How to Survive a GIPS Verification Part 2: Kick-off and Initial Data Request

Matt Deatherage, CFA, CIPM
Partner
August 31, 2021
15 min
How to Survive a GIPS Verification Part 2: Kick-off and Initial Data Request

This article is part two of a three-part series on how to survive a GIPS verification. If you haven’t had a chance to read part one, we recommend going back and reading the first part of this series, which covers tips and tricks for setting up your verification for success. In this article, we cover recommendations for kicking off the verification and then provide some context around responding to the initial request made by the verifier. Understanding what the verifier is requesting and why they need it will help streamline the response and allow you to send only the information that is necessary.

Kicking off the Verification

Many firms are eager to quickly get through their verification. One way to help promote efficiency is to schedule a call with your verifier before they even send their initial request. The kick-off call will help ensure everyone is on the same page – especially if it is your first verification or if your firm and strategies have changed since the last verification was completed. For first-time verifications, this time should be used to communicate unique aspects of your firm, discuss the timeline, and introduce key members of your project team.

Most verifications are completed annually. A lot can change over the course of a year that may impact your compliance with the GIPS standards. The kickoff call will initiate these discussions at the onset so surprises don’t delay your ability to complete the verification. The following are some items to consider discussing during a kick off call:

  • Any changes to the definition of your firm for GIPS purposes – such as acquisitions, mergers, portfolios moving to/from model-based platforms (e.g., UMA)
  • Any new or closed composites or pooled funds
  • Any material changes to your GIPS policies and procedures
  • Any personnel changes at the firm – especially with individuals that are involved in the verification project
  • Any upcoming deadlines that impact the timing of the verification

What to expect with the Initial Data Request

Once all parties are ready to begin the verification, your verifier will provide their initial data request, which lists all items the verifier needs to get the verification process started. After these items are received and reviewed, additional samples will be requested for the verifier to complete more detailed testing. These follow-up testing items are discussed in part three of this series. The most common items requested in this initial data request include:

  • GIPS Policies & Procedures
  • List of Composites and/or Pooled Funds
  • Portfolio and Composite Performance
  • Composite Membership Change List
  • Assets Under Management (“AUM”) Report
  • List of Non-Discretionary Portfolios
  • GIPS Reports
  • GIPS Report Distribution Log
  • Marketing Materials
  • CFA Notification Form
  • Other miscellaneous items such as (where applicable):
    • Regulatory Correspondence
    • Changes to your Portfolio Accounting System
    • Error(s) Since the Last Verification
    • Incentive Fees Charged

The following sections discuss each of these commonly requested items in more detail.

Policies and Procedures

GIPS policies and procedures are one of the most important documents the verifier needs to get the verification started. The end goal of verification is the opinion letter that attests to “whether the firm's policies and procedures related to composite and pooled fund maintenance, as well as the calculation, presentation, and distribution of performance, have been designed in compliance with the GIPS standards and have been implemented on a firm-wide basis.”

In other words, your firm’s GIPS policies and procedures document is used throughout the verification process to ensure that the policies and procedures are 1) adequate and 2) have been applied consistently across your firm. Your verifier will use your GIPS policies and procedures as the backbone for the entire project, and as a guide for how to test various aspects of your firm’s GIPS compliance.

The GIPS standards offer flexibility in many areas and, therefore, not all firms use the exact same calculation methodology, definition of discretion, timing for composite inclusion/exclusion, etc. Because of this, it is critical for the verifier to have a strong understanding of how these policies and procedures are applied at your firm.

If changes are made to composite policies, composite inclusion rules, or if a calculation methodology changed because of a conversion to a new portfolio accounting system, etc., it is essential that these changes are clearly recorded in the policies and procedures document before the verification begins. If the document is not kept up-to-date, the verifier will find inconsistencies between the policy documentation and the actual practices of your firm. This will stall the verification process.

List of Composites and/or Pooled Funds

If not already included in your GIPS policies and procedures, the verifier will request a current list of all active pooled funds and composites, including any composites that have terminated within the last five years.

