It is newly fashionable to declaim interest in league table rankings, and many banks do so. There is indeed some evidence to support the link between high league table placings, or at least rapid improvements, and the probability of more bad loans on the books. But few banks or firms would want to adopt the slogan "small is beautiful".

Project banks are now searching for a third model for drumming up business. The last decade has witnessed a tension between asset-driven lending and relationship-driven lending. Neither has been perfect, since asset-driven lending, and thus the ability to pick and choose transactions, requires an unimpeachable franchise, and relationship deals occasionally go bad because they have been done for the wrong reasons.

The most common strategy is for banks to focus on trying to dominate their domestic markets. This is made easy by the growth of public-private partnerships (PPP), which have made possible a respectable dealflow in single markets. It has also rejuvenated the influence of government over lending decisions, which had waned as deregulated power markets took over.

Project Finance could have looked at which firms have been most assiduous at courting governments and sponsors, and in walking the fine line between relationship lending and paying for business. Which, to some degree our survey has. But it has also looked at some of the more burning questions. With who would you most like to sit down to dinner? Who do you fear? Where will you make your money next year?

Some clients are better than others

Broadly speaking there are three groups of popular sponsors – Spanish infrastructure companies, oil majors and Japanese trading houses. Respondents were asked which sponsors they had the strongest relationship with, felt were most sophisticated, thought were most demanding, and they would most like to have dinner with.

Spanish companies – ACS Dragados, Ferrovial/Cintra, Sacyr and OHL – were mentioned most often as a group by respondents. This is a testament to their reach in Europe and Latin America. But, tellingly, the Spanish sponsors are more frequently cited as current relationship sponsors than targets of desire.

In general, the Japanese trading companies had slightly wider support, if only because they are active in slightly more sectors. Mitsubishi was cited frequently for its sophistication, and for being demanding, and it came out on top as the one with which bankers would most like to dine with – if true, then Japanese banks are likely being fairly possessive with their clients.

But the two biggest individual citations are Shell and ExxonMobil, the oil majors that most frequently visit the project finance market. Both are, famously, reluctant borrowers, since they are sitting on impressive piles of cash. But joint ventures in Qatar, Nigeria, in Shell's case US wind, have made them extremely adept. Exxon is rated the most demanding borrower, a title that it could probably snare on the strength of QatarGas II alone. Shell edges it out in terms of sophistication.

Export credit agencies – signs of life

Project Finance has found from past export credit agency (ECA) surveys that, while the agencies are still desirable clients they had come off the boil in terms of innovation. Several had been wary of stretching themselves, a result of pressures both internal and external.

The Equator Principles, a set of bank guidelines on environmental lending, made the ECAs look ponderous by comparison. Their lending decisions frequently enraged domestic politicians and international NGOs. Moves towards a more compelling suite of products, greater use of reinsurance, and even the securitisation of loan books had largely stalled.

This impasse has largely cleared, and the reason is the state of the Gulf project finance market. Slim margins and competition from arranging banks has increased their allure, and decision-making times have been sharply reduced. And as NGOs move to more stridently confront banks and the multilaterals, they have escaped some of the more intense heat from protestors.

The survey questions asked respondents to rate ECAs (and multilaterals) in terms of efficiency, price, and innovation. US Ex-Im came out on top in terms of efficiency and price, and gained an honourable mention in terms of innovation. Runners-up included JBIC, the European Investment Bank, and the International Finance Corporation. Export Development Canada came out on top in terms of innovation.

In this category alone, cynics might suggest that voters were guided more by reputation than current activity. This is not to say that there has been any slackening in the quality of Ex-Im's or EDC's work. Just that the strides made in quality by KfW, which as a counterparty to Depfa's securitization has the potential to revolutionise European PPP funding, and JBIC, which dominated Latin American and Asian export finance in the last year and has gone into mezzanine lending, should have got more recognition.

