How to Update your GIPS Policies & Procedures for GIPS 2020

Sean P. Gilligan
Author
May 20, 2020
15 min
How to Update your GIPS Policies & Procedures for GIPS 2020

If you are an investment firm or asset owner that complieswith the GIPS standards you are required to make some modifications to yourGIPS policies and procedures (“P&P”) to address changes made to the 2020edition of the Standards. The extent of these updates depends on:

  1. whetheryour organization plans to adopt any new optional policies,
  2. whetheryou have pooled funds to add to the current list of composites, or
  3. ifyour organization plans to change any calculation methodologies now allowedunder the new standards.

Like other GIPS requirements, consistent application andadequate documentation are critical to ensuring these updates and changes areapplied correctly and consistently.

GIPS 2020: Minimum Requirements for all GIPSCompliant Organizations

There are some required GIPS policies & procedure updatesthat will impact all organizations claiming compliance. At a minimum, all firmsand asset owners must address the following in their P&P:

Terminology

What was previously called “Compliant Presentations” are nowcalled “GIPS Reports” in the 2020 GIPS standards. Likely, the term “CompliantPresentations” is used throughout your P&P, which needs to be replaced with“GIPS Reports” to be in sync with the language of the updated standards.

Demonstrate that GIPS Reports are Distributed

It has always been a good idea to maintain a log documentingthe distribution of GIPS Reports to help support that your firm met therequirement of providing them to prospective clients; however, it was notpreviously required. The 2020 edition of the GIPS standards now requires firmsto demonstrate how it made every reasonable effort to provide a GIPS Report toprospective clients that are required to receive one.

The most common way to do this is by maintaining a log of thedistribution in a spreadsheet or by noting the distribution in your firm’s CRMsystem. If noting distribution in your CRM, it is important to populate this ina way that can easily be extracted into a report. Your GIPS verifier is nowrequired to test this so you will need to be able to produce a report demonstratingthat your firm is distributing GIPS Reports to prospective clients.

In addition, you must now update your P&P to document theprocess for how this is maintained. Although each firm will need to documentthis differently to accurately describe their process (i.e., the system inwhich it is maintained and who is responsible for maintaining it), below is anexample of how this may be documented:

Each time a GIPS Report is distributed, the firm’s SalesAssociate is responsible for logging the distribution on the firm’s CRM system.This documentation will include who received the GIPS Report, the version ofthe GIPS Report they received, the method of delivery, and the date it wasdelivered. This information may be extracted from the CRM system by the SalesAssociate if requested by a verifier, regulator, or if needed internally.

Error Correction Procedures

In the 2010 edition of the GIPS standards, if a material errorwas discovered in a compliant presentation, correction and redistribution wasrequired with a disclosure of the change to “all prospective clients and otherparties that received the erroneous compliant presentation.” In addition tothese, the 2020 GIPS standards specifically call out providing corrected GIPSReports to your current GIPS verifier as well as any former verifier or currentclient that received the GIPS Report containing the material error.

Currently, most firms’ policies relating to material errors arelikely limited to the action they take to redistribute to current prospectiveclients. We recommend updating this language to specifically address the needto provide the corrected presentation to verifiers and clients who received theerroneous presentation as well. An example of how this may be documented isprovided below:

Our firm willdetermine an identified error is material if the error exceeds the materialitythresholds stated in the Error Correction Policy: Materiality Grid. If thisoccurs, we will correct all affected GIPS Reports, include a disclosure of thechange, and make every reasonable effort to provide a corrected GIPS Report to:

  • Prospective clients that received the GIPS Reportthat had the material error;
    • Clients and any former verifiers that received theGIPS Report that had the material error; and
    • Current GIPS verifier.

Verifier Independence

Verifiers are prohibited from testing their own work and,therefore, cannot help their clients by writing policies, calculatingperformance, creating GIPS Reports, etc. To help ensure this independence ismaintained, firms that are verified are now required to gain an understandingof their verifier’s policies for maintaining independence and to consider theirverifier’s assessment of independence to ensure there are no conflicts.

