[ S U R V E Y | A G E N T B A N K S I N F R O N T I E R M A R K E T S ]
FRONTIER MARKETS
MARCH OF THE REGIONALS
The 2021 ABFM survey provides further evidence that multimarket and regional service provision is gaining ground , though where there is sufficient activity and a domestic client base on which to build , local market provision is a viable option .
This year ’ s ABFM survey has shown an overall improvement in scores most likely as what seems like a result of genuine efforts on the part of competitors to raise their game during a difficult economic period . What also seems apparent however , is that levels of activity on which to base an assessment are reduced , complicating any attempt at granular analysis as might be expected in the major and larger emerging markets . At the same time , the write-ups on the following pages indicate a pattern of growing concentration of activity with a consolidated list of providers – a trend discussed in this issue on page 20 .
Table 1 provides an indication of markets ’ overall performance in the ABFM survey , including a number of markets where the level of responses is insufficient for a more granular breakdown . The obvious caveat is that the lower down the table you go , the more tentative the conclusion as it based on relatively limited data . Table 2 meanwhile covers those markets for which three or fewer responses were received . Though ranked by score , these should be treated as reflections of the experience of only a handful of respondents . Nevertheless , as we welcome and encourage their participation , we feel it is only fair to report their assessments .
Methodology The universe of markets in the GC Agent Banks in Frontier Markets ( ABFM ) survey draws primarily on the MSCI and S & P Frontier Markets lists . Not all of these markets are , however , represented in the accompanying tables . Such representation depends on the number of responses received for each . For this year ’ s survey , respondents were asked to complete a pared down questionnaire covering 11 service categories , with the ability both to skip sections not deemed relevant and to give an overall assessment for each category rather than rating particular aspects of the service provided in each category . Responses were elicited through the use of a sliding scale from ‘ strongly disagree ” to ‘ strongly agree ’. Each response registered a number between 0 and 20 . Aggregated scores were converted to GC ’ s traditional seven-point scale for publication ( where 1 = unacceptable and 7 = excellent ). As in the 2020 survey , weighting criteria have been adjusted to give greater voice to the views of the largest respondents , who tend to be more exacting in their service expectations , which they are able to form from comparisons across their network . The response pool was drawn from two sources . Those respondents who completed the survey last year were invited to do so again , while service providers in the markets concerned were invited either to submit client lists for invitation or to approach those clients themselves . Any responses submitted by institutions that were not clients of the rated provider in the previous year were removed .
Table 1 : Market rankings
Average Score
Bulgaria 6.37 11.5 Cyprus 6.33 7.2 Romania 6.28 5.1 Croatia 5.83 4.7 Mauritius 5.79 4.7 Nigeria 5.73 4.7 Ghana 5.60 4.7 Slovak Republic 6.09 3.8 Vietnam 5.95 3.4 Slovenia 5.79 3.4 Ivory Coast 5.61 3.4 Morocco 5.55 3.4 Kenya 5.31 3.4 Argentina 5.60 2.6 Tanzania 5.41 2.6 Jordan 6.09 2.1 Zambia 6.06 2.1 Lithuania 5.71 2.1 Botswana 5.31 2.1
Table 2 : Small sample results Macedonia 6.50 Zimbabwe 6.38 Tunisia 6.24 Bosnia Herzegovina 6.00 Kazakhstan 5.84 Bahrain 5.69 Sri Lanka 5.60 Latvia 5.57 Estonia 5.56 Bangladesh 5.53 Serbia 5.48 Iceland 5.44 Panama 5.33 Uganda 5.26 Kuwait 5.18 Uruguay 5.00 Georgia 4.90 Bermuda 4.89 Albania 4.86 Oman 4.76 Malawi 4.75 Ukraine 4.55 Namibia 4.11 Swaziland 4.00 Costa Rica 3.40
Percentage of responses
Overall score
52 Global Custodian Spring 2021