How to Update Your GIPS Reports for the 2020 GIPS Standards

Partner

August 10, 2020

15 min

How to Update Your GIPS Reports for the 2020 GIPS Standards

Investment firms and asset owners that comply with the GIPS standards are required to make some modifications to their GIPS Reports (formerly known as “GIPS compliant presentations”) to address changes made to the 2020 edition of the Standards. The extent of these updates depends on:

Whether your organization plans to adopt any new optional policies (e.g., carve-outs, estimated transaction costs, etc.)
If your organization plans to change any calculation methodologies now allowed under the new standards (e.g., switching from time-weighted returns to money-weighted returns where allowable)
Whether your organization manages pooled funds, separate accounts, or both.

The change of the report name from compliant presentations to GIPS Reports happened as a result of a reorganization of the standards to address the differences between separate account managers, pooled fund managers and asset owners. Depending on your organization, you could have GIPS Composite Reports, GIPS Pooled Fund Reports, and/or GIPS Asset Owner Reports.

Nevertheless, GIPS Report updates are required for all compliant organizations. The updates involve more than changing the name of the document and can vary significantly based on the organization. In this article we focus only on the changes required for organizations already complying with the 2010 edition of the GIPS standards; however, a complete checklist of Required GIPS Report Disclosures for Firms, covering all disclosures required for firms under the 2020 edition of the GIPS standards is available for download. In addition, a checklist of required disclosures for 2020 GIPS Advertisements is also available for download.

Deadline to Update GIPS Reports

Beyond updating the GIPS Reports for disclosures and statistics, organizations must now be able to update these reports with performance information in a timely fashion. Previously there was no set deadline on when a GIPS Report needed to be updated. Organizations are now required to have their GIPS Reports updated within 12 months after each year end. That means that if your firm presents performance for a standard calendar year, by 31 December 2021 all GIPS compliant organizations are required to have their GIPS Reports updated with 2020 performance statistics and related disclosures.

Many firms prefer to wait until their verification is complete before distributing updated GIPS Reports. This is not required, nor is it recommended, but it can help firms avoid material errors in their performance. Firms that prefer to do this will need to ensure their verification is complete within 12 months after each year end. If your firm needs help making sure this work is completed and your GIPS Reports are updated on time, Longs Peak is available to support your process to get this done.

Minimum Updates Required for GIPS Composite Reports (Formerly Compliant Presentations)

GIPS Composite Reports are the same as what was known as GIPS compliant presentations under 2010 GIPS; however, all firms are required to change the following:

1. Edit the wording for the claim of compliance as it has changed for 2020. This disclosure is required to be word-for-word and the wording depends on whether your firm has been verified and if a performance examination was conducted for the composite. Below is the exact wording firms must use:

For firms that are verified

“[Insert name of FIRM] claims compliance with the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) and has prepared and presented this report in compliance with the GIPS standards. [Insert name of FIRM] has been independently verified for the periods [Insert dates]. The verification report(s) is/are available upon request.

A firm that claims compliance with the GIPS standards must establish policies and procedures for complying with all the applicable requirements of the GIPS standards. Verification provides assurance on 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. Verification does not provide assurance on the accuracy of any specific performance report.”

For composites of a verified firm that have also had a performance examination:

A firm that claims compliance with the GIPS standards must establish policies and procedures for complying with all the applicable requirements of the GIPS standards. Verification provides assurance on 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. The [insert name of COMPOSITE] has had a performance examination for the periods [insert dates]. The verification and performance examination reports are available upon request.”

For firms that have not been verified:

This did not change in 2020 and should still be disclosded as:

2. Add the newly required trademark disclosure, which must be disclosed word-for-word as, “GIPS® is a registered trademark of CFA Institute. CFA Institute does not endorse or promote this organization, nor does it warrant the accuracy or quality of the content contained herein.”

3. Add the composite’s inception date.

4. If the composite contains a pooled fund and the firm elects to present prospective pooled fund investors with the GIPS Composite Report rather than a GIPS Pooled Fund Report (discussed later), the fee schedule disclosed must be that of the pooled fund and is required to include the total pooled fund expense ratio.

5. If the firm manages limited distribution pooled funds, the firm must disclose the availability of a list of descriptions of their limited distribution pooled funds. If the firm manages broad distribution pooled funds, the firm must disclose the availability of a list of the names of the broad distribution pooled funds the firm manages.

6. Edit the disclosure previously required about policies for valuing portfolios, calculating performance, and preparing compliant presentations to refer to valuing “investments” instead of valuing “portfolios” and preparing “GIPS Reports” instead of “compliant presentations.” Specifically, that disclosure should now state (emphasis added for clarity), “Policies for valuing investments, calculating performance, and preparing GIPS Reports are available upon request.”

7. If a custom benchmark is used, such as a blended benchmark, the benchmark must clearly be labeled and disclosed as a “custom benchmark.”

8. If not already clearly disclosed, firms are required to indicate whether 3-year annualized ex post standard deviation and dispersion were calculated using gross-of-fee returns or net-of-fee returns. If other risk measures are presented, this must be disclosed for all risk measures.

2020 GIPS Report Changes for Firms with Pooled Funds

Under the 2010 GIPS standards, firms were required to provide GIPS compliant presentations to all prospective clients, as defined in the firm’s GIPS policies and procedures. While not perfectly clear, many firms interpreted this to mean all prospective separate account investors that were interested in opening a separate account that would be eligible for composite inclusion.

The 2020 edition of the GIPS standards clarifies how GIPS applies when marketing to prospective pooled fund investors. Firms are not required to provide GIPS Reports to prospective investors in “Broad Distribution Pooled Funds,” such as mutual funds, but firms are required to provide GIPS Reports to prospective investors in “Limited Distribution Pooled Funds,” such as private funds set up as limited partnerships.

Prospective investors in a limited distribution pooled fund must be provided with one of the following:

GIPS Composite Report – This is for the composite in which the pooled fund is included. As mentioned in item 4 above, the fee disclosures must be modified to describe the fees of the fund rather than just the management fee that would normally be presented for separate account prospects of the composite. In the GIPS Composite Report, firms can either include both the management fee information for separate account prospects and the fund fee information for pooled fund prospects or two separate versions of the GIPS Composite Report can be maintained, 1) for use with separate account prospects describing the applicable management fees and 2) for pooled fund prospects describing the total fund expenses.

GIPS Pooled Fund Report – When marketing to pooled fund prospective investors, a new alternative to using a GIPS Composite Report is to create a GIPS Pooled Fund Report. This report is very similar to a GIPS Composite Report, but it describes the details of the actual fund instead of more broadly describing the strategy as done previously in a GIPS Composite Report. All disclosures and statistics are the same as a GIPS Composite Report, except for the following modifications:
- Returns are for the fund itself rather than for a composite of similarly managed portfolios.
- If net-of-fee returns are presented they must be net of total pooled fund fees, not only transaction costs and management fees.
- Dispersion and number of portfolios is not presented since the results are for a single fund.
- The pooled fund description differs from a composite description in that it discusses the actual investment vehicle. Composite descriptions broadly describe the investment objectives and key risks of the strategy without referencing any specific portfolio.

2020 GIPS Report Utilizing Money-Weighted Returns

The 2010 edition of the GIPS standards only allowed the use of money-weighted returns in private equity composites and certain real estate composites where the portfolio manager controlled the timing and amount of external cash flows. The 2020 edition of the GIPS standards allows money-weighted returns to be used, regardless of the asset class as long as certain criteria is met. Please see Longs Peak’s article on How to Update your GIPS Policies & Procedures for GIPS 2020 for more information on when using a money-weighted return is acceptable.