To comply with this, firms must request that their verifierprovide documentation describing the measures they take during the verificationprocess to ensure independence is maintained. The procedures for requesting andassessing this needs to be described in the firm’s GIPS policies &procedures. Below is an example of what this might look like:

Our firm has engaged XYZ Verification Firm as anindependent third-party verification firm to verify our claim ofcompliance. Each year, prior to the start of the annual verification, werequest the independence policy statement from the verification firm.  If there are no changes from the prior year,this confirmation is requested in writing. Any potential threats to independence, either in fact or in appearance,are discussed with the verifier to resolve immediately.

GIPS Report Updates

We will discuss all the changes relating to GIPS Reports in aseparate blog; however, some of those changes will require updates to yourfirm’s GIPS policies and procedures, which we do want to discuss here.Presenting annual internal dispersion and three-year annualized ex poststandard deviation is not new; however, it is new that firms are required todisclose whether gross-of-fee or net-of-fee returns are used in thesecalculations. We recommend adding language to your P&P that makes it clearwhether you will use gross-of-fee or net-of-fee returns. Including this in yourP&P will help you ensure the calculation is consistent with the disclosureyou will be adding to your GIPS Reports. An example of how this could be wordedis as follows:

Composite internal dispersion is measured using theasset-weighted standard deviation of annual gross-of-fee returns of thoseportfolios included in the composite for the full year. The three-yearannualized ex post standard deviation measures the variability of the compositegross-of-fee returns and benchmark returns over the preceding 36-month period.

While either gross-of-fee or net-of-fee returns areacceptable, at Longs Peak we generally recommend that our clients usegross-of-fee returns so the presented volatility relates specifically to the implementationof the strategy and is not affected by management fees (which may differ byaccount, be paid at different times, etc).

Additionally, there is a new requirement to update GIPSReports with the prior year’s information within 12 months of the periodending. In other words, statistics for the period ending December 31, 2020 mustbe added to your GIPS Reports by December 31, 2021.That will be plenty of timefor most firms, but to ensure this is done, we recommend adding a procedure toyour P&P document simply explaining that the reports must be updated within12 months after the end of each annual period.

GIPS 2020: Changes for Firms with Pooled Funds

Firms that have pooled funds willhave a few additional changes to make to their GIPS policies & procedures.

Terminology

Most firms will have language intheir P&P referring to “prospective clients.” In the 2020 GIPS standards,the term prospective client refers specifically to a prospective separateaccount investor while the term “prospective investor” is used when referringto a prospective pooled fund investor. Firms need to review their P&P language and make updates to defineboth terms and ensure they are using the appropriate term depending on thecontext of what is being described.

List of Pooled Funds

Firms have always been required to maintain a list ofcomposite descriptions, but now the same is needed for each pooled fund thefirm manages. For each limited distribution pooled fund, a description needs tobe included (similar to what was done historically for composites). Broaddistribution pooled funds need to be listed, but no description is required.

If you are unsure whether a pooled fund is considered broaddistribution or limited, broad distribution pooled funds are defined in theglossary of the 2020 GIPS standards as “A pooled fund that is regulated under aframework that would permit the general public to purchase or hold the pooledfund’s shares and is not exclusively offered in one-on-one presentations.Limited distribution pooled funds are simply defined as any pooled fund thatdoes not meet the definition of a broad distribution pooled fund.

Pooled Fund Inception Date

Pooled fund performance must be reported back to the pooledfund’s inception date. How the inception date was determined must be documentedin the firm’s GIPS policies & procedures. Inception date could be based onwhen investment management fees are first charged, when the firstinvestment-related cash flow takes place, when the first capital call is made,or when committed capital is closed and legally binding. Whatever criteria isused to determine the inception date must be clearly described in the P&Pto ensure an appropriate inception date is used for each pooled fund managed bythe firm.

Error Correction Thresholds

If language used to document error correction materialitythresholds is specific to composites, this will need to be modified toincorporate thresholds for statistics reported in GIPS Pooled Fund Reports aswell. If the same thresholds are appropriate for both composites and pooledfunds (e.g. composite and pooled fund performance can have the same thresholdand composite and pooled fund assets can have the same threshold) then this maybe as simple as changing “Composite” to “Composite/Pooled Fund” throughout thissection.

Additionally, if your firm is now presenting money-weightedreturns and other related multiples for closed-end funds, you will need to addthresholds to your policy for these statistics as well.

