Vendor Ratings
NISA Investment Advisors27 Responses
Overall Offering
| Average Score | 4.77 (-2.7% from 2014) |
| 5 = Extremely satisfied | 77% |
| 4 | 23% |
| 3 | 0% |
| 2 | 0% |
| 1 = Unsatisfied | 0% |
Average scores by category
| Responsiveness to general inquiries | 4.85 |
| Timely performance reporting | 4.70 |
| New ideas and solutions | 4.41 |
| Knowledge sharing | 4.59 |
| Accessibility to investment team | 4.77 |
| Funded-status attribution | 4.08 |
How/why NISA was selected
| Existing relationship | 19% |
| Consultant recommendation | 37% |
| Board/staff due diligence | 63% |
| Other | 41% |
This industry legend saw a slight dip in its score compared to 2014—albeit from a very impressive 4.9 out of 5. It has been overtaken in three categories by GSAM, the new kid on the (ratings) block, but remains the best rated for response times and timely performance reporting.
A broader base of respondents than in 2014 also provides a more diverse range of opinions, so marginal changes to its scores are to be expected. It has also shown that NISA is less reliant on existing relationships: The firm’s reputation is enough to convince many consultants and investment boards. As the group diversifies into individual retirement-income products, the singular question is whether it can maintain its own high standards for the sector in which it made its name.