Around the Peak.

SEC Clarifies Marketing Rule: Gross-of-Fee Returns Allowed Under Certain Conditions
The investment management industry has spent significant time grappling with the SEC’s Marketing Rule and the question of whether gross-of-fee returns can be presented without corresponding net-of-fee returns in certain cases. Many firms have invested resources in trying to allocate fees to individual securities and sectors in an effort to comply. However, the SEC has now issued two FAQs (March 19, 2025) that provide much appreciated clarity on extracted performance and portfolio characteristics. The key takeaway? It is possible to present gross-of-fee returns without net-of-fee returns—if certain conditions are met.
Extracted Performance: Gross Returns Can Stand Alone Under Specific Criteria
Investment advisers often present the performance of a single investment or a subset of a portfolio (“extracted performance”) in marketing materials. Historically, the SEC required both gross and net performance to be shown for such extracts. The new guidance provides a pathway for firms to display only gross-of-fee extracted performance, provided the following conditions are met:
- The extracted performance must be clearly identified as gross performance.
- The advertisement must also present the total portfolio’s gross and net performance in a manner consistent with SEC requirements.
- The total portfolio’s performance must be given at least equal prominence to, and facilitate comparison with, the extracted performance.
- The total portfolio’s performance must be calculated over a period that includes the entire period of the extracted performance.
If these conditions are satisfied, the SEC staff has indicated they will not recommend enforcement action, even if the extracted performance is presented without corresponding net returns. This is a notable shift, as it allows firms to avoid the complex and often impractical task of allocating fees at the investment or sector level.
Portfolio and Investment Characteristics: Net-of-Fee Not Always Required
Another common industry question has been whether certain portfolio or investment characteristics—such as yield, volatility, Sharpe ratio, sector returns, or attribution analysis—constitute “performance” under the marketing rule, and if so, whether they must be presented net of fees.
The SEC’s latest guidance acknowledges that calculating these characteristics net of fees can be difficult and, in some cases, may lead to misleading results. As a result, the staff has confirmed that firms may present gross characteristics alone, without net characteristics, if they meet the following criteria:
- The characteristic must be clearly identified as calculated without the deduction of fees and expenses.
- The advertisement must also present the total portfolio’s gross and net performance in a manner consistent with SEC requirements.
- The total portfolio’s performance must be given at least equal prominence to, and facilitate comparison with, the gross characteristic.
- The total portfolio’s performance must be calculated over a period that includes the entire period of the characteristic being presented.
As with extracted performance, these conditions help ensure that the presentation is not misleading, reducing the risk of enforcement action.
Bottom Line: A Practical Path Forward
This updated SEC guidance provides much-needed flexibility for investment managers, allowing for the presentation of gross-of-fee returns in a compliant manner. Firms that clearly disclose their approach and follow the specified conditions can reduce compliance burdens while still meeting investor protection standards. While this does not eliminate all complexities of the Marketing Rule, it does offer a practical solution that allows for more straightforward and meaningful performance reporting.
For firms navigating these changes, ensuring clear disclosures and maintaining compliance with the general prohibitions of the rule remains critical. Those who align their advertising materials with these guidelines can now confidently use gross-of-fee performance in a way that is both transparent and in compliance with regulatory requirements.
Questions?
If you have questions about calculating or presenting investment performance in a manner that complies with regulatory requirements or industry best practices, we would love to talk to you. Please feel free to email us at hello@longspeakadvisory.com.
Popular Post
The Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) have released a new Guidance Statement for OCIO Portfolios, bringing greater transparency and consistency to the way Outsourced Chief Investment Officers (OCIOs) report performance. This update is a significant milestone for firms managing OCIO Portfolios and asset owners looking to evaluate their OCIO providers.
What is an OCIO?
An Outsourced Chief Investment Officer (OCIO) is a third-party fiduciary that provides both strategic investment advice and investment management services to institutional investors such as pension funds, endowments, and foundations. Instead of building an in-house investment team, asset owners delegate investment decisions to an OCIO, which handles everything from strategic planning to portfolio management.
Who Does the New Guidance Apply To?
The Guidance Statement for OCIO Portfolios applies when a firm provides both:
- Strategic investment advice, including developing or assessing an asset owner’s strategic asset allocation and investment policy statement.
- Investment management services, such as portfolio construction, fund and manager selection, and ongoing management.
This ensures that firms managing OCIO Portfolios follow standardized performance reporting, making it easier for prospective clients to compare OCIO providers.
Who is Exempt from the OCIO Guidance?
The guidance does not apply in the following scenarios:
- Investment management without strategic advice – If a firm only manages investments without advising on asset allocation or investment policy.
- Strategic advice without investment management – If a firm provides recommendations but does not manage the portfolio.
- Partial OCIO portfolios – If a firm only manages a portion of a portfolio, rather than the full OCIO mandate.
- Retail client portfolios – The guidance is specific to institutional OCIO Portfolios and does not apply to retail investors including larger wealth management portfolios.
Key Change: Required OCIO Composites
Previously, OCIO firms had flexibility in defining their performance composites. Now, the GIPS Standards introduce Required OCIO Composites, which categorize portfolios based on strategic asset allocation.
Types of Required OCIO Composites
- Liability-Focused Composites – Designed for portfolios aiming to meet specific liability streams, such as corporate pensions.
- Total Return Composites – Focused on capital appreciation, commonly used by endowments and foundations.
Firms must classify OCIO Portfolios based on their strategic allocation, not short-term tactical shifts. This standardization enhances comparability across OCIO providers. The specific allocation ranges for the required composites are as follows:
Required OCIO Composites for OCIO Portfolios