Changes for other Optional Policies

The 2020 GIPS standards offer some more flexibility to ensure theyare as meaningful and useful as possible to all types of investment firms andasset owners. If any of these policies are utilized, additional changes will berequired to describe their use in your firm’s GIPS policies & procedures.Examples of these optional policies include, but are not limited to:

Carve-Outs

If a firm decides to utilize carve-outs with allocated cash,the new carve-out composite will need to be documented in the current list ofcomposites. In addition, the firm will need to implement policies andprocedures as to how they allocate cash, how they identify appropriate assetbuckets to carve-out from existing accounts, which accounts have asset groupsthat need to be carved-out to meet the new composite definition, and documentother composite related policies applied to the carve-out composite.

Portability

Historically, GIPS compliant firms meeting the portabilityrequirements were required to link the historical performance record to theongoing performance. The 2020 GIPS standards change this to make linkingoptional. When portable track records exist, firms need to document in theirP&P 1) whether the historical track record meets the GIPS portabilityrequirements and 2) whether they are electing to link the historicalperformance record or choosing to not link it.

Estimated Transaction Costs

The GIPS standards define “gross-of-fees” as the return oninvestments reduced by transaction costs. Historically, firms complying withthe GIPS standards were prohibited from estimating transaction costs; the useof actual transaction costs was required. The 2020 GIPS standards nowallow estimated transaction costs to be used in cases where actual transactioncosts are not known.

Using actual transaction costs is straightforward fortraditional portfolios that pay transaction costs in the form of commissions oneach trade. The issue most commonly arises with wrap accounts that paytransaction costs as part of a bundled fee.

Historically, firms were not able to present returnsgross-of-fees for their composites containing wrap accounts because they wereunable to determine the actual transaction costs. Most firms instead present“pure gross” returns, which are gross of the entire wrap fee and are requiredto be labelled as supplemental information.

Allowing estimated transaction costs will give firms managingwrap accounts the option to estimate the portion of the wrap fee that is for transactioncosts and reduce returns by this estimated figure.

If estimated transaction costs are utilized, the firm mustdisclose in their GIPS Reports how these estimated transaction costs aredetermined. Similarly, the process used to determine the estimated transactioncosts and the methodology utilized to reduce the returns by the estimatedtransaction costs needs to be documented in the firm’s P&P.

Model Management Fees

Previously, GIPS compliant firms using model investmentmanagement fees (rather than actual fees) to determine net-of-fee results wererequired to use the highest investment management fee. This was generallyinterpreted as the highest fee from the composite’s fee schedule or the highestfee-paying portfolio in the composite, whichever was higher. In the 2020 GIPSstandards, firms using model management fees are required to use a fee that is“appropriate” to the prospective client. While the model fee doesn’t specificallyhave to be the highest fee, the resulting returns still need to be equal to orlower than the results that would be calculated if actual management fees wereused.

If your P&P already describes using the highest managementfee and you will continue to use the highest fee then no change is needed. Ifyou will implement a new process other than highest fee, then it is importantto update your P&P to describe how the model fee will be determined andapplied. This description needs to include how you will confirm that thenet-of-fee returns using the model fee are not higher than they would be if theactual investment management fees were used.

Presenting Advisory-Only Assets

Firms that have Unified Managed Accounts (“UMA Accounts”) orother similar arrangements where they are simply providing a model to beimplemented by another party generally are not able to include these accountsin their total firm assets. These accounts are considered “advisory-only” becausethe manager is only providing the model and has no responsibility to implementthe strategy or monitor the portfolios on an ongoing basis.

This type of arrangement has become increasingly popular overthe last decade. Given the popularity of these relationships, many firms nowhave a large amount of advisory-only assets that they would like to report.Because of this demand, the 2020 GIPS standards have provided guidanceoutlining the proper way for firms to present these assets separate from theirtotal firm assets. Firms electing to present these assets must make it clearhow they intend to report them in their GIPS Reports.

