B,D)
VOW GR (S,B-)
Sector
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
LEO GY
(B,B-)
DAI GY
(B,B-)
ZIL2 GY
(B,C+)
BMW GR
(B,B-)
VOW GR
(S,B-)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
The Automobiles & Parts sector scores slightly below the ESG Leaders territory with an average ESG sector score of -0.4. 
Social & Governance performance (-0.6) seem to be dragging the sector score downwards relative to the sector’s slightly better 
environmental performance (-0.2). Nevertheless, a majority of stocks (55.6%) are able to obtain a Prime status with LEONI 
(Buy, B-), Daimler (Buy, B-), BMW (Buy, B-) and Volkswagen (Sell, B-) being best-in-class. The average relative ESG risk 
adjustment to the cost of equity for the sector is high at -26.4% with a 100% ESG confidence level. Adjusting these findings to
stock specific ESG ratings yields an average ESG risk adjustment of 33.6 bp for this sector. The overall impact of these ESG risk 
adjustments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of 4.4% for the overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point of
view, top tier rated ESG stocks (A+B) contribute an average 83.4% to the overall sector performance with risk-adjusted performance 
(Sharpe ratio) for Prime stocks being 58.6% higher relative to the sector benchmark based on our ESG efficient frontier analysis.
Strategic outlook 
The short-term outlook for the sector remains weak as macroeconomic factors are still a strong headwind: Production in the 
triad market will be cut further in Q3/08 as NA is still heavily impacted by the weak demand due to high gasoline prices and a
shift away from light trucks. We expect a further 3-4% cut in NA production. In contrast to the stable production in WEU, Q3/08 
should also see a decline above 5% to 3.42 mn units. Besides the weaker demand, the burdens from raw materials like steel
and precious metals are another problem for earnings as well as the negative impact from the exchange rates. Despite this 
negative environment, the European OEMs reported relatively solid Q2/08 earnings, which signal that the industry can weather
such difficult markets better than in the last downward cycles. After some revised outlooks, most earnings estimates for the 
WEU sector now include even more difficult market conditions in FY 2009. With the exception of VW, companies’ valuations
have priced in a recession. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
LEONI 
(Buy,B-) 
New orders worth EUR 400 mn in net revenue p.a. 
Good Q2/08 makes guidance more 
conservative  
+ various measures taken to reduce/substitute the use of 
hazardous and toxic substances in products 
Daimler 
(Buy,B-) 
Profit warning a major disappointment 
Ongoing share buyback 
+ detailed and comprehensive code covering important 
aspects such as corruption, antitrust, conflicts of 
interest, gifts, validity of information 
ElringKlinger 
(Buy,C+) 
Beneficiary of trend towards lower emissions 
News on success of new products 
(DPF, Moldflon) 
+ implementation of a certified environmental manage-
ment system at all major installations with significant 
environmental risks 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
Grammer 
(Hold,C-) 
Restructuring program to increase margins 
Faster-than-expected success of 
restructuring 
- lack of transparency regarding environmental 
performance indicators 
Rücker 
(Buy,D) 
Continued outsourcing of vehicle development 
First development projects for the 
A350xwb 
- very little information on social and environmental 
issues publicly available 
Porsche SE 
(Buy,D) 
Upcoming increase of VW stake to over 50% 
Announcement of VW takeover in the fall 
- lack of transparency regarding standards of business 
ethics 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 37
ESG rating overview – Automobiles & Parts 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-1.0
0.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
B
25.0%
B-
25.0%
C+
6.3%
C
12.5%
C-
6.3%
D+
6.3%
D
18.8%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
On environmental issues, a slight majority (56%) of companies is able to break into the Environmental Leader category, but on
average lower Environmental Laggard scores drag the overall environmental performance into ESG laggard territory. Best 
environmental performers include Volkswagen (B) and LEONI (B). Formalized research efforts on various technologies to 
power vehicles by renewable/alternative fuels and various measures taken to reduce/substitute the use of hazardous and toxic 
substances in products are worth highlighting as their key environmental strengths. The worst environmental rating can be
attributed to Porsche (D) weakened by its insufficient strategy and management structures to address climate change. 
Social & Governance review 
The sector’s social performance follows the environmental rating pattern with also 56% of covered companies scoring Leader
status. BMW Group (B-), Daimler (B-) and ElringKlinger (B-) lead the sector’s social rating with BMW showing good perform-
ance of the company’s passenger cars regarding occupant safety in safety tests. Daimler on the other hand offers a detailed
and comprehensive code covering important aspects such as corruption, antitrust, conflicts of interest, gifts and validity of 
information with ElringKlinger having provided substantial information on product safety management, coupled with a compre-
hensive and group-wide policy on staff relations and labor standards. Worst social scores were assigned to Porsche (D) and 
Rücker (D+) with key weaknesses a lack of transparency regarding standards of business ethics and limited public information
availability on social issues. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
LEONI  
(B) 
+ various measures taken to reduce/substitute 
the use of hazardous and toxic substances 
in products 
ElringKlinger  
(B-) 
+ comprehensive and group-wide policy on staff relations and labor 
standards 
Volkswagen  
(B) 
+ public recognition of the group's responsibil-
ity to act on climate change 
BMW  
(B-) 
+ nearly group-wide implementation of safety management systems 
and downward trend of accident rate 
Daimler  
(B-) 
+ almost group-wide environmental 
management system implemented 
Daimler  
(B-) 
+ detailed and comprehensive code covering important aspects such as 
corruption, antitrust, conflicts of interest, gifts, validity of information 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
Porsche SE  
(D) 
– insufficient strategy and management 
structures to address climate change 
Rücker  
(D) 
– very little information on social and environmental issues publicly 
available 
Bertrandt  
(D+) 
– lack of transparency regarding efforts to 
extend the useful life of end-products (vehicles)
Porsche SE  
(D) 
– lack of transparency regarding standards of business ethics 
Rücker  
(D+) 
– lack of transparency regarding efforts to 
extend the useful life of end-products (vehicles) 
Bertrandt  
(D+) 
– lack of transparency regarding the involvement in community projects 
related to, e.g., education, poverty, minorities, and the environment 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 38
ESG overview charts – Automobiles & Parts 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
LEO GY
DAI GY
ZIL2 GY
BDT GR
POR3 GR
BMW GR
RUK GY
GMM GY
VOW GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
LEO GY
BMW GR
DAI GY
VOW GR
ZIL2 GY
GMM GY
BDT GR
RUK GY
POR3 GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
LEO GY
VOW GR
DAI GY
ZIL2 GY
BMW GR
GMM GY
BDT GR
RUK GY
POR3 GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
ZIL2 GY
BMW GR
DAI GY
LEO GY
VOW GR
GMM GY
BDT GR
RUK GY
POR3 GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
VOW GR
DAI GY
LEO GY
BMW GR
ZIL2 GY
GMM GY
BDT GR
POR3 GR
RUK GY
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
4.72
1.06
6.21
1.36
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 39
ESG sector composites overview – Automobiles & Parts 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LEO GY 
LEONI 
Buy 
B- 
28.6
-26.4
100.0 
9.5 
8.7
25.7
50.0
54.9
94.4
113.5
104.8 
BMW GR 
BMW 
Buy 
B- 
28.6
-26.4
100.0 
9.3 
8.6
28.5
34.0
37.4
19.1
30.9
22.3 
DAI GY 
Daimler 
Buy 
B- 
28.6
-26.4
100.0 
10.1 
9.4
40.5
62.0
67.9
53.1
67.8
58.4 
VOW GR 
Volkswagen 
Sell 
B- 
28.6
-26.4
100.0 
10.4 
9.6
210.7
138.0
151.1
-34.5
-28.3
-37.8 
ZIL2 GY 
ElringKlinger 
Buy 
C+ 
14.3
-26.4
100.0 
9.0 
8.7
15.1
22.0
23.0
45.5
52.4
43.8 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
GMM GY 
Grammer 
Hold 
C- 
-40.0
-26.4
100.0 
9.9 
10.9
14.1
16.5
14.7
17.0
4.3
-6.6 
BDT GR 
Bertrandt 
Buy 
D+ 
-60.0
-26.4
100.0 
9.5 
10.9
24.1
40.0
33.8
66.0
40.2
29.2 
RUK GY 
Rücker 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-26.4
100.0 
9.5 
11.4
7.1
10.0
8.0
41.2
13.5
2.0 
POR3 GR 
Porsche 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-26.4
100.0 
8.5 
10.3
90.2
152.0
121.1
68.5
34.2
24.0 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
-3.89
-3.82
-3.75
-3.68
-3.62
-3.55
-3.48
-3.41
-3.34
-3.27
-3.21
-3.14
-3.07
-3.00
-2.93
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite B
Composite C
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.84); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.53)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 40
Performance – Automobiles & Parts 
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%) 
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
BMW 
EUR 
28.54 
47.7
26.9
67.0
-5.8
18,395 
-7.4
-14.8
-32.7
-33.2
-1.0
-6.6
-9.5 
-6.4 
Daimler 
EUR 
40.50 
77.3
36.7
90.7
-9.4
39,062 
-6.2
-7.1
-34.9
-38.8
0.3
1.1
-11.6 
-12.1 
Porsche 
EUR 
90.21 
185.3
85.2
105.4
-5.6
17,365 
-10.7
-15.8
-28.2
-34.7
-4.2
-7.6
-5.0 
-7.9 
Volkswagen 
EUR 
210.68 
210.7
147.3
0
-30.1
72,239 
2.9
21.6
41.9
34.7
9.4
29.8
65.1 
61.4 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
65.8
-12.7
  
-5.4
-4.0
-13.5
-18.0
1.1
4.2
9.8 
8.8 
Bertrandt 
EUR 
24.1 
29.5
20.8
22.5
-13.8
244 
-9.3
-10.8
1.3
-18.3
-2.8
-2.6
24.6 
8.4 
ElringKlinger 
EUR 
15.1 
29.0
14.8
91.8
-2.0
871 
-7.5
-29.7
-31.6
-46.7
-1.0
-21.5
-8.3 
-19.9 
Grammer 
EUR 
14.10 
23.1
14.1
63.5
0
148 
-9.3
-13.0
-24.1
-11.9
-2.8
-4.8
-0.9 
14.9 
LEONI 
EUR 
25.72 
45.5
23.5
77.1
-8.7
764 
-10.2
-15.1
-35.7
-23.7
-3.7
-6.9
-12.5 
3.1 
Rücker 
EUR 
7.08 
10.4
6.6
46.3
-6.8
59 
-1.4
8.6
-6.5
-31.3
5.1
16.8
16.7 
-4.5 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
60.2
-6.3
  
-7.5
-12.0
-19.3
-26.4
-1.0
-3.8
3.9 
0.4 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-10.7
2.9
-6.2
-7.5
-9.3
-1.4
-10.2
-9.3
-7.4
-20
-10
0
10
20
BMW
Daimler
Porsche
Volkswagen
Bertrandt
ElringKlinger
Grammer
LEONI
Rücker
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
9.4
-1.0
-3.7
5.1
-2.8
-2.8
-4.2
-1.0
0.3
-20
-10
0
10
20
BMW
Daimler
Porsche
Volkswagen
Bertrandt
ElringKlinger
Grammer
LEONI
Rücker
-34.7
-46.7
-31.3
-11.9
-38.8
-23.7
34.7
-33.2
-18.3
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
BMW
Daimler
Porsche
Volkswagen
Bertrandt
ElringKlinger
Grammer
LEONI
Rücker
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 41
Valuation overview – Automobiles & Parts 
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
BMW 
9.4 
9.7 
8.3
3.3
2.1
1.9
0.47
0.26
0.23
2.6
1.6
1.3
6.3
5.5 
4.4 
Daimler 
16.4 
7.3 
7.2
5.2
3.7
3.8
0.58
0.31
0.30
3.4
2.7
2.7
7.3
4.1 
4.3 
Porsche 
5.4 
6.3 
6.6
8.0
5.0
5.1
1.83
0.11
0.04
2.6
0.3
0.1
2.8
0.4 
0.2 
Volkswagen 
12.3 
16.8 
15.3
3.2
6.0
4.9
0.29
0.56
0.52
2.3
4.1
3.8
5.1
9.3 
8.2 
Germany average 
9.2 
8.7 
8.4
4.3
3.6
3.3
0.79
0.31
0.27
2.6
0.8
0.4
4.7
1.2 
0.6 
Bertrandt 
10.9 
7.0 
6.0
6.8
5.5
4.7
0.71
0.55
0.45
5.9
4.1
3.4
7.5
4.9 
3.9 
ElringKlinger 
5.6 
11.0 
9.3
3.6
6.8
6.2
2.18
1.00
0.91
7.8
3.9
3.5
11.0
5.7 
5.1 
Grammer 
12.2 
6.9 
5.3
4.7
2.8
2.5
0.28
0.28
0.28
5.0
4.5
3.9
8.7
7.7 
6.2 
LEONI 
12.4 
9.5 
7.2
7.0
3.0
2.9
0.66
0.41
0.38
7.8
4.8
4.6
12.1
9.1 
7.0 
Rücker 
15.8 
8.9 
7.6
6.6
3.7
3.4
0.45
0.35
0.26
4.4
3.1
2.4
8.2
5.6 
4.0 
Germany average 
10.1 
8.4 
6.8
5.4
3.9
3.5
0.86
0.52
0.46
5.9
4.0
3.4
9.2
6.3 
5.0 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
BMW
Daimler
Porsche
Volkswagen
Bertrandt
ElringKlinger
Grammer
LEONI
Rücker
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
BMW 
Daimler
Porsche
Volkswagen
Bertrandt
ElringKlinger
LEONI
Grammer
Rücker
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
0.59
0.61
0.65
0.66
0.83
0.43
0.37
0.70
0.66
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e  
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 42
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Banks

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 43
ESG overview – Banks  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
HRX GR (S,C-)
ARL GR (B,D)
IKB GR (S,D+)
DPB GR (B,C-)
DBK GR (B,C+)
CBK GR (H,C-)
COM GR (H,D+)
-12.0
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
DBK GR
(B,C+)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
The Banks sector scores below the ESG Leaders territory with an average ESG sector score of -2.1. The environmental 
performance (-3.0) seems to be dragging the score downwards relative to the sector’s better Social & Governance score (-0.7). 
Overall, only 14% of stocks are able to obtain a Prime status, which would only include Deutsche Bank (Buy, C+). The average 
relative ESG risk adjustment to the cost of equity for the sector has been determined at -11.1% with a 100% ESG confidence 
level. Adjusting these findings to stock specific ESG ratings yields an average ESG risk adjustment of 47.0 bp for this sector. 
The overall impact of these ESG risk adjustments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of -1.08% for the 
overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point of view, there are no top tier rated ESG stocks (A+B) with contributions of C 
and D rated stocks 94.3% and 5.7%, respectively. Risk-adjusted performance (Sharpe ratio) for Prime stocks has been deter-
mined to be 145.3% higher relative to the sector benchmark based on our ESG efficient frontier analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
The outlook for the banking sector remains subdued: We think that further burdens directly related to the ongoing financial
market crisis will affect earnings, although there is a certain chance that we have already left the peak of write-downs on 
structured credit products behind us. In our view, earnings risks are even more related to the downturn of the real economy,
which is still at its beginning. Apart from reduced revenue generation, this will lead to a significant increase in loan-loss provi-
sions compared to the still very low current levels for most European banks in our coverage. Additionally, we expect that a
tendency toward higher capital requirements for the banking sector will be a further dampening factor for sustainable profitability 
levels. Despite overall favorable valuation levels from a fundamental point of view, we remain cautious towards the banking
sector for the time being. We currently prefer banks with a defensive risk profile, e.g. low exposure to the structured credit area, 
good capital ratios and a high retail earnings contribution from countries that have not seen real estate booms in the recent years. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
Deutsche 
Bank (Buy,C+) 
Strong positioning in the capital market 
business 
Higher weighting of the more stable 
segments  
+ brokerage of ESG products 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
IKB Deutsche 
Industriebank 
(Sell,D+) 
Primary focus on SME financing 
Highly dilutive capital measures 
implemented 
- lack of transparency regarding supplier standards with 
regard to labour/health and safety issues 
Hypo Real 
Estate Group 
(Sell,C-) 
Resource transfer towards public sector finance 
Speculation around the J.C. Flowers 
stake 
- very little information on social and environmental 
issues publicly available 
Commerzbank 
(Hold,C-) 
High Germany exposure  
Success of Dresdner Bank integration 
- lack of transparency regarding the integration of 
environmental aspects into financial services such as 
lending or asset management 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 44
ESG rating overview – Banks 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
C+
7.7%
C
30.8%
C-
23.1%
D+
15.4%
D
23.1%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
The vast majority (86%) of the Banks we analyzed fell into the Environmental Laggards category, in line with the average group
score. Deutsche Bank (C+) is the best performer with a key strength being the company’s comprehensive and transparent
sustainability reporting. On the opposite side of the spectrum are comdirect bank AG (D), Commerzbank (D), IKB Deutsche
Industriebank (D) and Aareal Bank (D). Key weaknesses include their lack of transparency with regard to the integration of
environmental standards into their core business (financial services such as lending or asset management). 
Social & Governance review 
The Banking group fared much better on a social level. With the group average slightly in Laggards territory, only a minority of
companies (42%) can be classified as Soc. & Gov. Leaders. It seems that Banks take social issues seriously, with Deutsche 
Bank (B-) again coming out on top, having implemented a quality sustainability management system. The group’s average
ended up in Laggards territory mainly due to IKB Deutsche Industriebank (D+) and Aareal Bank (D+), their key weaknesses 
being a lack of transparency in standards related to labor/health and safety issues and also a lack of transparency in measures
to ensure employee awareness of and compliance with the code of business ethics. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
Deutsche Bank  
(C+) 
+ comprehensive and transparent sustainabil-
ity reporting 
Deutsche Bank 
(B-) 
+ sustainability management system implemented 
Postbank  
(D+) 
+ commitment to the principles of the  
UN Global Compact 
Commerzbank 
(C+) 
+ comprehensive initiatives to foster work-life balance of staff 
Hypo Real Estate 
Group (D+) 
n/a 
Hypo Real Estate 
Group (C+) 
+ reasonable policy on equal opportunities and non-discrimination 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
comdirect bank AG 
(D) 
– very little information on environmental 
issues publicly available 
IKB Deutsche 
Industriebank (D+)
– lack of transparency regarding supplier standards with regard to 
labor/health and safety issues 
Commerzbank  
(D) 
– lack of transparency regarding the integration of 
environmental aspects into financial services 
such as lending or asset management 
Aareal Bank  
(D+) 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to ensure employee 
awareness of and compliance with the code of business ethics 
IKB Deutsche 
Industriebank  
(D) 
– lack of transparency regarding the 
implementation of environmental manage-
ment systems 
comdirect bank AG 
(C-) 
– very little information on social and ethical issues publicly available
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 45
ESG overview charts – Banks 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
DBK GR
DPB GR
ARL GR
COM GR
CBK GR
HRX GR
IKB GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
DBK GR
CBK GR
DPB GR
HRX GR
COM GR
IKB GR
ARL GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
DBK GR
DPB GR
HRX GR
COM GR
CBK GR
IKB GR
ARL GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
DBK GR
CBK GR
HRX GR
DPB GR
COM GR
IKB GR
ARL GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
DBK GR
DPB GR
CBK GR
HRX GR
COM GR
IKB GR
ARL GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
5.57
1.28
6.08
1.40
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 46
ESG sector composites overview – Banks 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DBK GR 
Deutsche Bank 
Buy 
C+ 
14.3
-11.1
100.0 
10.4 
10.2
59.0
90.0
91.7
52.5
55.3
45.1 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
CBK GR 
Commerzbank 
Hold 
C- 
-40.0
-11.1
100.0 
10.4 
10.8
17.3
18.5
17.6
6.8
1.7
-9.2 
DPB GR 
Postbank 
Buy 
C- 
-40.0
-11.1
100.0 
8.6 
8.9
47.3
61.0
57.9
29.1
22.4
13.5 
HRX GR 
Hypo Real 
Estate Group 
Sell 
C- 
-40.0
-11.1
100.0 
10.4 
10.8
16.6
17.0
16.2
2.5
-2.4
-13.2 
COM GR 
comdirect bank 
AG 
Hold 
D+ 
-60.0
-11.1
100.0 
9.9 
10.6
7.0
8.5
7.9
22.0
13.2
2.7 
IKB GR 
IKB Deutsche 
Industriebank 
Sell 
D+ 
-60.0
-11.1
100.0 
10.4 
11.0
1.9
0.5
0.5
-73.1
-75.0
-86.1 
ARL GR 
Aareal Bank 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-11.1
100.0 
9.0 
9.8
16.4
21.0
19.0
28.4
16.0
6.2 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
-1.81
-1.76
-1.71
-1.66
-1.61
-1.56
-1.50
-1.45
-1.40
-1.35
-1.30
-1.25
-1.20
-1.14
-1.09
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite C
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.2); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.08)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 47
Performance – Banks 
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%) 
Marketcap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
Aareal Bank 
EUR 
16.36 
36.5
12.5
122.8
-23.3
699 
-7.6
-6.9
-48.2
-46.7
-1.1
1.2
-25.0 
-20.0 
comdirect bank AG 
EUR 
6.97 
9.9
6.8
41.6
-3.0
982 
-6.6
-13.4
-17.5
-17.2
-0.1
-5.2
5.8 
9.5 
Commerzbank 
EUR 
17.32 
31.4
16.9
81.3
-2.2
12,518 
-21.9
-8.8
-36.6
-34.1
-15.4
-0.6
-13.4 
-7.3 
Deutsche Bank 
EUR 
59.03 
95.6
51.0
62.0
-13.6
31,310 
-8.9
-3.6
-30.5
-34.0
-2.4
4.6
-7.2 
-7.3 
Hypo Real Estate Group 
EUR 
16.58 
44.8
13.2
170.4
-20.6
3,334 
-12.6
-21.5
-55.8
-54.3
-6.1
-13.3
-32.6 
-27.5 
IKB Deutsche Industriebank 
EUR 
1.86 
14.5
1.9
679.6
0
210 
-17.3
-47.0
-86.6
-69.8
-10.8
-38.8
-63.3 
-43.0 
Postbank 
EUR 
47.26 
66.5
40.3
40.8
-14.7
7,751 
3.7
-21.4
-6.7
-22.4
10.2
-13.2
16.5 
4.3 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
171.2
-11.1
  
-10.2
-17.5
-40.3
-39.8
-3.7
-9.3
-17.0 
-13.0 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-8.9
3.7
-17.3
-6.6
-21.9
-7.6
-12.6
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Aareal Bank
comdirect
bank AG
Commerzbank
Deutsche
Bank
Hypo Real
Estate Group
IKB Dt.
Industriebank
Postbank
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
-1.1
-0.1
-15.4
10.2
-6.1
-10.8
-2.4
-20
-10
0
10
20
Aareal Bank
comdirect
bank AG
Commerzbank
Deutsche
Bank
Hypo Real
Estate Group
IKB Dt.
Industriebank
Postbank
-17.2
-22.4
-46.7
-54.3
-34.0
-34.1
-69.8
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Aareal Bank
comdirect
bank AG
Commerzbank
Deutsche
Bank
Hypo Real
Estate Group
IKB Dt.
Industriebank
Postbank
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 48
Valuation overview – Banks 
 
P/E (x) 
Adj. P/E (x) 
Price/book value (x) 
Price/adj. book value (x) 
Net dividend yield (%) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
Aareal Bank 
2.4 
6.8 
6.0
2.4
6.8
6.0
0.51
0.50
0.47
0.52
0.51
0.48
3.1
3.7 
4.3 
comdirect bank AG 
17.0 
17.0 
14.7
17.0
17.0
14.7
2.34
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.29
5.9
5.9 
6.7 
Commerzbank 
5.9 
6.2 
26.0
5.9
6.2
26.0
0.75
0.80
0.81
0.80
0.87
0.93
5.8
5.8 
5.8 
Deutsche Bank 
4.5 
12.4 
5.8
4.5
12.4
5.8
0.76
0.84
0.79
0.95
1.07
0.98
7.6
7.6 
7.6 
Hypo Real Estate Group 
5.0 
9.8 
6.7
5.0
9.8
6.7
0.46
0.46
0.43
0.63
0.66
0.61
3.0
3.0 
4.5 
IKB Deutsche Industriebank 
-5.2 
-0.9 
-78.4
-5.2
-0.9
-78.4
0.15
0.62
0.63
0.15
0.62
0.63
0
0 
0 
Postbank 
8.9 
12.7 
8.5
8.9
12.7
8.5
1.46
1.52
1.27
2.11
2.22
1.73
2.6
2.6 
4.2 
Germany average 
5.1 
9.5 
8.4
5.1
9.5
8.4
0.48
0.75
0.72
0.53
0.87
0.83
4.0
4.1 
5.2 
 
 
P/BV 2009e (x) vs. ROE 2009e (%) 
P/E 2009e (x) vs. Price/NAV 2009e (x) 
P/E 2009e (x) vs. EPS growth 2008e/09e (%) 
Aareal Bank
comdirect bank 
AG
Commerzbank
Deutsche Bank
Hypo Real 
Estate Group
Postbank
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0
5
10
15
20
ROE 2009e (%)
P/BV 2009e (x)
Aareal Bank
comdirect bank 
AG
Commerzbank
Deutsche Bank
Hypo Real 
Estate Group
Postbank
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Price/NAV 2009e (x)
P/E 2009e (x)
Aareal Bank
comdirect bank 
AG
Commerzbank
Deutsche Bank
Hypo Real 
Estate Group
Postbank
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-80
-30
20
70
120
EPS growth 2008e/09e (%)
P/E 2009e (x)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 49
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Capital Goods

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 50
ESG overview – Capital Goods  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
WSU GR (B,C)
SNG GR (H,D)
RAA GY (B,D)
IWK GR (B,D+)
KRN GR (B,C)
SKB GR (B,D)
JUN3 GR (B,D)
GIL GR (B,D-)
G1A GR (B,D+)
D9C GR (B,D)
JEN GY (B,D)
MAN GR (B,C-)
HDD GR (H,C+)
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
HDD GR
(H,C+)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
The Capital Goods sector scores below the ESG Leaders territory with an average ESG sector score of -2.9. The environmental 
score (-3.5) seems to be dragging the sector score downwards relative to the slightly better Social & Governance performance (-2.6).
Overall, only 8% of stocks are able to obtain a Prime status, which would only include Heidelberger Druck (Hold, C+). We 
highlight that there is no negative ESG/risk relationship within this sector. Using the general portfolio ESG risk-adjustment 
variables and taking into account stock specific ESG ratings, the ESG risk adjustment for the sector has been determined at
28.3 bps. The overall impact of these ESG risk adjustments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of -4.7% 
for the overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point of view, there are no top tier rated ESG stocks (A+B) with contributions
of C and D rated stocks 60.5% and 39.5%, respectively. Risk-adjusted performance (Sharpe ratio) for Prime stocks has been
determined to be 76.5% lower relative to the sector benchmark based on our ESG efficient frontier analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
While April 2008 still brought a record order intake that clearly surpassed expectations, in May and June, the German engineer-
ing sector finally felt the impact of the strong global economic slowdown. After a nominal 10% decline in May, order intake in
June was down a nominal 4% versus the strong year-ago month. Sales in the sector were, as expected, up strongly again 
(+12% in June after a nominal 7% growth in May). The growth expectations for 2008 will probably be met in full; the risks have,
however, increased for 2009. We are maintaining our overweight rating for the sector, despite rising risks. The vast majority of 
engineering companies in our coverage continues to report good demand. Overall, however, we think the valuation of numerous
stocks is attractive, especially since – as things stand today – many companies are expected to report further earnings growth. 
We prefer stocks with expected stable growth prospects, for instance in food & beverage and energy-related industries, which 
are less exposed to cyclical fluctuations and currency risks. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
Heidelberger 
Druck 
(Hold,C+) 
Disappointing sales and earnings in Q1/08 
Loss of confidence after several profit 
warnings 
+ environmental data for various resource consump-
tions and emissions 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
Singulus 
(Hold,D) 
Solid order intake in H1/08 
High forecast uncertainties 
- lack of transparency with respect to implementation of 
a strategy for addressing climate change and related 
sector-specific risks 
Demag 
Cranes AG 
(Buy,D) 
Excellent Q3 figures, clearly above expecta-
tions 
Sustained strong earnings in coming 
quarters 
- lack of transparency regarding measures to improve 
health and safety aspects of products 
WashTec 
(Buy,C) 
Clear world market leader 
Further development in the regional 
growth areas 
- no detailed information regarding life cycle assess-
ments of products 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 51
ESG rating overview – Capital Goods 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
C+
5.6%
C
22.2%
C-
5.6%
D+
11.1%
D
50.0%
D-
5.6%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
Environmentally, the Capital Goods group came out with an overall bad score: 92% of the companies fell into the Environmental
Laggards category with the group’s average well into Laggard territory. Top Environmental Leader is Heidelberger Druck (B-), 
with its key strength of monitoring and providing environmental data for various resource consumptions and emissions. The
companies at the bottom of the Laggards ladder are characterized by weaknesses such as providing limited information on
environmental issues especially product life cycles (Demag Cranes AG (D-) and Rational (D-)) or non-transparent approaches 
to environmental measures and management such as in the case of GILDEMEISTER (D-) with Koenig & Bauer (D-), also 
portraying some other weaknesses. 
Social & Governance review 
The social score of the group is also very poor. Again, 92% of the Capital Goods companies we analyzed are in the Soc. & Gov.
Laggards category, yet the group average is slightly better (but still in Laggards territory) than its environmental scoring. Best
within the Laggard category is WashTec (C+), showing a group-wide policy on ensuring freedom of association as a key 
strength. Again, most of the companies at the bottom suffer in scoring due to weaknesses regarding transparency about
labor/health/safety issues and management (GILDEMEISTER (D), Jungheinrich (D) or Singulus (D)) or regarding measures 
how to improve the health and safety aspects of their products (Demag Cranes AG (D)). 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
Heidelberger Druck 
(B-) 
+ environmental data for various resource 
consumptions and emissions 
WashTec  
(C+) 
+ group-wide policy on ensuring freedom of association 
MAN  
(C) 
+ reasonable measures to reduce the 
energy/fuel consumption of products 
Heidelberger Druck 
(C) 
+ reasonable measures implemented to improve health and  
safety aspects of products 
Krones  
(C-) 
+ reasonable measures to reduce energy 
consumption of products 
Krones  
(C) 
+ majority of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
Demag Cranes AG 
(D-) 
– No information regarding life cycle 
assessments of products 
Demag Cranes AG 
(D) 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to improve health and 
safety aspects of products 
GILDEMEISTER  
(D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding the 
implementation of environmental manage-
ment systems 
GILDEMEISTER 
(D) 
– lack of transparency regarding supplier standards with regard to 
labor/health, safety and environmental issues 
Koenig & Bauer  
(D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to 
reduce raw material use in production 
Jungheinrich  
(D) 
– lack of transparency regarding health and safety management and 
data 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 52
ESG overview charts – Capital Goods 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
MAN GR
JUN3 GR
GIL GR
SKB GR
KRN GR
G1A GR
IWK GR
RAA GY
JEN GY
WSU GR
D9C GR
SNG GR
HDD GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
HDD GR
KRN GR
WSU GR
MAN GR
G1A GR
IWK GR
JEN GY
D9C GR
JUN3 GR
SKB GR
RAA GY
SNG GR
GIL GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
HDD GR
MAN GR
KRN GR
WSU GR
JEN GY
G1A GR
JUN3 GR
IWK GR
D9C GR
GIL GR
SKB GR
RAA GY
SNG GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
WSU GR
HDD GR
KRN GR
MAN GR
JEN GY
G1A GR
SKB GR
IWK GR
RAA GY
D9C GR
GIL GR
JUN3 GR
SNG GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
HDD GR
KRN GR
WSU GR
MAN GR
G1A GR
IWK GR
RAA GY
D9C GR
JUN3 GR
SKB GR
JEN GY
SNG GR
GIL GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
6.48
1.36
5.96
1.38
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 53
ESG sector composites overview – Capital Goods 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HDD GR 
Heidelberger Druck Hold 
C+ 
14.3
-5.1
3.8 
9.7 
9.6
15.1
13.0
13.1
-14.1
-13.4
-23.0 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
KRN GR 
Krones 
Buy 
C 
-20.0
-5.1
3.8 
8.3 
8.4
44.0
73.0
72.1
65.9
63.9
55.5 
WSU GR 
WashTec 
Buy 
C 
-20.0
-5.1
3.8 
9.0 
9.1
9.8
13.0
12.8
33.3
31.7
22.6 
MAN GR 
MAN 
Buy 
C- 
-40.0
-5.1
3.8 
9.9 
10.1
55.1
106.0
103.6
92.3
87.8
77.7 
G1A GR 
GEA Group 
Buy 
D+ 
-60.0
-5.1
3.8 
9.2 
9.5
18.6
30.0
28.9
61.3
55.6
46.1 
IWK GR 
KUKA 
Buy 
D+ 
-60.0
-5.1
3.8 
9.5 
9.7
15.8
22.0
21.2
39.2
34.4
24.7 
JEN GY 
Jenoptik 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
3.8 
9.7 
10.1
4.7
6.5
6.2
39.8
33.4
23.4 
D9C GR 
Demag Cranes AG Buy 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
3.8 
9.0 
9.4
33.1
44.0
42.0
33.1
26.9
17.6 
JUN3 GR 
Jungheinrich 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
3.8 
9.5 
9.8
14.3
26.0
24.8
82.1
73.7
63.9 
SKB GR 
Koenig & Bauer 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
3.8 
9.5 
9.8
15.0
26.0
24.8
73.3
65.4
55.6 
RAA GY 
Rational 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
3.8 
8.5 
8.8
117.7
165.0
157.2
40.2
33.5
24.7 
SNG GR 
Singulus 
Hold 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
3.8 
10.8 
11.2
6.6
6.7
6.4
1.2
-3.2
-14.5 
GIL GR 
GILDEMEISTER 
Buy 
D- 
-100.0
-5.1
3.8 
9.5 
9.9
13.1
23.5
22.2
79.1
69.0
59.1 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
-0.34
-0.22
-0.09
0.03
0.16
0.28
0.40
0.53
0.65
0.78
0.90
1.03
1.15
1.28
1.40
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 1.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite C
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.23); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.75)
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 54
Performance – Capital Goods  
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%)
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
Demag Cranes AG 
EUR 
33.05 
39.4
21.0
19.2
-36.6
700 
-7.0
-1.0
7.3
14.4
-0.5
7.2
30.5 
41.2 
GEA Group 
EUR 
18.60 
28.1
18.1
51.1
-2.8
3,422 
-11.2
-19.3
-17.2
-20.5
-4.7
-11.2
6.0 
6.3 
GILDEMEISTER 
EUR 
13.12 
23.2
11.1
76.7
-15.2
568 
-28.1
-36.4
-20.0
-29.5
-21.6
-28.2
3.2 
-2.8 
Heidelberger Druck 
EUR 
15.14 
32.7
10.4
115.7
-31.1
1,182 
5.1
11.9
-49.1
-34.4
11.6
20.1
-25.9 
-7.6 
Jenoptik 
EUR 
4.65 
7.3
3.8
56.3
-18.1
242 
-19.0
-9.2
-33.7
-22.0
-12.5
-1.0
-10.4 
4.8 
Jungheinrich 
EUR 
14.28 
37.1
14.3
159.5
0
486 
-18.8
-21.8
-50.9
-47.1
-12.3
-13.6
-27.7 
-20.3 
Koenig & Bauer 
EUR 
15.00 
26.3
14.9
75.3
-0.9
243 
-14.6
-23.6
-39.0
-22.5
-8.1
-15.5
-15.8 
4.3 
Krones 
EUR 
43.99 
64.5
42.7
46.6
-3.0
1,390 
-14.4
-18.5
-19.9
-19.8
-7.9
-10.3
3.3 
7.0 
KUKA 
EUR 
15.80 
30.8
14.7
94.8
-7.2
420 
-2.0
-23.3
-44.4
-39.4
4.5
-15.1
-21.2 
-12.6 
MAN 
EUR 
55.13 
124.1
55.1
125.0
0
8,163 
-19.5
-34.9
-43.5
-51.7
-13.0
-26.7
-20.3 
-24.9 
Rational 
EUR 
117.70 
159.1
108.8
35.1
-7.6
1,338 
8.2
-14.2
-8.9
-17.5
14.7
-6.0
14.4 
9.2 
Singulus 
EUR 
6.62 
11.3
5.7
70.7
-13.7
245 
12.2
-14.5
-26.8
-3.8
18.7
-6.3
-3.5 
23.0 
Washtec 
EUR 
9.8 
14.2
8.0
45.5
-18.2
148 
-5.4
-6.3
-26.7
-13.0
1.1
1.9
-3.5 
13.8 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
77.2
-11.3
  
