Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Fire Pension 020117
THE RESOURCE CENTERS, LLC 4360 Northlake Boulevard, Suite 206 ❖ Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Phone (561) 624-3277 ❖ Fax (561) 624-3278 ❖ www.RESOURCECENTERS.COM PALM BEACH GARDENS FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND Meeting of Wednesday February 1, 2017 Location: City Hall, Council Chambers Palm Beach Gardens City Hall 10500 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Time: 1 PM AGENDA 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Public Comments 3. Selection of Chair, Vice Chair & Secretary 4. Minutes: • Regular Meeting Held on November 2, 2016 5. Investment Monitor Report: The Bogdahn Group (Dan Johnson) • 12/3/12016 Quarterly Performance Report • Domestic Small Cap & Large Cap Core Equity Manager Analysis 6. Attorney Report: Sugarman & Susskind, P.A. (Pedro Herrera) • BanCorpSouth, Inc. Litigation Update • Custodian Transition Update 7. Administrative Report: Resource Centers (Audrey Ross) • Disbursements • Benefit Approvals o 2017 COLA Approvals (Retirees & DROP Members) • Financial Statements • Benefit Payment Update • Election Update 8. Old Business • Crime Insurance Discussion 9. New Business 10. Next Meeting Previously Scheduled Monday March 6, 2017 at 1 PM 11. Adjourn PLEASE NOTE: Should any interested party seek to appeal any decision made by the Board with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. In accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing a special accommodation to participate in this meeting should contact The Resource Centers, LLC no later than four days prior to the meeting. City of Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Plan Authorization for Cost -of -Living Adjustments for DROP Participants Effective January 1, 2017 Current New Name ofPavee SSN Payment Payment Increase Bryer, Eugene XXX-XX-1361 $8,335.06 $8,585.11 $250.05 Bussey, Gary XXX-XX-1538 4,723.95 4,865.67 141.72 Jansen, Kyle XXX-XX-9048 5,987.60 6,107.35 119.75 Licata, Patrick XXX-XX-0559 5,173.98 5,277.46 103.48 Logan, Lance XXX-XX-4684 6,714.90 6,782.05 67.15 Morej on, Eduardo XXX-XX-6748 5,875.74 6,051.42 175.68 Oliff, Roy XXX-XX-2148 4,680.80 4,821.22 140.42 Pickens, Reginal XXX-XX-0892 5,820.13 5,994.73 174.60 Raynor, Richard XXX-XX-4262 8,719.19 8,980.77 261.58 Schaneen, William XXX-XX-2021 8,860.71 9,126.53 265.82 Schultheis, Edward XXX-XX-5199 4,275.65 4,318.41 42.76 Timmer, Gregory XXX-XX-7375 7,321.09 7,539.99 218.90 Vazquez, Anthony XXX-XX-9545 5,626.83 5,795.63 168.80 $82,115.63 $84,246.34 $2,130.71 This revision reflects the cost -of -living adjustments for 2017, pursuant to Ordinance 23, 2012. The foregoing authorization and direction for payment has been made pursuant to directions and authorities of the Board of Trustees. BOARD OF TRUSTEES Date of Issuance: (1 copy for Disbursing Agent, 1 copy for Board) City of Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Plan Authorization for Cost -of -Living Adjustment Effective January 1, 2017 Current New Catch-up Name of Payee SSN Payment Payment Increase PPg ment Aitken, Glen XXX-XX-4041 $7,083.62 $7,296.13 $212.51 Bergel, Peter XXX-XX-5245 10,677.42 10,997.74 320.32 Bestland, Evan XXX-XX-4308 9,383.62 9,665.13 281.51 Boniewski, Robert XXX-XX-4197 7,615.88 7,844.36 228.48 Brown, Chris XXX-XX-2353 4,662.52 4,802.40 139.88 Catoe, Jerry XXX-XX-2041 2,353.32 2,423.92 70.60 Ensinger, Steve XXX-XX-7862 5,325.32 5,431.83 106.51 Fetterman, Scott XXX-XX-8046 8,762.75 8,938.01 175.26 Holder, Richard XXX-XX-4663 5,110.38 5,264.71 154.33 613.20 Mauser, Catherine XXX-XX-6970 2,068.37 2,130.42 62.05 Olsen, Mark XXX-XX-8211 9,689.77 9,980.46 290.69 Schmitz, Gary XXX-XX-8914 3,349.68 3,450.17 100.49 Southard, Michael XXX-XX-8500 403.88 411.92 8.04 $76,486.53 $78,637.20 $2,150.67 $613.26 This revision reflects the cost -of -living adjustments for 2017, pursuant to Ordinance 23, 2012. The foregoing authorization and direction for payment has been made pursuant to directions and authorities of the Board of Trustees. BOARD OF TRUSTEES By: Date of Issuance: (1 copy for Disbursing Agent, 1 copy for Board) PALM BEACH GARDENS FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 2017 RATIFICATION OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS APPLICATIONS TO EXIT THE DROP BILL SCHANEEN Action: ANTHONY VAZQUEZ Action: Date of Birth: Date of Hire: DROP Entry Date: Date of Termination: Total Monthly Benefit: Form Of Benefit: Date of Birth: Date of Hire: DROP Entry Date: Date of Termination: Total Monthly Benefit: Form Of Benefit: Chairman Secretary Date 2/1/2017 1 08/1956 04/20/ 1990 06/01 /2015 12/09/2016 $8,602.63 LIFE ANNUITY 12/1959 01/15/1992 01/16/2012 01/13/2017 $5,795.63 50% J&S INSURANCE PROPOSAL October 19, 2016 This is a coverage summary, not a legal contract. This summary is provided to assist in your understanding of your insurance program. Please refer to the actual policies for specific terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions that will govern in the event of a loss. Specimen copies of all policies are available for review prior to the binding of coverage. Higher limits and additional coverage may be available. Please contact us if you are interested in additional quotes. Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pensio USI Insurance Services, LLC 4360 Northlake By #206 1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 700 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Tampa, FL 33607 Account Manager: Lisa Johnston Phone: 813.321.7539 Fax: 610.362.8547 4 Named Insured: Policy Type: Proposed Policy Term: Insurance Carrier: Carrier Financial Rating Minimum Earned Premium, if applicable Summary of Proposed Total Estimated Premium Requirements to Effect Coverage Other Information Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pensio Crime 11/21/16 — 11/21/17 Quote Expires: 11/17/16 Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America A++ 0 Carrier Admitted = Carrier Non -Admitted $ N/A Policy Subject to Audit F-1 See Attached Carrier Proposal $ 231.00 Terrorism included F-1 Signed Application Signed Terrorism Disclosure Notice Signed Carrier Rating Notification if financial rating is less than A- X Payment in full X Make check payable to: USI Insurance Services, LLC X Authorization to order coverage and verification of Named Insured Other exclusions and policy limitations may apply. Please refer to the actual policies for specific terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions that will govern in the event of a loss. In evaluating your exposure to loss, we have been dependent upon information provided by you. If there are other areas that need to be evaluated prior to binding of coverage, please bring these areas to our attention. Should any of y our exposures change after coverage is bound, such as your beginning new operation, hiring employees in new states, buying additional property, etc., please let us know so proper coverage(s) can be discussed. JNDERSTAND. 'SERVICE. INNOVATE. Copyright © 2015 USI Insurance Services LLC USI Disclosures COMMISSION DISCLOSURE POLICY: As a licensed insurance producer, USI is authorized to confer with or advise our clients and prospective clients concerning substantive benefits, terms or conditions of insurance contracts, to sell insurance and to obtain insurance coverages for our clients. Our compensation for placement of insurance coverage, unless otherwise specifically negotiated and agreed to with our client, is customarily based on commission calculated as a percentage of the premium collected by the insurer and is paid to us by the insurer. We may also receive from insurers and insurance intermediaries (which may include USI affiliated companies) additional compensation (monetary and non - monetary) based in whole or in part on the insurance contract we sell, which is contingent on volume of business and/or profitability of insurance contracts we supply to them and/or other factors pursuant to agreements we may have with them relating to all or part of the business we place with those insurers or through those intermediaries. Some of these agreements with insurers and/or intermediaries include financial incentives for USI to grow its business or otherwise strengthen the distribution relationship with the insurer or intermediary. Such agreements may be in effect with one or more of the insurers with whom your insurance is placed, or with the insurance intermediary we use to place your insurance. You may obtain information about the nature and source of such compensation expected to be received by us, and, if applicable, compensation expected to be received on any alternative quotes pertinent to your placement upon your request. UNDERSTAND. SERVICE. INNOVATE. Copyright © 2015 USI Insurance Services LLC Insurance Carrier Ratings As a service to our clients, USI is furnishing an assessment by a financial rating service of the insurance companies included in our proposal. We are including the legends used by this service. All ratings are subject to periodic review, therefore, it is important to obtain updated ratings from each service. Should you desire further information concerning the financial statements of any of the insurance companies being proposed, so that you can make your own assessment of the financial strength of the companies being offered, it is available from USI at your request. USI has made no attempt to determine independently the financial capacity of the insurance companies that we are including in our proposal as we believe the nationally recognized services are better equipped to comment. A. M. BEST RATINGS A++ and A+ Superior Band B- Fair A and A- Excellent C++, C+ Marginal B++, B+ Very Good C and C- Weak D Poor F In Liquidation E Under Regulatory Supervision S Rating Suspended FINANCIAL SIZE CATEGORY (In $ Thousands) Class I Less than 1,000 Class 11 1,000 to 2,000 Class 111 2,000 to 5,000 Class IV 5,000 to 10,000 Class V 10,000 to 25,000 Class VI 25,000 to 50,000 Class VII 50,000 to 100,000 Class Vill 100,000 to 250,000 Class IX 250,000 to 500,000 Class X 500,000 to 750,000 Class XI 750,000 to 1,000,000 Class XI I 1,000,000 to 1,250,000 Class XI II 1,250,000 to 1,500,000 Class XIV 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 Class XV 2,000,000 or greater RATING "NOT ASSIGNED" CLASSIFICATIONS NR-1 Insufficient Data NR-2 Insufficient Size and/or Operating Experience NR-3 Rating Procedure Inapplicable NR-4 Company Request NR-5 Not Formally Followed UNDERSTAND. SERVICE. INNOVATE. Copyright © 2015 USI Insurance Services LLC Client Authorization to Bind Important Information: Please keep in mind coverage cannot be bound when severe weather is threatening regardless of the expiration date. After careful consideration of your proposal dated October 19, 2016, we accept your insurance program as presented with the following exceptions, changes, and/or recommendations: Client Signature Date Signed PALMBEA19 UNDERSTAND. SERVICE. INNOVATE. Copyright © 2015 LISI Insurance Services LLC TRAVELERS J� Travelers Management Liability - Global Risk Update What's the issue? The international regulatory landscape