Historically, many firms documented in their P&P somethinglike, “all accounts deemed to be advisory-only, hypothetical, or model innature are excluded from total firm assets” to make it clear that they were notincluding anything in total firm assets that was prohibited. Firms now electingto separately present advisory-only assets must add an additional statementdescribing how they will be presented. For example, “Some of the firm’sstrategies are offered through UMA platforms on an advisory-only basis. Theseassets are presented separately from the firm’s composite assets and total firmassets and will be labelled ‘Advisory-Only Assets’.”

Presenting Money-Weighted Returns

Historically, time-weighted returns were required with twospecific asset class exceptions: Private Equity and Real Estate (when RealEstate was managed in a Private Equity-like fund). The 2020 GIPS standards havenow removed the asset-class specific requirements. Instead, firms may nowpresent money-weighted returns for any asset class as long as the firm hascontrol over the external cash flows and the composite or pooled fund has atleast one of the following characteristics:

  • Closed-end
  • Fixed life
  • Fixed commitment
  • Illiquid investments are significant portion ofstrategy.

For firms meeting this criteria and electing to present money-weightedreturns, the P&P must be updated to 1) note that the criteria was met, 2)indicate the election to present money-weighted returns, and 3) outline themethodology utilized to calculate the money-weighted return and other relatedmultiples that must be presented in conjunction with the money-weighted return.

Other Considerations for GIPS Policies &Procedures

When going through your firm’s GIPS policies & procedures to make the required changes for the 2020 GIPS standards, this is a great opportunity to review the document as a whole to ensure everything is still relevant, applicable and accurate. One of the most common deficiencies regulators write in examinations is that policy and procedure documents do not reflect actual practices of the firm. We recommend a comprehensive review be conducted annually. Check out GIPS Compliance Actions for the New Year for a step-by-step guide to this review .

Questions?

If you have a situation that we didn’t cover here that isspecific to your firm or for more information on GIPS Policies and Procedures,the changes to the GIPS standards for 2020, or GIPS compliance in general,contact Matt Deatherage at matt@longspeakadvisory.comor Sean Gilligan at sean@longspeakadvisory.com.

Recommended Post

View All Articles
Key Takeaways from the 2025 PMAR Conference
This year’s PMAR Conference delivered timely and thought-provoking content for performance professionals across the industry. In this post, we’ve highlighted our top takeaways from the event—including a recap of the WiPM gathering.
May 29, 2025
5 min

The Performance Measurement, Attribution & Risk (PMAR) Conference is always a highlight for investment performance professionals—and this year’s event did not disappoint. With a packed agenda spanning everything from economic uncertainty and automation to evolving training needs and private market complexities, PMAR 2025 gave attendees plenty to think about.

Here are some of our key takeaways from this year’s event:

Women in Performance Measurement (WiPM)

Although not officially a part of PMAR, WiPM often schedules its annual in-person gathering during the same week to take advantage of the broader industry presence at the event. This year’s in-person gathering, united female professionals from across the country for a full day of connection, learning, and mentorship. The agenda struck a thoughtful balance between professional development and personal connection, with standout sessions on AI and machine learning, resume building, and insights from the WiPM mentoring program. A consistent favorite among attendees is the interactive format—discussions are engaging, and the support among members is truly energizing. The day concluded with a cocktail reception and dinner, reinforcing the group’s strong sense of community and its ongoing commitment to advancing women in the performance measurement profession.

If you’re not yet a member and are interested in joining the community, find WiPM here on LinkedIn.

Uncertainty, Not Risk, is Driving Market Volatility

John Longo, Ph.D., Rutgers Business School kicked off the conference with a deep dive into the global economy, and his message was clear: today’s markets are more uncertain than risky. Tariffs, political volatility, and unconventional strategies—like the idea of purchasing Greenland—are reshaping global trade and investment decisions. His suggestion? Investors may want to look beyond U.S. borders and consider assets like gold or emerging markets as a hedge.

Longo also highlighted the looming national debt problem and inflationary effects of protectionist policies. For performance professionals, the implication is clear: macro-level policy choices are creating noise that can obscure traditional risk metrics. Understanding the difference between risk and uncertainty is more important than ever.

The Future of Training: Customized, Continuous, and Collaborative

In the “Developing Staff for Success” session, Frances Barney, CFA (former head of investment performance and risk analysis for BNY Mellon) and our very own Jocelyn Gilligan, CFA, CIPM explored the evolving nature of training in our field. The key message: cookie-cutter training doesn't cut it anymore. With increasing regulatory complexity and rapidly advancing technology, firms must invest in flexible, personalized learning programs.

