If you’ve been around the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) long enough, you know that governance is one of those topics everyone agrees is important, but far fewer firms can clearly explain what good governance with the GIPS standards actually looks like day to day.
Most firms don’t fail at GIPS compliance because they misunderstand a technical requirement. They struggle because ownership is unclear, decisions are informal, or key knowledge lives in one person’s head. When that person leaves (or when the firm grows) things start to break.
So, let’s simplify this.
Below is a practical, real-world view of what good governance looks like when complying with the GIPS standards—not in theory, not in a policy document that no one reads, but in how well-run firms actually operate.
At its core, GIPS compliance exists to answer one question:
Can this firm consistently calculate, maintain, and present performance fairly and accurately—regardless of growth, staff changes, or market stress?
The GIPS standards are built on the principles of fair representation and full disclosure, but governance is what turns those principles into repeatable behavior. Good governance doesn’t mean more paperwork or compliance headaches. It means clear accountability, documented decisions, and controls that actually get used.
One of the most common governance risks we see is a “GIPS compliance department of one” where critical knowledge, decisions, and processes are concentrated with a single individual. While this can work in the short term, it creates challenges around continuity, oversight, and scalability as the firm grows or changes.
Good governance starts by clearly defining:
In practice, this often looks like:
When a firm isn’t large enough to support a formal committee, outsourcing to a GIPS compliance consultant or a provider of managed services can be an effective alternative. These individuals can help you design policies, create procedures, and essentially manage governance for you.
But even if you are big enough, having an independent third party on your GIPS compliance committee can provide an objective, well-informed perspective formed by experience across many firms and a deep understanding of what works well in practice.
Every GIPS compliant firm has GIPS standards policies and procedures (GIPS standards P&P). Well-governed firms actually use them.
Strong GIPS compliance governance means your GIPS standards P&P:
Think of your GIPS standards P&P as the firm’s operating manual for performance, not a static compliance artifact. If someone new joined your performance team tomorrow, they should be able to follow your policies and procedures to calculate performance and arrive at the same results. If not, governance needs work.
Good governance includes independent review, even if it’s internal.
In practice, this often means:
This is where governance protects firms from subtle but costly mistakes, especially those that show up during verification and increase complexity and scope of these engagements. In an ideal situation, these internal reviews should catch issues before they become problems.
As a provider of managed services, Longs Peak helps firms identify performance outliers, accounts that are breaking composite rules, and other data anomalies. This review significantly reduces the risk of erroneous data ending up in your performance and later caught in verification. If you are not able to do this internally, we strongly recommend outsourcing this effort.
One area that has been increasingly important is the intersection of GIPS compliance, the SEC marketing rule, and how you manage the distribution of marketing materials.
Well-governed firms:
This alignment helps firms avoid inconsistencies between factsheets, pitchbooks, and GIPS Reports—one of the fastest ways to lose credibility with prospects and regulators.
Some clients prefer not to mention GIPS compliance at all in their marketing (i.e., on their factsheets and pitchbooks) until a client is clearly interested in one of their strategies. Once they meet the definition of a prospect (as outlined in your GIPS standards P&P), it triggers the requirement to send a GIPS Report and they find this smaller list of prospects easier to maintain. For others, having everything in one document including required GIPS compliance information and disclosures is easier to manage than separate documents.
There is no “right” way to manage this, but in either case, having a clear process for tracking and reporting performance errors is key.
Here’s a subtle but critical point: Good governance for your GIPS compliance program documents decisions, not just outcomes.
Why was that composite redefined?
Why was this benchmark changed?
Why was this model fee selected?
Strong governance creates an audit trail that:
This is especially valuable when firms grow, merge, or experience turnover. Clear documentation allows others to step in seamlessly and continue critical functions without disruption. More importantly, it enables independent parties, such as a regulator or your verifier, to understand, assess, and validate how you are calculating and presenting performance that may not be immediately intuitive.
