The 2015 Global Investor/ ISF global custody survey produced three standout performers. On the weighted side of the survey, Citi achieved the highest average score and State Street dominated the category tables – a highly unusual situation, more about that below. In terms of raw data, RBC Investor & Treasury Services stole the show.
Raw data scores are based on a simple average of respondents that use the services of the custodian, whereas the weighted scores take into consideration the respondents’ assets under management (AuMs) and how important the respondents consider each service category to be.
The survey respondents were asked to rate custodians over 18 service categories, each of which could contain as many as five sub-categories. The qualification criteria was strict – 30 responses were needed for global overall and category tables, for example. Regional or category tables were omitted where custodians did not reach the threshold.
The survey results were based on the views of all clients of custodian banks; about four in 10 were fund managers of various types, and broker-dealers and pension funds made up significant shares.
The tables presented here are not the only ones generated by the survey. Further tables and analysis are presented HERE including service category tables for groups of respondents: institutional fund managers, mutual fund managers and asset owners as well as respondents with AuMs greater and less than $3bn.
Citi achieved the highest average overall score by the weighted methodology, of 6.72. It achieved the top spot due to its winning score in the Americas, 7.30, and second place in Emea. Combined with a respectable fourth place in Asia Pacific, its global total was the third highest.
Although Citi did not top any of the weighted service category tables, it had a solid showing across the board with the second highest position for cash management and third places in another 10 tables.
It fared less well in the overall raw data tables, but still achieved a solid a third place in the Americas and fourth in Asia Pacific. It also had the fifth-highest global total.
For asset owners, Citi qualified only in the Americas – but took top spot weighted and second for raw data.
The respondents were divided into two groups for further league tables, with AuM larger or smaller than $3bn. Citi achieved its sole winning score in the less than $3bn AuM group in the weighted table for Asia Pacific, and came second in raw data. Among the respondents with AuM greater than $3bn, Citi again did better in weighted, taking second position in the Americas and on average and third in total. In the corresponding raw data tables it took third position in every region except Emea, and third on average ( jointly) and in total.
Citi achieved its best scores among respondents that use multiple custodians, under weighted methodology. It achieved the highest average score, built on tabletopping scores in Emea and the Americas. | Safety Its global total was also the second highest. However, it did not place in the top three anywhere in the raw data tables.
Among respondents that use a single custodian, by the weighted methodology Citi also had winning scores in two regions, again in the Americas but also in Asia Pacific. Its total and average scores were the third highest. In the raw data, it achieved second place in the same two regions as well as in total and on average.
“Exceptional client service and knowledge of the client. Very strong network client team and great reporting. We trust the safety of our assets,” commented a bank/broker-dealer in the Americas. “They truly partner with us and together we tackle each and every challenge in a collaborative team partnership.”
A mutual fund manager in Asia Pacific added: “Our key relationship managers within the custody area have always been excellent at managing our inquiries. Initial responses are always quick. Our expectations are always managed effectively when there are delays in finding an answer to our query.” However, the manager also noted some niggles including the “bugbear” of the daily 12pm cut-off time for cash management, as well as issues around FX pricing and mislaying documentation for tax services.
A mutual fund manager in the Americas commented: “We are very well pleased with the level of client service, relationship management, and industry expertise of this custodian. They really understand our business and provide solutions and support as we get into new products or markets.”
Another mutual fund manager, this one in Emea, noted: “One of Citi’s major strengths is the range of its branch network, which provides a great deal of comfort and operational ease for us. Tax services can be problematic to resolve on a timely basis, mostly due to not getting in touch with the right experts initially.”
A respondent in Emea with large AuM added: “Citi provides high quality client/ Swift reporting. But there was a high impact to client service during Citi’s service model restructure.”
State Street faired best in the weighted section of the overall tables, achieving the highest global total score – the sum of the regional scores – of 20.14. It also achieved the best score in Asia Pacific, 6.84, as well as a second spot in the Americas and fifth in Emea.