Performance Calculation & Reporting
To ensure transparency, firms must follow specific rules for return calculations and fee disclosures:
- Time-weighted returns (TWR) are required, even for portfolios with private equity or real estate holdings.
- Both gross and net-of-fee returns must be presented to clarify the true cost of OCIO management.
- Fee schedule disclosures must include all investment management fees, including fees from proprietary funds and third-party placements.
Enhanced Transparency in GIPS Reports
The new guidance also requires OCIO firms to disclose additional portfolio details, such as:
- Annual asset allocation breakdowns (e.g., growth vs. liability-hedging assets).
- Private market investment and hedge fund exposures.
- Portfolio characteristics, such as funding ratios and duration for liability-focused portfolios.
By providing these details, OCIO firms enable prospective clients to make better-informed decisions when selecting an investment partner.
When Do These Changes Take Effect?
The Guidance Statement for OCIO Portfolios is effective December 31, 2025. From this date forward, GIPS Reports for Required OCIO Composites must follow the new standards. However, firms are encouraged to adopt the guidance earlier to improve transparency and reporting consistency.
Why This Matters
With OCIO services growing in popularity, this new guidance ensures that firms adhere to best practices in performance reporting. By establishing clear rules for composite classification, return calculation, and fee disclosure, the guidance empowers asset owners to compare OCIO providers with confidence.
As the December 31, 2025 deadline approaches, OCIO firms should begin aligning their reporting practices with this new guidance to stay ahead of the curve.
Don’t miss CFA Institute’s webinar scheduled for this Thursday February 6, 2025 to hear more on this guidance statement.
Questions?
If you have questions about the Guidance Statement for OCIO Portfolios or the Standards in general, we would love to talk to you. Longs Peak’s professionals have extensive experience helping firms become GIPS compliant as well as helping firms maintain their compliance with the GIPS Standards on an ongoing basis. Please feel free to email us at hello@longspeakadvisory.com.
Achieving compliance with the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) is a powerful way to demonstrate commitment to transparency and best practices in investment performance reporting. But is it always easy? Recently, we’ve heard several institutions, particularly in regions with limited compliance, express concerns that adhering to the standards would be challenging due to conflicting local laws and regulations.
Although local regulations can sometimes differ from the GIPS standards, we have found that direct conflicts with the GIPS standards tend to be rare. The GIPS standards were designed with a global framework in mind, enabling prioritization of stricter local laws and management of potential conflicts transparently.
The GIPS Compliance Framework
To achieve GIPS compliance while adhering to local regulations, firms and asset owners must understand how the GIPS standards prioritizes regulatory alignment. The guidance stresses adherence to the stricter of the two standards:
- If local laws impose stricter rules than the GIPS standards, firms should follow local laws.
- If the GIPS standards are stricter than local regulations, firms must adhere to the GIPS standards.
- In situations where direct conflicts arise between local regulations and the GIPS standards, local law takes precedence.
Again, direct conflicts tend to be rare. Most often we see situations where the GIPS standards may be stricter than the local law or vise versa. We have provided some examples in the sections that follow to help demonstrate how you might handle either situation.
Managing Conflicts Between the GIPS Standards & Local Regulations
Key principle: GIPS compliance can be maintained while respecting local regulations. When differences or conflicts occur, firms can continue to claim GIPS compliance by carefully disclosing deviations required by local regulations. This ensures transparency and maintains the integrity of performance reporting.
The first step for institutions is to identify any inconsistencies between the GIPS standards and their local regulatory requirements. If local laws prevent compliance with certain provisions of the GIPS standards, firms should:
- Follow the local laws and regulations.
- Document and disclose any necessary deviations from the GIPS standards in their GIPS reports, including:
- A clear description of the conflict.
- Specific details on how compliance was adjusted to adhere to local regulations.
Direct conflicts with the GIPS standards must be disclosed transparently in GIPS reports to ensure stakeholders understand the nature and impact of modifications made to meet local requirements. This commitment to openness preserves the credibility of the firm’s compliance efforts.
Practical Example 1: Stricter SEC Requirements and GIPS Compliance
A relevant example where a local law is more strict includes the SEC’s marketing rule for firms registered in the United States. The SEC requires net-of-fee performance reporting, which is stricter than the GIPS standards allowance for either gross-of-fee or net-of-fee returns. For firms registered with the SEC, this means including net-of-fee returns in GIPS reports. Although additional disclosure in this case may not be required, it illustrates how firms can remain GIPS compliant by adhering to the GIPS standards and also the stricter local rule.
Practical Example 2: Conflicting Local Requirement & Disclosure
The GIPS Handbook (see page 256) provides an example of a conflict where the local law prohibits the presentation of returns for periods less than one year to prospective clients. In this scenario, the GIPS standards requires disclosure of the conflict and an explanation for the manner in which the local laws or regulations conflict with the GIPS standards. The following sample disclosure language is provided:
"Local laws do not allow the presentation of returns of less than one year to prospective clients, which is in conflict with the GIPS standards. Therefore, no performance is presented for this composite for the period from 1 July 2018 (the inception date of the composite) through 31 December 2018."
Global Applicability of the GIPS Standards
The GIPS standards were developed with the flexibility needed for global adoption, enabling firms worldwide to achieve compliance while respecting local regulatory environments. By following all the requirements of the GIPS standards, identifying conflicts with local laws, and disclosing deviations where necessary, firms can ensure they uphold both local and global standards for performance reporting. This means that even for firms concerned about these conflicts, compliance with the standards is achievable.
Next Steps for Investment Managers
If you would like to be among the group of investment firms or asset owners claiming GIPS compliance and upholding the highest standard for investment performance reporting then please consider the following actions:
- Conduct a thorough review of local regulations to identify any inconsistencies with the GIPS standards.
- Document potential conflicts and stricter local requirements.
- Develop clear disclosures for any necessary deviations to comply with local laws.
- Ensure that GIPS reports transparently reflect adherence to both local laws and the GIPS standards.
- Seek expert guidance to navigate complex regulatory intersections.
- Regularly review and update compliance strategies as regulations evolve.
Achieving GIPS compliance is possible, even when local regulations do not perfectly align. With careful planning, transparent disclosure, and a commitment to upholding the highest standards, it is possible to comply with the GIPS standards no matter where you’re located. Reach out to Longs Peak if you would like help getting started.
GIPS® is a registered trademark owned by CFA Institute. CFA Institute does not endorse or promote this organization, nor does it warrant the accuracy or quality of the content contained herein.
The 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. CFA Institute does not endorse or promote this organization, nor does it warrant the accuracy or quality of the content contained herein.
Using Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) as benchmarks instead of traditional indices has become a common practice among investors and fund managers. ETFs offer practical advantages, such as reflecting real-world trading costs, and incorporating management fees and tax considerations. These aspects make ETFs a more accurate and accessible benchmark as they are an actual investible alternative to the strategy being assessed.
However, this approach is not without its drawbacks. Understanding both the advantages and disadvantages of using ETFs as benchmarks is crucial for making informed investment decisions and ensuring accurate performance comparisons.
This article discusses the pros and cons of using an ETF as a benchmark and considerations for making an informed decision on how to go about selecting one that is meaningful.
The Advantages:
Using an ETF as a benchmark rather than the underlying index has several advantages. These include:
Cost:
The decision to use an ETF rather than an actual index as a benchmark often stems from the costs associated with using index performance data. While index providers typically charge licensing fees for access to their indices, these fees can be cost-prohibitive for some firms, especially smaller ones, or those with limited resources.
ETFs offer a more accessible and cost-effective alternative, as they provide readily available, real-time performance data and can be traded easily on stock exchanges and accessed by anyone. By using an ETF as a benchmark, firms can circumvent the barriers to entry associated with marketing index performance directly, allowing them to still compare performance against a relevant benchmark.
Practical Investment Comparison:
ETFs represent actual investment vehicles that investors can buy and sell, thus providing a more practical and realistic performance comparison. Indices, on the other hand, are theoretical constructs that do not account for real-world trading costs, whereas ETFs do. Additionally, ETFs are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the trading day at market prices, unlike indices which cannot be directly traded.
Incorporation of Costs:
ETFs include trading and management expenses and other costs associated with managing the pool of securities. When using an ETF as a benchmark, you get a more accurate reflection of the net returns an investor would actually receive after these costs. In addition, ETF performance considers the costs of buying and selling the underlying assets, including bid-ask spreads and any market impact, which indices do not.
Dividend Reinvestment:
ETFs may account for the reinvestment of dividends, providing a more accurate measure of total return. Indices often do not factor in the practical aspects of dividend reinvestment, such as timing delays, transaction costs, and tax implications, leading to a potentially less realistic depiction of investment returns.
Tax Considerations:
ETFs may have different tax treatments and efficiencies compared to the theoretical index performance. Using an ETF as a benchmark will reflect these considerations, providing a potentially more relevant comparison for taxable investors.
Replication and Tracking Error:
ETFs can exhibit tracking error, which is the deviation of the ETF's performance from the index it seeks to replicate. While tracking error may be perceived as a limitation, it also reflects the real-world challenges and frictions involved in managing an investment portfolio. Thus, using an ETF as a benchmark encompasses this aspect of real-world performance—which acknowledges the practical complexities of investing and serves to enhance transparency and accountability in investment decision making.
Transparency and Real-time Data:
ETFs provide real-time pricing information throughout trading hours, allowing investors to monitor and compare performance continuously as market conditions fluctuate. This real-time data enables more informed and timely decision-making, as investors can react instantly to market events, manage risks more effectively, and capitalize on opportunities as they arise.
Advantages Summary
In summary, using an ETF as a benchmark provides a less-costly, more realistic, practical, and accurate measure of investment performance that includes real-world considerations like costs, liquidity, tax implications, and dividend reinvestment, which are not fully captured by indices. ETFs are a true investable alternative, while indexes are not directly investible.
The Disadvantages:
While using an ETF as a benchmark has several advantages, there are also some potential drawbacks to consider:
Downside of Tracking Error:
ETFs may not perfectly track their underlying indices due to various factors such as imperfect replication methods, sampling techniques, and management decisions. This tracking error can result from differences in timing, costs, and portfolio composition between the ETF and its benchmark index.
This deviation can lead to discrepancies when comparing the ETF's performance to the actual index and can affect investors' expectations, portfolio management decisions, and performance evaluations. Thus, it is prudent to evaluate and monitor tracking error of ETFs when they are used as a benchmark.
Tracking Method: Full Replication vs. Sampling
ETFs employ different replication strategies to track their underlying indices, with some opting for full replication, while others utilize sampling techniques. These differences can lead to varying levels of tracking error and performance differences from the underlying index.
Full replication involves holding all of the securities in the index in the same proportions as they are weighted in the index, aiming to closely mirror its performance. In contrast, sampling techniques involve holding a representative subset of securities that capture the overall characteristics of the index.
While full replication theoretically offers the closest tracking to the index, it can be more costly and logistically challenging, especially for indices with a large number of securities. Sampling, while potentially more cost-effective and manageable, introduces the risk of tracking error, as the subset of securities may not perfectly reflect the index's performance.
Non-Comparable Expense Ratios:
ETFs incur management fees, which reduce returns over time. While these fees are part of the real-world costs, they can make the ETF's performance look worse compared to the theoretical performance of the index, especially when compounded over time. This may be problematic when using an ETF as a comparison tool (think expense ratios dragging down ETF benchmark performance thus making the strategy appear to have performed better than it would have against the actual index). This has the potential to influence investment decisions and performance evaluations. To address this concern, the GIPS Standards now require firms that use an ETF as a benchmark to disclose the ETF’s expense ratio.
Many active managers might argue that it’s “unfair” that the SEC requires them to compare net returns against an index that has no fees or expenses. However, if the strategy’s goal is to beat the index with active management, the manager should be doing this even after fees, otherwise passive investing (with lower fees) is a better option.
Liquidity Constraints:
Some ETFs may suffer from lower liquidity, leading to wider bid-ask spreads and higher trading costs, especially for large transactions. This can affect the ETF's performance and make it less ideal as a benchmark.
Selection Dilemma
Multiple ETFs may track the same index, each with different structures, expense ratios, and tracking accuracy (e.g., check out the differences between SPY, IVV, VOO, SPLG). As a result, choosing the most appropriate ETF as a benchmark should involve consideration of factors such as cost-effectiveness, liquidity, tracking error, and the strategy’s specific investment objectives. As a result, some due diligence should be done to ensure that the selected ETF aligns closely with the desired index and makes sense for the investment strategy.
