Sie sind auf Seite 1von 26

www.oxfordmetrica.

com
About Oxford Metrica
Oxford Metrica is an independent analytics and advisory firm. The firm provides
evidence-based research on risk and financial performance, and has developed a
suite of analytical tools essential for robust index construction. Oxford Metrica's work
includes statistical analysis for banks and insurers, risk and performance analytics for
asset managers, and highly customised work directly for corporate clients. The firm
works closely with senior management to deliver clear and compelling thought
leadership papers that provide unique empirical insights of commercial relevance.
Annual Report
2014
Copyright Oxford Metrica
The 2014 FM Global Resilience Index
Annual Report
FOREWORD
The FM Global Resilience Index provides an annual ranking of 130 countries
according to their business resilience to supply chain disruption. Supply chain
risk is of signicant and growing concern to senior-level business executives as
supply chains become more global, complex and interdependent.
The FM Global Resilience Index provides a usable additional tool for business
executives as they assess the supply chain risk associated with physical
investments around the world. The index is an equally-weighted composite of
nine core variables that affect business resilience to supply chain disruption.
This report rst presents the 2014 FM Global Resilience Index. The framework
for the index then is described and the nine component drivers which combine
to form the composite index are dened. Finally, the biggest movers in the
year since 2013 are highlighted. The key results from the 2014 FM Global
Resilience Index are summarised below.
Key results
1. Norway leads the 2014 index as the country most resilient to supply
chain disruption.
2. Switzerland ranks second, and achieves the top spot for supply chain
factors. The country scores very highly on the control of corruption,
extensive and efcient infrastructure, and the quality of local suppliers.
3. Ireland makes it into the top 5 of the index, aided by a top ranking for risk
quality. This is driven by both a minimal exposure to natural hazards and
a strong commitment to risk management.
4. Battered by Typhoon Haiyan, the Philippines appears 14th from bottom
in the index. As a country entirely exposed to natural hazard risk, and
without a strong economic base, the Philippines currently is unable to
demonstrate strong resilience to supply chain disruption.
5. At the bottom of this years ranking is the Dominican Republic. Like the
other countries in the bottom 5, this is driven by a substantial exposure to
natural hazard risk.
6. The biggest riser in the index since 2013 is Bosnia and Herzegovina
which has risen 19 places, due to improvements both in the countrys
political risk and in the quality of local suppliers.
7. Greece made the biggest improvement in risk quality over the year.
The improvements came from a greater commitment particularly to natural
hazard risk management.
May this index serve as a tool for executives as they assess supply chain risk
around the world.
Dr Rory Knight
Chairman
Dr Rory Knight is Chairman of Oxford Metrica.
He was previously Dean of Templeton College,
Oxford Universitys business College. Prior to that
he served as vize Direktor in the Schweizerische
Nationalbank, the Swiss central bank.
3
THE 2014 FM GLOBAL RESILIENCE INDEX
4
Subindices
Composite Economic Risk quality Supply chain
Country/Region Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
Norway 1 100.00 1 100.00 8 83.71 17 79.19
Switzerland 2 98.92 4 93.71 53 66.97 1 100.00
Canada 3 93.16 13 72.86 3 92.06 9 85.41
Australia 4 92.12 5 82.99 6 86.67 18 78.33
Ireland 5 90.42 10 74.13 1 100.00 27 70.96
Germany 6 89.78 16 70.23 12 81.13 3 92.27
Luxembourg 7 89.71 2 98.83 76 61.48 14 82.24
Netherlands 8 87.64 15 70.97 19 77.02 4 91.39
Belgium 9 87.59 23 67.20 5 88.37 12 83.97
United States 3 10 87.38 19 68.08 2 95.00 21 76.15
Finland 11 87.34 9 77.46 52 67.77 2 93.29
New Zealand 12 86.43 12 73.11 7 83.93 16 80.05
Sweden 13 85.51 6 80.56 65 65.84 7 88.45
Denmark 14 85.36 7 78.99 64 66.14 5 89.48
Qatar 15 85.23 3 94.71 54 66.88 25 72.42
France 16 83.63 18 68.18 14 80.59 13 82.94
Austria 17 82.66 8 78.38 75 61.61 6 89.30
United States 1 18 81.55 19 68.08 9 83.48 21 76.15
Hong Kong SAR 19 76.78 24 66.95 63 66.26 10 84.97
United Kingdom 20 76.06 25 66.15 23 73.64 20 77.13
United States 2 21 75.89 19 68.08 25 72.28 21 76.15
Singapore 22 73.99 47 49.24 16 79.18 11 84.92
Iceland 23 72.71 22 67.88 76 61.48 15 80.81
Portugal 24 71.40 31 58.24 13 80.66 29 69.24
Spain 25 70.50 34 55.50 15 79.93 26 71.00
Czech Republic 26 67.38 28 61.17 22 74.91 34 64.06
United Arab Emirates 27 66.55 14 71.71 115 47.96 19 78.21
Malaysia 28 63.59 64 41.10 4 91.08 37 61.28
Israel 29 61.26 60 43.32 10 82.75 35 62.70
Poland 30 60.28 32 57.94 11 81.20 52 47.38
Slovenia 31 60.12 29 59.91 76 61.48 33 64.45
Japan 32 59.01 11 73.13 128 21.24 8 88.39
Brunei Darussalam 33 58.38 17 70.11 92 60.69 44 51.43
Estonia 34 56.83 37 53.49 76 61.48 32 64.61
Barbados 35 56.47 36 54.94 105 51.31 24 72.45
Oman 36 54.25 45 50.45 54 66.88 41 57.38
Botswana 37 52.51 30 59.36 28 69.85 61 41.98
Costa Rica 38 51.67 39 52.27 27 69.89 51 47.55
Cyprus 39 50.66 54 46.66 76 61.48 39 59.60
Chile 40 50.61 42 50.67 114 48.28 30 68.37
Lithuania 41 50.34 43 50.46 76 61.48 42 55.09
South Africa 42 49.84 63 41.62 20 76.00 46 48.85
