This content is from: Research

Mizuho, Nomura Vie for Corporate Access Crown

There’s no clear winner in II’s seventh annual ranking of Japan’s Top Corporate Access Providers.

From Locked ranking

Where should investors go for the best access to Japan’s public companies? The answer depends on who you ask.

Money managers and corporations were split on which firm should take top honors in Institutional Investor’s 2019 list of Japan’s Top Corporate Access Providers, an annual ranking of the sell-side firms which best connect institutional investors with Japanese companies and their executives.

According to the buy side — represented by more than 620 investors at 322 firms — this year’s top corporate access provider is Mizuho Securities. But the 60 corporate respondents to II’s annual survey favored Nomura, based on the Tokyo firm’s handling of conferences, logistics, non-deal roadshows, shareholder targeting, and feedback.

[II Deep Dive: Nomura Tops Japan's Corporate Access Providers]

Nomura placed second among buy-side voters, falling from the first-place position for the first time since the ranking’s debut in 2013. SMBC Nikko Securities and Daiwa Securities Group also swapped places in the investors’ ranking, with SMBC Nikko claiming third place and Daiwa slipping to fourth.

Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Co. rounded out the top-five in the buy-side ranking, cementing the dominance of Japanese firms when it comes to corporate access.

Corporate respondents similarly favored Japan-based providers, ranking Mizuho second, Daiwa third, SMBC Nikko fourth, and Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley fifth.

The ranking of Japan’s top corporate access providers changes again when the buy side’s votes are weighted by commissions, giving more weight to the opinions of the sell-side’s highest paying clients. In this commission-based ranking, Nomura takes first, while Mizuho ranks second.

Investors ranked their favorite corporate access providers across 26 industry sectors, plus the large-cap and small- and mid-cap categories. They were asked to rate providers based on their conferences, logistics, one-on-one meetings, and road shows.

Related Content