This list commonly includes composite or pooled-fund-specific policies. This is an important piece of information to help the verifier understand what policies are applied to a given composite/pooled fund and ensure that they are selecting a meaningful sample.

Based on this list, a sample of composites/pooled funds will be selected for more detailed testing. This testing generally includes the recalculation of performance results presented in the corresponding GIPS Reports. The verifier will use the rules and methodologies outlined in the GIPS Report and composite definitions to gain confidence that the policies were consistently applied.

It is important that any new composites/pooled funds are added to this list and any that are terminated are labelled as such. Since this impacts the sample selection for the testing, the verifier needs to have a fully updated list to avoid having to modify samples and change testing procedures later in the process.

Portfolio and Composite Performance

Based on your firm’s list of composites and pooled funds, the verifier will select a sample to review in more detail. Often, verifiers focus on the main marketed composites, but they will also rotate through others to ensure all are being maintained as described in your GIPS policies and procedures.

For the selected composites, most verifiers will have you provide monthly portfolio-level market values and returns as well as monthly composite returns. With this information they will reconstruct the composites using the rules and calculation methodology described in your GIPS policies and procedures. As they do this, they will focus on the following:

  1. Can they use the portfolio-level data to calculate the same composite returns you provided by following the calculation methodology outlined in your GIPS policies and procedures?
  2. If a composite has a minimum asset level or significant cash flow policy, do they see portfolios in the composite breaking these rules?
  3. How does the dispersion look on a monthly basis? Is it consistent month to month or are there months with large spikes? What outlier performers are driving this dispersion?

The information gleaned from this composite reconstruction and review drives the sample selection for the next phase of testing. Specifically, portfolios appearing to break established rules as well as a sample of performance outliers will be selected for further testing. These testing items are discussed in detail in part three of this three-part series.

Because the results of this initial screen drives the sample selected for further verification testing, it is important that the data is free of errors and has been constructed in a manner that is consistent with your documented policies. To gain comfort, a review of all portfolios should be conducted prior to providing the data to the verifier – either on your own or with the help of a GIPS consultant. These checks should confirm that:

  1. Policies such as minimum asset levels and significant cash flows have been applied consistently and in line with how they are described in your GIPS policies and procedures.
  2. Outlier performers within the composite are not caused by material, client-driven restrictions as defined in your firm’s definition of discretion.
  3. Any portfolios added or removed from the composites during the period were done so in a manner consistent with the rules outlined in your GIPS policies and procedures.
  4. There are no portfolios currently excluded from the composite that should have been included based on your firm’s GIPS policies and procedures.

If you do not have a way to test this internally, we strongly encourage you to reach out to Longs Peak for outlier testing. We can save you the headache of multiple rounds of testing with your verifier.

Composite Membership Change List

The Composite Membership Change List should include all portfolios entering or exiting your composites during the period under review. This is generally listed by composite and provides the portfolio name or number that entered or exited and the date of the change.

This list allows the verifier to select a sample of portfolios and test whether they are entering/exiting the correct composite at the correct time, based on your firm’s policies and procedures.

While the verifier is selecting only a sample of composites and/or pooled funds, they will likely want to gain an understanding for composite membership changes across the entire firm. Again, although the focus is primarily on portfolios within the selected sample described earlier, they may broaden their sample for this testing item. This is most common when there are material changes for composites not originally selected for testing or if the sample composites selected did not have enough changes to meet the sample size requirements set for your firm’s verification.

Beyond selecting samples, the verifier will also compare the composite membership changes on the list to the data provided to ensure they are in sync. They will do this comparison to ensure that any noted membership change is reflected in the performance data.

For example, if the Membership Change List documents that portfolio ABC exited the composite at the end of the month, but this change is not reflected in the raw performance data, the verifier will likely come back with questions.

Assets Under Management Report

Verifiers generally want to see an Assets Under Management Report that breaks the assets out by portfolio and clearly labels each portfolio as discretionary or non-discretionary and, if discretionary, what composite the portfolio is included in.

