PLEASE NOTE: For this week September 15 through September 21, this content is ungated, but moving forward, you will need an account to access.
Click here to create a free account.

2015 Transition Management Survey

Global Client Satisfaction Score (Follow providers’ colors for corresponding data)

Transition Managment Global Client Satisfaction

* Weighted global client satisfaction scores are based on whether the provider had at least five responses in two or more regions. Weighting was as follows: all four regions, 10% added weight; three regions, 7% added; two regions, 4% added; one region, no additional weight. Regional and all other provider scores are unweighted.

Regional Client Satisfaction Score

Transition Managment Regional Client Satisfaction Score  

Client Satisfaction Scores by Region

Transition Managment Client Satisfaction Scores by Region 

Global and Regional Scores by Categories
(Follow providers’ colors for corresponding data)

Transition Managment Global and Regional Scores by Categories

* Asset owners were asked: “Of all the transition managers that they evaluated in 2014, which had the lowest commission charges and the lowest total cost estimate?” Calculation is the number of votes for the manager divided by the total number of votes. ** Cost performance vs. estimate was rated on a scale from 1 (always missed) to 5 (always beat), with a “3” meaning “usually matched.” Therefore, average scores closest to 3.00 are ideal.

Client Satisfaction Scores by Complexity

Transition Managment Client Satisfaction Scores by Complexity

Clients rated the complexity of the transitions they conducted with each provider on a scale of 1 (very simple) to 5 (extremely complex). Ratings of 1 or 2 were categorized as “simple” and 4 or 5 ratings were deemed “complex.” Transitions rated as 3 on the complexity scale were not used in this calculation. At least five responses were needed.

Client Satisfaction Scores by Transition Size

Transition Managment Satisfaction Scores by Transition Size

Based on the total size of the transitions conducted with each provider, client satisfaction scores are broken out by large ($1 billion or more) and small (less than $1 billion) transitions.


From July 23 through August 24, Chief Investment Officer solicited asset owners worldwide to rate the performance of the transition managers they used in the 2014 calendar year. Additionally, transition managers were allowed to send unique survey questionnaire links directly to clients. Respondents in turn had the ability to rate up to 15 managers at once. By the survey’s close, a total of 385 responses were collected; 250 of these respondents indicated that they conducted at least one transition trade in 2014, and they provided a total of 284 ratings among 14 transition managers. All percentages in the survey charts are rounded to the nearest percent. Percentage change figures are calculated on the actual unrounded results.

In order to be included on any league table, a provider needed at least 10 total client responses. A provider having at least five responses in each of any two regions is eligible for the global league table. Providers qualifying in just one region are considered regional. Five providers qualified for global ratings, and six providers qualified as regional.

“Client satisfaction score” represents the average, on a 1 to 5 scale, that clients gave their provider for “overall services received.”

Minimum responses needed by region in order for a rating in that region are: United States (10); Canada (5); UK/Europe/MENA (7); and Asia/Pacific (5).

1 2 3 14