-9.1
-17.1
-28.8
-24.5
-2.6
-8.9
-5.6 
2.3 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-5.4
12.2
8.2
-19.0
-2.0
-14.4
-7.0
-19.5
-28.1
5.1
-11.2
-18.8 -14.6
-40
-20
0
20
40
Demag Cranes
AG
GEA Group
GILDEMEISTER
Heidelberger
Druck
Jenoptik
Jungheinrich
Koenig & Bauer
Krones
KUKA
MAN
Rational
Singulus
Washtec
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
18.7
14.7
-12.5
-21.6
-4.7
-0.5
-8.1
11.6
-13.0
-12.3
4.5
-7.9
1.1
-40
-20
0
20
40
Demag Cranes
AG
GEA Group
GILDEMEISTER
Heidelberger
Druck
Jenoptik
Jungheinrich
Koenig & Bauer
Krones
KUKA
MAN
Rational
Singulus
Washtec
-22.0
14.4
-51.7
-20.5 -29.5
-34.4
-22.5
-47.1
-39.4
-17.5
-19.8
-3.8
-13.0
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
Demag Cranes
AG
GEA Group
GILDEMEISTER
Heidelberger
Druck
Jenoptik
Jungheinrich
Koenig & Bauer
Krones
KUKA
MAN
Rational
Singulus
Washtec
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 55
Valuation overview – Capital Goods  
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
Demag Cranes AG 
26.5 
8.2 
7.5
-75.5
12.3
10.9
1.00
0.70
0.60
9.2
5.0
4.4
13.2
6.1 
5.3 
GEA Group 
16.5 
10.2 
9.0
12.1
7.6
7.1
0.85
0.64
0.57
8.7
6.0
5.4
10.5
7.1 
6.1 
GILDEMEISTER 
13.2 
7.1 
6.2
7.7
6.6
6.6
0.55
0.38
0.33
5.4
3.6
3.1
6.8
4.3 
3.7 
Heidelberger Druck 
17.8 
47.6 
15.3
10.1
7.9
5.8
0.83
0.46
0.42
7.8
7.0
5.0
11.4
15.2 
8.5 
Jenoptik 
-46.2 
15.0 
10.0
13.9
4.7
4.1
1.09
0.73
0.64
8.1
5.5
4.7
16.1
10.3 
8.1 
Jungheinrich 
12.2 
5.5 
5.4
7.9
3.6
3.5
0.48
0.23
0.21
5.3
2.7
2.5
6.9
3.6 
3.3 
Koenig & Bauer 
8.7 
5.1 
5.4
4.1
2.5
2.5
0.26
0.16
0.15
3.9
2.3
2.2
6.9
3.8 
3.8 
Krones 
16.1 
10.7 
9.4
10.7
7.3
6.7
0.77
0.57
0.50
8.4
5.8
4.9
11.1
7.4 
6.1 
KUKA 
5.7 
8.8 
7.1
8.6
6.4
5.0
0.46
0.27
0.23
6.0
3.5
2.9
8.3
4.7 
3.7 
MAN 
12.1 
5.1 
5.0
20.4
4.3
4.1
0.91
0.38
0.33
6.3
2.7
2.3
7.4
3.1 
2.7 
Rational 
26.8 
17.7 
14.2
29.2
19.1
15.3
4.79
3.33
2.84
16.5
11.5
9.3
17.4
12.1 
9.7 
Singulus 
211.4 
137.1 
15.7
15.4
7.9
5.6
1.51
1.14
0.81
15.4
6.5
4.5
314.7
23.4 
8.8 
Washtec 
17.2 
7.9 
6.7
11.0
5.6
5.0
0.99
0.65
0.55
7.7
5.0
4.1
9.6
6.2 
5.0 
Germany average 
13.9 
9.3 
7.9
9.9
5.8
5.2
1.12
0.74
0.63
7.2
4.2
3.6
10.3
5.9 
4.9 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
Demag Cranes 
AG
GEA Group
GILDEMEISTER
Heidelberger 
Druck
Jenoptik
Jungheinrich
Koenig & Bauer
Krones
KUKA
MAN
Singulus
Washtec
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
Demag Cranes 
AG
GEA Group
GILDEMEISTER
Jenoptik
Jungheinrich
Koenig & Bauer
Krones
KUKA
MAN
Rational
Washtec
0
20
40
60
80
7
8
9
10
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
Heidelberger Druck
0.89
1.11
0.63
0.74
1.12
1.10
1.01
0.83
0.71
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e
X
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 56
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chemicals

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 57
ESG overview – Chemicals  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
ALT GY (H,C-)
BAS GR (B,B-)
BAY GR (B,C+)
WAS GR (B,D-)
I7N GR (B,D)
SDF GR (B,C)
KWS GR (B,D)
LXS GR (H,C)
LIN GR (B,B-)
NTG (H,C-)
SY1 GY (B,C+)
WCH GY (H,C+)
GKR GR (H,C-)
Sector
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
BAS GR
(B,B-)
LIN GR
(B,B-)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
The Chemicals sector scores slightly below the ESG Leaders territory with an average ESG sector score of -1.1. Social & 
Governance scores (-1.8) seem to be dragging the average score downwards relative to the sector’s slightly better environ-
mental performance (-1.0). Given the overall low scores, only 15% of stocks are able to obtain a Prime status, which includes
BASF SE (Buy, B-) and Linde (Buy, B-). The average relative ESG risk adjustment to the cost of equity for the sector has been 
determined at -7.8% with a 100% ESG confidence level. Adjusting these findings to stock specific ESG ratings yields an
average ESG risk adjustment of 19.1 bp for this sector. The overall impact of these ESG risk adjustments on our target prices
translates into an upside adjustment of 1.8% for the overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point of view, top tier rated ESG
stocks (B) contribute an average 51.3% to the overall sector performance with risk-adjusted performance (Sharpe ratio) for 
Prime stocks being 21.6% lower relative to the sector benchmark based on our ESG efficient frontier analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
The global volume growth is declining, but is still in positive territory. The US chemical market is shrinking, the European
chemical production might be only +1% in 2008. The global growth driver is Asia, where no signs of lower growth rates are
visible. The capacity utilization of the chemical industry is good. This is a precondition to increase prices steeply, which is
necessary to transfer the massive raw material cost increase as a consequence of the higher oil price. In this regard, Q3/08 will
be very difficult. Seasonally, the demand is weak and it will be difficult to increase prices without any time lag to the q-o-q 
significantly higher raw material costs. We see an increasing risk that companies have to reduce their earnings guidance. FY 2009
consensus EPS estimates are still on par with this year’s level. We assume that the estimates will come down, which might
burden the sentiment towards the sector. Investors will probably focus on companies that are known for their resistance to an
economic downturn (industrial gases, agro, hybrids). A big plus for the sector is its strong cash flow and high dividend yield. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
BASF SE 
(Buy,B-) 
E&P will earn significantly more in 2009 
Market understands the high leverage 
of E&P 
+ good measures regarding product safety information 
and training for customers 
Linde 
(Buy,B-) 
Largest gases company after acquisition of BOC 
Solid performance in spite of poor 
environment 
+ comprehensive policy on equal opportunities and non-
discrimination 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
ALTANA 
(Hold,C-) 
Market leadership expansion in high-margin 
niches 
Impending acquisitions delayed due to 
peak multiples 
- lack of transparency regarding guidelines and 
measures regarding the sustainable extraction of 
renewable raw materials 
Graphit 
Kropfmühl 
(Hold,C-) 
Well positioned in both segments 
New capacities have started 
successfully 
- No human rights policy implemented 
Lanxess 
(Hold,C) 
Lower end of the outlook means falling earnings 
Comments about the 2009 earnings 
trends 
- lack of transparency regarding guidelines and 
measures concerning the responsible use of 
nanotechnology 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 58
ESG rating overview – Chemicals 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
B
9.1%
B-
9.1%
C+
13.6%
C
36.4%
C-
13.6%
D
13.6%
D-
4.5%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research  
Environmental review 
Just 38% of the companies from the Chemicals sector we analyzed made it into the Environmental Leaders category. Mainly
due to the low scores of Environmental Laggards, the group average score ended up in Environmental Laggards territory. BASF SE (B)
came out on top with its key strength strategic implementation for addressing the so-called climate change and sector-specific 
risks. With key weaknesses as of ItN Nanovation (D-) being the lack of implementing an environmental management system
and of H&R WASAG (D-) being a lack the transparency regarding this system, we consider them worst scorers in this category.
Social & Governance review 
On the Social & Governance front, our analyzed companies scored badly. The vast majority (92%) rank as Soc. & Gov. Lag-
gards, yet most still scored above the sector average. Linde (C+), having as one of its key strengths a group-wide implementa-
tion of an integrated health, safety and environment system, is classified as top Social & Governance Leader. Due to H&R
WASAG (D-) key weakness of not providing public information about its social and ethical issues policies, the company ended
up at the very bottom of the Laggards category. Second-worst is KWS SAAT AG (D), with a key weakness being its poor 
transparency with regards to its health and safety management. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
BASF SE  
(B) 
+ group-wide implementation of a strategy for 
addressing climate change and related 
sector-specific risks 
Linde  
(C+) 
+ group-wide implementation of an integrated health, safety and 
environment system 
Bayer  
(B-) 
+ group-wide implementation of a strategy for 
addressing climate change and related 
sector-specific risks 
ALTANA  
(C) 
n/a 
Linde  
(B-) 
+ detailed sustainability reporting following 
GRI guidelines 
BASF SE  
(C) 
+ good measures regarding product safety information and training 
for customers 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
H&R WASAG  
(D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding the 
implementation of environmental manage-
ment systems 
H&R WASAG  
(D-) 
– very limited information on social and ethical issues publicly 
available 
ItN Nanovation  
(D-) 
– No environmental management system 
implemented 
KWS SAAT AG  
(D) 
– lack of transparency regarding health and safety management and 
data 
KWS SAAT AG  
(D) 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to 
increase transport efficiency 
ItN Nanovation 
(D+) 
– lack of transparency regarding standards of business ethics 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 59
ESG overview charts – Chemicals 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
I7N GR
SDF GR
NTG
BAS GR
SY1 GY
KWS GR
WAS GR
LIN GR
BAY GR
WCH GY
LXS GR
ALT GY
GKR GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
BAS GR
LIN GR
BAY GR
SY1 GY
WCH GY
SDF GR
LXS GR
ALT GY
NTG
GKR GR
I7N GR
KWS GR
WAS GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
BAS GR
BAY GR
LIN GR
WCH GY
SY1 GY
SDF GR
LXS GR
ALT GY
NTG
GKR GR
KWS GR
WAS GR
I7N GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
LIN GR
ALT GY
BAS GR
SDF GR
LXS GR
SY1 GY
BAY GR
NTG
WCH GY
GKR GR
I7N GR
KWS GR
WAS GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
BAS GR
LIN GR
BAY GR
WCH GY
SY1 GY
SDF GR
LXS GR
GKR GR
ALT GY
NTG
KWS GR
I7N GR
WAS GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
3.87
0.87
4.26
0.94
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 60
ESG sector composites overview – Chemicals 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BAS GR 
BASF SE 
Buy 
B- 
28.6
-7.8
100.0 
9.9 
9.7
37.6
52.0
53.4
38.3
42.0
32.3 
LIN GR 
Linde 
Buy 
B- 
28.6
-7.8
100.0 
8.4 
8.2
82.4
101.0
103.9
22.5
26.0
17.8 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
BAY GR 
Bayer 
Buy 
C+ 
14.3
-7.8
100.0 
9.5 
9.3
53.6
64.0
64.9
19.5
21.1
11.7 
SY1 GY 
Symrise 
Buy 
C+ 
14.3
-7.8
100.0 
8.6 
8.5
12.5
17.0
17.2
36.0
37.9
29.4 
WCH GY 
Wacker Chemie 
Hold 
C+ 
14.3
-7.8
100.0 
9.5 
9.3
113.0
134.0
135.8
18.5
20.1
10.8 
SDF GR 
K+S 
Buy 
C 
-20.0
-7.8
100.0 
8.5 
8.7
62.5
97.0
95.2
55.2
52.3
43.7 
LXS GR 
Lanxess 
Hold 
C 
-20.0
-7.8
100.0 
10.3 
10.5
23.4
28.0
27.5
19.7
17.6
7.1 
ALT GY 
ALTANA 
Hold 
C- 
-40.0
-7.8
100.0 
9.9 
10.2
11.0
11.0
10.6
-0.4
-3.8
-14.1 
NTG 
Nabaltec 
Hold 
C- 
-40.0
-7.8
100.0 
11.7 
12.1
3.8
6.0
5.8
57.1
51.9
39.8 
GKR GR 
Graphit Kropfmühl Hold 
C- 
-40.0
-7.8
100.0 
9.0 
9.3
18.5
18.3
17.6
-1.1
-4.7
-13.9 
I7N GR 
ItN Nanovation 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-7.8
100.0 
10.4 
11.0
5.1
10.0
9.3
97.2
84.1
73.1 
KWS GR 
KWS SAAT AG 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-7.8
100.0 
7.9 
8.4
111.2
162.0
150.2
45.7
35.0
26.7 
WAS GR 
H&R WASAG 
Buy 
D- 
-100.0
-7.8
100.0 
10.4 
11.2
16.7
24.0
22.0
43.7
32.0
20.8 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
-0.91
-0.87
-0.84
-0.80
-0.77
-0.73
-0.70
-0.66
-0.63
-0.60
-0.56
-0.53
-0.49
-0.46
-0.42
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite B
Composite C
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(1.16); Sharpe ratio Sector(1.47)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
5
10
15
20
25
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Researc

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 61
Performance – Chemicals  
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%)
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
ALTANA 
EUR 
11.04 
17.8
9.8
61.4
-11.7
1,550 
3.6
-5.6
-34.5
-33.5
10.1
2.5
-11.2 
-6.7 
BASF SE 
EUR 
37.61 
52.1
37.4
38.6
-0.7
35,580 
-6.3
-19.0
-15.3
-25.7
0.2
-10.8
8.0 
1.0 
Bayer 
EUR 
53.56 
65.4
45.6
22.0
-14.9
40,938 
-1.4
1.1
-0.4
-14.1
5.1
9.2
22.8 
12.6 
Graphit Kropfmühl 
EUR 
18.45 
24.5
11.8
32.8
-36.0
53 
-9.8
-2.9
20.0
33.9
-3.3
5.3
43.3 
60.7 
H&R WASAG 
EUR 
16.70 
26.0
11.3
55.7
-32.5
501 
0.2
12.9
-31.7
-18.1
6.7
21.1
-8.5 
8.7 
ItN Nanovation 
EUR 
5.07 
22.5
5.1
344.6
0
27 
-24.6
-37.3
-73.0
-74.0
-18.1
-29.1
-49.8 
-47.3 
K+S 
EUR 
62.48 
94.5
25.3
51.2
-59.5
10,309 
-12.4
-28.2
144.8
52.3
-5.9
-20.0
168.0 
79.1 
KWS SAAT AG 
EUR 
111.21 
175.3
108.5
57.6
-2.4
734 
-10.5
-36.1
-7.0
-21.5
-4.0
-27.9
16.3 
5.3 
Lanxess 
EUR 
23.40 
35.9
22.3
53.4
-4.9
1,947 
-14.4
-22.6
-30.5
-29.0
-8.0
-14.4
-7.3 
-2.2 
Linde 
EUR 
82.43 
96.5
80.4
17.1
-2.5
13,255 
-6.4
-12.5
2.4
-8.9
0.1
-4.3
25.6 
17.9 
Nabaltec 
EUR 
3.82 
15.1
3.8
296.3
0
31 
-13.2
-31.8
-74.3
-50.7
-6.7
-23.6
-51.0 
-23.9 
Symrise 
EUR 
12.50 
21.1
10.2
68.7
-18.8
1,477 
5.7
-16.6
-30.5
-34.2
5.7
-16.6
-30.5 
-7.4 
Wacker Chemie 
EUR 
113.0 
196.1
113.0
73.5
0
5,895 
-8.9
-19.9
-26.5
-42.4
-2.4
-11.8
-3.3 
-15.6 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
91.6
-15.3
  
-7.4
-16.6
-10.8
-18.6
-1.5
-9.0
10.5 
8.1 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-8.9
5.7
-13.2
0.2
-14.4
-10.5
3.6
-6.4
-1.4
-9.8
-6.3
-24.6
-12.4
-40
-20
0
20
ALTANA
BASF SE
Bayer
Graphit Kropfmühl
H&R WASAG
ItN Nanovation
K+S
KWS SAAT AG
Lanxess
LINDE
Nabaltec
Symrise
Wacker Chemie
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
-2.4
5.7
-6.7
6.7
5.1
0.2
10.1
-5.9
-3.3
0.1
-18.1
-8.0
-4.0
-40
-20
0
20
ALTANA
BASF SE
Bayer
Graphit Kropfmühl
H&R WASAG
ItN Nanovation
K+S
KWS SAAT AG
Lanxess
LINDE
Nabaltec
Symrise
Wacker Chemie
-42.4
-34.2
-50.7
-33.5 -25.7
-74.0
-29.0
-14.1
-18.1
52.3
-21.5
33.9
-8.9
-120
-80
-40
0
40
80
ALTANA
BASF SE
Bayer
Graphit Kropfmühl
H&R WASAG
ItN Nanovation
K+S
KWS SAAT AG
Lanxess
LINDE
Nabaltec
Symrise
Wacker Chemie
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 62
Valuation overview – Chemicals  
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
ALTANA 
17.1 
11.4 
11.8
11.2
7.3
7.4
2.90
1.16
1.11
16.1
5.9
5.8
24.0
8.0 
7.9 
BASF SE 
10.7 
8.3 
7.4
6.2
4.9
4.6
0.93
0.67
0.68
5.3
4.0
3.7
7.4
5.2 
4.7 
Bayer 
13.7 
12.1 
11.4
7.0
9.0
8.2
1.72
1.67
1.49
9.4
8.3
7.0
17.7
14.9 
11.0 
Graphit Kropfmühl 
22.1 
12.1 
12.2
7.9
6.9
6.6
0.81
0.86
0.82
8.6
7.2
7.2
14.2
10.2 
10.5 
H&R WASAG 
17.9 
13.3 
10.1
14.2
8.8
6.8
1.15
0.58
0.54
11.3
7.3
6.0
13.7
9.5 
7.6 
ItN Nanovation 
-13.7 
-2.5 
7.2
-15.0
-2.7
5.8
21.90
4.01
1.20
-16.7
-3.3
5.8
-15.0
-3.0 
7.2 
K+S 
25.2 
9.4 
6.1
14.7
8.3
5.6
1.64
2.13
1.57
37.1
6.9
3.9
-51.2
7.6 
4.1 
KWS SAAT AG 
20.6 
15.3 
15.3
17.9
11.0
10.9
1.43
1.22
1.09
9.7
8.2
7.5
12.1
10.1 
9.3 
Lanxess 
28.3 
8.6 
10.5
8.8
3.7
3.9
0.58
0.48
0.47
7.4
4.9
5.6
17.7
8.2 
10.4 
Linde 
14.6 
19.8 
16.6
8.0
7.1
6.7
1.69
1.57
1.45
6.8
7.9
7.2
11.8
14.8 
12.8 
Nabaltec 
 
21.4 
11.5
27.0
4.7
3.0
1.75
0.90
0.95
23.2
9.0
7.2
62.9
18.9 
13.8 
Symrise 
24.2 
14.3 
12.7
13.3
8.1
7.6
2.53
1.81
1.71
12.0
8.8
8.1
16.5
12.2 
11.2 
Wacker Chemie 
17.9 
10.9 
11.7
9.6
6.1
6.4
2.09
1.38
1.33
7.9
5.0
5.2
12.2
7.5 
8.0 
Germany average 
19.5 
12.0 
10.3
10.3
6.6
5.8
3.16
1.42
1.11
9.8
6.5
5.8
14.5
9.4 
8.1 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
ALTANA
BASF SE
Bayer
Graphit 
Kropfmühl
H&R WASAG
ItN Nanovation
K+S
KWS SAAT AG
Lanxess
LINDE
Nabaltec
Symrise
Wacker Chemie
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
ALTANA
BASF SE
Bayer
Graphit 
Kropfmühl
H&R WASAG
KWS SAAT AG
Lanxess
LINDE
Nabaltec
Symrise
Wacker Chemie
4
8
12
16
20
5
6
7
8
9
10
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
0.93
0.97
1.11
1.42
3.16
2.63
1.56
1.66
1.78
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e
X
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 63
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Construction & Materials

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 64
ESG overview – Construction & Materials  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
PFD4 GR (H,C-)
HEI GY (B,C+)
HOT GR (B,C)
GBF GR (B,D)
-35.0
-30.0
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
HEI GY
(B,C+)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
The Construction & Materials sector scores below the ESG Leaders territory with an average ESG sector score of -1.5. The 
environmental score (-1.5) is relatively lower to the Social & Governance one (-1.0), leaving 25% of stocks with a Prime invest-
ment status, which includes HeidelbergCement (Buy, C+). The average relative ESG risk adjustment to the cost of equity for
the sector is very high at -46.3% with a 100% ESG confidence level. Adjusting these findings to stock specific ESG ratings 
yields an average ESG risk adjustment of 146.3 bp for this sector. The overall impact of these ESG risk adjustments on our
target prices translates into an upside adjustment of -2.6% for the overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point of view, there 
are no top tier rated ESG stocks (A+B) with contributions of C and D rated stocks 86.3% and 13.7%, respectively. Risk-adjusted 
performance (Sharpe ratio) for Prime stocks has been determined to be 21.0% higher relative to the sector benchmark based on 
our ESG efficient frontier analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
German construction companies were not affected by the weak residential construction markets to the same extent as their
peers because the majority of their earnings stems from Australia, a country still profiting from the high demand for coal. Their 
exposure to UK and the US as well as residential construction markets is very small. German construction companies again
reported new order intake and their high order backlog should secure output for the mid-term. In our view, the outlook for the 
German construction companies should be more positive than the market is currently expecting as we assume the demand in
Australia will stay stable and Services activities will show growth. Hochtief should have solved the problems in Germany by the 
end of 2008. We believe the management of Bilfinger Berger that the write-down on one project is solely due to problems 
regarding this project. In our view, the market is currently too pessimistic about the outlook for the companies.  
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
Heidel-
bergCement 
(Buy,C+) 
Consolidation of Hanson 
Development of the US and UK markets + detailed and comprehensive code of conduct covering 
important aspects of business ethics 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
Pfleiderer 
(Hold,C-) 
Global no. 3 in engineered wood production 
Still unsatisfying operating business in 
Poland/NA 
– limited information on measures to improve the eco-
efficiency of products 
Bilfinger 
Berger 
(Buy,D) 
Services business: high-margin growth 
Acquisition in the Services business 
– lack of transparency regarding design guidelines to 
maximise energy efficiency of buildings and structures 
Hochtief 
(Buy,C) 
Leighton is an earnings driver 
Further order bookings in Australia 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to maximise 
health and safety of residents and users during the 
operation of buildings and structures 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 65
ESG rating overview – Construction & Materials 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
C+
16.7%
C
50.0%
C-
16.7%
D
16.7%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
Due to the worst scoring companies dragging down the average score, some 75% of the Construction and Materials companies
we analyzed are in the Environmental Laggards group. The best Environmental Leader in the sector can be identified as 
HeidelbergCement (C+), with one of its key strength being a comprehensive policy of measures that are aimed to reduce the
impact on the environment from its quarrying activities. Bilfinger Berger (D-) scored the worst with its key weakness being its 
poor transparency in respect of its design guidelines aimed to maximize energy efficiency of buildings and structures. 
Social & Governance review 
From a Social & Governance perspective, the sector is split evenly between Leaders and Laggards. Best social performers are 
Hochtief (C+) with its strength having taken comprehensive measures to ensure employee awareness of and compliance with
the code of business ethics and HeidelbergCement (C+) with its introduction of a detailed and comprehensive code of conduct 
related to its business ethics being a key strength. The worst social performers are Bilfinger Berger (D+) and Pfleiderer (D+), 
with key weaknesses being the lack of transparency regarding standards related to labor health and safety issues and poor 
information on customer and product responsibility issues. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
HeidelbergCement  
(C+) 
+ comprehensive policy and measures 
regarding the reduction of the environ-
mental impact of quarrying activities 
Hochtief  
(C+) 
+ comprehensive group-wide measures to ensure employee 
awareness of and compliance with the code of business ethics 
Hochtief  
(C) 
+ reasonable measures to minimize adverse 
effects on the natural environment during 
the construction phase 
HeidelbergCement 
(C+) 
+ detailed and comprehensive code of conduct covering important 
aspects of business ethics 
Pfleiderer  
(C) 
+ comprehensive measures to ensure use  
of recycled wood or wood from sustainable 
forests only 
Bilfinger Berger  
(D+) 
+ comprehensive group-wide value management system and 
compliance system to ensure fair business practices 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
Bilfinger Berger  
(D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding design 
guidelines to maximize energy efficiency  
of buildings and structures 
Bilfinger Berger  
(D+) 
– lack of transparency regarding supplier standards with regard to 
labor/health and safety issues 
Hochtief  
(C) 
– lack of transparency regarding the 
implementation of a policy on sustainable 
sourcing 
Pfleiderer  
(D+) 
– lack of information on customer and product responsibility issues 
Pfleiderer  
(C) 
– limited information on measures to improve 
the eco-efficiency of products 
Hochtief  
(C+) 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to maximize health and 
safety of residents and users during the operation of buildings and 
structures 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 66
ESG overview charts – Construction & Materials 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
HOT GR
HEI GY
GBF GR
PFD4 GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
HEI GY
HOT GR
PFD4 GR
GBF GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
HEI GY
HOT GR
PFD4 GR
GBF GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-4
-3
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
2
HOT GR
HEI GY
GBF GR
PFD4 GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
HEI GY
HOT GR
PFD4 GR
GBF GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
4.45
0.91
7.07
1.60
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 67
ESG sector composites overview – Construction & Materials 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HEI GY 
HeidelbergCement 
Buy 
C+ 
14.3
-46.3
100.0 
9.8 
9.2
75.0
93.5
101.4
24.7
35.3
26.1 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOT GR 
Hochtief 
Buy 
C 
-20.0
-46.3
100.0 
9.9 
10.8
49.5
80.0
72.3
61.8
46.2
35.3 
PFD4 GR 
Pfleiderer 
Hold 
C- 
-40.0
-46.3
100.0 
11.3 
13.3
9.6
11.0
9.1
15.2
-4.2
-17.6 
GBF GR 
Bilfinger Berger 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-46.3
100.0 
9.5 
13.0
44.2
70.0
49.1
58.5
11.3
-1.7 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
-8.58
-8.41
-8.25
-8.08
-7.91
-7.74
-7.58
-7.41
-7.24
-7.08
-6.91
-6.74
-6.58
-6.41
-6.24
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite C
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.87); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.72)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 68
Performance – Construction & Materials 
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%) 
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
Bilfinger Berger 
EUR 
44.16 
63.8
39.3
44.5
-10.9
1,643 
-10.1
-25.2
-22.3
-15.0
-3.6
-17.0
0.9 
11.8 
HeidelbergCement 
EUR 
74.95 
117.0
73.0
56.1
-2.7
9,668 
-5.1
-22.3
-28.0
-29.3
1.4
-14.1
-4.8 
-2.5 
Hochtief 
EUR 
49.45 
96.2
46.3
94.5
-6.4
3,462 
-10.9
-24.7
-31.5
-45.5
-4.4
-16.5
-8.2 
-18.7 
Pfleiderer 
EUR 
9.55 
18.8
7.5
96.9
-21.4
509 
0
-13.2
-43.0
-33.0
6.5
-5.0
-19.8 
-6.2 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
73.0
-10.3
  
-6.5
-21.3
-31.2
-30.7
-0.1
-13.1
-8.0 
-3.9 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-5.1
0.0
-10.9
-10.1
-20
-10
0
10
Bilfinger Berger
HeidelbergCement
Hochtief
Pfleiderer
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
-4.4
1.4
-3.6
6.5
-10
0
10
Bilfinger Berger
HeidelbergCement
Hochtief
Pfleiderer
-33.0
-45.5
-29.3
-15.0
-60
-40
-20
0
Bilfinger Berger
HeidelbergCement
Hochtief
Pfleiderer
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 69
Valuation overview – Construction & Materials  
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
Bilfinger Berger 
17.2 
9.9 
8.0
9.1
5.4
4.9
0.36
0.23
0.22
8.5
5.6
4.7
13.7
8.2 
6.8 
HeidelbergCement 
6.5 
3.6 
6.4
5.1
2.7
4.0
2.69
1.53
1.39
12.3
7.2
6.2
11.0
9.4 
8.2 
Hochtief 
37.4 
22.6 
19.2
11.7
7.1
6.6
0.36
0.28
0.30
13.7
7.4
7.3
48.5
14.9 
13.8 
Pfleiderer 
18.6 
20.4 
11.4
6.3
3.4
3.0
1.14
0.83
0.79
8.2
6.1
5.6
15.0
12.2 
10.2 
Germany average 
13.6 
8.5 
9.5
7.2
4.1
4.3
1.14
0.72
0.68
10.2
6.5
5.8
15.9
10.6 
9.1 
 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
Bilfinger Berger
Hochtief
Pfleiderer
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0
4
8
12
16
20
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
HeidelbergCement
Pfleiderer
0
4
8
12
16
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
Bilfinger Berger
Hochtief
HeidelbergCement
0.54
0.58
0.68
0.72
1.14
0.87
0.84
0.55
0.43
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e  
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 70
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Consumer Goods

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 71
ESG overview – Consumer Goods  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
PUM GR (H,B-)
ADS GR (B,C+)
HEN3 GR (B,B)
BEI GR (B,C)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
ADS GR
(B,C+)
HEN3 GR
(B,B)
PUM GR
(H,B-)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
The Consumer Goods sector scores well into ESG Leader territory with an average ESG sector score of 1.3. Both Environ-
mental (1.5) and Social & Governance (1.0) scores contribute to this positive achievement. With leading scores, 75% of
companies are able to obtain a Prime investment status with Henkel (Buy, B) and PUMA (Hold, B-) leading the way. We 
highlight that there is no negative ESG/risk relationship within this sector. Using the general portfolio ESG risk-adjustment 
variables and taking into account stock specific ESG ratings, the ESG risk adjustment for the sector has been determined at -7.5 bps. 
The overall impact of these ESG risk adjustments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of 1.1% for the
overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point of view, top tier rated ESG stocks (B) contribute an average 46.6% to the
overall sector performance with risk-adjusted performance (Sharpe ratio) for Prime stocks being 69.2% lower relative to the
sector benchmark based on our ESG efficient frontier analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
In 2008, the global sporting goods sector is projected to grow only very modestly by 1-2%, driven by strong growth in emerging 
markets, in particular Russia, Latin America and China, where the Summer Olympics provided an additional short-term catalyst. 
The demand for branded footwear and apparel in the euro zone is expected to show a slower top line growth in H2/2008, mostly
impacted by the lack of major sporting events. In North America and the UK, the sporting goods markets are expected to decline
in 2008 as a result of an ongoing weakness in most of the retail channels as well as lower overall consumer spending, which
seems to continue beyond 2008. The Japanese market for branded sporting goods appears to be stabilizing in the course of the
year, after clearing out inventories in the past two years. Nevertheless, unlike in earlier recession phases, the two major global
sporting goods groups are expected to remain on the growth track beyond 2008 and – despite higher marketing expenses and 
slight inflation of sourcing costs – are expected to improve their operating margins as well as their free cash flows. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
adidas 
(Buy,C+) 
Performance products are the growth drivers  
Gross and operating margin guidance 
upgraded 
+ reasonable measures to ensure that own and/or 
subcontractor sites have implemented adequate 
wastewater treatment 
Henkel 
(Buy,B) 
Major player in HPC and adhesives businesses Expected sale of ECOLAB should lift 
share price 
+ group-wide implementation of environment, health and 
safety standards and management systems 
PUMA 
(Hold,B-) 
Order backlog up 8.6% (currency neutral) end H1 
Challenging second half of 2008 
indicated 
+ detailed corporate guidelines covering important areas 
related to social responsibility, human rights, and 
health and safety 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
Beiersdorf 
(Buy,C) 
Leading cosmetics company with strong 
brands 
Margins should continue to recover 
– no supplier standards with regard to labour/health and 
safety issues 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 72
ESG rating overview – Consumer Goods 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
0.0
1.0
2.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
B
33.3%
B-
16.7%
C+
16.7%
C
33.3%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
Even though most of the Consumer Goods companies we analyzed scored below the group average, they all made it into the
Environmental Leaders category, thanks to the high score of the best environmental performer – Henkel (B). The company’s 
strength lies in its resource efficiency (in CO2 emissions, energy or water consumption, etc.), which has improved in recent years. Key 
strengths from the rest of the group lie in the presence of systems and environmental policies to monitor and measure resource
consumption or reduce environmental pollution (e.g. wastewater systems). 
Social & Governance review 
With respect to social issues, the majority (75%) of the companies we analyzed are Social & Governance Leaders. The group 
average is also in Leaders territory and all of the companies in that territory scored above average. Key strengths worth
highlighting are comprehensive risk assessments of products (Henkel (B-)), detailed guidelines covering areas such as human 
rights, social responsibility or health and safety (PUMA (B-)), and a focus on clear measures to check key suppliers’ compliance
with the company's labor/health and safety standards (adidas (B-)). Despite being categorized as a Social & Governance 
Leader, Beiersdorf (C-) is the worst social performer due to one of its key weakness being a lack of standards regarding
responsible advertising and data protection. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
Henkel  
(B) 
+ increase in resource efficiency in recent 
years, e.g., regarding CO2 emissions or 
energy and water consumption 
Henkel  
(B-) 
+ comprehensive risk assessment of products and ingredients 
Beiersdorf  
(C+) 
+ group-wide environmental policy 
adidas  
(B-) 
+ comprehensive measures to check compliance of key suppliers 
with the company's labor/health and safety standards 
adidas  
(C+) 
+ reasonable measures to ensure that own 
and/or subcontractor sites have implemented 
adequate wastewater treatment 
PUMA  
(B-) 
+ detailed corporate guidelines covering important areas related to 
social responsibility, human rights, and health and safety 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
Beiersdorf  
(C+) 
– lack of transparency regarding controversial 
ingredients 
Beiersdorf  
(C-) 
– no supplier standards with regard to labor/health and safety issues
adidas  
(C+) 
– lack of transparency on formal systems and 
strategies to address climate change 
Henkel  
(B-) 
– lack of transparency regarding customer information on 
controversial ingredients 
PUMA  
(C+) 
– lack of transparency regarding the 
consideration of environmental aspects in 
the procurement of raw materials, e.g., textiles 
adidas  
(B-) 
– violations of labor rights at suppliers' sites in recent years, e.g. in 
Indonesia 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 73
ESG overview charts – Consumer Goods 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
ADS GR
HEN3 GR
BEI GR
PUM GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
HEN3 GR
PUM GR
ADS GR
BEI GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
HEN3 GR
BEI GR
ADS GR
PUM GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
2
2
3
HEN3 GR
ADS GR
PUM GR
BEI GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
HEN3 GR
PUM GR
ADS GR
BEI GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
4.13
0.98
4.35
1.03
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 74
ESG sector composites overview – Consumer Goods 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HEN3 GR 
Henkel 
Buy 
B 
42.9
-5.1
0.0 
8.7 
8.5
26.3
30.0
30.8
14.0
17.1
8.6 
PUM GR 
PUMA 
Hold 
B- 
28.6
-5.1
0.0 
8.6 
8.4
206.4
205.0
208.7
-0.7
1.1
-7.3 
ADS GR 
adidas 
Buy 
C+ 
14.3
-5.1
0.0 
8.6 
8.5
37.1
48.8
49.2
31.6
32.8
24.3 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
BEI GR 
Beiersdorf 
Buy 
C 
-20.0
-5.1
0.0 
7.7 
7.7
40.6
46.0
45.4
13.3
11.8
4.1 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
0.94
1.00
1.07
1.14
1.20
1.27
1.33
1.40
1.47
1.53
1.60
1.67
1.73
1.80
1.87
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 1.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite B
Composite C
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.58); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.66)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
5
10
15
20
25
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 75
Performance – Consumer Goods  
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%) 
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
adidas 
EUR 
37.05 
50.9
35.0
37.5
-5.5
7,343 
-15.6
-15.2
-12.1
-27.3
-9.2
-7.0
11.2 
-0.5 
Beiersdorf 
EUR 
40.60 
56.5
37.7
39.2
-7.1
10,231 
2.4
-18.5
-14.4
-23.2
8.9
-10.4
8.8 
3.6 
Henkel 
EUR 
26.32 
39.8
23.0
51.0
-12.7
10,724 
-3.6
-9.6
-26.4
-31.4
2.9
-1.4
-3.2 
-4.6 
PUMA 
EUR 
206.39 
311.0
183.4
50.7
-11.1
3,308 
-8.6
-11.4
-29.2
-23.6
-2.1
-3.2
-5.9 
3.2 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
44.6
-9.1
  
-6.3
-13.7
-20.5
-26.3
0.1
-5.5
2.7 
0.4 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
2.4
-8.6
-3.6
-15.6
-20
-10
0
10
adidas
Beiersdorf
Henkel
PUMA
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
2.9
8.9
-9.2
-2.1
-20
-10
0
10
20
adidas
Beiersdorf
Henkel
PUMA
-27.3
-23.2
-31.4
-23.6
-40
-20
0
adidas
Beiersdorf
Henkel
PUMA
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 76
Valuation overview – Consumer Goods  
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
adidas 
15.9 
11.5 
9.3
11.7
8.7
7.2
1.11
0.92
0.83
9.9
7.8
6.5
12.1
9.3 
7.7 
Beiersdorf 
26.9 
18.4 
17.3
21.6
14.9
14.1
2.26
1.52
1.37
16.9
10.8
9.7
20.2
12.5 
11.2 
Henkel 
17.5 
6.3 
10.6
14.9
5.0
8.1
1.25
1.00
0.91
9.7
10.7
7.0
12.2
17.3 
8.6 
PUMA 
17.8 
12.2 
11.7
15.4
10.0
9.5
2.01
1.23
1.10
11.4
7.2
6.5
12.9
8.3 
7.6 
Germany average 
18.8 
10.5 
11.6
15.2
8.3
9.1
1.66
1.17
1.05
11.4
8.8
7.2
13.7
10.9 
8.5 
 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
adidas
Beiersdorf
Henkel
PUMA
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
8
10
12
14
16
18
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
Beiersdorf
Henkel
PUMA
0
10
20
30
40
4
6
8
10
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
adidas
1.14
1.11
1.05
1.17
1.66
1.54
1.37
1.38
1.13
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e
X
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 77
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Financial Services

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 78
ESG overview – Financial Services  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
IYP GR (H,D)
AWD.GR (H,D+)
DB1 GR (B,D+)
HXCI GR (H,D)
MLP GY (H,D)
MPC GR (B,D-)
A8A GR (B,D)
SGS GR (H,D)
Sector
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
 
 
 
