How to Update your GIPS Policies & Procedures for GIPS 2020

Sean P. Gilligan, CFA, CPA, CIPM
Managing Partner
May 20, 2020
15 min
How to Update your GIPS Policies & Procedures for GIPS 2020

If you are an investment firm or asset owner that complieswith the GIPS standards you are required to make some modifications to yourGIPS policies and procedures (“P&P”) to address changes made to the 2020edition of the Standards. The extent of these updates depends on:

  1. whetheryour organization plans to adopt any new optional policies,
  2. whetheryou have pooled funds to add to the current list of composites, or
  3. ifyour organization plans to change any calculation methodologies now allowedunder the new standards.

Like other GIPS requirements, consistent application andadequate documentation are critical to ensuring these updates and changes areapplied correctly and consistently.

GIPS 2020: Minimum Requirements for all GIPSCompliant Organizations

There are some required GIPS policies & procedure updatesthat will impact all organizations claiming compliance. At a minimum, all firmsand asset owners must address the following in their P&P:

Terminology

What was previously called “Compliant Presentations” are nowcalled “GIPS Reports” in the 2020 GIPS standards. Likely, the term “CompliantPresentations” is used throughout your P&P, which needs to be replaced with“GIPS Reports” to be in sync with the language of the updated standards.

Demonstrate that GIPS Reports are Distributed

It has always been a good idea to maintain a log documentingthe distribution of GIPS Reports to help support that your firm met therequirement of providing them to prospective clients; however, it was notpreviously required. The 2020 edition of the GIPS standards now requires firmsto demonstrate how it made every reasonable effort to provide a GIPS Report toprospective clients that are required to receive one.

The most common way to do this is by maintaining a log of thedistribution in a spreadsheet or by noting the distribution in your firm’s CRMsystem. If noting distribution in your CRM, it is important to populate this ina way that can easily be extracted into a report. Your GIPS verifier is nowrequired to test this so you will need to be able to produce a report demonstratingthat your firm is distributing GIPS Reports to prospective clients.

In addition, you must now update your P&P to document theprocess for how this is maintained. Although each firm will need to documentthis differently to accurately describe their process (i.e., the system inwhich it is maintained and who is responsible for maintaining it), below is anexample of how this may be documented:

Each time a GIPS Report is distributed, the firm’s SalesAssociate is responsible for logging the distribution on the firm’s CRM system.This documentation will include who received the GIPS Report, the version ofthe GIPS Report they received, the method of delivery, and the date it wasdelivered. This information may be extracted from the CRM system by the SalesAssociate if requested by a verifier, regulator, or if needed internally.

Error Correction Procedures

In the 2010 edition of the GIPS standards, if a material errorwas discovered in a compliant presentation, correction and redistribution wasrequired with a disclosure of the change to “all prospective clients and otherparties that received the erroneous compliant presentation.” In addition tothese, the 2020 GIPS standards specifically call out providing corrected GIPSReports to your current GIPS verifier as well as any former verifier or currentclient that received the GIPS Report containing the material error.

Currently, most firms’ policies relating to material errors arelikely limited to the action they take to redistribute to current prospectiveclients. We recommend updating this language to specifically address the needto provide the corrected presentation to verifiers and clients who received theerroneous presentation as well. An example of how this may be documented isprovided below:

Our firm willdetermine an identified error is material if the error exceeds the materialitythresholds stated in the Error Correction Policy: Materiality Grid. If thisoccurs, we will correct all affected GIPS Reports, include a disclosure of thechange, and make every reasonable effort to provide a corrected GIPS Report to:

  • Prospective clients that received the GIPS Reportthat had the material error;
    • Clients and any former verifiers that received theGIPS Report that had the material error; and
    • Current GIPS verifier.

Verifier Independence

Verifiers are prohibited from testing their own work and,therefore, cannot help their clients by writing policies, calculatingperformance, creating GIPS Reports, etc. To help ensure this independence ismaintained, firms that are verified are now required to gain an understandingof their verifier’s policies for maintaining independence and to consider theirverifier’s assessment of independence to ensure there are no conflicts.

To comply with this, firms must request that their verifierprovide documentation describing the measures they take during the verificationprocess to ensure independence is maintained. The procedures for requesting andassessing this needs to be described in the firm’s GIPS policies &procedures. Below is an example of what this might look like:

Our firm has engaged XYZ Verification Firm as anindependent third-party verification firm to verify our claim ofcompliance. Each year, prior to the start of the annual verification, werequest the independence policy statement from the verification firm.  If there are no changes from the prior year,this confirmation is requested in writing. Any potential threats to independence, either in fact or in appearance,are discussed with the verifier to resolve immediately.