The verification is conducted at the firm level and this report will give the verifier a clear picture of the full scope of the GIPS firm. Specifically, it will help the verifier:

  1. Gain comfort that the total firm assets reported in the GIPS Reports is accurate
  2. Assess what percentage of the firm assets are discretionary versus non-discretionary
  3. Confirm if there is any risk of double counting assets (usually caused by portfolios included in more than one composite or segregated portfolios investing in pooled funds managed by the firm)
  4. Ensure none of the assets included appear to be advisory-only or model assets
  5. Test that composite assets match the assets in the supporting information provided as well as what is reported in the firm’s GIPS Reports
  6. Compare the total AUM to regulatory filings (such as your ADV) to ensure any material differences are understood and align with how the firm is defined for GIPS purposes

The verifier will likely test some of the assets in this report by selecting a sample of portfolios and requesting that independent support for the valuation be provided (e.g., custodial statements). Since a sample of these values will be tested for consistency with the GIPS Reports, it is important that this document is clean, accurate, and presented in a manner that is easy for the verifier to understand.

List of Non-Discretionary Portfolios

If the AUM Report has non-discretionary portfolios clearly labelled then this separate list may not be needed. Either way, it is best if each non-discretionary portfolio listed includes an explanation for why it is deemed non-discretionary for GIPS purposes. Including comments about why the portfolios are non-discretionary will help the verifier understand why each portfolio is excluded from the composites, and help ensure the testing goes smoothly.

Verifiers will select a sample of these portfolios to ensure there is a valid reason for them to be non-discretionary and excluded from your composites. It is important that this list is accurate and up-to-date so the verifier can select appropriate samples and test portfolios without finding errors in classification.

GIPS Reports

GIPS Reports act as your firm’s external representation of your GIPS compliance. Since you are required to provide GIPS Reports to prospective clients, verifiers will test that the presented statistics can be supported and that all required disclosures are included. It is important to have a quality control process in place to check that all required statistics and disclosures are included prior to distributing the GIPS Reports to prospects or verifiers. This checklist can be used to aid in this review.

If not already provided as part of other testing requests, the verifier will likely require that you provide support for the statistics presented. This may include support for:

  • Composite assets
  • Number of portfolios
  • Total firm assets
  • Composite returns
  • Benchmark returns
  • Composite dispersion
  • Composite external standard deviation
  • Benchmark external standard deviation
  • Percent bundled fee portfolios (if applicable)
  • Percent non-fee-paying portfolios (if applicable)
  • Any supplemental information presented (if applicable)

GIPS Report Distribution Log

The 2020 GIPS standards now require firms to demonstrate that they made every reasonable effort to provide GIPS Reports to their prospective clients. Additionally, verifiers are also required to test that the firms they verify have done this. Generally, this is achieved by documenting each distribution in a log that can be provided to the verifier. Some firms document this in their CRM while others log it in a spreadsheet (here's a sample). If doing this in a CRM, it is critical that a report can be exported to fulfill the request made by the verifier to confirm distribution. For more information on GIPS Report Distribution Logs, check out this article.

Marketing Materials

GIPS Reports are the only document that must be provided to prospective clients for GIPS purposes. However, your verifier is also likely to review your website and ask for a sample of other factsheets and pitchbooks – regardless of whether GIPS is mentioned in these materials. The purpose of this is to test that:

  • Wherever GIPS is mentioned, all required disclosures accompany your claim of compliance
  • The way you hold your firm out to the public is in sync with how your firm is defined for GIPS purposes
  • Information presented is not false, misleading, or contradictory to what has been presented in your firm’s GIPS Reports

If no marketing materials are available outside of the GIPS Reports, that is perfectly fine. A simple confirmation of this scenario will suffice for the verification.

CFA Notification Form

All GIPS compliant firms are required to file a form with CFA Institute notifying them of their claim of compliance with the GIPS standards. This is completed once the firm is ready to claim compliance for the first time and then must be repeated prior to June 30th each year.

