How to Survive a Verification Part 3: Verification Testing

Sean P. Gilligan, CFA, CPA, CIPM
Managing Partner
April 18, 2022
15 min
How to Survive a Verification Part 3: Verification Testing

This article is part three of a three-part series on how to survive a GIPS verification. If you haven’t had a chance to read parts one and two, we recommend reading those first. The first part covers tips and tricks for setting up your verification for success. The second part covers recommendations for kicking off the verification and provides context about the initial data requests made by the verifier.

In this article, we describe how to get through the actual verification testing, which tends to be the most time-consuming aspect of a GIPS verification. Specifically, we discuss how the testing sample is determined and then dive into the details of each major testing area. Plus, we include advice to help you determine what to provide to satisfy the verifier’s requests.

How the Testing Sample is Determined

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.”

At this stage, the verifier has already reviewed your firm’s GIPS policies and procedures and likely confirmed that they have been adequately designed. The focus now is on whether these policies have “been implemented on a firm-wide basis.”

To test this, a sample must be selected. The size of the sample depends primarily on three things:

  1. The number of portfolios managed
  2. The number of composites maintained  
  3. The verifier’s risk assessment of your firm

If you have had many errors in prior verifications or if your initial data provided to kick-off the verification had errors, the risk assessment will be high and the sample selection will likely be larger than average.

With that in mind, it is always a good idea to do your own review of your firm’s policies and procedures and data prior to providing anything to the verification firm. Even if issues were identified in the past, starting this pre-review now can help the current verification go faster and with less errors, potentially lowering the risk assessment and sample size for future verification periods.

What to expect with the Verification Testing Request

All verification firms are different in how they structure their testing process. They may have different names for the types of testing they do, but the main purpose is the same. The most typical types of testing include:

  • Membership Testing
    • Entry Testing
    • Exit Testing
    • Outlier Testing
  • Non-Discretionary Testing
  • Return and Market Value Testing

Before diving into pulling and providing the requested documents, it is important to review the full request to ensure you are clear on what the verifier is trying to confirm. When not sure what to provide, it may be helpful to have a call with the verifier to discuss what is available. Knowing exactly what the verifier is trying to prove out makes it much easier to provide meaningful support. Blindly providing documents that may not tell the full story of what’s happening with the selected portfolio may lead to more questions/follow up.

Keep in mind that, the verifier prefers reviewing the most independent information available. For example, a contract signed by the client is typically preferred over an internal memo, but signed documentation from the client is not always available. To give you an idea of how to determine what to provide, below is a hierarchy of the preferred support:

  1. Dated Correspondence Written or Signed by Client that Supports the Selected Testing Item
    • Contract and/or investment guidelines
    • Signed Investment Policy Statement
    • Termination letter
    • Email written by the client
  2. Dated Notes Written by your Firm at the Time the Selected Testing Item Occurred
    • Email from your firm to the client
    • Email sent internally documenting the issue selected for testing
    • CRM notes written by your firm
    • Memo written by your firm saved to the client’s file
  3. Written Explanation Created by Your Firm Now
    • A memo can be written now documenting support for the selected testing item. This is only acceptable if the person writing the memo has knowledge of the issue that can be documented to support the testing (e.g., a recollection of a verbal request from the client that was never documented) and if the other items above are not available. This should only be used in rare occasions as a last resort.

The following sections discuss each of the most common testing areas in more detail.

The purpose of membership testing is to confirm that portfolios are included in the correct composite for the correct time period, as determined by your firm’s GIPS policies and procedures. It is important to remember that any movement in and out of composites should always tie back to policies outlined in your firm’s GIPS policies and procedures and should not be made based on discretionary changes to a portfolio made by the portfolio manager. For the GIPS standards, the consistent application of policies is key!

Membership Testing

Entry Testing

The purpose of entry testing is to confirm that your firm has consistently followed your stated membership policies and procedures for including portfolios in composites. The verifier’s testing approach is adjusted to match your documented policies and procedures for portfolios entering a composite. Portfolio inclusion is typically triggered due to one of the following reasons:

  1. New portfolio opened
  2. Portfolio increased in size and now meets the minimum asset level of the composite
  3. Material restriction was removed from the portfolio
  4. Re-inclusion of a portfolio following a significant cash flow

When pulling supporting documents for the verifier, it is important to consider the reason the portfolio entered (or re-entered) the composite. When providing supporting documents, make sure the documents demonstrate the reason for inclusion and provide additional written commentary when necessary to help the verifier gain a full understanding of the situation. This will speed up the verification process as it will cut down on the need for follow-up questions.

In testing that your firm has consistently followed your stated membership policies and procedures for including portfolios in composites, the verifier is primarily focused on the timing and placement of portfolios entering a composite. Testing timing involves the verifier confirming your stated policy is being followed in terms of when the portfolio should enter the composite. Testing placement involves the verifier confirming that the portfolio is added to a composite that aligns with the portfolio’s investment objective.

