Around the Peak.

CFA Institute hosted the 27th annual GIPS Standards Conference on October 17^th - 18^th 2023 in Chicago, Illinois. As expected, it was filled with a lot of familiar faces, but also had quite a few first timers, which was nice to see.

Being almost a year into the SEC Marketing Rule and with implementation of the Private Fund Adviser Quarterly Statement Rule on the horizon, the hottest topics of this year’s conference were the sessions relating to regulatory compliance. These sessions included discussions with representatives from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) answering practical questions related to adherence to these rules as well as sessions with senior performance professionals discussing the detailed performance methodology required to comply.

Other topics included a review of the proposed guidance statement for applying the GIPS standards to OCIOs, helpful advice for updating consultant databases, a proposed method to risk-adjust performance attribution, and some lessons on soft skills for leaders managing relationships.

SEC Marketing Rule

Michael McGrath, CFA, Partner with Dechert LLP and Robert Shapiro, Assistant Director, Division of Investment Management with the SEC together with Karyn Vincent, CFA, CIPM and Krista Harvey, CFA, CIPM of CFA Institute did an excellent job emphasizing the key lessons learned as we near the 1-year mark of the adoption of the Marketing Rule. Below are some key takeaways worth noting:

Defining “Performance”

Since the Marketing Rule requires investment managers to present performance net-of-fees, it is important for firms to define what they consider “performance.” The SEC takes a straightforward approach, generally considering any statistic that demonstrates how much an investor earned from an investment to be performance. But, even with this simple and easy to understand approach, there can be some grey areas.

Based on the discussions in this session, it seems to now be widely accepted that in addition to basic returns being considered performance that contribution is also considered performance, while attribution and most performance appraisal measures are not considered performance. Performance appraisal measures should be individually considered to confirm if they are demonstrating the amount earned (which would be performance) or if it is used as a measure of the manager’s skill(which would not be considered performance).

Some portfolio characteristics could also be a grey area that firms should be careful to consider before presenting solely as gross-of-fees. For example, yield was discussed at length. It was said that total portfolio yield for something like an enhanced cash portfolio likely would be performance because the yield in that case is essentially the return the investor earned. On the other hand, dividend yield for a growth strategy where this does not directly indicate the amount the investor earned *might* be performance. This really would come down to how it is presented and how material the yield is to the strategy. If material to the strategy’s return, this may be considered performance and, in this case, would need to be reduced by a model fee.

After determining that a statistic is not performance and will be presented based on gross-of-fee input data, it is important to clearly label these figures as gross. A disclosure under the table or chart that simply states something like, “Risk statistics are presented gross-of-fees,” should suffice.

There was also a lot of discussion relating to applying fees to extracted performance such as sector and holdings-level performance. It was made very clear that each segment must be reduced and presented net-of-fees so fees cannot just hit the cash segment or something like that. To achieve this, most firms are using a model fee. For example, if the highest fee for the strategy is 1% per year and quarterly sector returns are presented, each sector’s quarterly return is reduced by 0.25%.

Hypothetical Performance

Hypothetical performance has been a focus of the initial SEC enforcement actions taken against firms under the Marketing Rule. The main issue has been firms broadly distributing hypothetical performance without any policies and procedures in place to ensure the distribution of this type of performance is limited only to those that can be reasonably expected to understand it.

The key is that firms must document policies that clearly define the intended audience for a particular presentation of hypothetical performance and then ensure that the presentation only goes to this audience. In addition, documentation should include the tools necessary to understand the information provided. For example, the type of hypothetical performance should be clearly described as well as any assumptions made to create this performance.

Hypothetical performance is very broadly defined. It could be anything from a back-tested model to a paper portfolio or even just an aggregation of extracted returns (e.g., a composite of carveouts). It should be clear what the performance represents and consideration should be given to the complexity of the information, especially when determining it’s appropriate audience.

Private Fund Adviser Quarterly Statement Rule

Anne Anquillare, CFA, Head of US Fund Services with CSC Global Financial Markets and Pamela Grossetti, Partner with K&L Gates together with Krista Harvey, CFA, CIPM of CFA Institute walked us through the key elements to prepare for with the new Private Fund Adviser Quarterly Statement Rule. Below are some key takeaways worth noting:

The Compliance Date for the Quarterly Statement Rule is March 14, 2025. This may sound like a long time away, but it is important to keep in mind that the requirement to include cross-references to the underlying governing documents in the Quarterly Statement may require amendments to such documents before the first Quarterly Statement is issued, and this could be time consuming.

Under this new rule, private fund managers must distribute a quarterly statement to the investors in the fund within 45 days after each quarter ends and 90 days after year-end. This is required for any private fund that has at least two full quarters of operating results.

There are many items that must be included in the quarterly statements relating to general fund details like fees and expenses as well as disclosures that are cross-referenced to the private fund’s offering documents; however, being the GIPS conference, this presentation was primarily focused on the performance requirements.

The performance requirements for liquid funds are very different for illiquid funds. An illiquid fund is one that is not required to redeem interests when requested by an investor and has limited opportunities for an investor to withdraw funds prior to the fund’s termination. If a fund manager determines that their fund is liquid, the performance requirement for the quarterly statement is limited to showing the following three items, each in equal prominence:

1. Annual net-of-fee returns for each of the past 10 fiscal years (or back to inception if shorter)
2. Annualized net-of-fee returns for the past 1, 5, and 10 years through the end of the latest fiscal year (or since inception if shorter)
3. Year-to-date net-of-fee return for the current fiscal year

Illiquid funds have a much more significant requirement with 12 figures they are required to present:

Portfolio-Level

Investment-Level

Unlike the GIPS standards, under this rule, there is no exemption for funds that only use a subscription line of credit for a short period of time. Funds that utilize a subscription line of credit for any period are required to show the metrics listed above both with and without the subscription line.

Another notable difference from the GIPS standards is that this rule requires interest expense charged from the subscription line of credit to be added back when calculating the “without subscription line of credit” version of the required metrics. The GIPS standards do not require this adjustment.

It was also discussed that if these quarterly statements were provided to prospective investors instead of only current investors then they would also need to be reviewed to confirm that they meet the Marketing Rule on top pf the Quarterly Statement Rule.

Current State of SEC Exams

Mark Dowdell, Assistant Regional Director with the SEC together with Ken Robinson, CFA, CIPM from CFA Institute discussed current trends in SEC examinations. Below are some key takeaways worth noting:

There was a strong emphasis on the need for clear policies and procedures that have been customized for the firm. Specifically, it was emphasized that policies and procedures relating to hypothetical performance are not the only thing firms should make sure they add for the Marketing Rule. For example, if firms are presenting predecessor performance or extracted performance there should be documented policies for this as well.

It was mentioned that in addition to standard examinations, the SEC is also conducting some risk-based exams that may be limited in scope, but go very deep on a narrow area. This may even include the recalculation of performance in their own systems to get comfortable with the accuracy of presented figures.

Outside of the recent enforcement actions relating to hypothetical performance, the SEC continues to see firms make exaggerated or untrue statements relating to the number of staff they employ, the qualifications of staff, awards received, the use of AI in the investment process, and their adherence to ESG standards in the investment process. While it is okay to state opinions in marketing materials, statements of fact absolutely must be substantiated.

Developing a Database Strategy

Jill Banaszak, Global Head of Omni Success at eVestment lead a great session on getting the most out of 3^rd party and consultant databases.