Verifiers are required to confirm that this has been completed as part of their verification. This is generally tested by saving the confirmation email provided when completing the notification form and providing a copy of this confirmation to the verifier when requested. So, save those emails!

Miscellaneous GIPS Data Requests

Outside of the primary initial requests we have already discussed, the verifier may have some other miscellaneous items included in their initial data request. Most of these items help the verifier better understand your firm or ensure changes to policies and/or GIPS Reports are captured in the documents provided. The following are some common miscellaneous items we see verifiers request.

Regulatory Correspondence – The verifier may ask if your firm has had any recent regulatory correspondence other than standard filings. If you have had an examination resulting in a deficiency letter, they will want to review this letter as well as your response. The purpose of this is to help the verifier assess the risk of the engagement and to help them tailor their testing to risk areas already identified. This is especially important if any deficiencies resulted from your firm’s GIPS compliance or the calculation and presentation of investment performance.

Changes to the Portfolio Accounting System – If changes have been made to system settings since the last verification, especially if they impact calculation methodology, composite membership, etc., the verifier will want to know about it. This will help them ensure their testing is in sync with your actual current practices, documented policies, and disclosures in your GIPS Reports.

Errors Since the Last Verification – Unfortunately errors happen and verifiers want to know about them. They are not looking to penalize you for having errors, but rather need to confirm that the appropriate action was taken to rectify the error if/when it occurs. It is important that when errors arise, your firm consistently follows your firm’s error correction policy. It is also helpful to maintain an error log. Maintaining an error log will help your firm document changes to your GIPS Reports resulting from errors and actions taken to address them. Providing this log to the verifier will help demonstrate that your error correction policy was consistently applied.

Incentive Fees – Verifiers often ask if incentive or performance-based-fees were charged to any portfolios during the verification period. GIPS requires net-of-fee returns to be reduced by incentive fees. Thus, if your firm charges incentive fees and actual fees are used to calculate performance, your verifier will want to confirm that net-of-fee returns have been reduced by the incentive fee.

If model fees are used, your verifier will test to ensure that the model fee is high enough to result in net-of-fee returns that are equal to or lower than what the results would have been if actual investment management fees (including any incentive fees) had been used. If no incentive fees were charged, then simply notifying the verifier that this is not applicable for your firm is sufficient.

Verifier Independence – While this might not be a “request,” your firm is required to gain an understanding of your verifier’s policies and procedures to ensure they remain independent throughout the course of the verification project. If your verifier does not provide you with a copy of their independence statement at the start of the verification, you should be proactive and request it. Save this document to support that your firm meets this requirement and is aware of the steps your verifier takes to ensure they remain independent.

Prioritizing What You Provide

In a perfect world, every initial document requested by the verifier is available and ready to provide in your first data submission. However, that is rarely the case. If everything is not available right away, the question becomes – what do you prioritize to make sure the verification progresses forward? If you have to send the initial request in stages, we recommend focusing on requests that allow the verifier to select their portfolio-level samples.

Depending on the size of your firm and composites, the portfolio-level testing phase of the verification can have many follow up requests and typically is the most time-consuming part of the verification. Therefore, it is best to get that phase of the verification kicked off as soon as possible. The items that allow a verifier to select their portfolio-level testing samples include:

  1. GIPS Policies and Procedures
  2. Portfolio and Composite-Level data
  3. Membership Change List
  4. Non-Discretionary Portfolio List

The remainder of the initial request documents can be provided as they become available. They will be needed to complete the verification, but the above listed documents should be the first priority to allow the verifier to select their portfolio-level samples.

Conclusion

The documentation provided for the initial request helps set the stage for the next round of testing. The cleaner and more organized the initial data, the better off you will be for the rest of the verification. Providing clean data in this sense means that you are confident performance data and disclosures are error free and outliers have been reviewed and deemed appropriate. If the verifier is able to move through these initial documents efficiently, it will set you up for success for the remainder of the project.

