#SocialMediaStudies

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Analysis of data available on the web

APPENDIX 2 Sample description and Methodology

To conduct our analysis, CACEIS and PwC Luxembourg first set about defining the sample of asset management firms to be used in this report. Having defined the group, we then used two methods to gather relevant information for our study upon which a statistical analysis would be performed. The first method involved the gathering of freely available Social Media KPIs in order to build a ranking. This approach was combined with a questionnaire, sent to the top asset management firms within our final ranking, which contained a number of both closed and open questions, and sought to gain a more nuanced understanding of companies’ social media engagement, motivations and satisfaction. The data, gathered principally during April of 2013, forms the basis of our report, and in our opinion has been both gathered and analysed using a methodology that ensures the best possible accuracy and timeliness of our results it provides. On the other hand, any conclusions drawn from these results in our report will be influenced to a greater or lesser extent by CACEIS’ and PwC’s individual interpretation thereof.

The sample group of 104 companies is made of 52%of US asset management firms, 43% of European players and only 5% of Asian ones. Analysing the group in terms of their structure – whether the firm is a non-affiliated asset management company or belongs to a large banking or insurance group, we see that roughly two thirds of our sample group are affiliated firms, while the remaining one third are non-affiliated companies. Finally, regarding the distribution of players by assets under management, by performing a notional split of those with less than €150bn, between €150bn and €250bn, between €250bn and €500bn and those above €500bn, our sample splits into approximately four quarters.

42