5
Subindices
Composite Economic Risk quality Supply chain
Country/Region Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
Mauritius 43 49.71 53 46.67 28 69.85 45 49.49
Italy 44 49.68 26 64.68 102 54.19 57 46.45
Bahrain 45 48.02 89 34.35 54 66.88 36 61.71
Namibia 46 47.79 55 46.40 28 69.85 58 46.04
Slovak Republic 47 47.22 27 62.44 104 51.53 55 46.56
Latvia 48 47.17 40 52.21 76 61.48 54 47.13
Brazil 49 46.80 51 47.79 24 73.15 66 39.46
Saudi Arabia 50 46.20 118 22.65 18 77.15 38 60.04
Hungary 51 45.58 35 55.17 103 53.85 47 48.52
Kuwait 52 45.20 38 53.08 54 66.88 68 37.09
Croatia 53 44.45 48 49.08 76 61.48 59 45.03
Greece 54 43.44 50 47.92 66 65.63 62 40.17
Malta 55 42.80 95 32.30 76 61.48 40 58.98
Uruguay 56 42.33 33 56.36 116 47.46 53 47.28
Zambia 57 41.96 44 50.45 28 69.85 83 30.55
Turkey 58 41.75 79 37.37 100 60.37 43 52.85
Mexico 59 40.13 90 33.72 51 69.43 60 44.51
Montenegro 60 38.36 41 50.98 76 61.48 81 31.26
China 2 61 37.35 72 38.60 62 66.88 69 36.62
Thailand 62 37.19 123 19.04 21 75.50 49 47.81
Sri Lanka 63 37.16 94 33.17 92 60.69 48 47.89
Ghana 64 36.27 66 39.82 28 69.85 84 30.34
Argentina 65 36.14 59 44.88 26 70.62 97 24.17
China 3 66 36.04 72 38.60 71 64.29 69 36.62
Lesotho 67 35.86 49 48.88 28 69.85 106 20.30
Georgia 68 35.45 77 37.83 54 66.88 74 33.71
Korea, Rep. 69 34.48 56 46.25 127 23.49 31 65.92
Trinidad and Tobago 70 33.72 57 46.06 105 51.31 67 37.25
Kazakhstan 71 33.34 62 42.25 67 64.32 91 27.60
Azerbaijan 72 33.07 78 37.76 54 66.88 87 29.15
Morocco 73 32.98 101 30.84 72 62.97 64 39.88
Jordan 74 32.36 120 19.43 54 66.88 56 46.49
China 1 75 32.17 72 38.60 101 56.64 69 36.62
Ukraine 76 32.07 80 37.35 76 61.48 77 32.94
Senegal 77 31.81 112 25.78 28 69.85 72 36.02
El Salvador 78 31.53 67 39.63 105 51.31 65 39.56
Russian Federation 79 31.49 84 35.99 17 78.49 115 16.47
Panama 80 31.27 100 31.14 105 51.31 50 47.73
Bulgaria 81 30.51 69 39.08 76 61.48 89 28.13
Macedonia, FYR 82 28.97 87 34.62 76 61.48 86 29.69
Uganda 83 28.65 82 36.61 28 69.85 109 18.81
Cte dIvoire 84 28.56 96 31.93 28 69.85 98 23.41
Burkina Faso 85 28.50 76 38.11 28 69.85 113 16.98
Guatemala 86 28.49 93 33.29 105 51.31 63 40.13
Mozambique 87 28.12 61 43.26 28 69.85 124 10.98
6
Subindices
Composite Economic Risk quality Supply chain
Country/Region Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
Cameroon 88 27.37 81 36.90 28 69.85 116 16.02
Taiwan 89 26.94 46 49.61 130 0.00 28 70.94
Tanzania 90 26.78 75 38.34 28 69.85 122 13.40
Kenya 91 26.62 117 22.92 28 69.85 88 28.84
Albania 92 26.44 92 33.52 76 61.48 94 25.91
Mali 93 26.25 106 28.54 28 69.85 101 22.37
Bosnia & Herzegovina 94 25.31 88 34.38 76 61.48 99 22.82
Malawi 95 25.10 108 27.16 28 69.85 104 21.57
Peru 96 25.01 70 38.87 116 47.46 80 31.45
Serbia 97 24.29 91 33.72 76 61.48 105 21.51
Chad 98 24.25 65 40.55 28 69.85 128 6.22
Madagascar 99 24.17 102 30.82 28 69.85 117 16.00
Vietnam 100 22.89 98 31.40 92 60.69 102 21.95
Tajikistan 101 22.61 114 24.90 67 64.32 95 24.46
Nigeria 102 22.37 116 23.94 28 69.85 107 19.53
Ethiopia 103 22.22 110 26.19 28 69.85 114 16.95
Mongolia 104 22.04 71 38.78 67 64.32 127 9.18
Armenia 105 21.87 125 14.62 54 66.88 82 31.01
Indonesia 106 21.62 85 35.49 122 44.15 79 31.58
Bangladesh 107 21.12 99 31.24 92 60.69 110 18.66
Cambodia 108 20.98 113 25.35 92 60.69 96 24.41
Colombia 109 20.23 86 34.70 124 40.07 75 33.70
Timor-Leste 110 19.77 52 46.92 92 60.69 130 0.00
Romania 111 19.67 58 45.14 123 43.42 111 18.63
India 112 19.17 115 24.51 113 50.41 78 31.87
Zimbabwe 113 19.08 109 26.51 28 69.85 126 10.51
Algeria 114 18.77 107 27.72 72 62.97 119 15.44
Benin 115 16.96 121 19.41 28 69.85 121 13.64
Nepal 116 16.61 104 30.44 92 60.69 125 10.71
Philippines 117 16.21 97 31.45 125 39.14 85 30.10
Ecuador 118 15.79 111 25.99 116 47.46 92 26.67
Paraguay 119 15.17 83 36.52 116 47.46 120 14.70
Honduras 120 14.83 122 19.33 105 51.31 90 27.81
Egypt 121 14.21 126 11.91 72 62.97 100 22.72
Jamaica 122 14.02 127 11.49 105 51.31 73 34.26
Guyana 123 13.97 124 15.69 116 47.46 76 33.65
Nicaragua 124 12.01 119 22.56 105 51.31 108 19.04
Pakistan 125 11.57 128 10.01 92 60.69 103 21.77
Bolivia 126 11.56 105 28.90 116 47.46 118 15.48
Mauritania 127 8.55 129 5.14 28 69.85 123 11.86
Kyrgyz Republic 128 6.01 130 0.00 67 64.32 112 17.61
Venezuela 129 2.49 103 30.58 126 38.43 129 5.01
Dominican Republic 130 0.00 68 39.09 129 3.19 93 26.14
Presented above is the 2014 FM Global Resilience Index. Rankings are
provided for the overall composite index and for each of its component
factors: economic, risk quality and supply chain.
Adjacent to each rank is presented a score, bounded on a scale of 0 to 100.
A score of 100 does not imply a perfect score but, rather, that the country
ranks top in that particular dimension. The scores, therefore, are a relative
measure of resilience across countries, rather than an absolute measure.
The rankings are provided for 130 countries. This includes three groupings for
each of China and the US because their geographical spread encompasses
such disparate exposures to natural hazards: wind, ood and earthquake.
Groupings in the US are based on states, and groupings in China are based
on provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions. The composition of
each grouping is provided in Appendix 3.
Alphabetic rankings for 2014 (and 2013) are provided in Appendix 4.
The Top 5
Norway leads the 2014 index as the country most resilient to supply chain