GIPS Report Updates

We will discuss all the changes relating to GIPS Reports in aseparate blog; however, some of those changes will require updates to yourfirm’s GIPS policies and procedures, which we do want to discuss here.Presenting annual internal dispersion and three-year annualized ex poststandard deviation is not new; however, it is new that firms are required todisclose whether gross-of-fee or net-of-fee returns are used in thesecalculations. We recommend adding language to your P&P that makes it clearwhether you will use gross-of-fee or net-of-fee returns. Including this in yourP&P will help you ensure the calculation is consistent with the disclosureyou will be adding to your GIPS Reports. An example of how this could be wordedis as follows:

Composite internal dispersion is measured using theasset-weighted standard deviation of annual gross-of-fee returns of thoseportfolios included in the composite for the full year. The three-yearannualized ex post standard deviation measures the variability of the compositegross-of-fee returns and benchmark returns over the preceding 36-month period.

While either gross-of-fee or net-of-fee returns areacceptable, at Longs Peak we generally recommend that our clients usegross-of-fee returns so the presented volatility relates specifically to the implementationof the strategy and is not affected by management fees (which may differ byaccount, be paid at different times, etc).

Additionally, there is a new requirement to update GIPSReports with the prior year’s information within 12 months of the periodending. In other words, statistics for the period ending December 31, 2020 mustbe added to your GIPS Reports by December 31, 2021.That will be plenty of timefor most firms, but to ensure this is done, we recommend adding a procedure toyour P&P document simply explaining that the reports must be updated within12 months after the end of each annual period.

GIPS 2020: Changes for Firms with Pooled Funds

Firms that have pooled funds willhave a few additional changes to make to their GIPS policies & procedures.

Terminology

Most firms will have language intheir P&P referring to “prospective clients.” In the 2020 GIPS standards,the term prospective client refers specifically to a prospective separateaccount investor while the term “prospective investor” is used when referringto a prospective pooled fund investor. Firms need to review their P&P language and make updates to defineboth terms and ensure they are using the appropriate term depending on thecontext of what is being described.

List of Pooled Funds

Firms have always been required to maintain a list ofcomposite descriptions, but now the same is needed for each pooled fund thefirm manages. For each limited distribution pooled fund, a description needs tobe included (similar to what was done historically for composites). Broaddistribution pooled funds need to be listed, but no description is required.

If you are unsure whether a pooled fund is considered broaddistribution or limited, broad distribution pooled funds are defined in theglossary of the 2020 GIPS standards as “A pooled fund that is regulated under aframework that would permit the general public to purchase or hold the pooledfund’s shares and is not exclusively offered in one-on-one presentations.Limited distribution pooled funds are simply defined as any pooled fund thatdoes not meet the definition of a broad distribution pooled fund.

Pooled Fund Inception Date

Pooled fund performance must be reported back to the pooledfund’s inception date. How the inception date was determined must be documentedin the firm’s GIPS policies & procedures. Inception date could be based onwhen investment management fees are first charged, when the firstinvestment-related cash flow takes place, when the first capital call is made,or when committed capital is closed and legally binding. Whatever criteria isused to determine the inception date must be clearly described in the P&Pto ensure an appropriate inception date is used for each pooled fund managed bythe firm.

Error Correction Thresholds

If language used to document error correction materialitythresholds is specific to composites, this will need to be modified toincorporate thresholds for statistics reported in GIPS Pooled Fund Reports aswell. If the same thresholds are appropriate for both composites and pooledfunds (e.g. composite and pooled fund performance can have the same thresholdand composite and pooled fund assets can have the same threshold) then this maybe as simple as changing “Composite” to “Composite/Pooled Fund” throughout thissection.

Additionally, if your firm is now presenting money-weightedreturns and other related multiples for closed-end funds, you will need to addthresholds to your policy for these statistics as well.

Changes for other Optional Policies

The 2020 GIPS standards offer some more flexibility to ensure theyare as meaningful and useful as possible to all types of investment firms andasset owners. If any of these policies are utilized, additional changes will berequired to describe their use in your firm’s GIPS policies & procedures.Examples of these optional policies include, but are not limited to:

Carve-Outs

If a firm decides to utilize carve-outs with allocated cash,the new carve-out composite will need to be documented in the current list ofcomposites. In addition, the firm will need to implement policies andprocedures as to how they allocate cash, how they identify appropriate assetbuckets to carve-out from existing accounts, which accounts have asset groupsthat need to be carved-out to meet the new composite definition, and documentother composite related policies applied to the carve-out composite.

