Credit research methodology

COPYING AND DISTRIBUTING ARE PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER: CHUNT@EUROMONEY.COM

By:
Published on:



Methodology and explanation of tables

Investors were asked to rate named analysts and teams for the categories indicated. The credit research houses themselves nominated teams. Scores were given in the ratio 5:4:3:2:1 for first, second, third, fourth and fifth place nominations respectively. Scores were weighted as follows to take into account the size of funds under management dedicated to credit research or volume of secondary turnover.

Investment Grade:
Greater than 10bn euros - weighted by factor of 7
Between 5 and 10bn euros - weighted by a factor of 5
Between 1 and 5 bn euros - weighted by a factor of 3
No estimate provided, or less than 1bn euros - no weighting

Hi-yield
Greater than 450million euros - weighted by a factor of 3
Between 150 and 450 million euros - weighted by a factor of 2
No estimate provided, or less than 150 million euros - no weighting

Other Credit - Emerging Market Sovereigns
Greater than 1000 million euros - weighted by a factor of 4
Between 500 and 1000 million euros - weighted by a factor of 3
Between 250 and 500 million euros - weighted by a factor of 2
Between 100 and 250 million euros - no weighting

Other Credit
Asset-backed: weighted as for Investment grade
Indices: weighted as for Investment grade
Credit Derivatives: weighted as for Investment grade

Qualitative
No weighting by funds under management. Scored by individual votes cast

Multiple votes from the same institution were averaged out to produce a single score, which was then weighted by the average estimated holding given on all valid questionnaires from that institution.

The weightings were agreed with the participating banks themselves so that they would not feel under weighted according to their particular client profile.

The banks saw both first, second and final drafts of the questionnaire before it went out.

Unfortunately it was found necessary to exclude some replies due to irregularities in data provided or withheld by respondees. Amongst the principal reasons for exclusion were:

- Yahoo/AOL-type email addresses given
- People voting for just one person or one firm on the ballot
- Private investors
- Insufficient biographical details
- Correlated replies from, usually but not always, the respective asset management division, i.e., 5 people from ABC Asset Management voting for only for ABC plc on 5 separate ballots.

We received 1081 valid replies in total. Completed questionnaires were received from 98 out of 100 of the groups ranked by assets under management in the Institutional Investor Euro 100 league table of top fund managers.