The best bets on balance sheet

The responses for banks followed more conventional lines, with lenders asked to rate their most aggressive competitor in terms of lending. The results can be seen below:

• Oil and Gas – SMBC, with honourable mentions for RBS and then BNP Paribas
• Petrochemicals – BNP Paribas, with honourable mentions for HSBC and then RBS
• Transport – BBVA, with honourable mentions for RBS and then Depfa
• Power – BNP Paribas, with honourable mentions for SMBC and then West LB
• Renewables – Fortis, with honourable mentions for RBS and then BNP
• Utilities – Dexia, with honourable mentions for SG and then BNP Paribas
• PFI/ PPP – RBS, with honourable mentions for SG and then Macquarie

This category, more than the other three, rewards balance sheet capacity. Thus, SMBC's lending to the larger Middle Eastern, Asian and Latin American hydrocarbons projects draws plaudits. SMBC in London and Singapore, for instance, maintains very able project teams, but benefits from JBIC and trading house activity. And BNP's nods in Power and Petrochemicals are the clear result of its arranging prowess.

BBVA, with a toll road business that encompasses Spain, Italy, Latin America and the US, comes out strongly in Transport, while Dexia's municipal finance roots shine through in its utilities placing. Fortis' strength in the US and Europe, the only two renewables markets that matter, keep it on top. One bank worth mentioning among the runners-up is SG, if only because of the consistency of its appearances, only RBS rivals it for a presence across sectors.

Wide ranging arrangers

The arranging votes followed similar lines, with respondents asked to pick out their most important competition for top-level mandates. The results follow:

• Oil and Gas – RBS and BNP, with notable support for SMBC
• Petrochemicals – BNP Paribas and Societe Generale, with notable support for ANZ
• Transport – BBVA, with notable support for DZ Bank and then ING
• Power – BNP Paribas, with notable support for HSBC and then RBS
• Renewables – RBS, with notable support for RBS and then Macquarie
• Utilities – Dexia, with notable support for RBS and then Standard Chartered
• PFI/ PPP – RBS, with notable support for Macquarie and then Barclays

The top picks showed very little deviation from lending choices, with the exception of Oil & Gas, where SMBC's bridesmaids have their day at the altar. All the other top picks remain the same. But there is some room for smaller players to impress respondents, particularly ANZ, which has a good Asia franchise and ING, with its Eastern European strength. Macquarie snagged mentions in PFI and renewables, though, despite cropping up most frequently as a sponsor and adviser.

The banks to watch in secondary placings are HSBC and Standard Chartered, both of which have made impressive gains in recent months. Standard Chartered has inherited very strong renewables, power, and oil and gas personnel from ANZ, while HSBC is starting to take on some mandates commensurate with its size.

Advise and content

The adviser stakes are subject to a little more variability. They do not, in theory, demand a solid balance sheet, although deep pockets help in winning business, as some of the following results demonstrate.

• Oil and Gas – BNP leads, with impressive efforts from RBS and then Caylon
• Petrochemicals –SG leads, with impressive efforts from RBS and then HSBC
• Transport – BBVA leads, with impressive efforts from Deutsche and then SG
• Power – BNP Paribas leads, with impressive efforts from WestLB and then SMBC
• Renewables – Babcock and Brown leads, with impressive efforts from HSBC and then Banesto
• Utilities – KPMG leads, with impressive efforts from Barclays and then SG
• PFI/ PPP – ABN Amro leads, with impressive efforts from RBS and then BBVA

It is largely in the more traditional project finance categories that arranging banks dominate. So, BNP hangs on in power and oil and gas, and SG's Asian team gets the respect it deserves in Petrochemicals, and might have hoped for a more solid showing in oil and gas. BBVA, likewise, holds on in transport, with a surprising showing from Deutsche, which is rebuilding its market presence on the back of a following in Germany and a bond franchise in the UK.

Another surprising appearance in the second order of utilities is Barclays, which has a good corporate finance platform, but limited arranging capacity. Even more surprising, the showing by KPMG, although evidently not linked to any lending capacity. This is proof that government advisory expertise goes a long way in emerging markets.

The other aspect of the results worth noting – for a leg up in advisory, a presence in equity provision is useful, although it does not, alas, allow for a place for Macquarie. But Babcock & Brown, which specialises in supplying its own, its funds' and others' equity to wind projects, gets a nod, and ABN Amro's infrastructure capital model, while controversial, has enabled it to build up market presence in PPP in several hot jurisdictions.