disruption. This is driven by a top ranking also in economic factors, a top 10
ranking in risk quality factors and a top 20 ranking in supply chain factors.
Ireland makes it into the top 5 of the index, aided by a top ranking for risk
quality. This is driven by both a minimal exposure to natural hazards and a
strong commitment to risk management.
Switzerland ranks second in the index and achieves the top spot for supply
chain factors. The country scores very highly on the control of corruption,
extensive and efcient infrastructure, and the quality of local suppliers. Where
Switzerland could improve its score even further is in risk quality factors.
Canada and Australia also appear in the top 5. For each of these countries,
there are high scores across all three factors: economic, risk quality and
supply chain.
The Bottom 5
At the bottom of this years ranking is the Dominican Republic. Like the other
countries in the bottom 5, this is driven by a substantial exposure to natural
hazard risk. The Dominican Republic scores above average, however, on
political risk.
Bolivia and Venezuela exhibit similar characteristics to each other. Both
countries are very exposed to natural hazard risk and both countries currently
demonstrate a commitment to natural hazard risk management that is below
average. In addition, neither country currently scores well on any of the
economic or supply chain drivers.
The remaining two countries in the bottom 5, Mauritania and the Kyrgyz
Republic, score very poorly on economic and supply chain factors but much
better on the risk quality factors. While Mauritania has the advantage of a
relatively low exposure to natural hazard risk, the country suffers from low
quality re risk management. In contrast, the Kyrgyz Republic does not enjoy a
natural advantage of low exposure to natural hazard risk but achieves above
average quality in re risk management.
Described in the next section is the index framework.
7
THE INDEX FRAMEWORK
Provided in this section is an overview of the framework and construction of the
FM Global Resilience Index. A more detailed description of the construction
methodology is available in Appendix 1. Figure 1 provides the framework for
the FM Global Resilience Index. There are three levels to the index:
1. Level I of the FM Global Resilience Index provides a country ranking
of business resilience to supply chain disruption. Level I is an equally-
weighted composite measure of the three factors in Level II.
2. Level II comprises three factors, the core elements of resilience: economic,
risk quality and supply chain. Each factor in Level II is an equally-weighted
composite of its respective drivers in Level III.
3. Level III includes a set of nine drivers that determine the business resilience
to supply chain disruption for a country. Each driver measures a different
aspect of resilience.
Many simulations were carried out to determine the most appropriate weighting
scheme. There emerged very little difference in ultimate rankings from the
adoption of very different weighting structures so, rather than impose a
subjective system of aggregation without very good reason to do so, it is right to
remain with equal weights across the nine core drivers of resilience.
Figure 1 The index framework
The overall composite index is, by design, a simplied, summary measure of
resilience. The FM Global Resilience Index provides an indication of relative
business resilience to supply chain disruption across countries. In combination with
additional information, this provides executives with a source of guidance on supply
chain risk when making decisions over the destination of physical investments.
The structure of the index enables business executives to identify the sources of
strength and vulnerability in a countrys supply chain risk, both broadly across
factors (economic, risk quality or supply chain), and more precisely across the
nine drivers. Such analysis offers opportunities to managers seeking to improve
their companys supply chain risk prole.
Dened in the next section are the nine core drivers of resilience that underpin
the index and the rationale for their selection.
Economic Risk quality Supply chain
The FM Global Resilience Index
GDP per capita
Political risk
Oil intensity
Exposure to
natural hazard
Quality of
natural hazard
risk management
Quality of fire
risk management
Control of
corruption
Infrastructure
Local supplier
quality
Index
Factors
Drivers
8
THE DRIVERS OF RESILIENCE
Supply chain risk is a complex exposure, subject to many different
inuences. The process of identifying for an index a set of core drivers with
signicant impact on resilience to supply chain disruption is partly heuristic,
partly statistical and partly practical.
Research into the causes of supply chain disruption highlights common
triggers of disruption to global supply chains
1
. Conict and political unrest,
terrorism, corruption, vulnerability to oil shortages and price shocks, natural
disasters, extreme weather, maturity in risk management capabilities,
investment in risk management, infrastructure, and the quality of local
suppliers all appear regularly.
To meet statistical criteria, the drivers of the index must: demonstrably have
an impact on resilience; represent faithfully the intended property; have
sufcient sensitivity to detect changes in resilience, but not so much volatility
