METHODOLOGY

Questionnaires were sent to users of clearing services. The total number of responses received this year was 118. This was split as follows: GEOGRAPHICALLY Europe: 87.61% North America: 8.85% Asia: 3.54% BY TYPE OF FIRM Broker/dealer: 57% Fund manager: 2.30% Insurance company: 1.16% Other: 39.54% Respondents were asked to rate each market agent out of five (five being excellent, and zero being irrelevant). The respondents were also asked which of these services they deemed important when selecting an agent (in a range from zero to five). These ratings were then multiplied together and an average taken for each category from all respondents that rated that category. All service category averages were added together and expressed as a percentage of a total possible maximum of 525 points (5 rating x 5 importance x 21 categories). This was done for all qualified banks in each market. A minimum response level of three responses was required to qualify for each market. Given the difference in the role played by CSDs/ICSDs and bank providers, the full survey results split out qualifying CSDs/ICSDs in each market, although it is stated who is the leader both in market size and in level of service provided for all tables. Respondents were asked which of the banks that they used in Europe provided the best service for settlement, managing fails, cash flow, financing and financing alternatives, and who was the best during market turmoil. For these questions, the bank that was ranked first scored three points, the one that ranked second got two points and so on. Scores were then totalled. Banks were required to receive a minimum of five responses to qualify for these tables. Again, CSDs/ICSDs were placed in a separate table. Finally, a score was calculated for overall European market coverage for the CSDs/ICSDs. Firstly the volume of responses for the providers across Europe was calculated, then their service scores for the all markets where they received ratings, were averaged.