For more information on verification testing, check out part three of this three-part series where we dive into portfolio-level testing. We’ll cover the types of documentation requested and help you understand what your verifier is looking for. If you have any questions about GIPS or investment performance, check out or website or reach out to matt@longspeakadvisory.com or sean@longspeakadvisory.com for more information.

Recommended Post

View All Articles

Performance reporting has two common pitfalls: it’s backward-looking, and it often stops at raw returns. A quarterly report might show whether a portfolio beat its benchmark, but it doesn’t always show why or whether the results are sustainable. By layering in risk-adjusted performance measures—and using them in a structured feedback loop—firms can move beyond reporting history to actively improving the future.

Why a Feedback Loop Matters

Clients, boards, and oversight committees want more than historical returns. They want to know whether:

·        performance was delivered consistently,

·        risk was managed responsibly, and

·        the process driving results is repeatable.

A feedback loop helps firms:

·        define expectations up front instead of rationalizing results after the fact,

·        monitor performance relative to objective appraisal measures,

·        diagnose whether results are consistent with the manager’s stated mandate, and

·        adjust course in real time so tomorrow’s outcomes improve.

With the right discipline, performance reporting shifts from a record of the past toa tool for shaping the future.

Step 1: Define the Measures in Advance

A useful feedback loop begins with clear definitions of success. Just as businesses set key performance indicators (KPIs) before evaluating outcomes, portfolio managers should define their performance and risk statistics in advance, along with expectations for how those measures should look if the strategy is working as intended.

One way to make this tangible is by creating a Performance Scorecard. The scorecard sets out pre-determined goals with specific targets for the chosen measures. At the end of the performance period, the manager completes the scorecard by comparing actual outcomes against those targets. This creates a clear, documented record of where the strategy succeeded and where it fell short.

Some of the most effective appraisal measures to include on a scorecard are:

·        Jensen’s Alpha: Did the manager generate returns beyond what would be expected for the level of market risk (beta) taken?

·        Sharpe Ratio: Were returns earned efficiently relative to volatility?

·        Max Drawdown: If the strategy claims downside protection, did the worst loss align with that promise?

·        Up- and Down-Market Capture Ratios: Did the strategy deliver the participation levels in up and down markets that were expected?

By setting these expectations up front in a scorecard, firms create a benchmark for accountability. After the performance period, results can be compared to those preset goals, and any shortfalls can be dissected to understand why they occurred.

Step 2: Create Accountability Through Reflection

This structured comparison between expected vs. actual results is the heart of the feedback loop.

If the Sharpe Ratio is lower than expected, was excess risk taken unintentionally? If the Downside Capture Ratio is higher than promised, did the strategy really offer the protection it claimed?

The key is not just to measure, but to reflect. Managers should ask:

·        Were deviations intentional or unintentional?

·        Were they the result of security selection, risk underestimation, or process drift?

·        Do changes need to be made to avoid repeating the same shortfall next period?

The scorecard provides a simple framework for this reflection, turning appraisal statistics into active learning tools rather than static reporting figures.

Step 3: Monitor, Diagnose, Adjust

With preset measures in place, the loop becomes an ongoing process:

1.     Review results against the expectations that were defined in advance.

2.     Flag deviations using alpha, Sharpe, drawdown, and capture ratios.

3.     Discuss root causes—intentional, structural, or concerning.

4.     Refine the investment process to avoid repeating the same shortcomings.

This approach ensures that managers don’t just record results—they use them to refine their craft. The scorecard becomes the record of this process, creating continuity over multiple periods.

Step 4: Apply the Feedback Loop Broadly

When applied consistently, appraisal measures—and the scorecards built around them—support more than internal evaluation. They can be used for:

·        Manager oversight: Boards and trustees see whether results matched stated goals.

·        Incentive design: Bonus structures tied to pre-defined risk-adjusted outcomes.

·        Governance and compliance: Demonstrating accountability with clear, documented processes.

How Longs Peak Can Help

At Longs Peak, we help firms move beyond static reporting by building feedback loops rooted in performance appraisal. We:

·        Define meaningful performance and risk measures tailored to each strategy.