Overall State Street achieved the second- highest weighted average score. The average includes all responses – even ratings given in service categories that it did not qualify for. This explains why State Street had outstanding results in the corresponding service categories, achieving the number one spot in 10 categories and second in the other two others it qualified for. Its average score was brought down by lower ratings cast in the remaining six categories that it did not qualify for. For example, it attracted 29 responses – 30 were needed for overall category qualification – for the derivatives category and had a relatively low score of 3.42. It suffered more in this regard than the custodian with the highest average, Citi, which nudged State Street down into second place.
In the overall raw data tables State Street had an impressive string of results across the regions, with third places for Emea and Asia Pacific and fourth for the Americas. Its global total was the second highest and its average score the third highest. In the raw data service categories it took the top spot in two – foreign exchange services and tax services – second place in three and third in seven.
State Street did best, and got more responses, among respondents with an AuM of greater than $3bn. In the raw data tables it had the highest global total score and came second in every region, and on average. When these scores were weighted, State Street took second place in Asia Pacific and in total and third in the remaining regions and on average.
State Street was considered the best custodian by mutual fund managers, achieving a clean sweep of top spots in the raw data tables. When the scores were weighted, it retained its top spots in every case except in the Emea region, where it fell to third.
Institutional fund managers gave State Street the highest average score, under the weighted methodology. It also took top spot in the Americas and third in Emea, leaving it with the second-highest global total. In raw data, it was third in Emea and on average but retained the second-highest global total.
When only the ratings of respondents that use multiple custodians were taken into consideration, State Street again had the highest weighed global total. It also had the second-highest average score and scores in the Americas and Asia Pacific, as well as third in the Americas. In the corresponding raw data tables, it had the highest global total and Asia Pacific score and third-highest in the Americas and on average.
When only the responses of those that use a single-custodian were considered, under the weighted methodology State Street was second on average, in total and in the Americas. In the corresponding raw data tables State Street had the thirdhighest total and average scores.
An institutional fund manager in the Americas commented: “To me, State Street is the gold standard in servicing the institutional asset manager. Whether it is industry knowledge, working together to develop a new/non-standard product or just plain responsiveness to issues, they always bring the A-team. No matter what the issue, when or why it happens, they are always ready, willing and able to work on my problem and help me solve it. I believe I have the best team servicing my account.”
In Asia Pacific, a mutual fund manager commented: “Excellent customer service team that understands our business requirements.” An institutional fund manager in the region added: “Good client services and industry knowledge and experiences. Healthy financial status to protect assets.”
A mutual fund manager in Emea stated: “Key contacts at State Street are very accessible, very knowledgeable and very quick to resolve any queries. Those same contacts have made a point of getting to know our specific business needs and culture and have a can-do attitude to any request. We continue to be impressed by the extremely high accuracy rate of the daily NAV processing.” The only area of criticism was around the late processing of tax returns but noted steps have been taken to improve that area.
RBC Investor & Treasury Services
RBC I&TS was the standout performer in the raw data tables. It may have relatively smaller clients responding on its behalf – but they were universally positive about its performance. It achieved the highest average score – a feat that it has achieved for 11 of the past 12 years – of 6.34 and highest global total of 19.05. It achieved this as a result of winning scores in Emea, of 6.35, and Asia Pacific, 6.37, and a second- place score in its home market of the Americas.
The relatively lower AuM of its responding clients meant that its position was brought down in the weighted tables, where it achieved fifth place for Asia Pacific and global total.
Unsurprisingly, RBC I&TS secured winning positions in nine of the raw data service categories. It achieved a second place for corporate actions, the only other category it qualified for. It did not get into the top three positions in the corresponding weighted tables.
RBC I&TS was the top-rated custodian in Emea among respondents with AuM greater than $3bn in terms of raw data. It did even better among respondents with AuM less than $3bn with winning raw data scores in Emea and Asia Pacific, and a second place in the Americas, yielding it the highest global total and second place average. Weighted, it maintained its winning global total position but fell slightly to second in Asia Pacific and third in the other two regions and on average.