When money-weighted returns are utilized, the requirements for statistics and disclosures are very similar to what was previously required for private equity. For example, instead of time-weighted returns, the GIPS Report will include money-weighted returns as well as several statistics and multiples including:

Cumulative committed capital
Since-inception paid-in capital
Since-inception distributions
Total value to since-inception paid-in capital
Since-inception distributions to since-inception paid-in capital
Since-inception paid-in capital to cumulative committed capital
Residual value to since-inception paid-in capital

Two differences from what was required for private equity composites under the 2010 GIPS standards and what is required in money-weighted GIPS Reports under the 2020 GIPS standards include:

Periods presented for statistics – Under the 2010 GIPS standards, private equity composites were required to present returns and other statistics/multiples as of each year-end (e.g., since inception money-weighted returns were presented from inception through the end of each calendar year). The 2020 GIPS standards only require the returns and other figures to be presented through the latest period end (e.g., since inception money-weighted returns are only required to be presented from inception through the end of the most recent period).
Subscription line of credit – When a subscription line of credit is used, the money-weighted return must be presented both with and without the subscription line of credit unless:
- The principal was repaid within 120 days using called capital and
- No principal from the line of credit was used to fund distributions.

If these two criteria are met, then the money-weighted return may be presented in the GIPS Report without the subscription line of credit.

In cases where firms must present money-weighted returns both with and without the subscription line of credit, firms must disclose:

The purpose for using the subscription line of credit.
The size of the subscription line of credit as of the end of the most recent annual period.
The amount outstanding on the subscription line of credit as of the end of the most recent annual period.

Additionally, if your firm was not using daily cash flows prior to 1 January 2020, you must disclose the frequency that was used (e.g., monthly or quarterly). Daily cash flows are required for periods beginning 1 January 2020.

2020 GIPS Report Changes for Asset Owners

Asset Owners are required to report time-weighted returns for each total fund. In addition to reporting the time weighted returns for each individual total fund, asset owners have the option of creating composites. Composites can be created to present asset class performance or an aggregation of multiple total funds with similar mandates. For these optional composites, asset owners may present time-weighted returns, money-weighted returns, or both.

GIPS Asset Owner Reports for total funds are very similar to the GIPS Pooled Fund Reports created by firms with the following modifications:

Net-of-fee returns must be included and must be net of:
- transaction costs,
- all fees and expenses (for externally managed pooled funds),
- investment management fees (for externally managed segregated accounts), and
- investment management costs.

Unlike firms that charge a management fee, investment management costs for asset owners include all costs involved in managing the assets including general overhead costs of the investment management function of the asset owner.

2020 GIPS Report Changes for other Optional Policies

As discussed in Longs Peak’s article on How to Update your GIPS Policies & Procedures for GIPS 2020, the updated standards introduce some optional policies firms may elect to adopt. If the following are utilized, disclosures must be updated as described.

Carve-outs – If a composite includes carve-outs with allocated cash, the composite must include “carve-out” in the composite name. This carve-out composite must disclose that the composite includes carve-outs with allocated cash along with a description of how the cash is allocated and the percentage of the composite comprised of carve-outs as of each year end. If the firm also has a composite of standalone portfolios following the same strategy, the annual performance and annual assets of the standalone composite must also be presented with the carve-out composite and a disclosure must be included explaining that the GIPS Report for the composite of standalone portfolios is available upon request.

Estimated Transaction Costs – Historically, only actual transaction costs could be used to reduce returns. Because of this, wrap or other bundled fee accounts (where transaction costs could not be clearly identified) were unable to present a gross-of-fee return. Instead, a pure gross-of-fee return was generally presented, which needed to be labelled as supplemental information. The 2020 GIPS standards now allow the use of estimated transaction costs in cases where actual transaction costs cannot be identified. If estimated transaction costs are used, firms must disclose how the estimated transaction costs are determined.

Model Management Fees – The ability to use model investment management fees to calculate net-of-fee returns is not new, but there is a new disclosure requirement to describe the methodology used to determine the net-of-fee returns using the model fee. Also, under the 2010 edition of the GIPS standards firms were required to disclose the percentage of the composite comprised of non-fee-paying portfolios. Under the 2020 GIPS standards this is still required for composites that present net-of-fee returns using actual fees but is no longer required for composites utilizing model fees to calculate net-of-fee returns.

Advisory-Only Assets – As more firms move strategies to UMA platforms and other similar arrangements where one firm provides trades for another firm to implement, the 2020 GIPS standards now provide guidance on how these assets may be reported. Historically, most firms excluded these assets when reporting total firm assets, but the guidance was not clear so some firms were including these assets in their total firm assets. The 2020 GIPS standards now clearly state that these assets must be excluded from total firm assets, but they do provide guidance on how these assets can also be reported for firms that choose to do so.

In addition to the official total firm assets that excludes advisory-only assets, firms can choose to also present advisory-only assets or a combination of total firm assets and advisory-only assets. Either option must be clearly labelled to explain what is presented. The same can be done for composite assets. Firms must present the actual composite assets and then may also present the advisory-only assets following the strategy or a combination of the composite assets and advisory-only assets together.

Uncalled Committed Capital – Similar to advisory-only assets described above, private fund managers with committed capital cannot include uncalled committed capital when reporting pooled fund assets and total firm assets. Only the current fair value of the fund or firm’s assets can be presented as the fund or total firm assets. But many firms wish to present the amount of uncalled committed capital they have subscribed to their funds.

The 2020 GIPS standards now provide clear guidance on how uncalled committed capital can be shown. At the pooled fund level, it can be combined with the pooled fund assets or it can be shown separately. At the total firm level, it also can be combined with total firm assets or shown separately. Whichever option is chosen, it must be clearly labelled to explain what it represents. To be clear, the official total firm or pooled fund assets must still be disclosed excluding uncalled committed capital. These options to present uncalled committed capital are only allowed in addition to, not instead of this required statistic.

Disclosure Sunset Provisions – Historically, there was no guidance that allowed firms to remove disclosures. The 2020 GIPS standards now specify certain disclosures that can be removed after one year as long as the firm feels the disclosures are no longer necessary for a user of the report to be able to interpret the information presented. Examples of what may now be removed after one year include disclosures regarding:

Significant events
Composite name changes
Retroactive benchmark changes
Material errors
Changes in return type (e.g., change from reporting TWR to MWR)

Questions?

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

July 1, 2026

15 min

There is a common assumption among boutique investment managers that the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) are built for the largest firms in the industry — that compliance is something you pursue once you've reached a certain scale, a certain client type, or a certain level of institutional credibility.

‍

That assumption is understandable. And it is costing firms real opportunities.

‍

The GIPS standards have no AUM threshold to get started. There is no minimum number of clients or composites required before a firm can claim compliance. And increasingly, the institutional marketplace is not waiting for firms to reach some undefined moment of readiness before asking for it. If you are newer to the GIPS standards and want a foundation for what they are and why firms pursue them, start with our post What Are the GIPS Standards?

The Market Has Already Decided

‍

The gatekeepers of institutional capital such as consultants, outsourced CIO platforms, model delivery networks, and institutional allocators, have been quietly raising the bar on performance reporting standards for years. GIPS compliance has shifted from a differentiator to a baseline expectation in many of these channels.

‍

According to eVestment, two out of three manager searches conducted by investors and consultants on their platform exclude firms that are not GIPS compliant. That means boutique managers without a compliance claim are not being passed over, they are simply not being seen. As we explored in From Compliance to Growth, GIPS compliance has effectively become the price of admission for firms seeking to expand into institutional channels.

‍

The question is not whether your firm will eventually need it. For most managers with institutional ambitions, the answer to that question is already yes. The real question is when you choose to pursue it, and whether you make that choice on your own terms or in response to a mandate you cannot afford to lose.

What Compliance Actually Builds Inside Your Firm

‍

The benefits most managers focus on are external. Things like the credibility signal, the access to channels, the due diligence box that gets checked. Those benefits are real. But some of the most meaningful returns from GIPS compliance are internal.

‍

Implementing the GIPS standards requires firms to formalize processes that often exist informally. Composite definitions. Discretion criteria. Benchmark selection rationale. Fee policies. Error correction procedures. For many boutique managers, the implementation process is the first time these decisions have been documented and applied consistently across the firm.

