Are fee-related admin issues causing errors in your investment performance?
Managing Partner
November 5, 2015
15 min
Calculating gross and net investment performance should be simple, right? Yes, however, firms often face fee-related portfolio accounting or administrative issues that cause complications, resulting in inaccurate performance. It is essential that all types of fees are accounted for correctly to ensure reported performance can be relied upon for evaluation by clients and prospective investors.
Which Fees and Expenses Reduce Investment Performance?
Gross-of-fee performance represents a portfolio’s return net of transaction costs only. Net-of-fee performance is net of transaction costs and investment management fees, so the only difference between gross and net performance is the investment management fee. According to the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®), investment management fees are defined to include both asset-based and performance-based fees that are earned for managing a portfolio.
If your firm is GIPS compliant, it is important to reduce performance by both types of fees when calculating net-of-fee performance. For non-GIPS compliant firms, this is still considered best practice; however, it is common for firms with both types of fees to report performance reduced only by the asset-based fee as “Net” and performance reduced by both the asset-based fee and performance-based fee as “Net Net.”
Administrative fees, such as custody fees, do not reduce performance. This is the typical practice because clients have some control over selecting a custodian and, therefore, the administrative fees charged to their portfolio. For this reason, administrative fees are excluded from performance calculations and instead are treated like external cash flows that do not reduce their return.
The most common exception to this is net performance reported for mutual funds, which is typically calculated based on the change in the fund’s net asset value (NAV), resulting in performance that is net of all fees and expenses. Mutual fund investors do not have control over the custodian used or administrative fees charged (i.e., the manager selects the custodian), so these fees do reduce performance when calculating net returns for mutual funds.
What Are the Most Common Fee-Related Administrative Issues and How Can They Be Addressed?
The most common administrative issues that affect performance results usually are derived from:
- Clients paying their management fee by check or from another outside source
- Accounts with bundled fee structures (e.g., wrap accounts)
- Accounts paying asset-based fees for transactions in lieu of per-trade commissions
We will examine each of these issues below.
1. Clients Paying Their Management Fee by Check or from Another Outside Source
In an ideal world all clients would have their management fees directly debited from the account that earned the fee; however, this is not always the case. Some clients prefer to pay their management fees by check or out of one of their multiple accounts managed by your firm. Since many firms record their accounts receivable in an accounting system separate from their portfolio accounting system (which calculates performance), a matching entry must be added to the portfolio accounting system when fees are paid. If this fee is not recorded in the portfolio accounting system, the client’s gross and net returns will be equal (neither being reduced by the management fee), which is inaccurate.
How to Add Adjusting Accounting Entries to Ensure Net-of-Fee Performance Is Accurate
When a client pays their fee by check, to correctly record this, two entries are needed in the portfolio accounting system:
- An external cash inflow matching the management fees paid by check.
- A management fee expense for the same amount.
After these two transactions are made, the portfolio’s market value will be the same as it was before entering these transactions since the two transactions offset each other. While these entries do not change the value of the portfolio, an expense is recorded that will allow the system to report the correct net-of-fee performance for the period.
Similarly, when the management fee is directly debited from another account, adjustments need to be made to both the account that paid the fee and the account that earned the fee. The account that paid the management fee will need two accounting entries:
- A negative management fee expense for fees paid on behalf of a different account.
- An external cash outflow for the same amount.
The account that earned the management fee will also need two accounting entries (note that these are the same as the entries when paid by check):
- An external cash inflow matching the fees paid by the other account.
- A management fee expense for the same amount.
Again, these transactions will not change the market value of any account as these entries simultaneously adjust cash and management fee expense by the same amount. While this has no effect on the total portfolio’s market value, it will allow net-of fee performance to be accurately reported, regardless of the source or method of the actual payment.
Forgetting to make these adjustments is very common and often leads to erroneously overstating net-of-fee performance for clients paying their fees from an outside source. It will also result in an overstatement of net-of-fee performance for any composite that includes these accounts. To avoid regulatory deficiencies or non-compliance with GIPS requirements, it is best to look into whether your firm has accounts paying management fees from outside sources and ensure proper adjustments are made.
2. Accounts with Bundled Fee Structures, Such as Wrap Accounts
As previously discussed, gross-of-fee performance is reduced by transaction costs and net-of-fee performance is reduced by transaction costs and management fees. This can become complicated when fees and expenses are bundled together and accounted for as one bundled fee.
What to Do If Fees and Expenses Are Bundled Together and Cannot Be Separated
If fees and expenses cannot be separated, gross-of-fee performance is calculated by reducing performance by transaction costs and any fees or expenses that cannot be separated from those transaction costs. Net-of-fee performance is then calculated by reducing performance by transaction costs and management fees, as well as any fees or expenses that cannot be separated from the transaction costs or management fees. This often results in identical gross-of fee and net-of-fee performance, as both performance measures are reduced by the entire bundled fee.
This most commonly occurs with wrap accounts, where the client pays one bundled fee and the individual fees for transaction costs, management fees, etc. cannot be separately determined. When this occurs, disclosures should be included with the performance to clarify if any fees other than transaction costs and management fees have been used to reduce performance.
Alternative Presentation Options for Gross-of-Fee and Net-of-Fee Performance With Bundled Fees
Instead of presenting gross-of-fee performance that is equal to net-of-fee performance, firms often only include net returns as their official performance, but then also present “pure gross” returns as supplemental information. Pure gross returns are gross of all fees and expenses and must be disclosed as such.
3. Accounts That Pay Asset-Based Fees for Transactions in Lieu of Per-Trade Commissions
As discussed earlier, gross-of-fee performance is reduced by transaction costs. Typically these transaction costs are the commissions tied to each executed trade; however, there has been a trend towards using asset-based fee structures for transaction costs, instead of per-trade commissions.
If an account is actively managed and trades frequently enough that an asset-based fee structure results in lower expenses than paying commissions on each trade, an asset-based fee structure may be a good option for your client. However, properly accounting for this kind of fee structure in your portfolio accounting system may be challenging, as many portfolio accounting systems have not caught up with this trend, leading to errors in the client’s reported performance.
With a commission-based structure, portfolio accounting systems typically account for each trade net of commissions, which ensures that gross-of-fee performance is net of transaction costs. All other fees and expenses are recorded as separate line items that are coded as either “performance affecting” (e.g., management fees, which reduce performance to arrive at net-of fee-returns), or “non-performance affecting” (e.g., administrative fees, which are treated as external cash flows that do not have an effect on performance).
When asset-based fee structures replace per-trade commissions, the asset-based fee is commonly accounted for as a line item, similar to management fees or other administrative expenses. The problem with this is that neither of the two options available (“performance-affecting” or “non-performance-affecting”) reduce gross-of-fee performance to account for trading costs. Instead, these options were only designed to reduce net-of-fee performance or reduce neither performance measure (i.e., there is often no transaction code that only reduces gross-of-fee performance).
How to Make Adjustments to Properly Account for Asset-Based Transaction Costs
Many systems have not created a solution for asset-based transaction costs, leaving firms to develop their own workarounds to reduce gross-of-fee returns. One example of a workaround that firms use is to record these fees as negative dividends, which results in the desired effect of reducing gross-of-fee performance. While this approach works, it is not ideal since the dividend transaction code is not intended to be used for this purpose, and should only be used as a short-term solution until your portfolio accounting system provider can offer an appropriate transaction code that will properly account for this type of fee.
Firms that have accounts with this type of fee structure for transaction costs should check with their portfolio accounting system provider to confirm if there is a way to ensure these fees are accounted for properly. Ideally, this should be addressed with a system developer or senior representative from your system provider, as this question is likely beyond the knowledge of a typical helpdesk associate, and may not be addressed in the reference materials they have available to them.
While this post is focused on fee-related administrative issues that affect performance, there are many other fee-related issues that firms face in reporting investment performance. We intend to cover additional fee-related topics in future posts, including: determining whether to use cash basis or accrual accounting for management fees, and considerations for determining when it is appropriate to use hypothetical or model management fees instead of actual management fees to calculate net-of-fee performance. If you would like to receive periodic information on these kinds of topics, please subscribe to our blog by submitting your email at the bottom of the webpage or check back frequently for new posts.
For more information on fee-related administrative issues or to discuss other investment performance or GIPS® topics, please contact Sean Gilligan at sean@longspeakadvisory.com.