No Prime Investment status companies available 
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
The Financial Services sector scores deeply into ESG Laggard territory with an average ESG sector score of -3.9. Environmental 
performance is close to the lowest score possible (-4.6) with Social & Governance performance slightly better (-2.6). Given the overall 
low ESG score, none of the companies are able to obtain a Prime investment status, but AWD (Hold, D+) and Deutsche Börse
(Buy, D+) show the highest ESG scores in the sector. The average relative ESG risk adjustment to the cost of equity for the
sector could not be determined due to a lack of Prime rated stocks. Using the general portfolio ESG risk-adjustment variables 
and taking into account stock specific ESG ratings, the ESG risk adjustment for the sector has been determined at 39.6 bps.
The overall impact of these ESG risk adjustments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of -5.8% for the 
overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point of view, there are no top tier rated ESG stocks with C rated stocks contributing
to all sector performance. Given the lack of Prime rated companies, no ESG efficient frontier analysis could be conducted. 
Strategic outlook 
In the exchange arena, two threats are weighing on stocks: Upcoming competition in cash markets and the fear that the cyclical
downturn will not only lead to lower trading volumes on cash markets, but also on derivative exchanges. We think that Deutsche
Börse with its comparably small exposure to the most cyclical – and potentially highly competitive – cash market is in a better 
position than its peers. In the financial distribution area, MLP, AWD and Aragon have high hopes for a year-end bonanza in 
investment fund sales as German retail investors have an incentive to invest their savings before year-end since any gains then 
will remain tax free. The sector is in a transition period: AWD has given up its independence and its new owner, Swiss Life, has 
also bought a 27% stake in MLP. The approach of the smaller competitor, Aragon, is different: The company grows by tying
independent brokers to its liability umbrella. The closed-end fund issuers MPC and HCI are expected to report strong equity
placements in H2 as pipelines are full and demand looks healthy. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
No Prime Investment status companies available 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
Cashlife 
(Hold,D) 
No incremental demand for life insurance funds Steeper yield curve 
– very limited information on social, ethical and 
environmental issues publicly available 
Interhyp 
(Hold,D) 
Growing brokerage market in Germany 
ING Direct offer at EUR 64 
– lack of transparency regarding the involvement in 
community projects related to, eg, education, poverty, 
minorities, and the environment 
AWD 
(Hold,D+) 
Squeeze-out planned for 2009 
Speculation on squeeze-out price 
– lack of transparency regarding standards of 
responsible marketing 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 79
ESG rating overview – Financial Services 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
D+
18.2%
D
72.7%
D-
9.1%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research  
Environmental review 
All of the analyzed companies from the Financial Services sector fell into the Environmental Laggards category. As most
received a very low score, the group average is also close to the bottom of the Laggards ladder. Some 44% of the companies
can be regarded as the best of the worst, such as AWD (D) with a key strength being its brokerage of financial products with an
investment focus on environmental protection or Deutsche Börse AG (D), due to the integration of environmental considerations
into its index products. The worst companies are HCI Capital (D-), MLP (D-), MPC Capital (D-), Aragon (D-) and Cashlife (D-), 
with key weaknesses to highlight lack of transparency regarding environmental management systems and environmental
performance indicators. 
Social & Governance review 
On a social level, the whole sector again fell in the Soc. & Gov. Laggards territory. The group average has slightly improved and
most of the companies scored above average. The highest score in the Laggards territory belong to AWD (C-), Deutsche 
Börse AG (C-), HCI Capital (C-), Aragon (C-) and Cashlife (C-), all of which show as key social strength of having a reasonable 
community involvement policy and management in place. Interhyp (D) and MPC Capital (D) can be found at the bottom in this 
category, their social weakness being lack of transparency regarding their involvement in community projects, e.g. education, 
poverty, minorities and the environment (Interhyp). There is also a lack of transparency of standards related to labor/health and
safety issues (MPC Capital). 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
Interhyp  
(D) 
n/a 
AWD  
(C-) 
+ reasonable community involvement policy and management 
AWD  
(D) 
+ brokerage of financial products with an 
investment focus on environmental protection 
Deutsche Börse AG 
(C-) 
+ reasonable community involvement policy and management 
Deutsche Börse AG 
(D) 
+ integration of environmental considerations 
into index products 
HCI Capital  
(C-) 
+ reasonable community involvement policy and management 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
HCI Capital  
(D-) 
– lack of transparency on formal systems and 
strategies to address climate change 
Interhyp  
(D) 
– lack of transparency regarding the involvement in community 
projects related to, e.g., education, poverty, minorities, and the 
environment 
MLP  
(D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding the 
implementation of environmental manage-
ment systems 
MPC Capital  
(D) 
– lack of transparency regarding supplier standards with regard to 
labor/health and safety issues 
MPC Capital  
(D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding environmental 
performance indicators 
MLP  
(D+) 
– lack of transparency regarding supplier standards with regard to 
labor/health and safety issues 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 80
ESG overview charts – Financial Services 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
DB1 GR
MPC GR
A8A GR
HXCI GR
MLP GY
AWD.GR
IYP GR
SGS GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
AWD.GR
DB1 GR
IYP GR
HXCI GR
MLP GY
A8A GR
SGS GR
MPC GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
IYP GR
AWD.GR
DB1 GR
HXCI GR
MLP GY
MPC GR
A8A GR
SGS GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-5
-4
-4
-3
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
AWD.GR
DB1 GR
HXCI GR
A8A GR
SGS GR
MLP GY
IYP GR
MPC GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites** 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
DB1 GR
AWD.GR
IYP GR
MLP GY
A8A GR
HXCI GR
SGS GR
MPC GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
4.13
0.98
4.35
1.03
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
*  averages are MCAP weighted;  
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
** Market Portfolio figures due to lack of Prime sector composite availability

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 81
ESG sector composites overview – Financial Services 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg t 
icker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N/A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
AWD.GR 
AWD 
Hold 
D+ 
-60.0
-5.1
NA 
9.9 
10.2
28.5
30.0
29.0
5.4
1.8
-8.4 
DB1 GR 
Deutsche Börse AG Buy 
D+ 
-60.0
-5.1
NA 
9.5 
9.7
63.4
110.0
106.2
73.4
67.4
57.7 
IYP GR 
Interhyp 
Hold 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
NA 
9.5 
9.8
64.3
64.0
61.1
-0.4
-5.0
-14.8 
HXCI GR 
HCI Capital 
Hold 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
NA 
10.4 
10.8
7.0
8.0
7.6
14.3
9.2
-1.6 
MLP GY 
MLP 
Hold 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
NA 
9.9 
10.3
13.1
14.0
13.4
7.3
2.4
-7.9 
A8A GR 
Aragon 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
NA 
9.9 
10.3
26.0
30.0
28.6
15.6
10.4
0.1 
SGS GR 
Cashlife 
Hold 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
NA 
11.3 
11.7
3.6
3.0
2.9
-16.4
-20.0
-31.8 
MPC GR 
MPC Capital 
Buy 
D- 
-100.0
-5.1
NA 
9.9 
10.4
25.1
43.0
40.6
71.7
62.1
51.7 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x )* 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%)* 
-0.67
-0.64
-0.61
-0.58
-0.55
-0.52
-0.49
-0.46
-0.43
-0.40
-0.37
-0.33
-0.30
-0.27
-0.24
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.68); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.56)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
5
10
15
20
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
* Market portfolio data due to lack of Prime/Not Prime composites  
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 82
Performance – Financial Services  
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%) 
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
AWD 
EUR 
28.45 
32.4
17.6
13.9
-38.0
1,099 
33.1
-8.2
21.6
-3.3
39.6
0
44.8 
23.5 
Aragon 
EUR 
25.95 
31.0
15.8
19.4
-39.1
161 
-3.1
27.8
-10.5
0.6
3.4
36.0
12.7 
27.4 
Cashlife 
EUR 
3.59 
14.5
1.6
303.3
-56.5
31 
17.7
4.1
-75.3
-53.4
24.2
12.2
-52.1 
-26.6 
Deutsche Börse AG 
EUR 
63.42 
135.0
60.1
112.9
-5.2
12,367 
-11.2
-20.8
-18.3
-53.0
-4.7
-12.6
4.9 
-26.3 
HCI Capital 
EUR 
7.00 
16.0
6.7
128.4
-4.3
168 
-6.3
-30.5
-52.2
-52.9
0.2
-22.3
-29.0 
-26.1 
Interhyp 
EUR 
64.26 
84.0
37.8
30.6
-41.1
418 
-0.8
1.8
-22.4
28.4
5.7
10.0
0.8 
55.2 
MLP 
EUR 
13.05 
14.0
8.1
6.9
-38.3
1,407 
8.0
16.8
21.4
20.8
14.5
25.0
44.7 
47.6 
MPC Capital 
EUR 
25.05 
62.9
25.1
151.1
0
304 
-18.9
-35.4
-57.3
-59.6
-12.4
-27.2
-34.1 
-32.9 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
95.8
-27.8
  
2.3
-5.5
-24.1
-21.5
8.8
2.6
-0.9 
5.2 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-11.2
8.0
-0.8
-3.1
17.7
-18.9
33.1
-6.3
-40
-20
0
20
40
AWD
Aragon
Cashlife
Dt. Börse
AG
HCI Capital
Interhyp
MLP
MPC
Capital
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
39.6
3.4
-12.4
24.2
14.5
0.2
5.7
-4.7
-20
0
20
40
60
AWD
Aragon
Cashlife
Dt. Börse
AG
HCI Capital
Interhyp
MLP
MPC
Capital
28.4
-53.4
-53.0
-59.6
-52.9
-3.3
20.8
0.6
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
AWD
Aragon
Cashlife
Dt. Börse
AG
HCI Capital
Interhyp
MLP
MPC
Capital
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 83
Valuation overview – Financial Services  
 
P/E (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Price/book value (x) 
EPS growth (x) 
Net dividend yield (%) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
AWD 
19.1 
26.0 
22.8
11.6
16.8
15.1
17.6
18.9
18.9
49.1
-26.3
13.7
5.3
3.9 
4.4 
Aragon 
29.5 
13.6 
17.5
15.2
7.7
7.4
3.8
3.2
2.6
164.8
117.3
-22.2
0
0 
0 
Cashlife 
-11.1 
50.7 
81.5
40.5
20.6
19.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
-37.7
0
0 
0 
Deutsche Börse AG 
13.5 
11.4 
9.6
12.3
6.4
5.3
6.2
5.3
4.2
39.8
18.3
18.4
3.3
4.7 
5.7 
HCI Capital 
5.5 
214.6 
6.0
7.1
6.1
0.7
1.7
1.4
1.4
-22.5
-97.4
3,463.7
10.0
0 
8.6 
Interhyp 
23.1 
22.9 
15.9
15.7
13.7
9.3
11.6
10.9
10.0
32.1
0.9
43.6
6.4
4.3 
5.4 
MLP 
20.9 
20.5 
16.0
11.9
11.4
9.3
4.5
4.2
3.6
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.8
3.8 
4.6 
MPC Capital 
6.9 
8.1 
6.0
13.7
5.2
3.4
3.43
2.37
2.44
2.73
3.43
2.37
14.0
10.0 
12.4 
Germany average 
12.1 
18.2 
11.9
12.9
8.8
3.4
2.57
2.24
2.14
9.15
2.95
7.41
5.6
4.7 
6.0 
 
 
P/BV 2009e (x) vs. ROE 2009e (%) 
P/E 2009e (x) vs. EPS growth 2008e/ 09e (x) 
EV/EBIT 2008e (x) vs. CAGR EBIT 2006-2009e (%) 
AWD
Aragon
Cashlife
Dt. Börse AG
HCI Capital
Interhyp
MLP
MPC Capital
0
5
10
15
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
ROE 2009e (%)
P/BV 2009e (x)
AWD
Aragon
Cashlife
Dt. Börse AG
Interhyp
MLP
MPC Capital
0
20
40
60
80
100
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
EPS growth 2008e/09e (%)
P/E 2009e (x)
AWD
Aragon
Cashlife
Dt. Börse AG
HCI Capital
Interhyp
MLP
MPC Capital
0
5
10
15
20
25
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
CAGR EBIT (2006-2009e) (%)
EV/EBIT 2008e (x)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 84
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Insurance

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 85
ESG overview – Insurance  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
MUV2 GR (B,C)
HNR1 GR (B,D)
ALV GR (B,C+)
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
ALV GR
(B,C+)
MUV2 GR
(B,C)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
The Insurance sector scores into ESG Laggard territory with an average ESG sector score of -1.3. Social & Governance 
performance (-1.7) drags the overall sector score downwards given that its Environmental performance is slightly better (-1.0). 
The negative scores limit Prime rated stocks to 33% of total stocks within the sector, including only Allianz (Buy, C+). We 
highlight that there is no negative ESG/risk relationship within this sector. Using the general portfolio ESG risk-adjustment 
variables and taking into account stock specific ESG ratings, the ESG risk adjustment for the sector has been determined at
15.0 bp.The overall impact of these ESG risk adjustments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of 0.2% for 
the overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point of view, there are no top tier rated ESG stocks (A+B) with contributions of C
and D rated stocks 90.1% and 9.9%, respectively. Risk-adjusted performance (Sharpe ratio) for Prime stocks has been deter-
mined to be 41.7% higher relative to the sector benchmark based on our ESG efficient frontier analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
We expect a further deterioration of the environment for insurance companies in the short to mid-term, despite overall still
satisfying operating results in Q2/08. For the whole insurance business, weaker equity markets mean higher impairment needs
on investments and lower realized gains. More specifically, in the life insurance business, product demand typically decreases
during an economic downturn. In the property & casualty business, a softening cycle due to high competition will probably
burden combined ratios. The reinsurance sector is currently heading towards a softer cycle due to the still existing excess
capital in the market. For these reasons, we take a more cautious stance towards the overall insurance sector, despite attractive
valuation levels from a fundamental point of view. In contrast, we think that the long-term perspective is positive in particular for 
the life insurance business due to increasing retirement provisioning needs against the background of insufficient public pension
schemes for an aging population. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
Allianz 
(Buy,C+) 
High upside potential from a valuation point of 
view 
Operating and integration success of 
Commerzbank 
+ sound integration of environmental aspects into 
insurance and asset management business 
Munich Re 
(Buy,C) 
2008 guidance cut due to investments 
Stabilization of equity markets 
+ reasonable integration of environmental aspects into 
the primary insurance business 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
Hannover Re 
(Buy,D) 
Underwriting performance strong 
Capital market environment 
– lack of information on the integration of social and 
environmental aspects into the reinsurance business 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 86
ESG rating overview – Insurance 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
C+
25.0%
C
50.0%
D
25.0%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research  
Environmental review 
Regarding environmental issues, 66% of the Insurance companies we analyzed fell in the Environmental Leaders category. Due 
to the low score in the Laggards group, the group’s overall score falls into the Laggards category. The top performers are
Allianz (C+), with one of its key strength being sound integration of green standards into its insurance and asset management 
business and Munich Re (C+), also thanks to its good integration of environment-friendly standards into its primary insurance 
business. The worst performer is Hannover Re (D-), with a key weakness being its lack of transparency in formal systems and 
strategies to address climate change. 
Social & Governance review 
As for Social & Governance, all of the companies we analyzed belong to the Laggards category. Even though the majority of the
companies exceeded the average, the overall sector average ended up in Laggards territory. Top scorers in the Laggards
category are Allianz (C) and Munich Re (C), their main social weaknesses being, respectively, involvement in projects criticized
for having a weak human rights record and major controversies regarding business ethics in recent years, e.g. antitrust viola-
tions. The worst performer here is Hannover Re (D+), with one of its key weakness being a lack of transparency regarding the
standards of its business ethics. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
Allianz  
(C+) 
+ sound integration of environmental aspects 
into insurance and asset management 
business 
Allianz  
(C) 
+ detailed and comprehensive code of conduct covering important 
aspects of business ethics 
Munich Re  
(C+) 
+ reasonable integration of environmental 
aspects into the primary insurance business 
Munich Re  
(C) 
+ detailed and comprehensive code of conduct covering important 
aspects of business ethics 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
Hannover Re  
(D-) 
– lack of transparency on formal systems and 
strategies to address climate change 
Hannover Re  
(D+) 
– lack of transparency regarding standards of business ethics 
Allianz  
(C+) 
n/a 
Allianz  
(C) 
– involvement in projects criticized for low human rights records, e.g. 
TTM pipeline, BTC pipeline 
Munich Re  
(C+) 
n/a 
Munich Re  
(C) 
– major controversies regarding business ethics in recent years, e.g. 
concerning antitrust violations 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 87
ESG overview charts – Insurance 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ALV GR
MUV2
GR
HNR1 GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
ALV GR
MUV2 GR
HNR1 GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
ALV GR
MUV2 GR
HNR1 GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-4
-3
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
ALV GR
MUV2 GR
HNR1 GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
ALV GR
MUV2 GR
HNR1 GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
4.91
1.11
2.95
0.64
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 88
ESG sector composites overview – Insurance 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ALV GR 
Allianz 
Buy 
C+ 
14.3
-5.1
0.0 
9.9 
9.8
110.7
166.0
167.4
50.0
51.2
41.4 
MUV2 GR 
Munich Re 
Buy 
C 
-20.0
-5.1
0.0 
9.9 
10.0
104.8
136.0
134.4
29.8
28.3
18.3 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
HNR1 GR 
Hannover Re 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
0.0 
10.4 
10.8
27.5
36.0
34.4
30.9
25.1
14.3 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
3.31
3.35
3.39
3.43
3.47
3.51
3.55
3.59
3.63
3.67
3.71
3.75
3.79
3.83
3.88
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 1.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite C
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.45); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.32)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 89
Performance – Insurance  
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%)
Marketcap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
Allianz 
EUR 
110.70 
165.4
101.9
49.4
-7.9
50,075 
-4.6
-0.5
-23.7
-25.2
1.9
7.7
-0.5 
1.5 
Hannover Re 
EUR 
27.50 
37.2
25.2
35.3
-8.5
3,316 
-8.2
-18.9
-10.7
-13.3
-1.7
-10.7
12.5 
13.5 
Munich Re 
EUR 
104.75 
138.0
103.2
31.7
-1.5
21,786 
-5.1
-11.6
-13.3
-21.2
1.4
-3.4
9.9 
5.6 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
38.8
-6.0
  
-6.0
-10.3
-15.9
-19.9
0.5
-2.1
7.3 
6.9 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-4.6
-5.1
-8.2
-10
0
10
Allianz
Hannover
Re
Munich Re
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
1.9
-1.7
1.4
-10
0
10
Allianz
Hannover
Re
Munich Re
-13.3
-25.2
-21.2
-40
-20
0
Allianz
Hannover
Re
Munich Re
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 90
Valuation overview – Insurance  
 
P/E (x) 
Adj. P/E (x) 
Price/book value (x) 
Price/adj. book value (x) 
Net dividend yield (%) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
Allianz 
6.2 
12.6 
7.3
6.1
12.6
7.3
1.03
1.19
1.10
1.34
1.75
1.60
5.0
5.0 
6.3 
Hannover Re 
4.5 
6.7 
6.0
4.5
6.7
6.0
4.52
6.73
5.98
1.00
0.94
0.85
8.2
5.8 
6.4 
Munich Re 
5.9 
8.5 
7.0
5.9
8.5
7.0
0.83
0.86
0.71
0.91
0.95
0.78
5.3
5.3 
5.3 
Germany average 
5.4 
8.7 
6.7
5.4
8.7
6.7
1.25
1.39
1.21
1.05
1.12
0.97
5.8
5.3 
5.9 
 
 
P/BV 2009e (x) vs. ROE 2009e (%) 
P/E 2009e (x) vs. Price/NAV 2009e (x) 
P/E 2009e (x) vs. EPS growth 2008e/09e (%) 
Allianz
Hannover Re
Munich Re
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
ROE 2009e (%)
P/BV 2009e (x)
Allianz
Hannover Re
Munich Re
0
2
4
6
8
10
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Price/NAV 2009e (x)
P/E 2009e (x)
Allianz
Hannover Re
Munich Re
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
EPS growth 2008e/09e (%)
P/E 2009e (x)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 91
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Media

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 92
ESG overview – Media  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
PRE GF (B,D)
GFK GR (B,D+)
PSM GR (S,D-)
VIZ GR (B,D-)
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
 
 
 
No Prime Investment status companies available 
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
The sector scores deeply into ESG Laggard territory with an average ESG sector score of -4.3. Environmental performance is 
close to the lowest score possible (-5.0) with Social & Governance performance slightly better (-3.8). Given the overall low ESG
score, none of the companies are able to obtain a Prime investment status, but GfK (Buy, D+) and Premiere (Buy, D) show the 
highest ESG scores in the sector. The average relative ESG risk adjustment to the cost of equity for the sector could not be
determined due to a lack of Prime rated stocks. Using the general portfolio ESG risk-adjustment variables and taking into 
account stock specific ESG ratings, the ESG risk adjustment for the sector has been determined at 41.9 bps. The overall impact
of these ESG risk adjustments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of -5.6% for the overall sector. From an 
ESG style analysis point of view, there are no top tier rated ESG stocks with better rated C stocks contributing to the overall
sector performance. Given the lack of Prime rated companies, no ESG efficient frontier analysis could be conducted. 
Strategic outlook 
The short to mid-term outlook for German media is challenging. This is especially true for the print and free TV segment, as both
segments are facing increasing competition from online business. The European-wide economic downturn will definitely have a 
negative impact on the P&L of the companies. Both segments will suffer from lower advertising spending; the print segment will
additionally be hit by the expected negative trend in private consumption. The situation for pay-TV is different. This business in
Germany (and most other European countries) is still growing and has (therefore) not shown any significant correlation to
previous economic downturns. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
No Prime Investment status companies available 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
ProSieben 
Sat.1 Media 
(Sell,D-) 
No. 2 in European free TV 
Successful start of the new marketing 
model? 
– lack of transparancy regarding measures to reduce 
energy consumption in the production of media content
GfK (Buy,D+) No. 4 worldwide in market information 
Widely resistant to economic 
downturns 
– lack of transparency regarding a corporate policy on 
staff relations and labour standards 
Premiere 
(Buy,D) 
The long-term prospects for pay-TV are good 
Decision on BuLi rights in Q4/08 
– lack of transparency regarding the provision of media 
access for the disabled/elderly 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 93
ESG rating overview – Media 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
D+
14.3%
D
57.1%
D-
28.6%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
All the Media companies we analyzed had a very low score with respect to environmental issues. Consequently, all ended up as 
Environmental Laggards with worst scores possible for Premiere (D-), Vizrt (D-), ProSiebenSat.1 Media (D-) and GfK (D-). 
Most of the key weaknesses consist in a lack of transparency in the implementation of green facility management, measures to 
reduce energy consumption or providing limited information on measures to increase energy and resource efficiency of their IT
infrastructure. 
Social & Governance review 
From a Social and Governance point of view as well, all the companies we analyzed again are branded Laggards, with a slight
improvement on the average score compared to their environmental scoring (yet again most of them scored below that aver-
age). The best of the worst is GfK (C-), with one of its key strengths being the implementation of some measures to ensure data
privacy and security. On the flipside, the worst of the worst is Vizrt (D-) with one of its key weaknesses being a lack of transpar-
ency regarding a policy on equal opportunities and non-discrimination. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
Vizrt (D-) 
n/a 
GfK (C-) 
+ some measures taken to ensure data privacy and data security 
ProSiebenSat.1 
Media (D-) 
n/a 
ProSiebenSat.1 
Media (D) 
+ reasonable measures to protect minors from harmful media content 
GfK (D-) 
n/a 
Premiere (D) 
+ measures to protect minors from harmful media content 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
Vizrt (D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding the 
implementation of green facility manage-
ment 
Vizrt (D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding a policy on equal opportunities and 
non-discrimination 
ProSiebenSat.1 
Media (D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to 
reduce energy consumption in the production of 
media content 
ProSiebenSat.1 
Media (D) 
– no comprehensive policy regarding responsible marketing 
GfK  
(D-) 
– only limited information on measures to 
increase energy and resource efficiency  
of IT infrastructure 
Premiere  
(D) 
– lack of transparency regarding the provision of media access  
for the disabled/elderly 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 94
ESG overview charts – Media 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
VIZ GR
PRE GF
GFK GR
PSM GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
GFK GR
PRE GF
VIZ GR
PSM GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
VIZ GR
PSM GR
GFK GR
PRE GF
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
GFK GR
PSM GR
PRE GF
VIZ GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites** 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
GFK GR
PRE GF
VIZ GR
PSM GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
4.13
0.98
4.35
1.03
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
*  averages are MCAP weighted;  
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
**  Market Portfolio figures due to lack of Prime sector composite availability

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 95
ESG sector composites overview – Media 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N/A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
GFK GR 
GfK 
Buy 
D+ 
-60.0
-5.1
NA 
10.8 
11.1
25.3
29.0
28.0
14.8
10.9
-0.2 
PRE GF 
Premiere 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
NA 
9.5 
9.8
12.1
15.5
14.8
28.3
22.4
12.6 
VIZ GR 
Vizrt 
Buy 
D- 
-100.0
-5.1
NA 
9.5 
9.9
2.3
5.0
4.7
117.4
105.1
95.1 
PSM GR 
ProSiebenSat.1 
Media 
Sell 
D- 
-100.0
-5.1
NA 
9.5 
9.9
6.3
6.5
6.1
2.8
-3.0
-12.9 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x )* 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%)* 
-0.67
-0.64
-0.61
-0.58
-0.55
-0.52
-0.49
-0.46
-0.43
-0.40
-0.37
-0.33
-0.30
-0.27
-0.24
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite D
 
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.68); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.56)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
5
10
15
20
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
* Market portfolio data due to lack of Prime/Not Prime composites  
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 96
Performance – Media  
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%)
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
GfK 
EUR 
25.27 
30.1
19.7
18.9
-22.0
906 
4.5
-9.3
-12.5
-7.5
11.0
-1.1
10.7 
19.2 
Premiere 
EUR 
12.08 
16.8
9.6
39.1
-20.3
1,359 
3.8
-9.4
-19.5
-5.7
10.3
-1.2
3.8 
21.1 
ProSiebenSat.1 Media 
EUR 
6.32 
24.4
4.4
286.6
-30.7
1,383 
-2.3
-12.9
-68.9
-61.0
4.2
-4.8
-45.6 
-34.2 
Vizrt 
USD 
3.22 
7.7
3.2
139.1
0
194 
-28.0
-39.3
-57.8
-50.6
-21.6
-31.1
-34.6 
-23.8 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
120.9
-18.3
  
-5.5
-17.7
-39.7
-31.2
1.0
-9.5
-16.4 
-4.4 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
3.8
-28.0
-2.3
4.5
-40
-20
0
20
GfK
Premiere
ProSieben
Vizrt
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
4.2
10.3
11.0
-21.6
-40
-20
0
20
GfK
Premiere
ProSieben
Vizrt
-50.6
-61.0
-5.7
-7.5
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
GfK
Premiere
ProSieben
Vizrt
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 97
Valuation overview – Media  
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
GfK 
13.9 
12.4 
9.9
8.4
7.5
6.5
1.41
1.10
0.99
8.3
7.4
6.2
12.0
10.1 
8.1 
Premiere 
-27.6 
-11.8 
-46.6
34.6
-107.8
18.8
1.75
1.48
1.33
20.7
52.1
19.5
-164.5
-22.7 
-79.9 
ProSiebenSat.1 Media 
59.6 
7.3 
5.3
-112.0
32.4
12.9
3.18
1.51
1.43
16.5
7.3
6.3
22.4
9.3 
7.9 
Vizrt 
26.0 
11.7 
8.4
19.7
8.6
6.5
4.16
1.33
0.75
16.4
5.4
2.9
21.5
7.1 
3.6 
Germany average 
23.6 
9.9 
7.4
15.1
10.7
9.1
2.63
1.36
1.12
13.8
8.4
5.6
17.2
8.6 
5.7 
 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
GfK
Premiere
ProSieben
Vizrt
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
GfK
Premiere
ProSieben
Vizrt
-10
10
30
50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
2.27
2.63
1.36
1.12
1.75
2.11
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e
X
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 98
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pharmaceuticals & Biotech,  
Health Care

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 99
ESG overview – Pharmaceuticals & Biotech, Health Care  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
CLS1 GR (B,D)
SAZ GR (H,D)
MRK GR (B,C+)
RHK GR (B,C)
MKA GR (H,C-)
FME GR (H,C-)
BHS GR (H,D+)
FRE3 GR (H,C)
DRW3.GR 
(B,C+)
AFX GR (B,D)
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
DRW3.GR
(B,C+)
MRK GR
(B,C+)
RHK GR
(B,C)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
This sector scores into ESG Laggard territory with an average ESG sector score of -1.9. Average Environmental (-1.8) and 
Social & Governance (-1.7) scores are almost evenly distributed. Drägerwerk Pref. (Buy, C+) and Merck KGaA (Buy, C+) lead 
the Prime Investment status ranks with an overall 30% of stocks qualifying for it. We highlight that there is no negative ESG/risk
relationship within this sector. Using the general portfolio ESG risk-adjustment variables and taking into account stock specific ESG
ratings, the ESG risk adjustment for the sector has been determined at 18.0 bps.The overall impact of these ESG risk adjust-
ments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of -1.2% for the overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point of 
view, there are no top tier rated ESG stocks (A+B) with contributions of C and D rated stocks 76.2% and 23.8%, respectively.
Risk-adjusted performance (Sharpe ratio) for Prime stocks has been determined to be 41.7% higher relative to the sector 
benchmark based on our ESG efficient frontier analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
The outlook for the German health care sector (MedTech, hospital, pharmacy) remains good due to defensive characteristics in
non-cyclical markets with predictable growth. A worldwide trend seems to be, after a period of pent-up demand and build-up in 
health care facility capacity, an increase in capital spending and prices are on the agenda. Nearly all companies reported solid
Q2/08 results and are more optimistic for H2/08. The trigger for future performance is linked to reimbursement systems, new
product launches and the exposure to the USD. Not all MedTech stocks are immune to the economy because they are exposed
to consumer spending. But here as well the worst seems to be over, the investment restraints due to the subprime crises have
diminished. A further privatization wave should be under way In the hospital business. That said, together with the complete 
reimbursement of German hospitals in diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) from 2009 on, private hospital operators can increase
value further. The expected pharmacy liberalization in 2009 should have a positive impact on Celesio’s business. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
Drägerwerk 
Pref. 
(Buy,C+) 
Improving performance of Medical 
Further progress in the Medical 
division 
+ implementation of a certified environmental manage-
ment system at almost all major installations with 
significant environmental risks 
Merck KGaA 
(Buy,C+) 
LCD market momentum should decrease 
Positive results from the CLARITY 
study  
+ adequate standards on ethical design and transpar-
ency of clinical trials 
Rhön-
Klinikum 
(Buy,C) 
Integration of newly acquired clinics is going well 
Strong increase for adjusted net 
earnings in 2008 
+ reasonable environmental reporting 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
Fresenius 
Medical Care 
(Hold,C-) 
Good operating performance 
Investment with defensive qualities 
– major violations of labour rights at suppliers' sites in 
recent years, eg, in Turkey 
Fresenius 
SE (Hold,C) 
USD weakness weighs on sales and earnings 
Defensive characteristics 
– lack of transparency regarding the implementation of 
life cycle assessments 
Celesio 
(Buy,D) 
Operating trend expected to improve in H2/08 
Healthcare reforms in various countries 
– major controversies regarding business ethics in recent 
years, eg, concerning anti-competitive agreements 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 100
ESG rating overview – Pharmaceuticals & Biotech, Health Care 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-2.0
-1.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
C+
13.3%
C
40.0%
C-
13.3%
D+
6.7%
D
26.7%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
Some 30% of the Pharmaceutical and Biotech companies we analyzed came out as Environmental Leaders, 70% ended up in
the Environmental Laggards category. Due to this high percentage of Laggards, the group average was dragged down into 
negative territory with most of the companies scoring below average. The top Environmental Leader is Drägerwerk Pref. (B), 
showing its implementation of a certified environmental management system (at almost all its major installations that have 
significant environmental risks) as a key strength. At the other end are Curanum (D-), with a key weakness being a lack of 
integration of green standards into its services and also Celesio (D-), which has no data collection regarding resources con-
sumption and emissions. 
Social & Governance review 
The Social & Governance scoring is somewhat worse than the environmental one and only 10% of the companies made it into
the Leaders category. Nevertheless, despite the group average being in Laggards territory, half of the Leader rated companies 
scored above average. The best social performer is Merck KGaA (B-), with its adequate standards on ethical design and 
transparency of clinical trials being a key strength. Worst scores went to STADA (D), with no transparency regarding standards 
of responsible marketing and data protection being a key weakness for the company. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
Drägerwerk Pref.  
(B) 
+ implementation of a certified environmental 
management system at almost all major 
installations with significant environmental risks
Merck KGaA  
(B-) 
+ adequate standards on ethical design and transparency  
of clinical trials 
Rhön-Klinikum  
(C+) 
+ reasonable environmental reporting 
Drägerwerk Pref. 
(C) 
+ supplier standards regarding labor/health and safety issues 
Merck KGaA  
(C+) 
n/a 
Fresenius SE  
(C) 
+ reasonable measures implemented to improve health and safety 
aspects of products 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
Curanum  
(D-) 
– lack of integration of environmental aspects 
into services 
STADA (D) 
– lack of transparency regarding standards of responsible marketing 
and data protection 
Celesio  
(D-) 
– no data collection regarding resources 
consumption and emissions 
Carl Zeiss Meditec 
(D+) 
– lack of transparency regarding supplier standards with regard to 
labor/health and safety issues 
Carl Zeiss Meditec 
(D) 
– lack of transparency on formal systems and 
strategies to address climate change 
Marseille-Kliniken 
(D+) 
– lack of a policy covering staff relations and labor standards 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 101
ESG overview charts – Pharmaceuticals & Biotech, Health Care 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
MKA GR
DRW3.GR
MRK GR
AFX GR
SAZ GR
BHS GR
CLS1 GR
RHK GR
FRE3 GR
FME GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
DRW3.GR
MRK GR
FRE3 GR
RHK GR
FME GR
MKA GR
BHS GR
AFX GR
SAZ GR
CLS1 GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
DRW3.GR
RHK GR
MRK GR
FRE3 GR
FME GR
MKA GR
AFX GR
SAZ GR
BHS GR
CLS1 GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
MRK GR
DRW3.GR
FRE3 GR
BHS GR
RHK GR
FME GR
AFX GR
MKA GR
CLS1 GR
SAZ GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
MRK GR
DRW3.GR
FRE3 GR
RHK GR
FME GR
MKA GR
BHS GR
AFX GR
SAZ GR
CLS1 GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
3.51
0.66
2.97
0.62
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 102
ESG sector composites overview – Pharmaceuticals & Biotech, Health Care 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DRW3.GR 
Drägerwerk Pref. 
Buy 
C+ 
14.3
-5.1
0.0 
8.8 
8.7
41.7
52.0
52.5
24.8
25.9
17.2 
MRK GR 
Merck KGaA 
Buy 
C+ 
14.3
-5.1
0.0 
9.9 
9.8
78.4
95.0
95.8
21.2
22.2
12.4 
RHK GR 
Rhön-Klinikum 
Buy 
C 
-20.0
-5.1
0.0 
9.0 
9.1
22.7
25.0
24.7
10.2
8.9
-0.2 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
FRE3 GR 
Fresenius SE 
Hold 
C 
-20.0
-5.1
0.0 
8.8 
8.9
57.9
57.0
56.3
-1.6
-2.8
-11.6 
FME GR 
Fresenius Medical 
Care 
Hold 
C- 
-40.0
-5.1
0.0 
8.6 
8.7
38.2
38.0
37.1
-0.5
-2.9
-11.7 
MKA GR 
Marseille-Kliniken 
Hold 
C- 
-40.0
-5.1
0.0 
9.5 
9.6
8.3
11.5
11.2
38.9
35.6
26.0 
BHS GR 
Curanum 
Hold 
D+ 
-60.0
-5.1
0.0 
9.5 
9.7
3.7
4.2
4.1
14.8
10.8
1.0 
AFX GR 
Carl Zeiss Meditec 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
0.0 
9.0 
9.4
10.1
12.5
11.9
23.8
18.0
8.6 
SAZ GR 
STADA 
Hold 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
0.0 
9.0 
9.4
30.9
36.0
34.3
16.6
11.2
1.8 
CLS1 GR 
Celesio 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
0.0 
9.0 
9.4
28.9
33.0
31.5
14.3
9.0
-0.4 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
0.14
0.18
0.22
0.27
0.31
0.35
0.39
0.44
0.48
0.52
0.57
0.61
0.65
0.69
0.74
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 1.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite C
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(1.01); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.34)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 103
Performance – Pharmaceuticals & Biotech, Health Care  
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%) 
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
Merck KGaA 
EUR 
78.40 
100.1
72.8
27.7
-7.1
19,362.1 
1.1
-9.3
-16.7
-12.1
7.6
-1.1
6.5 
14.7 
STADA 
EUR 
30.87 
48.4
30.7
56.6
-0.7
1,812.7 
-9.3
-27.7
-33.5
-26.8
-2.9
-19.5
-10.2 
0 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
42.2
-3.9
  
-4.1
-18.5
-25.1
-19.4
2.4
-10.3
-1.8 
7.3 
Carl Zeiss Meditec 
EUR 
10.10 
16.0
8.9
58.4
-11.6
821.2 
-3.2
-3.8
-23.1
-15.3
-3.2
-3.8
-23.1 
11.5 
Celesio 
EUR 
28.87 
49.3
20.9
70.8
-27.5
4,910.8 
18.8
15.3
-36.3
-32.0
25.2
23.5
-13.1 
-5.2 
Curanum 
EUR 
3.66 
9.5
3.7
160.7
-0.3
119.5 
-0.8
0.1
-24.3
-61.4
5.7
8.3
-1.1 
-34.7 
Drägerwerk Pref. 
EUR 
41.68 
70.5
34.3
69.1
-17.8
529.3 
-0.1
18.5
-37.5
-16.3
6.4
26.7
-14.3 
10.4 
Fresenius SE 
EUR 
57.90 
60.0
48.0
3.7
-17.1
8,965.8 
5.4
3.1
9.6
1.9
11.9
11.2
32.9 
28.7 
Fresenius Medical Care 
USD 
53.47 
59.0
46.0
10.4
-14.0
15,783.0 
-2.8
-4.0
6.7
1.4
3.7
4.2
30.0 
28.1 
Marseille-Kliniken 
EUR 
8.28 
16.8
8.0
102.3
-3.1
100.6 
-11.3
-17.0
-43.5
-46.4
-4.8
-8.8
-20.2 
-19.6 
Rhön-Klinikum 
EUR 
22.68 
23.3
17.3
2.7
-23.6
2,351.5 
3.8
17.7
3.7
5.9
10.3
25.9
26.9 
32.6 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
59.8
-14.4
  