‍

That discipline matters beyond GIPS compliance itself. A firm with clean, documented performance infrastructure is better positioned for regulatory examinations, investor due diligence, and operational due diligence reviews. It demonstrates to sophisticated allocators that the firm is run with the same rigor they apply to their own oversight responsibilities. And for firms that are not primarily focused on institutional distribution, this operational foundation has standalone value, the kind of infrastructure that supports sound governance regardless of who is asking. For more on what a well-governed GIPS compliance program looks like once it is in place, see What Good GIPS Compliance Governance Looks Like in Practice.

The Single Best Argument for Starting Now

‍

Here is the point that does not get made often enough: the smaller your firm and the shorter your track record, the easier it is to become compliant. That ratio flips quickly as you grow.

‍

Retroactively constructing composites across a large number of separate accounts is genuinely difficult work, particularly when no framework existed at the time to assign accounts to composites at inception, or to move accounts between composites as investment objectives changed, client restrictions were added or removed, or mandates evolved. Working through that history portfolio by portfolio, period by period, requires both detailed documentation and sound judgment. It is one of the most time-consuming phases of any GIPS compliance implementation, and the complexity compounds with every account and every year of history added.

‍

A firm with 30 separate accounts and a two-year track record faces a very different implementation project than the same firm a few years later with 500 accounts and a five-year track record. The strategy, the clients, and the investment process may be nearly identical, but the administrative burden of reconstructing historical composite membership correctly is not.

‍

The firms that find implementation most manageable are the ones that started before the project grew into something unwieldy. The firms that find it most painful are the ones that waited until an institutional prospect made it urgent.

‍

What if you are not ready to commit to full compliance yet?

‍

That is a legitimate position. But there is a practical middle path worth considering: even if a firm does not want to claim compliance with the GIPS standards today, building out the composite structure and creating policies and procedures for managing those composites now is a worthwhile investment. That framework does not require a formal compliance claim to be useful. Additionally, it can be carried directly into a full GIPS compliance program when the time is right, dramatically reducing the effort required at that stage.

The Real Costs

‍

Becoming GIPS compliant requires real work, and it is worth being direct about what that entails. At a high level, implementation comes down to four phases: defining the firm, building a GIPS standards policies and procedures manual, constructing composites and calculating performance, and creating GIPS Reports with ongoing monitoring controls. We walk through each phase in detail in A Practical Framework for Implementing the GIPS Standards.

‍

In terms of ongoing commitment, firms should expect monthly composite management, annual GIPS Report updates, periodic policies and procedures reviews, and distribution tracking. For a lean team, owning all of this internally is often not realistic. The good news is that outsourcing to a GIPS compliance consultant is a well-established path for boutique managers and one that many firms in our client base have taken successfully. The total cost of compliance for a focused, well-organized firm is frequently lower than managers expect, particularly when implementation is approached while the firm's history and account universe are still manageable.

Is This the Right Time for Your Firm?

‍

Not every firm is at the same point in this decision. Managers with the strongest case for pursuing GIPS compliance now include:

Firms actively pursuing institutional mandates or seeking coverage from investment consultants
Managers on model delivery platforms or building toward that distribution channel
Firms planning meaningful growth over the next two to three years
Any manager whose clients or prospects have already raised the question
Firms that simply want to build a best-in-class performance reporting foundation, regardless of where their distribution strategy stands today

The case is lower urgency for firms focused exclusively on high-net-worth or retail clients with no near-term institutional ambitions; however, there is still value in building a sound performance reporting structure, and the sooner it is established, the easier the work will be.

‍

On Verification: You Can Wait

‍

Verification is independent, voluntary, and valuable. It is also not required to claim compliance with the GIPS standards, and for cost-conscious boutiques, it is a reasonable place to exercise flexibility.

‍

A firm can become GIPS compliant today and gain all the operational benefits and the ability to make the compliance claim and defer pursuing verification until there is specific demand for it. When an institutional prospect or consultant asks whether the firm is verified, that is the right moment to add it. The compliance foundation built now makes that future engagement faster and less disruptive. For a detailed walkthrough of what the verification process involves, see our series How to Survive a GIPS Verification.

‍

Verification is worth having. It just does not need to happen on day one.

The Longer You Wait, The Heavier the Lift

‍

GIPS compliance is not an initiative that gets easier with time. Every year a firm grows its account base, extends its track record, and adds complexity to its operations without a compliance framework in place is another year of history that will eventually need to be organized, documented, and reconstructed.

‍

The managers who find implementation most straight forward are not the ones with the most resources. They are the ones who started early enough that the project was still proportionate to the size of the task.

‍

If your firm is headed toward institutional distribution (most boutique managers we work with are), the best time to build this infrastructure is before you need it. The second best time is now.

‍

Longs Peak Advisory Services specializes in GIPS compliance and investment performance consulting for investment managers and asset owners. We have helped over 250 firms implement and maintain compliance with the GIPS standards. If you are evaluating whether now is the right time for your firm, we would be glad to talk through it. Reach out athello@longspeakadvisory.com.

GIPS® is a registered trademark owned by CFA Institute. CFA Institute does not endorse or promote this organization, nor does it warrant the accuracy or quality of the content contained herein.

A Practical Framework for Implementing the GIPS® Standards

June 3, 2026

15 min

Most firms that decide to pursue compliance with the Performance Standards (GIPS®) already understand why it matters. They know institutional investors and consultants often expect it. They understand the credibility that comes from standardized, transparent performance reporting. And they recognize that a strong performance reporting process can improve internal consistency well beyond marketing.

‍

What many firms struggle with is not the “why,” but the“how.”

‍

The GIPS standards can be especially intimidating at first glance. There are detailed requirements, technical terminology, and a long list of considerations that touch everything from performance, to operations, compliance, and marketing. For firms approaching GIPS compliance for the first time, it is easy to feel like they need to solve everything at once.

‍

Whether working independently or with external GIPS support,becoming GIPS compliant is significantly more manageable when approachedthrough a structured process.

‍

At a high level, implementing the GIPS standards comes down to four major phases:

Define the firm and scope the universe of portfolios
Build policies and procedures
Construct composites and calculate performance
Create GIPS Reports and establish ongoing monitoring controls

The order matters more than many firms realize. When the foundation is built correctly at the beginning, the downstream work becomes significantly easier. For a broader overview of what the GIPS standards are and why firms choose to comply, see our earlier post, What Are the GIPS Standards?

_‍

_{Phase 1: Define the Firm and Scope Your Universe}

_‍

Before constructing composites or calculating returns, firms first need to define the “firm” for the purpose of claiming compliance with the GIPS standards. This sounds simple, but it is often one of the most important decisions in the entire implementation process.

‍

The GIPS standards require compliance on a firm-wide basis. Firms cannot selectively apply compliance to only their best-performing strategies or business lines. The firm definition determines which portfolios fall within the scope of compliance and ultimately impacts composite construction, total firm assets, disclosures, and marketing claims.

‍

For smaller organizations, this step is often straightforward. The legal entity, branding, regulatory registration, and operational structure are usually aligned. In those situations, the firm definition may be relatively easy to document.

‍

For larger organizations with complex legal structures or ones that operate under multiple brands, the analysis can become significantly more complex.

‍

The following questions should be considered:

How is the firm held out to the public?
Do affiliates or subsidiaries share investment personnel or investment decision-making?
How are the various entities registered and branded relative to one another?
How are investment strategies actually managed across entities?

The answer to these questions matters because the firm definition affects everything that follows. For complex organizations, it is worth investing real time here and involving compliance and legal teams before any other work begins.

‍

Once the firm is defined, the next step is performing a full inventory of assets (or portfolios) that fall within the defined firm. That includes discretionary accounts, non-discretionary accounts, pooled funds, terminated portfolios, and any other assets managed by the firm over the entire period for which the firm will claim compliance.

