State Street

The Boston-based global custodian is different from almost every other provider in this survey . It is being assessed not by relatively small or alternative asset managers , but the collective verdict that these scores represented is delivered by some of the biggest names in asset management in the United States . While the results represent a recovery – in most , if not all , service areas – from the nadir of 2017 , they still leave State Street underperforming the survey average . The needs of larger clients are more complex , and their expectations are higher , as the detail of the comments reveals . One client wants “ improvement around timely invoicing and set-up of new accounts / user IDs on the My State Street portal .” But even after making allowances for demanding clients , it is striking that only the score for transfer agency even gets close to rankings that are routine for other administrators in this survey – and even that is based on a limited rate of response in that area . The lowest score of all is incurred in precisely the field where forgiveness for operational shortcomings is most easily earned : relationship management and client service . “ Relationship management is pretty weak ,” is the verdict of one respondent . Not everyone agrees the relationship managers are a problem – the “ engagement and attentiveness of [ the ] relationship management team ” is singled out as a strength by one client – but the average score tells its own story . The detailed scores also suggest that client service officers are experiencing churn , with a consequent loss of knowledge , experience and the ability to get things done . One client says that “ officers supporting the business are somewhat new and require more senior level oversight . A lack of depth of personnel servicing our account has been more evident over the past year .” A second cites “ staff turnover ” as problematic . Likewise , fund accounting – a core business at State Street , and a source of robust scoring in 2016 and 2017 – is admired only for its timeliness , not for its accuracy , and certainly not for the reconciliation process that lies behind it . The ability of State Street to value alternative investments and instruments ( such as swaps ) is also called into question . In operations and custody , where the bank should expect to shine , there are instead brickbats for inadequate settlement procedures . “ Settlement services , especially non-US settlements ” – an unkind verdict for a global custodian – are the weakness identified by one client . Another client also cites “ settlement response ” as problematic , while a third has noticed “ errors processing trades that require manual touch-points ” and “ issues with data file quality .” At bottom , State Street aims to deliver to major buy-side clients a scalable , real-time accounting system , which can be combined seamlessly with global custody and cash management on technology and data platforms that minimise operational and regulatory risk . This is not easy to deliver when every client is large enough to demand to be serviced in a unique way (“ ability to customise ” is exactly what one respondent likes most ), but it does insulate State Street from rapid client turnover . What one respondent values is a “ long-term relationship ,” which means that State Street “ knows [ their ] business and processes and is able to leverage a centralised client service team across multiple jurisdictional service sites ”. The obverse of this is that clients are unlikely ( even unable ) to exercise their right of exit . The only way they can get better and more-innovative services is by complaining about the poor quality of the services they receive today .