Institutional fund managers in the Americas rated RBC I&TS very highly, giving it a second position in the raw data table.
When the views of respondents that use a single custodian were taken into consideration RBC I&TS swept the board in terms of raw data. It won in every region, had the highest global total and highest average score. However, when weighted, it took just the second spot in Asia Pacific.
Again, for multiple-custodian using respondents, RBC I&TS did better in the raw data tables. It won in Emea, and came second in terms of average and the Americas scores.
In the Americas,
one mid-sized respondent noted: “RBC I&TS is an excellent custodian and
service provider, with KYC
In Emea, an institutional fund manager commented: “RBC is running our portfolios nearly noiseless. We can benefit from a high level of transparency and the solutions provided are always very efficient compared to other providers. Finally, we are absolutely delighted concerning the client-oriented teams and the very good industry knowledge across all business lines.”
In Asia Pacific a pension scheme noted: “We are very satisfied with RBC I&TS’s commitment to our services. It provides high-quality expertise to our business.”
BNY Mellon fared best in the weighted version of the overall tables, taking top spot in Emea, with 7.20. It also came second in Asia Pacific, which contributed to its second place in the global total table and third place in the average table.
When only raw data was considered, BNY Mellon scored best in Asia Pacific, where it also came second. Its corresponding global total was the third highest.
BNY Mellon was one of only three global custodians to win at least one weighted service category. It was the highest rated firm in terms of cash management, client services and relationship management. It was also the second-highest rated firm in the other nine categories for which it qualified.
In the raw data categories, BNY Mellon was the second-highest rated for cash management and came third in a further three.
BNY Mellon’s respondents were heavily skewed towards the group with AuM greater than $3bn, and among these at the upper end of the scale. In the weighted tables it took first place in Emea and Asia Pacific, enough for it to secure the winning global total score. In the raw data tables, it retained its winning position for Asia Pacific and had the second-highest global total.
Large institutional fund managers rated BNY Mellon very highly, especially in Emea where it took first place, weighted. It also had the corresponding highest global total and second-highest average score. In the raw data tables, it took second place on average and third in the Americas and in total.
BNY Mellon also did very well among large asset owners in the Americas, taking second place in the weighted table. When only responses from those that use multiple custodians were considered, BNY Mellon had an impressive string of weighted results, securing second in Emea and third in Asia Pacific to give it third position in total and on average. In the raw data tables it improved its position to second for both global total and the Asia Pacific region.
Among respondents that use a single custodian, BNY Mellon was the strongest performer in the weighted tables; it had both the highest average score and highest global total. This was mainly due to its excellent winning Emea score, and to a lesser extent its third position in the Americas.
An insurance company in the Americas commented: “The quality of the client service and relationship management team in the US has been consistently outstanding every year. They are very responsive and prompt to answer questions/requests and proactively contact us on potential issues and upcoming industry changes i.e. conference calls or in-person meetings with experts on the topic.”
A private client fund manager in Emea noted: “We have a knowledgeable rela- tionship manager who is quick to answer queries and provides clear guidance when dealing with complex queries. I am always confident I will get the response I need in good time. Client services are very helpful and proactive. Our organisation and BNY Mellon generally work in partnership, which benefits both parties.”
An institutional fund manager in the region added: “All DBV
A bank/broker-dealer in Asia Pacific commented: “BNYM provides us with a tailored and dedicated service and we are satisfied with the overall service level.” Another one added: “We continue to improve and cement our long relationship to benefit our clients and our businesses. BNY Mellon’s increasing expansion of its capabilities and consolidation of its support structure will undoubtedly further improve the services provided.”
Pictet did far better in the raw data tables compared to its scores when calculated under the weighted methodology. It achieved a winning raw data score in the Americas, of 6.57, and second places in Emea and on average. It also achieved its best score in the Americas in the weighted table, but placed a still-respectable third.