‍

One of the most common implementation mistakes is discovering late in the process that certain portfolios were overlooked or incorrectly categorized. Taking the time upfront to fully scope the universe of portfolios prevents significant cleanup work later on.

‍

Phase 2: Build Your GIPS Standards Policies & Procedures Manual

‍

The next step is building the firm’s GIPS standards policies and procedures manual, often referred to as the GIPS standards “P&P.”

‍

The GIPS standards require firms to document the policies and procedures used to comply with all applicable requirements. But beyond satisfying the standards themselves, strong documentation creates consistency across operations, compliance, marketing, and portfolio management teams. Your GIPS standards P&P becomes the operational blueprint for how your firm calculates performance and maintains GIPS compliance. When drafted thoughtfully, ongoing maintenance becomes manageable. Firms that rush this phase often find themselves cleaning up problems indefinitely.

A well-designed P&P typically addresses the following:

Firm definition
Definition of discretion
Composite construction rules
Treatment of significant cash flows and composite minimums
Calculation methodologies
Fair valuation hierarchy
Error correction procedures
Books and records retention
GIPS Report distribution policies
Benchmark selection and changes
Fee schedules and policies for the use of actual or model fees

The definition of discretion deserves particular attention. Under the GIPS standards, discretion is not the same thing as having legal discretion documented in the investment management agreement. A client may impose restrictions that prevent full implementation of the strategy, and if those restrictions are significant enough, the portfolio should be classified as non-discretionary under the GIPS standards. Firms should establish objective criteria that can be applied consistently across portfolios and clearly document those criteria within their P&P. This determination has a direct impact on composite construction, as only portfolios deemed discretionary maybe included in composites, while non-discretionary portfolios must be excluded.

‍

Calculation methodology should also be clearly addressed within the P&P. Firms should define how external cash flows are handled, the methodology used to asset-weight portfolios within composites, and whether any composites are subject to minimum asset levels or significant cash flow policies. For a more detailed discussion of large cash flow policies versus significant cash flow policies—and why both matter—see our post Large vs. Significant Cash Flows: What’s the Difference? These methodologies should be clearly documented.

‍

Finally, firms often do not devote enough attention to developing their error correction policy during implementation. The GIPS standards require firms to establish materiality thresholds in advance that determine what actions must be taken when an error is identified. The time to think through that process is before an error occurs, not in the middle of responding to one.

‍

We often find that this is the phase where firms realize that implementing GIPS compliance is not just a performance reporting exercise. It frequently exposes inconsistencies in operational workflows, account coding, historical records, or portfolio classifications. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It allows you to intentionally strengthen processes and reporting before those issues surface in higher-stakes situations such as verification, a regulatory examination, or investor due diligence.

‍

One of the biggest hidden benefits of the GIPS compliance implementation process is that it forces firms to formalize processes that may have evolved informally over time. Many firms come out of the GIPS compliance implementation process with cleaner data, stronger internal controls, and more consistency across teams.

‍

The key is to make the policies practical. The best GIPS standards P&Ps are not written purely for regulators or verifiers. They are designed to reflect what the firm actually does in practice and to provide internal teams with a framework they can follow consistently.

‍

Phase 3: Construct Composites and Calculate Performance

‍

Once your policies and procedures are in place, firms can begin the process of constructing composites and calculating performance. This is the phase most firms typically associate with GIPS compliance because it is where the visible performance reporting work happens. At this point, much of the difficult decision-making should already be complete. Composite construction is next and while that may sound straightforward conceptually, this is the phase where most firms get stuck in the implementation process.

‍

Under the GIPS standards, discretionary portfolios must be grouped into composites based on similar investment mandates. The goal is to ensure firms present strategy-level performance fairly and consistently instead of selectively highlighting individual account results. The construction process typically has four steps:

Identify every portfolio that meets the composite definition
Determine the correct dates each portfolio should be in and out of the composite
Asset-weight the portfolio-level monthly returns to produce composite-level performance
Calculate all required composite-level statistics, including internal dispersion and the three-year annualized ex-post standard deviation of both the composite and the benchmark

It sounds simple, but it’s not always easy. The data work alone is substantial. Before anything meaningful can be built, the underlying portfolio-level data must be reviewed to ensure it is reconciled and accurate. That foundation matters because everything downstream depends on it.

‍

The historical composite membership analysis adds another layer of complexity. Strategies evolve. Clients add or remove restrictions. Portfolios change mandates. When building a composite with a ten-year history, the question is not simply which portfolios belong in the composite today. Itis which portfolios belonged in the composite during each period in the historical record, and why. Working through that analysis portfolio by portfolio and period by period requires both strong documentation and sound judgment.

‍

The good news is that there are tools available to help firms identify historical performance outliers to help test if composite inclusion was accurate. When a portfolio within a composite posts a return that deviates meaningfully from its peers during a given period, that deviation can be identified for further research. Was there a client-imposed restriction during that period that prevented full implementation of the strategy (i.e., making it non-discretionary)? Or was the deviation driven by a large cash flow, different starting position, security-specific activity, or simply the normal variation expected across portfolios managed within the same strategy? The answer determines whether the portfolio appropriately belongs in the composite for that period, and the wrong conclusion in either direction can undermine the integrity of the track record.

‍

It is also important to be direct about the limits of technology in this process. Software can identify anomalies, efficiently perform calculations, and output results once the inputs are correct, but no system makes judgment calls. Determining how composites should be defined, how discretion should be applied, what constitutes a significant restriction, and how to evaluate edge cases in historical membership all require experienced professionals who understand both the investment strategies and the GIPS standards. The policies documented in Phase 2 provide the framework but applying that framework consistently across real portfolios and real historical circumstances requires thoughtful human judgment at every step.

‍

Perhaps most importantly, composite construction should not be treated purely as an operations exercise. If composites are built solely around how data happens to be structured within the portfolio accounting system, without input from the investment team and without alignment with sales and marketing, the result may be operationally convenient but commercially ineffective. Bringing together operations, performance, investment professionals, and sales and marketing teams early in the process is essential. That collaboration is what ultimately produces results that are not only GIPS compliant, but also meaningful, defensible, and aligned with how the firm communicates its investment approach.

‍

Phase 4: Create GIPS Reports and Go Live

‍

The final phase of becoming compliant is creating the GIPS Composite Report(s). The GIPS Report is the firm’s external-facing proof of compliance and is a presentation that must be provided to every prospective client. Getting to this stage is what most people think of as going live, but in practice it is a milestone, not the finish line.

‍

GIPS Reports require more than simply presenting returns in a table. Firms must include required statistics, disclosures, benchmark information, and firm-level details necessary for prospective clients to properly interpret the results. The disclosures are especially important because they provide context investors need to understand how the performance was calculated and what the results represent. They are very specific and must be in sync with what is documented in the P&P and what was performed to construct the composites. For more specifics on what is required, see our previous post, How to Update Your GIPS Reports for the 2020 GIPS Standards.

‍

Once the GIPS Reports are complete and all requirements have been met, the final administrative step to claiming compliance is submitting the GIPS Compliance Notification Form to CFA Institute. This must be filed before compliance can be claimed, and it must be renewed annually.

‍

Ongoing Maintenance: Where Most Firms Struggle

‍

Getting to compliance is an achievement. Staying there requires consistent operational discipline.

‍

The most common breakdowns in ongoing maintenance are rarely dramatic failures. More often, they are small process gaps that compound over time. Portfolios that should have been added to composites were omitted or added late. Significant cash flows were not handled in accordance with the composite’s policy. A new strategy was launched without formally determining whether it warranted the creation of a new composite.

‍

To avoid these breakdowns, firms should incorporate GIPS compliance procedures into their regular monthly or quarterly performance processes rather than treating compliance as an annual reporting exercise. Clear ownership should be assigned internally and firms should establish a recurring compliance calendar that includes monthly composite reviews and annual GIPS Report updates. The GIPS standards policy manual should also be reviewed at least annually to confirm it continues to reflect how the firm actually operates. For a deeper look at what effective ongoing governance looks like in practice, see our post What Good GIPS Compliance Governance Looks Like in Practice.