To confirm the timing of a new portfolio’s inclusion, the verifier typically requests several documents, most commonly the account’s transaction summary and contract. The transaction summary provides information about when the new portfolio was funded, and when the portfolio manager started investing in discretionary assets. The contract is used to assess when the discretionary contract was signed by your client and ensure the timeline makes sense.

Placement can be a bit more complicated in terms of support. The verifier typically requests several standard documents to support the placement. This is not an all-inclusive list, but items requested to support placement can include contracts, investment policy statements, portfolio holdings, fee schedules, client correspondence, CRM system notes, and/or internal memos.

Exit Testing

Opposite of entry testing, exit testing is the verifier’s testing of portfolios that leave a composite. Before diving into the documents your verifier may request, it’s best to figure out why the selected portfolio is exiting the composite. This background knowledge will help you focus on the type of documentation to provide your verifier.

Because portfolios selected for exit testing are not joining a composite, there is no placement considerations in this testing like there is for entry testing. Therefore, exit testing focuses on the timing of a portfolio’s removal from the composite and ensuring the reason for removal is valid. Whether the account lost discretion, terminated, changed its mandate, or violated a composite-specific policy, the verifier will be looking to test the timing of the event.

The most common types of documentation that can support the removal include updated contracts, client correspondence, internal memos, and transaction summaries. The transaction summary will show the true timing of the change to the portfolio, but when discretion is lost or a mandate is changed the verifier will also be looking for support that this change was client driven, which cannot be supported by a transaction summary alone.

It is important to note that unless a composite is redefined or a composite policy is broken (such as the portfolio dropping below a minimum asset level) any movement of portfolios in or out of composites must be client-driven. That is, support for a portfolio exiting a composite should include documentation of a client requesting to terminate management, change the strategy, or add some kind of material restriction.

For example, a client request to hold high levels of cash because of declining market conditions may be a reason to remove the portfolio from the composite, if holding such cash moves the account to non-discretionary status (as outlined in your GIPS policies & procedures). Alternatively, if a portfolio manager used their discretion to deviate from the documented composite description (e.g., holding higher cash levels than described in its strategy due to adverse market conditions), this is not considered a valid reason to remove a portfolio from the composite.

Another form of membership testing is outlier testing. In this analysis, instead of evaluating the movement of portfolios in or out of a composite, the verifier assesses portfolios with performance that deviates from its peers. The purpose of this testing is to confirm that the portfolio is correctly included in the composite, despite the difference in performance.

Outlier Testing

Performance deviations can happen for several reasons and are not necessarily a problem. For example, the following are a handful of common reasons for performance deviations:

  1. A portfolio may have a large cash flow causing a temporary deviation. This is especially true for composites that do not have a significant cash flow policy
  2. A portfolio may contain different holdings than others in the composite, despite having the same objective
  3. Sometimes smaller portfolios may be more concentrated than larger portfolios (most commonly seen when the composite does not have a minimum asset level)
  4. A portfolio may be subject to client-mandated restrictions that the firm has deemed immaterial to the implementation of the strategy

The verifier will want to gain comfort that the investment mandate for the portfolio is in line with the composite strategy, any client-mandated restrictions are not material enough for the portfolio to be considered non-discretionary, and no composite policies have been broken relating to minimum asset levels, significant cash flows, etc. In these situations, an explanation should be provided to the verifier to help them understand why the portfolio belongs in the composite, despite having different performance for the month tested.

Please note that if a portfolio is performing differently than its peers because of a restriction, the verifier will want to confirm that the restriction is client-mandated and that it is not breaking any rules outlined in your firm's definition of discretion within your GIPS policies & procedures. If the restriction is material and breaks your firm’s rules for discretion, then the portfolio should not be in the composite and will need to be removed.

Non-Discretionary Testing

While membership testing focuses on portfolios in (or moving in and out of) composites, non-discretionary testing focuses on confirming that portfolios not in composites have a valid reason to be excluded.

Unless a portfolio is deemed non-discretionary, all fee-paying segregated accounts must be included in a composite. Any account excluded from all composites should have a client-driven reason for the exclusion (e.g., a material restriction or a request for a custom mandate). As mentioned, deviations from the strategy made by the portfolio manager’s discretion are not valid reasons to exclude accounts from composites.

The verifier’s sample of non-discretionary portfolios will come directly from your AUM report or list of non-discretionary portfolios. The verifier is typically looking for non-discretionary portfolios they have never tested (many verification firms track portfolios they have tested in prior years), larger non-discretionary portfolios, and non-discretionary portfolios with unique/different reasons listed for being excluded. Because the list of non-discretionary portfolios is a snap shot in time, it will likely include many exclusion reasons– whether it is a long-term restriction, short-term restriction, or a violation of composite policies like a minimum asset level or a significant cash flow policy.