Popular Post
The Performance Problems That Cost Managers Allocations
August 23, 2026
15 min
Most managers assume that losing an allocation comes down to returns. Underperform the benchmark, underperform peers, and the mandate goes elsewhere. That happens, but it's not usually the reason a manager gets cut from a search after the numbers already looked competitive.
More often, it's something in how the performance was presented that made an allocator hesitate. A number that didn't match across two documents. A risk statistic nobody could explain. A question in due diligence that the manager couldn't answer cleanly. None of these are calculation errors. They're trust problems, and trust is what allocators are ultimately seeking when they write a check.
Here are the performance problems we see that cost managers allocations most often, and none of them start with the returns themselves.
The Numbers Don't Match Across Documents
An allocator pulls up your factsheet, your pitchbook, and your GIPS® Composite Report, and the composite's five-year return isn't quite the same in all three. Maybe it's a rounding difference, or the factsheet reflects a different "as of" date. The allocator doesn't know that, and they aren't going to assume the best. Inconsistency reads as carelessness, and carelessness in performance reporting raises an obvious question: what else isn't being checked?
This is why we push firms to treat marketing and GIPS compliance as one coordinated process rather than two departments working from different source files. Every document that leaves the building should trace back to the same underlying data.
This matters even more now that due diligence itself is being automated. Operational due diligence teams and consultants are increasingly running AI tools that cross-check pitchbooks, factsheets, DDQs, and regulatory filings against each other, flagging contradictions that used to slip through manual review. A rounding difference or a stale figure that a person might have missed a few years ago is exactly the kind of inconsistency these tools are built to catch instantly. Clean, consistent marketing materials aren't just good practice anymore — they're what it takes to pass a review that may happen before a person ever looks at your numbers.
Performance That Looks Selected, Not Reported
Showing your best-performing account, your best-performing period, or a composite with an unusually small number of accounts invites the question every allocator is trained to ask: what am I not being shown? Due diligence teams know that everyone can't be top quartile. The SEC Marketing Rule's anti-cherry-picking provisions exist because this pattern is common enough that regulators built rules around it, and sophisticated allocators are watching for it. If your performance can be read as overly flattering rather than representative, assume a diligence team will read it that way.
Wanting to lead with your best numbers is an understandable impulse. But diligence teams are trained specifically to spot it, and selective disclosure, even when every number in it is accurate, tends to read as a bigger warning sign than an honest, complete track record would. The stronger story is discipline: the periods where you held to your stated mandate and didn't deviate even while returns lagged. That's a harder story to tell than "we outperformed," but it's the one that actually holds up, because it shows you didn't drift toward whatever was working elsewhere just to keep pace. Chasing returns outside your stated process isn't skill, it's strategy drift, and allocators are trained to spot that just as readily as cherry-picked out performance.
Our advice: resist the instinct to lead with your best examples, and show the scenarios that build trust instead. We recommend showing the ones that demonstrate you stuck to your stated mandate, policies, and procedures, especially when the outcome wasn't your best quarter. Discipline under pressure is a more durable credential than a strong one-off time period, and it's the kind of evidence that holds up long after that number is forgotten.
Statistics You Show But Can't Explain
A page full of risk statistics doesn't build confidence on its own. It invites a follow-up question, and if the manager can't explain what a downside capture ratio of 85% says about the decisions actually made in the portfolio, the statistic becomes a liability instead of an asset. Allocators aren't just checking whether the numbers are favorable. They're checking whether the manager understands their own portfolio well enough to explain it. Statistics presented without interpretation signal that the second answer is “no.”
Likewise, a page of portfolio characteristics that have nothing to do with how the strategy is actually run are not doing you any favors. If you're not making decisions at the sector level, a sector breakdown doesn't tell an allocator anything about your process. If you don't manage individual position sizing, a top-ten holdings list is not adding value.
Your factsheet should be a roadmap for the conversation you want to have, not a checklist of everything other managers include. Every number on it should be something you can explain: how it got there, what decision it reflects, and what it says about how you manage money. A statistic that's only there because everyone else shows it likely isn't helping you if it doesn’t demonstrate active decision making. It's inviting a question you may not have a good answer to.
It's the same logic as a good resume. One padded with every certification, hobby, and unrelated past role doesn't read as impressive, it reads as overwhelming and maybe irrelevant, and it makes the reader work harder to find what actually matters to the job at hand. A factsheet works the same way. The strongest ones include only what's relevant to the case being made and make it easy to connect every line back to it.
No One Can Explain Why a Decision Was Made
This is the one that costs managers the most, and it's rarely about the numbers at all. An allocator asks why a composite was redefined, why a benchmark changed, or why a particular account was excluded, and the answer is a shrug or "that's how we've always done it." Undocumented decisions create the impression that performance is being managed reactively rather than governed intentionally. Firms that can point to a clear, contemporaneous record of why a judgment call was made close that conversation quickly. Firms that can't do this will leave the allocator wondering what other judgment calls haven't been documented either.
The Common Thread
None of these problems are really about whether the strategy performed well. It comes down to whether the story behind the numbers holds up consistently under scrutiny. Allocators aren't just buying returns. They're also buying confidence that what they're being shown today will still be true, and still explainable, a year from now.
The fix isn't more disclosure for its own sake. It's making sure everything across your performance reporting tells the same, well-documented story before an allocator ever has the chance to ask why it doesn't.
GIPS® is a registered trademark owned by CFA Institute. CFA Institute does not endorse or promote this organization, nor does it warrant the accuracy or quality of the content contained herein.
PMAR 2026: A Few Takeaways That Stuck With Me
June 1, 2026
15 min
Every Spring, the performance measurement community gathers for PMAR: The Performance Measurement, Attribution & Risk Conference, hosted by TSG. This year marked the twenty-fourth annual, and I left thinking about it differently than I have in years past.
Most years, the themes evolve gradually. This year, I felt like the ground was moving.
The theme nobody put on the agenda but ran underneath nearly every session was the pace of change. Specifically, what artificial intelligence is about to do to our work. And while I came away energized, I also came away with a healthy dose of " we (as in everyone) are not ready for how fast this is coming."
Here's what stayed with me.
AI Was the Undercurrent of the Whole Event
The session titled "AI, Anxiety, and Opportunity: What Performance Professionals Need to Know" was, predictably, one of the most sought-after sessions of the conference. The panel, which included practitioners from across the industry, did a nice job naming both sides of the coin: the anxiety of not knowing what your job looks like in five years, and the opportunity sitting right in front of us if we lean in.
Here's my honest read of the room, though. The mood was optimistic. Maybe a little too optimistic. There was a comfortable assumption that AI will mostly handle the tedious parts and leave the interesting work to us. Or that AI won’t take your job, someone that knows AI will. I'm not sure it'll be that tidy.
From what we're already seeing in our own work and across the firms we serve, the capabilities are advancing faster than most people can comprehend. The days where “our industry is just slower to adapt” are gone. Just last week, anthropic released Fable 5 and before it was shut down (temporarily?), we played around with it a little and its capabilities are dumbfounding. I don't think it will be long before these conferences look drastically different. Different sessions, different vendors, maybe a different sense of what the job even is. That's not a doom prediction. It's just a reason to pay closer attention than feels comfortable.
Separating Skill From Luck Just Got Harder and More Important
One of my favorite sessions was Michael Ervolini's "You Can't Find Skill in Returns: Distinguishing Performance From the Decisions That Generate Them." It's a deceptively simple premise: returns tell you what happened, not whether the manager was actually good. A great number can come from a great decision, or from luck. A bad number can hide genuine skill.
What I appreciate about PMAR is that the community keeps bringing fresh perspectives to this old, hard problem: how do we actually evaluate skill versus luck? It's a question that never fully resolves, and every year someone pushes the thinking forward.
It struck me that this question gets more important in an AI world, not less. As machines take over more of the calculation and even some of the decision-making, our value shifts toward judgment – knowing which decisions deserved credit, which results were noise, and what a number actually means in context. That's the kind of discernment a model can assist with but can't own. For more from Mr. Ervolini, here's a link to his latest book Skill vs. Luck.
The GIPS Challenges That Keep Coming Back
I'm biased here, but the "Common GIPS Challenges and How to Avoid Them" session was a highlight for us, in part because our own Matthew Deatherage, CFA, CIPM, was on the panel alongside peers from TSG, MassPRIM, and Strategic Investment Group.