·        Help managers set pre-determined expectations for those measures and build them into a scorecard.

·        Calculate and interpret statistics such as alpha, Sharpe, drawdowns, and capture ratios.

·        Facilitate reflection sessions so results are compared to goals and lessons are turned into process improvements.

·        Provide governance support to ensure documentation and accountability.

The result is a sustainable process that keeps strategies aligned, disciplined, and credible.

Closing Thought

Markets will always fluctuate. But firms that treat performance as a feedback loop—nota static report—build resilience, discipline, and trust.

A well-structured scorecard ensures that performance data isn’t just about yesterday’s story. When used as feedback, it becomes a roadmap for tomorrow.

Need help creating a Performance Scorecard? Reach out if you want us to help you create more accountability today!

When you're responsible for overseeing the performance of an endowment or public pension fund, one of the most critical tools at your disposal is the benchmark. But not just any benchmark—a meaningful one, designed with intention and aligned with your Investment Policy Statement(IPS). Benchmarks aren’t just numbers to report alongside returns; they represent the performance your total fund should have delivered if your strategic targets were passively implemented.

And yet, many asset owners still find themselves working with benchmarks that don’t quite match their objectives—either too generic, too simplified, or misaligned with how the total fund is structured. Let’s walkthrough how to build more effective benchmarks that reflect your IPS and support better performance oversight.

Start with the Policy: Your IPS Should Guide Benchmark Construction

Your IPS is more than a governance document—it is the road map that sets strategic asset allocation targets for the fund. Whether you're allocating 50% to public equity or 15% to private equity, each target signals an intentional risk/return decision. Your benchmark should be built to evaluate how well each segment of the total fund performed.

The key is to assign a benchmark to each asset class and sub-asset class listed in your IPS. This allows for layered performance analysis—at the individual sub-asset class level (such as large cap public equity), at the broader asset class level (like total public equity), and ultimately rolled up at the Total Fund level. When benchmarks reflect the same weights and structure as the strategic targets in your IPS, you can assess how tactical shifts in weights and active management within each segment are adding or detracting value.

Use Trusted Public Indexes for Liquid Assets

For traditional, liquid assets—like public equities and fixed income—benchmarking is straightforward. Widely recognized indexes like the S&P 500, MSCI ACWI, or Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index are generally appropriate and provide a reasonable passive alternative against which to measure active strategies managed using a similar pool of investments as the index.

These benchmarks are also calculated using time-weighted returns (TWR), which strip out the impact of cash flows—ideal for evaluating manager skill. When each component of your total fund has a TWR-based benchmark, they can all be rolled up into a total fund benchmark with consistency and clarity.

Think Beyond the Index for Private Markets

Where benchmarking gets tricky is in illiquid or asset classes like private equity, real estate, or private credit. These don’t have public market indexes since they are private market investments, so you need a proxy that still supports a fair evaluation.

Some organizations use a peer group as the benchmark, but another approach is to use an annualized public market index plus a premium. For example, you might use the 7-year annualized return of the Russell 2000(lagged by 3 months) plus a 3% premium to account for illiquidity and risk.

Using the 7-year average rather than the current period return removes the public market volatility for the period that may not be as relevant for the private market comparison. The 3-month lag is used if your private asset valuations are updated when received rather than posted back to the valuation date. The purpose of the 3% premium (or whatever you decide is appropriate) is to account for the excess return you expect to receive from private investments above public markets to make the liquidity risk worthwhile.

By building in this hurdle, you create a reasonable, transparent benchmark that enables your board to ask: Is our private markets portfolio delivering enough excess return to justify the added risk and reduced liquidity?

Roll It All Up: Aggregated Benchmarks for Total Fund Oversight

Once you have individual benchmarks for each segment of the total fund, the next step is to aggregate them—using the strategic asset allocation weights from your IPS—to form a custom blended total fund benchmark.