In addition to providing the reason the portfolio is non-discretionary, common requests from a verifier include contracts, investment policy statements and portfolio holdings reports. Verifiers use contracts and investment policy statements to find any documented restrictions in the paperwork. Often, this is clearly outlined in these onboarding documents, but this is not always the case. If restrictions are not clearly documented in these files, the verifier will likely request CRM notes, email correspondence with the client, and/or an internal memo to document the restriction in place. A portfolio-holdings report typically is used to see if any noted restriction is evident in the holdings and management of the account.

Portfolio-Level Return Testing

There are two main goals of portfolio-level return testing:

  1. Confirmation that the input data used in the calculation can be independently supported
  2. Verification that the calculation methodology outlined in the firm’s GIPS policies and procedures can be applied to the input data to achieve materially the same performance result as your firm

For a firm-wide verification, verifiers will likely have you provide a sample of custodial records in addition to portfolio accounting system reports to gain comfort that the input data used in the performance calculations can be independently supported. If you are having a performance examination on a composite in addition to the firm-wide verification, then this sample will likely be greatly increased.

The verifier uses the portfolio’s custodial statement in conjunction with the corresponding system holdings report and transaction summary to confirm whether market values and transaction activity, including trades, cash flows, fees and expenses, match between the two documents. If there are differences in the timing or amounts of transactions, the verifier will likely have follow-up questions to gain and understanding as to why such differences exist. Lastly, the custodial statement can also be used to confirm whether the portfolio is paying commissions on a per-trade basis.

The portfolio’s fee schedule may also be requested. If the composite calculates net-of-fee returns using actual investment management fees, the verifier will look at the portfolio’s gross and net-of-fee returns to ensure they are in line with the portfolio’s fee schedule. If the spread between gross- and net-of-fee returns does not reconcile with the fee schedule, there will be follow-up questions to figure out why the difference exists and if there are any other fees/expenses impacting the returns that need to be considered.

If your composite net-of-fee returns are calculated with model fees, the verifier will compare the provided fee schedule against the applied model fee. If the model fee is higher than the provided fee schedule, there will likely be no further questions. However, if the fee schedule is higher than the applied model fee, the verifier will likely need to do some alternative testing to ensure that the model fee applied is appropriate.

Once the input data is validated, the verifier will apply the calculation methodology outlined in your firm’s GIPS policies and procedures to confirm they can achieve materially the same performance results. Specifically, the verifier is looking at the treatment of external cash flows, fees, withholdings tax, and interest and dividend accruals to ensure the treatment of each meets the requirements of the GIPS standards and matches your firm’s policies and procedures.

If the verifier is unable to recalculate the returns following the methodology outlined in your GIPS policies and procedures and you believe the timing and amount of all transactions are consistent between your system and what the verifier is using, you should double check that your policies accurately describe your current system settings. For example, have you accurately documented whether external cash flows are accounted for as of the beginning of day or end of day, whether dividends are accounted for as of ex-date or payment date, whether performance is reduced by withholdings taxes, what size cash flows trigger revaluation, or any other settings that could trigger a difference in the performance calculation?

This is an important part of the verification testing as it confirms that an appropriate calculation methodology, acceptable under the requirements of the GIPS standards, has been consistently applied to the portfolios across your firm. Any material differences identified in this testing will need to be resolved before the verification can be completed.

Wrapping up the Verification

Once all testing procedures are complete, most verification firms will conduct their own internal quality control review to ensure the engagement team adequately addressed all testing items before officially signing-off. During this review some additional questions may arise to satisfy the reviewer, but the testing should be materially complete at this point. It is helpful if you can be prepared to answer questions and provide any last-minute document requests in a timely fashion to help move the project across the finish line.

Once all internal reviews have been completed and signed off, the verifier will send a representation letter to your firm. The representation letter is essentially a request for your firm’s attestation that, to the best of your knowledge, everything provided during the verification was accurate and complete. This is a necessary step that all verification firms require you to complete before the verification opinion letter can be issued.

After the representations letter has been attested to by your firm, the opinion letter should be issued shortly thereafter. This wraps up your verification project. Time to celebrate with your team and hopefully enjoy a bit of time away from the verification project before the next annual project begins.

One final recommendation is to have a debrief with your team and any consultants you work with to maintain GIPS compliance. Discuss what went well and what areas held up the verification project. If any areas held up the timeline, this is a good opportunity to consider ways to improve procedures and ongoing composite/data reviews. Planning ahead and implementing improved processes based on what was learned during the verification will help future verifications continue to get smoother over time.

Conclusion

The challenges faced when going through a GIPS verification can vary depending on your firm’s structure/size, the types of products you manage, and the verification firm used. This series was intended to provide a general overview of the most typical verification process and share tips and tricks for helping simplify your verification. If you have questions unique to your verification that we did not cover, please reach out to us to learn more. If you need assistance with a GIPS compliance, Longs Peak is here to help. We have helped hundreds of firms become GIPS complaint and maintain that compliance on an ongoing basis. We are happy to assist your firm with all of its needs relating to the calculation and presentation of investment performance.

You can email matt@longspeakadvisory.com or sean@longpseakadvisory.com with questions or check out our website 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.