What I always find striking about this topic is how consistent the challenges are. Firms pursuing compliance with the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®)* tend to stumble on the same handful of issues year after year, and almost all of them are avoidable with the right foundation in place. That's a big part of why we do what we do at Longs Peak: helping firms get ahead of those pitfalls instead of discovering them during verification or, worse, during a regulatory exam.
Matt is a familiar face on these panels, and it's great to have our perspective in the mix. But the takeaway that stuck with me tied right back to the AI thread running through the whole conference.
Across several different panels, presenters talked about feeding the GIPS standards into their own AI models to churn out GIPS reports. And here's the thing, anyone can do that. You can drop the standards into a model in minutes. What a model can't do is provide critical judgment about how a principles-based framework should be applied to your specific facts and circumstances and whether those GIPS reports and statistics were calculated correctly. The GIPS standards aren't a checklist; they're a set of principles that require interpretation, and interpretation is exactly where experience earns its keep.
I'm not saying don't use AI to help build a framework. Use it. But like any model, if you don't really know what you're asking it to do, the output won't save you. Simply asking a model to "make my firm GIPS compliant" isn't going to make it so. At least not yet!
And there's one problem every performance professional already knows AI hasn't solved: data. As they say, garbage in, garbage out. Meaningful performance lives and dies on clean, well-organized data, and no software tool or AI model fixes messy inputs alone. At Longs Peak, we have spent the last 10 years working with clients to improve data quality through data integrity testing. For us, these AI models have only expanded what’s possible. We know one thing for sure: setting these tools up with the proper context (i.e., knowing what to look for) and then evaluating that context on an ongoing basis may turn out to be the most crucial piece of it all.
CFA Institute Is Listening on the CIPM
A session I didn't expect to find as interesting as I did was "CIPM Through the Practitioner Lens," facilitated by Rob Langrick of CFA Institute. Rather than simply presenting at the room, CFA Institute came to listen and gather candid feedback on the CIPM designation: where it's delivering value, where it's falling short, and how it should evolve to stay relevant to the work we actually do day to day.
The audience didn't hold back, and there were some genuinely thoughtful suggestions including how the code of ethics will evolve in this new AI era, some recommendations on reformatting the exam to break it into smaller chunks (going into greater detail on each) as well as adding a CIPM group within the CFA societies to encourage further connection. It was refreshing to see CFA Institute putting real energy behind a credential that so many of us have invested in and want to see grow in value. Given the pace of change in our field, willingness to adapt feels necessary. For anyone interested in contributing ideas to the CIPM, you can use this link to provide feedback.
A Quick Word on the Trivia
I'd be remiss not to mention that Performance Trivia got a much-needed upgrade this year. In past years, only a handful of contestants got to play while the rest of us watched (though in fairness, not all of us were clamoring for the spotlight). The new format this time allowed everyone to participate (without taking center stage), and it was a lot more fun for it. A small change, but it captured something I value about this community: it's competitive, but it's also genuinely collegial and prides itself on memorizing quirky names and vintage formulas.
Before PMAR Even Started: Women in Performance Measurement
For me, the week actually started the day before the conference, at the Women in Performance Measurement (WiPM) gathering. An event created just for the women in our industry. It's one of my favorite parts of this trip every year, and not only because the conversation is good. There's something energizing about being in a room full of women who do this work, comparing notes and reconnecting.
Fittingly, AI came up here too, though in a much more hands-on way than it would on the main stage. Practitioners shared real use cases, both personal and professional: the small ways AI is already saving them time day to day, and the bigger experiments they're running at their firms. It was practical, curious, and refreshingly free of hype.
We were also lucky to have a guest speaker, Lidia Arshavsky, who spoke on executive presence. She broke down how executive presence actually gets evaluated inside organizations (the signals people pick up on, often without realizing it) and offered practical recommendations for strengthening your own. It was the kind of talk that's useful no matter where you are in your career.
It was a great way to kick off PMAR, and an even better way to reconnect with women I only get to see a few times a year. Sometimes the most valuable part of a conference happens in these opportunities to network and reconnect within our niche performance community. A big thank you to TSG who donated the space for this event to take place and have done so for many years.
What AI Can't Take From Us
The conference's forward-looking sessions, including "Innovative Ways to Present Performance: Dashboards & Analytics," got me thinking. The tools are evolving so quickly and so much of the analysis, presentation, and reporting can now be automated. I am left wondering how long the traditional use of software in our space will last in its current form.
When the capabilities advancing fastest don’t always come from the established vendors, who benefits? My hope is that everyone does. That these tools level a playing field that used to tilt heavily toward the largest institutions, give smaller firms the ability to deliver high-caliber analytics previously out of reach, and push the whole field toward better solutions. That makes for a more competitive space and ultimately a clearer picture for investors to evaluate their options.
That's the optimistic case, and I believe it. But it only holds if we stay clear-eyed about where our own value comes from and that's the note I want to leave you on. The pace of change is a reason to focus, not to panic. The things that make us valuable are the things AI can't take: consciousness, judgment, and the human-in-the-loop accountability that clients ultimately trust. Machines will calculate faster and present prettier. They won't sit across the table from a client and take responsibility for what a number actually means.
So, by all means, get curious about the tools (Claude seemed to be most people’s favorite – mine as well). Experiment. Don't be the individual or firm that gets left behind. But anchor yourself in the part of this work that's irreplaceably human, because that's the part that was always the point.
See you at PMAR 2027. I suspect it'll look a little different.
________________________________________
GIPS® is a registered trademark owned by CFA Institute. CFA Institute does not endorse or promote this organization, nor does it warrant the accuracy or quality of the content contained herein.
Understanding Tracking Error & R-Squared
March 27, 2026
15 min
Understanding Tracking Error & R-Squared
When evaluating the performance of an investment portfolio, it's essential to consider metrics that help measure the portfolio's consistency and alignment with its benchmark. Two critical metrics in this context are Tracking Error and R-Squared. These metrics provide insights into the portfolio's performance and risk characteristics. Let's explore what these metrics mean, how they are calculated, and their significance.
What is Tracking Error?
Tracking Error measures the deviation of a portfolio's returns from its benchmark returns. It indicates how closely a portfolio follows the benchmark to which it is compared. A lower tracking error suggests that the portfolio's returns are closely aligned with the benchmark, while a higher tracking error indicates greater deviation.
Tracking Error Formula
Tracking Error= standard deviation of (P-B)
where:
- P = Portfolio return
- B = Benchmark return
Annualized Tracking Error
When using monthly data, tracking error is annualized by multiplying the result by the square root of 12.
What is a Good Tracking Error?
A "good" tracking error depends on the investment strategy. For passive funds that aim to replicate a benchmark, a lower tracking error is desirable. For active funds that seek to outperform the benchmark, a higher tracking error might be acceptable, reflecting the manager's active bets.
What is R-Squared?
R-Squared (R²) measures the proportion of the portfolio's movements that can be explained by movements in its benchmark. It ranges from 0 to 100%, where a higher R-Squared indicates a greater correlation between the portfolio and its benchmark.
R-Squared Formula
R² = (Correlation of portfolio and benchmark returns)²
What is a Good R-Squared?
A higher R-Squared (closer to 100%) indicates that the portfolio's returns are highly correlated with the benchmark. For passive funds, a high R-Squared is preferred. For active funds, a lower R-Squared might indicate that the manager is taking independent positions relative to the benchmark.
How to Interpret Tracking Error and R-Squared
- Tracking Error: Indicates the consistency of the portfolio's returns relative to the benchmark. A lower tracking error is desirable for passive strategies, while active strategies might tolerate higher tracking errors.
- R-Squared: Shows the degree of correlation between the portfolio and benchmark returns. A high R-Squared suggests strong alignment, suitable for passive strategies, while a lower R-Squared might indicate active management.
While both Tracking Error and R-Squared are good measures to understand how closely a track record is managed to a benchmark, they should be analyzed with other available performance metrics. A high or low Tracking Error and R-Squared does not indicate if the performance was good or not. Therefore, using Tracking Error in combination with other metrics like Alpha or the Sharpe Ratio can help provide additional information on whether the strategy performed well while analyzing how closely it was managed to a benchmark. Any selected performance metric should also cover the same time periods as the calculated Tracking Error and R-Squared for the most relevant comparison.
Why are Tracking Error and R-Squared Important?
Both metrics are crucial for assessing portfolio performance and understanding the risk-return profile. They help investors gauge how well a portfolio is managed relative to its benchmark and assess the effectiveness of active versus passive management strategies.