Likewise, in the raw data service categories, Pictet had a winning score in corporate actions and income collection and came second in a further six tables, but did not get a top-three finish in any of the weighted category tables.
Pictet had excellent scores among large clients. In both the raw data and weighted tables of clients with AuM greater than $3bn Pictet secure the highest average score, mainly due to its winning score in the Americas.
It also fared very strongly among smaller clients. Clients with AuM of less than $3bn gave it the highest average and Americas scores and second-highest global total, both raw data and weighted. It also came in second in the Emea raw data table.
Pictet was the highest-rated custodian by institutional fund managers wherever it qualified. It achieved winning scores in the raw data table in Emea and the Americas, as well as on average and in total. Its scores fell when weighted, with the best results in the Americas and on average of third. Asset owners gave Pictet excellent ratings in Emea, securing it the winning raw data score.
When multiple custodian respondent’s ratings were considered, Pictet again achieved its highest rankings in raw data, achieving a winning average score and a winning score in the Americas. It also came second in Emea. In the corresponding weighted table it came third in the Americas. When only single custodian responses were considered Pictet achieved third place in Emea.
In the Americas one mid-sized respondent commented: “I deal with many custodians on daily basis. Pictet is consistently among the best-of-breed.”
Another, larger respondent stated: “We have established a very good working relationship with Pictet. We highly value our partnership with the team, which enables us to provide the best services for our clients and investors. The Pictet team supports outstanding custodial services. The team understands our business needs, and we find them to be knowledgeable and responsive to our questions and enquiries. We work collaboratively to deliver excellent services to our mutual clients. Our relationship manager and the team are professional and courteous and they deliver world class custodial services.”
One large respondent in Emea commented: “Very knowledgeable client service personnel. It has a very flexible proprietary system with the ability to generate a variety of reporting.” An institutional fund manager in the same region added: “We monitor every custodian versus its peers regarding FX rates achieved and measured versus the day’s midpoint – Pictet are average among the population measured.”
JPMorgan achieved its strongest overall table results in Emea. In the weighted methodology it secured third spot in Emea and had the fourth-highest average score. Due to having relatively large clients it slipped down in the raw data tables slightly, with fifth place in Emea but still retained its fourth-highest average score, based on the two regions for which it qualified.
In the weighted service category tables, JPMorgan stood out in tax services with a second place finish. It took the third spot in an additional two categories, cash management and foreign exchange services. In the corresponding raw data tables it actually improved its position, with second places in foreign exchange services and again in tax services. It came third in a further three service categories.
Among respondents with an AuM greater than $3bn, JPMorgan did very well in the raw data tables, resulting in the joint third-highest average score and third place in Emea. Among clients with AuM of less than $3bn it did better in the weighted tables, with a winning score in Emea the engine behind the second-highest average score and the third-highest total. In the corresponding raw data tables, it had the third-highest global total and average scores.
Among its client types, JPMorgan did best with asset owners. For the raw data and weighted tables it took the winning spot with its average and global total scores. For raw data it also took the winning spot in the Americas and second in Emea; for weighted it won in Emea and came third in the Americas.
JPMorgan had a strong showing among institutional fund managers in Emea, where it came second in both the raw data and weighted tables.
When only the views of respondents that use multiple custodians were considered JPMorgan improved its position in Emea under the raw data methodology to third. When the views of only those that use a single custodian were considered, its Emea position under the weighted methodology improved to second.
A pension scheme in the Americas commented: “I felt that a recent transition from-and-to multiple managers was handled very well – we were able to get out and back into the market in a timely manner. As with any pension plan, the safety of assets is going to stand out as number one on the priority list. There has never been a concern regarding the safety of our assets.”
An insurance company in the same region added: “The services provided by JPMorgan far outshine those of any other custodian that we use today. Our contacts are knowledgeable and quick to respond. They offer a very wide variety of services, and will make every effort to customize the service to suit our needs.”
An institutional fund manager in Emea simply noted that “excellent client service was received in all areas”.