Portability

Historically, GIPS compliant firms meeting the portabilityrequirements were required to link the historical performance record to theongoing performance. The 2020 GIPS standards change this to make linkingoptional. When portable track records exist, firms need to document in theirP&P 1) whether the historical track record meets the GIPS portabilityrequirements and 2) whether they are electing to link the historicalperformance record or choosing to not link it.

Estimated Transaction Costs

The GIPS standards define “gross-of-fees” as the return oninvestments reduced by transaction costs. Historically, firms complying withthe GIPS standards were prohibited from estimating transaction costs; the useof actual transaction costs was required. The 2020 GIPS standards nowallow estimated transaction costs to be used in cases where actual transactioncosts are not known.

Using actual transaction costs is straightforward fortraditional portfolios that pay transaction costs in the form of commissions oneach trade. The issue most commonly arises with wrap accounts that paytransaction costs as part of a bundled fee.

Historically, firms were not able to present returnsgross-of-fees for their composites containing wrap accounts because they wereunable to determine the actual transaction costs. Most firms instead present“pure gross” returns, which are gross of the entire wrap fee and are requiredto be labelled as supplemental information.

Allowing estimated transaction costs will give firms managingwrap accounts the option to estimate the portion of the wrap fee that is for transactioncosts and reduce returns by this estimated figure.

If estimated transaction costs are utilized, the firm mustdisclose in their GIPS Reports how these estimated transaction costs aredetermined. Similarly, the process used to determine the estimated transactioncosts and the methodology utilized to reduce the returns by the estimatedtransaction costs needs to be documented in the firm’s P&P.

Model Management Fees

Previously, GIPS compliant firms using model investmentmanagement fees (rather than actual fees) to determine net-of-fee results wererequired to use the highest investment management fee. This was generallyinterpreted as the highest fee from the composite’s fee schedule or the highestfee-paying portfolio in the composite, whichever was higher. In the 2020 GIPSstandards, firms using model management fees are required to use a fee that is“appropriate” to the prospective client. While the model fee doesn’t specificallyhave to be the highest fee, the resulting returns still need to be equal to orlower than the results that would be calculated if actual management fees wereused.

If your P&P already describes using the highest managementfee and you will continue to use the highest fee then no change is needed. Ifyou will implement a new process other than highest fee, then it is importantto update your P&P to describe how the model fee will be determined andapplied. This description needs to include how you will confirm that thenet-of-fee returns using the model fee are not higher than they would be if theactual investment management fees were used.

Presenting Advisory-Only Assets

Firms that have Unified Managed Accounts (“UMA Accounts”) orother similar arrangements where they are simply providing a model to beimplemented by another party generally are not able to include these accountsin their total firm assets. These accounts are considered “advisory-only” becausethe manager is only providing the model and has no responsibility to implementthe strategy or monitor the portfolios on an ongoing basis.

This type of arrangement has become increasingly popular overthe last decade. Given the popularity of these relationships, many firms nowhave a large amount of advisory-only assets that they would like to report.Because of this demand, the 2020 GIPS standards have provided guidanceoutlining the proper way for firms to present these assets separate from theirtotal firm assets. Firms electing to present these assets must make it clearhow they intend to report them in their GIPS Reports.

Historically, many firms documented in their P&P somethinglike, “all accounts deemed to be advisory-only, hypothetical, or model innature are excluded from total firm assets” to make it clear that they were notincluding anything in total firm assets that was prohibited. Firms now electingto separately present advisory-only assets must add an additional statementdescribing how they will be presented. For example, “Some of the firm’sstrategies are offered through UMA platforms on an advisory-only basis. Theseassets are presented separately from the firm’s composite assets and total firmassets and will be labelled ‘Advisory-Only Assets’.”

Presenting Money-Weighted Returns

Historically, time-weighted returns were required with twospecific asset class exceptions: Private Equity and Real Estate (when RealEstate was managed in a Private Equity-like fund). The 2020 GIPS standards havenow removed the asset-class specific requirements. Instead, firms may nowpresent money-weighted returns for any asset class as long as the firm hascontrol over the external cash flows and the composite or pooled fund has atleast one of the following characteristics:

  • Closed-end
  • Fixed life
  • Fixed commitment
  • Illiquid investments are significant portion ofstrategy.