Some firms have made it a habit to mix the use of different ETFs in factsheets, often because their data sources lack all the data needed for one ETF. While it may seem like it’s all the same, for many of the reasons discussed in this post, not all ETFs are created equal. We do not recommend mixing benchmarks, even when using actual indices (e.g., comparing performance returns to the Russell 1000 Growth, but then showing other statistics like sectors compared to the S&P 500). Similarly, we wouldn’t recommend doing that with ETFs either (e.g., comparing performance returns to IVV but using sector information from SPY). Mixing benchmark information in factsheets is messy and likely to be questioned by regulators, especially when doing so makes strategy performance look better.
Regulatory and Structural Issues:
ETFs are subject to evolving regulatory oversight that might affect their operations, costs and performance as benchmarks. This is not the case for indices.
In addition, the structural differences between ETFs, particularly regarding whether they are physically backed or use synthetic replication through derivatives, can significantly impact their risk profile and performance relative to their underlying indices.
Physically backed ETFs typically hold the actual securities that comprise the index they track, aiming to replicate its performance as closely as possible. In contrast, synthetic ETFs use derivatives, such as swaps, to replicate the index's returns without owning the underlying assets directly. While synthetic replication can offer cost and operational advantages, it also introduces counterparty risk, as the ETF relies on the financial stability of the swap provider.
As a result, it’s best to consider the structure of the ETF before using it as a benchmark.
Market Influences:
ETFs can trade at prices above (premium) or below (discount) their net asset value (NAV), which can introduce short-term performance differences that are not reflective of the underlying index performance.
These premiums and discounts arise due to supply and demand dynamics in the market, as well as factors such as investor sentiment, liquidity, and trading volume. These fluctuations can affect the ETF's reported returns and introduce discrepancies when comparing its performance to the benchmark index. Therefore, investors must consider the impact of these premiums and discounts on the ETF's short-term performance and recognize that these variances may not accurately represent the true performance of the underlying index.
When material differences in price vs. NAV exist, some firms believe that the NAV is a better representation of the fair value rather than the price and have used NAV for performance calculations. Please note that when this is done, it is important to document how fair value is determined and if the performance is based on the change in NAV or change in trading price.
Currency Risk:
Investors utilizing ETFs tracking international indices face the added complexity of currency fluctuations, which can significantly influence the ETF's performance. When investing in foreign ETFs, investors are exposed to currency risk, as fluctuations in exchange rates between the ETF's base currency and the currencies of the underlying index's constituents can impact returns. Currency movements can either enhance or detract from the ETF's performance, depending on whether the base currency strengthens or weakens relative to the underlying currencies.
Consequently, currency risk should be considered when using international ETFs as benchmarks.
Dividend Handling:
The handling of dividends by ETFs, whether they are paid out to investors or reinvested back into the fund, can have a notable impact on their total return compared to the index they track. Indices typically assume continuous reinvestment of dividends without considering real-world frictions such as transaction costs or timing delays associated with reinvestment. In contrast, ETFs may adopt different dividend distribution policies based on investor preferences and fund objectives.
ETFs that reinvest dividends back into the fund can potentially enhance their total return over time by capitalizing on the power of compounding. However, this approach may result in tracking errors if the reinvestment process incurs costs or timing discrepancies that deviate from the index's assumed reinvestment.
ETFs that distribute dividends to investors as cash payments may offer more immediate income but could lag behind the index's total return if investors do not reinvest these dividends efficiently. Therefore, the dividend handling policy adopted by an ETF can significantly influence its performance relative to the index and should be carefully considered.
Lack of Historical Data:
Some ETFs, especially newer ones, may not have a long track record. This can make historical performance comparisons less reliable or comprehensive. Without an extensive performance history, sufficient data may be lacking to assess an ETF's performance across various market conditions and economic cycles, making it challenging to gauge its potential risks and returns accurately.
Strategies that existed long before an ETF was created to track the comparable index, may end up with timing differences. Many firms often need to use multiple benchmarks to cover the entire period. But, for some strategies that go way back, an ETF may not exist back to inception. Be sure to include rationale in your documentation for benchmark selection so that it is clear when and why a benchmark was selected for the given time periods.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, using ETFs as benchmarks offers practical benefits, potentially making them a more accurate and accessible measure of investment performance compared to traditional indices since they are an actual investable alternative to hiring an active manager. However, these benefits do not come without shortcomings. By carefully evaluating these factors and considering the specifics of the ETFs selected for each strategy, managers can effectively use ETFs as benchmarks to assess and monitor investment strategies. In understanding these factors, an ETF may actually be a better comparison tool for your strategy than the underlying index.
We at Longs Peak Advisory Services were thrilled to sponsor and participate in the 22nd Annual Performance Measurement, Attribution & Risk Conference (PMAR™) held on May 22-23, 2024. The event was a fantastic opportunity for us to engage with industry experts and share our insights. We always appreciate how TSG encourages participants to engage with sponsors and if you were there, hope we had a chance to meet you!
If you couldn’t make it this year, here are some of the key takeaways from the event that we found most impactful:
Artificial Intelligence in Performance and Reporting
This year’s event included two powerful sessions on the use of AI in the performance industry. Harald Collet from Alkymi presented a compelling session on the transformative impact of artificial intelligence (AI) in performance measurement and reporting. AI's capability to process vast amounts of data and generate actionable insights is indeed revolutionizing our field. Collet's discussion highlighted both the opportunities AI presents, such as enhanced efficiency and accuracy in reporting, and the challenges it brings, including concerns about data integrity and ethics. This session resonated with us as we continually seek to integrate advanced technologies to better serve our clients while carefully managing associated risks.
The application of AI, even on a small scale, can have a profound impact, helping optimize processes, and enhancing customer/employee experience and overall satisfaction. It has the power to enhance productivity and decision-making, making even modest use of this technology extremely valuable. One example provided was how to integrate AI with Excel. It is now possible to augment Excel’s capabilities to automate data entry, cleaning, and formatting, which saves time and reduces human error.
The “human in the loop” (HITL) concept was also discussed which emphasizes the role of human oversight and intervention in AI systems, where AI technologies are guided and corrected by human judgment, particularly in complex or critical tasks where machine errors could have significant consequences. While experts in many fields are often concerned that AI technologies will replace individuals in the workforce, Collet encouraged the crowd with a simple reminder that “You’re not going to lose your job to AI. You’re going to lose your job to someone who is using AI.”
Implementing SEC Guidelines
Our very own partner, Matt Deatherage, CFA, CIPM, had the privilege of moderating a session on the practical implementation of the new SEC guidelines alongside Lance Dial and Thayne Gould. They aimed to provide attendees with a comprehensive overview of these guidelines and share strategies for effective compliance. Now that the guidelines have been in place for over a year, the discussion underscored the importance of understanding regulatory expectations and adapting internal processes accordingly. Some of the key reminders from this session were:
- Most of the time the SEC will likely view Yield as a performance statistic and should therefore be shown net of fees. If the investment firm believes yield is not performance and wants to show it gross, they must be comfortable in defending that stance.
- Attribution analysis is often seen as performance-related information and therefore needs to be net of fees.
- Do not put hypothetical performance on your website! In most scenarios, it is generally not appropriate to present hypothetical performance. This is also a relevant topic in current events, where organizations have been fined for adding hypothetical performance to their website.
- Any sort of statement made in marketing needs to be supported. For example, if a firm claims to be “the best” they need to be able to support that claim – according to what/whom are you the best?
- A MWR (“also known as “IRR”) stream must also be presented with the prescribed time periods, net of fees. As of this publish date, the SEC has not put out any prescribed calculation methodology on how the MWR is to be calculated.
This panel offered actionable insights to help firms navigate the regulatory landscape efficiently and ensure adherence to the latest SEC standards. Reach out if you would like us to connect you with an SEC compliance consultant.
GIPS® Standards OCIO Guidance Statement
One of the standout sessions was the panel discussion on the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) OCIO Guidance Statement, featuring Joshua O’Brien, Todd Juillerat, Amy Harlacher, and G.R. Findlay. This session was invaluable as it delved into the implications of the guidance for firms managing outsourced chief investment officer (OCIO) services. While there is still some gray area around the OCIO guidelines, the panel emphasized the necessity of aligning with global best practices and provided insight into the important considerations to keep in mind for compliance. It reinforced the importance of transparency and consistency in performance measurement, which are core values we uphold at Longs Peak.
GIPS® Compliance Q&A
In another interactive session, Matt Deatherage joined John D. Simpson, John Norwood, and Susan Agbenoto for a Q&A on GIPS® compliance. They addressed a variety of common questions and concerns, providing practical advice for firms striving to adhere to the GIPS® standards. Some of the questions they answered were:
Q: What are some best practices to prepare for a verification?
A: Outlier reviews are extremely important to make sure composite construction is accurate and in line with expectations and your policies and procedures. Performing this type of review can help catch composite construction mistakes that may otherwise delay a verification if found in the testing process. This review is important no matter the approach you take as outliers can be reviewed in a variety of ways.
Never done an outlier review? Fill out this form and put PMAR2024 in the message box -- we will test a sample of your composite data and provide you a list of outliers for review.
Q: What should be reviewed annually by a GIPS compliant firm?
A: GIPS standards policies and procedures. Your policies and procedures are the backbone to your claim of compliance and should be reviewed periodically to ensure they are still up to date. Reviewing this at least annually and documenting any changes will go a long way.
Q: What tips do you have for firms looking to become GIPS compliant or adjust their current compliance program?
A: We have lots of suggestions, but here are two big ones:
- Leverage software as much as possible, whether that be for composite construction or GIPS report creation. Software can help build efficiencies and remove risk of human error.
- Don’t over-complicate your compliance program or policies and procedures. Make sure your policies and procedures are meaningful, but not so complex that they become difficult to consistently follow and implement.
What resources are available for organizations going through verification (whether it’s their first or 10th)?
A: While it can be helpful to appoint someone internally as the head of your GIPS compliance program to oversee all relevant requirements are being met, depending on the size of your organization, you might need to seek out additional help if you have no one in-house with this knowledge. We have helped over 150 firms become GIPS compliant by serving as their outsourced GIPS standards experts and would love to support your firm too.
There are also third parties, such as your verifier, that can help answer questions about GIPS standards verification. The CFA Institute also has a lot of great resources available such as the GIPS standards help desk (email them at: gips@cfainsitute.org), GIPS handbook and/or the GIPS standards Q&A Database.
We hope this session was rewarding for participants and left them with clear takeaways for enhancing their GIPS compliance practices.
WiPM Event
For the second year in a row, the Women in Performance Measurement (WiPM) group hosted a meaningful and enlightening day-long event in conjunction with PMAR. With sessions addressing communication in the workplace, ethical considerations in performance, and work-life balance, the conversations and knowledge-sharing did not disappoint.
It was inspiring and encouraging to hear from so many female thought leaders engaged in discussion about how we can further equip the next generation of female leaders in performance measurement. Two key highlights from the women-focused content shared included:
- The importance of creating a “brag book.” Oftentimes as women, it can feel arrogant or uncomfortable to share successes, but it’s important to remember that we can be our biggest advocates when we keep a record of our own accolades and triumphs. While the title of “brag book” could be off-putting, it is intended to simply be a “fact book” of all the accomplishments you’ve had in the workplace.
- Especially for women, work-life balance can feel impossible to achieve, so we explored the idea of “work-life harmony” instead. We discussed how the idea of “work-life balance” always feels like a give and take where one area has to give for the other area to grow – causing women to feel more guilt around the area that is now lacking. When we reframe this topic to be “work-life harmony,” it allows us to think about work and life in tandem – ebbing and flowing with a level of musicality that doesn’t require one to be “less” for the other to be “more”, but rather gives women the ability to recognize how they can be successful in both areas of life as the demands of each shift in different seasons.
While WiPM is still a relatively new organization, the group is excited to continue to offer group and individual programs to aid in the advancement of women in the performance measurement industry. During the event, the group highlighted the existing Mentoring program that matches mentors/mentees together to support one another in their performance-related careers.
Learn more about Women in Performance Measurement here, or join the LinkedIn group.
Conclusion
PMAR™ 2024 was a resounding success, offering a wealth of knowledge and practical insights on the latest advancements and regulatory updates in performance measurement and risk management. Our sponsorship and active participation underscored our commitment to supporting the industry's growth and evolution. We at Longs Peak are dedicated to advancing best practices and helping our clients navigate the complexities of performance measurement and GIPS compliance. If you have any questions about the 2024 PMAR Conference topics or GIPS and performance in general, please contact us.
We hope to see you at PMAR & WiPM in 2025!
Article Topics