The most important takeaway was the importance of using databases to tell the story of your firm in a complete and accurate way. Often firms leave a number of fields blank or neglect to revisit (or update) the narrative sections to remain accurate and in sync with their other messaging online or in marketing materials. Asset owners and their representatives use the databases to make short lists of firms meeting their criteria and many firms end up excluded as a result of blank fields or inconsistencies in messaging. At a minimum, firms should target completing at least 80% of the requested information.

It is also important to ensure information is completed timely and accurately. Firms should have monthly figures updated by the 12^th business day of the month at the latest to avoid missing out on searches. To avoid errors or incomplete information, firms should consider who is tasked with updating the information and also ensure this person or team is qualified and has access to all relevant information so it can be fully completed. Implementing a quality control process to double check the information is also important to avoid typos or other mistakes in the information presented.

Applying the GIPS Standards to OCIOs

There is currently an exposure draft of the Guidance Statement for OCIO Strategies out for public comment with comments due by 20 November 2023. This session was led by a group of panelists who were part of the OCIO working group that created this new guidance statement. The purpose of this guidance statement is to improve comparability between OCIO strategies. The primary change in this proposed guidance that deviates from the current requirements of the GIPS standards for firms is the required composite structure that all OCIO managers would need to follow.

The required composite structure would separate liability-focused composites from total return objective composites and would then further break the composites down by their allocation between risk mitigating assets and growth assets ranging from conservative to aggressive allocations. There are specific weightings defined for each that are intended to line up with commonly used OCIO benchmarks.

These new composites are only required to build out five years of history, but like other composites firms manage, must then build up to showing a ten year track record before any performance periods can be removed.

This guidance statement also proposes requiring both gross-of-fee returns and net-of-fee returns instead of only one because of the complexity of OCIO fees.

This guidance statement has not yet been officially adopted, but once approved, it is expected to allow for a 12-month implementation period for firms to update their policies and procedures, construct composites that align with the prescribed composite structure, and create GIPS reports for these new composites.

Conclusion

This year’s speakers did a great job providing clarification on the SEC Marketing Rule and other relevant topics that impact GIPS compliance and investment performance.

We were happy to see many old friends in person this year in Chicago and look forward to seeing everyone again next year in San Diego. It was announced that next year’s conference will be held on the 17^th – 18^th of September in San Diego, California!

If you have any questions about the 2023 GIPS Standards Conference topics or GIPS compliance and performance measurement in general, please contact us.

*A previous version of this article included a mistake for investment-level figures for illiquid funds. This has been corrected.

We all know that investing involves a delicate balance of seizing opportunity and managing risk. Even if you do it well, your factsheet may not adequately explain how your strategy manages that balance. Your factsheets tell the story of your performance history and play a crucial role in your sales process by helping prospective investors make informed investment decisions. But how do you know if you’ve included the right information?

Types of Measurements

While every strategy differs in terms of its investment objective, it’s important to identify which types of statistics will be the best at helping you tell the story behind your investment strategy.

Before you choose the exact statistics to include, take a moment to think through what makes your strategy unique and then consider the audience you’re speaking to (sometimes this may mean making more than one factsheet for the same strategy – think retail vs. institutional).

Here are the main categories that should be included…

• A measure of volatility – to demonstrate stability (or variability) of your strategy
• Correlation – to express sensitivity to the benchmark or market
• Risk-adjusted returns – to standardize performance evaluation when considering risk
• Downside risk – to explain how your strategy performs in down markets
• Market Capture – to display how the strategy performs during market movements (up or down)

Only you know what makes your strategy unique and appealing to prospective investors, so take the time to determine the key pillars of your strategy and then select statistics that help demonstrate or reinforce that story.

Once that’s clear, it’s time to crunch some numbers.

Top 5 Risk Statistics

Here’s a list of the top 5 risk statistics our experts see included on our clients’ factsheets.

1.  A Measure of Volatility: Standard Deviation

Investment managers have different ways of measuring volatility – often dependent on the strategy employed. Most commonly, we see standard deviation used, which is a measure of total risk (i.e., both systematic and unsystematic risk). Standard deviation quantifies the variability of a strategy’s returns from its average over a specific period. A higher standard deviation indicates greater volatility, implying that the strategy’s returns have experienced significant fluctuations or high variability.

Standard deviation is generally presented for both the strategy and a comparable benchmark. Risk-averse investors are generally looking to invest in strategies that achieve higher returns than the comparable benchmark while having a lower standard deviation than the benchmark over the same period.

Be sure to use this measure to demonstrate the stability of your strategy when it is historically low or to attract those with higher tolerance for fluctuation when it has been historically high. An explanation about how that higher fluctuation translates into outperformance will help paint a more complete picture.

2. Strategy Correlation: Beta

When assessing a new strategy, investors often want to consider how the strategy will fit into their broader portfolio. One way to evaluate this is by considering how sensitive the strategy is to the market (or the total portfolio’s benchmark) using beta. When armed with this information, investors can determine if adding your strategy would increase or decrease their exposure to the pulse of the market. If your strategy intends to offer diversification benefits, beta should be less than one (or negative). If you are adding market exposure, it should be greater than one.

In factsheets, we commonly include beta, calculated against the strategy’s benchmark, to show how the strategy moves relative to its benchmark. This is useful for investors to see if the calculated beta aligns with how an investment manager has described its investment process.

For example, for a strategy described as a “bottom-up approach that holds a concentrated portfolio of the best-performing stocks from a larger universe” (and therefore not directly tied to an index), we would expect beta to be very low (or even negative) or very high, but not close to 1. If it is close to 1, they may be a “closet indexer” that claims to have an in-depth research process, uncorrelated with the market, but in reality, is still basically replicating the benchmark. Investors would want to know this because they can invest in ETFs or funds designed to replicate a benchmark for much lower fees.

Conversely, for a strategy that is described as "enhanced indexing," beta should be close to 1 with returns that outperform the index. In this case, the goal is to track the risk level of the index while beating it performance-wise.

In either case, investors want to see strategy metrics support how your strategy and process is described. If any of these risk measures don’t align, we recommend taking the time to understand and explain why.

3. Risk-Adjusted Returns: Sharpe Ratio

While arguably the most common risk statistic to include, the Sharpe ratio is helpful as a comparison tool because it standardizes performance and risk into one measure.

The Sharpe ratio demonstrates a strategy’s risk-adjusted return by considering its excess return (return above the risk-free rate) per unit of risk taken (standard deviation). A higher Sharpe ratio is preferred. If your strategy claims to offer superior returns with lower risk, the Sharpe ratio is an appropriate measure to demonstrate that.

However, keep in mind that this measure may not be useful for strategies that are not normally distributed (e.g., hedge funds or other strategies with returns that are materially positively skewed when the strategy is successful). For most traditional investment managers, especially those targeting institutional investors, this measure is often expected on a factsheet, so don’t overlook it.

4. Assessing Downside Risk: Maximum Drawdown

Maximum drawdown measures the largest peak-to-trough decline in a strategy’s performance over a specific period. This metric is crucial because it quantifies the potential loss an investor could have experienced during the strategy’s worst-performing period. A larger maximum drawdown implies higher downside risk.

This measure is often good to show along with the max drawdown of the market or benchmark for comparison. While higher potential returns often correlate with greater downside risk, investors, equipped with this information, can determine their tolerance for this kind of loss. In addition, they can use it to compare to other similar strategies they are considering.

