When you're responsible for overseeing the performance of an endowment or public pension fund, one of the most critical tools at your disposal is the benchmark. But not just any benchmark—a meaningful one, designed with intention and aligned with your Investment Policy Statement(IPS). Benchmarks aren’t just numbers to report alongside returns; they represent the performance your total fund should have delivered if your strategic targets were passively implemented.
And yet, many asset owners still find themselves working with benchmarks that don’t quite match their objectives—either too generic, too simplified, or misaligned with how the total fund is structured. Let’s walkthrough how to build more effective benchmarks that reflect your IPS and support better performance oversight.
Your IPS is more than a governance document—it is the road map that sets strategic asset allocation targets for the fund. Whether you're allocating 50% to public equity or 15% to private equity, each target signals an intentional risk/return decision. Your benchmark should be built to evaluate how well each segment of the total fund performed.
The key is to assign a benchmark to each asset class and sub-asset class listed in your IPS. This allows for layered performance analysis—at the individual sub-asset class level (such as large cap public equity), at the broader asset class level (like total public equity), and ultimately rolled up at the Total Fund level. When benchmarks reflect the same weights and structure as the strategic targets in your IPS, you can assess how tactical shifts in weights and active management within each segment are adding or detracting value.
For traditional, liquid assets—like public equities and fixed income—benchmarking is straightforward. Widely recognized indexes like the S&P 500, MSCI ACWI, or Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index are generally appropriate and provide a reasonable passive alternative against which to measure active strategies managed using a similar pool of investments as the index.
These benchmarks are also calculated using time-weighted returns (TWR), which strip out the impact of cash flows—ideal for evaluating manager skill. When each component of your total fund has a TWR-based benchmark, they can all be rolled up into a total fund benchmark with consistency and clarity.
Where benchmarking gets tricky is in illiquid or asset classes like private equity, real estate, or private credit. These don’t have public market indexes since they are private market investments, so you need a proxy that still supports a fair evaluation.
Some organizations use a peer group as the benchmark, but another approach is to use an annualized public market index plus a premium. For example, you might use the 7-year annualized return of the Russell 2000(lagged by 3 months) plus a 3% premium to account for illiquidity and risk.
Using the 7-year average rather than the current period return removes the public market volatility for the period that may not be as relevant for the private market comparison. The 3-month lag is used if your private asset valuations are updated when received rather than posted back to the valuation date. The purpose of the 3% premium (or whatever you decide is appropriate) is to account for the excess return you expect to receive from private investments above public markets to make the liquidity risk worthwhile.
By building in this hurdle, you create a reasonable, transparent benchmark that enables your board to ask: Is our private markets portfolio delivering enough excess return to justify the added risk and reduced liquidity?
Once you have individual benchmarks for each segment of the total fund, the next step is to aggregate them—using the strategic asset allocation weights from your IPS—to form a custom blended total fund benchmark.
This approach provides several advantages:
For example, if your IPS targets 50% to public equities split among large-, mid-, and small-cap stocks, you can create a blended equity benchmark that reflects those sub-asset class allocations, and then roll it up into your total fund benchmark. Rebalancing of the blends should match there balancing frequency of the total fund.
In some cases, especially for highly customized or opportunistic strategies like hedge funds, there simply may not be a meaningful market index to use as a benchmark. In these cases, it is important to consider what hurdle would indicate success for this segment of the total fund. Examples of what some asset owners use include:
While these aren’t perfect, they still serve an important function: they allow performance to be rolled into a total fund benchmark, even if the asset class itself is difficult to benchmark directly.
For public pension boards and endowment committees, benchmarks are essential for effective fiduciary oversight. A well-designed benchmark framework:
At Longs Peak Advisory Services, we’ve worked with asset owners around the globe to develop custom benchmarking frameworks that align with their policies and support meaningful performance evaluation. If you’re unsure whether your current benchmarks are doing your IPS justice, we’re hereto help you refine them.
Want to dig deeper? Let’s talk about how to tailor a benchmark framework that’s right for your total fund—and your fiduciary responsibilities. Reach out to us today.
.jpg)
For asset owners and investment firms managing private equity, real estate, or other illiquid assets, one of the most persistent challenges in performance reporting is determining the right approach to valuation timing. Accurate performance results are essential, but delays in receiving valuations can create friction with timely reporting goals. How can firms strike the right balance?
At Longs Peak Advisory Services, we’ve worked with hundreds of investment firms and asset owners globally to help them present meaningful, transparent performance results. When it comes to illiquid investments, the trade-offs and decisions surrounding valuation timing can have a significant impact—not just on performance accuracy, but also on how trustworthy and comparable the results appear to stakeholders.
Illiquid investments are inherently different from their liquid counterparts. While publicly traded securities can be valued in real-time with market prices, private equity and real estate investments often report with a delay—sometimes months after quarter-end.
This delay creates a reporting dilemma: Should firms wait for final valuations to ensure accurate performance, or should they push ahead with estimates or lagged valuations to meet internal or external deadlines?
It’s a familiar struggle for investment teams and performance professionals. On one hand, accuracy supports sound decision-making and stakeholder trust. On the other, reporting delays can hinder communication with boards, consultants, and beneficiaries—particularly for asset owners like endowments and public pension plans that follow strict reporting cycles.
For strategies involving private equity, real estate, or other illiquid holdings, receiving valuations weeks—or even months—after quarter-end is the norm rather than the exception. To deal with this lag, investment organizations typically adopt one of two approaches to incorporate valuations into performance reporting: backdating valuations or lagging valuations. Each has benefits and drawbacks, and the choice between them often comes down to a trade-off between accuracy and timeliness.
In the backdating approach, once a valuation is received—say, a March 31 valuation that arrives in mid-June—it is recorded as of March 31, the actual valuation date. This ensures that performance reports reflect economic activity during the appropriate time period, regardless of when the data became available.
With the lagged approach, firms recognize delayed valuations in the subsequent reporting period. Using the same example: if the March 31valuation is received in June, it is instead recorded as of June 30. In this case, the performance effect of the Q1 activity is pushed into Q2’sreporting.
Both approaches are acceptable from a compliance and reporting perspective. However, the key lies in consistency.
Once an organization adopts an approach—whether back dating or lagging—it should be applied across all periods, portfolios, and asset classes. Inconsistent application opens the door to performance manipulation(or the appearance of it), where results might look better simply because a valuation was timed differently.
This kind of inconsistency can erode trust with boards, auditors and other stakeholders. Worse, it could raise red flags in a regulatory review or third-party verification.
Regardless of the method you use, full transparency in reporting is essential. If you’re lagging valuations by a quarter, clearly state that in your disclosures. If you change methodologies at any point—perhaps transitioning from lagged to backdated—explain when and why that change occurred.
Clear disclosures help users of your reports—whether board members, beneficiaries, auditors, or consultants—understand how performance was calculated. It allows them to assess the results in context and make informed decisions based on the data.
One important detail that’s often overlooked: your benchmark data should follow the same valuation timing as your portfolio.
If your private equity or real estate portfolio is lagged by a quarter, but your benchmark is not, your performance comparison becomes flawed. The timing mismatch can mislead stakeholders into believing the strategy outperformed or underperformed, simply due to misaligned reporting periods.
To ensure a fair and meaningful comparison, always apply your valuation timing method consistently across both your portfolio and benchmark data.
Valuation timing is a technical, often behind-the-scenes issue—but it plays a crucial role in how your investment results are perceived. Boards and stakeholders rely on accurate, timely, and understandable performance reporting to make decisions that impact beneficiaries, employees, and communities.
By taking the time to document your valuation policy, apply it consistently, and disclose it clearly, you are reinforcing your organization’s commitment to integrity and transparency. And in a world where scrutiny of investment performance is only increasing, that commitment can be just as valuable as the numbers themselves.
Longs Peak Advisory Services specializes in helping investment firms and asset owners simplify their performance processes, maintain compliance, and build trust through transparent reporting. Contact us to learn how we can support your team.
The Performance Measurement, Attribution & Risk (PMAR) Conference is always a highlight for investment performance professionals—and this year’s event did not disappoint. With a packed agenda spanning everything from economic uncertainty and automation to evolving training needs and private market complexities, PMAR 2025 gave attendees plenty to think about.
Here are some of our key takeaways from this year’s event:
Although not officially a part of PMAR, WiPM often schedules its annual in-person gathering during the same week to take advantage of the broader industry presence at the event. This year’s in-person gathering, united female professionals from across the country for a full day of connection, learning, and mentorship. The agenda struck a thoughtful balance between professional development and personal connection, with standout sessions on AI and machine learning, resume building, and insights from the WiPM mentoring program. A consistent favorite among attendees is the interactive format—discussions are engaging, and the support among members is truly energizing. The day concluded with a cocktail reception and dinner, reinforcing the group’s strong sense of community and its ongoing commitment to advancing women in the performance measurement profession.
If you’re not yet a member and are interested in joining the community, find WiPM here on LinkedIn.
John Longo, Ph.D., Rutgers Business School kicked off the conference with a deep dive into the global economy, and his message was clear: today’s markets are more uncertain than risky. Tariffs, political volatility, and unconventional strategies—like the idea of purchasing Greenland—are reshaping global trade and investment decisions. His suggestion? Investors may want to look beyond U.S. borders and consider assets like gold or emerging markets as a hedge.
Longo also highlighted the looming national debt problem and inflationary effects of protectionist policies. For performance professionals, the implication is clear: macro-level policy choices are creating noise that can obscure traditional risk metrics. Understanding the difference between risk and uncertainty is more important than ever.
In the “Developing Staff for Success” session, Frances Barney, CFA (former head of investment performance and risk analysis for BNY Mellon) and our very own Jocelyn Gilligan, CFA, CIPM explored the evolving nature of training in our field. The key message: cookie-cutter training doesn't cut it anymore. With increasing regulatory complexity and rapidly advancing technology, firms must invest in flexible, personalized learning programs.
Whether it's improving communication skills, building tech proficiency, or embedding a culture of curiosity, the session emphasized that training must be more than a check-the-box activity. Ongoing mentorship, cross-training, and embracing neurodiversity in learning styles are all part of building high-performing, engaged teams.
Several sessions explored the growing role of AI and automation in performance and reporting. The consensus? AI holds immense promise, but without strong data governance and human oversight, it’s not a silver bullet. From hallucinations in generative models to the ethical challenges of data usage, AI introduces new risks even as it streamlines workflows.
Use cases presented ranged from anomaly detection and report generation to client communication enhancements and predictive exception handling. But again and again, speakers emphasized: AI should augment, not replace, human expertise.
Private equity, private credit, real estate, and hedge funds remain among the trickiest asset classes to measure. Whether debating IRR vs. TWR, handling data lags, or selecting appropriate benchmarks, this year's sessions highlighted just how much nuance is involved in getting private market reporting right.
One particularly compelling idea: using replicating portfolios of public assets to assess the risk and performance of illiquid investments. This approach offers more transparency and a better sense of underlying exposures, especially in the absence of timely valuations.
Calculating performance in long/short portfolios isn’t straightforward—and using absolute values can create misleading results. A session on this topic broke down the mechanics of short selling and explained why contribution-based return attribution is essential for accurate reporting.
The key insight: portfolio-level returns can fall outside the range of individual asset returns, especially in leveraged portfolios. Understanding the directional nature of each position is crucial for both internal attribution and external communication.
Compliance was another hot topic, especially in light of recent enforcement actions under the SEC Marketing Rule. From misuse of hypothetical performance to sloppy use of testimonials, the panelists shared hard-earned lessons and emphasized the importance of documentation. This panel was moderated by Longs Peak’s Matt Deatherage, CFA, CIPM and included Lance Dial, of K&L Gates along with Thayne Gould from Vigilant.
FAQs have helped clarify gray areas (especially around extracted performance and proximity of net vs. gross returns), but more guidance is expected—particularly on model fees and performance portability. If you're not already documenting every performance claim, now is the time to start.
David Spaulding of TSG, closed the conference with a deep dive into benchmark construction and the potential for “phantom alpha.” Even small differences in rebalancing frequency between portfolios and their benchmarks can create misleading outperformance. His recommendation? Either sync your rebalancing schedules or clearly disclose the differences.
This session served as a great reminder that even small implementation details can significantly impact reported performance—and that transparency is essential to maintaining trust.
From automation to attribution, PMAR 2025 showcased the depth and complexity of our field. If there’s one overarching takeaway, it’s that while tools and techniques continue to evolve, the core principles—transparency, accuracy, and accountability—remain as important a sever.
Did you attend PMAR this year? We’d love to hear your biggest takeaways. Reach out to us at hello@longspeakadvisory.com or drop us a note on LinkedIn!