For firms meeting this criteria and electing to present money-weightedreturns, the P&P must be updated to 1) note that the criteria was met, 2)indicate the election to present money-weighted returns, and 3) outline themethodology utilized to calculate the money-weighted return and other relatedmultiples that must be presented in conjunction with the money-weighted return.

Other Considerations for GIPS Policies &Procedures

When going through your firm’s GIPS policies & procedures to make the required changes for the 2020 GIPS standards, this is a great opportunity to review the document as a whole to ensure everything is still relevant, applicable and accurate. One of the most common deficiencies regulators write in examinations is that policy and procedure documents do not reflect actual practices of the firm. We recommend a comprehensive review be conducted annually. Check out GIPS Compliance Actions for the New Year for a step-by-step guide to this review .

Questions?

If you have a situation that we didn’t cover here that isspecific to your firm or for more information on GIPS Policies and Procedures,the changes to the GIPS standards for 2020, or GIPS compliance in general,contact Matt Deatherage at matt@longspeakadvisory.comor Sean Gilligan at sean@longspeakadvisory.com.

Recommended Post

View All Articles

Why “Net” Is Not a One-Size-Fits-All Answer

If you’ve worked in the investment industry, you’ve probably heard some version of this question:

“Should we show net or gross performance—or both?”

On the surface, the answer seems straight forward. The rules tell us what’s required. Compliance boxes get checked. End of story.

But in practice, presenting net and gross performance is rarely that simple.

How you calculate it, how you present it, and how you disclose it can materially change how investors interpret your results. This article goes beyond the rulebook to explore thepractical considerations firms face when deciding how to present net and gross returns in a manner that is clear, helpful, and in compliance with requirements.

Let’s Start with the Basics (Briefly)

At a high level, for separate account strategies:

  • Gross performance reflects returns before investment management fees
  • Net performance reflects returns after investment management fees have been deducted

Both gross and net performance are typically net of transaction costs, but gross of administrative fees and expenses. When dealing with pooled funds, net performance is also reduced by administrative fees and expenses, but here we are focused on separate account strategies, typically marketed as composite performance.

Simple enough. But that definition alone doesn’t tell the full story—and it’s where many misunderstandings begin.

Why Net Performance Is the Investor’s Reality

From an investor’s perspective, net performance is what actually matters. It represents the return they keep after paying the manager for active management.

That’s why modern regulations and best practices increasingly emphasize net returns. Investors don’t experience gross returns. They experience net outcomes.

And let’s be honest: if an investor chooses an active manager instead of a low-cost index fund or ETF tracking the same benchmark, the expectation is that the active approach should deliver something extra—after fees. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to justify paying for that active management.

Why Gross Performance Still Has a Role

If net returns are what investors actually receive, why do firms still talk about gross performance at all?

Because gross performance tells a different, but complementary, story: what the strategy is capable of before fees, and what investors are paying for that capability.

The gap between gross and net returns represents the cost of active management. Put differently, it answers a question investors are implicitly asking:

How much return am I giving up in exchange for this manager’s expertise?

Viewed this way, gross returns help investors assess:

  • Whether the strategy is adding value before fees
  • How much of the performance is driven by skill: security selection, asset allocation or portfolio construction
  • Whether fees are the primary drag—or whether the strategy itself is struggling

When gross and net returns are shown together, they create transparency around both skill and cost. When shown without context, they can easily obscure the economic tradeoff.

Gross-of-fee returns are also most important when marketing to institutional investors that have the power to negotiate the fee they will pay and know that they will likely pay a fee lower than most of your clients have paid in the past. Their detailed analysis can more accurately be done starting with your gross-of-fee returns and adjusting for the fee they expect to negotiate rather than using net-of-fee returns that have been charged historically.

The Real-World Gray Areas Firms Struggle With

How to Present Gross Returns

Gross returns are pretty straightforward. They are typically calculated before investment management or advisory fees and usually include transaction costs such as commissions and spreads.

For firms that comply with the GIPS® Standards, things can get more nuanced—particularly for bundled fee arrangements. In those cases, firms must make reasonable allocations to separate transaction costs from the bundled fee. But, if that separation cannot be done reliably, gross returns must be shown after removing the entire bundled fee. [1]

Once you move from gross to net returns, however, the conversation becomes less straightforward. We’ve had managers question, “why show net performance at all?” This is especially the case when fees vary across clients or historical fees no longer reflect what an investor would pay today. Others complain that the “benchmark isn’t net-of-fees,” making net-of-fee comparisons inherently imperfect. These concerns highlight why presenting net returns isn’t just a mechanical exercise. In the sections that follow, we’ll unpack these challenges and walk through how to present net-of-fee performance in a way that remains meaningful, transparent, and fit for its intended audience.