as to disrupt the index; exhibit minimal correlation across drivers; and be
consistently calculated (over a period of time to allow back-testing).
Practical considerations require that the data are available, quantitative (or
quantiable), global, annual and from credible sources.
From an initial test-bed of 38 variables, nine core drivers of resilience have
been selected for inclusion in the FM Global Resilience Index. These drivers
are categorised as pertaining to economic, risk quality or supply chain
factors, and are detailed below.
1. Economic - This factor represents political and macroeconomic
inuences on resilience. Combining to form the factor, economic,
are three drivers: productivity (GDP per capita), political risk and oil
intensity. Terrorism was found to be highly correlated with political
instability, so these variables are combined into a single driver:
political risk. Oil intensity captures the vulnerability a country has to an
oil shock - oil shortage, disruption or sudden price hike - measured as
oil consumption divided by GDP.
2. Risk quality - A unique attribute of the FM Global Resilience Index is its
ability to draw upon the wealth of data gathered over many years by
FM Globals team of property risk engineers who visit and assess over
100,000 locations annually across the world. The data, which resides
in FM Globals proprietary RiskMark database, has the advantage of
being applied consistently across all industry sectors and regions. The
factor, risk quality, comprises three drivers drawn from the RiskMark
database: exposure to natural hazard, quality of natural hazard risk
management and quality of re risk management.
3. Supply chain - This factor relates to the supply chain itself and
comprises three drivers: control of corruption, infrastructure and the
quality of local suppliers.
A simple denition of each driver is presented in Table 1. Comprehensive
technical denitions and data sources are provided in Appendix 2.
1
For example, Building Resilience in Supply Chains, World Economic Forum, 2013
Supply Chain and Risk Management, MIT Forum for Supply Chain Innovation, 2013
New Models for Addressing Supply Chain and Transport Risk, World Economic Forum, 2012
Measures of Oil Import Dependence by James M. Kendell, Energy Information Administration, 1998.
9
Table 1 Data denitions
Data for the nine drivers of resilience have been collected for 130 countries; the
maximum number of countries for which there is a complete set of data across
all nine drivers.
The nine drivers are assigned equal weights and combine to form the composite
FM Global Resilience Index. The biggest changes in the index since 2013 are
highlighted in the next section.
Economic Denition
GDP per capita Gross domestic product, divided by total population
Political risk
Reects perceptions of government instability by
unconstitutional or violent means, including terrorism
Oil intensity
Vulnerability to an oil shock: oil shortage, disruption,
price hike
Risk quality
Exposure to natural hazard
Extent of exposure to at least one natural hazard:
earthquake, wind or ood
Quality of natural hazard risk
management
The level of commitment to natural hazard risk
improvement given the inherent natural hazard risks
in a country
Quality of re risk management
The level of commitment to re risk improvement
given the inherent re risks in a country
Supply chain
Control of corruption
Reects perceptions of the extent of corruption, both
petty and grand forms
Infrastructure
Reects perceptions of general infrastructure:
transport, telephony and energy
Local supplier quality Reects perceptions of the quality of local suppliers
10
THE BIGGEST MOVERS 2014
Presented in Table 2 are the complete rankings for 2014 and 2013, for the
composite FM Global Resilience Index, and for each of the three factors:
economic, risk quality and supply chain.
Table 2 Annual rankings 2014 and 2013
11
Subindices
Composite Economic Risk quality Supply chain
Country/Region 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
Norway 1 2 1 2 8 14 17 18
Switzerland 2 1 4 4 53 74 1 1
Canada 3 3 13 15 3 4 9 9
Australia 4 5 5 7 6 6 18 16
Ireland 5 9 10 10 1 1 27 32
Germany 6 8 16 14 12 15 3 5
Luxembourg 7 4 2 1 76 78 14 13
Netherlands 8 13 15 13 19 19 4 8
Belgium 9 6 23 19 5 5 12 12
United States 3 10 14 19 21 2 2 21 19
Finland 11 11 9 8 52 27 2 6
New Zealand 12 16 12 12 7 11 16 17
Sweden 13 10 6 6 65 75 7 3
Denmark 14 7 7 5 64 76 5 2
Qatar 15 15 3 3 54 65 25 27
France 16 12 18 18 14 13 13 10
Austria 17 17 8 9 75 99 6 4
United States 1 18 18 19 21 9 9 21 19
Hong Kong SAR 19 24 24 27 63 77 10 14
United Kingdom 20 20 25 25 23 21 20 22
United States 2 21 21 19 21 25 26 21 19
Singapore 22 22 47 62 16 7 11 11
Iceland 23 19 22 20 76 78 15 15
Portugal 24 25 31 30 13 10 29 29
Spain 25 23 34 33 15 8 26 26
Czech Republic 26 26 28 26 22 17 34 33
United Arab Emirates 27 28 14 17 115 120 19 24
Malaysia 28 29 64 71 4 3 37 37
Israel 29 33 60 60 10 24 35 31
Poland 30 32 32 31 11 12 52 55
Slovenia 31 31 29 28 76 78 33 35
Japan 32 27 11 11 128 126 8 7
Brunei Darussalam 33 30 17 16 92 57 44 43
Estonia 34 34 37 36 76 78 32 34
Barbados 35 35 36 37 105 112 24 25
Oman 36 36 45 44 54 65 41 40
Botswana 37 38 30 34 28 29 61 61
Costa Rica 38 42 39 43 27 52 51 50
Cyprus 39 37 54 49 76 78 39 38
12
Subindices
Composite Economic Risk quality Supply chain
Country/Region 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