Lawyers and the lenders that love them

The results for the most highly-rated law firms followed more straightforward lines, and slightly favoured US over UK firms, at least in the top positions. This reflects a slight leaning in respondents' identities towards the Americas, and also possibly the impressive growth in Asia and Latin America, where US firms have a more competitive field. Middle Eastern deals have also featured sponsors that have been more likely to use US firms, producing the following results.

• Oil and Gas – White & Case came out on top, followed by Vinson & Elkins and then Linklaters
• Petrochemicals – White & Case came out on top, followed by Allen & Overy and then Milbank
• Power – Latham & Watkins came out on top, followed by Allen & Overy, Milbank and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
• Transport – No overall leader, but mentions for Latham & Watkins, A&O and Milbank
• Renewables – Milbank came out on top, followed by Uria and then A&O
• Utilities – Latham & Watkins came out on top, followed by A&O and then Norton Rose
• PFI/ PPP – Norton Rose and Clifford Chance came out on top, followed by Linklaters

White & Case's results in Oil & Gas and Petrochemicals reflect its presence in most of the significant Gulf financings, and relationships with both sponsors and lenders in the region. Vinson & Elkins, the archetypal Houston firm, and Linklaters, are runners up in oil and gas, while Milbank and A&O stay competitive in petrochemicals. In power, Latham & Allen & Overy take top honours.

Allen & Overy's achievement across sectors is notable – it snagged mentions in all but PPP and oil and gas. A more sustained presence in the US, on the scale of that achieved by Freshfields, would probably be enough to push it over in a few categories. Note, however, that one firm from outside the UK and US, Uria, has managed to get a mention on the back of activity in Spain's renewables sector. Not enough to topple Milbank, which it often seems, has grabbed one side of every deal in the US in the last 12 months, but a creditable showing.

From diagnosis to prognosis

Aside from choosing a nemesis or a faithful counsellor (the ratings agency competition was abandoned with S&P's opponents bleeding on the ropes), banks were asked to rate the things that looked like changing their business in the next twelve months. And PPP and its accounting did not really get a look in.

Oil prices dominate lenders' hopes for the coming year, either as a spur to more energy projects, as a boost to some countries treasuries, or as a harbinger of recession in the developed world. No other factor, not Basel, not Equator, not proposed International Accounting Standards Board changes, came close. In fact, of the above factors, only Basel 2's effect on the market was cited as a big force for change by more than half of respondents.

The results for some of the other predictions – the most popular likely debt products, most active sectors, and most attractive countries, are summarised below:

If respondents are to be believed, then capital markets activity will take a long time to take over from banks, perhaps unsurprisingly, given the constituency being sampled. More surprisingly, given how much Middle Eastern activity has dominated the rankings, is how little faith Islamic finance has in the market. This despite the Islamic houses' promise in taking over the some of the slack in the gulf. Strong showings, however, for hybrid and corporate debt products, which suggests that back to basics has not been taken completely literally at the project banks.

The sector breakdown has fewer surprises – oil and gas and transport will predominate, while utilities and power will show less promise. Renewables and PPP are, while headline sectors for institutions, not the mainstay sectors for their business. Only utilities/water scores over 40% as an area with a low level of interest. Given that this a priority sector for multilaterals and NGOs, this showing should be alarming.

Likewise the results for the regions of most interest. The Middle East, China and North America draw out the strongest interest, and Australia, South East Asia, Europe and Eastern Europe all show middling prospects. Russia, probably more as a vote of confidence in its oil reserves and its larger state-linked players than its stable business environment, also shows up strongly.

But Central America and Sub-Saharan Africa show up very poorly, the former probably only on the strength of Mexico's power and PPP programmes. Fully 70% of respondents rated the latter as a low priority, despite some activity out of South Africa and some solid oil and gas prospects elsewhere. The findings will not come as welcome news to those development institutions that view private capital as the means to a wholesale improvement in emerging markets infrastructure. But it shows that at lenders, with an eye on the bottom line, are moving with their heads, rather than their hearts.