If your strategy claims to manage downside risk, maximum drawdown is arguably the best measure to demonstrate tactful management during down markets.

5. Market Capture: Upside/Downside Capture

These measures assess how well a strategy or portfolio performs during market movements, specifically in comparison to a benchmark. Upside capture measures the degree to which a strategy captures the positive returns of a benchmark during periods of market growth. Downside capture measures the degree to which a strategy is exposed to losses when the benchmark declines.

These capture ratios can be used to explain how a strategy aims to achieve specific goals related to market conditions. For example, “beats the market on the upside and protects on the downside” (you’d hope to see over 100% upside capture with less than 100% downside capture) or “capital preservation with risk targets below the overall market” (you’d expect to see lower than 100% upside capture with hopefully a very low downside capture).

Please note that it is most common to show these measures together (or to show total capture ratio that combines the two). Considering the “fair and balanced” requirements in the SEC marketing rule, it’s likely prudent to include both to explain the full picture.

For an aggressive strategy that is over 100% capture both on the upside and the downside or a capital preservation strategy that is under 100% both on the upside and downside, you ideally can still show that the total capture ratio is greater than 1. This demonstrates that the strategy is winning on the upside by a greater amount than it is losing on the downside or that protection on the downside more than offsets the lagging performance on the upside.

Conclusion

When it comes to investing, knowledge is power. Factsheets provide investors with valuable information to help them make informed decisions about your firm and strategies. When you provide them with a full picture of your performance that includes risk, they are more fully equipped to consider you for further due diligence.

Investment firms that understand these statistics and use them to help explain the story of their investment performance provide context and transparency in a saturated landscape of investment options.

Make sure to take the time to understand what these measures say about your performance each period and include that in some form of market commentary when you share your factsheets with prospects. This demonstrates how informed you are about the strategies you manage, how decisions made impact results, and what your plans are to address them.

Want to discuss how you can improve your factsheets with risk statistics? Schedule a free 30-minute brainstorm with one of our partners on which statistics you should include to help explain your investment performance.

Today, September 3, 2023, marks Longs Peak's 8th anniversary, and I couldn't be more grateful for the incredible journey we've had over the last 8 years. As we celebrate this milestone, I'd like to reflect on what this date means to me each year, both personally and professionally, and how I've embraced it to live my best life (one of our core values at Longs Peak).

In 8 years, I am proud to say that we have served over 250 investment firms, providing them with consulting services related to calculating and presenting their investment performance. Many of these firms achieved GIPS compliance for the first time with our assistance, allowing us to live out our mission of making investment performance more transparent and reliable – empowering investors to make better, more informed investment decisions.

Our growing team is a testament to the power of teamwork as we focus on this shared vision. The growth we have experienced is not just in numbers but also in our commitment to make a difference in the investment community. As we continue to grow, we remain steadfast in our belief that, together, we can overcome challenges, reach new heights, and inspire others to join us on this journey.

But beyond the business achievements, this date holds a profound personal significance for me. On September 3, 2003, exactly 20 years ago, I underwent my first open heart surgery to repair an aortic aneurysm and receive an aortic valve from a pig. A decade later, on September 3, 2013, I underwent my second open heart surgery to replace the pig valve with one from a cow, as the pig valve had torn.

Facing these challenging surgeries and the recovery periods was undoubtedly difficult, but I made a conscious decision to embrace a positive outlook on life. I chose to see myself as a survivor, part farm animal or not, and this mindset inspired me to live life to its fullest. For me, that meant taking bold chances and not letting fear hold me back from pursuing my dreams.

One of the most significant risks I took was starting Longs Peak with my wife, Jocelyn. At that time, we had two babies and no other income. That giant leap led to so much more and although there have been times of fear (like trying to scale a business through a pandemic!), it has been an immensely rewarding adventure, all thanks to our incredible clients and team.

This approach to life has also pushed me to make decisions that go beyond work. Each year, on or around September 3rd, I celebrate my life and health by doing something that I wouldn't have been able to do without the success of those surgeries. In the past, I've run marathons, completed long hikes, and climbed 14ers (mountains with peaks higher than 14,000 feet) in Colorado and even summitted Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. This year, I am grateful to spend this anniversary hiking La Plata Peak (Colorado’s 5^th highest mountain) with Jocelyn followed by a trip with my brother to Slovakia to hike the High Tatras.

On this special day, I am reminded of how precious life is. By seizing opportunities and pushing myself to new heights, I've discovered the true meaning of living my best life. This year, as we mark both the 10th and 20th anniversaries of my surgeries (and 8^th anniversary of Longs Peak), I wanted to take a moment to thank some key players in my life that have inspired me along the way.

To my parents, thanks for raising me with an entrepreneurial spirit. Growing up with a paper route, mowing lawns, and shoveling driveways taught me more about starting and running a business than anything I learned in school. I also appreciate your encouragement and support along the way!

To my brother, the time we both spent living in New York in our 20’s was transformational for me. Coming from a small town, I never would have moved to New York if you weren’t already there clearing the way. I learned so much in those years both from you and from the invaluable work experience I gained there early in my career. That experience and time we spent together really changed the course of my life and career and I owe a lot of that to you.

To my wife, thanks for always being up for an adventure! In 2009, shortly after we got married, I suggested we leave New York and move to Shanghai for an amazing work opportunity and you said, “let’s do it!” In 2015 I suggested that I quit my job and we start Longs Peak together and you said, “let’s do it!” In 2019 I suggested we have a 4^th baby and you said, “let’s do it!” You make life fun. I appreciate your optimism and the faith you have in us. Most of all, I appreciate the way you always show up 100% for our family, team, clients, and anyone else who needs you. We love you!

To my kids, thanks for putting up with me and mom talking about work all the time and for patiently riding the entrepreneurial rollercoaster with us! One of the reasons we started our business was so we could work from home and be close to you all before working at home was as common as it is now. I may not always love it in the moment when you walk in on an important video call to ask an urgent question, like if you can have a snack, but I know I will love looking back on memories like that someday.  You all are my inspiration for everything I do. Whether it is the things I do to improve my health or career, I am motivated to do it imagining the long healthy future I want to enjoy together with all of you.

To our team, who we affectionately refer to as our “big kids,” we appreciate everything you do to make Longs Peak the best it can be. All of you embody our core values and that shines through in how each of you approach the exceptional service we strive to provide to our clients. At the same time, you make Longs Peak an enjoyable place for me to work every day.  I truly appreciate that and am grateful to each and every one of you.

To our clients, thank you for entrusting us with the opportunity to assist in projects that we hope have led you to further growth and success. Your confidence in our expertise fuels our commitment to delivering exceptional service and innovation. Your GIPS and performance objectives are the driving force behind our growth. We are genuinely honored to be a part of your journey to grow your firm.

To everyone, I would not be where I am today without your influence and support in my life. You have inspired me to do everything I can to live my best life. I hope everyone reading this takes the opportunities presented to them to take calculated risks (pun intended) and live life to its fullest. Thank you all - I look forward to the many more adventures yet to come!

In today's highly competitive financial landscape, your company must stand out and demonstrate its commitment to transparency and accuracy. One powerful tool at your disposal is the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®).

We know how complicated it can be to become GIPS compliant and that’s exactly why we built Longs Peak – to do the heavy lifting for firms and simplify the verification process. By allowing us to tackle the behind-the-scenes work, we’ve helped hundreds of firms become compliant at a much faster rate than if they’d handled it internally – giving them the opportunity to quickly leverage their GIPS compliant status in their marketing and messaging.