Conclusion
Tracking Error and R-Squared are essential tools for evaluating portfolio performance. Understanding these metrics can help investors make informed decisions about their investment strategies and better manage their portfolios.
For more information on performance metrics and investment strategies, feel free to contact us or explore our other resources on investment performance.
A Practical Guide to Net vs. Gross Performance
February 1, 2026
15 min
Why “Net” Is Not a One-Size-Fits-All Answer
If you’ve worked in the investment industry, you’ve probably heard some version of this question:
“Should we show net or gross performance—or both?”
On the surface, the answer seems straight forward. The rules tell us what’s required. Compliance boxes get checked. End of story.
But in practice, presenting net and gross performance is rarely that simple.
How you calculate it, how you present it, and how you disclose it can materially change how investors interpret your results. This article goes beyond the rulebook to explore thepractical considerations firms face when deciding how to present net and gross returns in a manner that is clear, helpful, and in compliance with requirements.
Let’s Start with the Basics (Briefly)
At a high level, for separate account strategies:
- Gross performance reflects returns before investment management fees
- Net performance reflects returns after investment management fees have been deducted
Both gross and net performance are typically net of transaction costs, but gross of administrative fees and expenses. When dealing with pooled funds, net performance is also reduced by administrative fees and expenses, but here we are focused on separate account strategies, typically marketed as composite performance.
Simple enough. But that definition alone doesn’t tell the full story—and it’s where many misunderstandings begin.
Why Net Performance Is the Investor’s Reality
From an investor’s perspective, net performance is what actually matters. It represents the return they keep after paying the manager for active management.
That’s why modern regulations and best practices increasingly emphasize net returns. Investors don’t experience gross returns. They experience net outcomes.
And let’s be honest: if an investor chooses an active manager instead of a low-cost index fund or ETF tracking the same benchmark, the expectation is that the active approach should deliver something extra—after fees. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to justify paying for that active management.
Why Gross Performance Still Has a Role
If net returns are what investors actually receive, why do firms still talk about gross performance at all?
Because gross performance tells a different, but complementary, story: what the strategy is capable of before fees, and what investors are paying for that capability.
The gap between gross and net returns represents the cost of active management. Put differently, it answers a question investors are implicitly asking:
How much return am I giving up in exchange for this manager’s expertise?
Viewed this way, gross returns help investors assess:
- Whether the strategy is adding value before fees
- How much of the performance is driven by skill: security selection, asset allocation or portfolio construction
- Whether fees are the primary drag—or whether the strategy itself is struggling
When gross and net returns are shown together, they create transparency around both skill and cost. When shown without context, they can easily obscure the economic tradeoff.
Gross-of-fee returns are also most important when marketing to institutional investors that have the power to negotiate the fee they will pay and know that they will likely pay a fee lower than most of your clients have paid in the past. Their detailed analysis can more accurately be done starting with your gross-of-fee returns and adjusting for the fee they expect to negotiate rather than using net-of-fee returns that have been charged historically.
The Real-World Gray Areas Firms Struggle With
How to Present Gross Returns
Gross returns are pretty straightforward. They are typically calculated before investment management or advisory fees and usually include transaction costs such as commissions and spreads.
For firms that comply with the GIPS® Standards, things can get more nuanced—particularly for bundled fee arrangements. In those cases, firms must make reasonable allocations to separate transaction costs from the bundled fee. But, if that separation cannot be done reliably, gross returns must be shown after removing the entire bundled fee. [1]
Once you move from gross to net returns, however, the conversation becomes less straightforward. We’ve had managers question, “why show net performance at all?” This is especially the case when fees vary across clients or historical fees no longer reflect what an investor would pay today. Others complain that the “benchmark isn’t net-of-fees,” making net-of-fee comparisons inherently imperfect. These concerns highlight why presenting net returns isn’t just a mechanical exercise. In the sections that follow, we’ll unpack these challenges and walk through how to present net-of-fee performance in a way that remains meaningful, transparent, and fit for its intended audience.
How to Present Net Returns
This is where judgment and documentation matters most.
Not all “net” returns are created equal. Even under the SEC Marketing Rule, there is no single mandated definition of net performance—only a requirement that net performance be presented. Under the GIPS Standards, net-of-fee returns must be reduced by investment management fees.
In practice, firms may deduct:
- Advisory fees (asset-based investment management fees)
- Performance-based fees
- Custody fees
- Transaction costs
Two net-return series can look comparable on the surface while reflecting very different assumptions underneath. This lack of transparency is one of the main reasons institutional investors often require managers to be GIPS compliant—it simplifies comparison by requiring consistency in the assumptions used and how they are presented or additional disclosure when more fees are included in the calculation than what is required.
And context matters. A higher fee may be perfectly reasonable if it reflects broader services such as tax or financial planning, holistic portfolio construction, or access to specialized strategies. The problem isn’t the fee itself, it’s failing to use a fee scenario that is relevant to the user of the report.
Deciding Between Actual vs Model Fees
The next hurdle is deciding whether to use actual fees or a model fee when calculating net returns. Historically, firms most often relied on actual fees, viewing them as the best representation of what clients actually experienced. But that approach raises an important question: are those historical fees still relevant to what an investor would pay today? If the answer is no, a model fee may provide a more representative picture of current expected outcomes. Under the SEC marketing rule, there are cases where firms are required to use a model fee when the anticipated fee is higher than actual fees charged.
This consideration becomes even more important for strategies or composites that include accounts paying little or no fee at all. While the GIPS Standards and the SEC Marketing Rule are not perfectly aligned on this topic, they agree in principle—net performance should be meaningful, not misleading, and should reflect what an actual fee-paying investor should reasonably expect to pay. Thus, many firms opt to present model fee performance to avoid violating the marketing rule’s general prohibitions. [2]
Additional SEC guidance published on Jan 15, 2026 on the Use of Model Fees reinforced that the decision to use model vs actual fees is context-dependent. While the marketing rule allows net performance to be calculated using either actual or model fees, there are cases where the use of actual fees may be misleading. The SEC emphasized flexibility and that while both fee types are allowed, what’s appropriate depends on the facts and circumstances of the situation, including the clarity of disclosures and how fee assumptions are explained.
Which Model Fee Should Be Used?
Most firms offer multiple fee structures, typically based on account size, but sometimes also on investor type (institutional versus retail clients). That variability makes fee selection a key decision when presenting net performance.
If you plan to use a single performance document for broad or mass marketing, best practice—and what the SEC Marketing Rule effectively requires—is to calculate net returns using the highest anticipated fee that could reasonably apply to the intended audience. This helps ensure the presentation is not misleading by overstating what an investor might take home.
A common pushback is: “But the highest fee isn’t relevant to this type of investor.” And that may be true. In those cases, firms have a few defensible options:
- Create separate versions of the presentation tailored to different investor types, or
- Present multiple fee tiers within the same document, clearly explaining what each tier represents
Either approach can work—but only if disclosures are explicit and easy to understand. When multiple fee structures are shown, clarity isn’t optional; it’s essential.
In practice, many firms maintain separate retail and institutional versions of factsheets or pitchbooks. That approach is perfectly reasonable, but it comes with operational risk. If this becomes standard practice, firms need strong internal controls to ensure the right presentation reaches the right audience. That means:
- Clear internal policies
- Consistent naming and version control
- Training marketing and sales teams on when each version may be used
This often involves an overlap of both marketing and compliance to get it right because getting the fee right is only part of the equation. Making sure the presentation is used appropriately is just as important to ensuring net performance remains meaningful, compliant, and credible.
Which Statistics Can Be Shown Gross-of-Fees?
Since the introduction of the SEC Marketing Rule, there has been significant debate about whether all statistics must be presented net-of-fees—or whether certain metrics can still be shown gross-of-fees. Helpful clarity arrived in an SEC FAQ released on March 19, 2025, which confirmed that not all portfolio characteristics need to be presented net-of-fees. The examples cited included risk statistics such as the Sharpe and Sortino ratios, attribution results, and similar metrics that are often calculated gross-of-fees to avoid the “noise” introduced by fee deductions.
The staff acknowledged that presenting some of these characteristics net-of-fees may be impractical or even misleading. As long as firms prominently present the portfolio’s total gross and net performance incompliance with the rule (i.e., prescribed time periods 1, 5, 10 years),clearly label these characteristics as gross, and explain how they are calculated, the SEC indicated it would generally not recommend enforcement action.