Live Your Best Life: A Note from Sean
Today, September 3, 2023, marks Longs Peak's 8th anniversary, and I couldn't be more grateful for the incredible journey we've had over the last 8 years. As we celebrate this milestone, I'd like to reflect on what this date means to me each year, both personally and professionally, and how I've embraced it to live my best life (one of our core values at Longs Peak).
In 8 years, I am proud to say that we have served over 250 investment firms, providing them with consulting services related to calculating and presenting their investment performance. Many of these firms achieved GIPS compliance for the first time with our assistance, allowing us to live out our mission of making investment performance more transparent and reliable – empowering investors to make better, more informed investment decisions.

Our growing team is a testament to the power of teamwork as we focus on this shared vision. The growth we have experienced is not just in numbers but also in our commitment to make a difference in the investment community. As we continue to grow, we remain steadfast in our belief that, together, we can overcome challenges, reach new heights, and inspire others to join us on this journey.
But beyond the business achievements, this date holds a profound personal significance for me. On September 3, 2003, exactly 20 years ago, I underwent my first open heart surgery to repair an aortic aneurysm and receive an aortic valve from a pig. A decade later, on September 3, 2013, I underwent my second open heart surgery to replace the pig valve with one from a cow, as the pig valve had torn.
Facing these challenging surgeries and the recovery periods was undoubtedly difficult, but I made a conscious decision to embrace a positive outlook on life. I chose to see myself as a survivor, part farm animal or not, and this mindset inspired me to live life to its fullest. For me, that meant taking bold chances and not letting fear hold me back from pursuing my dreams.
One of the most significant risks I took was starting Longs Peak with my wife, Jocelyn. At that time, we had two babies and no other income. That giant leap led to so much more and although there have been times of fear (like trying to scale a business through a pandemic!), it has been an immensely rewarding adventure, all thanks to our incredible clients and team.
This approach to life has also pushed me to make decisions that go beyond work. Each year, on or around September 3rd, I celebrate my life and health by doing something that I wouldn't have been able to do without the success of those surgeries. In the past, I've run marathons, completed long hikes, and climbed 14ers (mountains with peaks higher than 14,000 feet) in Colorado and even summitted Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. This year, I am grateful to spend this anniversary hiking La Plata Peak (Colorado’s 5th highest mountain) with Jocelyn followed by a trip with my brother to Slovakia to hike the High Tatras.
On this special day, I am reminded of how precious life is. By seizing opportunities and pushing myself to new heights, I've discovered the true meaning of living my best life. This year, as we mark both the 10th and 20th anniversaries of my surgeries (and 8th anniversary of Longs Peak), I wanted to take a moment to thank some key players in my life that have inspired me along the way.
To my parents, thanks for raising me with an entrepreneurial spirit. Growing up with a paper route, mowing lawns, and shoveling driveways taught me more about starting and running a business than anything I learned in school. I also appreciate your encouragement and support along the way!
To my brother, the time we both spent living in New York in our 20’s was transformational for me. Coming from a small town, I never would have moved to New York if you weren’t already there clearing the way. I learned so much in those years both from you and from the invaluable work experience I gained there early in my career. That experience and time we spent together really changed the course of my life and career and I owe a lot of that to you.
To my wife, thanks for always being up for an adventure! In 2009, shortly after we got married, I suggested we leave New York and move to Shanghai for an amazing work opportunity and you said, “let’s do it!” In 2015 I suggested that I quit my job and we start Longs Peak together and you said, “let’s do it!” In 2019 I suggested we have a 4th baby and you said, “let’s do it!” You make life fun. I appreciate your optimism and the faith you have in us. Most of all, I appreciate the way you always show up 100% for our family, team, clients, and anyone else who needs you. We love you!
To my kids, thanks for putting up with me and mom talking about work all the time and for patiently riding the entrepreneurial rollercoaster with us! One of the reasons we started our business was so we could work from home and be close to you all before working at home was as common as it is now. I may not always love it in the moment when you walk in on an important video call to ask an urgent question, like if you can have a snack, but I know I will love looking back on memories like that someday. You all are my inspiration for everything I do. Whether it is the things I do to improve my health or career, I am motivated to do it imagining the long healthy future I want to enjoy together with all of you.
To our team, who we affectionately refer to as our “big kids,” we appreciate everything you do to make Longs Peak the best it can be. All of you embody our core values and that shines through in how each of you approach the exceptional service we strive to provide to our clients. At the same time, you make Longs Peak an enjoyable place for me to work every day. I truly appreciate that and am grateful to each and every one of you.
To our clients, thank you for entrusting us with the opportunity to assist in projects that we hope have led you to further growth and success. Your confidence in our expertise fuels our commitment to delivering exceptional service and innovation. Your GIPS and performance objectives are the driving force behind our growth. We are genuinely honored to be a part of your journey to grow your firm.
To everyone, I would not be where I am today without your influence and support in my life. You have inspired me to do everything I can to live my best life. I hope everyone reading this takes the opportunities presented to them to take calculated risks (pun intended) and live life to its fullest. Thank you all - I look forward to the many more adventures yet to come!

GIPS Compliance in Marketing Materials: Demonstrating Your Competitive Advantage
In today's highly competitive financial landscape, your company must stand out and demonstrate its commitment to transparency and accuracy. One powerful tool at your disposal is the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®).
We know how complicated it can be to become GIPS compliant and that’s exactly why we built Longs Peak – to do the heavy lifting for firms and simplify the verification process. By allowing us to tackle the behind-the-scenes work, we’ve helped hundreds of firms become compliant at a much faster rate than if they’d handled it internally – giving them the opportunity to quickly leverage their GIPS compliant status in their marketing and messaging.
By becoming GIPS compliant and incorporating GIPS compliance into your marketing materials, such as factsheets and pitchbooks, you can strengthen your credibility and trustworthiness among clients and prospects.

Let’s explore how to effectively utilize the GIPS standards in your marketing to help highlight your competitive advantage.
Understanding GIPS Compliance & Its Benefits
Before delving into marketing, let's review the fundamentals of GIPS compliance. The GIPS standards are a globally recognized set of ethical principles that provide a standardized framework for calculating and presenting investment performance to prospective investors.
By complying with the GIPS standards, you demonstrate that your performance results are genuine, comparable, and fairly presented. Moreover, GIPS compliance promotes transparency and instills confidence in potential investors, enhancing your marketability.
Highlighting Your Firm’s GIPS Compliance
After going through all the hard work to become GIPS compliant, it is important to share that status with the world so you can reap the benefits of your efforts! By including information about your firm’s GIPS compliance in your marketing, you instantly communicate your dedication to adhering to global best practices.
Trust is so important in the investment industry. By explaining how your firm is going above and beyond regulatory requirements to ensure your investment performance is presented in a fair and transparent manner helps demonstrate your firm’s trustworthiness and can help you stand out in an oversaturated landscape of options.
Tailoring the Message to Different Audiences
With any marketing effort, it’s important to consider your target audience. Understanding the needs, preferences, and concerns of that audience allows you to speak directly to their interests, fostering stronger connection and engagement.
When mentioning GIPS compliance, keep in mind that retail investors may be less familiar with the Standards and therefore may need more information to understand the benefits. Institutional investors tend to know about the Standards and likely need less explanation. By employing language that resonates with the target audience, you not only capture their attention but further build credibility and trust.
Advertising Your Firm’s GIPS Compliance
Now that we have emphasized the importance of highlighting your firm's GIPS compliance in your marketing materials, it is important to consider how this should be done. When mentioning GIPS compliance, there are some very specific disclosures that must be included. It is important that your firm does not state or imply that your firm is GIPS compliant without these disclosures.
Firms mentioning GIPS compliance in their marketing have the option either to follow the GIPS Advertising Guidelines or to attach a GIPS Report for the relevant composite or fund being marketed. You can download our checklists of what disclosures to include when following the GIPS Advertising Guidelines or when creating GIPS Reports.
For any marketing piece that includes a GIPS Report, we encourage firms to create a standalone page for the GIPS Report. The GIPS standards have specific requirements for reporting errors on the GIPS Report, so you want to limit information on that page to only what’s required and avoid the potential of having to report errors that could have been avoided if the information was kept separate.
Using Visuals to Enhance Understanding
GIPS Reports and their required disclosures tend to leave marketing teams feeling creatively stifled. But the goal of a good marketing presentation is to be engaging and digestible. Graphs, charts, and infographics can help convey complex performance data with clarity and impact.
Visual representations can be especially effective in illustrating return data and depicting how your strategies have outperformed benchmarks (i.e., growth of dollar line chart) over time. However, always ensure that the visual representations are aligned and never conflict with the information presented within the GIPS Report.



Incorporating Risk Statistics
Of course, no investment performance presentation is complete without discussing risk. There are a variety of risk statistics that can (and should) be used to demonstrate how each strategy you manage performs relative to risk. If you want to learn more about what risk statistics to include, you can read about the most common ones we see here.
Showcasing the Competitive Advantage
Beyond GIPS compliance, highlight the distinct features that set your investment strategies apart from the competition. Emphasize your expertise, team capabilities, and successful track record. While GIPS compliance is a powerful differentiator, showcasing your unique approach to investment management will further position your firm as a top choice for potential investors.
Wrap Up
By incorporating GIPS compliance into your marketing materials, you signal a commitment to transparency, accuracy, and investor protection. Emphasize the benefits of GIPS compliance, use visuals to enhance understanding, incorporate a discussion about risk and spotlight your competitive advantage. With these strategies in place, your marketing materials will become powerful tools for attracting and retaining investors, ultimately propelling your company to new heights of success.
Are you ready to leverage the power of GIPS compliance in your marketing materials? Schedule a call with one of our partners to elevate your credibility with investors and gain a competitive edge. Let us help you get started!

