[ S U R V E Y | H E D G E F U N D A D M I N I S T R A T I O N ]
Methodology
As in last year ’ s HFA questionnaire , there was only one ratings question in each service category . Respondents were offered a sliding scale in each case from Unacceptable to Excellent . Some categories included optional qualifying questions to add colour . There was also an optional comment box per category , allowing us to gather a richer and more nuanced view of client experiences . The published results use Global Custodian ’ s conventional seven-point scale familiar to readers of the magazine ( where 7.00 equals Excellent and 1.00 equals Unacceptable ). Ten responses were the sample number required to assess a service provider . This year , 10 HFA providers have passed that threshold . In the pages that follow , scores for each provider are provided in three tables and charts : 1 . A year-on-year comparison by category with the previous year ’ s results , a three-year average and a comparison with global category averages , and the difference between them . 2 . A view of ratings by client segment according to size , based on AUM . With the introduction of this table – and in the interests of greater transparency – we have presented this year ’ s scores on an unweighted basis . As the accompanying table shows , the impact of this change has been surprisingly slight . ( For further consideration of this decision , see page 98 ). 3 . Standard deviation by category . In a nutshell , this shows divergence from the mean of the various ratings awarded , indicating where there is consensus and where opinions diverge . If a provider has recorded three or more responses per category , average scores can be made available to the provider concerned for internal use . More granular analyses than what has been published may also be available to providers . For more information on bespoke reports , please contact beenish . hussain @ globalcustodian . com
Fund Services Annual 2022 globalcustodian . com 77