Bringing it all Together
On paper, presenting net and gross performance should be a straight forward exercise.
In reality, layers of regulation, evolving expectations, and heightened scrutiny have made it feel far more complicated than it needs to be. But complexity doesn’t have to lead to confusion.
When firms are clear about:
- Who they are communicating with,
- What that audience expects,
- What the performance is intended to represent, and
- Why certain assumptions were chosen
…the decisions around what gets presented become far more manageable.
Net returns aren’t about finding a single “correct” number. They’re about telling an honest, well-documented story. And when that story is clear, investors don’t just understand the performance—they trust it.
[1] 2020 GIPS® Standards for Firms, Section 2: Input Data and Calculation Methodology(gross-of-fees returns and treatment of transaction costs, including bundled fees).
[2] See SEC Marketing Rule 2 026(4)-1(a) footnote 590 as well as the SEC updated FAQ from January 15, 2026. Available at: https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/staff-guidance/division-investment-management-frequently-asked-questions/marketing-compliance-frequently-asked-questions
Why Calculating Performance Isn’t the Same as Communicating It
January 20, 2026
15 min
In most investment firms, performance calculation is treated like a math problem: get the numbers right, double-check the formulas, and move on. And to be clear—that part matters. A lot.
But here’s the truth many firms eventually discover: perfectly calculated performance can still be poorly communicated.
And when that happens, clients don’t gain confidence. Consultants don’t “get” the strategy. Prospects walk away unconvinced. Not because the returns were wrong—but because the story was missing.
Calculation Is Technical. Communication Is Human.
Performance calculation is about precision. Performance communication is about understanding.
The two overlap, but they are not the same skill set.
You can calculate a composite’s time-weighted return flawlessly, in line with the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®), using best-in-class methodologies. Yet if the only thing your audience walks away with is “we beat the benchmark,” you’ve left most of the value on the table.
This gap shows up all the time:
- A client sees strong long-term returns but fixates on one bad quarter.
- A consultant compares two managers with similar returns and can’t tell what truly differentiates them.
- A prospect asks, “But how did you generate these results?”—and the answer is a wall of statistics.
The math is necessary. It’s just not sufficient.
Returns Answer What. Clients Care About Why.
Returns tell us what happened. Clients want to know why it happened—and whether it’s likely to happen again.
That’s where communication comes in. Good performance communication connects returns to:
- The investment philosophy
- The decision-making process
- The risks taken (and avoided)
- The type of prospect the strategy is designed for
This is exactly why performance evaluation doesn’t stop at returns in the CFA Institute’s CIPM curriculum. Measurement, attribution, and appraisal are distinct steps fora reason—each adds context that raw performance alone cannot provide. Without that context, returns become just numbers on a page.
The Role of Standards: Necessary, Not Narrative
The GIPS Standards exist to ensure performance is fairly represented and fully disclosed. They do an excellent job of standardizing how performance is calculated and what must be presented. But GIPS compliance doesn’t automatically make performance meaningful to the reader.
A GIPS Report answers questions like:
- What was the annual return of the composite?
- What was the annual return of the composite’s benchmark?
- How volatile was the strategy compared to the benchmark?
It does not answer:
- Why did this strategy struggle in down markets?
- What risks did the manager consciously take?
- How should an allocator think about using this strategy in a broader portfolio?
That’s not a flaw in the standards, it’s a reminder that communication sits on top of compliance, not inside it.
Risk Statistics: Where Stories Start (or Die)
One of the most common communication missteps is overloading clients with risk statistics without explaining what they actually mean or how they can be used to assess the active decisions made in your investment process.
Sharpe ratios, capture ratios, alpha, beta—they’re powerful information. But without interpretation, they’re just numbers.
For example:
- A downside capture ratio below 100% isn’t impressive on its own.
- It becomes compelling when you explain how intentionally implemented downside protection was achieved and what trade-offs were accepted in strong up-markets.
This is where performance communication turns data into insight—connecting risk statistics back to portfolio construction and decision-making. Too often, managers select statistics because they look good or because they’ve seen them used elsewhere, rather than because they align with their investment process and demonstrate how their active decisions add value. The most effective communicators use risk statistics intentionally, in the context of what they are trying to deliver to the investor.
We often see firms change the statistics show Your most powerful story may come from when your statistics show you’ve missed the mark. Explaining why and how you are correcting course demonstrates discipline, self-awareness and control.
Know Your Audience Before You Tell the Story
Before you dive into risk statistics, every manager should be asking themselves about their audience. This is where performance communication becomes strategic. Who are you actually talking to? The right performance story depends entirely on your target audience.
Institutional Prospects
Institutional clients and consultants often expect:
- Detailed risk statistics
- Benchmark-relative analysis
- Attribution and metrics that demonstrate consistency
- Clear articulation of where the strategy fits in a portfolio
They want to understand process, discipline, and risk control. Performance data must be presented with precision and context –grounded in methodology, repeatability and portfolio role. Often, GIPS compliance is a must. Speaking their language builds credibility and demonstrates that you respect the rigor of their decision-making process. It shows that you understand how they evaluate managers and that you are prepared to stand behind your process.
Retail or High-Net-Worth Individuals
Many individual investors don’t care about alpha or capture ratios in isolation. What they really want to know is:
- Will this help me retire comfortably?
- Can I afford that second home?
- How confident should I feel during market downturns?
For this audience, the same performance data must be framed differently—around goals, outcomes, and peace of mind. Sharing how you track and report on these goals in your communication goes a long way in building trust. It signals that you are committed to their goals and will hold yourself accountable to them. It reassures them that you are not just managing money, you’re protecting the lifestyle they are building.
Keep in mind that cultural differences also shape expectations. For example, US-based investors are primarily results oriented, while investors in Japan often expect deeper transparency into the process and inputs, wanting to understand and validate how those results were achieved.
Same Numbers. Different Story.
The mistake many firms make is assuming one performance narrative works for everyone. It doesn’t. Effective communication adapts:
- The statistics you emphasize
- The language you use
- The level of detail you provide
- The context you wrap around the results
The goal isn’t to simplify the truth, it’s to translate it to ensure it resonates with the person on the other side of the table.
The Best Performance Reports Tell a Coherent Story
Strong performance communication does three things well:
- It sets expectations
Before showing numbers, it reminds the reader what the strategy is designed to do—and just as importantly, what it’s not designed to do. - It explains outcomes
Attribution, risk metrics, and market context are used selectively to explain results, not overwhelm the reader. - It reinforces discipline
Good communication shows consistency between philosophy, process, and performance—especially during periods of underperformance.
This doesn’t mean dumbing anything down. It means respecting the audience enough to guide them through the data.
Calculation Builds Credibility. Communication Builds Confidence.
Performance calculation earns you a seat at the table.
Performance communication earns trust.
Firms that master both don’t just report results—they help clients understand them, evaluate them, and believe in them.
In an industry where numbers are everywhere, clarity is often the true differentiator.
Recommended Post
If you manage money for institutional clients, you've probably heard some version of this sentence: "We can't consider your strategy unless you're GIPS compliant." For a lot of investment managers, that's the moment the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) stop being an abstract industry term and start being a business requirement.
This guide covers what GIPS compliance actually is, who needs it, what it takes to get there, and how to keep it running once you do. Wherever a topic deserves a deeper dive, we've linked to the longer article that covers it. Think of this as the map, with the detailed trail guides linked along the way.
What Is GIPS Compliance?
GIPS compliance means a firm calculates and presents its investment performance according to the GIPS which is a set of ethical, standardized rules for performance reporting created and administered by CFA Institute. At their core, the GIPS standards rest on two principles: fair representation and full disclosure.
In practice, that means a GIPS compliant firm can't cherry-pick its best-performing accounts to show a prospect. It has to group similar portfolios into composites, present the full history honestly, disclose the assumptions behind the numbers, and apply the same rules consistently across the entire firm.
GIPS compliance is voluntary. No regulator requires it. But it has become the closest thing the investment industry has to a common language for performance. This is often why so many institutional investors, consultants, and platforms require it before they'll even take a meeting.
Who Needs to Be GIPS Compliant?