1.2
3.7
-18.1
-20.3
6.9
10.9
2.3 
6.5 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
5.4
-0.1
-9.3
18.8
-3.2
3.8
1.1
-2.8
-11.3
-0.8
-20
0
20
40
Merck KGaA
STADA
Carl Zeiss Meditec
Celesio
Curanum
Drägerwerk Pref.
Fresenius SE
Fresenius Medical Care
Marseille-Kliniken
Rhön-Klinikum
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
5.7
-3.2
-2.9
7.6
11.9
25.2
10.3
6.4
-4.8
3.7
-20
0
20
40
Merck KGaA
STADA
Carl Zeiss Meditec
Celesio
Curanum
Drägerwerk Pref.
Fresenius SE
Fresenius Medical Care
Marseille-Kliniken
Rhön-Klinikum
-61.4
-12.1
5.9
-26.8
-15.3
-32.0
1.9
-16.3
-46.4
1.4
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Merck KGaA
STADA
Carl Zeiss Meditec
Celesio
Curanum
Drägerwerk Pref.
Fresenius SE
Fresenius Medical Care
Marseille-Kliniken
Rhön-Klinikum
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 104
Valuation overview – Pharmaceuticals & Biotech, Health Care 
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
Merck KGaA 
17.9 
11.2 
13.5
4.7
9.4
10.4
3.48
2.85
2.61
12.9
9.5
10.1
25.1
15.7 
18.3 
STADA 
25.2 
13.4 
11.9
12.5
7.8
7.3
2.28
1.66
1.56
11.3
8.4
7.8
16.6
11.7 
10.6 
Germany average 
20.9 
12.2 
12.7
6.8
8.5
8.5
2.88
2.25
2.09
12.1
8.9
8.8
20.0
13.4 
13.4 
Carl Zeiss Meditec 
25.5 
15.9 
14.2
21.7
11.7
12.4
1.88
1.03
0.90
13.0
7.4
6.0
15.2
8.6 
6.9 
Celesio 
17.7 
16.7 
12.3
44.6
15.1
11.1
0.44
0.33
0.30
12.0
10.6
8.7
14.0
12.9 
10.3 
Curanum 
46.9 
12.0 
9.9
22.0
6.6
5.9
1.53
0.94
0.88
11.5
7.7
7.0
15.9
10.7 
9.1 
Drägerwerk Pref. 
17.0 
12.1 
8.4
5.0
5.0
4.4
0.81
0.63
0.58
8.1
6.3
5.2
11.8
9.2 
7.2 
Fresenius SE 
21.5 
20.3 
17.6
6.8
6.8
6.7
1.49
1.53
1.59
8.3
8.7
8.3
10.5
10.9 
10.2 
Fresenius Medical Care 
20.3 
19.1 
16.9
12.1
12.2
12.0
2.07
2.01
1.87
10.4
10.1
9.3
12.7
12.4 
11.3 
Marseille-Kliniken 
21.1 
7.6 
7.5
-77.1
1.2
4.7
1.60
0.74
0.70
10.4
6.7
5.9
14.5
9.9 
8.2 
Rhön-Klinikum 
21.0 
19.8 
18.2
17.4
9.9
9.8
1.37
1.42
1.40
11.1
10.9
10.1
17.6
16.8 
15.5 
Germany average 
23.9 
15.4 
13.1
6.6
8.6
8.4
1.40
1.08
1.03
10.6
8.6
7.6
14.0
11.4 
9.8 
 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
Merck KGaA
Carl Zeiss 
Meditec
Celesio
Curanum
Drägerwerk 
Pref.
Fresenius SE
Fresenius 
Medical Care
Marseille-
Kliniken
Rhön-Klinikum
STADA
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
5
10
15
20
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
Merck KGaA
STADA
Carl Zeiss 
Meditec
Celesio
Curanum
Drägerwerk 
Pref.
Fresenius SE
Fresenius 
Medical Care
Marseille-
Kliniken
Rhön-Klinikum
7
8
9
10
11
12
5
6
7
8
9
10
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
1.05
1.25
1.24
1.31
1.69
1.53
1.28
1.15
0.91
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e  
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 105
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Real Estate

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 106
ESG overview – Real Estate  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
PQL GR (B,D)
ADL (H,D-)
VIA GR (B,D-)
IVG GY (H,D-)
DAZ GR (B,D-)
DEQ GR (H,D-)
KBU GF (H,D-)
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
 
 
 
No Prime Investment status companies available 
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
The Real Estate sector scores deeply into ESG Laggard territory with an average ESG sector score of -4.9. Environmental 
performance is close to the lowest score possible (-4.9) with Social & Governance performance not much better (-4.1). Given 
the overall low ESG score, none of the companies are able to obtain a Prime investment status, but POLIS Immobilien (Buy, D) shows 
the highest ESG score in the sector. The average relative ESG risk adjustment to the cost of equity for the sector could not be 
determined due to a lack of Prime rated stocks. Using the general portfolio ESG risk-adjustment variables and taking into 
account stock specific ESG ratings, the ESG risk adjustment for the sector has been determined at 47.4 bps. The overall impact
of these ESG risk adjustments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of -7.0% for the overall sector. From an 
ESG style analysis point of view, there are no top tier rated ESG stocks with D rated stocks contributing to all sector perform-
ance. Given the lack of Prime rated companies, no ESG efficient frontier analysis could be conducted.  
Strategic outlook 
With the interest rate hike and higher financing costs, the pending economic slowdown and the resulting difficult financing
environment, the basic economic conditions for real estate companies will stay weak for the time being. We affirm our view that
mainly companies with a solid financing structure and little need for refinancing can be seen in a positive light in this environ-
ment. We still believe that the companies have to continue to work on their portfolios and manage them more efficiently in order
to generate additional value. We do not expect the entire sector to recover before the risks (portfolio valuation, refinancing) can
be removed or the before cash flows have been increased. In our view, this will take a few quarters to achieve. Overall, H1
results were weak for most companies due to a lack of disposals and negative revaluation results, especially compared to the
excellent H1 last year, which marked the peak in the transaction market. We only expect a slight increase of the transaction
market in H2 and further (slight) price declines for properties. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
No Prime Investment status companies available 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
ADLER Real 
Estate 
(Hold,D-) 
Numerous properties with potential for P/E 
Clear undervaluation vs. stock liquidity – lack of transparency regarding the use of energy from 
renewable sources 
Deutsche 
EuroShop 
(Hold,D-) 
Clear focus on attractive shopping centers 
Low risk profile supports share price 
– lack of transparency regarding environmental 
performance indicators 
POLIS 
Immobilien 
(Buy,D) 
Pure focus on office and commercial properties Funds available for acquisition 
opportunities 
– lack of transparency regarding supplier standards with 
regard to labour, health and safety, and environmental 
issues 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 107
ESG rating overview – Real Estate 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
D
53.8%
D-
46.2%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research  
Environmental review 
All the companies in the Real Estate sector we analyzed are in the Environmental Laggards category, with most scoring slightly
above group average. Except for POLIS Immobilien (D), all the other companies were awarded a D- ranking (Colonia Real 
Estate (D-), Deutsche EuroShop (D-), DIC Asset (D-), IVG Immobilien (D-), and Vivacon (D-)). Some of the key company 
weaknesses were a lack of transparency regarding energy efficiency in heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting of the property
portfolio, lack of transparency in environmental performance indicators, or lack of transparency in respect of formal systems and
strategies to address climate change. 
Social & Governance review 
The Social & Governance scoring is also very poor: All the above companies are again in Laggards territory with most of the
companies coming short of the worst possible score, but 90% still scoring above the already very low group average. The worst
social performer can be highlighted as ADLER Real Estate (D-). Some examples for the main key weaknesses that drove the 
rest of the group to score so badly are the lack of transparency regarding standards of business ethics or limited public informa-
tion on social and ethical issues. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
POLIS Immobilien  
(D) 
+ company statements covering environ-
mental issues 
Colonia Real Estate 
(D) 
n/a 
Colonia Real Estate  
(D-) 
n/a 
Deutsche 
EuroShop (D) 
n/a 
Deutsche EuroShop  
(D-) 
n/a 
DIC Asset  
(D) 
n/a 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
Colonia Real Estate  
(D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding energy 
efficiency in heating, cooling, ventilation  
and lighting of the property portfolio 
ADLER Real 
Estate (D-) 
– very limited information on social, ethical and environmental 
issues publicly available 
Deutsche EuroShop  
(D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding environ-
mental performance indicators 
Colonia Real 
Estate (D) 
– lack of transparency regarding standards of business ethics 
DIC Asset  
(D-) 
– lack of transparency on formal systems  
and strategies to address climate change 
Deutsche 
EuroShop (D) 
– lack of transparency regarding supplier standards with regard to 
labor, health and safety issues 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 108
ESG overview charts – Real Estate 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
DAZ GR
VIA GR
KBU GF
IVG GY
PQL GR
DEQ GR
ADL
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
PQL GR
KBU GF
DEQ GR
DAZ GR
IVG GY
VIA GR
ADL
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
PQL GR
KBU GF
DEQ GR
DAZ GR
IVG GY
VIA GR
ADL
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
KBU GF
DEQ GR
DAZ GR
IVG GY
VIA GR
PQL GR
ADL
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites** 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
PQL GR
DEQ GR
DAZ GR
KBU GF
IVG GY
VIA GR
ADL
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
4.13
0.98
4.35
1.03
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted; ** Market Portfolio figures due to lack of Prime sector composite availability  
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 109
ESG sector composites overview – Real Estate 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG  
rating 
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n/a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
PQL GR 
POLIS Immobilien 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
NA 
8.8 
9.1
10.5
12.0
11.4
14.3
8.9
-0.2 
KBU GF 
Colonia Real Estate 
Hold 
D- 
-100.0
-5.1
NA 
9.5 
10.0
5.2
7.5
7.1
44.2
36.1
26.1 
DEQ GR 
Deutsche EuroShop 
Hold 
D- 
-100.0
-5.1
NA 
7.7 
8.1
23.8
25.0
23.5
5.3
-1.2
-9.2 
DAZ GR 
DIC Asset 
Buy 
D- 
-100.0
-5.1
NA 
8.6 
9.1
13.4
20.5
19.3
53.0
44.1
35.0 
IVG GY 
IVG Immobilien 
Hold 
D- 
-100.0
-5.1
NA 
9.9 
10.4
9.7
11.5
10.9
18.8
12.2
1.8 
VIA GR 
Vivacon 
Buy 
D- 
-100.0
-5.1
NA 
11.3 
11.8
9.6
14.5
13.7
51.0
43.0
31.1 
ADL 
ADLER Real Estate 
Hold 
D- 
-100.0
-5.1
NA 
11.3 
11.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
-2.9
-8.1
-19.9 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x )* 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%)* 
-0.67
-0.64
-0.61
-0.58
-0.55
-0.52
-0.49
-0.46
-0.43
-0.40
-0.37
-0.33
-0.30
-0.27
-0.24
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.68); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.56)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
5
10
15
20
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
* market portfolio data due to lack of Prime/Not Prime composites  
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 110
Performance – Real Estate  
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%) 
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
ADLER Real Estate 
EUR 
1.03 
2.4
0.9
132.0
-13.6
15 
3.0
-8.9
-54
-30.4
9.5
-0.7
-31 
-3.6 
alstria office REIT-AG 
EUR 
10.25 
13.7
9.5
33.7
-7.6
574 
-4.2
-6.4
-17.7
0.5
2.3
1.8
5.5 
27.3 
Colonia Real Estate 
EUR 
5.20 
28.9
5.2
455.8
0
119 
-34.1
-46.1
-79.4
-69.5
-27.6
-37.9
-56.2 
-42.7 
Deutsche EuroShop 
EUR 
23.75 
28.3
21.6
19.3
-9.0
816 
-2.5
-4.0
-0.1
1.7
4.0
4.2
23.1 
28.4 
Deutsche Wohnen 
EUR 
10.97 
32.6
7.5
196.7
-31.8
298 
17.6
-21.7
-59.1
-49.2
24.0
-13.5
-35.9 
-22.5 
DIC Asset 
EUR 
13.40 
25.2
13.0
88.1
-3.4
420 
-8.3
-30.2
-39.5
-36.8
-1.9
-22.0
-16.2 
-10.0 
GAGFAH 
EUR 
9.50 
15.0
8.4
57.4
-11.3
2,142 
-0.5
-9.8
-29.0
-19.5
6.0
-1.6
-5.8 
7.3 
IVG Immobilien 
EUR 
9.68 
31.2
9.7
222.3
0
1,123 
-26.8
-40.2
-60.4
-57.5
-20.3
-32.1
-37.2 
-30.7 
PATRIZIA Immobilien 
EUR 
2.75 
11.0
2.5
301.5
-8.4
143 
-1.1
-30.0
-72.6
-46.4
5.4
-21.8
-49.4 
-19.6 
POLIS Immobilien 
EUR 
10.50 
12.7
8.0
20.8
-23.8
116 
9.7
14.1
-2.8
5.0
16.2
22.3
20.5 
31.8 
TAG Immobilien 
EUR 
4.55 
8.8
4.5
92.5
-1.3
148 
-4.2
-17.6
-43.7
-30.3
2.3
-9.5
-20.5 
-3.6 
Vivacon 
EUR 
9.60 
19.8
6.1
106.5
-36.8
191 
7.4
15.1
-50.2
-26.5
13.9
23.3
-27.0 
0.3 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
143.9
-12.2
  
-3.7
-15.5
-42.4
-29.9
2.8
-7.3
-19.2 
-3.1 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
7.4
-4.2
17.6
3.0
9.7
-1.1
-26.8
-34.1
-4.2
-8.3
-0.5
-2.5
-40
-20
0
20
40
Adler Real
Estate
alstria office
REIT-AG
Colonia
Real Estate
Deutsche
EuroShop
Deutsche
Wohnen
DIC Asset
GAGFAH
IVG
Immobilien
PATRIZIA
Immobilien
POLIS
Immobilien
TAG
Immobilien
Vivacon
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
16.2
4.0
-1.9
24.0
6.0
-27.6
5.4
-20.3
2.3
2.3
9.5
13.9
-40
-20
0
20
40
Adler Real
Estate
alstria office
REIT-AG
Colonia
Real Estate
Deutsche
EuroShop
Deutsche
Wohnen
DIC Asset
GAGFAH
IVG
Immobilien
PATRIZIA
Immobilien
POLIS
Immobilien
TAG
Immobilien
Vivacon
0.5
-19.5
-46.4
-30.4
-49.2
-57.5
-30.3
5.0
1.7
-69.5
-36.8
-26.5
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Adler Real
Estate
alstria office
REIT-AG
Colonia
Real Estate
Deutsche
EuroShop
Deutsche
Wohnen
DIC Asset
GAGFAH
IVG
Immobilien
PATRIZIA
Immobilien
POLIS
Immobilien
TAG
Immobilien
Vivacon
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 111
Valuation overview – Real Estate  
 
P/E (x) 
Price/book value (x) 
EV/EBITDA 
EV/EBIT 
Net dividend yield (%) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
ADLER Real Estate 
2.1 
4.5 
3.1
0.4
0.4
0.4
5.6
5.0
4.3
5.9
5.2
4.4
0.0
0.0 
0.0 
alstria office REIT-AG 
7.4 
34.2 
16.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
25.6
17.8
19.9
19.0
27.2
20.2
5.1
6.4 
5.8 
Colonia Real Estate 
1.6 
11.5 
3.9
0.3
0.4
0.4
52.1
21.1
16.5
14.3
17.7
12.9
4.8
5.8 
9.6 
Deutsche EuroShop 
8.7 
15.5 
13.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
23.8
19.3
17.6
14.3
16.2
14.7
4.4
4.8 
5.1 
Deutsche Wohnen 
9.7 
9.7 
7.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
26.1
19.1
18.3
20.7
16.3
15.7
0.0
4.6 
9.1 
DIC Asset 
10.7 
16.9 
11.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
20.6
14.9
12.7
25.7
19.5
15.8
12.3
11.2 
12.7 
GAGFAH 
3.8 
12.2 
11.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
24.3
19.6
18.5
7.6
18.5
17.3
8.1
8.5 
8.8 
IVG Immobilien 
4.1 
14.0 
18.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
27.7
11.5
15.3
17.8
17.6
18.0
7.2
7.2 
7.2 
PATRIZIA Immobilien 
3.0 
7.8 
7.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
44.9
16.2
16.1
17.2
15.2
15.0
0.0
2.7 
5.5 
POLIS Immobilien 
11.3 
12.9 
10.3
0.8
0.7
0.7
51.3
20.5
16.2
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.0
3.3 
4.3 
TAG Immobilien 
9.0 
15.5 
8.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
9.0
15.5
8.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
2.2
2.6 
5.5 
Vivacon 
3.3 
3.2 
3.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
3.3
3.2
3.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
5.2
6.3 
7.3 
Germany average 
4.1 
9.2 
6.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
13.4
10.9
9.7
2.4
2.3
2.1
4.9
4.8 
6.7 
 
 
P/E 2009e (x) vs. EPS growth 2008e/09e (%) 
PBV 2009e (x) vs. ROE 2009e (%) 
EV/EBIT 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
Adler Real 
Estate
alstria office 
REIT-AG
Colonia Real 
Estate
Deutsche 
EuroShop
Deutsche 
Wohnen
DIC Asset
GAGFAH
IVG Immobilien
PATRIZIA 
Immobilien
POLIS 
Immobilien
TAG Immobilien
Vivacon
0
5
10
15
20
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
EPS growth 2008e/09e (%)
P/E 2009e (x)
Adler Real 
Estate
alstria office 
REIT-AG
Deutsche 
EuroShop
DIC Asset
IVG Immobilien
Colonia Real 
Estate
POLIS 
Immobilien
TAG Immobilien
Vivacon
GAGFAH
0.0
0.5
1.0
0
10
20
ROE 2009e (%)
PBV 2009e (x)
Deutsche Wohnen
Adler Real 
Estate
alstria office 
REIT-AG
Colonia Real 
Estate
Deutsche 
EuroShop
Deutsche 
Wohnen
DIC Asset
IVG Immobilien
POLIS 
Immobilien
Vivacon
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/EBIT 2009e (x)
PATRIZIA Immobilien
TAG Immobilien
GAGFAH
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 112
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Software & IT Services, Semiconductors,  
Technology & Hardware

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 113
ESG overview – Software & IT Services, Semiconductors, Technology & Hardware  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
AIX GR (S,D)
QI US (H,B)
IFX GY (B,C-)
EPC GR (H,C-)
RTC GR (B,D+)
SOW GR (B,D)
FTM GR (H,D-)
SAP GR (B,C+)
ILH GR (H,C-)
IDS GR (S,D+)
FJH GR (B,D-)
WIN GY (H,C-)
KBC GY (B,C-)
DAM GR (H,D-)
ADV GR (H,D+)
SIE GR (B,C)
-40.0
-30.0
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
QI US
(H,B)
SAP GR
(B,C+)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
This sector scores into the ESG Laggard territory with an average ESG sector score of -2.4. Social & Governance performance 
(-2.4) seems slightly better in comparison to its Environmental score (-2.9), leaving only 12.5% of companies with a Prime 
Investment status. Prime stocks include Qimonda (Hold, B) and SAP (Buy, C+). The average relative ESG risk adjustment to 
the cost of equity for the sector is high at -37.1% with a 100% ESG confidence level. Adjusting these findings to stock specific
ESG ratings yields an average ESG risk adjustment of 190.0 bp for this sector. The overall impact of these ESG risk adjust-
ments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of -5.3% for the overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point 
of view, top tier rated ESG stocks (B) contribute an average 0.6% to the overall sector performance with risk-adjusted perform-
ance (Sharpe ratio) for Prime stocks being 165.5% higher relative to the sector benchmark based on our ESG efficient frontier
analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
The larger software vendors and IT services companies reported surprisingly strong results in H1/08 despite the current
economic headwind. Although we see the risk that growth rates could slow at the latest in 2009 due to a possible recession, we
think that some stocks still offer solid earnings growth prospects for company-specific reasons. Our top pick is SAP due to a 
revival of the margin story. The Q2 results of our Technology & Hardware universe were a mixed bag with a slightly positive
bias. Given the partly defensive revenue mix (e.g. Healthcare and Energy) as well as the solid H1/08 order intake, we see 
Siemens as our preferred pick in Technology & Hardware. In the Semiconductor sector, the majority of players reported strong
earnings for Q2/08 and provided comfortable outlooks. While our top pick, Infineon, with its global leadership in the automotive 
and industrial semiconductor markets, will likely feel some pain in a deteriorating economic environment, we believe that the
turnaround of the mobile phone business driven by the iPhone and the new restructuring program will drive EPS growth in 2009.
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
Qimonda 
(Hold,B) 
Excess capacities in the DRAM industry 
DRAM spot price trend 
+ implementation of a certified environmental manage-
ment system at all locations with significant environ-
mental risks 
SAP 
(Buy,C+) 
Relative flexibility concerning the cost base 
Margin story should result in a multiple 
expansion 
+ commitment to the principles of the UN Global 
Compact 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
IDS Scheer 
(Sell,D+) 
Q2 earnings surprise positively, but… 
Risk that annual targets could be 
missed again 
– lack of information on customer and product 
responsibility issues 
SoftM 
(Hold,D-) 
Q2 a positive surprise 
Capital measures possible mid-term  
– lack of transparency regarding the implementation of 
green facility management 
AIXTRON 
(Sell,D) 
Market leader in LED production equipment 
Orders from LED makers in cyclical 
downswing 
– lack of transparency regarding the involvement in 
community projects related to, e.g. education, poverty, 
minorities, and the environment 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 114
ESG rating overview – Software & IT Services, Semiconductors,  
Technology & Hardware 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
B
3.6%
C
25.0%
C-
17.9%
D+
10.7%
D
28.6%
D-
10.7%
C+
3.6%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
Most (94%) of the Software companies we analyzed have a very poor environmental score and thus ended up in the Environ-
mental Laggards category. Moreover, the vast majority also scored below group average. The best company due to its environ-
mental performance is Qimonda (B), with the strength of implementing a certified environmental management system at all its locations 
that have significant environmental risks. Almost half of the companies within the IT sector display the worst possible environ-
mental score. Companies such as Data Modul (D-), FJA (D-) itelligence (D-), IDS Scheer (D-), SoftM, Software AG (D-), REAL-
TECH (D-) show amongst others key weaknesses such as a lack of transparency regarding measures to reduce and substitute
the use of hazardous and toxic substances, a lack of transparency with respect to a policy on environmental issues or a lack of
transparency in the implementation of green facility management. 
Social & Governance review 
The Social & Governance score in this sector is also very poor and 88% of the companies we analyzed fell into the Laggards 
category – the majority is also below group average again. Qimonda (B-) can be found at the top of the Soc. & Gov. Leaders 
group with a key strength being its comprehensive policy and management regarding training and education. Worst social 
performers are Data Modul (D-), FJA (D-) and SoftM (D-) with some of the key weaknesses worth highlighting being a lack of
transparency in their standards in labor/health safety or a lack of transparency in policies regarding equal opportunities and non-
discrimination. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
Qimonda (B+) 
+ implementation of a certified environmental 
management system at all locations with 
significant environmental risks 
Qimonda (B-) 
+ comprehensive policy and management regarding training and 
education 
Siemens (C) 
+ reasonable measures have been 
implemented to enhance life cycle man-
agement 
SAP (C+) 
+ programme to support the fight against corruption 
EPCOS (C) 
+ extensive monitoring of resource 
consumption and emissions 
itelligence (C) 
+ continuous increase in the number of jobs offered in the last years 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
Data Modul (D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to 
reduce and substitute the use of hazardous 
and toxic substances 
Data Modul (D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding supplier standards with regard to 
labour/health and safety issues 
FJA (D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding a policy on 
environmental issues 
FJA (D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding a policy on equal opportunities and 
non-discrimination 
IDS Scheer (D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding the 
implementation of green facility manage-
ment 
SoftM (D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding standards of business ethics 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 115
ESG overview charts – Software & IT Services, Semiconductors,  
Technology & Hardware 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-50
0
50
100
150
200
QI US
KBC GY
SIE GR
IFX GY
SAP GR
FJH GR
ADV GR
RTC GR
SOW GR
DAM GR
WIN GY
EPC GR
ILH GR
AIX GR
FTM GR
IDS GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
QI US
SAP GR
SIE GR
KBC GY
WIN GY
ILH GR
EPC GR
IFX GY
ADV GR
IDS GR
RTC GR
SOW GR
AIX GR
DAM GR
FJH GR
FTM GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
QI US
SIE GR
EPC GR
IFX GY
KBC GY
WIN GY
SAP GR
ADV GR
AIX GR
DAM GR
FJH GR
IDS GR
ILH GR
FTM GR
SOW GR
RTC GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
QI US
SAP GR
ILH GR
SIE GR
ADV GR
KBC GY
IDS GR
IFX GY
WIN GY
RTC GR
EPC GR
AIX GR
SOW GR
DAM GR
FJH GR
FTM GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
QI US
SAP GR
SIE GR
WIN GY
KBC GY
IFX GY
EPC GR
ILH GR
ADV GR
IDS GR
RTC GR
AIX GR
SOW GR
DAM GR
FJH GR
FTM GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
3.83
0.75
5.69
1.28
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 116
ESG sector composites overview – Software & IT Services, Semiconductors, Technology & Hardware 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QI US 
Qimonda 
Hold 
B 
42.9
-37.1
100.0 
12.5 
10.5
1.4
3.0
3.6
111.3
156.0
145.5 
SAP GR 
SAP 
Buy 
C+ 
14.3
-37.1
100.0 
10.4 
9.8
37.3
44.0
46.9
18.1
25.7
15.9 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
SIE GR 
Siemens 
Buy 
C 
-20.0
-37.1
100.0 
9.2 
9.9
68.7
105.0
96.5
52.9
40.5
30.6 
KBC GY 
Kontron 
Buy 
C- 
-40.0
-37.1
100.0 
9.5 
10.9
7.4
16.5
14.1
122.1
89.3
78.4 
WIN GY 
Wincor Nixdorf 
Hold 
C- 
-40.0
-37.1
100.0 
9.3 
10.7
46.4
51.0
43.4
9.9
-6.4
-17.2 
ILH GR 
itelligence 
Hold 
C- 
-40.0
-37.1
100.0 
10.8 
12.4
4.1
4.1
3.5
-0.5
-14.6
-27.0 
EPC GR 
EPCOS 
Hold 
C- 
-40.0
-37.1
100.0 
10.3 
11.8
17.6
17.9
15.3
1.4
-13.2
-25.0 
IFX GY 
Infineon 
Buy 
C- 
-40.0
-37.1
100.0 
10.0 
11.5
6.1
9.0
7.7
48.0
26.5
15.1 
ADV GR 
ADVA 
Hold 
D+ 
-60.0
-37.1
100.0 
10.4 
12.7
1.6
2.0
1.6
27.4
1.9
-10.7 
IDS GR 
IDS Scheer 
Sell 
D+ 
-60.0
-37.1
100.0 
10.7 
13.1
8.1
7.2
5.8
-10.9
-28.6
-41.6 
RTC GR 
REALTECH 
Buy 
D+ 
-60.0
-37.1
100.0 
12.2 
14.9
13.6
17.0
13.7
24.7
0.8
-14.0 
SOW GR 
Software AG 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-37.1
100.0 
10.5 
13.7
48.5
64.0
48.2
32.1
-0.6
-14.3 
AIX GR 
AIXTRON 
Sell 
D 
-80.0
-37.1
100.0 
9.9 
12.8
5.7
6.0
4.5
6.0
-20.7
-33.5 
DAM GR 
Data Modul 
Hold 
D- 
-100.0
-37.1
100.0 
10.0 
13.7
12.8
17.5
12.4
36.8
-3.4
-17.1 
FJH GR 
FJA 
Buy 
D- 
-100.0
-37.1
100.0 
10.4 
14.2
2.3
3.5
2.5
50.9
6.9
-7.3 
FTM GR 
SoftM 
Hold 
D- 
-100.0
-37.1
100.0 
10.4 
14.2
3.2
3.5
2.5
9.4
-22.5
-36.7 
 
 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG Style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
-4.97
-4.88
-4.80
-4.72
-4.63
-4.55
-4.47
-4.38
-4.30
-4.22
-4.13
-4.05
-3.97
-3.88
-3.80
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite B
Composite C
Composite D
 
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.41); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.15)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 117
Performance – Software & IT Services, Semiconductors, Technology & Hardware  
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%) 
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
FJA 
EUR 
2.32 
3.2
2.1
36.2
-11.2
49 
6.9
2.1
-11.8
-10.8
13.4
10.3
11.5 
16.0 
IDS Scheer 
EUR 
8.08 
17.3
7.3
114.1
-9.4
260 
-15.5
2.0
-44.3
-47.2
-9.0
10.2
-21.0 
-20.4 
itelligence 
EUR 
4.12 
7.1
3.6
71.1
-12.1
99 
0.5
-3.5
-3.0
-33.2
7.0
4.7
20.2 
-6.5 
REALTECH 
EUR 
13.63 
15.5
9.4
13.6
-31.3
72 
-0.4
9.5
34.9
19.7
6.1
17.7
58.2 
46.5 
SAP 
EUR 
37.27 
41.9
30.3
12.3
-18.8
45,687 
-3.3
9.5
-7.2
4.7
3.2
17.7
16.0 
31.4 
Software AG 
EUR 
48.45 
72.0
37.9
48.5
-21.9
1,321 
-1.8
12.3
-31.3
-19.3
4.7
20.5
-8.1 
7.5 
SoftM 
EUR 
3.20 
4.5
2.9
41.9
-9.4
16 
6.3
-7.2
-26.1
-14.0
12.8
0.9
-2.9 
12.8 
AIXTRON 
EUR 
5.66 
10.3
5.6
82.7
-1.2
512 
-11.7
-28.6
-2.5
-42.1
-5.2
-20.4
20.7 
-15.4 
EPCOS 
EUR 
17.60 
17.8
8.6
1.3
-51.4
1,150 
0.6
48.0
29.1
49.7
7.1
56.2
52.3 
76.4 
Infineon 
EUR 
6.08 
12.1
4.1
98.7
-32.6
4,557 
3.8
2.4
-49.4
-25.1
10.3
10.6
-26.1 
1.7 
Qimonda 
EUR 
1.42 
9.1
1.1
539.4
-23.9
486 
15.4
-49.5
-84.6
-71.8
21.9
-41.3
-61.3 
-45.1 
ADVA 
EUR 
1.57 
6.5
1.4
314.0
-12.7
72 
-24.9
-38.4
-74.8
-54.0
-18.4
-30.2
-51.6 
-27.2 
Data Modul 
EUR 
12.8 
27.7
12.3
116.8
-3.8
41 
-1.6
-16.4
-41.2
-39.6
4.9
-8.2
-18.0 
-12.9 
Kontron 
EUR 
7.4 
17.8
7.4
139.3
0
385 
-15.7
-22.6
-49.9
-46.0
-9.2
-14.4
-26.7 
-19.2 
Siemens 
EUR 
68.7 
108.6
67.0
58.2
-2.5
62,787 
-13.7
-2.4
-21.4
-36.7
-7.2
5.8
1.8 
-9.9 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-5.1
-13.7
-1.6
-15.7
6.3
-1.8
-15.5
-0.4
0.5
3.8
6.9
-11.7
0.6
-3.3
15.4
-24.9
-40
-20
0
20
40
FJA
IDS Scheer
itelligence
REALTECH
SAP
Software AG
SoftM
AIXTRON
EPCOS
Infineon
Qimonda
ADVA
Data Modul
Kontron
Siemens
Wincor Nixdorf
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
-9.2
1.3
-7.2
4.9
-18.4
21.9
3.2
7.0
-9.0
13.4
12.8
6.1
10.3
4.7
7.1
-5.2
-40
-20
0
20
40
FJA
IDS Scheer
itelligence
REALTECH
SAP
Software AG
SoftM
AIXTRON
EPCOS
Infineon
Qimonda
ADVA
Data Modul
Kontron
Siemens
Wincor Nixdorf
-39.6
-28.2
-36.7
-46.0
4.7
-10.8
-25.1
-47.2
-33.2
19.7
-14.0
-19.3
49.7
-71.8
-42.1
-54.0
-100
-50
0
50
100
FJA
IDS Scheer
itelligence
REALTECH
SAP
Software AG
SoftM
AIXTRON
EPCOS
Infineon
Qimonda
ADVA
Data Modul
Kontron
Siemens
Wincor Nixdorf
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 118
Valuation overview – Software & IT Services, Semiconductors, Technology & Hardware 
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
FJA 
10.9 
8.7 
7.1
9.1
7.1
5.8
0.83
0.56
0.42
8.1
4.4
3.0
9.7
5.1 
3.4 
IDS Scheer 
22.4 
12.8 
9.6
17.3
9.9
7.7
1.12
0.38
0.33
10.2
4.2
2.9
12.0
5.0 
3.4 
itelligence 
12.9 
11.0 
10.1
8.1
6.7
6.3
0.47
0.38
0.33
5.4
4.3
3.7
7.7
6.3 
5.3 
REALTECH 
12.1 
14.0 
13.1
10.5
11.0
10.8
0.47
0.65
0.82
4.0
5.6
6.8
4.5
6.4 
7.8 
SAP 
23.1 
22.2 
16.9
20.0
16.9
13.6
4.33
3.89
3.37
14.5
11.9
9.7
15.8
13.9 
11.2 
Software AG 
20.7 
12.6 
10.2
19.1
10.2
8.5
3.06
1.94
1.60
12.0
6.4
5.0
13.9
7.9 
6.0 
SoftM 
-24.8 
23.0 
12.7
5.4
4.4
3.7
0.54
0.41
0.39
10.6
6.3
5.3
-17.3
21.7 
14.4 
AIXTRON 
32.1 
18.6 
16.8
19.9
13.3
33.4
2.29
1.44
1.40
16.2
8.8
8.2
23.9
11.1 
10.3 
EPCOS 
14.2 
15.3 
14.6
6.6
5.3
5.6
0.78
0.89
0.83
5.8
5.7
5.1
13.5
11.7 
10.8 
Infineon 
-22.4 
89.4 
24.7
9.2
1.7
6.4
1.05
0.57
0.45
7.9
3.7
2.7
-31.7
21.6 
8.1 
Qimonda 
-13.4 
-0.3 
-1.9
8.0
-0.5
1.3
0.73
0.55
0.39
6.2
-1.0
2.7
-10.7
-0.6 
-5.6 
ADVA 
-10.5 
-7.6 
39.0
-25.6
-25.1
7.4
1.36
0.57
0.53
-243.0
221.2
8.7
-18.3
-22.3 
16.0 
Data Modul 
11.1 
7.0 
7.3
7.9
5.3
5.4
0.48
0.38
0.36
7.3
4.8
4.6
9.2
5.9 
5.7 
Kontron 
23.2 
9.9 
8.0
17.5
7.8
6.6
1.47
0.73
0.69
11.6
5.9
5.0
14.2
7.1 
5.7 
Siemens 
21.8 
14.5 
9.6
7.6
6.4
5.7
1.25
0.80
0.67
7.5
7.1
5.5
18.1
11.9 
8.0 
 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
FJA
IDS 
Scheer
itelligence
REALTECH
SAP
Software AG
SoftM
AIXTRON
EPCOS
Infineon
ADVA
Data Modul
Kontron
Wincor Nixdorf
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
Siemens
FJA
IDS Scheer
itelligence
REALTECH
SAP
Software AG
SoftM
AIXTRON
EPCOS
Infineon
ADVA
Data Modul
Kontron
Wincor Nixdorf
0
10
20
30
40
50
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
Siemens
1.49
2.95
0.82
0.92
1.33
1.18
1.10
1.23
1.10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e  
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 119
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Steel, Metals & Mining