By becoming GIPS compliant and incorporating GIPS compliance into your marketing materials, such as factsheets and pitchbooks, you can strengthen your credibility and trustworthiness among clients and prospects.

Let’s explore how to effectively utilize the GIPS standards in your marketing to help highlight your competitive advantage.

Understanding GIPS Compliance & Its Benefits

Before delving into marketing, let's review the fundamentals of GIPS compliance. The GIPS standards are a globally recognized set of ethical principles that provide a standardized framework for calculating and presenting investment performance to prospective investors.

By complying with the GIPS standards, you demonstrate that your performance results are genuine, comparable, and fairly presented. Moreover, GIPS compliance promotes transparency and instills confidence in potential investors, enhancing your marketability.

Highlighting Your Firm’s GIPS Compliance

After going through all the hard work to become GIPS compliant, it is important to share that status with the world so you can reap the benefits of your efforts! By including information about your firm’s GIPS compliance in your marketing, you instantly communicate your dedication to adhering to global best practices.

Trust is so important in the investment industry. By explaining how your firm is going above and beyond regulatory requirements to ensure your investment performance is presented in a fair and transparent manner helps demonstrate your firm’s trustworthiness and can help you stand out in an oversaturated landscape of options.

Tailoring the Message to Different Audiences

With any marketing effort, it’s important to consider your target audience. Understanding the needs, preferences, and concerns of that audience allows you to speak directly to their interests, fostering stronger connection and engagement.

When mentioning GIPS compliance, keep in mind that retail investors may be less familiar with the Standards and therefore may need more information to understand the benefits. Institutional investors tend to know about the Standards and likely need less explanation. By employing language that resonates with the target audience, you not only capture their attention but further build credibility and trust.

Advertising Your Firm’s GIPS Compliance

Now that we have emphasized the importance of highlighting your firm's GIPS compliance in your marketing materials, it is important to consider how this should be done. When mentioning GIPS compliance, there are some very specific disclosures that must be included. It is important that your firm does not state or imply that your firm is GIPS compliant without these disclosures.

Firms mentioning GIPS compliance in their marketing have the option either to follow the GIPS Advertising Guidelines or to attach a GIPS Report for the relevant composite or fund being marketed. You can download our checklists of what disclosures to include when following the GIPS Advertising Guidelines or when creating GIPS Reports.

For any marketing piece that includes a GIPS Report, we encourage firms to create a standalone page for the GIPS Report. The GIPS standards have specific requirements for reporting errors on the GIPS Report, so you want to limit information on that page to only what’s required and avoid the potential of having to report errors that could have been avoided if the information was kept separate.

Using Visuals to Enhance Understanding

GIPS Reports and their required disclosures tend to leave marketing teams feeling creatively stifled. But the goal of a good marketing presentation is to be engaging and digestible. Graphs, charts, and infographics can help convey complex performance data with clarity and impact.

Visual representations can be especially effective in illustrating return data and depicting how your strategies have outperformed benchmarks (i.e., growth of dollar line chart) over time. However, always ensure that the visual representations are aligned and never conflict with the information presented within the GIPS Report.

Incorporating Risk Statistics

Of course, no investment performance presentation is complete without discussing risk. There are a variety of risk statistics that can (and should) be used to demonstrate how each strategy you manage performs relative to risk. If you want to learn more about what risk statistics to include, you can read about the most common ones we see here.

Showcasing the Competitive Advantage

Beyond GIPS compliance, highlight the distinct features that set your investment strategies apart from the competition. Emphasize your expertise, team capabilities, and successful track record. While GIPS compliance is a powerful differentiator, showcasing your unique approach to investment management will further position your firm as a top choice for potential investors.

Wrap Up

By incorporating GIPS compliance into your marketing materials, you signal a commitment to transparency, accuracy, and investor protection. Emphasize the benefits of GIPS compliance, use visuals to enhance understanding, incorporate a discussion about risk and spotlight your competitive advantage. With these strategies in place, your marketing materials will become powerful tools for attracting and retaining investors, ultimately propelling your company to new heights of success.

Are you ready to leverage the power of GIPS compliance in your marketing materials?  Schedule a call with one of our partners to elevate your credibility with investors and gain a competitive edge. Let us help you get started!

TSG hosted the 21^st annual Performance Measurement, Attribution & Risk (PMAR) North America Conference on May 24^th - 25^th 2023 in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Longs Peak had the pleasure of sponsoring the event and being represented on the Performance Reporting: Beyond the GIPS standards panel on day 2 of the conference by our very own Matt Deatherage, CFA, CIPM.

With many unanswered questions still circulating on the implementation of the SEC Marketing Rule that took effect last November, there were multiple sessions that touched on this topic. Other topics included ESG and its impact on performance, maximizing the potential of AI, performance evaluation and risk when returns aren’t normally distributed, evaluating benchmark misfit risk, and other hot topics such as talent retention and outsourcing.

With many women in the industry already attending PMAR, the conference also facilitated the first in-person Women in Performance Measurement (WiPM) meeting May 23^rd. Longs Peak co-sponsored this event with TSG and sent four members of our team to the event. Interacting with so many brilliant women in different stages of their careers was a great experience, and the women of Longs Peak are looking forward to being part of the continued growth and development of the group.

ESG

ESG reporting requirements are ramping up, coming from pressure from shareholders and employees as well as in response to looming federal climate-disclosure regulations. The trend is no different for prospective investors as interest in ESG information is increasingly being requested by prospects. According to this WSJ article, “Nearly 80% of roughly 400 global institutional investors surveyed last year said companies should make investments that address ESG issues, even if doing so reduces profits in the short term.” The speaker reiterated this sentiment and said although the regulations in the US are behind Europe and Australia, he said that the SEC is getting there.

AI and Machine Learning in Investment Management

It is no secret that large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT or BloombergGPT are increasingly being incorporated in investment management. LLMs offer powerful technologies that can be utilized for a variety of advancements from data analysis and research to providing valuable insights from financial reports and supporting decision-making. In addition, they can contribute to risk assessment, compliance, and portfolio management by analyzing data and optimizing strategies. It is our opinion that this technology will revolutionize the financial services industry and will do so rapidly.

Of course, the integration of AI and Machine Learning technology comes with advantages and disadvantages. While the technologies offer improved efficiency and accuracy, relying too heavily on this technology can introduce algorithmic biases that can impact investment decisions. As performance experts, we wonder if it will create an overreliance on historical data and as we know, past performance may not always be indicative of future results. Key takeaways from this session were to consider how your firm might utilize LLMs and Machine Learning in your own processes and that while this technology is still somewhat new, it is increasingly accessible to anyone at reasonable cost.

Performance Reporting: Beyond the GIPS Standards

The panel discussed the types and frequency of performance they’re seeing internally and externally. Depending on the asset class, monthly or quarterly external reporting is most common, while some portfolio managers have found value in utilizing daily reporting internally to see how their strategies are performing in real-time. Firms seem to be steering away from manual updates and relying more heavily on automation and external resources for reporting. Beyond the statistics required by the SEC, including visuals in their reports was touched on by the panel as well as focusing on the story the firm is looking to tell based on the goals of the specific strategy.