Northern Trust’s performance was better under the weighted methodology compared to that when looking at the raw data. In the overall table, the US custodian achieved third place in Asia Pacific. It had the fourth-highest total and Emea scores and secured the fifth-highest average score. In the corresponding raw data tables, it had the fourth-highest global total and the fifth-highest scores in the Americas and Asia Pacific.
Northern Trust was the highest-rated custodian for fund/investment accounting, in terms of both raw data and under the weighted methodology. It was, however, the only service category for which it achieved a top-three finish.
Northern Trust had a particularly broad range of clients responding on its behalf.
The US custodian fared best with clients that had an AuM of less than $3bn, where it came second in the Americas under the weighted methodology and third by raw data.
While Northern Trust only qualified in the mutual fund manager table in Emea it did so in style, winning according to the weighted methodology and coming second by raw data. Asset owners also gave it a second place, weighted.
Institutional fund manager gave Northern Trust strong scores, weighted, with a second place finish in the Americas and third places for global total and average score.
When the views of only those that use a single custodian were taken into account, Northern Trust’s scores improved in the Emea weighted table, where it placed third. In the corresponding raw data tables, it improved in both on average as well as in the Americas, where it placed third.
A pension scheme in Emea commented: “The passport reporting platform is very good. Asset safety is very important to the pension fund and Northern Trust have helped to ensure that our requirements and demands are fully met. It has a strong commitment to our relationship as evidenced by the relationship management effort that it displays.”
A mutual fund manager in Emea noted: “We consider the move to Ireland has produced teething problems that have negatively impacted trade settlements and client service.”
A private client fund manager in the Americas added: “Responsiveness and availability of its relationship management is excellent. Monthly service calls are scheduled and attended. Additional calls are held during the month to address specific items and initiatives.”
A large respondent in the Americas commented: “We value our partnership with Northern Trust. The team is knowledgeable, responsive and understands our business needs – it ranks highest among custodial service providers. Our relationship managers are outstanding business partners. They are knowledgeable, understand our business needs, and are accessible and responsive.”
The respondent was particularly happy with data testing and implementation for straight through processing (STP), where “invaluable guidance” was received. “They are knowledgeable and courteous and stand out as Industry professionals. Additionally, they take time for periodic on-site visits for face-to face discussions to provide company updates and to review our business needs. This distinguishes them from other custodians. Thank you!"
In Asia Pacific, one large respondent commented: “For specific market initiatives, for example China Connect, it is slower in response and readiness when compared to its peers. However it has a prompt response turnaround time and it is of a high quality. They understand our queries and proactively engage the team should more clarifications be required.”
Brown Brothers Harriman
While Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH) only qualified in one region overall, it did so well with a fifth place in the weighted table. Due to only qualifying in one region, it was not eligible for consideration in the service category tables.
BBH had the bulk of its respondents in the AuM greater than $3bn category. Its best position was in Asia Pacific, where it took third position in the weighted table.
Mutual fund managers responded strongly, and in large numbers, for BBH. In the weighted table it achieved second places across the board – in Emea, the Americas, in total and on average. It almost repeated the feat in raw data, but slipped slightly in Emea.
When only the views of respondents that use multiple custodians were taken into consideration, BBH’s position improved. In Asia Pacific it was the weighted-methodology winner. In terms of raw data, it secured third position in Asia Pacific and in total.
In the Americas, one mid-sized respondent commented: “It has excellent client/ relationship management, with excellent response times and levels of detail to any questions. It is very organised and thorough when developing and executing plans. It is proactive about reaching out and planning for what is next and seeking ways to improve. Courteous interactions across the board.”
In Europe one mutual fund manager noted that its “level of knowledge and client services is superb” while another that “BBH is consistent in its service deliverables and industry knowledge”.
In Asia Pacific, an institutional fund manager commented: “I appreciate the custodian’s dedication. The network system it provides is very useful – not only the position checking, but also other information such as market value and holidays can be seen. The transaction search can be available from various perspectives such as trade date, securities name and securities code, which is a strength.