‍

Should You Get Verified

‍

Verification is not required. Firms that are early in the process sometimes view this as a bigger decision than it needs to be. If a firm chooses to pursue verification, it must be performed by an independent third party, but the decision itself is entirely voluntary.

‍

That said, verification is generally worthwhile, particularly for firms competing for institutional mandates where GIPS compliance is often considered table stakes. According to eVestment, two out of three searches conducted in their database by investors or consultants exclude firms that are not GIPS compliant, so the marketing benefit can be meaningful. Verification also provides an added level of assurance that the firm’s policies and procedures have been designed in accordance with the GIPS standards and implemented consistently across the organization. Operationally, it can create valuable discipline as well, since the expectation of independent review encourages firms to maintain strong processes throughout the year.

‍

For firms that are newer to compliance or navigating budget constraints, the best path is often to first establish a solid compliance foundation and then pursue verification when the timing makes sense. We have also worked alongside nearly every major verifier in the industry and can provide practical insight into how different firms approach the process, what working styles may align best with your organization, and how to evaluate which verifier may be the best fit for your needs. For a more detailed walkthrough of the process, see our series on How to Survive a GIPS Verification.

‍

Final Thoughts

‍

Becoming GIPS compliant can feel overwhelming at the start, especially when going through it for the first time. But it does not have to be. For firms that approach implementation as a structured operational framework — rather than a collection of isolated technical requirements —typically find the process much more manageable.

‍

The goal is not simply to produce a compliant presentation. The real value comes from building a repeatable, transparent, and defensible framework for calculating and presenting investment performance.

‍

When implemented thoughtfully, the GIPS standards do more than support marketing efforts. They help firms improve consistency, strengthen controls, and communicate performance results with greater credibility and transparency. And in an environment where investors continue to demand greater transparency and comparability, those operational improvements can provide a meaningful competitive advantage, strengthening both credibility and investor confidence.

‍

What Good GIPS Compliance Governance Looks Like in Practice

March 19, 2026

15 min

If you’ve been around the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) long enough, you know that governance is one of those topics everyone agrees is important, but far fewer firms can clearly explain what good governance with the GIPS standards actually looks like day to day.

‍

Most firms don’t fail at GIPS compliance because they misunderstand a technical requirement. They struggle because ownership is unclear, decisions are informal, or key knowledge lives in one person’s head. When that person leaves (or when the firm grows) things start to break.

‍

So, let’s simplify this.

‍

Below is a practical, real-world view of what good governance looks like when complying with the GIPS standards—not in theory, not in a policy document that no one reads, but in how well-run firms actually operate.

‍

Start with the Right Mindset: Governance Is About Sustainability

‍

At its core, GIPS compliance exists to answer one question:

‍

Can this firm consistently calculate, maintain, and present performance fairly and accurately—regardless of growth, staff changes, or market stress?

‍

The GIPS standards are built on the principles of fair representation and full disclosure, but governance is what turns those principles into repeatable behavior. Good governance doesn’t mean more paperwork or compliance headaches. It means clear accountability, documented decisions, and controls that actually get used.

‍

1. Clear Ownership (It’s Rarely Just One Person)

One of the most common governance risks we see is a “GIPS compliance department of one” where critical knowledge, decisions, and processes are concentrated with a single individual. While this can work in the short term, it creates challenges around continuity, oversight, and scalability as the firm grows or changes.

‍

Good governance starts by clearly defining:

Who owns GIPS compliance overall
Who performs monthly/quarterly/annual tasks
Who reviews and approves key inputs/outputs
Who resolves judgment calls
Who ensures it also complies with other relevant regulations

‍

In practice, this often looks like:

A GIPS compliance committee or designated governance group
Representation from performance, compliance, operations, and senior management
Defined escalation paths for gray areas (e.g., discretion, composite changes, error corrections)

When a firm isn’t large enough to support a formal committee, outsourcing to a GIPS compliance consultant or a provider of managed services can be an effective alternative. These individuals can help you design policies, create procedures, and essentially manage governance for you.

‍

But even if you are big enough, having an independent third party on your GIPS compliance committee can provide an objective, well-informed perspective formed by experience across many firms and a deep understanding of what works well in practice.

‍

2. Policies and Procedures That Reflect Reality

Every GIPS compliant firm has GIPS standards policies and procedures (GIPS standards P&P). Well-governed firms actually use them.

‍

Strong GIPS compliance governance means your GIPS standards P&P:

Include procedures your firm actually follows instead of only stating policies
Reflect how performance is really calculated
Clearly document firm-specific elections and judgments
Are updated when the business changes (for new products, systems, asset classes)

Think of your GIPS standards P&P as the firm’s operating manual for performance, not a static compliance artifact. If someone new joined your performance team tomorrow, they should be able to follow your policies and procedures to calculate performance and arrive at the same results. If not, governance needs work.

‍

3. Formalized Review and Oversight

Good governance includes independent review, even if it’s internal.

‍

In practice, this often means:

Secondary review of composite membership decisions
Review of significant cash flow thresholds and discretion determinations
Approval of new composites and composite definition changes
Oversight of error identification and correction

This is where governance protects firms from subtle but costly mistakes, especially those that show up during verification and increase complexity and scope of these engagements. In an ideal situation, these internal reviews should catch issues before they become problems.

‍

As a provider of managed services, Longs Peak helps firms identify performance outliers, accounts that are breaking composite rules, and other data anomalies. This review significantly reduces the risk of erroneous data ending up in your performance and later caught in verification. If you are not able to do this internally, we strongly recommend outsourcing this effort.

‍

4. Governance Extends to Marketing and Distribution

One area that has been increasingly important is the intersection of GIPS compliance, the SEC marketing rule, and how you manage the distribution of marketing materials.

‍

Well-governed firms:

Control who can distribute GIPS Reports and how they are distributed
Ensure Marketing understands what is and is not an advertisement that meets the requirements of the GIPS standards
Coordinate GIPS compliance requirements with broader regulatory rules, including the SEC marketing rule
Have a clear process for tracking distribution

This alignment helps firms avoid inconsistencies between factsheets, pitchbooks, and GIPS Reports—one of the fastest ways to lose credibility with prospects and regulators.

‍

Some clients prefer not to mention GIPS compliance at all in their marketing (i.e., on their factsheets and pitchbooks) until a client is clearly interested in one of their strategies. Once they meet the definition of a prospect (as outlined in your GIPS standards P&P), it triggers the requirement to send a GIPS Report and they find this smaller list of prospects easier to maintain. For others, having everything in one document including required GIPS compliance information and disclosures is easier to manage than separate documents.

‍

There is no “right” way to manage this, but in either case, having a clear process for tracking and reporting performance errors is key.

‍

5. Documentation of Decisions (Not Just Results)

Here’s a subtle but critical point: Good governance for your GIPS compliance program documents decisions, not just outcomes.

‍

Why was that composite redefined?
Why was this benchmark changed?

Why was this model fee selected?

‍

Strong governance creates an audit trail that:

Supports sound reasoning (which aides in the verification process or even regulatory exams later on)
Reduces key person risk
Makes future reviews faster and less stressful

This is especially valuable when firms grow, merge, or experience turnover. Clear documentation allows others to step in seamlessly and continue critical functions without disruption. More importantly, it enables independent parties, such as a regulator or your verifier, to understand, assess, and validate how you are calculating and presenting performance that may not be immediately intuitive.

‍

6. Governance Is Ongoing, Not a One-Time Project

The best-governed firms don’t “set and forget” their GIPS compliance program. They revisit governance when:

New strategies launch
Systems or custodians change
Regulations evolve
The firm’s structure changes

In other words, governance evolves with the business—because performance reporting doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

‍

Even for firms that are not regularly launching new strategies, changing systems or structure, an annual review of your GIPS compliance program and governance framework is critical. This review helps confirm that practices have remained consistent, while also providing an opportunity to reflect on whether you are satisfied with your verifier, assess whether new regulations require updates, and reconsider how composites are managed or described.