Whether it's improving communication skills, building tech proficiency, or embedding a culture of curiosity, the session emphasized that training must be more than a check-the-box activity. Ongoing mentorship, cross-training, and embracing neurodiversity in learning styles are all part of building high-performing, engaged teams.

AI is Here—But It Needs a Human Co-Pilot

Several sessions explored the growing role of AI and automation in performance and reporting. The consensus? AI holds immense promise, but without strong data governance and human oversight, it’s not a silver bullet. From hallucinations in generative models to the ethical challenges of data usage, AI introduces new risks even as it streamlines workflows.

Use cases presented ranged from anomaly detection and report generation to client communication enhancements and predictive exception handling. But again and again, speakers emphasized: AI should augment, not replace, human expertise.

Private Markets Require Purpose-Built Tools

Private equity, private credit, real estate, and hedge funds remain among the trickiest asset classes to measure. Whether debating IRR vs. TWR, handling data lags, or selecting appropriate benchmarks, this year's sessions highlighted just how much nuance is involved in getting private market reporting right.

One particularly compelling idea: using replicating portfolios of public assets to assess the risk and performance of illiquid investments. This approach offers more transparency and a better sense of underlying exposures, especially in the absence of timely valuations.

Shorting and Leverage Complicate Performance Attribution

Calculating performance in long/short portfolios isn’t straightforward—and using absolute values can create misleading results. A session on this topic broke down the mechanics of short selling and explained why contribution-based return attribution is essential for accurate reporting.

The key insight: portfolio-level returns can fall outside the range of individual asset returns, especially in leveraged portfolios. Understanding the directional nature of each position is crucial for both internal attribution and external communication.

The SEC is Watching—Are You Ready?

Compliance was another hot topic, especially in light of recent enforcement actions under the SEC Marketing Rule. From misuse of hypothetical performance to sloppy use of testimonials, the panelists shared hard-earned lessons and emphasized the importance of documentation. This panel was moderated by Longs Peak’s Matt Deatherage, CFA, CIPM and included Lance Dial, of K&L Gates along with Thayne Gould from Vigilant.

FAQs have helped clarify gray areas (especially around extracted performance and proximity of net vs. gross returns), but more guidance is expected—particularly on model fees and performance portability. If you're not already documenting every performance claim, now is the time to start.

“Phantom Alpha” Is Real—And Preventable

David Spaulding of TSG, closed the conference with a deep dive into benchmark construction and the potential for “phantom alpha.” Even small differences in rebalancing frequency between portfolios and their benchmarks can create misleading outperformance. His recommendation? Either sync your rebalancing schedules or clearly disclose the differences.

This session served as a great reminder that even small implementation details can significantly impact reported performance—and that transparency is essential to maintaining trust.

Final Thoughts

From automation to attribution, PMAR 2025 showcased the depth and complexity of our field. If there’s one overarching takeaway, it’s that while tools and techniques continue to evolve, the core principles—transparency, accuracy, and accountability—remain as important a sever.

Did you attend PMAR this year? We’d love to hear your biggest takeaways. Reach out to us at hello@longspeakadvisory.com or drop us a note on LinkedIn!

ColoradoBiz Names Longs Peak’s Jocelyn Gilligan, CFA, CIPM as a Gen XYZ 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.”
March 14, 2023
3 min

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

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

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

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

About ColoradoBiz’s Top 25 Young Professionals

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

About Longs Peak

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

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

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.
March 27, 2025
4 min

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:

  1. The extracted performance must be clearly identified as gross performance.
  2. The advertisement must also present the total portfolio’s gross and net performance in a manner consistent with SEC requirements.
  3. The total portfolio’s performance must be given at least equal prominence to, and facilitate comparison with, the extracted performance.
  4. 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:

  1. The characteristic must be clearly identified as calculated without the deduction of fees and expenses.
  2. The advertisement must also present the total portfolio’s gross and net performance in a manner consistent with SEC requirements.
  3. The total portfolio’s performance must be given at least equal prominence to, and facilitate comparison with, the gross characteristic.
  4. 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.