The best-governed firms don’t “set and forget” their GIPS compliance program. They revisit governance when:
In other words, governance evolves with the business—because performance reporting doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Even for firms that are not regularly launching new strategies, changing systems or structure, an annual review of your GIPS compliance program and governance framework is critical. This review helps confirm that practices have remained consistent, while also providing an opportunity to reflect on whether you are satisfied with your verifier, assess whether new regulations require updates, and reconsider how composites are managed or described.
The best time to do this is at year-end so that if you decide something should be changed, you can do that proactively for the upcoming year, rather than having to fix it retroactively.
When GIPS compliance governance is working well, firms experience:
Most importantly, it creates trust internally and externally. Good GIPS compliance governance isn’t about being perfect. It’s about being intentional.
Clear ownership. Thoughtful documentation. Real oversight. Those are the firms that don’t just claim compliance, they live it.
In most investment firms, performance calculation is treated like a math problem: get the numbers right, double-check the formulas, and move on. And to be clear—that part matters. A lot.
But here’s the truth many firms eventually discover: perfectly calculated performance can still be poorly communicated.
And when that happens, clients don’t gain confidence. Consultants don’t “get” the strategy. Prospects walk away unconvinced. Not because the returns were wrong—but because the story was missing.
Performance calculation is about precision. Performance communication is about understanding.
The two overlap, but they are not the same skill set.
You can calculate a composite’s time-weighted return flawlessly, in line with the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®), using best-in-class methodologies. Yet if the only thing your audience walks away with is “we beat the benchmark,” you’ve left most of the value on the table.
This gap shows up all the time:
The math is necessary. It’s just not sufficient.
Returns tell us what happened. Clients want to know why it happened—and whether it’s likely to happen again.
That’s where communication comes in. Good performance communication connects returns to:
This is exactly why performance evaluation doesn’t stop at returns in the CFA Institute’s CIPM curriculum. Measurement, attribution, and appraisal are distinct steps fora reason—each adds context that raw performance alone cannot provide. Without that context, returns become just numbers on a page.
The GIPS Standards exist to ensure performance is fairly represented and fully disclosed. They do an excellent job of standardizing how performance is calculated and what must be presented. But GIPS compliance doesn’t automatically make performance meaningful to the reader.
A GIPS Report answers questions like:
It does not answer:
That’s not a flaw in the standards, it’s a reminder that communication sits on top of compliance, not inside it.
One of the most common communication missteps is overloading clients with risk statistics without explaining what they actually mean or how they can be used to assess the active decisions made in your investment process.
Sharpe ratios, capture ratios, alpha, beta—they’re powerful information. But without interpretation, they’re just numbers.
For example:
This is where performance communication turns data into insight—connecting risk statistics back to portfolio construction and decision-making. Too often, managers select statistics because they look good or because they’ve seen them used elsewhere, rather than because they align with their investment process and demonstrate how their active decisions add value. The most effective communicators use risk statistics intentionally, in the context of what they are trying to deliver to the investor.
We often see firms change the statistics show Your most powerful story may come from when your statistics show you’ve missed the mark. Explaining why and how you are correcting course demonstrates discipline, self-awareness and control.
Before you dive into risk statistics, every manager should be asking themselves about their audience. This is where performance communication becomes strategic. Who are you actually talking to? The right performance story depends entirely on your target audience.
Institutional clients and consultants often expect:
They want to understand process, discipline, and risk control. Performance data must be presented with precision and context –grounded in methodology, repeatability and portfolio role. Often, GIPS compliance is a must. Speaking their language builds credibility and demonstrates that you respect the rigor of their decision-making process. It shows that you understand how they evaluate managers and that you are prepared to stand behind your process.
Many individual investors don’t care about alpha or capture ratios in isolation. What they really want to know is:
For this audience, the same performance data must be framed differently—around goals, outcomes, and peace of mind. Sharing how you track and report on these goals in your communication goes a long way in building trust. It signals that you are committed to their goals and will hold yourself accountable to them. It reassures them that you are not just managing money, you’re protecting the lifestyle they are building.
Keep in mind that cultural differences also shape expectations. For example, US-based investors are primarily results oriented, while investors in Japan often expect deeper transparency into the process and inputs, wanting to understand and validate how those results were achieved.