‍

The best time to do this is at year-end so that if you decide something should be changed, you can do that proactively for the upcoming year, rather than having to fix it retroactively.

‍

What Good GIPS Compliance Governance Really Buys You

‍

When GIPS compliance governance is working well, firms experience:

A structured, intentional process for validation of your performance results
A framework that supports consistency and transparency over time
Fewer surprises or last-minute scrambles during verification or regulatory review
Greater confidence from regulators and verifiers that you are following established policies and procedures
Lower operational and reputational risk

Most importantly, it creates trust internally and externally. Good GIPS compliance governance isn’t about being perfect. It’s about being intentional.

‍

Clear ownership. Thoughtful documentation. Real oversight. Those are the firms that don’t just claim compliance, they live it.

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

November 19, 2025

15 min

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.

From Compliance to Growth: How the GIPS® Standards Help Investment Firms Unlock New Opportunities

October 30, 2025

15 min

From Compliance to Growth: How the GIPS® Standards Help Investment Firms Unlock New Opportunities

For many investment managers, the first barrier to growth isn’t performance—it’s proof.
When platforms, consultants, and institutional investors evaluate new strategies, they’re not just asking how well you perform; they’re asking how you measure and present those results.

‍

That’s where the GIPS® standards come in.

‍

More and more investment platforms and allocators now require firms to comply with the GIPS standards before they’ll even review a strategy. For firms seeking to expand their reach—whether through model delivery, SMAs, or institutional channels—GIPS compliance has become a passport to opportunity.

‍

The Opportunity Behind Compliance

Becoming compliant with the GIPS standards is about more than checking a box. It’s about building credibility and transparency in a way that resonates with today’s due diligence standards.

‍

When a firm claims compliance with the GIPS standards, it demonstrates that its performance is calculated and presented according to globally recognized ethical principles—ensuring full disclosure and fair representation. This helps level the playing field for managers of all sizes, giving them a chance to compete where it matters most: on results and consistency.

‍

In short, GIPS compliance doesn’t just make your reporting more accurate—it makes your firm more credible and discoverable.

‍

Turning Complexity Into Clarity

While the benefits are clear, the process can feel overwhelming. Between defining the firm, creating composites, documenting policies and procedures, and maintaining data accuracy—many teams struggle to find the time or expertise to get it right.

‍

That’s where Longs Peak comes in.

‍

We specialize in simplifying the process. Our team helps firms navigate every step—from initial readiness and composite construction to quarterly maintenance and ongoing training—so that compliance becomes a seamless part of operations rather than a burden on them.

‍

As one of our clients put it, “Longs Peak helps us navigate GIPS compliance with ease. They spare us from the time and effort needed to interpret what the requirements mean and let us focus on implementation.”

‍

Real Firms, Real Impact

We’ve seen firsthand how GIPS compliance can transform firms’ growth trajectories.

‍

Take Genter Capital Management, for example. As David Klatt, CFA and his team prepared to expand into model delivery platforms, managing composites in accordance with the GIPS standards became increasingly complex. With Longs Peak’s customized composite maintenance system in place, Genter gained the confidence and operational efficiency they needed to access new platforms and relationships—many of which require firms to be GIPS compliant as a baseline.

‍

Or consider Integris Wealth Management. After years of wanting to formalize their composite reporting, they finally made it happen with our support. As Jenna Reynolds from Integris shared:

“When I joined Integris over seven years ago, we knew we wanted to build out our composite reporting, but the complexity of the process felt overwhelming. Since partnering with Longs Peak in 2022, they’ve been instrumental in driving the project to completion. Our ongoing collaboration continues to be both productive and enjoyable.”

‍

These are just two examples of what happens when compliance meets clarity—firms gain time back, confidence grows, and new business doors open.

‍

Why It Matters—Compliance as a Strategic Advantage

At Longs Peak, we believe compliance with the GIPS standards isn’t a cost—it’s an investment.

‍

By aligning your firm’s performance reporting with the GIPS standards, you gain:

Access to platforms and institutions that require GIPS compliant firms.
Credibility and trust in an increasingly competitive landscape.
Operational efficiency through consistent data and documented processes.
Scalability to support multiple strategies and distribution channels.

Simply put: compliance fuels confidence—and confidence drives growth.

‍

Simplifying the Complex

At Longs Peak, we’ve helped over 250 firms and asset owners transform how they calculate, present, and communicate their investment performance. Our goal is simple: make compliance with the GIPS standards practical, transparent, and aligned with your firm’s growth goals.

‍

Because when compliance works efficiently, it doesn’t slow your business down—it helps it reach further.

‍

Ready to turn compliance into a growth advantage?

Let’s talk about how we can help your firm simplify the complex.

‍

📧 hello@longspeakadvisory.com
‍🌐 www.longspeakadvisory.com

Recommended Post

View All Articles

The Performance Problems That Cost Managers Allocations

August 23, 2026

15 min

Most managers assume that losing an allocation comes down to returns. Underperform the benchmark, underperform peers, and the mandate goes elsewhere. That happens, but it's not usually the reason a manager gets cut from a search after the numbers already looked competitive.

‍

More often, it's something in how the performance was presented that made an allocator hesitate. A number that didn't match across two documents. A risk statistic nobody could explain. A question in due diligence that the manager couldn't answer cleanly. None of these are calculation errors. They're trust problems, and trust is what allocators are ultimately seeking when they write a check.

‍

Here are the performance problems we see that cost managers allocations most often, and none of them start with the returns themselves.

‍

The Numbers Don't Match Across Documents

‍

An allocator pulls up your factsheet, your pitchbook, and your GIPS® Composite Report, and the composite's five-year return isn't quite the same in all three. Maybe it's a rounding difference, or the factsheet reflects a different "as of" date. The allocator doesn't know that, and they aren't going to assume the best. Inconsistency reads as carelessness, and carelessness in performance reporting raises an obvious question: what else isn't being checked?

‍

This is why we push firms to treat marketing and GIPS compliance as one coordinated process rather than two departments working from different source files. Every document that leaves the building should trace back to the same underlying data.

‍

This matters even more now that due diligence itself is being automated. Operational due diligence teams and consultants are increasingly running AI tools that cross-check pitchbooks, factsheets, DDQs, and regulatory filings against each other, flagging contradictions that used to slip through manual review. A rounding difference or a stale figure that a person might have missed a few years ago is exactly the kind of inconsistency these tools are built to catch instantly. Clean, consistent marketing materials aren't just good practice anymore — they're what it takes to pass a review that may happen before a person ever looks at your numbers.

‍

Performance That Looks Selected, Not Reported

‍

Showing your best-performing account, your best-performing period, or a composite with an unusually small number of accounts invites the question every allocator is trained to ask: what am I not being shown? Due diligence teams know that everyone can't be top quartile. The SEC Marketing Rule's anti-cherry-picking provisions exist because this pattern is common enough that regulators built rules around it, and sophisticated allocators are watching for it. If your performance can be read as overly flattering rather than representative, assume a diligence team will read it that way.

‍

Wanting to lead with your best numbers is an understandable impulse. But diligence teams are trained specifically to spot it, and selective disclosure, even when every number in it is accurate, tends to read as a bigger warning sign than an honest, complete track record would. The stronger story is discipline: the periods where you held to your stated mandate and didn't deviate even while returns lagged. That's a harder story to tell than "we outperformed," but it's the one that actually holds up, because it shows you didn't drift toward whatever was working elsewhere just to keep pace. Chasing returns outside your stated process isn't skill, it's strategy drift, and allocators are trained to spot that just as readily as cherry-picked out performance.