Chile 40 45 42 40 114 122 30 28
Lithuania 41 44 43 39 76 78 42 42
South Africa 42 40 63 63 20 18 46 44
Mauritius 43 41 53 51 28 29 45 45
Italy 44 39 26 24 102 107 57 51
Bahrain 45 47 89 87 54 65 36 36
Namibia 46 43 55 50 28 29 58 48
Slovak Republic 47 53 27 29 104 121 55 56
Latvia 48 52 40 47 76 78 54 53
Brazil 49 48 51 53 24 23 66 62
Saudi Arabia 50 54 118 118 18 25 38 39
Hungary 51 49 35 35 103 109 47 49
Kuwait 52 50 38 46 54 65 68 63
Croatia 53 51 48 42 76 78 59 52
Greece 54 55 50 41 66 98 62 65
Malta 55 57 95 102 76 78 40 41
Uruguay 56 46 33 32 116 101 53 46
Zambia 57 60 44 48 28 29 83 90
Turkey 58 58 79 69 100 108 43 47
Mexico 59 62 90 90 51 28 60 66
Montenegro 60 61 41 38 76 78 81 82
China 2 61 63 72 78 62 56 69 69
Thailand 62 67 123 122 21 20 49 54
Sri Lanka 63 56 94 91 92 57 48 57
Ghana 64 65 66 68 28 29 84 83
Argentina 65 59 59 58 26 22 97 84
China 3 66 64 72 78 71 73 69 69
Lesotho 67 69 49 56 28 29 106 111
Georgia 68 72 77 84 54 65 74 78
Korea, Rep. 69 70 56 54 127 128 31 30
Trinidad and Tobago 70 68 57 57 105 112 67 67
Kazakhstan 71 86 62 61 67 94 91 103
Azerbaijan 72 77 78 72 54 65 87 92
Morocco 73 73 101 103 72 53 64 72
Jordan 74 88 120 124 54 65 56 64
China 1 75 75 72 78 101 100 69 69
Ukraine 76 89 80 76 76 78 77 96
Senegal 77 81 112 108 28 29 72 79
El Salvador 78 71 67 74 105 112 65 59
Russian Federation 79 79 84 89 17 16 115 115
Panama 80 91 100 110 105 112 50 58
Bulgaria 81 80 69 66 76 78 89 89
Macedonia, FYR 82 87 87 92 76 78 86 80
Uganda 83 90 82 96 28 29 109 100
Cte dIvoire 84 96 96 104 28 29 98 99
Burkina Faso 85 84 76 81 28 29 113 107
13
Subindices
Composite Economic Risk quality Supply chain
Country/Region 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
Guatemala 86 83 93 97 105 112 63 60
Mozambique 87 82 61 59 28 29 124 122
Cameroon 88 94 81 88 28 29 116 116
Taiwan 89 76 46 45 130 129 28 23
Tanzania 90 85 75 70 28 29 122 119
Kenya 91 97 117 120 28 29 88 81
Albania 92 95 92 94 76 78 94 86
Mali 93 74 106 65 28 29 101 104
Bosnia & Herzegovina 94 113 88 93 76 78 99 123
Malawi 95 66 108 64 28 29 104 88
Peru 96 78 70 73 116 101 80 74
Serbia 97 93 91 83 76 78 105 93
Chad 98 104 65 75 28 29 128 129
Madagascar 99 92 102 86 28 29 117 113
Vietnam 100 98 98 101 92 57 102 101
Tajikistan 101 117 114 116 67 94 95 110
Nigeria 102 111 116 113 28 29 107 120
Ethiopia 103 106 110 114 28 29 114 118
Mongolia 104 108 71 67 67 94 127 127
Armenia 105 121 125 127 54 65 82 91
Indonesia 106 100 85 95 122 111 79 77
Bangladesh 107 99 99 98 92 57 110 112
Cambodia 108 101 113 106 92 57 96 109
Colombia 109 109 86 85 124 124 75 68
Timor-Leste 110 103 52 55 92 57 130 130
Romania 111 114 58 52 123 123 111 117
India 112 105 115 115 113 110 78 76
Zimbabwe 113 110 109 99 28 29 126 125
Algeria 114 102 107 109 72 53 119 108
Benin 115 116 121 125 28 29 121 98
Nepal 116 112 104 100 92 57 125 124
Philippines 117 127 97 107 125 127 85 87
Ecuador 118 120 111 119 116 101 92 94
Paraguay 119 107 83 77 116 101 120 121
Honduras 120 119 122 111 105 112 90 85
Egypt 121 123 126 128 72 53 100 97
Jamaica 122 118 127 121 105 112 73 73
Guyana 123 122 124 126 116 101 76 75
Nicaragua 124 126 119 117 105 112 108 114
Pakistan 125 124 128 129 92 57 103 106
Bolivia 126 115 105 105 116 101 118 105
Mauritania 127 125 129 123 28 29 123 128
Kyrgyz Republic 128 128 130 130 67 94 112 102
Venezuela 129 129 103 112 126 125 129 126
Dominican Republic 130 130 68 82 129 130 93 95
Norway and Switzerland retain the top two places in the index, albeit
exchanging places. Canada and Australia also retain their places in the top 5.
Ireland is a new entrant to the top 5 this year, rising four places, due primarily
to a signicant improvement in overall infrastructure.
Displaced from the top 5 this year is Luxembourg; down three places to seventh.
This fall is due to a slight drop in the perceived quality of local suppliers.
Ireland and Switzerland retain their top rankings in the risk quality and supply
chain factors, respectively, while Norway and Luxembourg exchange places for
top spot in economic factors.
The bottom three places in the 2014 index retain their positions from 2013; the
Kyrgyz Republic, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic.
Not all the countries in the index have exhibited such stability, however, and the
next two tables highlight those making major moves. Identied in Table 3 are
the 10 biggest risers in the 2014 index; most of these countries have risen more
than ten places in the index since last year.
Table 3 Top 10 Risers 2014
The biggest riser in the index since 2013 is Bosnia and Herzegovina which
has risen 19 places. This is due to signicant improvements both in the countrys
political risk and in the quality of local suppliers.
Armenia, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Jordan all rose signicantly due to
improvements in risk quality. While the improvement for Tajikistan and
Kazakhstan came in the quality of re risk management, the improvement for
Armenia and Jordan came in the quality of natural hazard risk management.
Ukraine managed to rise 13 places in the index despite a slightly worsening
score for both political risk and oil intensity. Improvement in the countrys
infrastructure and better perceived quality in local suppliers helped to overcome
the poorer score from the countrys political and economic environment. Since
last year, Nigeria enjoyed improvements both in its overall infrastructure and in