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 120
ESG overview – Steel, Metals & Mining  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
KCO GR (B,D-)
SGL GR (H,D)
TKA GR (H,C-)
SZG GR (B,D+)
NDA GR (H,B-)
-35.0
-30.0
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
NDA GR
(H,B-)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
This sector scores into the ESG Laggard territory with an average ESG sector score of -2.4. Both Social & Governance (-2.4) 
and Environmental (-2.4) scores are equally distributed. This leaves only 20% of companies with a Prime Investment status,
which only includes Norddeutsche Affinerie (Hold, B-). The average relative ESG risk adjustment to the cost of equity for the 
sector is high at -38.0% with a 100% ESG confidence level. Adjusting these findings to stock specific ESG ratings yields an
average ESG risk adjustment of 180.2 bp for this sector. The overall impact of these ESG risk adjustments on our target prices 
translates into an upside adjustment of -25.6% for the overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point of view, top tier rated
ESG stocks (B) contribute an average 4.3% to the overall sector performance with risk-adjusted performance (Sharpe ratio) for 
Prime stocks being 8.8% lower relative to the sector benchmark based on our ESG efficient frontier analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
The order backlog for the German steel industry is still very strong and most of the steel companies have increased their 
earnings guidance for the current year. Despite these satisfying figures, the majority of the companies are trading at or close to
their long-term historic low multiples. The main driver for the deterioration of the multiples over the last twelve months was the 
rapidly dimming economic sentiment. Overall steel prices showed some weakness in the last few weeks. Some companies 
stated that this was a seasonal effect and others said it was the start of a longer lasting slowdown. With share prices reflecting 
sharp drops in earnings, we believe that the further downward risk is limited for the time being. Falling raw material prices
should be able to support the stocks for a certain time. Going forward, we do not believe that the companies will be able to 
maintain the current record earnings level. Therefore we recommend companies in that sector more for trading ideas than for 
long-term investments.  
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
Norddeutsche 
Affinerie 
(Hold,B-) 
High capacity utilization 
Possible capital increase 
+ application of advanced technology to promote the 
recycling of copper 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
SGL Group 
(Hold,D) 
High capacity utilization in 2008 
Strong growth in carbon fibers 
– lack of transparency with respect to the implementa-
tion of a strategy for addressing climate change and 
related sector-specific risks 
Thyssen 
Krupp 
(Hold,C-) 
Negative free cash flow 
Economic sentiment  
– lack of transparency regarding group-wide accident 
rates and fatal accidents 
Salzgitter 
(Buy,D+) 
Strong demand for tubes 
Economic sentiment  
– lack of transparency with respect to use of secondary 
raw materials 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 121
ESG rating overview – Steel, Metals & Mining 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
B
11.1%
B-
11.1%
C
11.1%
C-
11.1%
D+
11.1%
D
33.3%
D-
11.1%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
The Steel & Metals sector turned out to be not very environmental friendly, as 80% of the companies we analyzed fell into the
Environmental Laggards category. Their low scores dragged the group average down and 60% of all the companies were below 
that average. The best environmental score (within the Laggards) was awarded to Norddeutsche Affinerie (B-), with one of the 
key strength being the application of advanced technology to promote the recycling of copper. The worst scorer within the sector 
is Klöckner & Co (D-) with its key weaknesses being the lack of a strategy and management structures that could address
climate change and related risks. 
Social & Governance review 
The distribution between Leaders and Laggards according to Social & Governance issues is the same as for the environment 
with the average at the same level and again 60% of the companies below group average. The best performer here as well is
Norddeutsche Affinerie (C+), showing as key strength overall good working conditions. Due to the weakness of an underde-
veloped supply chain management with respect to social minimum standards, Klöckner & Co (D-) is again the worst performer 
in this category. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
Norddeutsche 
Affinerie (B-) 
+ application of advanced technology to 
promote the recycling of copper 
Norddeutsche 
Affinerie (C+) 
+ overall good working conditions 
ThyssenKrupp  
(C-) 
+ comprehensive environmental management 
system 
ThyssenKrupp  
(C-) 
+ majority of employees covered by collective bargaining agree-
ments and represented by unions 
Salzgitter (D+) 
n/a 
Salzgitter (D+) 
+ detailed disclosure of compensation for the executive board 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
Klöckner & Co  
(D-) 
– no strategy and management structures to 
address climate change and related risks 
Klöckner & Co  
(D-) 
– underdeveloped supply chain management with respect to social 
minimum standards 
SGL Group  
(D) 
– lack of transparency with respect to the 
implementation of a strategy for addressing 
climate change and related sector-specific 
risks 
Salzgitter  
(D+) 
– lack of transparency regarding supplier standards with regard to 
labor/health and safety issues 
Salzgitter  
D+) 
– lack of transparency with respect to use of 
secondary raw materials 
SGL Group  
(D+) 
– very limited information on social and ethical issues publicly 
available 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 122
ESG overview charts – Steel, Metals & Mining 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
KCO GR
SZG GR
NDA GR
TKA GR
SGL GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
NDA GR
TKA GR
SZG GR
SGL GR
KCO GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
NDA GR
TKA GR
SZG GR
SGL GR
KCO GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
NDA GR
TKA GR
SZG GR
SGL GR
KCO GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
NDA GR
TKA GR
SZG GR
SGL GR
KCO GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
4.29
0.73
6.08
1.33
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 123
ESG sector composites overview – Steel, Metals & Mining 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NDA GR 
Norddeutsche 
Affinerie 
Hold 
B- 
28.6
-38.0
100.0 
9.9 
8.8
29.8
32.0
36.7
7.6
23.3
14.5 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
TKA GR 
ThyssenKrupp 
Hold 
C- 
-40.0
-38.0
100.0 
10.7 
12.3
27.2
37.0
31.6
35.9
16.1
3.8 
SZG GR 
Salzgitter 
Buy 
D+ 
-60.0
-38.0
100.0 
9.5 
11.6
83.2
150.0
118.6
80.3
42.6
31.0 
SGL GR 
SGL Group 
Hold 
D 
-80.0
-38.0
100.0 
9.5 
12.3
33.6
50.0
37.0
48.9
10.2
-2.1 
KCO GR 
Klöckner & Co 
Buy 
D- 
-100.0
-38.0
100.0 
9.0 
12.4
21.7
48.0
33.2
120.9
53.0
40.6 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
-5.39
-5.31
-5.23
-5.14
-5.06
-4.98
-4.89
-4.81
-4.73
-4.64
-4.56
-4.48
-4.40
-4.31
-4.23
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite B
Composite C
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(1.06); Sharpe ratio Sector(1.16)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 124
Performance – Steel, Metals & Mining  
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%) 
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
Salzgitter 
EUR 
83.18 
148.6
83.0
78.6
-0.2
5,127 
-18.3
-32.7
-39.0
-17.9
-11.8
-24.5
-15.7 
8.9 
ThyssenKrupp 
EUR 
27.23 
46.6
27.0
71.0
-0.8
14,010 
-22.5
-31.8
-29.5
-29.0
-16.0
-23.6
-6.3 
-2.2 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
74.8
-0.5
  
-20.4
-32.2
-34.2
-23.4
-13.9
-24.0
-11.0 
3.3 
Klöckner & Co 
EUR 
21.73 
52.2
20.2
140.0
-7.0
1,010 
-24.9
-41.5
-49.7
-20.4
-18.4
-33.3
-26.5 
6.4 
Norddeutsche Affinerie 
EUR 
29.75 
36.1
21.0
21.3
-29.4
1,216 
-6.6
-9.4
-0.9
10.8
-0.1
-1.3
22.3 
37.6 
SGL Group 
EUR 
33.58 
49.6
28.3
47.7
-15.7
2,159 
-16.1
-25.3
-7.5
-9.3
-9.6
-17.2
15.8 
17.4 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
69.7
-17.4
  
-15.8
-25.4
-19.4
-6.3
-9.4
-17.2
3.9 
20.5 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-16.1
-18.3
-24.9
-6.6
-22.5
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Salzgitter
ThyssenKrupp
Klöckner & Co
Norddeutsche
Affinerie
SGL Group
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
-9.6
-18.4
-16.0
-11.8
-0.1
-30
-20
-10
0
Salzgitter
ThyssenKrupp
Klöckner & Co
Norddeutsche
Affinerie
SGL Group
10.8
-20.4
-29.0
-17.9
-9.3
-40
-20
0
20
Salzgitter
ThyssenKrupp
Klöckner & Co
Norddeutsche
Affinerie
SGL Group
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 125
Valuation overview – Steel, Metals & Mining  
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007e 
2008e 
2009e
2007e
2008e
2009e
2007e
2008e
2009e
2007e
2008e
2009e
2007e
2008e 
2009e 
Salzgitter 
7.8 
5.9 
6.4
6.3
4.4
4.4
0.71
0.43
0.40
4.7
3.6
3.5
5.5
4.4 
4.6 
ThyssenKrupp 
9.1 
6.4 
5.8
5.4
-3.3
3.4
0.53
0.45
0.46
5.5
4.9
4.9
7.4
7.0 
6.8 
Germany average 
8.4 
6.1 
6.1
5.9
4.4
3.8
0.62
0.44
0.43
5.1
4.2
4.1
6.3
5.4 
5.5 
Klöckner & Co 
14.7 
2.0 
4.8
10.2
1.7
3.5
0.47
0.26
0.22
8.0
3.7
3.8
9.7
4.3 
4.6 
Norddeutsche Affinerie 
4.6 
5.3 
9.1
3.6
4.1
5.9
0.19
0.18
0.17
3.4
3.7
4.4
4.0
4.3 
5.6 
SGL Group 
15.1 
12.1 
11.1
10.7
8.8
7.8
1.78
1.77
1.70
8.1
7.6
7.1
9.6
9.2 
8.7 
Germany average 
11.5 
6.5 
8.3
8.2
4.9
5.7
0.82
0.74
0.70
6.5
5.0
5.1
7.8
5.9 
6.3 
 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
Salzgitter
ThyssenKrupp
Klöckner & Co
Norddeutsche 
Affinerie
SGL Group
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0
5
10
15
20
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
Salzgitter
ThyssenKrupp
Klöckner & Co
Norddeutsche 
Affinerie
SGL Group
5
10
15
20
25
30
6
7
8
9
10
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
0.52
0.60
0.59
0.62
0.74
0.51
0.49
0.51
0.50
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e
X
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 126
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Telecommunications

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 127
ESG overview – Telecommunications  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
VTW GR (B,D-)
TLI GR (H,D-)
QSC GR (B,D+)
FRN1 GR (B,D-)
DTE GR (B,B-)
TFA GR (B,D)
TGT GR (B,D)
UTDI GR (B,D+)
-40.0
-30.0
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
DTE GR
(B,B-)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
This sector scores into the ESG Laggard territory with an average ESG sector score of -3.4. The sector’s environmental
performance (-3.9) is clearly below the Social & Governance score (-2.8), leaving only a limited 13% of Prime rated stocks within 
this sector. Deutsche Telekom (Buy, B-) remains the only stock with a Prime status. The average relative ESG risk adjustment
to the cost of equity for the sector is very high at -41.9% with a 100% ESG confidence level. Adjusting these findings to stock
specific ESG ratings yields an average ESG risk adjustment of 296.6 bp for this sector. The overall impact of these ESG risk 
adjustments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of 17.5% for the overall sector. From an ESG style
analysis point of view, top tier rated ESG stocks (B) contribute an average 96.0% to the overall sector performance with risk-
adjusted performance (Sharpe ratio) for Prime stocks being 76.5% lower relative to the sector benchmark based on our ESG
efficient frontier analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
Deutsche Telekom as one of the largest incumbents in Europe should benefit from the positive prospects of the large caps in
the telecommunications sector (defensive qualities). We expect ongoing progress in cost-cutting efforts and reduced headwind 
from the currency development to drive quarterly earnings and the valuation of the stock. It is our top pick in the universe of
Western European incumbents. For the German alternative carriers that are mid-cap stocks in the telco sector, we expect stock-
specific stories to be drivers of share prices. Our top pick among the alternative carriers is freenet. We expect the benefits of 
factoring in a recent acquisition and asset disposals to drive the share price. Overall, the top story among the alternative carriers
is the consolidation of the sector (in light of an increasingly saturated German broadband market). After the DSL business of
freenet is sold, we expect Versatel to potentially be in the limelight as a “hot asset” again. United Internet should benefit from a
recovery in its DSL business and strong quarterly earnings figures. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
Deutsche 
Telekom 
(Buy,B-) 
Group reorganization wears on 
Success in further cost reductions 
+ comprehensive measures to support key suppliers in 
implementing sound labour/health and safety stan-
dards 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
Versatel 
(Buy,D-) 
Alternative carrier with unique approach 
Improved sentiment 
– lack of transparency regarding environmental 
performance indicators 
Tomorrow 
Focus 
(Buy,D) 
Investment in new business 
Reversal of overly negative sentiment 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to protect 
minors from harmful media content 
Teles 
(Hold,D-) 
Corporate reorganization in process 
Figures that underpin operating 
recovery 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to reduce and 
substitute the use ogf hazardous and toxic substances 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 128
ESG rating overview – Telecommunications 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
B
7.1%
B-
7.1%
D+
14.3%
D
50.0%
D-
21.4%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
When it comes to the environment, only a minority (13%) of the Telcos companies we analyzed were able to make it into the
Environmental Leader category. The Laggards’ scores dragged the group average into Laggards’ territory. The best Environ-
mental Leader is Deutsche Telekom (B-), its key strength being the comprehensive measures to enhance the return of used
communications products. The worst environmental scores go to United Internet (D-), telegate (D-) and Tomorrow Focus (D-
), with key weaknesses being a lack of transparency in the implementation of green facility management, no data collection with
respect to resource consumption and emissions and a lack of transparency in the implementation of environmental manage-
ment systems. 
Social & Governance review 
The sector had a Social & Governance score pattern similar to that in our Environmental review and only 13% of analyzed
companies qualify for a Leader rating. Deutsche Telekom (B) leads with one of its key strength being the comprehensive
measures to support its key suppliers in implementing sound labor/health and safety standards. The worst social scores were
assigned to telegate (D), freenet (D) and Teles (D), with key weaknesses the lack of transparency of their business ethics
standards and major controversies regarding product responsibility in recent years, e.g. concerning inappropriate customer
acquisition tactics. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
Deutsche Telekom 
(B-) 
+ comprehensive measures to enhance take-
back of used communications products 
Deutsche Telekom 
(B) 
+ comprehensive measures to support key suppliers in implement-
ing sound labor/health and safety standards 
QSC  
(D+) 
n/a 
United Internet  
(D+) 
+ continuous increase in the number of jobs offered in the last years 
United Internet  
(D-) 
n/a 
Tomorrow Focus 
(D+) 
+ initiatives to encourage work-life balance of staff 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
United Internet  
(D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding the 
implementation of green facility manage-
ment 
telegate  
(D) 
– lack of transparency regarding standards of business ethics 
telegate  
(D-) 
– no data collection regarding resource 
consumption and emissions 
freenet  
(D) 
– major controversies regarding product responsibility in recent 
years, e.g. concerning inappropriate customer acquisition tactics 
Tomorrow Focus  
(D-) 
– lack of transparency regarding the 
implementation of environmental manage-
ment systems 
Teles  
(D) 
– lack of transparency regarding standards of business ethics 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 129
ESG overview charts – Telecommunications 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
DTE GR
UTDI GR
QSC GR
FRN1 GR
TGT GR
TLI GR
TFA GR
VTW GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
DTE GR
UTDI GR
QSC GR
TGT GR
TFA GR
FRN1 GR
TLI GR
VTW GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
DTE GR
QSC GR
UTDI GR
TGT GR
TFA GR
FRN1 GR
TLI GR
VTW GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
DTE GR
UTDI GR
TFA GR
QSC GR
TGT GR
FRN1 GR
TLI GR
VTW GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
DTE GR
UTDI GR
QSC GR
TGT GR
TFA GR
VTW GR
FRN1 GR
TLI GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
3.41
0.67
5.82
1.24
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 130
ESG sector composites overview – Telecommunications 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DTE GR 
Deutsche Telekom 
Buy 
B- 
28.6
-41.9
100.0 
9.9 
8.7
11.4
16.0
18.6
40.6
63.6
54.9 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
UTDI GR 
United Internet 
Buy 
D+ 
-60.0
-41.9
100.0 
10.4 
13.0
9.3
16.0
12.5
73.0
35.0
22.1 
QSC GR 
QSC 
Buy 
D+ 
-60.0
-41.9
100.0 
10.8 
13.5
1.7
2.7
2.1
57.9
23.6
10.1 
TGT GR 
telegate 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-41.9
100.0 
9.9 
13.2
10.5
15.0
10.9
43.5
4.1
-9.1 
TFA GR 
Tomorrow Focus 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-41.9
100.0 
10.4 
13.8
2.8
3.5
2.6
23.2
-10.2
-24.0 
FRN1 GR 
freenet 
Buy 
D- 
-100.0
-41.9
100.0 
10.4 
14.7
8.7
13.5
9.2
54.8
5.9
-8.8 
TLI GR 
Teles 
Hold 
D- 
-100.0
-41.9
100.0 
10.4 
14.7
1.3
1.8
1.2
37.4
-6.0
-20.7 
VTW GR 
Versatel 
Buy 
D- 
-100.0
-41.9
100.0 
9.9 
14.0
15.4
18.0
12.3
16.8
-20.5
-34.6 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
-5.37
-5.31
-5.24
-5.17
-5.11
-5.04
-4.97
-4.91
-4.84
-4.77
-4.71
-4.64
-4.57
-4.51
-4.44
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite B
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.07); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.29)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 131
Performance – Telecommunications  
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%) 
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
Deutsche Telekom 
EUR 
11.38 
15.5
10.0
36.2
-12.0
49,610 
-1.0
10.8
-9.5
-24.3
5.5
18.9
13.7 
2.4 
freenet 
EUR 
8.72 
20.0
8.7
129.1
0
1,117 
-22.9
-24.8
-48.6
-45.4
-16.4
-16.6
-25.3 
-18.6 
QSC 
EUR 
1.71 
4.0
1.7
131.6
-2.3
233 
-27.3
-19.4
-55.5
-41.4
-20.8
-11.2
-32.2 
-14.7 
telegate 
EUR 
10.45 
20.9
9.4
99.5
-10.0
219 
2.6
-4.2
-48.0
-26.6
9.1
4.0
-24.7 
0.2 
Teles 
EUR 
1.31 
3.1
1.3
137.4
0
31 
-4.2
10.7
-29.5
-46.1
2.2
18.8
-6.3 
-19.3 
Tomorrow Focus 
EUR 
2.84 
3.6
2.5
28.2
-10.6
122 
-1.7
1.5
-6.3
-9.8
4.8
9.6
17.0 
16.9 
United Internet 
EUR 
9.25 
16.6
9.0
79.8
-2.7
2,326 
-19.4
-29.9
-32.3
-44.1
-12.9
-21.7
-9.1 
-17.4 
Versatel 
EUR 
15.41 
26.6
10.0
72.7
-35.1
678 
2.7
0.3
19.5
-41.0
9.2
8.5
42.7 
-14.2 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
89.3
-9.1
  
-8.9
-6.9
-26.3
-34.8
-2.4
1.3
-3.0 
-8.1 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-19.4
-1.7
-22.9
2.6
-27.3
-1.0
2.7
-4.2
-40
-20
0
20
Deutsche
Telekom
freenet
QSC
telegate
Teles
Tomorrow
Focus
United
Internet
Versatel
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
9.2
4.8
9.1
-12.9
5.5
-16.4
-20.8
2.2
-40
-20
0
20
Deutsche
Telekom
freenet
QSC
telegate
Teles
Tomorrow
Focus
United
Internet
Versatel
-46.1
-24.3
-45.4
-41.4
-26.6
-44.1
-9.8
-41.0
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Deutsche
Telekom
freenet
QSC
telegate
Teles
Tomorrow
Focus
United
Internet
Versatel
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 132
Valuation overview – Telecommunications  
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
Deutsche Telekom 
104.7 
15.0 
12.4
5.2
3.5
3.5
1.71
1.55
1.49
6.3
4.9
4.8
20.2
11.1 
10.1 
freenet 
122.2 
9.1 
8.8
17.5
3.4
3.2
0.97
0.53
0.48
7.2
3.7
3.4
11.6
8.6 
8.7 
QSC 
-59.1 
-22.0 
0
-11.0
-3.1
0
1.87
0.70
0
17.9
5.4
0
-59.2
-26.2 
0 
telegate 
12.2 
11.5 
11.5
9.9
8.3
8.4
1.98
0.84
0.81
7.1
4.7
4.4
8.5
6.2 
5.7 
Teles 
30.6 
-1.3 
-6.6
47.8
-1.2
-5.0
1.00
0.66
0.87
-1.6
-2.0
-6.7
-1.5
-1.7 
-5.0 
Tomorrow Focus 
20.2 
29.7 
20.2
12.6
15.6
12.3
1.35
1.13
0.90
6.5
7.8
5.6
8.6
11.5 
7.8 
United Internet 
15.8 
11.5 
9.4
11.9
8.8
7.4
2.40
1.27
1.05
11.5
6.2
4.9
15.1
7.4 
5.8 
Versatel 
-9.5 
-12.6 
-82.0
6.4
4.7
3.9
1.87
1.59
1.48
7.6
6.3
5.3
-29.6
-121.3 
36.6 
Germany average 
24.5 
13.0 
11.4
10.1
5.5
5.0
1.64
1.03
0.88
8.1
5.3
4.6
11.5
8.5 
8.3 
 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
Deutsche 
Telekom
freenet
telegate
Teles
Tomorrow 
Focus
United Internet
Versatel
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
Deutsche 
Telekom
freenet
telegate
Teles
Tomorrow 
Focus
United Internet
Versatel
-40
0
40
80
120
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
1.18
0.72
0.88
1.03
1.64
1.28
1.57
1.71
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 133
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tourism, Leisure & Services

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 134
ESG overview – Tourism, Leisure & Services  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
SIX2 GR (H,D+)
LHA GR (B,C+)
AB1 GY (H,D)
HTL GR (B,D)
-30.0
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
LHA GR
(B,C+)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
This sector scores into the ESG Laggard territory with an average ESG sector score of -2.5. The sector’s environmental
performance (-3.0) is only slightly worse than its Social & Governance (-2.8) one. Overall, 25% of stocks are able to obtain a 
Prime investment status, which includes only Lufthansa (Buy, C+). The average relative ESG risk adjustment to the cost of 
equity for the sector is high at -35.8% with a 100% ESG confidence level. Adjusting these findings to stock specific ESG ratings
yields an average ESG risk adjustment of 187.6 bp for this sector. The overall impact of these ESG risk adjustments on our
target prices translates into an upside adjustment of 3.7% for the overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point of view, top tier rated
ESG stocks (B) contribute an average 37.3% to the overall sector performance with risk-adjusted performance (Sharpe ratio) for 
Prime stocks being 62.1% higher relative to the sector benchmark based on our ESG efficient frontier analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
European inflation and unemployment is on the rise, consumer sentiment is hitting long-time lows and leisure travelers are 
trading up. TUI Travel, for instance, reported a 13% rise in average selling prices for the summer in the UK. In the UK and
Germany, the two main source markets, demand is still satisfactory. After the recent consolidation, the main tour operators are
cautious about capacity planning and they are able to secure prices. The leisure year 07/08 should deliver healthy underlying
earnings. TUI Travel and Thomas Cook are still in a phase of integration. Therefore some of these earnings will by eaten up by
restructuring charges. Another burden is the unsure future of the main charter airlines. There is a lot of talk about this, but still no
decision about the future structure of the European charter market. Multiples of most of the companies are low if we calculate
based on underlying operating profit. Share prices deteriorated with the decline in consumer sentiment. The fall of the oil price
gave some support, but without a clear bottom for sentiment, we do not believe there will be a strong rebound. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
Lufthansa 
(Buy,C+) 
Still high demand for premium class tickets 
Drop in oil price drives share price 
performance 
+ high percentage of the fleet meeting stringent noise 
emission standards 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investmernt status) 
Air Berlin plc 
(Hold,D) 
Substantial capacity reductions in 2009 
indicated 
Despite high fuel costs, 2009e EBIT 
improvements  
– lack of transparency on formal systems and strategies 
to address climate change 
Sixt 
(Hold,D+) 
Market leader in Germany 
Economic sentiment 
– lack of transparency regarding guidelines covering 
areas related to social responsibility, human rights, 
suppliers, and health and safety 
hotel.de 
(Buy,D) 
Highly scalable business model 
Revenue growth 
– lack of information on environmental aspects of the 
company's activities 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 135
ESG rating overview – Tourism, Leisure & Services 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
C+
16.7%
C
16.7%
D+
16.7%
D
50.0%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
With regard to environmental issues, the minority (25%) of Tourism companies we analyzed was able to break into the Envi-
ronmental Leader category; the group average, too, could not make it out of Laggard territory. Top Environmental Leader is
Lufthansa (C+). Noteworthy as strength is the high percentage of its fleet meeting stringent noise emission standards. The 
worst environmental scores went to hotel.de (D-) and Air Berlin (D-), with key weaknesses being a significant lack of informa-
tion on the companies' activities regarding the environment and a lack of transparency in formal systems and strategies to
address climate change, respectively. 
Social & Governance review 
None of the analyzed companies within this sector were able to make it into the Soc & Gov Leader category, with a 25% to 75%
split between “C” and “D” Social & Governance ratings. The highest scores were again attributed to Lufthansa (C). The worst 
social scores were assigned to Sixt (D), hotel.de (D+) and Air Berlin (D+), mainly due to the lack of transparency regarding 
guidelines covering areas related to social responsibility, human rights, suppliers and health and safety, business ethics’ 
standards and very little information on social and ethical issues publicly available. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
Lufthansa (C+) 
+ high percentage of the fleet meeting 
stringent noise emission standards 
Lufthansa (C) 
n/a 
Sixt (D+) 
+ measures to encourage the procurement of 
eco-efficient vehicles 
hotel.de (D+) 
+ continuous creation of jobs in the last years 
hotel.de (D-) 
n/a 
Air Berlin plc (D+) 
+ almost all employees located in countries with high minimum 
standards regarding average weekly working time 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
hotel.de (D-) 
– lack of information on environmental 
aspects of the company's activities 
Sixt (D) 
– lack of transparency regarding guidelines covering areas related 
to social responsibility, human rights, suppliers and health and 
safety 
Air Berlin plc (D-) 
– lack of transparency on formal systems and 
strategies to address climate change 
hotel.de (D+) 
– lack of transparency regarding standards of business ethics 
Sixt (D+) 
– limited information on social, ethical and 
environmental issues publicly available 
Air Berlin plc (D+) 
– very little information on social and ethical issues publicly available
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 136
ESG overview charts – Tourism, Leisure & Services 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
HTL GR
LHA GR
SIX2 GR
AB1 GY
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
LHA GR
SIX2 GR
HTL GR
AB1 GY
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
LHA GR
SIX2 GR
HTL GR
AB1 GY
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-5
-4
-4
-3
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
LHA GR
HTL GR
AB1 GY
SIX2 GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
LHA GR
SIX2 GR
AB1 GY
HTL GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
4.75
1.06
6.93
1.47
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 137
ESG sector composites overview – Tourism, Leisure & Services 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LHA GR 
Lufthansa 
Buy 
C+ 
14.3
-35.8
100.0 
10.8 
10.2
14.9
17.5
18.6
17.1
24.3
14.1 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
SIX2 GR 
Sixt 
Hold 
D+ 
-60.0
-35.8
100.0 
10.5 
12.8
17.4
25.0
20.2
43.7
15.9
3.1 
HTL GR 
hotel.de 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-35.8
100.0 
10.4 
13.3
19.6
33.0
25.0
68.4
27.6
14.3 
AB1 GY 
Air Berlin plc 
Hold 
D 
-80.0
-35.8
100.0 
9.9 
12.7
4.0
4.0
3.0
-1.0
-25.2
-38.0 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
-6.63
-6.44
-6.25
-6.07
-5.88
-5.69
-5.50
-5.31
-5.12
-4.93
-4.75
-4.56
-4.37
-4.18
-3.99
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite B
Composite C
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.3); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.18)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 138
Performance – Tourism, Leisure & Services  
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%)
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
Air Berlin plc 
EUR 
4.04 
13.7
3.4
238.4
-16.1
265.5 
-8.2
-30.6
-69.6
-67.0
-1.7
-22.4
-46.3 
-40.3 
hotel.de 
EUR 
19.60 
29.3
15.5
49.2
-20.9
73.5 
-10.5
-2.1
-34.5
-20.3
-4.0
6.1
-11.2 
6.4 
Lufthansa 
EUR 
14.94 
21.6
13.3
44.8
-11.2
6,841.6 
-6.3
-3.0
-22.0
-17.9
0.2
5.2
1.2 
8.9 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
110.8
-16.1
  
-8.3
-11.9
-42.0
-35.1
-1.9
-3.7
-18.8 
-8.3 
Sixt 
EUR 
17.40 
39.2
17.4
125.3
0
430.0 
-29.0
-39.8
-52.3
-43.2
-22.5
-31.7
-29.1 
-16.4 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
125.3
0
  
-29.0
-39.8
-52.3
-43.2
-22.5
-31.7
-29.1 
-16.4 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-10.5
-29.0
-6.3
-8.2
-40
-20
0
20
Air Berlin
plc
hotel.de
Lufthansa
Sixt
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
0.2
-4.0
-1.7
-22.5
-40
-20
0
20
Air Berlin
plc
hotel.de
Lufthansa
Sixt
-67.0
-20.3
-17.9
-43.2
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Air Berlin
plc
hotel.de
Lufthansa
Sixt
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 139
Valuation overview – Tourism, Leisure & Services  
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
Air Berlin plc 
46.9 
26.5 
16.6
8.5
2.4
2.2
1.38
1.04
0.99
30.4
25.5
21.1
163.0
111.3 
73.5 
hotel.de 
67.7 
21.5 
9.5
53.6
19.0
8.8
3.52
1.43
0.75
41.3
9.8
3.1
50.7
10.7 
3.2 
Lufthansa 
5.7 
7.2 
10.3
6.2
3.7
3.6
0.57
0.40
0.37
4.4
3.4
4.0
7.4
6.5 
10.3 
Germany average 
14.1 
13.5 
11.4
10.1
4.0
3.6
1.82
0.95
0.71
10.5
6.9
4.8
18.6
11.7 
7.2 
Sixt 
10.9 
5.5 
5.8
2.4
1.0
0.9
1.02
0.65
0.63
3.2
2.0
2.0
9.2
6.7 
7.0 
Germany average 
10.9 
5.5 
5.8
2.4
1.0
0.9
1.02
0.65
0.63
3.2
2.0
2.0
9.2
6.7 
7.0 
 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
Air Berlin plc
Lufthansa
Sixt
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
hotel.de
hotel.de
Lufthansa
Sixt
0
5
10
15
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
0.45
0.60
0.69
0.88
1.62
1.41
0.64
0.60
0.53
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e
X
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 140
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Utilities, Renewables

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 141
ESG overview – Utilities, Renewables  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
RWE GR (H,C+)
MVV1 GR (H,C)
NDX1 GR 
(S,C+)
CE2 GR (H,B-)
SZU GR (B,D+)
SWW GR (B,A)
SB1 GR (S,B+)
AS1 GR (H,A-)
EOA GR (H,C+)
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
SWW GR
(B,A)
CE2 GR
(H,B-)
AS1 GR
(H,A-)
NDX1 GR
(S,C+)
SB1 GR
(S,B+)
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
The Utilities, Renewables sector scores right into ESG Leader territory with an average ESG sector score of 1.8. Environmental
performance (2.1) has pushed it into this level compared to a lower Social & Governance score (-0.7) with the help of the high 
Renewable companies exposure. A slight majority of stocks (55.6%) are able to obtain a Prime status with Sunways (Buy, A)
and aleo solar AG (Hold, A-) being top scorers. We highlight that there is no negative ESG/risk relationship within this sector. 
Using the general portfolio ESG risk-adjustment variables and taking into account stock specific ESG ratings, the ESG risk
adjustment for the sector has been determined at -13.2bps. The overall impact of these ESG risk adjustments on our target 
prices translates into an upside adjustment of 0.9% for the overall sector. From an ESG style analysis point of view, top tier
rated ESG stocks (A+B) contribute an average 0.5% to the overall sector performance with risk-adjusted performance (Sharpe 
ratio) for Prime stocks being 15.1% higher relative to the sector benchmark based on our ESG efficient frontier analysis. 
Strategic outlook 
The increased earnings in power generation due to higher prices are no longer able to more than offset the negative influences 
from higher competition, grid fee cuts and spending on CO2 allowances. We expect these trends to continue. The generation
fleet is aging and replacement investments in new plants will weigh on margins. In September 2009, Germany will have 
elections and the new government will decide on prolonging the nuclear power plants. Merger speculation is waning. The entry
into the markets for renewables by German utilities is late and can be done only in small steps. The solar boom will lead to 
record earnings in 2008. However, regulatory changes in the three core markets Germany, Spain and the USA, which account
for 70% of global demand, could lead to sales price risks in 2009. The market for wind energy has developed into one of the fastest 
growing markets in recent years. Starting from 7.6 GW worldwide in 1997, cumulative installed output increased almost twelve times to 
over 94 GW in 2007. This trend should continue in the years ahead as well; it is expected that output will double again by 2012.
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
Sunways 
(Buy,A) 
10-year supply contract for 1,000 MW of wafers In 2008, Sunways receives the first 
wafers from LDK 
+ entire revenue derived from the production and sale of 
solar power systems 
CropEnergies 
(Hold,B-) 
CropEnergies is operating in a growth market 
High volatility of bioethanol prices 
+ comprehensive policy on sustainable extraction of 
natural raw materials 
aleo solar 
AG (Hold,A-) 
Potential oversupply in 2009 already 
Final regulatory decision in Spain and 
the US 
+ entire revenue derived from the production and sale of 
solar power systems 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
MVV Energie 
(Hold,C) 
Municipal utilities as acquisition opportunities 
Valuation effect heavily influences 
earnings 
– lack of transparency with respect to thermal efficiency 
of power plants 
RWE 
(Hold,C+) 
Higher share of renewable energy targeted 
Volatile trading results heavily 
influence profit 
– thermal efficiency of older fossil-fuelled power plants 
still low 
E.ON 
(Hold,C+) 
High electricity earnings from hydro/nuclear 
Book gain from asset deal with 
Statkraft 
– involvement in controversial nuclear power projects, 
eg, in Forsmark in Sweden 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 142
ESG rating overview – Utilities, Renewables 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
A
12.5%
A-
6.3%
B+
6.3%
B
12.5%
B-
6.3%
C+
18.8%
C
25.0%
D+
6.3%
D
6.3%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
The vast majority (78%) of Utilities companies we analyzed made it into the Environmental Leaders category, with the group
average also in Leader territory. The best environmental performers include aleo solar (A) and Sunways (A). A key strength 
worth highlighting is that their entire revenue derived from the production and sale of solar power systems. The worst Laggards
ranking went to Südzucker (D+) and MVV Energie (C-), with weaknesses being a lack of global policy on genetic engineering
with regard to the non-use of (ingredients derived from) genetically modified raw materials and a lack of transparency regarding
the thermal efficiency of power plants. 
Social & Governance review 
With regard to Social & Governance issues, only 44% of the companies we analyzed qualified for a Soc & Gov. Leader rating.
Sunways (B+) and E.ON (B-) lead the category, with Sunways showing a good performance of a group-wide policy regarding 
staff relations and labor standards as key strength. One of E.ON strengths are programs to support socially disadvantaged
customers with payment problems. The worst social ranking fell to Nordex AG (D) and Schmack Biogas (D), with both 
companies showing a key weakness because very little information on social and ethical issues is publicly available. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
aleo solar AG  
(A) 
+ entire revenue derived from the production 
and sale of solar power systems 
Sunways  
(B+) 
+ group-wide policy regarding staff relations and labor standards 
Sunways  
(A) 
+ entire revenue derived from the production 
and sale of solar power systems 
E.ON  
(B-) 
+ programs to support socially disadvantaged customers and 
customers with payment problems. 
Schmack Biogas  
(A-) 
+ high portion of environmentally beneficial 
products and services 
MVV Energie  
(C+) 
+ comprehensive programs for socially disadvantaged customers 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
Südzucker  
(D+) 
– no global policy on genetic engineering with 
regard to the non-use of (ingredients 
derived from) genetically modified raw 
materials 
Schmack Biogas 
(D) 
– very little information on social and ethical issues publicly available
MVV Energie  
(C-) 
– lack of transparency with respect to thermal 
efficiency of power plants 
Nordex AG  
(D) 
– very little information on social and ethical issues publicly available
E.ON  
(C+) 
– lack of transparency with regard to standards 
on the disposal of drilling mud and cuttings 
and on the minimization of gas flaring 
Südzucker  
(D+) 
– lack of transparency regarding supply chain management with 
respect to social and environmental minimum standards 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 143
ESG overview charts – Utilities, Renewables 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
SWW GR
SZU GR
EOA GR
RWE GR
CE2 GR
AS1 GR
MVV1 GR
NDX1 GR
SB1 GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SWW GR
AS1 GR
SB1 GR
CE2 GR
EOA GR
NDX1 GR
RWE GR
MVV1 GR
SZU GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
AS1 GR
SWW GR
SB1 GR
CE2 GR
NDX1 GR
EOA GR
RWE GR
MVV1 GR
SZU GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
SWW GR
EOA GR
MVV1 GR
RWE GR
CE2 GR
AS1 GR
SZU GR
SB1 GR
NDX1 GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites 
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
SWW GR
AS1 GR
SB1 GR
CE2 GR
NDX1 GR
EOA GR
RWE GR
MVV1 GR
SZU GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
7.72
1.47
3.70
0.80
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
* averages are MCAP weighted 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 144
ESG sector composites overview – Utilities, Renewables 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SWW GR 
Sunways 
Buy 
A 
85.7
-5.1
0.0 
11.3 
10.8
6.2
9.7
10.2
56.2
64.2
53.5 
AS1 GR 
aleo solar AG 
Hold 
A- 
71.4
-5.1
0.0 
10.8 
10.4
9.5
10.9
11.4
15.2
20.2
9.8 
SB1 GR 
Schmack Biogas Sell 
B+ 
57.1
-5.1
0.0 
10.4 
10.0
10.4
7.5
7.8
-27.8
-25.3
-35.4 
CE2 GR 
CropEnergies 
Hold 
B- 
28.6
-5.1
0.0 
10.4 
10.2
2.7
3.2
3.3
20.8
22.8
12.6 
NDX1 GR 
Nordex AG 
Sell 
C+ 
14.3
-5.1
0.0 
10.4 
10.3
22.2
20.8
21.0
-6.3
-5.5
-15.8 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
EOA GR 
E.ON 
Hold 
C+ 
14.3
-5.1
0.0 
9.0 
8.9
35.5
44.0
44.4
23.9
25.0
16.1 
RWE GR 
RWE 
Hold 
C+ 
14.3
-5.1
0.0 
9.0 
8.9
65.7
80.0
80.7
21.9
22.9
14.0 
MVV1 GR 
MVV Energie 
Hold 
C 
-20.0
-5.1
0.0 
8.1 
8.2
33.0
33.0
32.6
0.0
-1.3
-9.4 
SZU GR 
Südzucker 
Buy 
D+ 
-60.0
-5.1
0.0 
9.0 
9.3
10.7
17.0
16.4
59.5
53.8
44.6 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x ) 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%) 
7.39
7.54
7.68
7.83
7.98
8.13
8.28
8.43
8.58
8.73
8.88
9.03
9.18
9.33
9.48
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 1.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite A
Composite B
Composite C
Composite D
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.86); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.75)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
20
40
60
80
100
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 145
Performance – Utilities, Renewables 
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%) 
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
E.ON 
EUR 
35.50 
51.0
35.5
43.6
0
71,035 
-9.0
-18.1
-9.2
-26.9
-2.5
-10.0
14.0 
-0.1 
MVV Energie 
EUR 
33.00 
34.3
27.4
3.8
-16.9
2,175 
2.2
-1.0
20.6
3.1
8.7
7.1
43.8 
29.9 
RWE 
EUR 
65.65 
100.6
65.7
53.2
0
36,395 
-12.7
-19.4
-14.4
-31.9
-6.2
-11.2
8.8 
-5.2 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
33.5
-5.6
  