‍

Our advice: resist the instinct to lead with your best examples, and show the scenarios that build trust instead. We recommend showing the ones that demonstrate you stuck to your stated mandate, policies, and procedures, especially when the outcome wasn't your best quarter. Discipline under pressure is a more durable credential than a strong one-off time period, and it's the kind of evidence that holds up long after that number is forgotten.

‍

Statistics You Show But Can't Explain

‍

A page full of risk statistics doesn't build confidence on its own. It invites a follow-up question, and if the manager can't explain what a downside capture ratio of 85% says about the decisions actually made in the portfolio, the statistic becomes a liability instead of an asset. Allocators aren't just checking whether the numbers are favorable. They're checking whether the manager understands their own portfolio well enough to explain it. Statistics presented without interpretation signal that the second answer is “no.”

‍

Likewise, a page of portfolio characteristics that have nothing to do with how the strategy is actually run are not doing you any favors. If you're not making decisions at the sector level, a sector breakdown doesn't tell an allocator anything about your process. If you don't manage individual position sizing, a top-ten holdings list is not adding value.

‍

Your factsheet should be a roadmap for the conversation you want to have, not a checklist of everything other managers include. Every number on it should be something you can explain: how it got there, what decision it reflects, and what it says about how you manage money. A statistic that's only there because everyone else shows it likely isn't helping you if it doesn’t demonstrate active decision making. It's inviting a question you may not have a good answer to.

‍

It's the same logic as a good resume. One padded with every certification, hobby, and unrelated past role doesn't read as impressive, it reads as overwhelming and maybe irrelevant, and it makes the reader work harder to find what actually matters to the job at hand. A factsheet works the same way. The strongest ones include only what's relevant to the case being made and make it easy to connect every line back to it.

‍

No One Can Explain Why a Decision Was Made

‍

This is the one that costs managers the most, and it's rarely about the numbers at all. An allocator asks why a composite was redefined, why a benchmark changed, or why a particular account was excluded, and the answer is a shrug or "that's how we've always done it." Undocumented decisions create the impression that performance is being managed reactively rather than governed intentionally. Firms that can point to a clear, contemporaneous record of why a judgment call was made close that conversation quickly. Firms that can't do this will leave the allocator wondering what other judgment calls haven't been documented either.

‍

The Common Thread

‍

None of these problems are really about whether the strategy performed well. It comes down to whether the story behind the numbers holds up consistently under scrutiny. Allocators aren't just buying returns. They're also buying confidence that what they're being shown today will still be true, and still explainable, a year from now.

‍

The fix isn't more disclosure for its own sake. It's making sure everything across your performance reporting tells the same, well-documented story before an allocator ever has the chance to ask why it doesn't.

‍

GIPS® is a registered trademark owned by CFA Institute. CFA Institute does not endorse or promote this organization, nor does it warrant the accuracy or quality of the content contained herein.

The Case for Pursuing GIPS® Compliance Before You Think You Need It

July 1, 2026

15 min

‍

That assumption is understandable. And it is costing firms real opportunities.

‍

The Market Has Already Decided

‍

What Compliance Actually Builds Inside Your Firm

‍

The Single Best Argument for Starting Now

‍

Here is the point that does not get made often enough: the smaller your firm and the shorter your track record, the easier it is to become compliant. That ratio flips quickly as you grow.

‍

What if you are not ready to commit to full compliance yet?

‍

The Real Costs

‍

Is This the Right Time for Your Firm?

‍

Not every firm is at the same point in this decision. Managers with the strongest case for pursuing GIPS compliance now include:

Firms actively pursuing institutional mandates or seeking coverage from investment consultants
Managers on model delivery platforms or building toward that distribution channel
Firms planning meaningful growth over the next two to three years
Any manager whose clients or prospects have already raised the question
Firms that simply want to build a best-in-class performance reporting foundation, regardless of where their distribution strategy stands today

‍

On Verification: You Can Wait

‍

Verification is worth having. It just does not need to happen on day one.

The Longer You Wait, The Heavier the Lift

‍

If your firm is headed toward institutional distribution (most boutique managers we work with are), the best time to build this infrastructure is before you need it. The second best time is now.

‍

GIPS® is a registered trademark owned by CFA Institute. CFA Institute does not endorse or promote this organization, nor does it warrant the accuracy or quality of the content contained herein.

PMAR 2026: A Few Takeaways That Stuck With Me

June 1, 2026

15 min

Every Spring, the performance measurement community gathers for PMAR: The Performance Measurement, Attribution & Risk Conference, hosted by TSG. This year marked the twenty-fourth annual, and I left thinking about it differently than I have in years past.

‍

Most years, the themes evolve gradually. This year, I felt like the ground was moving.

‍

The theme nobody put on the agenda but ran underneath nearly every session was the pace of change. Specifically, what artificial intelligence is about to do to our work. And while I came away energized, I also came away with a healthy dose of " we (as in everyone) are not ready for how fast this is coming."

‍

Here's what stayed with me.

‍

AI Was the Undercurrent of the Whole Event

‍

The session titled "AI, Anxiety, and Opportunity: What Performance Professionals Need to Know" was, predictably, one of the most sought-after sessions of the conference. The panel, which included practitioners from across the industry, did a nice job naming both sides of the coin: the anxiety of not knowing what your job looks like in five years, and the opportunity sitting right in front of us if we lean in.

‍

Here's my honest read of the room, though. The mood was optimistic. Maybe a little too optimistic. There was a comfortable assumption that AI will mostly handle the tedious parts and leave the interesting work to us. Or that AI won’t take your job, someone that knows AI will. I'm not sure it'll be that tidy.

‍

From what we're already seeing in our own work and across the firms we serve, the capabilities are advancing faster than most people can comprehend. The days where “our industry is just slower to adapt” are gone. Just last week, anthropic released Fable 5 and before it was shut down (temporarily?), we played around with it a little and its capabilities are dumbfounding. I don't think it will be long before these conferences look drastically different. Different sessions, different vendors, maybe a different sense of what the job even is. That's not a doom prediction. It's just a reason to pay closer attention than feels comfortable.

‍

Separating Skill From Luck Just Got Harder and More Important

‍

One of my favorite sessions was Michael Ervolini's "You Can't Find Skill in Returns: Distinguishing Performance From the Decisions That Generate Them." It's a deceptively simple premise: returns tell you what happened, not whether the manager was actually good. A great number can come from a great decision, or from luck. A bad number can hide genuine skill.

‍

What I appreciate about PMAR is that the community keeps bringing fresh perspectives to this old, hard problem: how do we actually evaluate skill versus luck? It's a question that never fully resolves, and every year someone pushes the thinking forward.

‍

It struck me that this question gets more important in an AI world, not less. As machines take over more of the calculation and even some of the decision-making, our value shifts toward judgment – knowing which decisions deserved credit, which results were noise, and what a number actually means in context. That's the kind of discernment a model can assist with but can't own. For more from Mr. Ervolini, here's a link to his latest book Skill vs. Luck.

‍

The GIPS Challenges That Keep Coming Back

‍

I'm biased here, but the "Common GIPS Challenges and How to Avoid Them" session was a highlight for us, in part because our own Matthew Deatherage, CFA, CIPM, was on the panel alongside peers from TSG, MassPRIM, and Strategic Investment Group.

‍

What I always find striking about this topic is how consistent the challenges are. Firms pursuing compliance with the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®)* tend to stumble on the same handful of issues year after year, and almost all of them are avoidable with the right foundation in place. That's a big part of why we do what we do at Longs Peak: helping firms get ahead of those pitfalls instead of discovering them during verification or, worse, during a regulatory exam.

‍

Matt is a familiar face on these panels, and it's great to have our perspective in the mix. But the takeaway that stuck with me tied right back to the AI thread running through the whole conference.

‍

Across several different panels, presenters talked about feeding the GIPS standards into their own AI models to churn out GIPS reports. And here's the thing, anyone can do that. You can drop the standards into a model in minutes. What a model can't do is provide critical judgment about how a principles-based framework should be applied to your specific facts and circumstances and whether those GIPS reports and statistics were calculated correctly. The GIPS standards aren't a checklist; they're a set of principles that require interpretation, and interpretation is exactly where experience earns its keep.