How to Present Net Returns

This is where judgment and documentation matters most.

Not all “net” returns are created equal. Even under the SEC Marketing Rule, there is no single mandated definition of net performance—only a requirement that net performance be presented. Under the GIPS Standards, net-of-fee returns must be reduced by investment management fees.

In practice, firms may deduct:

  • Advisory fees (asset-based investment management fees)
  • Performance-based fees
  • Custody fees
  • Transaction costs

Two net-return series can look comparable on the surface while reflecting very different assumptions underneath. This lack of transparency is one of the main reasons institutional investors often require managers to be GIPS compliant—it simplifies comparison by requiring consistency in the assumptions used and how they are presented or additional disclosure when more fees are included in the calculation than what is required.

And context matters. A higher fee may be perfectly reasonable if it reflects broader services such as tax or financial planning, holistic portfolio construction, or access to specialized strategies. The problem isn’t the fee itself, it’s failing to use a fee scenario that is relevant to the user of the report.

Deciding Between Actual vs Model Fees

The next hurdle is deciding whether to use actual fees or a model fee when calculating net returns. Historically, firms most often relied on actual fees, viewing them as the best representation of what clients actually experienced. But that approach raises an important question: are those historical fees still relevant to what an investor would pay today? If the answer is no, a model fee may provide a more representative picture of current expected outcomes. Under the SEC marketing rule, there are cases where firms are required to use a model fee when the anticipated fee is higher than actual fees charged.

This consideration becomes even more important for strategies or composites that include accounts paying little or no fee at all. While the GIPS Standards and the SEC Marketing Rule are not perfectly aligned on this topic, they agree in principle—net performance should be meaningful, not misleading, and should reflect what an actual fee-paying investor should reasonably expect to pay. Thus, many firms opt to present model fee performance to avoid violating the marketing rule’s general prohibitions. [2]

Additional SEC guidance published on Jan 15, 2026 on the Use of Model Fees reinforced that the decision to use model vs actual fees is context-dependent. While the marketing rule allows net performance to be calculated using either actual or model fees, there are cases where the use of actual fees may be misleading. The SEC emphasized flexibility and that while both fee types are allowed, what’s appropriate depends on the facts and circumstances of the situation, including the clarity of disclosures and how fee assumptions are explained.

Which Model Fee Should Be Used?

Most firms offer multiple fee structures, typically based on account size, but sometimes also on investor type (institutional versus retail clients). That variability makes fee selection a key decision when presenting net performance.

If you plan to use a single performance document for broad or mass marketing, best practice—and what the SEC Marketing Rule effectively requires—is to calculate net returns using the highest anticipated fee that could reasonably apply to the intended audience. This helps ensure the presentation is not misleading by overstating what an investor might take home.

A common pushback is: “But the highest fee isn’t relevant to this type of investor.” And that may be true. In those cases, firms have a few defensible options:

  • Create separate versions of the presentation tailored to different investor types, or
  • Present multiple fee tiers within the same document, clearly explaining what each tier represents

Either approach can work—but only if disclosures are explicit and easy to understand. When multiple fee structures are shown, clarity isn’t optional; it’s essential.

In practice, many firms maintain separate retail and institutional versions of factsheets or pitchbooks. That approach is perfectly reasonable, but it comes with operational risk. If this becomes standard practice, firms need strong internal controls to ensure the right presentation reaches the right audience. That means:

  • Clear internal policies
  • Consistent naming and version control
  • Training marketing and sales teams on when each version may be used

This often involves an overlap of both marketing and compliance to get it right because getting the fee right is only part of the equation. Making sure the presentation is used appropriately is just as important to ensuring net performance remains meaningful, compliant, and credible.

Which Statistics Can Be Shown Gross-of-Fees?

Since the introduction of the SEC Marketing Rule, there has been significant debate about whether all statistics must be presented net-of-fees—or whether certain metrics can still be shown gross-of-fees. Helpful clarity arrived in an SEC FAQ released on March 19, 2025, which confirmed that not all portfolio characteristics need to be presented net-of-fees. The examples cited included risk statistics such as the Sharpe and Sortino ratios, attribution results, and similar metrics that are often calculated gross-of-fees to avoid the “noise” introduced by fee deductions.