Key Takeaways from the 2023 PMAR Conference
TSG hosted the 21st annual Performance Measurement, Attribution & Risk (PMAR) North America Conference on May 24th - 25th 2023 in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Longs Peak had the pleasure of sponsoring the event and being represented on the Performance Reporting: Beyond the GIPS standards panel on day 2 of the conference by our very own Matt Deatherage, CFA, CIPM.
With many unanswered questions still circulating on the implementation of the SEC Marketing Rule that took effect last November, there were multiple sessions that touched on this topic. Other topics included ESG and its impact on performance, maximizing the potential of AI, performance evaluation and risk when returns aren’t normally distributed, evaluating benchmark misfit risk, and other hot topics such as talent retention and outsourcing.
With many women in the industry already attending PMAR, the conference also facilitated the first in-person Women in Performance Measurement (WiPM) meeting May 23rd. Longs Peak co-sponsored this event with TSG and sent four members of our team to the event. Interacting with so many brilliant women in different stages of their careers was a great experience, and the women of Longs Peak are looking forward to being part of the continued growth and development of the group.
ESG
ESG reporting requirements are ramping up, coming from pressure from shareholders and employees as well as in response to looming federal climate-disclosure regulations. The trend is no different for prospective investors as interest in ESG information is increasingly being requested by prospects. According to this WSJ article, “Nearly 80% of roughly 400 global institutional investors surveyed last year said companies should make investments that address ESG issues, even if doing so reduces profits in the short term.” The speaker reiterated this sentiment and said although the regulations in the US are behind Europe and Australia, he said that the SEC is getting there.
AI and Machine Learning in Investment Management
It is no secret that large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT or BloombergGPT are increasingly being incorporated in investment management. LLMs offer powerful technologies that can be utilized for a variety of advancements from data analysis and research to providing valuable insights from financial reports and supporting decision-making. In addition, they can contribute to risk assessment, compliance, and portfolio management by analyzing data and optimizing strategies. It is our opinion that this technology will revolutionize the financial services industry and will do so rapidly.
Of course, the integration of AI and Machine Learning technology comes with advantages and disadvantages. While the technologies offer improved efficiency and accuracy, relying too heavily on this technology can introduce algorithmic biases that can impact investment decisions. As performance experts, we wonder if it will create an overreliance on historical data and as we know, past performance may not always be indicative of future results. Key takeaways from this session were to consider how your firm might utilize LLMs and Machine Learning in your own processes and that while this technology is still somewhat new, it is increasingly accessible to anyone at reasonable cost.
Performance Reporting: Beyond the GIPS Standards
The panel discussed the types and frequency of performance they’re seeing internally and externally. Depending on the asset class, monthly or quarterly external reporting is most common, while some portfolio managers have found value in utilizing daily reporting internally to see how their strategies are performing in real-time. Firms seem to be steering away from manual updates and relying more heavily on automation and external resources for reporting. Beyond the statistics required by the SEC, including visuals in their reports was touched on by the panel as well as focusing on the story the firm is looking to tell based on the goals of the specific strategy.
Firms distributing performance also need to consider the internal controls needed to ensure that they are presenting accurate performance relevant to the specific audience. The importance of audit logs and extensive internal review was stressed, and firms are constantly looking for ways to improve these processes and save time. These challenges extend to updating databases in a timely and efficient manner, with some firms opting to upload preliminary performance to meet database deadlines and then making retrospective changes as needed.
While Excel is still king in the performance world, utilizing performance systems for calculation and reporting can create efficiencies and reduce opportunity for manual error. Flexibility is key, as end users want to be able to customize reporting for their specific needs. The ultimate reporting goal for many firms seems to be aggregating performance and risk statistics from different sources, and firms have found success using dashboards and other technology to simplify these processes.
SEC Insights
With many of our clients being SEC-registered investment firms, we’ve been just as eager as the rest of the industry for additional guidance on the SEC Marketing Rule. Unfortunately, it sounds like it may be a while until additional FAQs are released. One requirement that has raised many questions is the requirement to present performance net-of-fees. “Performance” isn’t defined by the SEC, so the PMAR panel, focused on extracted performance and attribution, attempted to shed some light on what could be considered performance under the new SEC guidelines.
It's been made clear that the net performance requirement applies not only to performance of an entire composite or portfolio, but also to that of a subset of investments or a single investment. If the gross performance of a single investment is shown, net performance also needs to be presented. When presenting extracted performance, firms should apply a model fee to calculate the net return, include appropriate disclosures, and be able to support why they’re presenting this information.
This gets a little trickier when considering attribution, and many firms are still figuring out how to navigate this grey area. The SEC will likely want to see attribution net-of-fees in some cases but not others. For now, it seems providing clear documentation for what’s shown and why is key. According to the panel, things like average weight and Sharpe ratio seem less likely to be considered performance, while contribution to return seems more likely to be considered performance. Yield in particular was discussed in detail, with the takeaway being that if yield is presented in a way that it is synonymous with a return and what investors can expect to take home, this may be subject to the net performance requirement.
Some other takeaways from this panel discussion on attribution are that metrics derived from performance and those that are relative to a benchmark are less likely to be considered performance in the eyes of the SEC. Firms should be able to support their decision of what they consider performance and be aware of the context in which attribution is being presented.
This panel also touched on key deficiencies from recent SEC exams, as well as what to expect for the next round of exams. While Phase I focused on more evaluating whether firms were addressing the new rule, Phase II is expected to include a deep dive across 175-200 firms. This will also include 20-25 exams involving recalculation of performance, as well as a focus on predecessor performance and testimonials/endorsements.
Some of the deficiencies the panel touched on from Phase I were material misstatements in advertisements, manipulation of performance, omitting poor performance, and failure to present net-of-fee performance. Another deficiency noted was the lack of policies and procedures around presenting hypothetical performance. The key to presenting hypothetical performance is that recipients must be able to fully understand what is being shown, and that this performance is not being distributed to a retail audience. You also need to have the ability to recreate any hypothetical performance presented, as this has the potential to be tested by the SEC.
To get ready for the next phase of SEC exams, firms should make sure their policies and procedures are designed to prevent violations of the marketing rule and that their marketing materials comply. We recommend extending this review to your website to ensure historical information published prior to adoption of the new rule is also in compliance. One suggestion from the panel was to leverage other firms in the industry to see what types of disclosures are being used. Many large firms are putting a lot of time and resources into navigating the marketing rule, so leveraging these firms as best practice is encouraged.
WiPM Group
Officially launched in late 2022, the Women in Performance Measurement (WiPM) Group was developed as a resource for women in the investment performance industry to connect with, learn from, and uplift one another. With initial members of the group spread across multiple regions and countries, the first in-person meeting had an impressive turnout of over 50 attendees.
The meeting featured Lisa Kaplowitz as its keynote speaker. Kaplowitz is a professor at Rutgers Business School and is the Executive Director at Rutgers Center for Women in Business. Her background includes everything from taking part in the landmark Title IX case to multiple CFO positions. Throughout her career, Kaplowitz has remained a champion of women and challenging the status quo.
Kaplowitz shared statistics supporting that the majority of women in C-suite positions competed in athletics, with nearly half of those executives being previous college-level athletes. This connection may not be all that surprising when you consider the life lessons around discipline, resiliency, and teamwork that are taught through athletics and the valuable leadership skills that are developed through those experiences. She also offered some insightful information on maladaptations women have to endure to survive in the workforce today and offered suggestions for addressing them. This topic really seemed to resonate with the group.
Another topic discussed was how to make the workplace “work” for women, which led to some insightful conversations during the WiPM panel discussion that touched on work life balance and the unique challenges women face in the workforce, particularly the performance measurement industry.
The group is working out details of a mentorship program that will help facilitate relationships between women across the industry and allow them to share the knowledge and experience gained throughout their careers. This program is expected to launch in the fall of 2023 and is open to all women within the WiPM group.
Anyone interested in the WiPM Group is encouraged to contact us to get connected or to submit an inquiry directly to the WiPM Group here.
Conclusion
This year’s PMAR speakers offered a lot of great insights on topics related to investment performance measurement and challenges facing the industry.
We enjoyed connecting with other performance measurement professionals in-person and are looking forward to attending future PMAR and WiPM events.
If you have any questions about the 2023 PMAR Conference topics or GIPS compliance and performance measurement in general, please contact us.
.webp)
What is Max Drawdown & Calmar Ratio?
What is Max Drawdown?
Max drawdown is a metric used to measure the largest peak-to-trough decline in the value of an investment over a specific period. Stated differently, it is the greatest cumulative percentage decline in net asset value due to losses sustained by the strategy. It is expressed as a percentage of the peak value and represents the maximum loss an investor would experience if they invested at the peak and sold at the trough. This ratio is commonly used by investment firms that say their strategy protects on the downside. Max drawdown helps demonstrate how effectively a manager performed when evaluating downside risk.
Max Drawdown Calculation

Example Max Drawdown Calculation
Max drawdown is calculated as a percentage. For example, if you want to know the max drawdown for a strategy since inception, and during that time it reaches a peak of $120, and then declined to a minimum of $90, the max drawdown would be -25.0% = (($90-$120)/$120).
How to Interpret Max Drawdown
Max drawdown is an important metric to consider when evaluating the risk of a strategy, as it provides a clear measure of the potential loss that may occur. It is one of the primary ways investors measure the risk of a strategy, especially when considering risk tolerance.
Max drawdown can be used as a tool for comparing similar strategies. Consider the following hypothetical scenario where the returns are the same, but reviewing max drawdown helps illuminate the risk taken to achieve that return:

Risk-averse investors would prefer Strategy B over Strategy A because it provides the same level of return with lower risk (as measured by max drawdown). Strategy B also performed better than the benchmark in this scenario, indicating that the strategy has performed better at managing downside risk.
Without considering the risk of the strategy, the investor would not have a sense of which investment best suits their risk profile as their decision would be based on returns alone. Considering max drawdown allows the investor to make a more informed decision while considering downside risk. Going one step further and using the max drawdown to calculate the Calmar ratio can be even more helpful as this ratio combines both return and risk into one metric.
What is the Calmar Ratio?
The Calmar ratio utilizes max drawdown to create a ratio of return to risk that helps investors compare strategies based on the level of return achieved after adjusting for the risk taken. This ratio adjusts the annualized strategy return by the maximum drawdown of the strategy. A higher Calmar ratio is preferred as that would represent better strategy-level performance on a risk-adjusted basis. Calmar is also used by firms interested in demonstrating how they performed in managing downside risk.
Calmar Ratio Calculation

Notice that a negative sign is placed in front of the maximum drawdown in the denominator. The negative sign will allow for the Calmar ratio to be calculated as a positive number since max drawdown statistics are negative by nature. The positive statistics make for an easier interpretation and comparison when reviewing different strategies side by side.
Example Calmar Ratio Calculation
Unlike max drawdown, the Calmar ratio is calculated as a decimal. While some may believe a Calmar ratio above a specific threshold is “good,” the ratio is best interpreted when comparing multiple strategies, or a strategy against a benchmark. For example, a strategy with an annualized return of 9.0% and a -25.0% max drawdown, results in a Calmar ratio of 0.36 = (9.0%/25.0%). Without another strategy or benchmark to compare, it’s hard to know if this result is good or bad. Thus, it’s best to use it as a comparison tool.
How to Interpret the Calmar Ratio
The Calmar ratio can be helpful when comparing strategies by creating statistics that are easily comparable across investment options. This statistic can also be used for various performance periods, which allows investors to make a fair comparison across investment strategies with different inception dates. Using the Calmar ratio helps investors compare results between strategies that may have different annualized returns and different max drawdowns. Let’s build off the prior example with some slight changes to show how the Calmar ratio can help in a less straight forward example where both the returns and max drawdown are different between the options:

If the above scenario was presented to an investor, it may be difficult to pick between Strategy A and Strategy B. Strategy A has the higher return but is riskier based on the max drawdown. Strategy B has the lower return but is less risky based on the max drawdown. For a risk-averse investor, this could be a difficult choice to make without any other information available.
Once the Calmar ratio is introduced, it provides a clearer picture of which option has the best risk-adjusted performance. Although an investor may be tempted with the higher returns of Strategy A, a risk-averse investor would still select strategy B due to the higher risk-adjusted performance demonstrated with the Calmar ratio. And although the strategy return did not beat the benchmark, on a risk-adjusted basis (as represented by Calmar) Strategy B is preferred.
Conclusion
Like many risk-adjusted statistics, the max drawdown and Calmar ratio are very helpful in reviewing strategy performance. These statistics can be helpful in isolation but are most useful in comparing strategies or comparing against a benchmark. Each statistic tells a different piece of the story and can be very powerful when combined with other risk statistics to provide investors with a better understanding of the return vs risk profile of the strategy or investment.