The mistake many firms make is assuming one performance narrative works for everyone. It doesn’t. Effective communication adapts:
The goal isn’t to simplify the truth, it’s to translate it to ensure it resonates with the person on the other side of the table.
Strong performance communication does three things well:
This doesn’t mean dumbing anything down. It means respecting the audience enough to guide them through the data.
Performance calculation earns you a seat at the table.
Performance communication earns trust.
Firms that master both don’t just report results—they help clients understand them, evaluate them, and believe in them.
In an industry where numbers are everywhere, clarity is often the true differentiator.
The 29th Annual Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) Conference was held November 11–12, 2025, at the Sheraton Grand at Wild Horse Pass in Phoenix, Arizona—a beautiful desert resort and an ideal setting for two days of discussions on performance reporting, regulatory expectations, and practical implementation challenges. With no updates released to the GIPS standards this year, much of the content focused on application, interpretation, and the broader reporting and regulatory environment that surrounds the standards.
One of the few topics directly tied to GIPS compliance with a near-term impact relates to OCIO portfolios. Beginning with performance presentations that include periods through December 31, 2025, GIPS compliant firms with OCIO composites must present performance following a newly prescribed, standardized format. We published a high-level overview of these requirements previously.
The conference also covered related topics such as the SEC Marketing Rule, private fund reporting expectations, SEC exam trends, ethical challenges, and methodology consistency. Below are the themes and observations most relevant for firms today.
Speakers emphasized that while no new GIPS standards updates were introduced this year, expectations for consistent, well-documented implementation continue to rise. Many attendee questions highlighted that challenges often stem more from inconsistent application or interpretation than from unclear requirements.
Several audience members also asked whether a “GIPS 2030” rewrite might be coming, similar to the major updates in 2010 and 2020. The CFA Institute and GIPS Technical Committee noted that:
· No new version of the standards is currently in development,
· A long-term review cycle is expected in the coming years, and
· A future update is possible later this decade as the committee evaluates whether changes are warranted.
For now, the standards remain stable—giving firms a window to refine methodologies, tighten policies, and align practices across teams.
The Marketing Rule featured prominently again this year, and presenters emphasized a familiar theme: firms must apply performance methodologies consistently when private fund results appear in advertising materials.
Importantly, these expectations do not come from prescriptive formulas within the rule. They stem from:
1. The “fair and balanced” requirement,
2. The Adopting Release, and
3. SEC exam findings that view inconsistent methodology as potentially misleading.
Common issues raised included: presenting investment-level gross IRR alongside fund-level net IRR without explanation, treating subscription line financing differently in gross vs. net IRR, and inconsistently switching methodology across decks, funds, or periods.
To help firms void these pitfalls, speakers highlighted several expectations:
· Clearly identify whether IRR is calculated at the investment level or fund level.
· Use the same level of calculation for both gross and net IRR unless a clear, disclosed rationale exists.
· Apply subscription line impacts consistently across both gross and net.
· Label fund-level gross IRR clearly, if used(including gross returns is optional).
· Ensure net IRR reflects all fees, expenses, and carried interest.
· Disclose any intentional methodological differences clearly and prominently.
· Document methodology choices in policies and apply them consistently across funds.
This remains one of the most frequently cited issues in SEC exam findings for private fund advisers. In short: the SEC does not mandate a specific methodology, but it does expect consistent, well-supported approaches that avoid misleading impressions.
Although no new regulatory requirements were announced, presenters made it clear that limited partners expect more transparency than ever before. The session included an overview of the updated ILPA reporting template along with additional information related to its implementation. Themes included:
· Clearer disclosure of fees and expenses,
· Standardized IRR and MOIC reporting,
· More detail around subscription line usage,
· Attribution and dispersion that are easy to interpret, and
· Alignment with ILPA reporting practices.
These are not formal requirements, but it’s clear the industry is moving toward more standardized and transparent reporting.
A recurring theme across the SEC exam sessions was the need for stronger alignment between what firms say in their policies and what they do in practice. Trends included:
· More detailed reviews of fee and expense calculations, especially for private funds,
· Larger sample requests for Marketing Rule materials,
· Increased emphasis on substantiation of all claims, and
· Close comparison of written procedures to actual workflows.