BNP Paribas qualified for a single region, Emea, where it took a respectable fourth place in the raw data table. Its position improved when only the views of respondents that use a single custodian were taken into consideration, as it placed second in the corresponding table.
BNP Paribas also qualified in Emea for the tables based on the ratings of respondents with AuM greater and less than $3bn. In the Emea AuM less than $3bn table it jointly achieved the winning score, weighted. In the corresponding raw data table it achieved third. In the Emea respondent AuM greater than $3bn table it did so with a solid second position under the weighted methodology.
In Emea, one mutual fund manager commented: “It has a very good client-facing team. It is very responsive, and knows its clients and their needs.”
Societe Generale qualified in Emea. “It has good relationship management in terms of availability and change requests,” according to one large mutual fund manager in Emea. “But it is not yet always in the mindset to see changes in regulations from the client’s perspective.”
Meanwhile, one small respondent commented simply that “this custodian meets our requirements”.
Asset managers, asset owners and banks are asked to rate their global custodians. Results for custodians that qualify will be published regardless of whether or not they actively participated in the survey.
There are 18 service category tables. Each of these categories is broken down into subcategories, on which the global custodians are actually rated by respondents.
Respondents are asked to rate their global custodians from 1 (very poor) to 7 (flawless) in each of the sub-categories (see list below). The scores of these sub-categories are combined to create an overall score for that service category.
For example, for the tax services category, respondents are asked to rate global custodians in three subcategories: efficiency of obtaining tax relief at source; efficiency of reclaiming taxes; and solicitation of timely tax documentation. Each of the sub-categories is given an equal weighting and combined to create a table for tax services to be published in the magazine.
The all responses category tables, both raw data and weighted, will appear in the magazine, but others such as for multiple custodian may only be available online.
The overall tables are presented in the ‘heatmap’ format this year. Global custodians’ results are presented in alphabetical order with the winning score in each column highlighted. There are two global columns – global total and global average. There are three regional columns for Emea, the Americas and Asia Pacific (defined by where the respondent is based).
There will be at least six heatmap tables published in the magazine:
• All responses (weighted & raw data)
• Multiple custodian (weighted & raw data)
• Single custodian (weighted & raw data)
• Other heatmaps are published at the discretion of Global Investor/ISF, depending on the editorial value they represent, in print and/or online
HEATMAP CALCULATION METHODS
The raw data tables (labelled unweighted in previous surveys) simply contain an average of the relevant scores of the category tables (which are themselves averages of the sub-category scores). Each category is assigned an equal weighting, regardless of how many sub-categories there are for that category or how important they are considered by respondents.
The weighted tables contain a two stage calculation process for the first time, combing stages that allow for the respondents AuM and the importance that the respondents attach to each service category.
Stage 1 – Weighted by AuM: The first stage attributes greater weight to the ratings of respondents with larger amount assets under management (AuM). Each respondent is put into a quartile depending on its AuM. The scores of the respondent are then given a weighting based on this quartile. As the boundaries of each quartile are determined by all the responses received in this year’s survey, the boundaries are unknown until the survey closes.
Note: This stage is the entire methodology of the weighted service category tables (as category importance is not relevant) and is the first stage of creating the weighted overall tables. The weighted category tables are published in print and online.
AuM in lowest quartile 0.5
AuM in middle two quartiles 1
AuM in the top quartile 1.5
Stage 2 – Weighted by category importance: The respondents are asked to rank the service categories (not sub-categories) in order of importance. The core and value added categories are mingled in this list (i.e. some value added services may be considered more important than some core categories). An average is then created based on the rankings of all respondents. These weightings are then applied to the weighted (by AuM) service category tables to create the overall weighted tables.
The more important a category is considered, on average by all respondents, the greater the weight is attached to that category (and by extension all the sub-category scores in that category). Weightings are normalised around 1 to preserve comparability with the raw data scores.