Any investment manager who wants to compete for institutional business should take GIPS compliance seriously. That includes:
- RIAs and asset managers pursuing institutional mandates (pensions, endowments, foundations, OCIOs)
- Firms seeking placement on model delivery platforms, SMA platforms, or consultant databases
- Managers responding to RFPs where GIPS compliance is a stated requirement
- Firms that simply want a more defensible, standardized way to calculate and present performance — even without external pressure to do so
According to eVestment, roughly two out of three searches run by institutional investors and consultants in their database exclude firms that aren't GIPS compliant. If your strategy to scale your firm includes institutional or consultant-driven channels, GIPS compliance isn't optional in any practical sense, it's the price of admission.
That said, don't mistake GIPS compliance for a purely institutional tool. Even firms with no institutional ambitions benefit from the discipline it offers: consistent calculation methodologies, documented policies, and a defensible and repeatable process for measuring performance. That rigor tends to pay off internally long before a prospect ever asks for it. And every additional firm that complies strengthens the credibility of the standards industry-wide, which benefits compliant firms and investors alike. The question worth asking isn't whether GIPS compliance is relevant to your business, it's whether now is the right time to embark on the path to become GIPS compliant.
(Note: this guide focuses on investment managers. If you're an asset owner — a pension, endowment, or foundation — evaluating your own internal performance reporting, our asset owner GIPS compliance page covers considerations specific to that role.)
Is GIPS Compliance Required?
No. GIPS compliance is a voluntary standard, not a law or regulation, and the SEC doesn't require it. That part isn't where firms gettripped up.
What's worth understanding is how close many firms already are to GIPS compliance without ever setting out to pursue it. The SEC Marketing Rule requires advertised performance to be fair and balanced, substantiated, and — in most cases — presented net of fees. Those requirements weren't written to mirror the GIPS standards, but in practice they've pushed firms toward much of the same discipline: consistent calculation methodology, defensible net-of-fee treatment, and documentation that can withstand scrutiny.
That means a lot of SEC-registered advisers may already have some of the infrastructure GIPS compliance requires before they've ever considered pursuing it formally. If you're already calculating net returns consistently, applying one methodology across accounts rather than picking whatever looks best, and keeping documentation to back up what you advertise, the remaining work (constructing composites, writing the GIPS standards policies and procedures, and assembling GIPS Reports) is often a smaller lift than firms assume, especially if you hire a consultant like Longs Peak to help!
The frameworks aren't identical, and there are places where they diverge. The GIPS standards permit either gross- or net-of-fee presentation, while the SEC Marketing Rule requires net returns whenever gross is shown; when local law or regulation is stricter than the GIPS standards, firms follow the stricter rule and disclose the deviation. We've written a full breakdown of how that reconciliation works, including sample disclosure language, in Navigating GIPS Compliance When Local Laws Conflict. But those are details to reconcile, not reasons to start from scratch.
How to Become GIPS Compliant: The Building Blocks
GIPS compliance rests on four core components, and implementation generally means building them in this order.
1. Define the firm and scope the universe of portfolios. Compliance is claimed on a firm-wide basis, never at the composite, product, or portfolio level. Before anything else, a firm must define itself: which legal entities, offices, and business lines are included, and how the firm is held out to the public. This sounds simple but is often the most consequential decision in the entire process, especially for firms with multiple brands or affiliated entities. Once that's settled, inventory every account, pooled fund, and mandate that falls within the definition.
2. Build the GIPS standards policies and procedures manual (the "P&P"). This is the operational rulebook: how discretion is defined, how composites are constructed, how cash flows are handled, how errors get corrected. A strong GIPS standards P&P reflects what the firm actually does, not what looks good on paper. Documenting it now, before it's tested by a real-world edge case, saves a lot of pain later.
3. Construct composites and calculate performance. Discretionary portfolios with similar strategies are grouped into composites so performance is presented at the strategy level rather than as a cherry-picked account or model portfolio. Composite construction is typically where firms spend the most time, since it requires historical data review, judgment calls about discretion, and reconciliation across systems. Then asset-weight returns and calculate the required statistics for at least five years of compliant history(or since inception, if younger).
4. Create GIPS Reports and file the compliance notification. The GIPS Report is the compliant, disclosure-rich presentation of a composite's performance that must be given to every prospective client. It includes required statistics, fee treatment, and disclosures that give context to the numbers. Once GIPS Reports are complete, the firm files the GIPS Compliance Notification Form with CFA Institute, a final required step before compliance can be claimed, and one that must be renewed annually.
5. Verification (optional, but a good idea). An independent third party can test whether a firm's policies and procedures are designed appropriately and applied consistently firm-wide. It's not required, but it's widely expected in institutional circles (more on this below).
We've written a full phase-by-phase walk through, including the judgment calls that tend to trip firms up (like defining discretion and handling historical composite membership), in A Practical Framework for Implementing the GIPS Standards.
How long does this take? For most firms with a simple, straight forward structure, implementation can be complete in less than one month. For moderately complex firms or simple firms with longer track records, implementation often runs somewhere between three and six months from kickoff to a completed GIPS Report. Firms with complex legal structures, long historical track records, or messy underlying data should expect it to take longer. The upfront investment in earlier phases (firm definition and policy development) as well as the commitment from your team is what usually determines the timeline.
How much will it cost? One of the questions we hear most often is "what does it cost to become GIPS compliant?" The honest answer is that it depends on a lot of inputs. Two firms of similar size can land in very different places depending on how many composites and accounts they manage, how many years of history must be reconstructed, how complete existing records are, how clean the underlying data is, and how much back-and-forth it takes to resolve open questions along the way. Because of that, we scope every engagement individually rather than pricing it off a flat rate card. The factors below are the ones that most reliably move the estimate up or down. Thinking through them ahead of time makes for a much more productive first conversation.
What tends to drive cost:
Composites and accounts in scope: How many strategies need to be reported on, and how many underlying accounts roll up into them? Being larger doesn’t always mean it will cost more, but we typically find that more accounts or composites often means more work to determine their proper placement.
Years of history involved: Are you reconstructing several years (or since inception) of past performance or are you a brand-new firm just getting started? This becomes a bigger factor the longer the track record (which is often tied to data quality).
Quality of existing records: How complete and well-organized is your historical composite membership documentation? This is often the biggest swing factor. We regularly see firms come in confident that their data is clean, only to find once we're in the weeds that it isn't. Being honest about this up front, even where the answer is "we're not totally sure," helps the entire engagement team start with the same expectations rather than discovering the real scope midstream.
Verification plans: Do you intend to pursue verification alongside (or shortly after) the buildout? This adds coordination and review on top of the compliance work itself.
Existing GIPS compliance experience: Are you starting from a blank page or do you already have some policies, procedures, or a prior composite performance to build on? The more existing foundation you have, the better.
Responsiveness and internal bandwidth: How quickly will your team turn around data requests and answer questions? This affects the timeline most directly, but slow back-and-forth does add real hours too.
We like to meet firms where they are. That might mean managing the full project or helping with the pieces that are most challenging or resource-intensive. We can usually find a way to add value even when a full-scope engagement doesn’t make sense. It’s also worth keeping in mind that some larger providers of managed services have minimum fees or engagement sizes, which may make them less practical depending on your needs and budget. If you’re still unsure if this is the right time, check out our post The Case for Pursuing GIPS Compliance Before You Think you Need It.
Do You Need to Be Verified? No. Verification is voluntary under the GIPS standards. A firm can claim compliance without ever being verified.
That said, verification is generally worth pursuing, particularly for firms competing for institutional mandates where GIPS compliance is treated as table stakes. Verification provides independent assurance that a firm's policies and procedures are designed in line with the GIPS standards and applied consistently — which carries real weight with consultants and prospects performing due diligence. It also tends to create useful internal discipline, since the expectation of independent review keeps processes tighter throughout the year.
If you're earlier in your compliance journey or working within budget constraints, it's reasonable to build a solid compliance foundation first and pursue verification once the timing makes sense. For a detailed walkthrough of what the process actually involves, see our series, How to Survive a GIPS Verification.
GIPS Compliance and the SEC Marketing Rule
For US-registered investment advisers, GIPS compliance doesn't happen in a vacuum — it has to coexist with the SEC Marketing Rule. The two frameworks overlap in some places (both care about fair, substantiated, non-misleading performance) and diverge in others (fee treatment, required disclosures, what counts as an advertisement).
Firms that manage this well tend to build one governance framework that covers both — rather than treating GIPS compliance and marketing rule compliance as separate workstreams run by different teams. We cover what that coordination looks like in practice, including how GIPS Reports, factsheets, and pitchbooks should stay consistent with each other, in What Good GIPS Compliance Governance Looks Like in Practice.