Firms distributing performance also need to consider the internal controls needed to ensure that they are presenting accurate performance relevant to the specific audience. The importance of audit logs and extensive internal review was stressed, and firms are constantly looking for ways to improve these processes and save time. These challenges extend to updating databases in a timely and efficient manner, with some firms opting to upload preliminary performance to meet database deadlines and then making retrospective changes as needed.

While Excel is still king in the performance world, utilizing performance systems for calculation and reporting can create efficiencies and reduce opportunity for manual error. Flexibility is key, as end users want to be able to customize reporting for their specific needs. The ultimate reporting goal for many firms seems to be aggregating performance and risk statistics from different sources, and firms have found success using dashboards and other technology to simplify these processes.

SEC Insights

With many of our clients being SEC-registered investment firms, we’ve been just as eager as the rest of the industry for additional guidance on the SEC Marketing Rule. Unfortunately, it sounds like it may be a while until additional FAQs are released. One requirement that has raised many questions is the requirement to present performance net-of-fees. “Performance” isn’t defined by the SEC, so the PMAR panel, focused on extracted performance and attribution, attempted to shed some light on what could be considered performance under the new SEC guidelines.

It's been made clear that the net performance requirement applies not only to performance of an entire composite or portfolio, but also to that of a subset of investments or a single investment. If the gross performance of a single investment is shown, net performance also needs to be presented. When presenting extracted performance, firms should apply a model fee to calculate the net return, include appropriate disclosures, and be able to support why they’re presenting this information.

This gets a little trickier when considering attribution, and many firms are still figuring out how to navigate this grey area. The SEC will likely want to see attribution net-of-fees in some cases but not others. For now, it seems providing clear documentation for what’s shown and why is key. According to the panel, things like average weight and Sharpe ratio seem less likely to be considered performance, while contribution to return seems more likely to be considered performance. Yield in particular was discussed in detail, with the takeaway being that if yield is presented in a way that it is synonymous with a return and what investors can expect to take home, this may be subject to the net performance requirement.

Some other takeaways from this panel discussion on attribution are that metrics derived from performance and those that are relative to a benchmark are less likely to be considered performance in the eyes of the SEC. Firms should be able to support their decision of what they consider performance and be aware of the context in which attribution is being presented.

This panel also touched on key deficiencies from recent SEC exams, as well as what to expect for the next round of exams. While Phase I focused on more evaluating whether firms were addressing the new rule, Phase II is expected to include a deep dive across 175-200 firms. This will also include 20-25 exams involving recalculation of performance, as well as a focus on predecessor performance and testimonials/endorsements.

Some of the deficiencies the panel touched on from Phase I were material misstatements in advertisements, manipulation of performance, omitting poor performance, and failure to present net-of-fee performance. Another deficiency noted was the lack of policies and procedures around presenting hypothetical performance. The key to presenting hypothetical performance is that recipients must be able to fully understand what is being shown, and that this performance is not being distributed to a retail audience. You also need to have the ability to recreate any hypothetical performance presented, as this has the potential to be tested by the SEC.

To get ready for the next phase of SEC exams, firms should make sure their policies and procedures are designed to prevent violations of the marketing rule and that their marketing materials comply. We recommend extending this review to your website to ensure historical information published prior to adoption of the new rule is also in compliance. One suggestion from the panel was to leverage other firms in the industry to see what types of disclosures are being used. Many large firms are putting a lot of time and resources into navigating the marketing rule, so leveraging these firms as best practice is encouraged.

WiPM Group

Officially launched in late 2022, the Women in Performance Measurement (WiPM) Group was developed as a resource for women in the investment performance industry to connect with, learn from, and uplift one another. With initial members of the group spread across multiple regions and countries, the first in-person meeting had an impressive turnout of over 50 attendees.

The meeting featured Lisa Kaplowitz as its keynote speaker. Kaplowitz is a professor at Rutgers Business School and is the Executive Director at Rutgers Center for Women in Business. Her background includes everything from taking part in the landmark Title IX case to multiple CFO positions. Throughout her career, Kaplowitz has remained a champion of women and challenging the status quo.

Kaplowitz shared statistics supporting that the majority of women in C-suite positions competed in athletics, with nearly half of those executives being previous college-level athletes. This connection may not be all that surprising when you consider the life lessons around discipline, resiliency, and teamwork that are taught through athletics and the valuable leadership skills that are developed through those experiences. She also offered some insightful information on maladaptations women have to endure to survive in the workforce today and offered suggestions for addressing them. This topic really seemed to resonate with the group.

Another topic discussed was how to make the workplace “work” for women, which led to some insightful conversations during the WiPM panel discussion that touched on work life balance and the unique challenges women face in the workforce, particularly the performance measurement industry.

The group is working out details of a mentorship program that will help facilitate relationships between women across the industry and allow them to share the knowledge and experience gained throughout their careers. This program is expected to launch in the fall of 2023 and is open to all women within the WiPM group.

Anyone interested in the WiPM Group is encouraged to contact us to get connected.

Conclusion

This year’s PMAR speakers offered a lot of great insights on topics related to investment performance measurement and challenges facing the industry.

We enjoyed connecting with other performance measurement professionals in-person and are looking forward to attending future PMAR and WiPM events.

If you have any questions about the 2023 PMAR Conference topics or GIPS compliance and performance measurement in general, please contact us.

What is Max Drawdown?

Max drawdown is a metric used to measure the largest peak-to-trough decline in the value of an investment over a specific period. Stated differently, it is the greatest cumulative percentage decline in net asset value due to losses sustained by the strategy. It is expressed as a percentage of the peak value and represents the maximum loss an investor would experience if they invested at the peak and sold at the trough. This ratio is commonly used by investment firms that say their strategy protects on the downside. Max drawdown helps demonstrate how effectively a manager performed when evaluating downside risk.

Max Drawdown Calculation

Example Max Drawdown Calculation

Max drawdown is calculated as a percentage. For example, if you want to know the max drawdown for a strategy since inception, and during that time it reaches a peak of $120, and then declined to a minimum of $90, the max drawdown would be -25.0% = (($90-$120)/$120).

How to Interpret Max Drawdown

Max drawdown is an important metric to consider when evaluating the risk of a strategy, as it provides a clear measure of the potential loss that may occur. It is one of the primary ways investors measure the risk of a strategy, especially when considering risk tolerance.

Max drawdown can be used as a tool for comparing similar strategies. Consider the following hypothetical scenario where the returns are the same, but reviewing max drawdown helps illuminate the risk taken to achieve that return:

Risk-averse investors would prefer Strategy B over Strategy A because it provides the same level of return with lower risk (as measured by max drawdown). Strategy B also performed better than the benchmark in this scenario, indicating that the strategy has performed better at managing downside risk.

Without considering the risk of the strategy, the investor would not have a sense of which investment best suits their risk profile as their decision would be based on returns alone. Considering max drawdown allows the investor to make a more informed decision while considering downside risk. Going one step further and using the max drawdown to calculate the Calmar ratio can be even more helpful as this ratio combines both return and risk into one metric.

What is the Calmar Ratio?

The Calmar ratio utilizes max drawdown to create a ratio of return to risk that helps investors compare strategies based on the level of return achieved after adjusting for the risk taken. This ratio adjusts the annualized strategy return by the maximum drawdown of the strategy. A higher Calmar ratio is preferred as that would represent better strategy-level performance on a risk-adjusted basis. Calmar is also used by firms interested in demonstrating how they performed in managing downside risk.