All responses tables
To be included in the global average and global total columns, a global custodian needs to receive a minimum of 30 responses and must qualify for at least two geographical regions. Global custodians need to receive a minimum number of respondents to qualify for a region: 15 in the Americas; 15 in Emea; and 7 in Asia Pacific.
Multiple custodian tables
Only scores from respondents that deal with more than one custodian are included.
To qualify for the global columns, a minimum of 10 responses and qualification in two regions is required. Five responses are required for each of the regional columns.
Single custodian tables
Only scores from respondents that deal with one custodian are included. A minimum of 10 responses and qualification in two regions is needed to qualify for the global columns.
Five is required for each of the regional tables. Mutual fund, institutional fund, private client, asset owner and bank tables A minimum of 10 responses and qualification in two regions is required to qualify globally.
Five responses are needed to qualify for a region. Scores from respondents that deal with multiple custodians and single custodians are included. Global Investor/ISF reserves the right to publish whichever tables it deems appropriate.
Respondents with AuM greater than $3bn tables
Only scores from respondents with assets under management of more than $3bn are included. A minimum of 10 responses and qualification in two regions is needed to qualify for the global columns. Five is required for each of the regional tables.
Respondents with AuM less than $3bn tables
Only scores from respondent with assets under management of less than $3bn are included. A minimum of 10 responses and qualification in two regions is needed to qualify for the global columns. Five is required for each of the regional tables.
To qualify for a category a global custodian must reach the qualification criteria for the relevant heatmap table, i.e. for the all responses category table a global custodian must receive 30 separate respondents and qualify in two regions. A respondent must rate the custodian in one or more of the sub-categories for it to be considered a legitimate response for the purposes of qualification for that category.
- Efficiency of pre-settlement matching and reporting
- Failed trade management
- Straight through processing efficiency
- Competitiveness of cut off times
- Provision and scope of contractual settlements
- Accuracy and timeliness of notifications
- Proxy voting services
- Provision of standing instructions
- Competitiveness of response cut off times
- Accuracy and quality of income processing
- Quality of the assured income programme (contractual settlement income programme)
- Responsiveness and effectiveness of problem solving
- Competitiveness of rates
- Integration of cash products (pooling, target balances etc) with custody solution (n/a for third-party relationships)
- Competitiveness of cut off times
- Efficiency of obtaining tax relief at source
- Efficiency of reclaiming taxes
- Solicitation of timely tax documentation (n/a for third-party relationships)
- Quality of Reporting
- Efficiency of reporting events
- Quality and efficiency of processing and paying proceeds
- Quality of Reporting
- Flexibility of delivery channels
- Proprietary Internet Service – comprehensiveness and ease of use
- Quality and timeliness of Swift and other reporting
- Quality of subject matter expertise
- Responsiveness and effectiveness of enquiry management
- Availability and calling frequency
- Understanding of your business needs
- Ability to identify new product needs and solutions
- Quality of subject matter expertise
- Responsiveness and effectiveness of enquiry management
- Quality and timeliness of market information
- Access to market expertise
- Quality of network management resources
- Commission Recapture Quality of services
Foreign Exchange Services
- Competitiveness of rates offered
- Transparency of rates provided
- Transparency of reporting
- Quality of automated FX solutions
Fund / Investment Accounting
- Quality & timeliness of NAV processing
- Quality of reporting
- Quality of performance measurement services
- Timeliness and flexibility of reporting
- Quality of exchange traded services
- Quality of OTC services
- Quality of reporting of regulatory changes and impacts
- Quality of subject matter expertise
- Quality and expertise in execution to custody services
- Quality of execution processing and reporting
- Safety of client assets
Note: Where a respondent ticks the n/a box, the sub-category is ignored when calculating the category score (i.e. for derivatives, if the respondent gives a score of 5 for quality of exchange traded services and ticks n/a for quality of OTC services, the score for derivatives is 5).
If different people from the same entity in the same region rate the same global custodian the responses are treated a single grouped response for the purposes of qualification. The two or more responses are averaged (where only one respondent rated the firm in for a particular sub-category this score is used unchanged).