A particularly helpful part of the discussion focused on how firms should approach responding to SEC deficiency letters—something many advisers encounter at some point.
Christopher Mulligan, Partner at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, offered a framework that resonated with many attendees. He explained that while the deficiency letter is addressed to the firm by the exam staff, the exam staff is not the primary audience when drafting the response.
The correct priority order is:
Enforcement should be able to read your response and quickly understand that: you fully grasp the issue, you have corrected or are correcting it, and nothing in the finding merits escalation.
Your first objective is to eliminate any concern that the issue rises to an enforcement matter.
Many allocators now request historical deficiency letters and responses during due diligence. The way the response is written—its tone, clarity, and thoroughness—can meaningfully influence how a firm is perceived.
A well-written response shows strong controls and a culture that takes compliance seriously.
Although examiners issued the letter, they are the third audience. Their primary interest is acknowledgment and a clear explanation of the remediation steps.
Mulligan emphasized that firms often default to writing the response as if exam staff were the only audience. Reframing the response to keep the first two audiences in mind—enforcement and prospective clients—helps ensure the tone, clarity, and level of detail are appropriate and reduces both regulatory and reputational risk.
With no changes to the GIPS standards introduced this year, the 2025 conference in Phoenix served as a reminder that the real challenges involve consistency, documentation, and communication. OCIO providers in particular should be preparing for the upcoming effective date, and private fund managers continue to face rising expectations around transparent, well-supported performance reporting.
Across all sessions, a common theme emerged: clear methodology and strong internal processes are becoming just as important as the performance results themselves.
This is exactly where Longs Peak focuses its work. Our team specializes in helping firms document and implement practical, well-controlled investment performance frameworks—from IRR methodologies and composite construction to Marketing Rule compliance, fee and expense controls, and preparing for GIPS standards verification. We take the technical complexity and turn it into clear, operational processes that withstand both client due diligence and regulatory scrutiny.
If you’d like to discuss how we can help strengthen your performance reporting or compliance program, we’d be happy to talk. Contact us.
Longs Peak’s services provide value to both investment firms and asset owners, whether they aim to present performance externally or analyze it for internal decision-making. While many organizations rely on Longs Peak to calculate and present investment performance, those not focused on external reporting can leverage our expertise for internal performance analysis. This analysis serves as a powerful feedback loop—helping firms assess strategy implementation, measure progress toward organizational goals, and even inform portfolio manager compensation decisions.
GIPS compliance is the gold standard for ethical and transparent investment performance reporting. It ensures that investment managers and asset owners calculate and present performance consistently, giving prospective clients the confidence to make meaningful, apples-to-apples comparisons across GIPS-compliant organizations managing similar strategies. By adhering to GIPS, organizations demonstrate their commitment to integrity, transparency, and industry best practices.
Longs Peak specializes in guiding investment firms and asset owners through GIPS compliance—from initial implementation to ongoing maintenance. Unlike verification firms, we are not required to remain independent from our clients, allowing us to take a hands-on approach in drafting policies and procedures, calculating performance, constructing composites, and creating GIPS reports. For firms seeking verification, we also streamline the process by managing all aspects of verification preparation and coordination.
Each engagement is designed to meet your organization’s specific needs. Please contact us here to set up an introductory call to discuss how we can help.
Absolutely! We are available to calculate performance and update reporting materials at whatever frequency meets the needs of your organization.
Please click here to submit a request for us to contact you or you can email us at hello@longspeakadvisory.com. We can also be reached by phone at +1 720.759-4401.
Verifiers must remain independent, which limits how much hands-on support they can provide. While they can offer templates and general guidance, they can’t do the work for you. That’s where Longs Peak comes in. We partner with you to write policies and procedures, calculate performance, and create compliant disclosure reports—handling the details your verifier can’t—so you can stay focused on your investment responsibilities with confidence that your materials are accurate and complete. In addition, it’s the firm’s responsibility—not the verifier’s—to ensure independence is maintained. Keep that in mind as you consider who you want to assist with your GIPS or performance project.