‍

I'm not saying don't use AI to help build a framework. Use it. But like any model, if you don't really know what you're asking it to do, the output won't save you. Simply asking a model to "make my firm GIPS compliant" isn't going to make it so. At least not yet!

‍

And there's one problem every performance professional already knows AI hasn't solved: data. As they say, garbage in, garbage out. Meaningful performance lives and dies on clean, well-organized data, and no software tool or AI model fixes messy inputs alone. At Longs Peak, we have spent the last 10 years working with clients to improve data quality through data integrity testing. For us, these AI models have only expanded what’s possible. We know one thing for sure: setting these tools up with the proper context (i.e., knowing what to look for) and then evaluating that context on an ongoing basis may turn out to be the most crucial piece of it all.

‍

CFA Institute Is Listening on the CIPM

‍

A session I didn't expect to find as interesting as I did was "CIPM Through the Practitioner Lens," facilitated by Rob Langrick of CFA Institute. Rather than simply presenting at the room, CFA Institute came to listen and gather candid feedback on the CIPM designation: where it's delivering value, where it's falling short, and how it should evolve to stay relevant to the work we actually do day to day.

‍

The audience didn't hold back, and there were some genuinely thoughtful suggestions including how the code of ethics will evolve in this new AI era, some recommendations on reformatting the exam to break it into smaller chunks (going into greater detail on each) as well as adding a CIPM group within the CFA societies to encourage further connection. It was refreshing to see CFA Institute putting real energy behind a credential that so many of us have invested in and want to see grow in value. Given the pace of change in our field, willingness to adapt feels necessary. For anyone interested in contributing ideas to the CIPM, you can use this link to provide feedback.

‍

A Quick Word on the Trivia

‍

I'd be remiss not to mention that Performance Trivia got a much-needed upgrade this year. In past years, only a handful of contestants got to play while the rest of us watched (though in fairness, not all of us were clamoring for the spotlight). The new format this time allowed everyone to participate (without taking center stage), and it was a lot more fun for it. A small change, but it captured something I value about this community: it's competitive, but it's also genuinely collegial and prides itself on memorizing quirky names and vintage formulas.

‍

Before PMAR Even Started: Women in Performance Measurement

‍

For me, the week actually started the day before the conference, at the Women in Performance Measurement (WiPM) gathering. An event created just for the women in our industry. It's one of my favorite parts of this trip every year, and not only because the conversation is good. There's something energizing about being in a room full of women who do this work, comparing notes and reconnecting.

‍

Fittingly, AI came up here too, though in a much more hands-on way than it would on the main stage. Practitioners shared real use cases, both personal and professional: the small ways AI is already saving them time day to day, and the bigger experiments they're running at their firms. It was practical, curious, and refreshingly free of hype.

‍

We were also lucky to have a guest speaker, Lidia Arshavsky, who spoke on executive presence. She broke down how executive presence actually gets evaluated inside organizations (the signals people pick up on, often without realizing it) and offered practical recommendations for strengthening your own. It was the kind of talk that's useful no matter where you are in your career.

‍

It was a great way to kick off PMAR, and an even better way to reconnect with women I only get to see a few times a year. Sometimes the most valuable part of a conference happens in these opportunities to network and reconnect within our niche performance community. A big thank you to TSG who donated the space for this event to take place and have done so for many years.

‍

What AI Can't Take From Us

‍

The conference's forward-looking sessions, including "Innovative Ways to Present Performance: Dashboards & Analytics," got me thinking. The tools are evolving so quickly and so much of the analysis, presentation, and reporting can now be automated. I am left wondering how long the traditional use of software in our space will last in its current form.

‍

When the capabilities advancing fastest don’t always come from the established vendors, who benefits? My hope is that everyone does. That these tools level a playing field that used to tilt heavily toward the largest institutions, give smaller firms the ability to deliver high-caliber analytics previously out of reach, and push the whole field toward better solutions. That makes for a more competitive space and ultimately a clearer picture for investors to evaluate their options.

‍

That's the optimistic case, and I believe it. But it only holds if we stay clear-eyed about where our own value comes from and that's the note I want to leave you on. The pace of change is a reason to focus, not to panic. The things that make us valuable are the things AI can't take: consciousness, judgment, and the human-in-the-loop accountability that clients ultimately trust. Machines will calculate faster and present prettier. They won't sit across the table from a client and take responsibility for what a number actually means.

‍

So, by all means, get curious about the tools (Claude seemed to be most people’s favorite – mine as well). Experiment. Don't be the individual or firm that gets left behind. But anchor yourself in the part of this work that's irreplaceably human, because that's the part that was always the point.

‍

See you at PMAR 2027. I suspect it'll look a little different.

‍

________________________________________

GIPS® is a registered trademark owned by CFA Institute. CFA Institute does not endorse or promote this organization, nor does it warrant the accuracy or quality of the content contained herein.

‍

How to Update Your GIPS Reports for the 2020 GIPS Standards

Deadline to Update GIPS Reports

Minimum Updates Required for GIPS Composite Reports (Formerly Compliant Presentations)

2020 GIPS Report Changes for Firms with Pooled Funds

2020 GIPS Report Utilizing Money-Weighted Returns

2020 GIPS Report Changes for Asset Owners

2020 GIPS Report Changes for other Optional Policies

Questions?

Popular Post

The Market Has Already Decided

What Compliance Actually Builds Inside Your Firm

The Single Best Argument for Starting Now

What if you are not ready to commit to full compliance yet?

The Real Costs

Is This the Right Time for Your Firm?

On Verification: You Can Wait

The Longer You Wait, The Heavier the Lift

Phase 1: Define the Firm and Scope Your Universe

Phase 2: Build Your GIPS Standards Policies & Procedures Manual

Phase 3: Construct Composites and Calculate Performance

Phase 4: Create GIPS Reports and Go Live

Ongoing Maintenance: Where Most Firms Struggle

Should You Get Verified

Final Thoughts

Start with the Right Mindset: Governance Is About Sustainability

1. Clear Ownership (It’s Rarely Just One Person)

2. Policies and Procedures That Reflect Reality

3. Formalized Review and Oversight

4. Governance Extends to Marketing and Distribution

5. Documentation of Decisions (Not Just Results)

6. Governance Is Ongoing, Not a One-Time Project

What Good GIPS Compliance Governance Really Buys You

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

Are Changes Coming to the GIPS Standards in 2030?

Performance Methodology Under the SEC Marketing Rule

Evolving Expectations in Private Fund Client Reporting

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

1. The SEC Enforcement Division

2. Prospective Clients

3. The SEC Exam Staff

Final Thoughts

From Compliance to Growth: How the GIPS® Standards Help Investment Firms Unlock New Opportunities

The Opportunity Behind Compliance

Turning Complexity Into Clarity

Real Firms, Real Impact

Why It Matters—Compliance as a Strategic Advantage

Simplifying the Complex

Ready to turn compliance into a growth advantage?

Recommended Post

The Performance Problems That Cost Managers Allocations

The Case for Pursuing GIPS® Compliance Before You Think You Need It

The Market Has Already Decided

What Compliance Actually Builds Inside Your Firm

The Single Best Argument for Starting Now

What if you are not ready to commit to full compliance yet?

The Real Costs

Is This the Right Time for Your Firm?

On Verification: You Can Wait

The Longer You Wait, The Heavier the Lift

PMAR 2026: A Few Takeaways That Stuck With Me

AI Was the Undercurrent of the Whole Event

Separating Skill From Luck Just Got Harder and More Important

The GIPS Challenges That Keep Coming Back

CFA Institute Is Listening on the CIPM

A Quick Word on the Trivia

Before PMAR Even Started: Women in Performance Measurement

What AI Can't Take From Us

Simplify Performance. Amplify Impact.

_{Phase 1: Define the Firm and Scope Your Universe}