ColoradoBiz Names Longs Peak’s Jocelyn Gilligan, CFA, CIPM as a GenZYZ Top Young Professional
Longs Peak is pleased to announce that Partner and Co-Founder, Jocelyn Gilligan has been named a GenXYZ Top Young Professional by ColoradoBiz Magazine.
As ColoradoBiz states, “They’re uncommon achievers, whether as entrepreneurs, CEOs, nonprofit leaders, visionaries critical to their companies’ success or, in some cases, all of those roles. This year’s Top 25 Young Professionals figure to continue making a difference professionally and in their communities for years to come.”
Jocelyn grew up in Boulder, CO and graduated from the University of Colorado. She started her career at Ernst & Young in New York City where she worked on their Financial Services Transfer Pricing Team. She transferred with EY to their office in Shanghai and then eventually to Hong Kong. Jocelyn left EY as a Manager and relocated back to Colorado where she and her husband started a family. Soon thereafter, Jocelyn and Sean founded Longs Peak out of a small one-car garage in their home in Longmont, CO. Now running a thriving team of 14, Jocelyn has weathered the ups and downs of entrepreneurship. She credits a lot of their success to their amazing team and the community of entrepreneurs they live near and network with (Longs Peak is an active member of EO (Entrepreneurs Organization)).
Jocelyn is a voting member of the PTO at her children’s school and a member of Women in Investment Performance Measurement, a group recently founded to support women in the investment performance industry.
Please join us in celebrating this year’s ColoradoBiz Top Young Professionals nominees. You can view the complete list of nominees here
About ColoradoBiz’s Top 25 Young Professionals
The 13th annual Gen XYZ awards is open to those under 40 who live and work in Colorado — numbered in the hundreds, making for difficult decisions and conversations among judges, as always. Applications were judged by our editorial board based on career achievement, community engagement and their stories of how they got to where they are now.
About Longs Peak
Longs Peak is a purpose and values-driven company. It is our mission to make investment performance information more transparent and reliable—empowering investors to make better, more informed investment decisions.
At the onset, we were looking to help smaller investment managers by giving them access to professional performance experts and tools typically only available to very large firms. We know that our work enables emerging managers to compete with the big guys and helps facilitate their growth. We strive to be our clients’ most valued outsource partner and to be known for our exceptional client service. We know that providing exceptional client service means that we must first create a culture that lives by the ideals we are trying to create for our clients. A place where incredibly talented individuals are empowered to put their best work into the hands of clients that truly value what we do. As a firm, we recognize that our greatest asset is people – both those we work with and those we work for. We continue to evolve into something that represents the needs of both of these groups and hope someday a GIPS Report is provided to every prospective investor in the world.

GIPS Compliance Actions for the New Year 2023
As in years past, we are reposting this article. While your GIPS standards policies and procedures rarely need to materially change, as the standards, regulations and your firm evolves, performing a review of your GIPS compliance each year is beneficial to ensure your documented policies continue to align with your firm’s actual practices.
This year, conducting a review of your firm’s GIPS compliance is especially important because of the SEC’s New Marketing Rule that came into effect in November 2022. For information specific to the SEC Marketing Rule, please check out our Marketing Rule Checklist or the CFA Institute’s whitepaper on Reconciling the GIPS Standards with the SEC Marketing Rule.
The Right Team & Involvement
Even without the release of the New Marketing Rule, each year you should conduct a review. In the review, you should first make sure you have the right people involved. One person or department may be responsible for managing the day-to-day tasks that maintain your GIPS compliance; however, high-level oversight from a larger group should take place to help ensure that any decisions made or policies set will integrate well with your firm’s other strategic initiatives. This larger group, often called a GIPS standards Committee, typically consists of representatives from compliance, marketing, portfolio management, operations/performance, and senior management.
Not everyone on the committee needs to be an expert in the GIPS standards. In fact, many will not be. What they will need is to be available to share their opinions and represent their department’s interests when establishing or changing key policies for your firm. Your GIPS compliance expert/manager can set the agenda for your meeting and can provide any background on the requirements that will be part of the discussion. If you do not have a GIPS standards expert internally, or need independent advice about your policies and procedures, a GIPS standards consultant can be hired to help.
High-Level GIPS Standards Topics to Consider Annually
Once you select the right group to represent each major area of your firm, the following high-level questions can help determine if any action is necessary to improve your GIPS compliance this year:
- Have there been any changes to the GIPS standards?
- Did the New SEC Marketing Rule cause you to make changes to how you manage your composites or present the composite’s performance results?
- Have there been any material changes to your firm or strategies?
- Do your composites meaningfully represent your strategies or should their structure and descriptions be reconsidered?
- Are the materiality thresholds stated in your error correction policy appropriate for the type of strategies you manage and are they consistent with the thresholds set by similar firms?
- Are you presenting any new statistics in your GIPS Reports that now should have error correction thresholds in your error correction policy? For example, if you added 1-, 5-, and 10-year annualized returns to your GIPS Reports as part of complying with the SEC’s Marketing Rule, is your error correction policy clear on how errors to these numbers will be handled?
- Are you satisfied with the service received from your GIPS standards verifier for the fee that is paid?
- Is there any due diligence you need to conduct on your verification firm to ensure data security standards are being met or to confirm there is no breach of independence if the same firm is providing additional services to your firm beyond GIPS standards verification?
Changes to Regulations/GIPS Standards
It is important to consider whether there have been any changes to the GIPS standards since last year that would require your firm to take action. For example, if a new requirement is adopted, you should consider if any changes to your firm’s policies and procedures or GIPS Reports are needed. It is important to keep in mind that it is not only when updated standards are released that guidance is issued that could impact the way you implement the standards for your firm. Guidance may also be issued in the form of guidance statements or Q&A’s, which also must be followed by all GIPS compliant firms.
If your firm is verified or works with a GIPS standards consultant, these GIPS standards experts are likely keeping you informed of any changes to the standards. The best way to check for changes yourself is to visit https://www.gipsstandards.org/. Specifically, you should check the “GIPS Standards Q&A Database” where you can enter the effective date range of the previous year to see every Q&A published during this period. You should also check the “Guidance Statements” section. The guidance statements are organized by year published, so it is easy to see when new statements are added.
As a result of the SEC Marketing Rule, there were several changes that may affect your GIPS Reports. If you are not aware of these changes, there are a number of resources available to help you better understand what is required (see the links listed in the second paragraph of this post).
Changes to Your Firm or Strategies
Similar to changes in the standards, it is important to also consider whether any changes to your firm or its strategies would require you to take action. Examples include material changes in the way a strategy is managed, a new strategy that was launched, an existing strategy that closed, mergers or acquisitions, or anything else that would be considered a material event for your firm.
Even if no changes were made this year, you should still read your entire policies and procedures document at least annually to make sure it adequately and accurately describes the actual practices followed by your firm. Regulators, such as the SEC commonly review firms’ policies and procedures to ensure that 1) the document includes actual procedures and is not simply a list of policies and 2) the stated procedures truly represent the procedures followed by the firm. We expect the SEC to be particularly vigilant in their reviews following the release of the New Marketing Rule.
Meaningful Composite Structure
The section of your GIPS standards policies and procedures requiring the most frequent adjustment is your firm’s list of composite descriptions, as you must make changes each time a new composite is added or if a composite closes. However, even without adding new strategies or closing older strategies, the list of composite descriptions should be reviewed at least annually to ensure they are defined in a manner that best represents the strategies as you manage them today.
Since your firm’s prospects will compare your composite results to those of similar firms, it is important that your composites provide a meaningful representation of your strategies and are easily comparable to similar composites managed by your competitors. If a review of your current list of composite descriptions leads you to realize that your strategies are defined too broadly, too narrowly, or in a way that no longer accurately describes the strategy, changes can be made (with disclosure).
Keep in mind that changes should not be made frequently and cannot be made for the purpose of making your performance appear better. Changing your composite structure for the purpose of improving your performance results, as opposed to improving the composite’s representation of your strategy, would be considered “cherry picking.”
Two examples of cases that may require a change in your composites include:
- A strategy has evolved and certain aspects of the way the strategy was managed and defined in the past are different from today. This can be addressed by redefining the composite. Redefining the composite requires you to disclose the date and description of the change. This disclosure will help prospects understand how the strategy was managed for each time period presented and when the shift in strategy took place. Changes like this should be made to your composite descriptions at the time of the change, but an annual review can help you address any items that may have been overlooked when the change occurred.
- A composite is defined broadly to include all large capitalization accounts. Within this large capitalization composite, there are accounts with a growth focus and others with a value focus. If your closest competitors are separately presenting large capitalization growth and large capitalization value composites, your broadly defined large capitalization composite may be difficult for prospects to meaningfully compare to your competitors. To address this, you can create new, more narrowly defined composites to separate the accounts with the growth and value mandates. In this case, the full history will be separated and the composite creation date disclosed for these new composites will be the date you make the change. Note that this will demonstrate to prospective clients that you had the benefit of hindsight when determining the definition.
Materiality Thresholds Stated in Your Error Correction Policy
Another section of your firm’s GIPS standards policies and procedures that should be reviewed in detail is your error correction policy. Your error correction policy includes thresholds that pre-determine which errors (of those that may occur in your GIPS Reports) are considered material versus those deemed immaterial. These thresholds cannot be changed upon finding an error; however, they can be updated prospectively if you feel a change would improve your policy.
Many firms had a difficult time setting these thresholds when this requirement first went into effect back at the start of 2011. Now that much more information is available to help you determine these thresholds, such as the GIPS Standards Error Correction Survey, you may want to revisit your policy to ensure it is adequate.
Setting and approving materiality thresholds that determine material versus immaterial errors is a task best suited for your firm’s GIPS standards committee rather than your GIPS standards department or manager. The reason for this is that opinions of what constitutes a material error may vary from one department to another. Your committee can help find a balance between those with a more conservative approach and those with a more aggressive approach to ensure the thresholds selected are appropriate.
GIPS Standards Verifier Selection and Due Diligence
If your firm is verified, it is important to periodically evaluate whether you are satisfied with the quality of the service received for the fees paid. You may also want to consider whether you need to conduct any periodic due diligence on your verification firm with respect to data security or ensuring the firm conducting your verification is still considered independent from your firm. This is especially important if your firm receives multiple services from your verifier that could overlap.
With several mergers, acquisitions, and start-ups in the verification community over the last few years, you may want to do some research to ensure you are familiar with what your options are when selecting a verification firm.
All verifiers have the same general objective: to test and opine on 1) whether your firm has complied with all the composite construction requirements of the GIPS standards and 2) whether your firm’s GIPS standards policies and procedures are designed to calculate and present performance in compliance with the GIPS standards. Where they differ is in the fees charged and process followed to complete the verification.
Regarding fees, much of the difference between verifiers is based on their level of brand recognition rather than differences in the quality of their service. In our experience, smaller firms specialized in GIPS verification may have more experience with the intricacies of GIPS compliance than a global accounting firm; yet, a global accounting firm will likely charge a higher fee. When selecting a higher-fee firm, it is important to consider whether the higher fee is offset by the benefit your firm receives when listing their brand name as your verifier in RFPs you complete.
With regard to process, each verifier has its own method for how it arrives at an opinion on the points listed above. If you found last year’s process frustrating, there’s no harm in seeing what else is available. Our team has worked with most, if not all the verifiers out there and is happy to share our experience on how each verifier works. In addition, some verifiers offer access to a team and other ancillary services while others are a one-person shop. Here, you’ll want to consider how the engagement team is structured, whether you can expect to work with the same team each year, and how much experience your main contact has. Prior to the Covid-19 era, some verifiers conducted the verification on-site while others worked remotely. While remote work is now the norm, on-site work, in general, is making a comeback. You’ll want to consider which approach works best for the team that is fielding the verification document requests. The onsite approach may result in finishing the verification in a shorter period but may be disruptive to your other responsibilities while the verification team is in your office. The remote approach may be less disruptive to your other responsibilities, but likely will take longer to complete and may be less efficient as documents are exchanged back and forth over an extended period of time.
Regardless of whether the verification is conducted onsite or remotely, be sure to ask any verifier how your proprietary information and confidential client data is protected. If the work is done remotely, how are sensitive documents transferred between your firm and the verifier (e.g., is it through email or a secure portal) and once received by the verifier, do they have strong controls in place to ensure your data is not at risk.
If the work is done onsite, it is important to ask what documents (or copies of documents), if any, the verifier will be taking with them when they leave, and whether these documents are saved in a secure manner. Documents saved locally on a laptop are at higher risk of being compromised.
Questions?
For more information on how to maximize the benefits your firm receives from being GIPS compliant or for other investment performance and GIPS compliance information, contact us or email Sean Gilligan at sean@longspeakadvisory.com.