-6.5
-12.8
-1.0
-18.6
0
-4.7
22.2 
8.2 
aleo solar AG 
EUR 
9.46 
17.2
9.1
81.8
-3.5
123 
-4.4
-24.6
-31.5
-44.7
2.0
-16.4
-8.2 
-17.9 
CropEnergies 
EUR 
2.65 
5.7
2.4
115.5
-8.3
225 
-16.9
-16.4
-54.5
-30.6
-10.4
-8.2
-31.3 
-3.9 
Nordex AG 
EUR 
22.20 
38.2
18.4
72.0
-17.2
1,484 
-5.0
-23.8
-33.3
-30.1
1.4
-15.6
-10.1 
-3.4 
Schmack Biogas 
EUR 
10.39 
33.9
8.7
225.8
-16.7
57 
-23.4
-14.3
-47.8
-64.1
-16.9
-6.2
-24.5 
-37.4 
Südzucker 
EUR 
10.66 
16.3
10.6
53.3
-0.6
2,019 
-11.6
-13.7
-20.5
-34.1
-5.1
-5.5
2.7 
-7.3 
Sunways 
EUR 
6.21 
10.1
6.1
62.0
-2.1
71 
-11.2
-24.1
-30.0
-19.6
-4.7
-24.1
-30.0 
7.2 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
101.7
-8.1
  
-12.1
-19.5
-36.3
-37.2
-5.6
-12.7
-16.9 
-10.4 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-16.9
-11.2
-11.6
-9.0
-12.7
-4.4
2.2
-5.0
-23.4
-40
-20
0
20
E.ON
MVV Energie
RWE
aleo solar AG
CropEnergies
Nordex AG
Schmack
Biogas
Südzucker
Sunways
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
-5.1
-4.7
1.4
2.0
-16.9
-2.5
8.7
-6.2
-10.4
-40
-20
0
20
E.ON
MVV Energie
RWE
aleo solar AG
CropEnergies
Nordex AG
Schmack
Biogas
Südzucker
Sunways
-30.6
-26.9
3.1
-31.9
-44.7
-64.1
-30.1
-19.6
-34.1
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
E.ON
MVV Energie
RWE
aleo solar AG
CropEnergies
Nordex AG
Schmack
Biogas
Südzucker
Sunways
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 146
Valuation overview – Utilities, Renewables  
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
E.ON 
10.7 
11.2 
9.7
8.3
7.7
6.6
1.30
1.12
1.14
7.2
6.9
7.2
7.2
6.8 
7.1 
MVV Energie 
14.6 
11.2 
17.7
6.1
6.0
8.7
1.32
1.22
1.19
8.6
6.3
7.3
14.8
9.2 
11.5 
RWE 
17.6 
13.7 
10.0
9.7
6.7
5.7
1.25
1.05
1.05
6.5
5.7
5.3
7.9
6.9 
6.4 
Germany average 
13.7 
11.9 
11.5
7.8
6.7
6.8
1.29
1.13
1.13
7.3
6.3
6.5
9.0
7.5 
7.8 
aleo solar AG 
17.0 
7.3 
7.8
13.7
5.8
5.9
0.71
0.37
0.31
9.4
4.7
4.8
10.9
5.5 
5.9 
CropEnergies 
27.5 
36.6 
8.4
18.9
11.6
5.4
2.91
0.80
0.48
21.0
12.0
4.5
32.0
30.3 
6.1 
Nordex AG 
38.0 
35.2 
24.8
29.5
25.0
18.1
2.20
1.25
0.91
30.4
18.6
12.0
41.0
24.4 
14.9 
Schmack Biogas 
-36.3 
-4.2 
-135.6
-42.1
-6.0
15.0
1.79
0.72
0.67
-32.6
-4.5
23.2
-25.1
-3.5 
-474.7 
Südzucker 
149.1 
15.0 
13.1
9.2
5.0
4.9
0.91
0.63
0.61
10.8
5.5
5.3
27.7
9.5 
8.5 
Sunways 
81.4 
28.3 
6.4
17.8
7.7
3.8
0.43
0.36
0.27
10.9
8.0
3.3
22.7
19.3 
4.8 
Germany average 
46.1 
19.7 
-12.5
7.8
8.2
8.9
1.49
0.69
0.54
8.3
7.4
8.8
18.2
14.2 
-72.4 
 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
E.ON
MVV Energie
RWE
aleo solar AG
CropEnergies
Nordex AG
Schmack Biogas
Südzucker
Sunways
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
-5
0
5
10
15
20
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
E.ON
MVV Energie
RWE
aleo solar AG
CropEnergies
Nordex AG
Schmack Biogas
Südzucker
Sunways
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
4
8
12
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
0.92
0.98
1.06
1.46
1.42
0.84
0.74
0.99
1.24
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e
X
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 147
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wholesale & Retail,  
Fashion & Luxury Goods

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 148
ESG overview – Wholesale & Retail, Fashion & Luxury Goods  
TP upside vs. difference TPESG-TP (%)* 
 
Sustainable alpha of Prime rated stocks (%) 
Sector
BOS3 GR (H,D)
ESC GR (S,D-)
PRA GR (B,D)
MEO GR (H,C)
FIE GR (B,D+)
DOU GR (S,D-)
BYW6 GR (S,D)
ARO GR (S,C)
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
TP upside (%)
TPESG - TP (%)
 
 
 
 
No Prime Investment status companies available 
* average is MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG risk analysis 
The sector scores deep into ESG Laggard territory with an average ESG sector score of -3.4. Environmental performance is 
close to the lowest score possible (-4.0) with Social & Governance performance slightly better (-3.1). Given the overall low ESG 
score, none of the companies are able to obtain a Prime investment status, but Arcandor (Sell, C) and METRO (Hold, C) show 
the highest ESG scores in the sector. The average relative ESG risk adjustment to the cost of equity for the sector could not be 
determined due to a lack of Prime rated stocks. Using the general portfolio ESG risk-adjustment variables and taking into 
account stock specific ESG ratings, the ESG risk adjustment for the sector has been determined at 32.8 bps. The overall impact 
of these ESG risk adjustments on our target prices translates into an upside adjustment of -2.4% for the overall sector. From an ESG 
style analysis point of view, there are no top tier rated ESG stocks with better rated C stocks contributing an average 75.5% to 
the overall sector performance. Given the lack of Prime rated companies, no ESG efficient frontier analysis could be conducted. 
Strategic outlook 
The short-term outlook for the sector remains weak, as macroeconomic factors are still experiencing a strong headwind. Most 
recently, mounting recessionary fears and a renewed flare-up of the financial market crisis have once again unsettled consum-
ers strongly. Given the current inflation rate of approximately 3%, nominal income gains are being offset by higher prices, 
notably for energy and food. Similarly, the favorable trend in the labor market is increasingly receding. The plunge in the Ifo
business-climate barometer, which was based on companies’ business outlook, is consistent with this picture. This suggests 
that the economic upswing is drawing to a close. Overall sentiment indicators for the retail sector in Western Europe have
cooled down noticeably on account of the dimming economy and increasing inflation. The risk of a spillover of this dimming to 
Eastern Europe has increased. Although we think that the decline in oil prices in the last few days will provide relief, we see this 
movement merely as a technical counter-reaction. 
TOP & BOTTOM SUSTAINABLE ALPHAS BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
COMPANY 
INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS 
STOCK TRIGGERS 
KEY ESG STRENGTH/WEAKNESS 
Top sustainable alphas (Prime investment status) 
No Prime Investment status companies available 
Bottom sustainable alphas (Not Prime investment status) 
Douglas 
(Sell,D-) 
Europe’s leading perfumery chain 
Potential disappointment with 08/09 
forecast 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to ensure 
employee awareness of and compliance with the code 
of business ethics 
Escada 
(Sell,D-) 
Relaunch of the company 
New management with a strong track 
record 
– lack of transparency on formal systems and strategies 
to address climate change 
Arcandor 
(Sell,C) 
Department Stores: ongoing restructuring 
Weak consumer spending in Western 
Europe 
– lack of transparency regarding environmental sound 
store siting and operation 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 149
ESG rating overview – Wholesale & Retail, Fashion & Luxury Goods 
ESG sector scoring overview by category 
 
ESG stock rating breakdown 
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
Social & Governance
ESG
Environmental
 
C
18.2%
D+
9.1%
D
54.5%
D-
18.2%
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
Environmental review 
None of the companies within this sector were able to score an Environmental Leader status with a 25% to 75% split between
“C” and “D” environmental ratings. Best environmental performers include METRO (C), which has implemented a group-wide 
environmental management system and Arcandor (C-), which has shown reasonable measures to promote products that
provide an added value regarding ecological aspects. Worst scores can be attributed to BayWa (D-), Douglas (D-), Fielmann (D-),
Escada (D-) and Hugo Boss (D-). Main environmental weaknesses for these companies relate to their limited data collection
regarding resource consumption/emissions, limited public availability on environmental issues and a general lack of transpar-
ency regarding environmental performance indicators. 
Social & Governance review 
The sector’s social performance follows the environmental rating pattern with none of the sector’s companies being able to
break into Leading territory. The split between “C” and “D” rated companies in the Social & Governance category is equal to the
environmental one (25% and 75%, respectively). Highest scores can be attributed again to Arcandor (C), which shows com-
prehensive initiatives to foster the work-life balance of staff and METRO (C), displaying reasonable supplier standards regarding 
labor/health and safety issues. Worst social scores were assigned to BayWa (D), Douglas (D), Praktiker (D), Escada (D) and 
Hugo Boss (D), which portray several transparency shortcomings regarding policies related to labor standards and human 
rights coupled with a lack of transparency regarding measures to ensure employee awareness of and compliance with estab-
lished codes of business ethics. 
TOP/BOTTOM ESG SCORES BY CATEGORYS’ ESG SCORING STATUS 
Top ESG Leader scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental strength 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance strength 
METRO (C) 
+ group-wide environmental management 
system implemented 
Arcandor (C) 
+ comprehensive initiatives to foster work-life balance of staff 
Arcandor (C-) 
+ reasonable measures to promote products 
that provide an added value regarding 
ecological aspects 
METRO (C) 
+ reasonable supplier standards regarding labor/health and safety 
issues 
Praktiker (D) 
n/a 
Fielmann (D+) 
+ the majority of employees is located in countries with high 
minimum standards regarding minimum wages 
Bottom ESG Laggards scores by category 
Environmental rating Key environmental weakness 
Soc. & Gov. rating Key social & governance weakness 
BayWa (D-) 
– no data collection regarding resource 
consumption and emissions 
BayWa (D) 
– lack of transparency regarding policies related to labor standards 
and human rights 
Douglas (D-) 
– no data collection regarding resource 
consumption and emissions 
Douglas (D) 
– lack of transparency regarding measures to ensure employee 
awareness of and compliance with the code of business ethics 
Fielmann (D-) 
– no data collection regarding resource 
consumption and emissions 
Praktiker (D) 
– no comprehensive policy on equal opportunities and non-
discrimination 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<date16.09.2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 150
ESG overview charts – Wholesale & Retail, Fashion & Luxury Goods 
TP and TPESG upside (%)* 
 
ESG score overview by ESG scoring status  
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
PRA GR
BYW6
GR
FIE GR
BOS3 GR
MEO GR
ARO GR
ESC GR
DOU GR
TP upside (%)
TP ESG upside (%)
TP upside sector (%)
TP ESG upside sector (%)
 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
ARO GR
MEO GR
FIE GR
BYW6 GR
PRA GR
BOS3 GR
DOU GR
ESC GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
Environmental score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
 
Social & Governance score overview by category’s ESG scoring status 
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
MEO GR
ARO GR
PRA GR
BYW6 GR
DOU GR
FIE GR
ESC GR
BOS3 GR
Environmental Leader
Environmental Laggard
Sector average  
-5
-4
-4
-3
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
ARO GR
MEO GR
FIE GR
BYW6 GR
DOU GR
PRA GR
ESC GR
BOS3 GR
Soc. & Gov. Leader
Soc. & Gov. Laggard
Sector average
kesg/ke differential by ESG scoring status (bps)* 
 
ERP & beta differential between Prime/Not Prime composites** 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
MEO GR
ARO GR
FIE GR
BYW6 GR
BOS3 GR
PRA GR
DOU GR
ESC GR
ESG Leader
ESG Laggard
Sector average
 
4.13
0.98
4.35
1.03
ERP
Beta
Prime
Not Prime
*  averages are MCAP weighted 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research  
**  Market Portfolio figures due to lack of Prime sector composite availability

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 151
ESG sector composites overview – Wholesale & Retail, Fashion & Luxury Goods 
COMPOSITE CONSTITUENTS BREAKDOWN BY OEKOM INVESTMENT STATUS 
Bloomberg  
ticker 
 
Name 
Current 
rec. 
ESG 
rating
ESG exposure 
ESGEi (%)
ESG risk 
ESGRsector i (%)
ESG confidence 
ESGCsector i (%) 
 
ke 
kESG
Current 
price
Target 
price
TPESG
TP upside 
(%)
TPESG upside  
(%)
α sustainable  
(%) 
Prime Investment status 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n/a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not Prime Investment status
 
 
 
 
 
 
ARO GR 
Arcandor 
Sell 
C 
-20.0
-5.1
NA 
10.4 
10.5
4.5
4.5
4.4
-0.4
-1.6
-12.0 
MEO GR 
METRO 
Hold 
C 
-20.0
-5.1
NA 
9.9 
10.0
39.4
40.0
39.5
1.6
0.4
-9.6 
FIE GR 
Fielmann 
Buy 
D+ 
-60.0
-5.1
NA 
8.6 
8.8
50.2
58.0
55.9
15.6
11.4
2.6 
BYW6 GR 
BayWa 
Sell 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
NA 
8.6 
8.9
24.0
35.0
33.3
45.8
38.9
30.0 
PRA GR 
Praktiker 
Buy 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
NA 
10.4 
10.8
8.7
14.0
13.4
60.2
53.1
42.3 
BOS3 GR 
Hugo Boss 
Hold 
D 
-80.0
-5.1
NA 
9.9 
10.3
22.6
26.0
24.8
15.1
10.0
-0.3 
DOU GR 
Douglas 
Sell 
D- 
-100.0
-5.1
NA 
9.5 
9.9
31.5
26.0
24.5
-17.6
-22.2
-32.2 
ESC GR 
Escada 
Sell 
D- 
-100.0
-5.1
NA 
9.9 
10.4
10.1
9.0
8.5
-10.4
-15.4
-25.8 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
ESG confidence analysis ( x )* 
ESG style analysis (%) 
ESG efficient frontier analysis (%)* 
-0.67
-0.64
-0.61
-0.58
-0.55
-0.52
-0.49
-0.46
-0.43
-0.40
-0.37
-0.33
-0.30
-0.27
-0.24
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite C
Composite D
 
Sharpe ratio Prime(0.68); Sharpe ratio Sector(0.56)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
5
10
15
20
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
* Market portfolio data due to lack of Prime/Not Prime composites 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 152
Performance – Wholesale & Retail, Fashion & Luxury Goods 
 
 
 
52-week 
52-week chg. (%) 
Market cap. 
Absolute performance (%) 
Relative performance (%) vs. Euro STOXX 50 
Company 
 
Price 
High
Low
High
Low
(mn) 
1M
3M
12M
YTD
1M
3M
12M 
YTD 
Arcandor 
EUR 
4.52 
23.7
4.5
424.6
0
1,038.5 
-43.0
-56.1
-78.5
-72.0
-36.5
-47.9
-55.3 
-45.2 
BayWa 
EUR 
24.00 
47.2
24.0
96.5
0
813.4 
-33.5
-41.8
-39.8
-30.5
-27.0
-33.6
-16.5 
-3.7 
Douglas 
EUR 
31.54 
45.3
29.6
43.5
-6.2
1,237.5 
2.5
-6.7
-25.1
-19.9
9.0
1.4
-1.9 
6.9 
Fielmann 
EUR 
50.17 
53.0
34.6
5.6
-31.0
2,107.1 
-0.7
8.7
6.9
13.2
5.8
16.8
30.1 
40.0 
METRO 
EUR 
39.38 
67.0
36.3
70.1
-7.9
12,863.8 
-1.7
-13.3
-34.7
-31.2
4.8
-5.1
-11.4 
-4.4 
Praktiker 
EUR 
8.74 
28.3
8.7
223.8
0
506.9 
-23.6
-40.7
-67.6
-56.3
-17.1
-32.5
-44.4 
-29.5 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
144.0
-7.5
  
-16.7
-25.0
-39.8
-32.8
-10.2
-16.8
-16.6 
-6.0 
Escada 
EUR 
10.05 
29.5
9.3
193.5
-7.5
210.1 
-22.6
-28.3
-64.5
-47.6
-16.1
-20.1
-41.2 
-20.8 
Hugo Boss 
EUR 
22.58 
48.6
22.6
115.2
0
1,560.9 
-10.3
-21.9
-44.7
-41.6
-3.8
-13.7
-21.4 
-14.8 
Germany average 
  
  
 
 
154.4
-3.7
  
-16.5
-25.1
-54.6
-44.6
-10.0
-16.9
-31.3 
-17.8 
 
 
1M absolute performance (%) 
1M relative performance (%) 
Absolute performance YTD (%) 
-22.6
-23.6
-33.5
-0.7
2.5
-43.0
-10.3
-1.7
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Arcandor
BayWa
Douglas
Fielmann
METRO
Praktiker
Escada
Hugo Boss
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
4.8
9.0
-27.0
-36.5
-16.1
5.8
-17.1
-3.8
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Arcandor
BayWa
Douglas
Fielmann
METRO
Praktiker
Escada
Hugo Boss
-31.2
-72.0
-30.5
-19.9
13.2
-47.6
-56.3
-41.6
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Arcandor
BayWa
Douglas
Fielmann
METRO
Praktiker
Escada
Hugo Boss
DAX (%)
Euro STOXX (%)
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

ESG Research 
September 2008 
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 153
Valuation overview – Wholesale & Retail, Fashion & Luxury Goods  
 
P/E (x) 
P/CF (x) 
EV/sales (x) 
EV/EBITDA (x) 
EV/EBIT (x) 
Company 
2007 
2008e 
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e
2009e
2007
2008e 
2009e 
Arcandor 
300.5 
-36.2 
9.8
8.0
2.5
1.7
0.50
0.17
0.16
6.2
4.4
3.6
9.2
10.8 
7.7 
BayWa 
26.6 
11.6 
15.3
9.1
5.0
5.4
0.32
0.24
0.24
11.4
8.1
8.9
20.6
12.8 
15.2 
Douglas 
19.7 
13.1 
12.3
8.8
5.9
5.6
0.69
0.49
0.45
7.7
5.6
5.1
13.1
9.5 
8.8 
Fielmann 
24.9 
18.6 
16.1
17.7
14.3
12.6
2.22
2.20
2.04
11.3
10.0
9.0
14.1
12.1 
10.8 
METRO 
23.1 
23.4 
12.3
8.8
6.5
5.3
0.38
0.29
0.28
7.2
6.5
5.4
11.6
12.0 
8.7 
Praktiker 
70.4 
6.4 
6.3
18.6
3.4
3.3
0.44
0.20
0.22
9.2
3.8
4.1
13.8
5.8 
6.1 
Germany average 
31.7 
12.0 
10.9
10.5
4.7
3.9
0.76
0.60
0.56
8.4
5.8
5.3
13.0
9.8 
8.8 
Escada 
-19.2 
-51.7 
15.8
8.9
8.2
1.07
0.70
0.70
10.8
10.7
9.8
93.1
27.3 
23.5 
Hugo Boss 
19.8 
10.4 
9.5
14.7
7.5
6.9
2.06
1.08
1.08
11.7
6.5
6.0
15.2
8.1 
7.5 
Germany average 
0.3 
-20.6 
635.9
15.2
8.2
7.5
1.56
0.89
0.89
11.2
8.6
7.9
54.2
17.7 
15.5 
 
 
EV/sales 2009e (x) vs. EBIT margin 2009e (%) 
ROCE 2009e (%) vs. WACC 2009e (%) 
EV/sales 2001-2009e (x) 
Arcandor
BayWa
Douglas
Fielmann
METRO
Praktiker
Escada
Hugo Boss
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0
5
10
15
20
EBIT margin 2009e (%)
EV/sales 2009e (x)
Arcandor
BayWa
Douglas
Fielmann
METRO
Praktiker
Escada
Hugo Boss
0
10
20
30
40
5
6
7
8
9
10
WACC 2009e (%)
ROCE 2009e (%)
0.67
0.88
0.65
0.67
0.96
0.79
0.70
0.66
0.50
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008e
2009e
X
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 154
Appendix 1 – UniCredit ESG Research Methodology 
Step 1 – ESG rating 
 
 
In order to assess the ESG risk profile of securities under coverage, we have formed a partnership 
with oekom research. oekom is one of the world’s leading rating agencies providing sustain-
ability research that covers share and bond issuers (companies, countries and supra-national 
institutions) placing a strong emphasis on quality, independence and transparency.  
OEKOM MILESTONES  
1993
1994
1995
1999
2004
2007
2008
2009
Foundation of Oekom GmbH
Development of the Environmental Rating
Selection in an international environmental tendering 
competition. 
Start of a four-year rating project in conjunction with 
Oeko-Invest, Boerse Online and Bloomberg
Launching of the first eco-funds
based on Oekom’s environmental
research by various financial 
service providers
Spin-off from
Oekom
GmbH and
foundation of 
Oekom
research AG
Foundation of the European
association AICSRR to 
promote and develop quality 
standards for sustainability 
ratings
Launch of Global 
Challenges Index 
(GCX)
Oekom research provides research for over 70 funds with
a total volume of more than 85 billion euros.
There are 30 members of staff on the Oekom research team.
m i l e s t o n e s
 
 
Source: oekom research 
 
 
Since 1993, oekom research has actively helped to shape the market for sustainable investments 
with evaluations providing companies with a critical yardstick, while at the same time acting as 
a stimulus for integrating environmental and social concerns into company management. 
Linking oekom’s corporate rating to an ESG framework 
 
 
oekom analyzes companies using a comprehensive collection of criteria for the ethical evaluation 
of companies based on the Frankfurt-Hohenheimer guidelines drawn up by professors Johannes
Hoffman and Gerhard Scherhorn. Working together with its Advisory Board, the company continu-
ally adjusts criteria to keep up with the latest developments and findings. Regular update cycles 
ensure that ratings are kept up-to-date. In order to make the evaluations transparent, oekom 
publishes not only their criteria and processes, but also significant rating results.  
oekom’s assessment of the social and environmental performance of a company as part of
the Corporate Rating can be defined as a positive screening and is carried out with the aid of 
over 100 social and environmental criteria, selected specifically for each industry and covering six
areas, which we have adapted to fit into an ESG framework analysis. We highlight that throughout 
this research we have replaced oekom’s “corporate” rating definition by “ESG” rating:

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 155
OEKOM’S CORPORATE RATING ANALYSIS IN AN ESG FRAMEWORK  
E
S
G
4. Staff and Suppliers
- Staff
- Freedom of association
- Work -life balance
- Safeguarding of jobs
- Health & safety
- Equal opportunities
- Subcontractors/suppliers
5. Society and Product 
Responsibility
- Society
- Human rights
- Political Donations
- Taxes and subsidies
- Stake holder dialogue
- Customer and product 
responsibility
1. Environmental Management
- Environmental policy
- Environmental management 
system
- External reporting
- Environmental performance 
indicators
- Climate change strategy
- Travel and transport
2. Products and Services
- Resource consumption
- Emissions
- Materials and substances used
- Recycling
- Environ. sound mobility concepts
- Environmental controversies
3. Eco-efficiency
- Energy use
- GHG emissions
- VOC emissions
- Water use
- Waste water
- Total waste
6. Corporate Governance and 
Business Ethics
- Corporate governance
- Board independence/effectiveness
- Shareholder democracy
- Executive compensation
- Shareholder structure
- Business ethics
Environmental
Social
Governance
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
 
 
Depending on the products and services it provides, each industry faces different social and
environmental challenges. For this reason, oekom research makes around one-third of these
criteria industry-specific.

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 156
KEY ESG RISKS & CHALLENGES BY SECTOR 
Aerospace  
& Defence, 
Infrastructure  
& Logistics 
-  climate protection strategy 
-  use of hazardous and toxic substances in products 
 and production 
- life cycle engineering 
-  ethical standards in production and sale of products 
-  alternative drive systems 
- transportation efficiency 
-  transport-related air and noise emissions 
-  biodiversity management 
-  public security and emergency response plans 
Media 
- environmental impacts of media production  
 (e.g. sourcing of paper) 
- energy efficiency of equipment 
- responsible media content 
- protection of consumer rights 
Automobiles  
& Parts 
-  vehicle fleet consumption 
-  alternative drive systems 
-  climate protection strategy 
-  take back of used cars and recycling 
-  alternative drive systems 
-  life cycle engineering 
Pharmaceuticals 
& Biotech, 
Health Care 
- energy efficiency 
- life cycle engineering 
- use of hazardous and toxic substances 
- product safety 
- green building and facility management 
- energy efficiency of operations 
- responsible services (e.g. regarding medical diagnosis, 
 inappropriate therapies, qualification of staff) 
- facility hygiene 
- environmental safety of human and animal pharmaceuticals
- sustainable production of renewable raw materials 
- pharmaceuticals for developing countries 
- fair commercial practices 
Banks 
-  integration of environmental and social factors into 
 lending (e.g. project and export finance) 
-  integration of environmental and social factors into 
 investments and asset management business 
-  responsible product and contract design 
-  job security 
Real Estate 
- climate protection, energy efficiency and  
 use of renewable energies 
- green building 
- health and well-being of building users 
- environmental and social aspects of site selection 
Capital Goods 
-  energy efficiency 
-  life cycle engineering 
-  use of hazardous and toxic substances 
-  product safety 
Software & IT 
Services, 
Semiconductors,
Technology  
& Hardware 
- strategy regarding sustainable product portfolio 
- energy efficiency 
- life cycle engineering 
-  product safety 
-  efficiency of IT 
- Infrastructure 
-  data protection 
- customer security and privacy 
-  use of hazardous and toxic substances 
-  upgradability/reusability/recyclability of products 
-  labour standards in supply chain 
Chemicals 
-  product and substance risk management and 
 assessment 
-  renewable raw materials 
-  transport and facility safety 
-  fair commercial practices 
Steel, Metals  
& Mining 
-  prevention of damage to the environment  
 (safe disposal of waste and processing residues) 
-  climate protection and energy 
- efficient process design 
-  conflicts over land use and protection of human rights 
-  occupational safety 
Construction  
& Materials 
-  climate protection strategy 
-  resource efficiency 
-  occupational safety 
-  fair commercial practices 
-  use of hazardous and toxic substances 
-  green building 
-  labour standards in the supply chain 
-  sustainable production of renewable raw materials 
-  life cycle engineering 
-  product safety 
Telecommuni-
cations 
-  energy efficiency of transmission networks 
-  electromagnetic radiation 
-  upgradeability/reusability/recyclability of products 
-  data protection 
Consumer 
Goods 
-  product safety 
-  controversial ingredients 
-  consumer information 
-  renewable raw materials 
Tourism, 
Leisure  
& Services 
-  climate and biodiversity protection strategy 
-  green facility management 
-  customer safety 
-  customer rights management 
Financial 
Services 
-  integration of environmental and social factors into 
 financial services 
-  responsible product and contract design 
-  job security 
Utilities, 
Renewables 
-  energy efficiency 
-  life cycle engineering 
-  use of hazardous and toxic substances 
-  sustainable production of renewable raw materials 
-  climate protection through expansion of renewable 
 energies and increased energy efficiency 
-  environmentally-compatible operation of plant and  
 infrastructure 
- security of supply 
- fair commercial practices 
Insurance 
-  integration of environmental and social factors into 
 property and casualty insurance products and 
 claims management 
-  integration of environmental and social factors into 
 investments and asset management business 
-  responsible product and contract design 
-  job security 
Wholesale  
& Retail, 
Fashion & 
Luxury Goods 
-  climate protection in production and transportation 
-  biodiversity 
- employment standards 
-  health and nutrition 
-  labour rights standards in production 
-  environmental impact of production 
-  use of recycled raw materials 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 157
 
 
All criteria are individually weighted and evaluated and finally aggregated to yield an overall
score. As social and environmental impacts of industries differ, each industry analyzed is
being classified in a sustainability matrix. 
OEKOM SUSTAINABILTY MATRIX AND PRIME INVESTMENT STATUS LOGO 
oekom sustainability matrix  
 
oekom prime investment status  
Auto-
mobile
Textiles
Insurance
Environmental Relevance
low
medium
high
low
medium
high
Social Relevance
C-
C
C+
B-
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
 
 
The results provide a ranking of the companies examined within an industry in which the 
leaders in that industry (those awarded “prime” status) are identified. Depending on this
classification, the two components of the Corporate Rating, i.e. the Social Rating and the
Environmental Rating, are weighted. 
OEKOM CORPORATE RATING OVERVIEW 
Social 
Sustainability
Environmental 
Sustainability
Social Rating
Environmental 
Rating
Corporate Rating
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
 
 
This overall analysis is graded on a twelve-point scale from A+ (the company acts in a 
particularly progressive manner) to D- (few or no positive environmental, social and cultural 
activities worth noting were identified).

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 158
oekom’s rating procedure 
 
 
The following table illustrates the assessment procedure of the Corporate Rating: 
OEKOM RATING PROCEDURE  
Company
oekom research
Stakeholder
Telephone interviews 
with and extensive 
research at:
- international NGOs
- scientific institutions
- public offices
Continuous screening of:
- newspapers
- magazines
- newsletter
- databases
End of rating process
Final rating
Rating
committee
Rating 
committee
Delivery to companies
Transfer to capital market
Press release/newsletter
Feedback and comments
Feedback and comments
Announcement of rating and
request for further information
Draft rating I
Draft rating II
Draft rating III
Rating catalogue
Revision of
rating criteria
“Engagement “
 
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research 
 
 
In order to build a comprehensive picture of each company being analyzed, analysts collect 
information relevant to the rating both from the company itself and from independent experts.
The work of oekom research’s analysts is supported by a network of international experts in
the fields of sustainability, human rights, employment rights and consumer protection: 
● Evaluation of company documentation such as annual and sustainability reports 
● Interviews with company representatives 
● Media screening 
● Interviews with independent experts 
● Assessments from independent specialists from NGO’s governmental and public institu-
tions, business associations, research institutes, consumer protection groups etc. 
During the rating process, considerable importance is attached to cooperate extensively with
the company under evaluation. A variety of feedback loops give companies the opportunity to
comment on and add to the provisional findings. The external rating committee provides
content for inclusion in the industry-specific list of criteria and carries out a final plausibility 
check of the rating results at the end of the rating process.

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 159
oekom research’s standard set of exclusionary criteria 
 
 
No matter if a company is ranked as “Prime,” the applying of specific criteria may lead an
ethical oriented investor to refrain from investing in a company. Therefore oekom research 
carries out a comprehensive negative screening in a great number of ethical controversial
business fields and practices for each company. A standard set of exclusion criteria to work
with has been identified, which investors can use for guidance. 
OEKOM STANDARD SET OF EXCLUSION CRITERIA  
Controversial Business Areas
Controversial Business Practices
 Animal Testing (animal testing for end products of 
consumer goods (e.g. cosmetics, detergents), that 
are not required by law and involve the risk of 
inflicting damage on the animals concerned)
 Child Labor (serious violation of the basic principle 
regarding child labor of the ILO Declaration on the 
Fundamental Principles and Right at Work by the 
company itself or by suppliers/subcontractors)
 Business Malpractice (corruption and/or falsi-
fication of accounts)
 Human Rights Violations (serious violation of 
fundamental human rights by the company itself 
or by suppliers/subcontractors)
 Labor Rights Violations (serious breach of at least 
one of the four basic principles of the ILO 
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights 
at Work (freedom of association and assembly, 
forced labor, child labor and discrimination) and/or 
systematic circumvention of minimum employ-
ment standards (e.g. in the areas of health and 
safety, remuneration, working hours) by the 
company itself or by suppliers/subcontractors)
 Alcohol (producers of beer/wine and/or high-proof    
beverages >5 percent of net sales)
 Gambling
(particularly controversial forms of 
gambling (e.g. the operation of casinos or betting 
shops and the production of slot machines) >0
percent of net sales and/or other forms of gambling 
(e.g. prize-winning and guessing on the television, 
radio, which are financed through raised telephone 
tariffs) >20 percent of net sales)
 GMOs (producers of genetically modified plants 
and animals >0 percent of net sales)
 Nuclear
Power (producers of nuclear energy 
and/or the mining of uranium >0 percent of net 
sales and/or assembly of key components for 
nuclear power stations >5 percent of net sales)
 Pornography (producers of pornographic material 
>0 percent
of net sales and/or traders of 
pornographic material >10 percent of net sales)
 Military (producers of weapons and/or outlawed 
weapons >0 percent of net sales and/or producers 
of other armaments >5 percent of net sales)
 Tobacco (producers of tobacco products and/pr 
components/accessories >5 percent of net sales)
 
Source: oekom research, UniCredit Global Research

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 160
Step 2 – ESG exposure (ESGEi) 
Description 
 
 
The second step in our methodology to unlock sustainable alpha is to convert oekom’s qualitative 
ESG ratings into quantitative scores. Scores are used to determine a stock’s specific expo-
sure to any relevant ESG related risk adjustments that are highlighted in proceeding steps. 
Methodology 
 
 
In order to determine the degree of exposure of each stock to any risk reduction/increase due
to Prime/Not Prime investment status, we have assigned scores to each ESG rating (“A+” to
“D-”) obtained by oekom. 
Degrees of exposure are established by dividing the stock’s ESG score by the absolute 
maximum score within the below scaled ESG scoring status group (ESG Leaders/ESG
Laggards), resulting in the below “ESG Scoring Matrix”: 
ESG SCORING MATRIX 
ESG scoring status 
ESG rating 
ESG Score 
ESG degree of exposure (%)
A+ 
7 
100
A 
6 
86
A- 
5 
71
B+ 
4 
57
B 
3 
43
B- 
2 
29
ESG 
LEADER 
C+ 
1 
14
C 
-1 
-20
C- 
-2 
-40
D+ 
-3 
-60
D 
-4 
-80
ESG 
LAG-
GARD 
D- 
-5 
-100
 
 
 
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research 
 
 
The above ESG scoring status follows closely oekom’s investment status criteria (“Prime”/”Not 
Prime”). However, we stress that oekom assigns investment status on an in-house sector 
specific level, which shifts investment status boundaries dependent on sector. The above
ESG scoring status description is exclusively used in the scoring reviews for our individual 
sector reviews. Description of the ESG scoring status are adapted for ratings based entirely
on Environmental performance (i.e. Environmental Leaders/Environmental Laggards) and
Social & Governance performance (i.e. Social & Governance Leaders/ Social & Governance 
Laggards) with the same scoring attribution applying as highlighted above.  
Formulation 
 
 
The ESG degree of exposure (ESGEi) of a stock to risk adjustments in the cost of equity or 
valuation multiple represents the first component of our ESG alpha contribution formula and 
can be formulated as follows: 
i
asset
of
group
status
investment
the
within
score
possible
maximum
i
IS
i
asset
for
score
ESG
i
ESGS
:
where
i
IS
MAX
i
ESGS
i
ESGE
=
=
=

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 161
Step 3 – ESG composites 
Description 
 
 
In order to filter any risk/valuation differences between positive/negative ESG rated stocks, we
use oekom’s Prime/Not Prime ESG investment grades to create sector composites for
proceeding analysis.  
Methodology*  
 
 
We have chosen a market value weighting scheme for the construction of “Prime” and “Not Prime”
composites for each sector. The rational for using a market value weighting scheme is that the
same construction methodology has been used for market-wide accepted benchmarks used 
in proceeding steps in our analysis. 
The rational for creating composites by sectors relies on the fact that different sectors have
higher/lower degrees of exposure to ESG related risks, therefore requiring a more directed
sector analysis rather than a generalized approach for the whole market.  
Sectors are combined in certain composites where common ESG risk exposures can be
observed and where a limited number of stocks per sector would not allow for a significant
analysis of differences between “Prime” and “Not Prime” rated composites.  
The overall methodology for creating our composites’ values can be described as follows: 
∑
∑
=
0
Q
0
P
t
Q
t
P
t
Composite
  
Where: 
Pt = price at time t 
P0 = price in base year 
Qt = quantity of shares at time t 
Q0 = quantity of shares in base year 
Formulation 
 
 
We have adopted the above formula to our specific composite analysis taking into account
data provider constraints. We are using abbreviations for sector i Prime composites (Pi) and 
sector i’s “Not Prime composite” (NPi) throughout our overall methodology, which can be 
described in the following manner: 
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
∑
∑
−
−
=
∑
∑
−
−
=
t
NPMVC
t
NPMV
1
t
NPP
t
NPP
1
ti
NP
i
NP
and
t
PMVC
t
PMV
1
t
PP
t
PP
1
tiP
iP
 
 
 
 
 
 
*  Methodology adapted from Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management  
 by Frank K. Reilly and Keith C. Brown

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 162
 
 
Where: 
Pi t-1/NPi t-1 = value of sector i’s “Prime”/”Not Prime” composite at time t-1 
PPt/NPPt = “Prime”/ “Not Prime” rated stock price at time t  
PPt-1/NPPt-1= “Prime”/”Not Prime” rated stock price at time t-1  
PMVt/NPMVt = Market value of “Prime”/”Not Prime” rated stock at time t  
PMVCi t/NPMVCi t = Market value of sector i’s “Prime”/ “Not Prime” composite at time t 
Note: If t=0 base composite value of 100 applies 
SECTOR COMPOSITE OVERVIEW 
Sector 
Prime
Not Prime
Aerospace & Defence, Infrastructure & Logistics 
2
4
Automobiles & Parts 
6
4
Banks 
1
6
Capital Goods 
1
12
Chemicals 
2
11
Construction & materials 
1
3
Consumer Goods 
3
1
Financial Services 
n/a
9
Insurance 
2
2
Media 
n/a
4
Pharmaceuticals & Biotech, Health Care 
3
7
Real Estate 
n/a
8
Software & IT Services, Semiconductors,Technology & Hardware 
2
16
Steel, Metals & Mining 
1
4
Telecommunications 
1
7
Tourism, Leisure & Services 
2
3
Utilities, Renewables 
6
4
Wholesale & Retail, Fashion & Luxury Goods 
n/a
8
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 163
Step 4 – ESG risk (ESGRsector i) 
Description 
 
 
In order to determine risk differences between “Prime” and “Not Prime” rated stocks have 
focused on the cost of equity as the main risk gauge for our analysis as described in the
“UniCredit ESG Research Methodology” section of our report. This step in our methodology 
focuses on calculating cost of equities for sector specific “Prime” and “Not Prime” composites 
to highlight any observed differences, which will be incorporated at a later stage in our
traditional valuation methodologies. 
Methodology* 
 
 
We use the International Capital Asset Pricing model (ICAPM) for determining the cost of
equity for our Prime and Not Prime sector composites.  
The equation for the ICAPM is: 
portfolio
market
global
the
on
return
expected
the
portfolio
market
global
the
to
returns
i
asset
of
y
sensitivit
the
return
of
rate
free
risk
the
i
asset
on
return
expected
:
where
=
∧
=
−
=
=
∧
−
∧
+
=
∧
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
M
i
R
i
ß
F
R
i
R
F
R
M
R
i
β
F
R
i
R
portfolio
market
global
the
on
return
expected
the
portfolio
market
global
the
to
returns
i
asset
of
y
sensitivit
the
return
of
rate
free
risk
the
i
asset
on
return
expected
:
where
=
∧
=
−
=
=
∧
−
∧
+
=
∧
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
M
i
R
i
ß
F
R
i
R
F
R
M
R
i
β
F
R
i
R
 
We have manipulated this formula to solve for the equity risk premium using the following steps: 
1. The relationship between the covariance and correlation is: 
 
=
⇒
=
M
σ
i
σ
M
i,
ρ
m)
Cov(i,
M
σ
i
σ
m)
Cov(i,
M
i,
ρ
 
portfolio
market
global
the
on
returns
the
of
deviation
standard
M
σ
i
asset
on
returns
the
of
deviation
standard
i
σ
portfolio
market
global
the
and
i
asset
on
returns
the
between
n
correlatio
:
where
=
=
=
M
i,
ρ
 
2. The formula for beta of asset i: 
=
2
M
σ
m)
Cov(i,
i
β
portfolio
market
global
the
on
returns
the
of
variance
portfolio
market
global
the
with
i
asset
of
covariance
:
where
=
=
2
M
σ
m)
Cov(i,
 
 
 
 
* Methodology adapted from Economic Foundations of Capital Market Returns 
  
 by Brian D. Singer and Kevin Terhaar

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 164
 
 
3. Combining the two previous equations and simplifying 
M
σ
i
σ
M
i,
ρ
2
M
σ
M
σ
i
σ
M
i,
ρ
i
β
=
=
 
4. Restating the ICAPM using the previous expressions and referring to the equity risk 
 
premium as ERP: 
⎟⎟
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎜
⎝
⎛
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
−
∧
=
=
=
−
∧
=
−
∧
−
∧
+
=
∧
−
∧
+
=
∧
M
σ
F
R
M
R
M
σ
M
ERP
M
σ
M
ERP
i
σ
M
i,
ρ
i
ERP
M
ERP
M
σ
i
σ
M
i,
ρ
i
ERP
F
R
M
R
M
σ
i
σ
M
i,
ρ
F
R
i
R
F
R
M
R
M
σ
i
σ
M
i,
ρ
F
R
i
R
F
R
M
R
i
β
F
R
i
R
that
note
:
Aside
 
 
The final line of this equation states that the equity risk premium for an asset is equal to its 
correlation with the global portfolio times the standard deviation of the asset times the Sharpe 
ratio for the global portfolio (in parentheses). The Sharpe ratio for the global portfolio has been 
estimated at ranges from 0.28 to 0.30. We have assumed a value of 0.28 for our calculations.
 