The staff acknowledged that presenting some of these characteristics net-of-fees may be impractical or even misleading. As long as firms prominently present the portfolio’s total gross and net performance incompliance with the rule (i.e., prescribed time periods 1, 5, 10 years),clearly label these characteristics as gross, and explain how they are calculated, the SEC indicated it would generally not recommend enforcement action.

Bringing it all Together

On paper, presenting net and gross performance should be a straight forward exercise.

In reality, layers of regulation, evolving expectations, and heightened scrutiny have made it feel far more complicated than it needs to be. But complexity doesn’t have to lead to confusion.

When firms are clear about:

  • Who they are communicating with,
  • What that audience expects,
  • What the performance is intended to represent, and
  • Why certain assumptions were chosen

…the decisions around what gets presented become far more manageable.

Net returns aren’t about finding a single “correct” number. They’re about telling an honest, well-documented story. And when that story is clear, investors don’t just understand the performance—they trust it.

[1] 2020 GIPS® Standards for Firms, Section 2: Input Data and Calculation Methodology(gross-of-fees returns and treatment of transaction costs, including bundled fees).

[2] See SEC Marketing Rule 2 026(4)-1(a) footnote 590 as well as the SEC updated FAQ from January 15, 2026. Available at: https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/staff-guidance/division-investment-management-frequently-asked-questions/marketing-compliance-frequently-asked-questions

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.

Calculation Is Technical. Communication Is Human.

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:

  • A client sees strong long-term returns but fixates on one bad quarter.
  • A consultant compares two managers with similar returns and can’t tell what truly differentiates them.
  • A prospect asks, “But how did you generate these results?”—and the answer is a wall of statistics.

The math is necessary. It’s just not sufficient.

Returns Answer What. Clients Care About Why.

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:

  • The investment philosophy
  • The decision-making process
  • The risks taken (and avoided)
  • The type of prospect the strategy is designed for

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 Role of Standards: Necessary, Not Narrative

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:

  • What was the annual return of the composite?
  • What was the annual return of the composite’s benchmark?
  • How volatile was the strategy compared to the benchmark?

It does not answer:

  • Why did this strategy struggle in down markets?
  • What risks did the manager consciously take?
  • How should an allocator think about using this strategy in a broader portfolio?

That’s not a flaw in the standards, it’s a reminder that communication sits on top of compliance, not inside it.

Risk Statistics: Where Stories Start (or Die)

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:

  • A downside capture ratio below 100% isn’t impressive on its own.
  • It becomes compelling when you explain how intentionally implemented downside protection was achieved and what trade-offs were accepted in strong up-markets.

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.

Know Your Audience Before You Tell the Story

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 Prospects

Institutional clients and consultants often expect:

  • Detailed risk statistics
  • Benchmark-relative analysis
  • Attribution and metrics that demonstrate consistency
  • Clear articulation of where the strategy fits in a portfolio

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.

Retail or High-Net-Worth Individuals

Many individual investors don’t care about alpha or capture ratios in isolation. What they really want to know is:

  • Will this help me retire comfortably?
  • Can I afford that second home?
  • How confident should I feel during market downturns?

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.

Same Numbers. Different Story.

The mistake many firms make is assuming one performance narrative works for everyone. It doesn’t. Effective communication adapts:

  • The statistics you emphasize
  • The language you use
  • The level of detail you provide
  • The context you wrap around the results

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.

The Best Performance Reports Tell a Coherent Story

Strong performance communication does three things well:

  1. It sets expectations
    Before showing numbers, it reminds the reader what the strategy is     designed to do—and just as importantly, what it’s not designed to     do.
  2. It     explains outcomes
        Attribution, risk metrics, and market context are used selectively to     explain results, not overwhelm the reader.
  3. It reinforces discipline
    Good communication shows consistency between philosophy, process, and performance—especially during periods of underperformance.

This doesn’t mean dumbing anything down. It means respecting the audience enough to guide them through the data.

Calculation Builds Credibility. Communication Builds Confidence.

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.

Key Takeaways from the 29th Annual GIPS® Standards Conference in Phoenix

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.

Are Changes Coming to the GIPS Standards in 2030?

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.

Performance Methodology Under the SEC Marketing Rule

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.

Evolving Expectations in Private Fund Client Reporting

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.

Practical Insights from SEC Exams—Including How Firms Should Approach Deficiency Letters

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:

1. The SEC Enforcement Division

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.

2. Prospective Clients

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.

3. The SEC Exam Staff

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.

Final Thoughts

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.