the perception of its local suppliers.
While Panama improved its rankings across the board - economic, risk quality
and supply chain factors - both Cte dIvoire and the Philippines achieved
higher rankings this year due to improved economic factors, in particular,
political risk and oil intensity.
Subindices
Composite Economic Risk quality Supply chain
Country/Region Rank Change Rank Change Rank Change Rank Change
Bosnia & Herzegovina 94 19 88 5 76 2 99 24
Armenia 105 16 125 2 54 11 82 9
Tajikistan 101 16 114 2 67 27 95 15
Kazakhstan 71 15 62 -1 67 27 91 12
Jordan 74 14 120 4 54 11 56 8
Ukraine 76 13 80 -4 76 2 77 19
Cte dIvoire 84 12 96 8 28 1 98 1
Panama 80 11 100 10 105 7 50 8
Philippines 117 10 97 10 125 2 85 2
Nigeria 102 9 116 -3 28 1 107 13
14
Greece made the biggest improvement across all countries in its risk quality
ranking over the year. Given that a country cannot change its exposure to
natural hazard risk, most of the improvement came from a greater commitment to
risk management as regards natural hazards. This investment has improved the
overall ranking of Greece this year, albeit by a single place, signifying that the
country is more resilient to supply chain disruption now than a year ago, despite
the poorer political and economic environment.
In contrast, the following countries fell 35 places in the risk quality ranking
due to poorer quality in both natural hazard risk management and re risk
management: Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, Timor-Leste and Vietnam.
These results highlight the need to look beneath the surface of the composite
index for an understanding of what is driving the changes in annual ranking.
Identied in Table 4 are the 10 biggest fallers in the 2014 index.
Table 4 Top 10 Fallers 2014
The primary cause of a fall in the rankings for both Malawi and Mali was a
deterioration in the economic factor score. However, the underlying cause in
each case is different. Malawi experienced a greater vulnerability to oil shock
whereas Mali experienced worsening political risk.
The cause of decline in the rankings for Algeria and Bolivia was a drop in
the quality of risk management and a weakening of the supply chain factor.
For both countries, the quality of infrastructure is perceived to have declined.
In addition, the control of corruption appears to have worsened in Bolivia
while the quality of local suppliers appears to have deteriorated in Algeria.
Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay all appear relatively worse than last year in terms
of commitment to re risk management quality.
Denmark drops seven places since last year but retains an excellent ranking
in the composite index of 14th. Its lower position this year is due to a slightly
worse relative position as regards political risk and quality of infrastructure.
However, Denmark retains its top spot from last year for control of corruption.
It is to be remembered that these improvements and declines identied are in
relative terms; relative to the other countries in the index. In a world competing
for investments, however, relative positioning is important.
Subindices
Composite Economic Risk quality Supply chain
Country/Region Rank Change Rank Change Rank Change Rank Change
Malawi 95 -29 108 -44 28 1 104 -16
Mali 93 -19 106 -41 28 1 101 3
Peru 96 -18 70 3 116 -15 80 -6
Taiwan 89 -13 46 -1 130 -1 28 -5
Paraguay 119 -12 83 -6 116 -15 120 1
Algeria 114 -12 107 2 72 -19 119 -11
Bolivia 126 -11 105 0 116 -15 118 -13
Uruguay 56 -10 33 -1 116 -15 53 -7
Bangladesh 107 -8 99 -1 92 -35 110 2
Denmark 14 -7 7 -2 64 12 5 -3
15
APPENDIX 1: INDEX CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY
There are ve steps in the process of index construction:
1. Dene the property of interest (resilience to supply chain disruption)
2. Identify the factors (economic, risk quality and supply chain) and drivers
3. Measure and analyse the drivers within each factor
4. Develop the scheme of aggregation in the construction of the index
5. Validate the index by back-testing over several years
This process of index construction is presented diagrammatically in Figure 2.
Figure 2 The index construction process
Described below are the key procedures applied to the data dened in the
previous section, prior to their combination into the FM Global Resilience Index.
1. Annual data, for the most recent four years, were collected for the
maximum number of countries for each of the nine drivers.
2. A common set of countries with complete data availability across the nine
drivers was identied and aligned into a consistent data set.
3. Correlation coefcients were calculated across all drivers to assess for
signicance in correlation: parametric (Pearson) and non-parametric
(Spearman).
4. Each data series was standardised through the calculation of z-scores to
enable comparison and combination of drivers with different units. Where
necessary, z-scores were inverted for consistency across variables.
5. The z-scores were converted into scores on a scale of 0-100 for
presentation purposes.
6. The scores of the nine drivers then were combined with equal weightings
to form the FM Global Resilience Index. Many simulations were carried
Sensitivity Consistency
FM Global
Committee
Low Volatility Representativeness Independent
Calculation Agents
Factor
Analysis
Index
Construction
Final
Review
&
Testing
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
e