Common Mistakes Investment Managers Make
After helping firms through this process for over a decade, the same handful of issues come up again and again:
- Treating GIPS compliance as a one-time project. Compliance is a firm-wide standard maintained continuously — not a binder that gets built once and shelved.
- A "department of one." When all GIPS compliance knowledge lives with a single person, the firm is one departure away from a serious continuity problem.
- Policies that don't reflect reality. A GIPS standards P&P that describes an idealized process — rather than what the firm actually does — creates real exposure during verification or a regulatory exam.
- Weak documentation of judgment calls. Decisions about discretion, composite redefinitions, or benchmark changes need a paper trail, not just an outcome.
- Underestimating the data work. Composite construction is as much a data reconciliation exercise as it is a compliance exercise. Firms that skip a thorough historical review often find problems later — usually during verification, which is the most expensive time to find them.
Maintaining Compliance: It Doesn't End at "Go-Live"
Becoming compliant is a milestone. Staying compliant is the actual job. The most common breakdowns aren't dramatic, they're small process gaps that compound: a portfolio added to a composite late, a significant cashflow handled inconsistently, or a new strategy launched without a composite decision being made.
The firms that stay clean build GIPS compliance into their regular monthly or quarterly performance cycle, assign clear ownership, and review their policies at least annually. We go deeper on what strong day-to-day governance looks like, including how to structure oversight without over-engineering it, in What Good GIPS Compliance Governance Looks Like in Practice.
The Business Case for GIPS Compliance
Compliance work rarely gets exciting attention internally, but the payoff is concrete. Firms that pursue GIPS compliance typically gain:
- Access to platforms, consultant databases, and institutional searches that require it as a baseline
- Credibility with allocators who use GIPS compliance as a proxy for operational rigor
- Consistency across performance, marketing, and compliance teams that often didn't exist before
- A cleaner foundation for scalability, since the process tends to surface and fix data issues before they become bigger problems
We've watched this play out directly with clients expanding into model delivery platforms and formalizing composite reporting for the first time. For real examples of how compliance translated into new business relationships, see From Compliance to Growth: How the GIPS Standards Help Investment Firms Unlock New Opportunities.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is GIPS compliance? GIPS compliance means a firm calculates and presents investment performance according to the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®), a voluntary, globally recognized set of ethical standards administered by CFA Institute.
Is GIPS compliance mandatory in the United States? No. It's voluntary. The SEC does not require GIPS compliance, though many institutional investors, consultants, and platforms require it as a practical condition of doing business.
Who administers the GIPS standards? CFA Institute owns and administers the GIPS standards, including the GIPS Handbook, Guidance Statements, and the Q&A database that firms rely on for interpretive guidance.
How long does it take to become GIPS compliant? Most firms with a straightforward structure can complete implementation in three to six months. Firms with complex legal structures, long track records, or significant data cleanup will typically need more time.
What is a GIPS Report? A GIPS Report is the standardized, disclosure-rich presentation of a composite's or pooled fund's performance that a GIPS compliant firm must provide to every prospective client or investor.
Is verification required? No, verification is optional. However, it's widely viewed as a meaningful credibility signal, particularly for firms pursuing institutional business, and many allocators expect it in practice.
Can smaller firms become GIPS compliant? Yes. Firm size doesn't determine eligibility. Smaller firms often benefit from outsourcing implementation and ongoing maintenance to a consultant rather than building an internal GIPS compliance function from scratch.
Does GIPS compliance replace the need to follow the SEC Marketing Rule? No. They're separate obligations. A firm can be GIPS compliant and still need to independently satisfy SEC Marketing Rule requirements, particularly around net-of-fee presentation and substantiation of claims.
How Longs Peak Helps
Becoming and maintaining GIPS compliance touches every part of a firm: performance, operations, compliance, and marketing. That's a lot to coordinate on top of running the business.
At Longs Peak, we specialize in guiding investment managers through the entire journey. We help write policies and procedures, construct and maintain composites, prepare GIPS Reports, and manage the verification process alongside your chosen verifier. We've helped more than 250 firms and asset owners get there, and we stay with our clients well past go-live to keep compliance running smoothly year after year.
If you're weighing whether GIPS compliance makes sense for your firm, or you're already compliant and want a second set of eyes on how it's being maintained, let's talk.
GIPS® is a registered trademark owned by CFA Institute. CFA Institute does not endorse or promote this organization, nor does it warrant the accuracy or quality of the content contained herein.
Most managers assume that losing an allocation comes down to returns. Underperform the benchmark, underperform peers, and the mandate goes elsewhere. That happens, but it's not usually the reason a manager gets cut from a search after the numbers already looked competitive.
More often, it's something in how the performance was presented that made an allocator hesitate. A number that didn't match across two documents. A risk statistic nobody could explain. A question in due diligence that the manager couldn't answer cleanly. None of these are calculation errors. They're trust problems, and trust is what allocators are ultimately seeking when they write a check.
Here are the performance problems we see that cost managers allocations most often, and none of them start with the returns themselves.
The Numbers Don't Match Across Documents
An allocator pulls up your factsheet, your pitchbook, and your GIPS® Composite Report, and the composite's five-year return isn't quite the same in all three. Maybe it's a rounding difference, or the factsheet reflects a different "as of" date. The allocator doesn't know that, and they aren't going to assume the best. Inconsistency reads as carelessness, and carelessness in performance reporting raises an obvious question: what else isn't being checked?
This is why we push firms to treat marketing and GIPS compliance as one coordinated process rather than two departments working from different source files. Every document that leaves the building should trace back to the same underlying data.
This matters even more now that due diligence itself is being automated. Operational due diligence teams and consultants are increasingly running AI tools that cross-check pitchbooks, factsheets, DDQs, and regulatory filings against each other, flagging contradictions that used to slip through manual review. A rounding difference or a stale figure that a person might have missed a few years ago is exactly the kind of inconsistency these tools are built to catch instantly. Clean, consistent marketing materials aren't just good practice anymore — they're what it takes to pass a review that may happen before a person ever looks at your numbers.
Performance That Looks Selected, Not Reported
Showing your best-performing account, your best-performing period, or a composite with an unusually small number of accounts invites the question every allocator is trained to ask: what am I not being shown? Due diligence teams know that everyone can't be top quartile. The SEC Marketing Rule's anti-cherry-picking provisions exist because this pattern is common enough that regulators built rules around it, and sophisticated allocators are watching for it. If your performance can be read as overly flattering rather than representative, assume a diligence team will read it that way.
Wanting to lead with your best numbers is an understandable impulse. But diligence teams are trained specifically to spot it, and selective disclosure, even when every number in it is accurate, tends to read as a bigger warning sign than an honest, complete track record would. The stronger story is discipline: the periods where you held to your stated mandate and didn't deviate even while returns lagged. That's a harder story to tell than "we outperformed," but it's the one that actually holds up, because it shows you didn't drift toward whatever was working elsewhere just to keep pace. Chasing returns outside your stated process isn't skill, it's strategy drift, and allocators are trained to spot that just as readily as cherry-picked out performance.
Our advice: resist the instinct to lead with your best examples, and show the scenarios that build trust instead. We recommend showing the ones that demonstrate you stuck to your stated mandate, policies, and procedures, especially when the outcome wasn't your best quarter. Discipline under pressure is a more durable credential than a strong one-off time period, and it's the kind of evidence that holds up long after that number is forgotten.
Statistics You Show But Can't Explain
A page full of risk statistics doesn't build confidence on its own. It invites a follow-up question, and if the manager can't explain what a downside capture ratio of 85% says about the decisions actually made in the portfolio, the statistic becomes a liability instead of an asset. Allocators aren't just checking whether the numbers are favorable. They're checking whether the manager understands their own portfolio well enough to explain it. Statistics presented without interpretation signal that the second answer is “no.”
Likewise, a page of portfolio characteristics that have nothing to do with how the strategy is actually run are not doing you any favors. If you're not making decisions at the sector level, a sector breakdown doesn't tell an allocator anything about your process. If you don't manage individual position sizing, a top-ten holdings list is not adding value.
Your factsheet should be a roadmap for the conversation you want to have, not a checklist of everything other managers include. Every number on it should be something you can explain: how it got there, what decision it reflects, and what it says about how you manage money. A statistic that's only there because everyone else shows it likely isn't helping you if it doesn’t demonstrate active decision making. It's inviting a question you may not have a good answer to.
