Global Custodian Summer 2017 | Page 76

[ S U R V E Y | M U T U A L F U N D A D M I N I S T R A T I O N ]

TABLE 3 : PRIORITIES BY PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 Relationship management & client service 48.8 18.7 14.6 11.4 Costs and value delivered 39.0 28.5 17.9 6.5 Fund accounting and valuation 35.0 31.7 12.2 7.3 Transfer agency 16.3 17.1 25.2 26.8 Distribution support capabilities 11.4 11.4 19.5 44.7 Fund reporting 10.6 26.0 41.5 8.1 Compliance effectiveness 15.4 30.9 22.0 22.0 Quality of custody services 9.8 16.3 20.3 40.7

Table 5 : Scores by type of fund managed Equity

Nonequity

respondents regard this as a top two priority .

Asset type Table 4 shows the proportion of responses , based on weight of respondent , accounted for by asset managers pursuing different strategies . It is interesting to note that the domination of equity managers remains high , even if it has slipped back a few percentage points since last year ’ s survey . Three-quarters of managers responding to the survey have equity funds under management , in many cases exclusively so . The proportion of respondents using fund of funds vehicles remains around a fifth , while fixed income fund managers

Table 4 : Type of funds managed

2017 2016 Equity 75.4 78.1 Fixed income 41.0 49.2 Fund of funds 20.5 19.7 Commodity / other 19.7 5.3

are down from 49 % to 41 % of respondents . Conversely , managers of commodity and other fund categories have risen almost fourfold . The data contained in Table 5 shows how the scores are broken down between equity-only managers on the one hand and non-equity managers on the other . While there are clearly more of the former than the latter , the gap in appreciation of service levels between the two groups is noticeable . Taken overall , equity only managers gave scores that are around 0.35 points higher than those given by non-equity managers . The latter scores have nevertheless improved since last year . In 2015 , four categories rated by non-equity managers were below 6.0 . This year , only two – Costs and Value Delivered and Distribution Support Capabilities – are in that position and even then are not far off the threshold .

Methodology

In the Mutual Fund Administration Survey , respondents are asked to provide a rating for each fund administrator on a numerical scale from “ 1 ” ( very weak ) to “ 7 ” ( excellent ), covering 8 distinct functional services . In general “ 5 ” ( good ) has been the ‘ default ’ low score of respondents . Up to and including 2014 responses were received from individuals based in North America , Europe , Asia and the rest of the world . This approach provided a broad cross-section of respondents and providers . In 2015 however , we determined that the heterogeneity of a wide range of clients meant that meaningful comparisons were impossible . Rather than generating inconsistencies in the publication we determined that it would be better to concentrate on North American respondents only ( U . S . and Canada ). That year , we presented a ten-year review reflecting the responses from North American clients only . In 2016 , while maintaining the North American focus , we reverted to what is in effect a year-by-year analysis of performance rather than a decade-long summary . Each evaluation was weighted according to three characteristics of each respondent ; their size , represented by the value of assets under management ; the level of complexity of their business based on the range of services used ; and the number of different administrators involved . In this way , the evaluations of the largest and broadest users were assigned a weight of up to three times that of the smallest and least experienced respondent . Over time it is inevitably necessary to make changes to the individual questions posed based on evolution in services required by clients and delivered by providers . At all times , however , we have sought to maintain as much consistency as possible between one year and the next . Even as questions have changed we have ensured that each category has retained the same weight , with weights of individual questions adjusted depending on how many , and exactly what questions were in each years ’ questionnaire . By way of confirmation of this approach in 2017 we made no changes to the 2016 questionnaire and so results are directly comparable . We would like to thank all those that have participated and helped us provide additional insight into an important aspect of the North American savings success story .

Summer 2017 globalcustodian . com 75