 
Singer and Terhaar (1997) have extended the ICAPM model to include the effect of market imper-
fections such as illiquidity and market segmentation, which we have incorporated in our calculations. 
Liquidity risk premia have been set to nil in our calculations as we believe that liquidity is not a
concern for developed world equity markets, but is a concern for assets such as direct real
estate and venture capital. 
premium
Liquidity
+
=
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
M
σ
M
ERP
i
σ
M
i,
ρ
i
ERP
 
Market segmentation adjustments have been incorporated by estimating a risk premium
assuming full integration and a risk premium assuming full segmentation followed by taking a
weighted average of the two risk premiums. Developed world equity markets have been
estimated as 80% integrated, whereas emerging market equities have been estimated as
65% integrated. With regards to our analysis on the German market, we have assumed an
80% integration of Prime and Not Prime composites.  
on)
segmentati
full
assuming
i)(ERP
of
on
segmentati
of
(degree
n)
integratio
full
assuming
i)(ERP
of
n
integratio
of
(degree
i
ERP
+
=
 
Under the full segmentation assumption, the relevant global portfolio is the individual market
so that correlation between the market and the global portfolio in the formula is 1.0. In that
case, the equation for the market’s risk premium reduces to: 
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
=
⇒
=
M
σ
M
ERP
i
σ
i
ERP
1.0
M
i,
ρ
if

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 165
Formulation 
 
 
We have adapted the above methodology to our sustainable alpha formula by replacing asset
“i” for our sector composites. 
Original 
variable 
Adapted for Prime 
composite analysis 
Adapted for Not Prime 
composite analysis 
Definition 
i 
Pi 
NPi 
Sector i’s Prime (Pi), Sector i’s Not Prime composite (NPi) 
 
In order to capture any ESG risk (ESGRsector i), which we define through the differential in the 
cost of equity due to a different ESG investment status (Prime/Not Prime), we have adapted
the ICAPM model described above in the following manner. 
composite
Prime"
"
i
sector
on
return
expected
SPi
Rˆ
composite
Prime"
Not
"
i
sector
on
return
expected
NPi
Rˆ
:
where
1
Pi
Rˆ
NPi
Rˆ
 i 
sector
ESGR
=
=
−
=
⎥
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎢
⎣
⎡
⎟
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜
⎜
⎝
⎛
 
 
Step 5 – ESG confidence (ESGC sectori) 
Description 
 
 
This step builds on the observed differences in the cost of equity for composites. The aim is to
determine a confidence level for the mean difference between a sector’s “Prime”/”Not Prime”
composite results. 
Methodology* 
 
 
In order to determine if the observed difference in the cost of equity between Prime and Not
Prime composites is statistically significant, we have conducted a paired comparison test
assuming that both populations are correlated.  
Observations for both “Prime” and “Not Prime” composites are paired according to permutations 
with different variables for calculation methodology, frequency, time horizon and choice of 
global portfolio. 
ICAPM PERMUTATION VARIABLES 
Calculation methodology 
Normal, Log
Frequency 
Daily, Weekly, Monthly
Time horizon 
5Y, 3Y from end Aug 2008
Global portfolio 
DAX , DJES, MXEU, MXWD, SXXP Index
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research 
 
 
The difference between the two costs of equities is then calculated for each permutation. The
mean of these differences can then be calculated, i.e. the mean difference and a significance
test can then be performed on this mean difference. 
To calculate the mean difference for the two samples, we first calculate the difference
between each pair of observations, which we denote as xi. We then calculate the mean of the 
differences ( x ) as: 
 
 
 
*  Methodology adapted from Applied Linear Statistical Models   
 by Michael H. Kutner, Christopher J. Nachtsheim, John Neter, William Li

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 166
 
 
n
ix
x
∑
=
 
To test if there is a difference between the mean of the two populations, the null hypothesis is
formulated that the mean difference of the populations (μDiff) is zero. 
0
Diff
μ
:
0
H
=
 
With a two-tailed test, the alternative hypothesis would be that the mean difference is not zero. 
0
Diff
μ
:
1
H
≠
 
Our default significance/error level is set at 5%, i.e. at a confidence level of 95%. 
Degrees of freedom are given by n-1, where n = the number of paired observations. 
The critical t-value is identified from the t-distribution, given the two-tailed nature, significance 
level and degrees of freedom of the test. 
 
 
Assuming that the null hypothesis is that the mean difference of the population is zero, the
t-statistic for the test is calculated as: 
SE
0
x −
=
−statistic
t
 
 
where, 
n
s
SE =
 and  
1
n
2
)
x
(x
2
s
−
∑
−
=
=
variance
Sample
 
The null hypothesis will be rejected if the t-statistic for the combined sample is greater than 
the critical t-value: 
Reject H0 if Test statistic >Upper critical value or Test statistic < Lower critical value 
Formulation 
 
 
We define the difference  
Original variable 
Adaptation  
Explanation 
ix  
(
)i
NP
Rˆ
-
P
Rˆ
 
The cost of equity differential between the Sector Prime composite – 
Sector Not Prime composite  
 
In order to adjust ESGRsector i for its statistical significance, we derive the p-value for each of 
the sector hypothesis tests conducted above to determine the lowest level of probability/
significance at which it is possible to reject the null hypothesis. We use the p-value as a proxy 
to determine a minimum confidence level, i.e. (1-p) for which we could assume that the 
observed relationship in cost of equity differentials is statistically significant. Using this ESG
confidence level for risk adjustments in the cost of equity (ESGCsector i) provides us with a 
factor, which we use to adjust ESGRsector i: 
ESGCsector i = (1-psector i)

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 167
Where: 
ESGCsector i = Confidence level for ESG risk-adjustments in the cost of equity. 
psector i = the estimated p-value in a paired comparisons test for differences in the cost of 
equity between Prime and Not Prime composites for sector i.  
 
Special note: For x > 0 or x = NA (due to lack of constituents for composite creation), we use
x  as observed for our total covered universe composite for further calculations. The rational 
behind this adjustment lies in the growing market trend of incorporating ESG-related differ-
ences as highlighted in our “UniCredit ESG Research Methodology-Conclusions” section, for 
which we try to incorporate a long-term view in our statistical models.  
Analytical illustration 
 
 
To clarify respective confidence levels, we have charted the results of our hypothesis tests 
Rejection of the null hypothesis  
 
Acceptance of the null hypothesis  
-0.67
-0.64
-0.61
-0.58
-0.55
-0.52
-0.49
-0.46
-0.43
-0.40
-0.37
-0.33
-0.30
-0.27
-0.24
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 0.0
 
-0.67
-0.64
-0.61
-0.58
-0.55
-0.52
-0.49
-0.46
-0.43
-0.40
-0.37
-0.33
-0.30
-0.27
-0.24
ESGCsector i = 1.0 - 1.0
 
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research 
 
 
The left chart shows the results of a hypothesis with no rejection area (area under normal distribution 
is white), which would imply a p-value of 0. This signals that we assign a 100% probability that we 
can reject the null hypothesis. The opposite is true for the right hand chart, where all under the 
normal distribution represents a rejection area, translating into accepting the null hypothesis. 
We note that for the left chart the area will remain white as long as x < 0, i.e. the Prime 
composite’s cost of equity, is lower than that of the Not Prime composite. If x > 0, the white 
area would default to the right hand chart, which shows that all the area under the normal
distribution represents the rejection area with the rejection being that a Prime composite’s 
cost of equity is lower than its Not Prime peer composite.

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 168
Step 6 – ESG target price (
)
ESG
TP
 
Description 
 
 
The final step in our methodology to unlock sustainable alpha is to determine how observed 
adjustments in the cost of equity given a “Prime”/”Not Prime” investment status will affect 
stock specific target prices. 
Methodology* 
 
 
We have used the Gordon Growth model (GGM) as an anchor valuation tool in order to
determine the impact of ESG risk adjustments through the cost of equity: 
g
i
Rˆ
1
Div
0
P
−
=
  
Where: 
i
Rˆ = expected return on stock i 
1
Div = dividend next period 
0
P = current stock price 
g = growth rate in dividends and long-term earnings 
Formulation 
 
 
We compare our traditional target prices with ESG risk adjusted target prices (ESG TP) to determine
ESG risk related impacts on our stock valuations through adapting the formula in the following manner:
Original variable 
Adapted for ESG TP derivation 
Comment 
1
Div
 
LT
EPS
 
Implied long-term EPS, derived through GGM by using non-
ESG risk adjusted target price (TP), cost of equity (ke), 
assumed g reflecting Germany’s LT economic growth rate 
(2%) and assuming 100% payout ratio 
i
Rˆ  
ESG
k
 
The ESG risk-adjusted cost of equity 
g  
LT
g
 
The long-term growth rate in earnings, fixed at 2% 
 
 
 
The deriving 12M ESG TP from the above amendments can be formulated as follows, offering 
us the final component of our sustainable alpha formula: 
(
)
ESG
k
1
LT
g
ESG
k
LT
EPS
ESG
TP
+
⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜
⎝
⎛
−
=
 
where: 
[
])i
sector
)(ESGC
i
sector
)(ESGR
i
(ESGE
1
e
k
ESG
k
+
=
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* Methodology adapted from Investment Valuation by Aswath Damodaran

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 169
ESG STYLE ANALYSIS  
Description 
 
 
The objective of our ESG style analysis is to construct a benchmark portfolio from a set of
sector specific ESG-rated composites, against which we compare the performance of the
overall sector composite. The ESG style analysis chart visualizes the exposure of the sector 
composite to the different ESG ratings developed by oekom (A, B, C and D). 
Methodology* 
 
 
The equation underlying style analysis for the ith fund using n passive indexes, where the
returns from indexes are denoted f1, f2,…fn, is:  
[
]
i
e
n
f
in
b
2
f
i2
b
1f
i1
b
ir
+
+
+
+
=
L
 
 
where: 
ir  = the return on the ith fund 
ij
b  = the weight of the ith fund in the ith index 
ie  = the non-factor component of the return 
Rearranging this multi-index model of returns as the difference between the fund return and
the return due to the indexes gives: 
[
]
nf
in
b
2
f
i2
b
1f
i1
b
ir
i
e
+
+
+
−
=
L
 
Where the bracketed part can be regarded as the return on a weighted portfolio. 
Sharpe (1992) suggests choosing the weights 
ij
b
 to minimize the variance of 
ie (“tracking 
error”). The weights determined by optimization are called style weights and form the bench-
mark portfolio when combined with the indexes.  
Formulation 
 
 
We have adapted the above formula in the following manner: 
Original variable 
Amended variable 
Definition 
ir  
i 
sector
r
 
The return on the sector i composite, 
which includes all covered stocks 
within sector I  
ij
b
 
iESGj
 
sector
b
 
The weight of the sector i composite 
in the ESGj composite, where j can be 
linked to rating (A,B, C and D) 
 
 
 
Note: Composites are calculated in the same manner as explained in step 2 of our alpha 
sustainable methodology 
For analytical purposes, we carry out a number of style analyses covering a succession of
periods in order to see how consistent the estimated style is over time. Our rolling return period 
encompasses 12 monthly observations with each subsequent style analysis moving forward
by one month. Tracking error minimization is carried out through the Solver routine in Excel. 
Note: Sub sector composites A, B, C, D include all stocks that have an oekom provided rating
starting with the same letter (i.e. Sub sector composite A includes A+,A and A- rated stocks).
 
 
 
* Methodology adapted from Advanced Modeling in Finance Using Excel and VBA 
 by Mary Jackson and Mike Stuart

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 170
Analytical illustration 
ESG STYLE ANALYSIS 
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-01
Mar-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Mar-03
Jul-03
Nov-03
Mar-04
Jul-04
Nov-04
Mar-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Mar-06
Jul-06
Nov-06
Mar-07
Jul-07
Nov-07
Mar-08
Jul-08
Composite A
Composite B
Composite C
Composite D
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research 
 
 
The chart above visualizes graphically the return contribution from the different sub sector 
composites for the overall sector composite. The chart shows the contributions over the 
analyzed period (Nov 2001 to Aug 2008) have ranged from 0% to 0.4% for A, 23.0% to 32.6% 
for B, 59.1% to 66.2% for C and 6.6% to 12.1% for D. 
ESG EFFICIENT FRONTIER ANALYSIS  
Description 
 
 
Our ESG efficient frontier analysis focuses on creating optimal risky portfolios with different
ESG risk exposures. Risk adjusted returns (Sharpe ratios) are compared between Prime and 
Not Prime ESG portfolios to determine any gains or losses in portfolio efficiency. 
Methodology* 
 
 
Our optimization analysis focuses on the combination of a risky portfolio (2 risky assets; r1 and r2) 
with the risk-free asset, which we solve in two stages by first determining the optimal combination 
of the risky assets and second the split between the risk-free asset and the optimal risky portfolio. 
The goal of the optimal risky portfolio is to choose F1 (weight on asset 1) to maximize the
return-to-risk ratio for this risky portfolio R when combined with the risk-free asset in the 
second stage of our methodology. We use the Sharpe ratio as a benchmark to express the
return-to-risk ratio: 
[
]
R
σ
fr
)
R
E(r
−
 
where: 
)
R
E(r
= the expected return of the portfolio 
fr  = the return of the risk-free asset 
R
σ
 = the standard deviation of the portfolio 
 
 
 
* Methodology adapted from Advanced Modeling in Finance Using Excel and VBA 
 by Mary Jackson and Mike Stuart

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 171
 
 
The slope of the line joining possible portfolios on the efficient frontier to the risk-free asset is 
greatest when the line is tangential to the frontier. We have used the following formula for
determining the optimal portfolio weight: 
[
]
[
]
{
}
)
2
E(R
)
1
E(R
2)
cov(1,
)
2
E(R
2
1
σ
)
1
E(R
2
2
σ
)
2
2)E(R
cov(1,
)
1
E(R
2
2
σ
opt
1
F
+
−
+
+
=
 
where: 
fr
)
1
E(r
)
1
E(R
−
=
 ; similarly 
)
2
E(R
 , which are expected returns in excess of fr  
In the second stage of our methodology, the risk-free asset is combined with the optimal risky 
portfolio from the first stage solution to maximize utility. The risky portfolio has the following
weight with the remainder being in the risk-free asset:  
[
] [
]
2
R
Aσ
fr
)
R
E(r
−
 
where the utility function (U) can be defined as: 
2
p
0.5Aσ
)
p
E(r
U
−
=
 
Formulation 
 
 
We have adapted the above formula in the following manner: 
Variable 
Input 
Description 
1
R
 
GDBR10 
German Government Bonds 10YR 
2
R
 
Pi/Bi 
Sector i’s respective Prime composite/ sector benchmark 
fr  
1% 
Fixed value at 1% 
A 
3 
Risk aversion coefficient 
 
 
We derive our frontier portfolio line (FP) for the respective Prime composite/Sector benchmark by
altering the weights in 
1
R  to obtain
)
R
E(r
. Our Capital asset line (CAL) represents the line that is 
tangential to the frontier portfolio using calculations highlighted above. The slope of the CAL represents
the portfolio’s respective Sharpe ratio. Shorting of risky assets is not allowed under our methodology.
SECTOR BENCHMARKS USED FOR ESG EFFICIENT FRONTIER ANALYSIS 
Composite 
Sector benchmark 
Bloomberg ticker
Portfolio 
DJ EUROPE STOXX 50 P IDX 
DJES Index
Aerospace & Defence, Infrastructure & Logistics 
DJES Indus Gd = Pr 
SXNE Index
Automobiles & Parts 
DJES Aut&Prt = Pr 
SXAE Index
Banks 
DJES Banks = Pr 
SX7E Index
Capital Goods 
DJES Indus Gd = Pr 
SXNE Index
Chemicals 
DJES Chem = Pr 
SX4E Index
Construction & materials 
DJES Cns&Mat = Pr 
SXOE Index
Consumer Goods 
DJES Cns Goods = Pr 
SXCGSE Index
Financial Services 
DJES Fin Svcs = Pr 
SXFE Index
Insurance 
DJES Insur = Pr 
SXIE Index
Media 
DJES Media = Pr 
SXME Index
Pharmaceuticals & Biotech, Health Care 
DJES Hea Care = Pr 
SXDE Index
Real Estate 
DJES Fin Svcs = Pr 
SXFE Index
Software & IT Services, Semiconductors, 
Technology & Hardware 
DJES Tech = Pr 
SX8E Index
Steel, Metals & Mining 
DJES Bas Res = Pr 
SXPE Index
Telecommunications 
DJES Telecom = Pr 
SXKE Index
Tourism, Leisure & Services 
DJES Trv&Lsr = Pr 
SXTE Index
Utilities, Renewables 
DJES Indus Gd = Pr 
SXNE Index
Wholesale & Retail, Fashion & Luxury Goods 
DJES Retail = Pr 
SXRE Index
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 172
Analytical illustration 
ESG EFFICIENT FRONTIER 
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
5
10
15
20
Portfolio risk (STDEV)
Portfolio return
FP Prime
FP Sector
CAL Prime
CAL Sector
 
 
Source: UniCredit Global Research 
 
 
The key lines in our ESG efficient frontier chart can be explained in the following way: 
The FP Prime (Frontier portfolio Prime) line represents the line for the risky portfolio combined
with the risk-free asset and its equity portion allocated to the sector’s Prime composite. The
FP Sector (frontier portfolio sector) line represents the line for the risky portfolio combined
with the risk-free asset and its equity portion allocated to the sector’s benchmark. 
The CAL Prime (Capital Asset Line Prime) line represents the line in the Prime portfolio with 
the highest slope, which joins the portfolio on the efficient frontier to the risk-free asset. The 
CAL Sector (Capital Asset Line Sector) line represents the line in the sector portfolio with the
highest slope, which joins the portfolio on the efficient frontier to the risk-free asset. 
Limitations to our methodology 
 
 
We highlight the following limitations to our methodology: 
● Using ex post data to determine ex ante risk and return. The cost of equity differentials
observed in our methodology is based on historic data with no guarantee that future risk 
patterns will move in similar fashion.  
● Data mining. Our methodology runs the risk of uncovering patterns in security returns that
are unlikely to occur in the future and can produce biases in the data. To overcome possi-
ble bias in the cost of equity differentials uncovered by our methodology, we have run
different scenarios through our ICAPM permutations to collect different data points for
minimizing these biases.  
● Model and input uncertainty. We cannot be sure that our chosen methodology is the 
correct one to unlock ESG related risks embedded in stock prices. We need to highlight
that the cost of equity differentials observed might be due to other factors than purely ESG
related ones.  
● Use of P-value. We are using the p-value as a confidence interval, but highlight that the p-value
is not the probability that the null hypothesis is true.

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 173
● Target price sensitivity methodology. Our target price sensitivity model is a generalized 
model. Changes in the cost of equity using stock specific valuation models might have a 
wider/narrower impact on the target price than predicted by our methodology. 
● SRI style biases. Our methodology does not adjust composite returns for style biases that
can be caused by positive rated ESG stocks. Although not used in our methodology, nega-
tive SRI screens can cause a growth stock bias due to the exclusion of companies from
basic industries and energy (value stocks) on the back of environmental concerns. SRI
mutual funds have been documented to have an average market-cap bias toward small-
cap shares. 
● Time accuracy of oekom ratings. We highlight that our composite construction relies on 
current oekom ratings, not historic ones as many of the stocks in our covered universe
have just received a sustainability rating. Statisitical results might differ if actual Prime/Not
Prime investment status ratings would be applied, retrospectively.

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 174
Disclaimer 
Our recommendations are based on information obtained from, or are based upon public information sources that we consider to be reliable but for the completeness and 
accuracy of which we assume no liability. All estimates and opinions included in the report represent the independent judgment of the analysts as of the date of the issue. We 
reserve the right to modify the views expressed herein at any time without notice. Moreover, we reserve the right not to update this information or to discontinue it altogether 
without notice. 
This analysis is for information purposes only and (i) does not constitute or form part of any offer for sale or subscription of or solicitation of any offer to buy or subscribe for any 
financial, money market or investment instrument or any security, (ii) is neither intended as such an offer for sale or subscription of or solicitation of an offer to buy or subscribe 
for any financial, money market or investment instrument or any security nor (iii) as an advertisement thereof. The investment possibilities discussed in this report may not be 
suitable for certain investors depending on their specific investment objectives and time horizon or in the context of their overall financial situation. The investments discussed 
may fluctuate in price or value. Investors may get back less than they invested. Changes in rates of exchange may have an adverse effect on the value of investments. 
Furthermore, past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. In particular, the risks associated with an investment in the financial, money market or investment 
instrument or security under discussion are not explained in their entirety.  
This information is given without any warranty on an "as is" basis and should not be regarded as a substitute for obtaining individual advice. Investors must make their own 
determination of the appropriateness of an investment in any instruments referred to herein based on the merits and risks involved, their own investment strategy and their legal, 
fiscal and financial position. As this document does not qualify as an investment recommendation or as a direct investment recommendation, neither this document nor any part 
of it shall form the basis of, or be relied on in connection with or act as an inducement to enter into, any contract or commitment whatsoever. Investors are urged to contact their 
bank's investment advisor for individual explanations and advice. 
Neither Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch, UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd.and UniCredit Aton, 
nor any of their respective directors, officers or employees nor any other person accepts any liability whatsoever (in negligence or otherwise) for any loss howsoever arising from 
any use of this document or its contents or otherwise arising in connection therewith. 
This analysis is being distributed by electronic and ordinary mail to professional investors, who are expected to make their own investment decisions without undue reliance on 
this publication, and may not be redistributed, reproduced or published in whole or in part for any purpose. 
Responsibility for the content of this publication lies with:  
a) Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, Am Tucherpark 16, 80538 Munich, Germany, (also responsible for the distribution pursuant to §34b WpHG). The company belongs to 
UCI Group. 
Regulatory authority: “BaFin“ – Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, Lurgiallee 12, 60439 Frankfurt, Germany. 
b) Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch, Via Tommaso Grossi, 10, 20121 Milan, Italy, duly authorized by the Bank of Italy to provide investment services.  
Regulatory authority: “Bank of Italy”, Via Nazionale 91, 00184 Roma, Italy and Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, Lurgiallee 12, 60439 Frankfurt, Germany. 
The UniCredit CAIB Group, consisting of 
c) UniCredit CAIB AG, Julius-Tandler-Platz 3, 1090 Vienna, Austria 
Regulatory authority: Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA), Praterstrasse 23, 1020 Vienna, Austria 
d) UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd., Moor House, 120 London Wall, London EC2Y 5ET, United Kingdom 
Regulatory authority: Financial Services Authority (FSA), 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HS, United Kingdom 
e) UniCredit Aton, Boulevard Ring Office Building, 17/1 Chistoprudni Boulevard, Moscow 101000, Russia 
Regulatory authority: Federal Service on Financial Markets, 9 Leninsky prospekt, Moscow 119991, Russia 
 
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS 
 
Aareal Bank 2, 3; adidas 4; ADLER Real Estate 3; Air Liquide 3; Alcatel-Lucent 3; Allianz 1b, 3, 4, 6a; AMB Generali Holding 3; Aragon AG 3; BASF 2; Bertrandt 3; BMW 2, 3, 4; 
Carrefour 3; Continental 1a; Credit Suisse 2; Daimler 2, 3, 4; Data Modul 3; DEPFA BANK plc 2, 3; Deutsche Bank 2, 3; Deutsche Telekom 3; DIC Asset 3; Dr. Hönle AG 3; 
E.ON 2, 3, 4; EADS 3; ENEL 2, 3, 6a, 7; Escada 2; FJA 4; France Telecom 2, 3; Fresenius Medical Care 2; Fresenius Pref. 2; Givaudan 2; Grammer 3, 4; Graphit Kropfmühl 3, 4; 
HeidelbergCement 1a; hotel.de 1a, 3; Hypo Real Estate Group 2, 3; IDS Scheer 3; Infineon 2, 4; itelligence 3; Koenig & Bauer 3; Munich Re 4; MVV Energie 2, 4; Nabaltec 3; 
Nokia 3; Nordex AG 1a; Novartis 2; POLIS Immobilien AG 3; Postbank 2, 3; Premiere 1a, 2; PROCON MultiMedia AG 2, 3, 4, 5, 7; Qimonda 2, 4; Rhön-Klinikum 3; SAP 4; 
Schmack Biogas 3; SGL Group 6a; Sixt 3; SoftM 3, 4; STMicroelectronics 3; Teles 3; UBS 2, 4; Vizrt 3; Volkswagen 2, 3 
 
Key 1a: Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch, UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd., UniCredit Aton 
and/or a company affiliated with it (pursuant to relevant domestic law) owns at least 2% of the capital stock of the company. 
Key 1b: The analyzed company owns at least 2% of the capital stock of Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG 
Milan Branch, UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd., UniCredit Aton and/or a company affiliated with it (pursuant to relevant domestic law). 
Key 2: Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch and UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd., UniCredit Aton 
and/or a company affiliated with it (pursuant to relevant domestic law) belonged to a syndicate that has acquired securities or any related derivatives of the analyzed company 
within the twelve months preceding publication, in connection with any publicly disclosed offer of securities of the analyzed company, or in any related derivatives. 
Key 3: Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch and UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd., UniCredit Aton 
and/or a company affiliated (pursuant to relevant domestic law) administers the securities issued by the analyzed company on the stock exchange or on the market by quoting 
bid and ask prices (i.e. acts as a market maker or liquidity provider in the securities of the analyzed company or in any related derivatives) 
Key 4: The analyzed company and Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch and UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd., 
UniCredit Aton and/or a company affiliated (pursuant to relevant domestic law) concluded an agreement on services in connection with investment banking transactions in the 
last 12 months, in return for which the Bank received a consideration or promise of consideration. 
Key 5: The analyzed company and Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch and UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd., 
UniCredit Aton and/or a company affiliated (pursuant to relevant domestic law) have concluded an agreement on the preparation of analyses.  
Key 6a: Employees of Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch and/or members of the Board of Directors of UniCredit (pursuant to relevant domestic law) are members of 
the Board of Directors of the Issuer. Members of the Board of Directors of the Issuer hold office in the Board of Directors of UniCredit (pursuant to relevant domestic law). 
Key 6b: The analyst is on the supervisory/management board of the company they cover. 
Key 7: Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch and/or other Italian banks belonging to the UniCredit Group (pursuant to relevant domestic law) extended significant 
amounts of credit facilities to the Issuer. 
 
Overview of our ratings 
Company 
Date 
Rating 
Currency 
Target price 
Aareal Bank 
07/10/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
21.00 
Aareal Bank 
05/14/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
32.00 
Aareal Bank 
01/23/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
33.00 
Aareal Bank 
11/12/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
38.00 
Aareal Bank 
08/29/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
40.00 
adidas 
01/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
48.75 
adidas 
01/24/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
48.00 
ADLER Real Estate 
07/10/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
1.00 
ADLER Real Estate 
04/30/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
1.30 
ADLER Real Estate 
10/30/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
3.20

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 175
Company 
Date 
Rating 
Currency 
Target price 
ADVA 
08/06/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
2.00 
ADVA 
07/10/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
1.60 
ADVA 
03/18/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
2.90 
ADVA 
12/27/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
3.90 
Air Berlin plc 
08/25/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
4.00 
Air Berlin plc 
05/29/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
5.00 
Air Berlin plc 
04/01/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
7.50 
Air Berlin plc 
03/13/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
9.00 
AIXTRON 
08/08/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
6.00 
AIXTRON 
11/09/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
8.00 
aleo Solar AG 
08/06/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
10.90 
aleo solar AG 
02/08/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
17.30 
aleo solar AG 
12/05/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
17.10 
aleo solar AG 
11/14/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
17.00 
aleo solar AG 
09/03/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
16.90 
Allianz 
08/08/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
166.00 
Allianz 
07/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
174.00 
Allianz 
04/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
180.00 
Allianz 
02/25/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
191.00 
Allianz 
01/24/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
200.00 
alstria office REIT-AG 
07/10/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
13.00 
alstria office REIT-AG 
04/22/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
13.60 
ALTANA 
08/08/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
11.00 
ALTANA 
07/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
16.00 
ALTANA 
01/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
20.00 
Aragon 
03/27/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
30.00 
Aragon 
10/23/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
35.00 
Arcandor 
09/09/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
4.50 
Arcandor 
08/13/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
6.00 
Arcandor 
02/15/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
13.50 
Arcandor 
01/08/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
15.50 
Arcandor 
12/13/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
21.50 
AWD 
08/28/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
30.00 
AWD 
05/14/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
32.00 
AWD 
12/06/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
30.00 
AWD 
11/14/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
32.00 
AWD 
10/11/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
35.00 
BASF SE 
07/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
52.00 
BASF SE 
06/27/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
56.50 
BASF SE 
01/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
113.00 
Bayer 
07/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
64.00 
Bayer 
04/25/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
58.00 
Bayer 
03/04/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
54.00 
Bayer 
02/29/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
56.00 
Bayer 
01/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
58.00 
Bayer 
11/16/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
63.00 
Bayer 
11/07/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
64.50 
BayWa 
08/08/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
35.00 
BayWa 
05/09/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
46.00 
BayWa 
03/31/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
39.00 
BayWa 
11/15/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
32.00 
Beiersdorf 
08/06/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
46.00 
Beiersdorf 
07/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
55.00 
Beiersdorf 
04/23/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
62.00 
Beiersdorf 
03/03/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
61.50 
Beiersdorf 
10/11/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
59.00 
Bertrandt 
02/11/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
40.00 
Bertrandt 
12/07/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
37.00 
Bertrandt 
08/20/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
30.00 
Bilfinger Berger 
02/06/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
70.00 
BMW 
08/01/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
34.00 
BMW 
07/09/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
37.00 
BMW 
11/20/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
49.00 
BMW 
09/28/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
48.00 
BMW 
09/19/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
50.00 
Carl Zeiss Meditec 
05/14/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
12.50 
Carl Zeiss Meditec 
02/14/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
11.00 
Carl Zeiss Meditec 
02/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
11.00 
Carl Zeiss Meditec 
12/13/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
14.00 
Carl Zeiss Meditec 
08/16/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
16.00 
Cashlife 
07/30/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
3.00 
Cashlife 
05/09/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
5.40 
Cashlife 
03/26/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
5.80 
Cashlife 
01/10/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
7.50 
Cashlife 
10/30/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
10.00 
Celesio 
09/09/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
33.00 
Celesio 
09/01/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
30.00 
Celesio 
07/28/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
22.00 
Celesio 
05/06/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
25.00 
Celesio 
03/13/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
32.00 
Celesio 
03/03/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
35.00 
Celesio 
11/14/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
41.00 
Celesio 
10/01/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
44.00

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 176
Company 
Date 
Rating 
Currency 
Target price 
Colonia Real Estate 
08/18/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
7.50 
Colonia Real Estate 
07/10/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
8.00 
Colonia Real Estate 
04/30/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
15.00 
Colonia Real Estate 
11/15/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
26.50 
Colonia Real Estate 
10/23/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
35.00 
comdirect bank AG 
07/22/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
8.50 
comdirect bank AG 
02/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
9.00 
comdirect bank AG 
10/16/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
10.10 
Commerzbank 
09/02/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
18.50 
Commerzbank 
05/08/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
23.50 
Commerzbank 
02/06/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
21.00 
Commerzbank 
09/21/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
31.00 
CropEnergies 
09/12/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
4.00 
CropEnergies 
07/01/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
3.20 
CropEnergies 
01/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
4.50 
CropEnergies 
10/10/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
5.50 
CropEnergies 
10/02/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
5.50 
CropEnergies 
09/14/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
5.50 
Curanum 
09/05/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
4.20 
Curanum 
03/20/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
4.50 
Curanum 
10/23/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
7.00 
Daimler 
07/24/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
62.00 
Daimler 
02/18/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
75.00 
Daimler 
10/25/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
86.00 
Daimler 
08/30/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
82.00 
Data Modul 
08/14/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
17.50 
Data Modul 
03/25/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
19.00 
Data Modul 
11/07/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
25.00 
Demag Cranes AG 
05/08/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
44.00 
Demag Cranes AG 
04/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
42.00 
Demag Cranes AG 
01/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
35.70 
Deutsche Bank 
09/15/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
88.00 
Deutsche Bank 
04/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
90.00 
Deutsche Bank 
04/02/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
95.00 
Deutsche Bank 
01/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
109.00 
Deutsche Bank 
10/04/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
125.00 
Deutsche Börse AG 
08/01/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
110.00 
Deutsche Börse AG 
05/02/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
124.00 
Deutsche Börse AG 
01/14/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
140.00 
Deutsche Börse AG 
11/02/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
116.00 
Deutsche Börse AG 
10/23/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
106.00 
Deutsche Börse AG 
09/18/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
95.00 
Deutsche EuroShop 
08/14/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
25.00 
Deutsche EuroShop 
07/10/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
26.50 
Deutsche EuroShop 
05/14/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
30.00 
Deutsche EuroShop 
04/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
30.00 
Deutsche EuroShop 
02/19/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
29.00 
Deutsche Post 
07/24/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
21.50 
Deutsche Post 
03/07/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
25.70 
Deutsche Post 
11/09/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
24.00 
Deutsche Telekom 
06/09/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
16.00 
Deutsche Telekom 
11/30/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
16.60 
Deutsche Telekom 
11/12/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
14.50 
Deutsche Wohnen 
07/10/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
18.00 
Deutsche Wohnen 
06/19/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
20.00 
Deutsche Wohnen 
04/14/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
21.00 
DIC Asset 
08/13/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
20.50 
DIC Asset 
07/10/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
22.50 
DIC Asset 
04/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
25.50 
DIC Asset 
03/25/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
25.00 
DIC Asset 
11/19/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
26.50 
DIC Asset 
11/13/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
27.50 
DIC Asset 
10/30/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
29.00 
Douglas 
07/30/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
26.00 
Douglas 
03/25/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
36.00 
Douglas 
01/18/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
42.00 
Drägerwerk Pref. 
08/12/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
52.00 
Drägerwerk Pref. 
11/13/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
56.00 
Drägerwerk Pref. 
10/30/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
63.00 
Drägerwerk Pref. 
10/11/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
70.50 
E.ON 
08/04/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
44.00 
E.ON 
03/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
131.00 
E.ON 
10/16/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
135.40 
EADS 
08/25/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
16.00 
EADS 
03/14/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
17.00 
EADS 
03/03/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
19.60 
EADS 
01/22/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
18.00 
ElringKlinger 
08/08/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
22.00 
ElringKlinger 
07/07/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
28.00 
ElringKlinger 
11/09/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
86.00 
EPCOS 
08/04/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
17.85