It's the same logic as a good resume. One padded with every certification, hobby, and unrelated past role doesn't read as impressive, it reads as overwhelming and maybe irrelevant, and it makes the reader work harder to find what actually matters to the job at hand. A factsheet works the same way. The strongest ones include only what's relevant to the case being made and make it easy to connect every line back to it.
No One Can Explain Why a Decision Was Made
This is the one that costs managers the most, and it's rarely about the numbers at all. An allocator asks why a composite was redefined, why a benchmark changed, or why a particular account was excluded, and the answer is a shrug or "that's how we've always done it." Undocumented decisions create the impression that performance is being managed reactively rather than governed intentionally. Firms that can point to a clear, contemporaneous record of why a judgment call was made close that conversation quickly. Firms that can't do this will leave the allocator wondering what other judgment calls haven't been documented either.
The Common Thread
None of these problems are really about whether the strategy performed well. It comes down to whether the story behind the numbers holds up consistently under scrutiny. Allocators aren't just buying returns. They're also buying confidence that what they're being shown today will still be true, and still explainable, a year from now.
The fix isn't more disclosure for its own sake. It's making sure everything across your performance reporting tells the same, well-documented story before an allocator ever has the chance to ask why it doesn't.
GIPS® is a registered trademark owned by CFA Institute. CFA Institute does not endorse or promote this organization, nor does it warrant the accuracy or quality of the content contained herein.
There is a common assumption among boutique investment managers that the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) are built for the largest firms in the industry — that compliance is something you pursue once you've reached a certain scale, a certain client type, or a certain level of institutional credibility.
That assumption is understandable. And it is costing firms real opportunities.
The GIPS standards have no AUM threshold to get started. There is no minimum number of clients or composites required before a firm can claim compliance. And increasingly, the institutional marketplace is not waiting for firms to reach some undefined moment of readiness before asking for it. If you are newer to the GIPS standards and want a foundation for what they are and why firms pursue them, start with our post What Are the GIPS Standards?
The Market Has Already Decided
The gatekeepers of institutional capital such as consultants, outsourced CIO platforms, model delivery networks, and institutional allocators, have been quietly raising the bar on performance reporting standards for years. GIPS compliance has shifted from a differentiator to a baseline expectation in many of these channels.
According to eVestment, two out of three manager searches conducted by investors and consultants on their platform exclude firms that are not GIPS compliant. That means boutique managers without a compliance claim are not being passed over, they are simply not being seen. As we explored in From Compliance to Growth, GIPS compliance has effectively become the price of admission for firms seeking to expand into institutional channels.
The question is not whether your firm will eventually need it. For most managers with institutional ambitions, the answer to that question is already yes. The real question is when you choose to pursue it, and whether you make that choice on your own terms or in response to a mandate you cannot afford to lose.
What Compliance Actually Builds Inside Your Firm
The benefits most managers focus on are external. Things like the credibility signal, the access to channels, the due diligence box that gets checked. Those benefits are real. But some of the most meaningful returns from GIPS compliance are internal.
Implementing the GIPS standards requires firms to formalize processes that often exist informally. Composite definitions. Discretion criteria. Benchmark selection rationale. Fee policies. Error correction procedures. For many boutique managers, the implementation process is the first time these decisions have been documented and applied consistently across the firm.
That discipline matters beyond GIPS compliance itself. A firm with clean, documented performance infrastructure is better positioned for regulatory examinations, investor due diligence, and operational due diligence reviews. It demonstrates to sophisticated allocators that the firm is run with the same rigor they apply to their own oversight responsibilities. And for firms that are not primarily focused on institutional distribution, this operational foundation has standalone value, the kind of infrastructure that supports sound governance regardless of who is asking. For more on what a well-governed GIPS compliance program looks like once it is in place, see What Good GIPS Compliance Governance Looks Like in Practice.
The Single Best Argument for Starting Now
Here is the point that does not get made often enough: the smaller your firm and the shorter your track record, the easier it is to become compliant. That ratio flips quickly as you grow.
Retroactively constructing composites across a large number of separate accounts is genuinely difficult work, particularly when no framework existed at the time to assign accounts to composites at inception, or to move accounts between composites as investment objectives changed, client restrictions were added or removed, or mandates evolved. Working through that history portfolio by portfolio, period by period, requires both detailed documentation and sound judgment. It is one of the most time-consuming phases of any GIPS compliance implementation, and the complexity compounds with every account and every year of history added.
A firm with 30 separate accounts and a two-year track record faces a very different implementation project than the same firm a few years later with 500 accounts and a five-year track record. The strategy, the clients, and the investment process may be nearly identical, but the administrative burden of reconstructing historical composite membership correctly is not.
The firms that find implementation most manageable are the ones that started before the project grew into something unwieldy. The firms that find it most painful are the ones that waited until an institutional prospect made it urgent.
What if you are not ready to commit to full compliance yet?
That is a legitimate position. But there is a practical middle path worth considering: even if a firm does not want to claim compliance with the GIPS standards today, building out the composite structure and creating policies and procedures for managing those composites now is a worthwhile investment. That framework does not require a formal compliance claim to be useful. Additionally, it can be carried directly into a full GIPS compliance program when the time is right, dramatically reducing the effort required at that stage.
The Real Costs
Becoming GIPS compliant requires real work, and it is worth being direct about what that entails. At a high level, implementation comes down to four phases: defining the firm, building a GIPS standards policies and procedures manual, constructing composites and calculating performance, and creating GIPS Reports with ongoing monitoring controls. We walk through each phase in detail in A Practical Framework for Implementing the GIPS Standards.
In terms of ongoing commitment, firms should expect monthly composite management, annual GIPS Report updates, periodic policies and procedures reviews, and distribution tracking. For a lean team, owning all of this internally is often not realistic. The good news is that outsourcing to a GIPS compliance consultant is a well-established path for boutique managers and one that many firms in our client base have taken successfully. The total cost of compliance for a focused, well-organized firm is frequently lower than managers expect, particularly when implementation is approached while the firm's history and account universe are still manageable.
Is This the Right Time for Your Firm?
Not every firm is at the same point in this decision. Managers with the strongest case for pursuing GIPS compliance now include:
- Firms actively pursuing institutional mandates or seeking coverage from investment consultants
- Managers on model delivery platforms or building toward that distribution channel
- Firms planning meaningful growth over the next two to three years
- Any manager whose clients or prospects have already raised the question
- Firms that simply want to build a best-in-class performance reporting foundation, regardless of where their distribution strategy stands today
The case is lower urgency for firms focused exclusively on high-net-worth or retail clients with no near-term institutional ambitions; however, there is still value in building a sound performance reporting structure, and the sooner it is established, the easier the work will be.
On Verification: You Can Wait
Verification is independent, voluntary, and valuable. It is also not required to claim compliance with the GIPS standards, and for cost-conscious boutiques, it is a reasonable place to exercise flexibility.
A firm can become GIPS compliant today and gain all the operational benefits and the ability to make the compliance claim and defer pursuing verification until there is specific demand for it. When an institutional prospect or consultant asks whether the firm is verified, that is the right moment to add it. The compliance foundation built now makes that future engagement faster and less disruptive. For a detailed walkthrough of what the verification process involves, see our series How to Survive a GIPS Verification.
Verification is worth having. It just does not need to happen on day one.
The Longer You Wait, The Heavier the Lift
GIPS compliance is not an initiative that gets easier with time. Every year a firm grows its account base, extends its track record, and adds complexity to its operations without a compliance framework in place is another year of history that will eventually need to be organized, documented, and reconstructed.
The managers who find implementation most straight forward are not the ones with the most resources. They are the ones who started early enough that the project was still proportionate to the size of the task.
If your firm is headed toward institutional distribution (most boutique managers we work with are), the best time to build this infrastructure is before you need it. The second best time is now.
Longs Peak Advisory Services specializes in GIPS compliance and investment performance consulting for investment managers and asset owners. We have helped over 250 firms implement and maintain compliance with the GIPS standards. If you are evaluating whether now is the right time for your firm, we would be glad to talk through it. Reach out athello@longspeakadvisory.com.
GIPS® is a registered trademark owned by CFA Institute. CFA Institute does not endorse or promote this organization, nor does it warrant the accuracy or quality of the content contained herein.