This approach provides several advantages:

  • You can evaluate performance at both the micro (asset class) and macro (total fund) level.
  • You gain insight into where active management is adding value—and where it isn’t.
  • You ensure alignment between your strategic policy decisions and how performance is being measured.

For example, if your IPS targets 50% to public equities split among large-, mid-, and small-cap stocks, you can create a blended equity benchmark that reflects those sub-asset class allocations, and then roll it up into your total fund benchmark. Rebalancing of the blends should match there balancing frequency of the total fund.

What If There's No Market Benchmark?

In some cases, especially for highly customized or opportunistic strategies like hedge funds, there simply may not be a meaningful market index to use as a benchmark. In these cases, it is important to consider what hurdle would indicate success for this segment of the total fund. Examples of what some asset owners use include:

  • CPI + Premium – a simple inflation-based hurdle
  • Absolute return targets – such as a flat 7% annually
  • Total Fund return for the asset class – not helpful for evaluating the performance of this segment, but still useful for aggregation to create the total fund benchmark

While these aren’t perfect, they still serve an important function: they allow performance to be rolled into a total fund benchmark, even if the asset class itself is difficult to benchmark directly.

The Bottom Line: Better Benchmarks, Better Oversight

For public pension boards and endowment committees, benchmarks are essential for effective fiduciary oversight. A well-designed benchmark framework:

  • Reflects your strategic intent
  • Provides fair, consistent measurement of manager performance
  • Supports clear communication with stakeholders

At Longs Peak Advisory Services, we’ve worked with asset owners around the globe to develop custom benchmarking frameworks that align with their policies and support meaningful performance evaluation. If you’re unsure whether your current benchmarks are doing your IPS justice, we’re hereto help you refine them.

Want to dig deeper? Let’s talk about how to tailor a benchmark framework that’s right for your total fund—and your fiduciary responsibilities. Reach out to us today.

Valuation Timing for Illiquid Investments
Explore how firms & asset owners can balance accuracy & timeliness in performance reporting for illiquid investments.
June 23, 2025
15 min

For asset owners and investment firms managing private equity, real estate, or other illiquid assets, one of the most persistent challenges in performance reporting is determining the right approach to valuation timing. Accurate performance results are essential, but delays in receiving valuations can create friction with timely reporting goals. How can firms strike the right balance?

At Longs Peak Advisory Services, we’ve worked with hundreds of investment firms and asset owners globally to help them present meaningful, transparent performance results. When it comes to illiquid investments, the trade-offs and decisions surrounding valuation timing can have a significant impact—not just on performance accuracy, but also on how trustworthy and comparable the results appear to stakeholders.

Why Valuation Timing Matters

Illiquid investments are inherently different from their liquid counterparts. While publicly traded securities can be valued in real-time with market prices, private equity and real estate investments often report with a delay—sometimes months after quarter-end.

This delay creates a reporting dilemma: Should firms wait for final valuations to ensure accurate performance, or should they push ahead with estimates or lagged valuations to meet internal or external deadlines?

It’s a familiar struggle for investment teams and performance professionals. On one hand, accuracy supports sound decision-making and stakeholder trust. On the other, reporting delays can hinder communication with boards, consultants, and beneficiaries—particularly for asset owners like endowments and public pension plans that follow strict reporting cycles.

Common Approaches to Delayed Valuations

For strategies involving private equity, real estate, or other illiquid holdings, receiving valuations weeks—or even months—after quarter-end is the norm rather than the exception. To deal with this lag, investment organizations typically adopt one of two approaches to incorporate valuations into performance reporting: backdating valuations or lagging valuations. Each has benefits and drawbacks, and the choice between them often comes down to a trade-off between accuracy and timeliness.

1. Backdating Valuations

In the backdating approach, once a valuation is received—say, a March 31 valuation that arrives in mid-June—it is recorded as of March 31, the actual valuation date. This ensures that performance reports reflect economic activity during the appropriate time period, regardless of when the data became available.