o
f

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
a
c
t
o
r
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

k
e
y

d
r
i
v
e
r
s

i
n

e
a
c
h
S
c
a
l
i
n
g

m
e
t
h
o
d
s

f
o
r

k
e
y

d
r
i
v
e
r
s
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

w
e
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
m
e
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

b
a
c
k

t
e
s
t
i
n
g
Economic
Factors
Risk Quality
Factors
Supply Chain
Factors
Identify the three
key factors & the
metric for each
driver
Design a scaling
scheme for each
driver & analyse
Determine a
robust
weighting
scheme
Calculate the
composite index
Validate &
compile an
index handbook
The
FM Global
Resilience
Index
16
out to determine the most appropriate weighting scheme. There emerged
very little difference in ultimate rankings from the adoption of a wide
range of weighting structures. Rather than impose a subjective system of
aggregation, therefore, without very good reason to do so, the index
retains equal weights across the nine core drivers of business resilience.
7. The Index comprises the rankings for the top 130 countries for which
data were available. Three groupings are provided for each of China
and the US because their geographical spread includes such disparate
exposures to natural hazards: wind, ood and earthquake.
Based on data availability, new entrants to the index, and exits from the
index, may emerge. In order to maintain consistency in the interpretation of
results, the index is restricted to the top 130 countries in any given year.
APPENDIX 2: DATA DEFINITIONS AND SOURCES
Table 5 Data denitions
17
Economic Denition
GDP per capita
Gross domestic product in national currency converted to US
dollars using market exchange rates (yearly average), divided
by total population
Political risk
Reects perceptions of the likelihood that the government will be
destabilised or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means,
including politically-motivated violence and terrorism
Oil intensity
Vulnerability to an oil shock (shortage, disruption, price hike);
oil consumption divided by GDP
Risk quality
Exposure to natural
hazard
The percentage of locations in the country that are exposed
to at least one natural hazard: earthquake, wind or ood
Quality of
natural hazard
risk management
The level of natural hazard risk improvement achieved given
the inherent natural hazard risks in a country
Quality of re risk
management
The level of re risk improvement achieved given the inherent
re risks in a country
Supply chain
Control of corruption
Reects perceptions of the extent to which public power is
exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand
forms of corruption, as well as capture of the state by elites
and private interests
Infrastructure
Reects perceptions of general infrastructure: transport,
telephony and energy
Local supplier quality Reects perceptions of the quality of local suppliers
The data for the three drivers of risk quality are provided by FM Global, one
of the worlds largest commercial and industrial property insurers. Further detail
on their compilation is provided below.
1. Exposure to natural hazard - FM Global property risk engineers
determine whether any natural hazard exposures are present at the
locations they visit. The determination is based on wind, ood and
earthquake maps that are available as well as other information
acquired by the engineer. The percentage of locations that are exposed
to wind, ood or earthquake are summarised for each country (or
group of countries). The United States of America and China are each
divided into three groupings to accommodate for a signicantly different
dominant natural hazard exposure within these countries. Groupings
in the US are based on states, and groupings in China are based on
provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions. The composition of
each grouping is provided in Appendix 3.
2. Quality of natural hazard risk management - RiskMark is a
benchmarking algorithm that calculates the risk quality of FM Globals
insured locations. It uses a 100-point scale (100 representing the best
managed, highest quality risk), and the scale consists of the following
four components:
a. Fire Hazards & Equipment Hazards: 36 points
b. Natural Hazards: 30 points
c. Human Element & Other Factors: 19 points
d. Inherent Occupancy Hazards: 15 points
The RiskMark score of a location includes a measure of both inherent
risks and risks where there are recommendations for improvement.
The potential RiskMark score represents the highest possible score
achievable by that location, given those inherent risks. The percentage
potential RiskMark score provides a way to measure risk improvement
opportunities given the inherent risks. It is calculated by dividing the
RiskMark score by the potential RiskMark score. For the driver, quality
of natural hazard risk management, the weighted average (by total
insured value) percentage potential RiskMark score for the natural hazard
component is provided for each country (or group of countries). For each
year, RiskMark scores as of July of that year are used.
3. Quality of re risk management - The weighted average (by total
insured value) percentage potential RiskMark score for the re
subcomponent of the re and equipment hazards component is provided
for each country (or a group of countries). For each year, RiskMark
scores as of July of that year are used.
Data on political risk (or, more fully, political stability and absence of violence
or terrorism) and control of corruption are obtained from the Worldwide
Governance Indicators (WGI) data set from the World Bank. The WGI
comprise information from 31 existing data sources that report the views and
experiences of citizens, entrepreneurs, and experts in the public, private and
NGO sectors from around the world, on the quality of various aspects of
governance.
Data on infrastructure and local supplier quality are obtained from the Global
Competitiveness Report produced annually by the World Economic Forum
(WEF). The data is based on the WEFs annual Executive Opinion Survey
which garnered over 14,000 responses in its latest edition (2012 - 2013); an
average of over 100 respondents per country.
18
Table 6 captures the sources of the nine drivers which underpin the index, the
units in which they are provided and the respective months in which the data
become available.
Table 6 Data sources
19
Economic Unit Source Date
GDP per capita USD IMF April
Political risk Scale World Bank September
Oil intensity Bpd US EIA April
Risk quality
Exposure to natural hazard % FM Global -
Quality of natual hazard
risk management
% FM Global July
Quality of re risk management % FM Global July
Supply chain
Control of corruption Scale World Bank September
Infrastructure Scale WEF September
Local supplier quality Scale WEF September
APPENDIX 3: COUNTRY GROUPINGS BY DOMINANT NATURAL HAZARD
20
China 1 China 2 China 3 US 1 US 2 US 3
Wind Earthquake Miscellaneous Wind Earthquake Miscellaneous
Fujian Hebei Anhui Alabama Alaska Arizona
Guangdong Jiangsu Beijing Connecticut California Arkansas
Hainan Neimenggu Chongqing Delaware Hawaii Colorado
Jilin Ningxia Gansu Florida Nevada