Key Takeaways from the 2022 GIPS® Standards Conference
CFA Institute hosted the 26th annual GIPS Standards Conference on October 25th - 26th 2022 in Boston, Massachusetts. This was the first time the GIPS Standards Conference was hosted in-person since the 2019 conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. It was great to be back together with so many familiar faces.
With the SEC Marketing Rule taking effect shortly after the conference, the hottest topic of this year’s conference was the two-hour session on this topic. Other topics included best practices for the implementation of the GIPS standards, information on ESG attribution, data visualization, practical advice for IRR calculations, OCIO performance issues, model portfolio programs and general updates on the GIPS standards.
SEC Marketing Rule
Michael McGrath, CFA, Partner with K&L Gates and Christine Schleppegrell, Acting Branch Chief with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) did an excellent job addressing some of the grey areas relating to the presentation of performance in advertising.
Schleppegrell emphasized that the guidance is intended to be principles-based so there are not always back and white answers to these grey areas. Most important is that firms always consider if their advertisement is “fair and balanced” and appropriate/meaningful for the intended audience.
McGrath was able to share some more opinions on how firms can address some of the grey areas. Below are some key items worth highlighting:
Gross vs. Net for “Performance-Related” Statistics
The rule is clear that gross performance cannot be shown unless net performance is also shown. But for many trying to interpret this guidance it begs the question, what is “performance”? Is performance limited to only the actual returns of the strategy or are other risk measures and attribution considered “performance” as well?
A key distinction that was made is that performance demonstrates what the investors “actually took home.” So, charts that show the growth of a dollar would likely be considered “performance” and need to show net returns. On the other hand, a risk measure like standard deviation that indicates volatility, but does not actually tell us what the investor took home would likely not be considered “performance” and, therefore, can be shown based on gross returns without also showing net.
Performance appraisal measures like Sharpe ratio are a little closer to showing what an investor took home but are still just “performance-related” rather than “performance.” Attribution also likely fits into this “performance-related” category where it is likely okay to show based on gross data; however, for any of these performance-related measures, if choosing to show based on gross data rather than net you should:
- Document internally why you feel it is more appropriate/meaningful to use gross data for these measures, so you are prepared to justify its use if questioned by an examiner; and
- Present net performance (i.e., net time-weighted returns) for the strategy in conjunction with these other “performance-related” figures that are presented using gross performance data.
Calculating Net Performance
Calculating net performance for a composite can get tricky when a composite includes non-fee-paying accounts, accounts with greatly reduced fees, accounts that pay their fee by check, or accounts that pay their fees from other accounts managed by the same manager (we've written a separate post on how to account for these fees here). Firms presenting net performance based on actual fees must ensure fees are applied to every account in the composite even if some are non-fee-paying. While the GIPS standards allow firms to exclude non-fee-paying accounts from composites, the SEC Marketing Rule does not specifically allow this. If excluding non-fee-paying accounts, you will need to ensure that excluding them does not make your composite performance materially better. While a model fee can be applied to each non-fee-paying account, the easiest, and most conservative approach is simply to apply a model fee at the composite level.
Even when all accounts in the composite are fee-paying, if using actual fees to calculate net performance you should consider if the results are meaningful for your current prospects. For example, if historically you charged 75bps, but your current fee schedule for new prospects is 1.5%, it could be considered misleading to use net performance based on actual fees. It is considered more appropriate to apply a model fee based on the highest fee a prospective client would pay.
Materiality was also discussed with regards to non-fee-paying accounts in composites. Specifically, a question was asked regarding the need to adjust for non-fee-paying accounts in composites when the amount of non-fee-paying accounts in the composite is very small. It was confirmed that materiality can be considered, and no adjustment is needed if the impact is immaterial. Of course, materiality can be difficult to define so if your firm is electing to not adjust performance for the non-fee-paying accounts in the composite, you should document your justification for this. This documented justification should make it clear why the results are meaningful and appropriate for your intended audience without any adjustment.
Using Representative Accounts for Attribution
Many firms are accustomed to using representative accounts for attribution rather than using a composite for attribution. This may continue to be okay if the firm can demonstrate that the results for the representative account are not better than the composite and also that the account has attributes that truly are representative of the strategy. Generally, this attribution would be shown in conjunction with composite performance, so the representative account is only used for “performance-related” statistics and not for the performance itself.
Customized Requests for Prospects
If a prospect requests a customized report of information that typically would not be allowed in an advertisement, it may be okay to provide this information to meet their specific customized request. However, if you have a report saved with this type of information that you provide to more than one prospect when requested, this may no longer be considered customized and may then be considered an advertisement.
For example, if you create a report of gross equity returns extracted from a balanced strategy to provide upon request, this may be deemed an advertisement if you provide the same report to multiple prospects. In other words, it needs to be custom tailored each time to meet the unique request of a prospect to fall outside of the Marketing Rule. When in doubt, it is safest to assume it will be considered an advertisement and include all required statistics and disclosures.
GIPS Standards Implementation
I had the pleasure of speaking on this panel together with two other industry experts with experience in GIPS standards verification and consulting. Together, we emphasized the importance of ensuring GIPS compliant firms take the time to customize their policies and procedures to be meaningful for their firm. Often firms create their policies and procedures using a template when first becoming GIPS compliant. It can be hard to include detailed procedures at that stage because it is all so new. A key takeaway from this session was to go back to your policies and procedures and take a fresh look to consider if they are clear and complete or if more detailed procedures should be added now. If you would like some additional guidance, we have summarized a list of the main topics to consider updating in a previous post here.
Involvement from key stakeholders in your firms GIPS compliance was also discussed. Whether it be for determining error correction materiality thresholds, defining composites, or other important decisions for your GIPS compliance, it is important to include stakeholders from around your firm. Specifically, members of your firm from performance, operations, compliance, portfolio management, sales & marketing, and executive management should be consulted to help create robust policies that consider different facets of your business. Often, firms create a GIPS Standards Oversight Committee with members from each of these areas to help facilitate effective internal communication between departments regarding the implementation of the firm’s GIPS compliance.
Detailed composite construction policies were also discussed such as minimum asset levels and significant cash flow policies. The key takeaway from this was to ensure you are not over complicating policies. Implementing composite minimums and significant cash flow policies can be beneficial in some cases, but if you do not have a system to help automate the monitoring and implementation of these policies, the risk these policies add may outweigh the benefit. Depending on the size of the composite, these policies may only have an immaterial impact on the composite results. Since implementing policies like this (especially when not automated) increases risk of errors in composite membership, it is important to consider the potential administrative burden when determining whether you want to have these optional policies for your composites.
OCIOs and GIPS Compliance
Many OCIOs (Outsourced Chief Investment Officers) are currently working toward GIPS compliance. With the way these firms operate with heavily customized portfolios, defining discretion and constructing composites can be very challenging. With this in mind, additional guidance for OCIOs claiming compliance with the GIPS standards is in the works. An initial consultation paper is expected mid-2023 that will be open for public comment. Finalized guidance for OCIOs will be available after there has been time to consider the feedback received from the public.
Conclusion
This year’s speakers did a great job providing clarification on the SEC Marketing Rule and other relevant topics that impact GIPS compliance and investment performance.
We were happy to be back in-person to attend the conference in Boston and look forward to hearing where next year’s conference will be!
If you have any questions about the 2022 GIPS Standards Conference topics or GIPS and performance in general, please contact us.