Pros:
  • Accuracy: Provides the most accurate snapshot of asset values and portfolio performance for the period being reported.
  • Integrity: Maintains alignment between valuation dates and the underlying activity in the portfolio, which is particularly important for internal analysis or for investment committees wanting to evaluate manager decisions during specific market environments.
Cons:
  • Delayed Reporting: Final performance for the quarter may be delayed by 4–6 weeks or more, depending on how long it takes to receive valuations.
  • Stakeholder Frustration: Boards, consultants, and beneficiaries may grow  frustrated if they cannot access updated reports in a timely manner, especially if performance data is tied to compensation decisions, audit     deadlines, or public disclosures.

When It's Useful:
  • When transparency and accuracy are prioritized over speed—e.g., in annual audited performance reports or regulatory filings.
  • For internal purposes where precise attribution and alignment with economic events are critical, such as evaluating decision-making during periods of market volatility.

2. Lagged Valuations

With the lagged approach, firms recognize delayed valuations in the subsequent reporting period. Using the same example: if the March 31valuation is received in June, it is instead recorded as of June 30. In this case, the performance effect of the Q1 activity is pushed into Q2’sreporting.

Pros:
  • Faster Reporting: Performance reports can be completed shortly after quarter-end, meeting board, stakeholder, and regulatory timelines.
  • Operational Efficiency: Teams aren’t held up by a few delayed valuations, allowing them to close the books and move on to other tasks.

Cons:
  • Reduced Accuracy: Performance reported for Q2 includes valuation changes that actually occurred in Q1, misaligning performance with the period in which it was earned.
  • Misinterpretation Risk: If users are unaware of the lag, they may misattribute results to the wrong quarter, leading to flawed conclusions about manager skill or market behavior.

When It's Useful:
  • When quarterly reporting deadlines must be met (e.g., trustee meetings, consultant updates).
  • In environments where consistency and speed are prioritized, and the lag can be adequately disclosed and understood by users.

Choosing the Right Approach (and Sticking with It)

Both approaches are acceptable from a compliance and reporting perspective. However, the key lies in consistency.

Once an organization adopts an approach—whether back dating or lagging—it should be applied across all periods, portfolios, and asset classes. Inconsistent application opens the door to performance manipulation(or the appearance of it), where results might look better simply because a valuation was timed differently.

This kind of inconsistency can erode trust with boards, auditors and other stakeholders. Worse, it could raise red flags in a regulatory review or third-party verification.

Disclose, Disclose, Disclose

Regardless of the method you use, full transparency in reporting is essential. If you’re lagging valuations by a quarter, clearly state that in your disclosures. If you change methodologies at any point—perhaps transitioning from lagged to backdated—explain when and why that change occurred.

Clear disclosures help users of your reports—whether board members, beneficiaries, auditors, or consultants—understand how performance was calculated. It allows them to assess the results in context and make informed decisions based on the data.

Aligning Benchmarks with Valuation Timing

One important detail that’s often overlooked: your benchmark data should follow the same valuation timing as your portfolio.

If your private equity or real estate portfolio is lagged by a quarter, but your benchmark is not, your performance comparison becomes flawed. The timing mismatch can mislead stakeholders into believing the strategy outperformed or underperformed, simply due to misaligned reporting periods.

To ensure a fair and meaningful comparison, always apply your valuation timing method consistently across both your portfolio and benchmark data.

Building Trust Through Transparency

Valuation timing is a technical, often behind-the-scenes issue—but it plays a crucial role in how your investment results are perceived. Boards and stakeholders rely on accurate, timely, and understandable performance reporting to make decisions that impact beneficiaries, employees, and communities.

By taking the time to document your valuation policy, apply it consistently, and disclose it clearly, you are reinforcing your organization’s commitment to integrity and transparency. And in a world where scrutiny of investment performance is only increasing, that commitment can be just as valuable as the numbers themselves.

Need help defining your valuation timing policy or aligning performance reporting practices with industry standards?

Longs Peak Advisory Services specializes in helping investment firms and asset owners simplify their performance processes, maintain compliance, and build trust through transparent reporting. Contact us to learn how we can support your team.