Calmar Ratio Calculation

Notice that a negative sign is placed in front of the maximum drawdown in the denominator. The negative sign will allow for the Calmar ratio to be calculated as a positive number since max drawdown statistics are negative by nature. The positive statistics make for an easier interpretation and comparison when reviewing different strategies side by side.

Example Calmar Ratio Calculation

Unlike max drawdown, the Calmar ratio is calculated as a decimal. While some may believe a Calmar ratio above a specific threshold is “good,” the ratio is best interpreted when comparing multiple strategies, or a strategy against a benchmark. For example, a strategy with an annualized return of 9.0% and a -25.0% max drawdown, results in a Calmar ratio of 0.36 = (9.0%/25.0%). Without another strategy or benchmark to compare, it’s hard to know if this result is good or bad. Thus, it’s best to use it as a comparison tool.

How to Interpret the Calmar Ratio

The Calmar ratio can be helpful when comparing strategies by creating statistics that are easily comparable across investment options. This statistic can also be used for various performance periods, which allows investors to make a fair comparison across investment strategies with different inception dates. Using the Calmar ratio helps investors compare results between strategies that may have different annualized returns and different max drawdowns. Let’s build off the prior example with some slight changes to show how the Calmar ratio can help in a less straight forward example where both the returns and max drawdown are different between the options:

If the above scenario was presented to an investor, it may be difficult to pick between Strategy A and Strategy B. Strategy A has the higher return but is riskier based on the max drawdown. Strategy B has the lower return but is less risky based on the max drawdown. For a risk-averse investor, this could be a difficult choice to make without any other information available.

Once the Calmar ratio is introduced, it provides a clearer picture of which option has the best risk-adjusted performance. Although an investor may be tempted with the higher returns of Strategy A, a risk-averse investor would still select strategy B due to the higher risk-adjusted performance demonstrated with the Calmar ratio. And although the strategy return did not beat the benchmark, on a risk-adjusted basis (as represented by Calmar) Strategy B is preferred.

Conclusion

Like many risk-adjusted statistics, the max drawdown and Calmar ratio are very helpful in reviewing strategy performance. These statistics can be helpful in isolation but are most useful in comparing strategies or comparing against a benchmark. Each statistic tells a different piece of the story and can be very powerful when combined with other risk statistics to provide investors with a better understanding of the return vs risk profile of the strategy or investment.

Longs Peak is pleased to announce that Partner and Co-Founder, Jocelyn Gilligan has been named a GenXYZ Top Young Professional by ColoradoBiz Magazine.

As ColoradoBiz states, “They’re uncommon achievers, whether as entrepreneurs, CEOs, nonprofit leaders, visionaries critical to their companies’ success or, in some cases, all of those roles. This year’s Top 25 Young Professionals figure to continue making a difference professionally and in their communities for years to come.”

Jocelyn grew up in Boulder, CO and graduated from the University of Colorado. She started her career at Ernst & Young in New York City where she worked on their Financial Services Transfer Pricing Team. She transferred with EY to their office in Shanghai and then eventually to Hong Kong. Jocelyn left EY as a Manager and relocated back to Colorado where she and her husband started a family. Soon thereafter, Jocelyn and Sean founded Longs Peak out of a small one-car garage in their home in Longmont, CO. Now running a thriving team of 14, Jocelyn has weathered the ups and downs of entrepreneurship. She credits a lot of their success to their amazing team and the community of entrepreneurs they live near and network with (Longs Peak is an active member of EO (Entrepreneurs Organization)).

Jocelyn is a voting member of the PTO at her children’s school and a member of Women in Investment Performance Measurement, a group recently founded to support women in the investment performance industry.

About ColoradoBiz’s Top 25 Young Professionals

The 13th annual Gen XYZ awards is open to those under 40 who live and work in Colorado — numbered in the hundreds, making for difficult decisions and conversations among judges, as always. Applications were judged by our editorial board based on career achievement, community engagement and their stories of how they got to where they are now.

About Longs Peak

Longs Peak is a purpose and values-driven company. It is our mission to make investment performance information more transparent and reliable—empowering investors to make better, more informed investment decisions.

At the onset, we were looking to help smaller investment managers by giving them access to professional performance experts and tools typically only available to very large firms. We know that our work enables emerging managers to compete with the big guys and helps facilitate their growth. We strive to be our clients’ most valued outsource partner and to be known for our exceptional client service. We know that providing exceptional client service means that we must first create a culture that lives by the ideals we are trying to create for our clients. A place where incredibly talented individuals are empowered to put their best work into the hands of clients that truly value what we do. As a firm, we recognize that our greatest asset is people – both those we work with and those we work for. We continue to evolve into something that represents the needs of both of these groups and hope someday a GIPS Report is provided to every prospective investor in the world.

‍

As in years past, we are reposting this article. While your GIPS standards policies and procedures rarely need to materially change, as the standards, regulations and your firm evolves, performing a review of your GIPS compliance each year is beneficial to ensure your documented policies continue to align with your firm’s actual practices.

This year, conducting a review of your firm’s GIPS compliance is especially important because of the SEC’s New Marketing Rule that came into effect in November 2022. For information specific to the SEC Marketing Rule, please check out our Marketing Rule Checklist or the CFA Institute’s whitepaper on Reconciling the GIPS Standards with the SEC Marketing Rule.

The Right Team & Involvement

Even without the release of the New Marketing Rule, each year you should conduct a review. In the review, you should first make sure you have the right people involved. One person or department may be responsible for managing the day-to-day tasks that maintain your GIPS compliance; however, high-level oversight from a larger group should take place to help ensure that any decisions made or policies set will integrate well with your firm’s other strategic initiatives. This larger group, often called a GIPS standards Committee, typically consists of representatives from compliance, marketing, portfolio management, operations/performance, and senior management.

Not everyone on the committee needs to be an expert in the GIPS standards. In fact, many will not be. What they will need is to be available to share their opinions and represent their department’s interests when establishing or changing key policies for your firm. Your GIPS compliance expert/manager can set the agenda for your meeting and can provide any background on the requirements that will be part of the discussion. If you do not have a GIPS standards expert internally, or need independent advice about your policies and procedures, a GIPS standards consultant can be hired to help.

High-Level GIPS Standards Topics to Consider Annually

Once you select the right group to represent each major area of your firm, the following high-level questions can help determine if any action is necessary to improve your GIPS compliance this year:

• Have there been any changes to the GIPS standards?
• Did the New SEC Marketing Rule cause you to make changes to how you manage your composites or present the composite’s performance results?
• Have there been any material changes to your firm or strategies?
• Do your composites meaningfully represent your strategies or should their structure and descriptions be reconsidered?
• Are the materiality thresholds stated in your error correction policy appropriate for the type of strategies you manage and are they consistent with the thresholds set by similar firms?
• Are you presenting any new statistics in your GIPS Reports that now should have error correction thresholds in your error correction policy? For example, if you added 1-, 5-, and 10-year annualized returns to your GIPS Reports as part of complying with the SEC’s Marketing Rule, is your error correction policy clear on how errors to these numbers will be handled?
• Are you satisfied with the service received from your GIPS standards verifier for the fee that is paid?
• Is there any due diligence you need to conduct on your verification firm to ensure data security standards are being met or to confirm there is no breach of independence if the same firm is providing additional services to your firm beyond GIPS standards verification?