District of
Columbia
Liaoning Sichuan Guangxi Georgia Oregon Idaho
Shandong Tianjin Guizhou Louisiana Puerto Rico Illinois
Shanghai Yunnan Heilongjiang Maine Utah Indiana
Zhejiang Henan Maryland Washington Iowa
Hubei Massachusetts Kansas
Hunan Mississippi Kentucky
Jiangxi
New
Hampshire
Michigan
Qinghai New Jersey Minnesota
Shaanxi
(Shanxi)
New York Missouri
Xinjiang
North
Carolina
Montana
Rhode Island Nebraska
South Carolina New Mexico
Texas North Dakota
Virgin Islands Ohio
Virginia Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
APPENDIX 4: ALPHABETIC RANKINGS 2014 AND 2013
Subindices
Composite Economic Risk quality
Supply
chain
Country/Region 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
Albania 92 95 92 94 76 78 94 86
Algeria 114 102 107 109 72 53 119 108
Argentina 65 59 59 58 26 22 97 84
Armenia 105 121 125 127 54 65 82 91
Australia 4 5 5 7 6 6 18 16
Austria 17 17 8 9 75 99 6 4
Azerbaijan 72 77 78 72 54 65 87 92
Bahrain 45 47 89 87 54 65 36 36
Bangladesh 107 99 99 98 92 57 110 112
Barbados 35 35 36 37 105 112 24 25
Belgium 9 6 23 19 5 5 12 12
Benin 115 116 121 125 28 29 121 98
Bolivia 126 115 105 105 116 101 118 105
Bosnia & Herzegovina 94 113 88 93 76 78 99 123
Botswana 37 38 30 34 28 29 61 61
Brazil 49 48 51 53 24 23 66 62
Brunei Darussalam 33 30 17 16 92 57 44 43
Bulgaria 81 80 69 66 76 78 89 89
Burkina Faso 85 84 76 81 28 29 113 107
Cambodia 108 101 113 106 92 57 96 109
Cameroon 88 94 81 88 28 29 116 116
Canada 3 3 13 15 3 4 9 9
Chad 98 104 65 75 28 29 128 129
Chile 40 45 42 40 114 122 30 28
China 1 75 75 72 78 101 100 69 69
China 2 61 63 72 78 62 56 69 69
China 3 66 64 72 78 71 73 69 69
Colombia 109 109 86 85 124 124 75 68
Costa Rica 38 42 39 43 27 52 51 50
Cte dIvoire 84 96 96 104 28 29 98 99
Croatia 53 51 48 42 76 78 59 52
21
Subindices
Composite Economic Risk quality
Supply
chain
Country/Region 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
Cyprus 39 37 54 49 76 78 39 38
Czech Republic 26 26 28 26 22 17 34 33
Denmark 14 7 7 5 64 76 5 2
Dominican Republic 130 130 68 82 129 130 93 95
Ecuador 118 120 111 119 116 101 92 94
Egypt 121 123 126 128 72 53 100 97
El Salvador 78 71 67 74 105 112 65 59
Estonia 34 34 37 36 76 78 32 34
Ethiopia 103 106 110 114 28 29 114 118
Finland 11 11 9 8 52 27 2 6
France 16 12 18 18 14 13 13 10
Georgia 68 72 77 84 54 65 74 78
Germany 6 8 16 14 12 15 3 5
Ghana 64 65 66 68 28 29 84 83
Greece 54 55 50 41 66 98 62 65
Guatemala 86 83 93 97 105 112 63 60
Guyana 123 122 124 126 116 101 76 75
Honduras 120 119 122 111 105 112 90 85
Hong Kong SAR 19 24 24 27 63 77 10 14
Hungary 51 49 35 35 103 109 47 49
Iceland 23 19 22 20 76 78 15 15
India 112 105 115 115 113 110 78 76
Indonesia 106 100 85 95 122 111 79 77
Ireland 5 9 10 10 1 1 27 32
Israel 29 33 60 60 10 24 35 31
Italy 44 39 26 24 102 107 57 51
Jamaica 122 118 127 121 105 112 73 73
Japan 32 27 11 11 128 126 8 7
Jordan 74 88 120 124 54 65 56 64
Kazakhstan 71 86 62 61 67 94 91 103
Kenya 91 97 117 120 28 29 88 81
Korea, Rep. 69 70 56 54 127 128 31 30
Kuwait 52 50 38 46 54 65 68 63
22
Subindices
Composite Economic Risk quality
Supply
chain
Country/Region 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
Kyrgyz Republic 128 128 130 130 67 94 112 102
Latvia 48 52 40 47 76 78 54 53
Lesotho 67 69 49 56 28 29 106 111
Lithuania 41 44 43 39 76 78 42 42
Luxembourg 7 4 2 1 76 78 14 13
Macedonia, FYR 82 87 87 92 76 78 86 80
Madagascar 99 92 102 86 28 29 117 113
Malawi 95 66 108 64 28 29 104 88
Malaysia 28 29 64 71 4 3 37 37
Mali 93 74 106 65 28 29 101 104
Malta 55 57 95 102 76 78 40 41
Mauritania 127 125 129 123 28 29 123 128
Mauritius 43 41 53 51 28 29 45 45
Mexico 59 62 90 90 51 28 60 66
Mongolia 104 108 71 67 67 94 127 127
Montenegro 60 61 41 38 76 78 81 82
Morocco 73 73 101 103 72 53 64 72
Mozambique 87 82 61 59 28 29 124 122
Namibia 46 43 55 50 28 29 58 48
Nepal 116 112 104 100 92 57 125 124
Netherlands 8 13 15 13 19 19 4 8
New Zealand 12 16 12 12 7 11 16 17
Nicaragua 124 126 119 117 105 112 108 114
Nigeria 102 111 116 113 28 29 107 120
Norway 1 2 1 2 8 14 17 18
Oman 36 36 45 44 54 65 41 40
Pakistan 125 124 128 129 92 57 103 106
Panama 80 91 100 110 105 112 50 58
Paraguay 119 107 83 77 116 101 120 121
Peru 96 78 70 73 116 101 80 74
Philippines 117 127 97 107 125 127 85 87
Poland 30 32 32 31 11 12 52 55
Portugal 24 25 31 30 13 10 29 29
23
Subindices
Composite Economic Risk quality
Supply
chain
Country/Region 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
Qatar 15 15 3 3 54 65 25 27
Romania 111 114 58 52 123 123 111 117
Russian Federation 79 79 84 89 17 16 115 115
Saudi Arabia 50 54 118 118 18 25 38 39
Senegal 77 81 112 108 28 29 72 79
Serbia 97 93 91 83 76 78 105 93
Singapore 22 22 47 62 16 7 11 11
Slovak Republic 47 53 27 29 104 121 55 56
Slovenia 31 31 29 28 76 78 33 35
South Africa 42 40 63 63 20 18 46 44
Spain 25 23 34 33 15 8 26 26
Sri Lanka 63 56 94 91 92 57 48 57
Sweden 13 10 6 6 65 75 7 3
Switzerland 2 1 4 4 53 74 1 1
Taiwan 89 76 46 45 130 129 28 23
Tajikistan 101 117 114 116 67 94 95 110
Tanzania 90 85 75 70 28 29 122 119
Thailand 62 67 123 122 21 20 49 54
Timor-Leste 110 103 52 55 92 57 130 130
Trinidad and Tobago 70 68 57 57 105 112 67 67
Turkey 58 58 79 69 100 108 43 47
Uganda 83 90 82 96 28 29 109 100
Ukraine 76 89 80 76 76 78 77 96
United Arab Emirates 27 28 14 17 115 120 19 24
United Kingdom 20 20 25 25 23 21 20 22
United States 1 18 18 19 21 9 9 21 19
United States 2 21 21 19 21 25 26 21 19
United States 3 10 14 19 21 2 2 21 19
Uruguay 56 46 33 32 116 101 53 46
Venezuela 129 129 103 112 126 125 129 126
Vietnam 100 98 98 101 92 57 102 101
Zambia 57 60 44 48 28 29 83 90
Zimbabwe 113 110 109 99 28 29 126 125
24
Disclaimer
This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) only.
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this
document, neither Oxford Metrica nor any of its members past present or future warrants its accuracy
or will, regardless of its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable
use made thereof, which liability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipients
own risk on the basis that any use by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this
disclaimer. The recipient is obliged to inform any subsequent recipient of such terms.The information
contained in this document is not a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell securities. This
document is a summary presented for general informational purposes only. It is not a complete
analysis of the matters discussed herein and should not be relied upon as legal advice.
www.oxfordmetrica.com
About Oxford Metrica
Oxford Metrica is an independent analytics and advisory firm. The firm provides
evidence-based research on risk and financial performance, and has developed a
suite of analytical tools essential for robust index construction. Oxford Metrica's work
includes statistical analysis for banks and insurers, risk and performance analytics for
asset managers, and highly customised work directly for corporate clients. The firm
works closely with senior management to deliver clear and compelling thought
leadership papers that provide unique empirical insights of commercial relevance.
Annual Report
2014

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen