Key Takeaways from the 28th Annual GIPS® Conference

The CFA Institute hosted its 28th Annual Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) Conference on September 17-18 in San Diego, CA. As always, the opportunity to reconnect with industry peers and colleagues was a highlight. We are grateful to all the speakers and panelists who shared their insights. Here are some key takeaways we found valuable from this year’s event.

The SEC Marketing Rule

The SEC Marketing Rule continues to be a topic of discussion, especially as we continue navigating the nuances of the rule and its implications for investment performance advertising. During the panel discussion, two presenters clarified several points:

Model vs. Actual Fees

It seems that there is rarely a case when the use of actual fees will adequately satisfy the marketing rule. This is a major development as at least 30% of the participants in the audience claim to still be using actual fees in their marketing.

According to the SEC marketing rule, when calculating net returns you can use actual or model fees. However, to satisfy the general prohibitions, an advisor generally should apply a model fee that reflects either the highest fee that was charged historically or the highest potential fee that it will charge the prospect receiving the advertisement (not a reasonable fee or an average). Footnotes 590 and 593 further clarify that there may be cases when using actual fees would specifically violate the marketing rule.

Footnote 590: “If the fee to be charged to the intended audience is anticipated to be higher than the actual fees charged, the adviser must use a model fee that reflects the anticipated fee to be charged in order not to violate the rule’s general prohibitions.”

and

Footnote 593: “…net performance that reflects a model fee that is not available to the intended audience is not permitted under the final rule’s second model fee provision.”

As a result, we recommend that anyone using actual fees in advertisements compare their net returns to the net returns that would have been achieved using the highest fee a prospect would pay as the model fee. If your actual net returns result in materially better performance than what the performance would be using the highest model fee, this is likely problematic. The rules do not define materiality, but the panelists did provide an example where the difference was only 25bp and they indicated that would likely be considered material.

If you do not have tools for calculating model fees, don’t worry, we are here to help. Reach out to one of our performance experts if you need help calculating model fees – we have tools that can simplify this for you.

Showing Multiple Net Returns in a Single Advertisement

Standardized marketing materials that show multiple net return results (including net of actual fees) may be presented in a single advertisement. This seems like a change of tone from what we heard last year, but this greatly simplifies what we thought previously. Since the adoption of the marketing rule, firms have struggled with how to standardize marketing materials, especially when they have different fee schedules and investor types.

Many firms now manage several versions of the same marketing document that show only the gross-of-fee returns and net-of-fee returns relevant to the specific audience receiving the advertisement. This can be logistically challenging to manage. Based on the discussion and case studies provided, it seems that firms are permitted to create a single document that shows various net-of-fee returns based on the fees charged to different investor types. The example provided looked something like this:

This shift in approach may be a huge relief for firms that are managing multiple investor types and are trying to track and update performance under various fee schedules. If electing to do this, it is important to ensure the fee proposed for the prospective investor is clear – especially when presenting a table like this to a retail investor. It is essential that your prospects can easily identify the net-of-fee return stream that is applicable for them.

Attribution & Contribution – Which is Performance?

Attribution is not considered performance while contribution likely is. Because Attribution is not considered performance, the use of a representative account is generally accepted. However, careful consideration should be applied in selecting an appropriate rep account and documentation to support its selection should be maintained. While the performance-related requirements of the Marketing Rule may not apply, the overarching requirement for the advertisement to be “fair and balanced” applies and must be considered when determining what account to use to represent the strategy.

A separate case study discussed how to handle situations when the rep account closes. Using the old rep account historically and linking its data to a new rep account is considered hypothetical, so if your rep account ceases to exist, it’s best to re-evaluate and select a different rep account to be used for the entire track record of the strategy.

Presenting Sector Contribution Returns Net-of-Fees

When presenting extracted performance, such as contribution or returns at the sector-level, this is treated as performance and must be presented net-of-fees. Since some firms have been mistakenly reducing each sector by a prorated portion of the percentage fee when determining the net-of-fee results, the panelists emphasized that when netting down sector returns, firms must deduct the full percentage fee from each sector. If allocating the dollar amount of the fee, that would be prorated by weighting the dollar amount of the fee by the weight the sector represents in the portfolio, but prorating a percentage will not create the same result and will overstate the sector-level net-of-fee returns.

The following example was provided to demonstrate how to apply model fees to sector returns and contribution in an advertisement:

Private Fund Gross & Net Returns

The calculation of gross and net returns for private funds must be consistent. For example, you cannot report a gross-of-fee return that excludes the impact of a subscription line of credit while reporting a net-of-fee return that includes it. Firms must disclose the effect of leverage, specifying the impact of subscription lines of credit rather than just stating that returns will be lower.

Per the marketing rule: gross- and net-of-fee returns must be calculated over the same time period, using the same type of return methodology. For example, it is not appropriate to calculate gross IRR using investment-level cash flows and net IRR using fund-level cash flows as that would be considered different methodologies.

Hypothetical Performance

Firms should be prepared to defend the classification of hypothetical or extracted performance. Hypothetical performance is defined as “performance that no specific account received.” Panelists made a point of noting that the return stream of a composite is not considered hypothetical, even though no specific account received the performance.

Along similar lines, a case study was presented where a firm wanted to show recommended funds to an existing client in a marketing presentation. The question was whether presenting a recommendation like this is considered hypothetical. Not surprisingly, the answer was “it depends on how the information was presented.” Presenting the information in a way that implied what the investor “could have received” would likely be hypothetical. Simply showing how these funds performed historically (so long as it complies with the marketing rule – showing prescribed time periods etc.) appeared acceptable.

AI in Investment Performance Reporting

The integration of AI into performance measurement and reporting continues to gain momentum. Of particular interest was how quickly our jobs may be changing and whether we need to be concerned about job security.

Jobs that focus on data gathering, prepping and cleaning are expected to be replaced by AI in the near future.  We’ll likely see fewer new job postings for these entry-level roles, with a shift towards more value-added positions, such as data scientists, becoming more prevalent. Panelists suggested that many roles within the performance measurement function, including auditing, will likely be augmented, automating repetitive tasks (often performed by more junior professionals) and enhancing data analysis functions. Higher-level human oversight will still be essential for exercising judgment and interpreting information within the context of real-world scenarios – at least for now.

Panelists recommended preparing performance teams by encouraging them to take basic courses in Python and SQL to help prepare and empower them for the shift to a future with AI. AI platforms already exist that can perform detailed performance attribution and risk assessments by simply asking a question – much like one would with ChatGPT. It is likely that performance measurement professionals will continue to be needed to develop these platforms, and they will likely remain reliant on some human oversight for the foreseeable future.

Updates on the GIPS Standards

There were not a lot of updates on the GIPS Standards at the conference. As of July 31, 2024, 1,785 organizations across 51 markets claim compliance with the GIPS standards. This includes 85 of the top 100 global firms, and all 25 of the top 25 firms. The top five markets include the US, UK, Canada, Switzerland, and Japan, with Brazil emerging as a new market entrant in 2024.

The conference also provided updates on recent changes to the GIPS Standards. Key updates included:

• The Guidance Statement for OCIO Strategies will be released by year-end, providing more clarity for firms managing OCIO portfolios. It appears that gross-of-fee and net-of-fee returns will need to be presented for OCIO composites.
• The Guidance Statement for Firms Managing Only Broadly Distributed Pooled Funds(BDPFs) became effective on July 1, 2024. The new guidance offers increased flexibility for firms managing BDPFs, allowing them to avoid preparing GIPS Reports for prospective investors and instead focus on reporting for consultant databases or RFPs. While input data and return calculation requirements generally still apply, composite construction and report distribution are only required if the firm chooses to prepare GIPS Reports.
• The GIPS Technical Committee is forming a working group to address after-tax reporting. For now, firms should refer to the USIPC After-Tax Performance Standards, which were issued in 2011. Additionally, as there is little consensus on how to calculate private fund returns, the committee plans to provide further guidance—though a timeline was not specified.

These takeaways underscore the evolving nature of the investment performance landscape. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us. We would be happy to share additional insights from the conference as well as jump start your firm in complying with the GIPS Standards.

GIPS® is a registered trademark owned by CFA Institute.