The Performance Measurement, Attribution & Risk (PMAR) Conference is always a highlight for investment performance professionals—and this year’s event did not disappoint. With a packed agenda spanning everything from economic uncertainty and automation to evolving training needs and private market complexities, PMAR 2025 gave attendees plenty to think about.
Here are some of our key takeaways from this year’s event:
Although not officially a part of PMAR, WiPM often schedules its annual in-person gathering during the same week to take advantage of the broader industry presence at the event. This year’s in-person gathering, united female professionals from across the country for a full day of connection, learning, and mentorship. The agenda struck a thoughtful balance between professional development and personal connection, with standout sessions on AI and machine learning, resume building, and insights from the WiPM mentoring program. A consistent favorite among attendees is the interactive format—discussions are engaging, and the support among members is truly energizing. The day concluded with a cocktail reception and dinner, reinforcing the group’s strong sense of community and its ongoing commitment to advancing women in the performance measurement profession.
If you’re not yet a member and are interested in joining the community, find WiPM here on LinkedIn.
John Longo, Ph.D., Rutgers Business School kicked off the conference with a deep dive into the global economy, and his message was clear: today’s markets are more uncertain than risky. Tariffs, political volatility, and unconventional strategies—like the idea of purchasing Greenland—are reshaping global trade and investment decisions. His suggestion? Investors may want to look beyond U.S. borders and consider assets like gold or emerging markets as a hedge.
Longo also highlighted the looming national debt problem and inflationary effects of protectionist policies. For performance professionals, the implication is clear: macro-level policy choices are creating noise that can obscure traditional risk metrics. Understanding the difference between risk and uncertainty is more important than ever.
In the “Developing Staff for Success” session, Frances Barney, CFA (former head of investment performance and risk analysis for BNY Mellon) and our very own Jocelyn Gilligan, CFA, CIPM explored the evolving nature of training in our field. The key message: cookie-cutter training doesn't cut it anymore. With increasing regulatory complexity and rapidly advancing technology, firms must invest in flexible, personalized learning programs.
Whether it's improving communication skills, building tech proficiency, or embedding a culture of curiosity, the session emphasized that training must be more than a check-the-box activity. Ongoing mentorship, cross-training, and embracing neurodiversity in learning styles are all part of building high-performing, engaged teams.
Several sessions explored the growing role of AI and automation in performance and reporting. The consensus? AI holds immense promise, but without strong data governance and human oversight, it’s not a silver bullet. From hallucinations in generative models to the ethical challenges of data usage, AI introduces new risks even as it streamlines workflows.
Use cases presented ranged from anomaly detection and report generation to client communication enhancements and predictive exception handling. But again and again, speakers emphasized: AI should augment, not replace, human expertise.
Private equity, private credit, real estate, and hedge funds remain among the trickiest asset classes to measure. Whether debating IRR vs. TWR, handling data lags, or selecting appropriate benchmarks, this year's sessions highlighted just how much nuance is involved in getting private market reporting right.
One particularly compelling idea: using replicating portfolios of public assets to assess the risk and performance of illiquid investments. This approach offers more transparency and a better sense of underlying exposures, especially in the absence of timely valuations.
Calculating performance in long/short portfolios isn’t straightforward—and using absolute values can create misleading results. A session on this topic broke down the mechanics of short selling and explained why contribution-based return attribution is essential for accurate reporting.
The key insight: portfolio-level returns can fall outside the range of individual asset returns, especially in leveraged portfolios. Understanding the directional nature of each position is crucial for both internal attribution and external communication.
Compliance was another hot topic, especially in light of recent enforcement actions under the SEC Marketing Rule. From misuse of hypothetical performance to sloppy use of testimonials, the panelists shared hard-earned lessons and emphasized the importance of documentation. This panel was moderated by Longs Peak’s Matt Deatherage, CFA, CIPM and included Lance Dial, of K&L Gates along with Thayne Gould from Vigilant.
FAQs have helped clarify gray areas (especially around extracted performance and proximity of net vs. gross returns), but more guidance is expected—particularly on model fees and performance portability. If you're not already documenting every performance claim, now is the time to start.
David Spaulding of TSG, closed the conference with a deep dive into benchmark construction and the potential for “phantom alpha.” Even small differences in rebalancing frequency between portfolios and their benchmarks can create misleading outperformance. His recommendation? Either sync your rebalancing schedules or clearly disclose the differences.
This session served as a great reminder that even small implementation details can significantly impact reported performance—and that transparency is essential to maintaining trust.
From automation to attribution, PMAR 2025 showcased the depth and complexity of our field. If there’s one overarching takeaway, it’s that while tools and techniques continue to evolve, the core principles—transparency, accuracy, and accountability—remain as important a sever.
Did you attend PMAR this year? We’d love to hear your biggest takeaways. Reach out to us at hello@longspeakadvisory.com or drop us a note on LinkedIn!
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.
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:
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.
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:
As with extracted performance, these conditions help ensure that the presentation is not misleading, reducing the risk of enforcement action.
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.
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.
.webp)
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.
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.
The Guidance Statement for OCIO Portfolios applies when a firm provides both:
This ensures that firms managing OCIO Portfolios follow standardized performance reporting, making it easier for prospective clients to compare OCIO providers.
The guidance does not apply in the following scenarios:
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.
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:
To ensure transparency, firms must follow specific rules for return calculations and fee disclosures:
The new guidance also requires OCIO firms to disclose additional portfolio details, such as:
By providing these details, OCIO firms enable prospective clients to make better-informed decisions when selecting an investment partner.
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.
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.
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.