Changes to Regulations/GIPS Standards

It is important to consider whether there have been any changes to the GIPS standards since last year that would require your firm to take action. For example, if a new requirement is adopted, you should consider if any changes to your firm’s policies and procedures or GIPS Reports are needed. It is important to keep in mind that it is not only when updated standards are released that guidance is issued that could impact the way you implement the standards for your firm. Guidance may also be issued in the form of guidance statements or Q&A’s, which also must be followed by all GIPS compliant firms.

If your firm is verified or works with a GIPS standards consultant, these GIPS standards experts are likely keeping you informed of any changes to the standards. The best way to check for changes yourself is to visit https://www.gipsstandards.org/. Specifically, you should check the “GIPS Standards Q&A Database” where you can enter the effective date range of the previous year to see every Q&A published during this period. You should also check the “Guidance Statements” section. The guidance statements are organized by year published, so it is easy to see when new statements are added.

As a result of the SEC Marketing Rule, there were several changes that may affect your GIPS Reports. If you are not aware of these changes, there are a number of resources available to help you better understand what is required (see the links listed in the second paragraph of this post).

Changes to Your Firm or Strategies

Similar to changes in the standards, it is important to also consider whether any changes to your firm or its strategies would require you to take action. Examples include material changes in the way a strategy is managed, a new strategy that was launched, an existing strategy that closed, mergers or acquisitions, or anything else that would be considered a material event for your firm.

Even if no changes were made this year, you should still read your entire policies and procedures document at least annually to make sure it adequately and accurately describes the actual practices followed by your firm. Regulators, such as the SEC commonly review firms’ policies and procedures to ensure that 1) the document includes actual procedures and is not simply a list of policies and 2) the stated procedures truly represent the procedures followed by the firm. We expect the SEC to be particularly vigilant in their reviews following the release of the New Marketing Rule.

Meaningful Composite Structure

The section of your GIPS standards policies and procedures requiring the most frequent adjustment is your firm’s list of composite descriptions, as you must make changes each time a new composite is added or if a composite closes. However, even without adding new strategies or closing older strategies, the list of composite descriptions should be reviewed at least annually to ensure they are defined in a manner that best represents the strategies as you manage them today.

Since your firm’s prospects will compare your composite results to those of similar firms, it is important that your composites provide a meaningful representation of your strategies and are easily comparable to similar composites managed by your competitors. If a review of your current list of composite descriptions leads you to realize that your strategies are defined too broadly, too narrowly, or in a way that no longer accurately describes the strategy, changes can be made (with disclosure).

Keep in mind that changes should not be made frequently and cannot be made for the purpose of making your performance appear better. Changing your composite structure for the purpose of improving your performance results, as opposed to improving the composite’s representation of your strategy, would be considered “cherry picking.”

Two examples of cases that may require a change in your composites include:

1. A strategy has evolved and certain aspects of the way the strategy was managed and defined in the past are different from today. This can be addressed by redefining the composite. Redefining the composite requires you to disclose the date and description of the change. This disclosure will help prospects understand how the strategy was managed for each time period presented and when the shift in strategy took place. Changes like this should be made to your composite descriptions at the time of the change, but an annual review can help you address any items that may have been overlooked when the change occurred.
2. A composite is defined broadly to include all large capitalization accounts. Within this large capitalization composite, there are accounts with a growth focus and others with a value focus. If your closest competitors are separately presenting large capitalization growth and large capitalization value composites, your broadly defined large capitalization composite may be difficult for prospects to meaningfully compare to your competitors. To address this, you can create new, more narrowly defined composites to separate the accounts with the growth and value mandates. In this case, the full history will be separated and the composite creation date disclosed for these new composites will be the date you make the change. Note that this will demonstrate to prospective clients that you had the benefit of hindsight when determining the definition.

Materiality Thresholds Stated in Your Error Correction Policy

Another section of your firm’s GIPS standards policies and procedures that should be reviewed in detail is your error correction policy. Your error correction policy includes thresholds that pre-determine which errors (of those that may occur in your GIPS Reports) are considered material versus those deemed immaterial. These thresholds cannot be changed upon finding an error; however, they can be updated prospectively if you feel a change would improve your policy.

Many firms had a difficult time setting these thresholds when this requirement first went into effect back at the start of 2011. Now that much more information is available to help you determine these thresholds, such as the GIPS Standards Error Correction Survey, you may want to revisit your policy to ensure it is adequate.

Setting and approving materiality thresholds that determine material versus immaterial errors is a task best suited for your firm’s GIPS standards committee rather than your GIPS standards department or manager. The reason for this is that opinions of what constitutes a material error may vary from one department to another. Your committee can help find a balance between those with a more conservative approach and those with a more aggressive approach to ensure the thresholds selected are appropriate.

GIPS Standards Verifier Selection and Due Diligence

If your firm is verified, it is important to periodically evaluate whether you are satisfied with the quality of the service received for the fees paid. You may also want to consider whether you need to conduct any periodic due diligence on your verification firm with respect to data security or ensuring the firm conducting your verification is still considered independent from your firm. This is especially important if your firm receives multiple services from your verifier that could overlap.

With several mergers, acquisitions, and start-ups in the verification community over the last few years, you may want to do some research to ensure you are familiar with what your options are when selecting a verification firm.

All verifiers have the same general objective: to test and opine on 1) whether your firm has complied with all the composite construction requirements of the GIPS standards and 2) whether your firm’s GIPS standards policies and procedures are designed to calculate and present performance in compliance with the GIPS standards. Where they differ is in the fees charged and process followed to complete the verification.

Regarding fees, much of the difference between verifiers is based on their level of brand recognition rather than differences in the quality of their service. In our experience, smaller firms specialized in GIPS verification may have more experience with the intricacies of GIPS compliance than a global accounting firm; yet, a global accounting firm will likely charge a higher fee. When selecting a higher-fee firm, it is important to consider whether the higher fee is offset by the benefit your firm receives when listing their brand name as your verifier in RFPs you complete.

With regard to process, each verifier has its own method for how it arrives at an opinion on the points listed above. If you found last year’s process frustrating, there’s no harm in seeing what else is available. Our team has worked with most, if not all the verifiers out there and is happy to share our experience on how each verifier works. In addition, some verifiers offer access to a team and other ancillary services while others are a one-person shop. Here, you’ll want to consider how the engagement team is structured, whether you can expect to work with the same team each year, and how much experience your main contact has. Prior to the Covid-19 era, some verifiers conducted the verification on-site while others worked remotely. While remote work is now the norm, on-site work, in general, is making a comeback. You’ll want to consider which approach works best for the team that is fielding the verification document requests. The onsite approach may result in finishing the verification in a shorter period but may be disruptive to your other responsibilities while the verification team is in your office. The remote approach may be less disruptive to your other responsibilities, but likely will take longer to complete and may be less efficient as documents are exchanged back and forth over an extended period of time.

Regardless of whether the verification is conducted onsite or remotely, be sure to ask any verifier how your proprietary information and confidential client data is protected. If the work is done remotely, how are sensitive documents transferred between your firm and the verifier (e.g., is it through email or a secure portal) and once received by the verifier, do they have strong controls in place to ensure your data is not at risk.

If the work is done onsite, it is important to ask what documents (or copies of documents), if any, the verifier will be taking with them when they leave, and whether these documents are saved in a secure manner. Documents saved locally on a laptop are at higher risk of being compromised.

Questions?

For more information on how to maximize the benefits your firm receives from being GIPS compliant or for other investment performance and GIPS compliance information, contact us or email Sean Gilligan at sean@longspeakadvisory.com.

