Copying and distributing are prohibited without permission of the publisher
Tri-party survey full results
25 May 2012
The results of this year’s tri-party survey largely reflected
the rankings from the previous year while qualitative
feedback showed respondents valued dividend collection,
quality of static data and timeliness of margin calls most
from their providers. Analysis by Luke Clancy
Read more:
Tri-party survey
Clearstream has once again finished first in the Global Investor/ISF tri-party survey, winning the overall table, overall EMEA, overall Asia, overall repo and overall securities lending. JPMorgan came second and BNY Mellon third in the overall table. Last year places one and two were identical but this year BNY Mellon bumped Euroclear to the bottom of the overall table.
Client satisfaction rose across the board this year and the scores were more tightly grouped. In 2011 the overall scores were spread between the winning score of 5.47 and the final place of 4.91. This year the spread was between 5.94 and 5.43. It meant that despite Euroclear increasing its overall score from 5.07 to 5.43 it actually slipped a place in the table.
The result for Clearstream replicated its success in 2011 when it cleared the board in all overall and regional tables with the exception of one; once again only JPMorgan challenged Clearstream in the regional tables by winning in Americas, its home country, where Clearstream did not achieve a ranking. However, the win was not as straightforward as in previous years. Clearstream topped the table of just three service category tables compared to nine last year; collateral reuse re-hypothecation, dividend collection and implementation of collateral sets schedules.
Crucially though, lifting it over the finishing line in first place, Clearstream was second in the majority (10) of the 17 service category tables. It was third place in a further four service category tables. One client said: “Responsiveness to requests from agent lenders needs improvement at BNY and Euroclear, JPMorgan is significantly better and ClearStream is best.”
Other comments on Clearstream included: “The staff are highly responsive and always delighted to help me out even when I send in a query late in the evening”; “In collateral management, Clearstream are leaders in this field compared to others”; “Clearstream offers a very competitive, smooth and professional tri-party service. Also the Clearstream team – account manager, sales and back office – is very friendly and professional with minimal response time.” Another said: “Almost without fail, any reporting, custody, or clearing issue we request is answered immediately. In this environment, getting timely information is imperative and they have always met our reporting demands in a timely and efficient manner.”
There was an overwhelming amount of positive comments but not unanimously so. One respondent said of Clearstream: “Client service team [needs] to improve,” in terms of curing fails and being more proactive,” while another noted “bilateral instructions are not prioritised versus triparty trades which lead us to fails.”
A further respondent reported: “The only small complaint I would have at the moment is the manual process of checking the eligibility of the trade basket. I have to email Clearstream the list of securities which I would like to put into the tri-party basket, and they check before replying back to me. It’d be better if there could be a website/software in which I could upload the list of securities and get immediate reply on the eligibility of the securities, and the reason why not if they have been rejected.”