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 177
Company 
Date 
Rating 
Currency 
Target price 
Escada 
04/22/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
9.00 
Escada 
03/03/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
11.50 
Escada 
01/15/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
13.00 
Escada 
12/11/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
21.00 
Escada 
10/01/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
25.00 
Fielmann 
09/02/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
58.00 
Fielmann 
07/08/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
55.00 
Fielmann 
04/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
53.00 
Fielmann 
03/25/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
48.00 
Fielmann 
11/09/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
52.00 
FJA 
07/17/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
3.50 
FJA 
05/27/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
3.90 
FJA 
11/23/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
4.00 
Fraport 
08/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
45.00 
Fraport 
02/22/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
50.00 
Fraport 
01/10/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
55.60 
Fraport 
11/13/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
55.60 
freenet 
04/29/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
13.50 
freenet 
12/12/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
17.00 
freenet 
11/22/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
16.00 
freenet 
11/20/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
16.00 
freenet 
11/16/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
20.00 
Fresenius Medical Care 
07/31/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
38.00 
Fresenius Medical Care 
04/21/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
39.00 
Fresenius Medical Care 
02/13/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
40.50 
Fresenius Medical Care 
09/24/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
41.50 
Fresenius SE 
08/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
57.00 
Fresenius SE 
07/23/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
55.00 
Fresenius SE 
04/22/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
60.00 
Fresenius SE 
02/13/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
62.00 
Fresenius SE 
11/02/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
64.00 
Fresenius SE 
09/24/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
62.00 
GAGFAH 
08/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
10.00 
GAGFAH 
07/10/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
10.20 
GAGFAH 
07/10/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
10.20 
GAGFAH 
03/26/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
12.60 
GEA Group 
05/09/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
30.00 
GEA Group 
11/02/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
29.00 
GfK 
08/29/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
29.00 
GfK 
07/15/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
27.00 
GfK 
11/27/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
28.50 
GILDEMEISTER 
05/02/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
23.50 
GILDEMEISTER 
02/12/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
21.00 
GILDEMEISTER 
11/07/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
24.00 
GILDEMEISTER 
10/05/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
23.00 
Grammer 
08/13/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
16.50 
Grammer 
01/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
23.00 
Grammer 
11/15/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
17.00 
Grammer 
11/09/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
16.00 
Grammer 
10/26/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
16.00 
Graphit Kropfmühl 
03/18/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
18.25 
Graphit Kropfmühl 
11/12/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
16.00 
H&R WASAG 
08/18/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
24.00 
H&R WASAG 
08/11/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
23.00 
H&R WASAG 
07/04/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
16.00 
H&R WASAG 
05/15/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
16.00 
H&R WASAG 
02/13/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
12.00 
H&R WASAG 
01/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
25.00 
H&R WASAG 
08/22/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
34.00 
Hannover Re 
08/08/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
36.00 
Hannover Re 
07/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
40.00 
HCI Capital 
08/11/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
8.00 
HCI Capital 
05/08/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
15.00 
HCI Capital 
03/11/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
15.50 
HCI Capital 
03/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
19.00 
HeidelbergCement 
09/12/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
80.00 
HeidelbergCement 
07/09/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
93.50 
HeidelbergCement 
05/08/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
100.00 
HeidelbergCement 
01/14/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
100.00 
Heidelberger Druck 
07/25/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
13.00 
Heidelberger Druck 
07/10/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
14.00 
Heidelberger Druck 
04/01/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
16.00 
Heidelberger Druck 
01/28/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
26.00 
Heidelberger Druck 
11/06/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
33.50 
Heidelberger Druck 
10/18/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
33.50 
Henkel 
07/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
30.00 
Henkel 
03/03/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
36.00 
Henkel 
01/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
37.00 
Hochtief 
07/29/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
80.00 
Hochtief 
02/06/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
90.00 
Hochtief 
11/05/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
110.00 
hotel.de 
05/29/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
33.00

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 178
Company 
Date 
Rating 
Currency 
Target price 
Hugo Boss 
08/06/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
26.00 
Hugo Boss 
03/25/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
42.00 
Hugo Boss 
02/07/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
48.00 
Hypo Real Estate Group 
08/14/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
17.00 
Hypo Real Estate Group 
07/10/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
17.00 
Hypo Real Estate Group 
04/30/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
25.00 
Hypo Real Estate Group 
04/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
22.50 
Hypo Real Estate Group 
03/31/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
18.00 
Hypo Real Estate Group 
03/11/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
16.00 
Hypo Real Estate Group 
01/16/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
25.00 
Hypo Real Estate Group 
11/08/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
56.00 
Hypo Real Estate Group 
09/24/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
57.00 
Hypo Real Estate Group 
08/29/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
60.00 
IDS Scheer 
04/24/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
7.20 
IDS Scheer 
01/22/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
16.00 
IKB Deutsche Industriebank 
08/22/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
0.50 
IKB Deutsche Industriebank 
03/20/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
0.20 
IKB Deutsche Industriebank 
02/18/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
1.80 
IKB Deutsche Industriebank 
02/11/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
6.10 
IKB Deutsche Industriebank 
01/08/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
6.10 
IKB Deutsche Industriebank 
11/29/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
8.30 
IKB Deutsche Industriebank 
10/16/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
14.00 
IKB Deutsche Industriebank 
09/28/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
12.20 
IKB Deutsche Industriebank 
09/03/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
12.20 
Infineon 
07/31/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
9.00 
Infineon 
04/24/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
10.00 
Infineon 
02/08/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
6.50 
Infineon 
11/15/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
10.50 
Interhyp 
05/19/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
64.00 
Interhyp 
05/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
50.00 
Interhyp 
02/25/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
49.00 
Interhyp 
02/04/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
46.00 
Interhyp 
11/08/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
73.00 
Interhyp 
09/14/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
78.00 
itelligence 
07/17/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
4.10 
itelligence 
04/25/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
4.80 
itelligence 
03/20/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
5.00 
itelligence 
02/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
5.40 
itelligence 
10/25/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
6.20 
itelligence 
10/24/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
6.20 
itelligence 
10/19/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
5.40 
itelligence 
09/19/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
4.80 
ItN Nanovation 
07/04/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
10.00 
ItN Nanovation 
05/05/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
10.00 
ItN Nanovation 
01/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
22.00 
ItN Nanovation 
11/14/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
28.00 
IVG Immobilien 
09/08/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
11.50 
IVG Immobilien 
07/10/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
13.50 
IVG Immobilien 
04/30/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
18.00 
IVG Immobilien 
03/19/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
24.00 
IVG Immobilien 
10/30/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
34.00 
IVG Immobilien 
10/12/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
33.00 
Jenoptik 
01/28/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
6.50 
Jungheinrich 
07/23/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
26.00 
Jungheinrich 
03/10/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
33.50 
Jungheinrich 
10/18/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
37.50 
K+S 
08/14/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
97.00 
K+S 
07/31/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
108.00 
K+S 
07/21/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
106.00 
K+S 
07/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
425.00 
K+S 
06/03/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
384.00 
K+S 
05/14/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
354.00 
K+S 
04/01/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
322.00 
K+S 
01/04/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
197.00 
K+S 
12/12/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
151.00 
K+S 
11/14/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
149.00 
K+S 
11/09/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
148.00 
K+S 
10/02/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
138.00 
K+S 
09/14/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
124.00 
Klöckner & Co 
06/03/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
48.00 
Klöckner & Co 
11/14/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
46.00 
Klöckner & Co 
09/12/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
53.00 
Koenig & Bauer 
07/25/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
26.00 
Koenig & Bauer 
10/18/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
29.00 
Kontron 
07/28/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
16.50 
Kontron 
10/25/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
19.50 
Krones 
06/06/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
73.00 
KUKA 
08/06/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
22.00 
KUKA 
01/28/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
29.00 
KUKA 
11/06/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
33.00

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 179
Company 
Date 
Rating 
Currency 
Target price 
KWS SAAT AG 
07/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
162.00 
KWS SAAT AG 
05/29/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
176.00 
KWS SAAT AG 
04/17/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
140.00 
KWS SAAT AG 
02/29/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
140.00 
KWS SAAT AG 
12/11/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
138.00 
KWS SAAT AG 
11/05/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
141.00 
KWS SAAT AG 
10/11/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
146.00 
KWS SAAT AG 
09/07/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
146.00 
Lanxess 
08/14/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
28.00 
Lanxess 
07/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
29.00 
Lanxess 
02/27/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
32.00 
Lanxess 
01/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
29.00 
Lanxess 
12/17/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
43.00 
Lanxess 
11/14/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
37.50 
Lanxess 
08/17/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
37.50 
LEONI 
03/28/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
50.00 
LEONI 
10/15/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
51.00 
Linde 
03/25/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
101.00 
Linde 
01/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
92.00 
Lufthansa 
07/31/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
17.50 
Lufthansa 
02/01/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
19.50 
MAN 
07/31/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
106.00 
MAN 
05/02/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
139.00 
MAN 
02/11/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
135.00 
MAN 
10/31/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
138.00 
Marseille-Kliniken 
05/09/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
11.50 
Marseille-Kliniken 
02/08/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
18.00 
Merck KGaA 
07/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
95.00 
Merck KGaA 
07/09/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
100.00 
Merck KGaA 
06/02/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
106.00 
Merck KGaA 
05/19/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
101.00 
Merck KGaA 
04/24/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
94.00 
Merck KGaA 
02/19/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
94.00 
Merck KGaA 
10/25/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
107.00 
METRO 
07/31/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
40.00 
METRO 
03/25/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
52.50 
METRO 
03/19/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
55.00 
MLP 
08/13/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
14.00 
MLP 
08/07/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
12.00 
MLP 
02/14/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
14.00 
MPC Capital 
08/21/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
43.00 
MPC Capital 
05/02/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
60.00 
MPC Capital 
01/18/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
68.00 
MPC Capital 
10/30/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
78.00 
MTU Aero Engines 
09/11/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
24.00 
MTU Aero Engines 
07/29/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
20.00 
MTU Aero Engines 
03/14/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
30.00 
MTU Aero Engines 
03/10/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
42.60 
MTU Aero Engines 
12/05/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
48.50 
MTU Aero Engines 
10/19/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
50.00 
Munich Re 
08/06/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
136.00 
Munich Re 
07/25/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
110.00 
Munich Re 
04/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
160.00 
MVV Energie 
08/18/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
33.00 
MVV Energie 
05/19/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
31.50 
MVV Energie 
02/06/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
31.50 
MVV Energie 
11/20/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
31.50 
MVV Energie 
10/15/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
29.00 
Nabaltec 
08/26/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
6.00 
Nabaltec 
05/27/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
8.00 
Nabaltec 
03/31/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
12.00 
Nabaltec 
12/10/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
17.00 
Nabaltec 
08/29/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
21.00 
Norddeutsche Affinerie 
06/04/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
32.00 
Norddeutsche Affinerie 
11/12/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
24.00 
Norddeutsche Affinerie 
09/18/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
33.00 
Norddeutsche Affinerie 
08/16/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
30.00 
Nordex AG 
08/12/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
20.80 
Nordex AG 
07/09/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
27.50 
Nordex AG 
05/20/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
33.80 
Nordex AG 
01/11/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
33.80 
Nordex AG 
11/16/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
34.30 
Nordex AG 
11/06/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
32.00 
Nordex AG 
08/29/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
32.00 
Nordex AG 
08/23/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
32.00 
Nordex AG 
08/17/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
31.50 
PATRIZIA Immobilien 
09/09/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
2.50 
PATRIZIA Immobilien 
08/13/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
2.30 
PATRIZIA Immobilien 
08/13/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
2.30 
PATRIZIA Immobilien 
07/10/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
2.50 
PATRIZIA Immobilien 
04/30/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
3.25

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 180
Company 
Date 
Rating 
Currency 
Target price 
Pfleiderer 
06/19/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
11.00 
Pfleiderer 
04/30/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
15.00 
Pfleiderer 
01/22/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
23.00 
Pfleiderer 
10/19/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
28.50 
Phoenix Solar 
08/25/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
42.00 
POLIS Immobilien 
07/10/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
12.00 
POLIS Immobilien 
03/10/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
13.50 
POLIS Immobilien 
02/08/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
14.00 
POLIS Immobilien 
11/13/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
14.70 
POLIS Immobilien 
10/30/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
15.20 
Porsche SE 
06/20/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
152.00 
Porsche SE 
03/04/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
182.20 
Porsche SE 
03/03/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
182.20 
Porsche SE 
10/18/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
1822.00 
Porsche SE 
09/21/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
1621.00 
Postbank 
09/15/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
44.00 
Postbank 
07/22/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
61.00 
Postbank 
07/07/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
66.00 
Postbank 
01/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
76.00 
Postbank 
10/29/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
63.00 
Praktiker 
07/23/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
14.00 
Praktiker 
01/10/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
21.00 
Praktiker 
12/05/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
21.00 
Praktiker 
10/24/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
32.00 
Premiere 
05/19/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
15.50 
Premiere 
02/18/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
13.30 
Premiere 
02/06/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
12.80 
Premiere 
01/08/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
17.50 
Premiere 
11/07/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
18.00 
Premiere 
10/17/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
20.00 
ProSiebenSat.1 Media 
08/12/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
6.50 
ProSiebenSat.1 Media 
08/06/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
6.50 
ProSiebenSat.1 Media 
06/11/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
8.20 
ProSiebenSat.1 Media 
04/30/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
9.50 
ProSiebenSat.1 Media 
01/16/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
14.50 
ProSiebenSat.1 Media 
01/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
15.00 
ProSiebenSat.1 Media 
12/11/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
18.50 
ProSiebenSat.1 Media 
12/04/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
17.50 
ProSiebenSat.1 Media 
08/28/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
21.00 
PUMA 
08/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
205.00 
PUMA 
02/19/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
230.00 
PUMA 
01/24/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
275.00 
PUMA 
01/09/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
295.00 
PUMA 
11/06/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
295.00 
Qimonda 
05/26/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
3.00 
Qimonda 
11/12/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
7.00 
Qimonda 
11/06/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
7.50 
QSC 
07/24/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
2.70 
QSC 
12/12/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
2.70 
QSC 
11/15/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
2.50 
QSC 
10/26/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
2.50 
QSC 
08/16/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
6.00 
Rational 
03/27/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
165.00 
Rational 
10/29/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
180.00 
REALTECH 
07/17/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
17.00 
REALTECH 
02/15/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
19.00 
REALTECH 
10/23/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
17.00 
Rheinmetall 
08/13/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
50.00 
Rheinmetall 
02/08/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
64.50 
Rheinmetall 
11/14/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
74.00 
Rhön-Klinikum 
08/27/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
25.00 
Rhön-Klinikum 
02/13/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
23.00 
Rhön-Klinikum 
10/25/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
23.00 
RWE 
04/23/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
80.00 
RWE 
02/25/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
81.00 
RWE 
02/13/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
93.60 
RWE 
10/16/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
93.60 
Salzgitter 
07/07/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
150.00 
Salzgitter 
05/15/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
150.00 
Salzgitter 
11/14/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
150.00 
SAP 
07/29/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
44.00 
SAP 
04/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
42.00 
SAP 
12/07/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
50.00 
Schmack Biogas 
08/14/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
7.50 
Schmack Biogas 
04/02/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
23.90 
Schmack Biogas 
02/26/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
26.00 
Schmack Biogas 
11/12/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
28.60 
Schmack Biogas 
10/31/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
26.00 
Schmack Biogas 
10/04/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
26.00

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 181
Company 
Date 
Rating 
Currency 
Target price 
SGL Group 
06/06/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
50.00 
SGL Group 
04/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
43.50 
SGL Group 
03/14/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
43.50 
SGL Group 
01/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
40.00 
SGL Group 
10/25/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
37.00 
Siemens 
03/18/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
105.00 
Singulus 
08/07/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
6.70 
Singulus 
07/25/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
8.00 
Singulus 
02/22/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
10.00 
Singulus 
10/18/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
9.00 
Sixt 
08/14/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
25.00 
Sixt 
03/13/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
42.00 
Sixt 
08/20/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
48.00 
SoftM 
08/25/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
3.50 
SoftM 
07/17/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
3.10 
SoftM 
04/23/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
3.70 
SoftM 
03/10/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
4.60 
SoftM 
11/20/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
3.95 
Software AG 
07/17/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
64.00 
Software AG 
04/23/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
69.00 
Software AG 
04/14/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
80.00 
Software AG 
11/28/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
83.00 
SolarWorld 
08/18/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
32.00 
SolarWorld 
07/31/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
23.50 
STADA 
08/28/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
36.00 
STADA 
08/14/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
36.00 
STADA 
07/29/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
40.00 
STADA 
05/15/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
50.00 
STADA 
11/14/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
52.00 
STADA 
08/16/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
55.00 
Südzucker 
05/29/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
17.00 
Sunways 
03/28/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
9.70 
Sunways 
03/28/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
9.70 
Sunways 
11/06/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
9.70 
Symrise 
07/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
17.00 
Symrise 
05/02/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
20.00 
Symrise 
03/10/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
20.70 
Symrise 
09/24/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
21.60 
TAG Immobilien 
08/22/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
5.00 
TAG Immobilien 
07/10/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
5.50 
TAG Immobilien 
03/19/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
6.50 
telegate 
06/18/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
15.00 
Teles 
09/01/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
1.80 
Teles 
06/16/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
2.30 
Teles 
01/09/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
2.70 
Teles 
10/08/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
3.10 
Teles 
09/05/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
3.00 
ThyssenKrupp 
01/18/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
37.00 
ThyssenKrupp 
10/10/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
38.00 
Tomorrow Focus 
06/20/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
3.50 
United Internet 
07/24/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
16.00 
United Internet 
11/09/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
18.50 
Versatel 
06/06/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
18.00 
Versatel 
04/24/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
18.00 
Versatel 
11/30/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
20.00 
Versatel 
11/21/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
15.00 
Versatel 
09/04/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
12.60 
Vivacon 
08/14/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
14.50 
Vivacon 
07/01/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
13.00 
Vivacon 
04/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
18.00 
Vivacon 
04/01/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
20.00 
Vivacon 
02/11/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
22.00 
Vivacon 
11/27/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
25.00 
Vivacon 
10/30/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
28.50 
Vizrt 
08/14/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
5.00 
Vizrt 
08/22/2007 
Buy 
EUR 
6.20 
Volkswagen 
07/16/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
138.00 
Volkswagen 
10/29/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
184.00 
Volkswagen 
10/18/2007 
Hold 
EUR 
174.00 
Vossloh 
08/14/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
86.00 
Vossloh 
07/28/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
86.00 
Wacker Chemie 
08/04/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
134.00 
Wacker Chemie 
07/16/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
138.00 
Wacker Chemie 
05/13/2008 
Sell 
EUR 
154.00 
Wacker Chemie 
01/30/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
154.00 
Wacker Chemie 
11/12/2007 
Sell 
EUR 
171.00 
WashTec 
02/05/2008 
Buy 
EUR 
13.00 
Wincor Nixdorf 
07/11/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
51.00 
Wincor Nixdorf 
04/24/2008 
Hold 
EUR 
60.00

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 182
You will find the history of rating regarding recommendation changes as well as an overview of the breakdown in absolute and relative terms of our investment ratings on our 
websites hvbmarkets.de and http://www.mib-unicredit.com/research-disclaimer under the heading “Disclaimer.” 
The history of recommendations is not provided for HVB Milan and UniCredit CAIB AG. 
Note on what the evaluation of equities is based:  
We currently use a three-tier recommendation system for the stocks in our formal coverage: Buy, Hold, or Sell (see definitions below): 
A Buy is applied when the expected total return over the next twelve months is higher than the stock's cost of equity.  
A Hold is applied when the expected total return over the next twelve months is lower than its cost of equity but higher than zero.  
A Sell is applied when the stock's expected total return over the next twelve months is negative.  
We employ three further categorizations for stocks in our coverage: 
Restricted: A rating and/or financial forecasts and/or target price is not disclosed owing to compliance or other regulatory considerations such as blackout period or conflict of 
interest.  
Coverage in transition: Due to changes in the research team, the disclosure of a stock's rating and/or target price and/or financial information are temporarily suspended. The 
stock remains in the research universe and disclosures of relevant information will be resumed in due course.  
 
Not rated: Suspension of coverage. 
Until December 4, 2006, the investment ratings used by Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG were in principle judgments relative to an index as a benchmark. The ratings 
used by Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG until that date were as follows: Buy, Outperform, Neutral, Underperform and Sell. Outperform/Underperform ratings meant that 
we expected a stock to outperform or underperform the benchmark by more than 5%. Similarly, a Buy or Sell rating was based on the assumption of outperformance or 
underperformance of more than 10%, including an absolute component (i.e. projected absolute gains or losses). The benchmark for the stocks covered in publications earlier to 
the date hereof was the Euro STOXX 50. 
Until April 1, 2007, the investment ratings used HVB Milan Branch (formerly UniCredit Banca Mobiliare S.p.A.) were judgments based on the expected total return (price 
performance plus dividend) relative to the total return of the stock's local market over the next 12 months. The ratings used by HVB Milan Branch (formerly UniCredit Banca 
Mobiliare S.p.A.) until that date were as follows: Buy – expected to outperform the market by 10 or more percentage points; Accumulate: expected to outperform the market by 5-10 
percentage points; Hold: expected to perform in line with the market, plus or minus five percentage points; Reduce: expected to underperform the market by 5-10 percentage 
points; Sell: expected to underperform the market by 10 or more percentage points. 
Until August 27, 2007, the investment ratings used by UniCredit Aton were as follows: Buy – appreciation potential of more than 15% over the next 12 months, Hold – appreciation 
potential of 0%-15% over the next 12 months, Sell – appreciation potential of less than 0% over the next 12 months. 
UniCredit CAIB AG and UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd. have been using the current three-tier recommendation system for the past twelve months. 
Company valuations are based on the following valuation methods: Multiple-based models (P/E, P/cash flow, EV/sales, EV/EBIT, EV/EBITA, EV/EBITDA), peer-group 
comparisons, historical valuation approaches, discount models (DCF, DVMA, DDM), break-up value approaches or asset-based evaluation methods. Furthermore, recommenda-
tions are also based on the Economic profit approach. Valuation models are dependent on macroeconomic factors, such as interest rates, exchange rates, raw materials, and on 
assumptions about the economy. Furthermore, market sentiment affects the valuation of companies. The valuation is also based on expectations that might change rapidly and 
without notice, depending on developments specific to individual industries. Our recommendations and target prices derived from the models might therefore change accordingly. 
The investment ratings generally relate to a 12-month horizon. They are, however, also subject to market conditions and can only represent a snapshot. The ratings may in fact 
be achieved more quickly or slowly than expected, or need to be revised upward or downward. 
Note on the bases of evaluation for interest-bearing securities: 
Our investment ratings are in principle judgments relative to an index as a benchmark.  
Issuer level: 
Marketweight: We recommend having the same portfolio exposure in the name as the respective reference index (the iBoxx index universe for high-grade names and the ML EUR HY 
index for sub-investment grade names). 
Overweight: We recommend having a higher portfolio exposure in the name as the respective reference index (the iBoxx index universe for high-grade names and the ML EUR HY 
index for sub-investment grade names). 
Underweight: We recommend having a lower portfolio exposure in the name as the respective reference index (the iBoxx index universe for high-grade names and the ML EUR HY 
index for sub-investment grade names). 
Instrument level: 
Core hold: We recommend holding the respective instrument for investors who already have exposure. 
Sell: We recommend selling the respective instrument for investors who already have exposure. 
Buy: We recommend buying the respective instrument for investors who already have exposure. 
Trading recommendations for fixed-interest securities mostly focus on the credit spread (yield difference between the fixed-interest security and the relevant government bond or 
swap rate) and on the rating views and methodologies of recognized agencies (S&P, Moody’s, Fitch). Depending on the type of investor, investment ratings may refer to a short 
period or to a 6 to 9-month horizon. Please note that the provision of securities services may be subject to restrictions in certain jurisdictions. You are required to acquaint 
yourself with local laws and restrictions on the usage and the availability of any services described herein. The information is not intended for distribution to or use by any person 
or entity in any jurisdiction where such distribution would be contrary to the applicable law or provisions. 
The prices used in the analysis are the closing prices of the appropriate local trading system or the closing prices on the relevant local stock exchanges. In the case of unlisted 
stocks, the average market prices based on various major broker sources (OTC market) are used. 
The MSCI sourced information is the exclusive property of Morgan Stanley Capital International Inc. (MSCI). Without prior written permission of MSCI, this information and any 
other MSCI intellectual property may not be reproduced, redisseminated or used to create any financial products, including any indices. This information is provided on an “as is” 
basis. The user assumes the entire risk of any use made of this information. MSCI, its affiliates and any third party involved in, or related to, computing or compiling the 
information hereby expressly disclaim all warranties of originality, accuracy, completeness, merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose with respect to any of this 
information. Without limiting any of the foregoing, in no event shall MSCI, any of its affiliates or any third party involved in, or related to, computing or compiling the information 
have any liability for any damages of any kind. MSCI, Morgan Stanley Capital International and the MSCI indexes are services marks of MSCI and its affiliates. 
The Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) was developed by and is the exclusive property of Morgan Stanley Capital International Inc. and Standard & Poor’s. GICS is a 
service mark of MSCI and S&P and has been licensed for use by UniCredit CAIB Group 
Coverage Policy 
A list of the companies covered by Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd., Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Milan 
Branch and UniCredit Aton is available upon request. 
Frequency of reports and updates 
It is intended that each of these companies be covered at least once a year, in the event of key operations and/or changes in the recommendation. Companies for which Bayerische Hypo- und 
Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch acts as Sponsor or Specialist must be covered in accordance with the regulations of the competent market authority. 
SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL INTEREST:  
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch, UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd., UniCredit Aton and/or a 
company affiliated (pursuant to relevant national German, Italian, Austrian, UK and Russian law) with them regularly trade shares of the analyzed company. Bayerische Hypo- und 
Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch, UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd. and UniCredit Aton may hold significant open 
derivative positions on the stocks of the company which are not delta-neutral.  
Analyses may refer to one or several companies and to the securities issued by them. In some cases, the analyzed issuers have actively supplied information for this analysis. 
ANALYST DECLARATION 
The author’s remuneration has not been, and will not be, geared to the recommendations or views expressed in this study, neither directly nor indirectly.

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 183
ORGANIZATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS TO AVOID AND PREVENT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 
To prevent or remedy conflicts of interest, Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd., Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank 
AG Milan Branch and UniCredit Aton have established the organizational arrangements required from a legal and supervisory aspect, adherence to which is monitored by its 
compliance department. Conflicts of interest arising are managed by legal and physical and non-physical barriers (collectively referred to as “Chinese Walls”) designed to restrict 
the flow of information between one area/department of Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd., Bayerische Hypo- und 
Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch and UniCredit Aton and another. In particular, Investment Banking units, including corporate finance, capital market activities, financial advisory 
and other capital raising activities, are segregated by physical and non-physical boundaries from Markets Units, as well as the research department. In the case of equities 
execution by Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch, other than as a matter of client facilitation or delta hedging of OTC and listed derivative positions, there is no 
proprietary trading. Disclosure of publicly available conflicts of interest and other material interests is made in the research. Analysts are supervised and managed on a day-to-
day basis by line managers who do not have responsibility for Investment Banking activities, including corporate finance activities, or other activities other than the sale of 
securities to clients. 
ADDITIONAL REQUIRED DISCLOSURES UNDER THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF JURISDICTIONS INDICATED 
Notice to Austrian investors 
This document does not constitute or form part of any offer for sale or subscription of or solicitation of any offer to buy or subscribe for any securities and neither this document 
nor any part of it shall form the basis of, or be relied on in connection with or act as an inducement to enter into, any contract or commitment whatsoever. 
This document is confidential and is being supplied to you solely for your information and may not be reproduced, redistributed or passed on to any other person or published, in 
whole or part, for any purpose. 
Notice to Czech investors 
This report is intended for clients of Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd. or Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG 
Milan Branch in the Czech Republic and may not be used or relied upon by any other person for any purpose. 
Notice to Italian investors 
This document is not for distribution to retail clients as defined in article 26, paragraph 1(e) of Regulation n. 16190 approved by CONSOB on October 29, 2007.  
In the case of a short note, we invite the investors to read the related company report that can be found on UniCredit Global Research website www.globalresearch.unicreditmib.eu. 
Notice to Russian investors 
As far as we are aware, not all of the financial instruments referred to in this analysis have been registered under the federal law of the Russian Federation “On the Securities 
Market” dated April 22, 1996, as amended, and are not being offered, sold, delivered or advertised in the Russian Federation. 
Notice to Turkish investors 
Investment information, comments and recommendations stated herein are not within the scope of investment advisory activities. Investment advisory services are provided in 
accordance with a contract of engagement on investment advisory services concluded with brokerage houses, portfolio management companies, non-deposit banks and the 
clients. Comments and recommendations stated herein rely on the individual opinions of the ones providing these comments and recommendations. These opinions may not suit 
your financial status, risk and return preferences. For this reason, to make an investment decision by relying solely on the information stated here may not result in consequences 
that meet your expectations. 
Notice to Investors in Japan 
This document does not constitute or form part of any offer for sale or subscription for or solicitation of any offer to buy or subscribe for any securities and neither this document 
nor any part of it shall form the basis of, or be relied on in connection with or act as an inducement to enter into, any contract or commitment whatsoever. 
Notice to UK investors 
This communication is directed only at clients of Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, UniCredit CAIB AG, UniCredit CAIB Securities UK Ltd. or Bayerische Hypo- und 
Vereinsbank AG Milan Branch who (i) have professional experience in matters relating to investments or (ii) are persons falling within Article 49(2)(a) to (d) (“high net worth 
companies, unincorporated associations, etc.”) of the United Kingdom Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 or (iii) to whom it may 
otherwise lawfully be communicated (all such persons together being referred to as “relevant persons”). This communication must not be acted on or relied on by persons who 
are not relevant persons. Any investment or investment activity to which this communication relates is available only to relevant persons and will be engaged in only with relevant 
persons. 
Notice to U.S. investors 
This report is being furnished to U.S. recipients in reliance on Rule 15a-6 ("Rule 15a-6") under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Each U.S. recipient of this 
report represents and agrees, by virtue of its acceptance thereof, that it is such a "major U.S. institutional investor" (as such term is defined in Rule 15a-6) and that it understands 
the risks involved in executing transactions in such securities. Any U.S. recipient of this report that wishes to discuss or receive additional information regarding any security or 
issuer mentioned herein, or engage in any transaction to purchase or sell or solicit or offer the purchase or sale of such securities, should contact a registered representative of 
UniCredit Capital Markets, Inc. (“UCI Capital Markets”). 
Any transaction by U.S. persons (other than a registered U.S. broker-dealer or bank acting in a broker-dealer capacity) must be effected with or through UCI Capital Markets. 
The securities referred to in this report may not be registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the issuer of such securities may not be subject to U.S. 
reporting and/or other requirements. Available information regarding the issuers of such securities may be limited, and such issuers may not be subject to the same auditing and 
reporting standards as U.S. issuers. 
The information contained in this report is intended solely for certain "major U.S. institutional investors" and may not be used or relied upon by any other person for any purpose. 
Such information is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell any securities under the Securities Act of 1933, as 
amended, or under any other U.S. federal or state securities laws, rules or regulations. The investment opportunities discussed in this report may be unsuitable for certain 
investors depending on their specific investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial position. In jurisdictions where UCI Capital Markets is not registered or licensed to trade in 
securities, commodities or other financial products, transactions may be executed only in accordance with applicable law and legislation, which may vary from jurisdiction to 
jurisdiction and which may require that a transaction be made in accordance with applicable exemptions from registration or licensing requirements. 
The information in this publication is based on carefully selected sources believed to be reliable, but UCI Capital Markets does not make any representation with respect to its 
completeness or accuracy. All opinions expressed herein reflect the author’s judgment at the original time of publication, without regard to the date on which you may receive 
such information, and are subject to change without notice. 
UCI Capital Markets may have issued other reports that are inconsistent with, and reach different conclusions from, the information presented in this report. These publications 
reflect the different assumptions, views and analytical methods of the analysts who prepared them. Past performance should not be taken as an indication or guarantee of future 
performance, and no representation or warranty, express or implied, is provided in relation to future performance.  
UCI Capital Markets and any company affiliated with it may, with respect to any securities discussed herein: (a) take a long or short position and buy or sell such securities; (b) 
act as investment and/or commercial bankers for issuers of such securities; (c) act as market makers for such securities; (d) serve on the board of any issuer of such securities; 
and (e) act as paid consultant or advisor to any issuer. 
The information contained herein may include forward-looking statements within the meaning of U.S. federal securities laws that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Factors 
that could cause a company’s actual results and financial condition to differ from expectations include, without limitation: political uncertainty, changes in general economic 
conditions that adversely affect the level of demand for the company’s products or services, changes in foreign exchange markets, changes in international and domestic 
financial markets and in the competitive environment, and other factors relating to the foregoing. All forward-looking statements contained in this report are qualified in their 
entirety by this cautionary statement 
This document may not be distributed in Canada or Australia.

<dateSeptember 2008 
 
ESG Research
 
September 2008
Global Equity Research
 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG        ●        UniCredit CAIB Group 
page 184
 
UniCredit Global Research* 
Thorsten Weinelt, CFA 
Global Head of Research & Chief Strategist  
+49 89 378-15110 
thorsten.weinelt@unicreditgroup.de 
 
 
Dr. Ingo Heimig 
Head of Research Operations  
+49 89 378-13952 
ingo.heimig@unicreditgroup.de 
Global Equity Research 
 
 
Mark Robinson, Head  
+44 20 7826-7960, mark.robinson@caib.unicreditgroup.eu 
 
Tomasz Bardziłowski, CFA, Deputy Head  
+48 22 520-2979, tomasz.bardzilowski@caib.unicreditgroup.eu 
Equity Research Germany 
Andreas Heine, Co-Head, +49 89 378-16921, andreas.heine@unicreditgroup.de 
Georg Stürzer, Co-Head, +49 89 378-18252, georg.stuerzer@unicreditgroup.de  
Aerospace & Defence / Airlines / Industrials / Retail /  
Tourism, Leisure & Services / Steel 
Christian Obst  
+49 89 378-15117, christian.obst@unicreditgroup.de 
Volker Bosse  
+49 89 378-11398, volker.bosse@unicreditgroup.de 
Peter Rothenaicher  
+49 89 378-18718, peter.rothenaicher@unicreditgroup.de 
Uwe Weinreich  
+49 89 378-12640, uwe.weinreich@unicreditgroup.de 
Automobiles & Parts 
Georg Stürzer  
+49 89 378-18252, georg.stuerzer @unicreditgroup.de 
Christian Aust  
+49 89 378-11394, christian.aust@unicreditgroup.de 
Chemicals / Pharmaceuticals & Biotech 
Andreas Heine  
+49 89 378-16921, andreas.heine@unicreditgroup.de 
Markus Mayer  
+49 89 378-18670, markus.mayer@unicreditgroup.de 
Dr. Silke Stegemann  
+49 89 378-17101, silke.stegemann@unicreditgroup.de 
Christian Weiz  
+49 89 378-15229, christian.weiz@unicreditgroup.de 
Financials  
Dr. Andreas Weese  
+49 89 378-12561, andreas.weese@unicreditgroup.de 
Bernd Müller-Gerberding, CFA  
+49 89 378-18706, bernd.mueller-gerberding@unicreditgroup.de 
Kerstin Vitvar  
+49 89 378-11392, kerstin.vitvar@unicreditgroup.de 
Media / Specialities 
Friedrich Schellmoser  
+49 89 378-11396, friedrich.schellmoser@unicreditgroup.de 
Michael Tappeiner  
+49 89 378-14163, michael.tappeiner@unicreditgroup.de 
Real Estate 
Andre Remke, CFA  
+49 89 378-18202, andre.remke@unicreditgroup.de 
Mathias Becker  
+49 89 378-17844, mathias.becker@unicreditgroup.de 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Semiconductors / Software / Telecom / Technology 
Knut Woller 
+49 89 378-11381, knut.woller@unicreditgroup.de 
Thomas Friedrich, CFA 
+49 89 378-12798, thomas.friedrich1@unicreditgroup.de 
Guenther Hollfelder, CFA 
+49 89 378-18776, guenther.hollfelder@unicreditgroup.de 
Roland D.-W. Pitz 
+49 89 378-11385, roland.pitz@unicreditgroup.de 
Utilities / Construction & Materials / Renewables 
Karin Brinkmann 
+49 89 378-13946, karin.brinkmann@unicreditgroup.de 
Alexander Stiehler 
+49 89 378-18634, alexander.stiehler@unicreditgroup.de 
Global Equity Strategy 
Gerhard Schwarz, Head 
+49 89 378-12421, gerhard.schwarz1@unicreditgroup.de 
Volker Bien 
+49 89 378-18148, volker.bien@unicreditgroup.de 
Nigel Croft 
+44 207 826-6680, nigel.croft@unicreditgroup.co.uk 
Dr. Tammo Greetfeld 
+49 89 378-18361, tammo.greetfeld@unicreditgroup.de 
Christian Stocker 
+49 89 378-18603, christian.stocker@unicreditgroup.de 
 
Equity Sales 
Equity Sales Munich 
+49 89 378 14129 
Equity Sales London 
+44 207 826 6949 
Equity Sales Milan 
+39 02 8862 0643 
Equity Sales New York 
+1 212 672 6140 
Equity Sales Vienna 
+43 5 0505 82976 
Equity Sales Zurich 
+41 44 288 7700 
 
 
 
Publication Address 
 
 
UniCredit Markets & Investment Banking 
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG 
Global Research 
Arabellastrasse 12  
D-81925 Munich 
Tel. +49 89 378-18778 
Fax +49 89 378-18352 
 
Bloomberg 
UCGR 
 
Internet 
www.globalresearch.unicreditmib.eu 
 
* UniCredit Global Research is the joint research department of Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG (HVB) and UniCredit CAIB Group (CAIB).