How to Make a Fund Factsheet
Longs Peak is specialized in helping investment firms calculate and present investment performance. As a team, we have either reviewed or created thousands of factsheets for the 200+ investment firms we’ve worked with. Over the years, we’ve come to realize that many investment managers struggle to create fund factsheets that help potential investors truly understand their firm and strategy. Many end up with generic leaflets of information that don’t actually help get interested investors in the door. Others make them because they feel like they have to and piece together an abundance of data without cohesive direction. Unless you have an in-house marketing team that’s specialized in advertising for investment managers, you might feel like you don’t know where to begin.
So how can you decide what to include when making a factsheet for your strategies? Keep reading to find out.
Where to begin
There are three things that you should consider before you make (or hire someone to make) your factsheets:
- Who is the target audience (i.e., your core client)?
- What is the primary objective of your strategy?
- How do you make investment decisions?
Once you know these three things, design is really just puzzling together the critical elements and aligning it with your branding.
Understanding your Target Audience
While this may seem obvious, knowing your target audience can make a huge difference in the success of your factsheets (which can be measured by how many requests you get for additional information). We find that firms often put together a factsheet with information they most commonly see other firms including – risk-adjusted performance statistics, sector allocations, top holdings and more – without much consideration for who will be reading the document. While this is not a bad place to start, too often factsheets end up generic and are not meaningful to the reader. It is important that your factsheet helps your prospects understand your investment process and how your strategy can help them achieve their goals. Picturing who you are communicating with as you develop the factsheet will help ensure your message is clear and focused on what is most important to them.
Institutional investors, such as large pension funds you’d like to sub-advise for, will want to see performance appraisal statistics that demonstrate how your strategy performed on a risk-adjusted basis and how this aligns with your investment objective and process. We’ll discuss more about this in the following sections, but most importantly, your factsheet should tell the story of your investment process – what you set out to do and how you achieved it (or what happened if you didn’t). It’s sort of like a report on your strategy’s OKRs (Objectives and Key Results).
Retail investors are likely less prepared to interpret complicated statistics and care more about how you’re going to help them achieve their future goals (think future college tuition payments, that retirement home in the mountains, etc.). For this type of investor, it may be better to incorporate more absolute return visuals like growth-of-a-dollar line graphs and text that explains how you plan to help grow their capital while protecting it from material losses. Or how you’d make customized investment decisions with their goals in mind.
Regularly, firms have a target audience that is somewhere in between. Sophisticated enough that they understand some performance appraisal measures, but not so sophisticated that they understand what they all mean. In this case, you’ll want to consider your target audience’s goal in investing their money with you. Whether they’re saving for retirement, supporting the financial needs of a loved one, or looking to add risk to a well-diversified portfolio, knowing their objective will help you be clearer about how to communicate to this audience.
And remember, although your factsheet should be designed with your ideal client in mind, there may be situations where your target audience differs from this core customer. For example, if you normally target retail investors but get the opportunity to pitch to a large RIA, you may want to customize the factsheet to cater to this client type. In this case, just follow these same steps with this client in mind.
Need help defining your target audience? You can use this GUIDE to help you define your core customer (or client profile).
What is the Primary Objective of your Strategy?
The key message you want your factsheets to convey is how your strategy goes about identifying drivers of value/returns. You want to communicate your end-goal (your strategy objective) and then demonstrate through statistics, graphs, and charts how you achieved it (your key results).
Whether your strategy is primarily focused on beating the benchmark on the upside or protecting capital on the downside, the statistics shown should act like a scorecard that demonstrates how you performed specifically on that objective. If your strategy’s primary goal is to beat on the upside, you’ll want to show things like Upside Capture (usually shown together with Downside Capture), Batting Average, Sharpe Ratio, and Alpha. Alternatively, if your strategy aims to protect on the downside, things like Max Drawdown, Downside Capture (again usually shown with Upside Capture), or Downside Deviation will be more relevant.
If you manage a strategy that exhibits a non-normal return distribution (e.g., you manage a strategy with options that create positive spikes in performance), you’ll want to include risk measures designed to consider these asymmetrical returns. These measures could include things like Sortino Ratio and Semi-Deviation.
Regardless of the strategy type, be sure to take the time or consult with someone that can help you select statistics that support your investment objective and display how you’ve done on an absolute and risk-adjusted basis.
This information should also be used internally as a feedback loop to assess what worked and didn’t work. The findings from this reflection can also be used in market commentary – either in your factsheet or as a quarterly market newsletter – to explain performance results for the current period. Doing this creates transparency and builds trust. Furthermore, it demonstrates to prospects that you are paying attention to what is happening in the market and taking action to address these changes.
Want to learn more about different performance appraisal measures? We’ve written several posts on different measures available and when you might use them.
How do you Make Active Investment Decisions?
If you – or your sales team – don’t know the answer to this question, it’s probably time to make sure you have this message clear. Because if your team doesn’t know how to explain it, it’s going to be confusing for a prospect. Investors of all types typically want to understand the investment process – how a strategy is implemented and how you manage the trade-off between expected return and risk exposure. You can help them understand these things by clearly identifying where you are making active investment decisions and then illustrating that information in your factsheet.
Frequently, firms don’t know what to include to help explain the story of their investment process but answering a couple simple questions can help. Consider the following:
- Are you performing fundamental or quantitative (systematic) analysis?
- Do you characterize your strategy as top-down or bottom-up?
- Do you consider micro or macroeconomic factors in your analysis?
- Do you have a value- or growth-based approach?
- Do you have geographic/country-based factors in your selection process?
- For spread-based bond portfolio investments, how do you select fixed income issuer types, industries, and instruments? How do you define your universe and narrow that down by credit quality, duration and taxability?
We often see firms that want to include information in their factsheets that really has no relevance to their active decision making. For example, if your investment process involves bottom-up fundamental analysis focused on stock selection with no active decisions to over- or under-weight at the sector-level, showing sector weights in comparison to the benchmark is less relevant than it is for a manager that specifically makes active decisions on sector exposures. Does showing where you ended up this quarter provide any meaning to the reader? If not, it’s best to find something that does.
The same goes for other common factsheet components like holdings and asset allocation. If you manage a strategy that focuses on macro-level variables and invests in a handful of ETFs, swaps and futures contracts to capture macro dynamics to generate returns, showing your top holdings may provide little meaning to the reader and it could even reveal trade secrets you may not wish to divulge. Perhaps in this case, focusing on describing the macro-level environment or trends and how you added exposure to them may be more meaningful.
Having clarity about where active decisions are made will help you select the right information to show. Remember, most factsheets are 1-2 pages in length so there’s not a lot of real estate to waste, especially if your disclosures take up half a page!
The new SEC Marketing Rule
Finally, the SEC’s new Marketing Rule, which is set to take effect on November 4, 2022, has a variety of requirements for presenting investment performance in advertisements. It is crucial that your factsheets follow these requirements. If you have not taken the steps necessary to prepare for these changes, we strongly encourage you to have your factsheets and performance information reviewed to make sure that any advertisement you make has been prepared with the new requirements in mind. Here’s a checklist of key performance-related considerations to help get you started.
Conclusion
The main objective of publishing and distributing fund factsheets is to get you meetings with more prospective investors. If you’re not getting the interest you think you deserve, perhaps it’s time to consider how effective your fund factsheets are at communicating your performance to your core customers.
From our small business to yours, there are many books written about goal setting. As a firm, we subscribe to the OKR method and recommend reading Measure What Matters by John Doerr. While it’s not specifically intended for investment advisors or analyzing investment returns, the concepts can be helpful in outlining how to set objectives for your investment strategies and then use performance statistics to measure the key results.
If you are interested in learning more about how Longs Peak can help you create better prospect engagement through factsheets and pitchbooks, contact jocelyn@longspeakadvisory.com.

Large vs Significant Cash Flows – What’s the difference?
Cash flows are frequently mentioned throughout the GIPS standards, and there can understandably be confusion around the terms “large cash flow” versus “significant cash flow.” While these terms sound very similar, they refer to different concepts and each play an important role in performance calculations and composite construction for firms that comply with the GIPS standards. It is also important to note that although they are called “cash” flows, this term refers to any type of external capital flow (cash or investments) entering or exiting the portfolio.
The key difference to remember is that the “large” cash flow requirements are focused on ensuring that the methodology used to calculate time-weighted returns (TWRs) is as accurate as possible. Conversely, the guidance relating to “significant” cash flows is concerned with a portfolio manager’s ability to fully implement the intended strategy. We discuss these differences in more detail below.
What are Large Cash Flows?
A main consideration for portfolio-level calculations is the treatment of external cash flows. As of the start of 2010, the GIPS standards require firms to value non-private market investment portfolios at the time of each large cash flow, in addition to the last business day of the month. The purpose of this requirement is focused on the accuracy of the performance calculations. Methodologies that daily-weight external cash flows based on the amount of time they were in the portfolio, such as Modified Dietz, begin to lose their accuracy as the size of the cash flow increases, especially during volatile market periods.
What is considered “large” is up to each firm to define for themselves. Historically, the default setting for many portfolio accounting systems was set to revalue for cash flows that are 10% of the portfolio’s value or larger. Many systems now revalue portfolios daily, which means they essentially have a threshold of 0%. What is most important is to choose a threshold that provides accurate results, even if you're not revaluing every day or for each cash flow. While 10% is still the most common threshold for firms that do not revalue for all cash flows, some firms set thresholds as high as 20%; however, anything higher than 20% is uncommon.
Firms must define the appropriate large cash flow threshold at the composite-level with consideration for factors such as the nature of the strategy, its volatility, and its targeted cash level. Some portfolio accounting systems have the option of implementing a large cash flow policy at the asset-class-level, although it’s most common to see large cash flows defined in terms of a percentage of overall portfolio assets.
While the GIPS standards allow some flexibility in how TWRs are calculated, the methodology used must meet certain criteria. When calculating TWRs monthly, firms must calculate sub-period returns at the time of all large cash flows and geometrically link the sub-period returns. The Modified Dietz method, which weights each external cash flow by the amount of time it is held in the portfolio, is a common methodology used in calculating a TWR when cash flows do not exceed the threshold set to define “large” cash flows. Details of the calculation methodology used for portfolio-level calculations must be documented in a firm’s GIPS policies and procedures (GIPS P&P).
Significant Cash Flows
While the requirements relating to “large” cash flows are focused on the accuracy of performance calculations, the purpose of establishing policies relating to “significant” cash flows are designed to help identify when portfolios should be temporarily removed from composites. The GIPS standards recognize that very large external flows of cash or investments can significantly impair a firm’s ability to implement a portfolio’s intended strategy, causing the portfolio’s performance to deviate from that of the composite. Firms have the option to establish a significant cash flow policy that temporarily removes a portfolio from the composite to avoid the disruptive effects of significant cash flows.
Firms adopting a significant cash flow policy must define “significant” at the composite-level, and the policy may differ between composites. Firms should determine the threshold by considering factors such as the liquidity of the strategy’s investments and the time it takes the firm to invest new money or raise funds for a client-requested distribution. The significant cash flow threshold may be based on a specific dollar amount, but it is more commonly based on a percentage of the portfolio’s market value. Firms may define a significant cash flow as a single flow or as an aggregation of flows within a stated period.
The policy may only be applied prospectively. Firms should consider whether a significant cash flow policy is needed during the initial construction of a composite, although the policy can be changed going forward with proper documentation. The concept of a significant cash flow applies only to composites presenting TWRs and does not apply to pooled funds presented in GIPS Pooled Fund Reports. Details on a composite’s significant cash flow policy must be documented in the firm’s GIPS P&P, as well as disclosed in the composite’s GIPS Report.
Summary of Key Differences
Large Cash Flow Policy
- Requirement for firms calculating returns monthly
- Portfolios experiencing a large cash flow remain in the composite
- Purpose is to improve the mathematical accuracy of portfolio-level calculations
Significant Cash Flow Policy
- Optional policy
- Portfolios experiencing a significant cash flow are removed from the composite for a specified period
- Purpose is to ensure composite-level performance results are not distorted by very large cash flows that were not controlled by the portfolio manager
A firm can establish both a large cash flow policy and a significant cash flow policy. While these two thresholds are determined independently from one another, it is generally expected that the significant cash flow threshold is higher than the large cash flow threshold. Firms are not allowed to set a significant cash flow threshold equal to or lower than the large cash flow threshold for the purpose of avoiding revaluing portfolios.
If you need assistance calculating performance or deciding which GIPS policies make the most sense for your unique strategies, please contact us to find out how we can help.