CFA Institute hosted the 26th annual GIPS Standards Conference on October 25^th - 26^th 2022 in Boston, Massachusetts. This was the first time the GIPS Standards Conference was hosted in-person since the 2019 conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. It was great to be back together with so many familiar faces.

With the SEC Marketing Rule taking effect shortly after the conference, the hottest topic of this year’s conference was the two-hour session on this topic. Other topics included best practices for the implementation of the GIPS standards, information on ESG attribution, data visualization, practical advice for IRR calculations, OCIO performance issues, model portfolio programs and general updates on the GIPS standards.

SEC Marketing Rule

Michael McGrath, CFA, Partner with K&L Gates and Christine Schleppegrell, Acting Branch Chief with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) did an excellent job addressing some of the grey areas relating to the presentation of performance in advertising.

Schleppegrell emphasized that the guidance is intended to be principles-based so there are not always back and white answers to these grey areas. Most important is that firms always consider if their advertisement is “fair and balanced” and appropriate/meaningful for the intended audience.

McGrath was able to share some more opinions on how firms can address some of the grey areas. Below are some key items worth highlighting:

Gross vs. Net for “Performance-Related” Statistics

The rule is clear that gross performance cannot be shown unless net performance is also shown. But for many trying to interpret this guidance it begs the question, what is “performance”? Is performance limited to only the actual returns of the strategy or are other risk measures and attribution considered “performance” as well?

A key distinction that was made is that performance demonstrates what the investors “actually took home.” So, charts that show the growth of a dollar would likely be considered “performance” and need to show net returns. On the other hand, a risk measure like standard deviation that indicates volatility, but does not actually tell us what the investor took home would likely not be considered “performance” and, therefore, can be shown based on gross returns without also showing net.

Performance appraisal measures like Sharpe ratio are a little closer to showing what an investor took home but are still just “performance-related” rather than “performance.” Attribution also likely fits into this “performance-related” category where it is likely okay to show based on gross data; however, for any of these performance-related measures, if choosing to show based on gross data rather than net you should:

1. Document internally why you feel it is more appropriate/meaningful to use gross data for these measures, so you are prepared to justify its use if questioned by an examiner; and
2. Present net performance (i.e., net time-weighted returns) for the strategy in conjunction with these other “performance-related” figures that are presented using gross performance data.

Calculating Net Performance

Calculating net performance for a composite can get tricky when a composite includes non-fee-paying accounts, accounts with greatly reduced fees, accounts that pay their fee by check, or accounts that pay their fees from other accounts managed by the same manager (we've written a separate post on how to account for these fees here). Firms presenting net performance based on actual fees must ensure fees are applied to every account in the composite even if some are non-fee-paying. While the GIPS standards allow firms to exclude non-fee-paying accounts from composites, the SEC Marketing Rule does not specifically allow this. If excluding non-fee-paying accounts, you will need to ensure that excluding them does not make your composite performance materially better. While a model fee can be applied to each non-fee-paying account, the easiest, and most conservative approach is simply to apply a model fee at the composite level.

Even when all accounts in the composite are fee-paying, if using actual fees to calculate net performance you should consider if the results are meaningful for your current prospects. For example, if historically you charged 75bps, but your current fee schedule for new prospects is 1.5%, it could be considered misleading to use net performance based on actual fees. It is considered more appropriate to apply a model fee based on the highest fee a prospective client would pay.

Materiality was also discussed with regards to non-fee-paying accounts in composites. Specifically, a question was asked regarding the need to adjust for non-fee-paying accounts in composites when the amount of non-fee-paying accounts in the composite is very small. It was confirmed that materiality can be considered, and no adjustment is needed if the impact is immaterial. Of course, materiality can be difficult to define so if your firm is electing to not adjust performance for the non-fee-paying accounts in the composite, you should document your justification for this. This documented justification should make it clear why the results are meaningful and appropriate for your intended audience without any adjustment.

Using Representative Accounts for Attribution

Many firms are accustomed to using representative accounts for attribution rather than using a composite for attribution. This may continue to be okay if the firm can demonstrate that the results for the representative account are not better than the composite and also that the account has attributes that truly are representative of the strategy. Generally, this attribution would be shown in conjunction with composite performance, so the representative account is only used for “performance-related” statistics and not for the performance itself.

Customized Requests for Prospects

If a prospect requests a customized report of information that typically would not be allowed in an advertisement, it may be okay to provide this information to meet their specific customized request. However, if you have a report saved with this type of information that you provide to more than one prospect when requested, this may no longer be considered customized and may then be considered an advertisement.

For example, if you create a report of gross equity returns extracted from a balanced strategy to provide upon request, this may be deemed an advertisement if you provide the same report to multiple prospects. In other words, it needs to be custom tailored each time to meet the unique request of a prospect to fall outside of the Marketing Rule. When in doubt, it is safest to assume it will be considered an advertisement and include all required statistics and disclosures.

GIPS Standards Implementation

I had the pleasure of speaking on this panel together with two other industry experts with experience in GIPS standards verification and consulting. Together, we emphasized the importance of ensuring GIPS compliant firms take the time to customize their policies and procedures to be meaningful for their firm. Often firms create their policies and procedures using a template when first becoming GIPS compliant. It can be hard to include detailed procedures at that stage because it is all so new. A key takeaway from this session was to go back to your policies and procedures and take a fresh look to consider if they are clear and complete or if more detailed procedures should be added now. If you would like some additional guidance, we have summarized a list of the main topics to consider updating in a previous post here.

Involvement from key stakeholders in your firms GIPS compliance was also discussed. Whether it be for determining error correction materiality thresholds, defining composites, or other important decisions for your GIPS compliance, it is important to include stakeholders from around your firm. Specifically, members of your firm from performance, operations, compliance, portfolio management, sales & marketing, and executive management should be consulted to help create robust policies that consider different facets of your business. Often, firms create a GIPS Standards Oversight Committee with members from each of these areas to help facilitate effective internal communication between departments regarding the implementation of the firm’s GIPS compliance.

Detailed composite construction policies were also discussed such as minimum asset levels and significant cash flow policies. The key takeaway from this was to ensure you are not over complicating policies. Implementing composite minimums and significant cash flow policies can be beneficial in some cases, but if you do not have a system to help automate the monitoring and implementation of these policies, the risk these policies add may outweigh the benefit. Depending on the size of the composite, these policies may only have an immaterial impact on the composite results. Since implementing policies like this (especially when not automated) increases risk of errors in composite membership, it is important to consider the potential administrative burden when determining whether you want to have these optional policies for your composites.

OCIOs and GIPS Compliance

Many OCIOs (Outsourced Chief Investment Officers) are currently working toward GIPS compliance. With the way these firms operate with heavily customized portfolios, defining discretion and constructing composites can be very challenging. With this in mind, additional guidance for OCIOs claiming compliance with the GIPS standards is in the works. An initial consultation paper is expected mid-2023 that will be open for public comment. Finalized guidance for OCIOs will be available after there has been time to consider the feedback received from the public.

Conclusion

This year’s speakers did a great job providing clarification on the SEC Marketing Rule and other relevant topics that impact GIPS compliance and investment performance.

We were happy to be back in-person to attend the conference in Boston and look forward to hearing where next year’s conference will be!

If you have any questions about the 2022 GIPS Standards Conference topics or GIPS and performance in general, please contact us.