is growing in complexity with an increased focus on foreign non - admitted insurance laws. Pegulators have become more active in monitoring compliance with these laws, having an impact on insurers, insureds, and brokers. As the business operationsand associated insurance risksof Travelers' insureds continue to expand outside of the United States, attention to these laws, which vary from country to country, is increasingly important. In an effort to clearly addressthese legal challenges, Travelerswill be adding the Global Coverage Compliance Endorsement to primary Management Liability policies that extend coverage beyond the United States. What are the key endorsement features? Foreign non -admitted insurance refers to insurance that provides coverage for persons, companies, and property located in aforeign jurisdiction in which the issuing insurer is not licensed or otherwise authorized by the local regulatory authority to provide insurance. 1. Clarify that Travelerscannot legally pay claims in foreign jurisdictions when foreign non -admitted insurance laws prohibit such payments; 2. Clarify Travelers' inability to provide insurance in the event that doing so would violate an applicable trade and economic sanctions law; and 3. Add "Financial Interest" coverage, which provides a solution in those foreign jurisdictionswhere Travelers is not legally permitted to provide coverage to aforeign insured organization, but is able to make payment in the U.S. based on the U.S. named insured'sinterest in the foreign insured organization. Under the "Financial Interest" coverage, payment is made to the first named insured in the U.S for the covered losssustained by the foreign entity. Financial Interest coverage recognizes that a loss sustained by a foreign insured organization impacts the balance sheet of the U.S named insured, and the payment made in the U.S to the first named insured isthefull amount of the otherwise covered loss. In situations where a foreign country's non -admitted insurance restrictions would not permit "Financial Interest" coverage, such asfor lossessustained byforeign individualsthat are not indemnified byan insured organization, including Side -A losses under a Directors& Officers (D&O) policy, Travelers can help procure a local policy. Travelers hasthe ability to place locally admitted D&O policies in over 100 countries. How is this helpful to you and your customers? The goal in attaching this new endorsement isto be transparent about Travelers' intent to remain compliant with foreign non -admitted insurance and trade and economic sanctions laws. With the "Financial Interest" coverage provided in this endorsement, Travelers has an express contractual obligation to pay the first named insured in the U.S when the loss is sustained by aforeign insured organization in acountry that prohibits non -admitted insurance. Who should I contact for more information? To learn more, please contact your local Travelers underwriter. traveler&conn The Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America and its property casualty affiliates. One Tower Square, Hartford, CT06183 This material does not amend, or otherwise affect, the provisions of any insurance policy issued by Travelers. It is not a representation that coverage does or does not exist for any particular claim or loss under any such policy. Coverage depends on the facts and circumstances involved in the claim or loss, all applicable policy provisions, and any applicable law. ©2015 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. Travelers and the Travelers Umbrella logo are registered trademarks of The Travelers Indemnity Company in the U.S and other countries. C1 8802 New 5-15 TRAVELERS October 18, 2016 Lisa Johnston USI INS SERVICES LLC 1715 N WESTSHORE BLVD STE 700 TAMPA, FL 33607 RE: Insured Name Expiring Policy Number: Policy Period: Dear Lisa Johnston: CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND 4360 NORTHLAKE BOULEVARD, SUITE 206 PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33410 103733118 November 21, 2016 to November 21, 2017 On behalf of Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America we are pleased to provide the attached proposal of insurance for your review. The quotes contained in this document are valid for 30 days, and are subject to the provision of, and Travelers' review and acceptance of, the required underwriting information noted in the Contingencies section. Travelers reserves the right to change the quotes in this document, or to refuse to bind coverage entirely, based on review of the required underwriting information or based on adverse change in the risk(s) to be insured prior to the quote expiration date noted in this document. Please note that we require a response to this document within 30 days in order to facilitate policy renewal. The insured's current policy will expire and not be renewed in the absence of a request, and Travelers' agreement, to bind coverage. Travelers is pleased to offer Risk Management PLUS+ Online®, the industry's most comprehensive program for mitigating your management liability exposures, which is available to you at no additional cost. Please visit www.rmplusonline.com to view the services that are available. If you have additional questions about the site please contact your Underwriter. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, a subsidiary of The Travelers Companies, Inc., has consistently earned high ratings for financial strength and claims -paying ability from independent rating services, including a current A.M. Best rating of A++*. Founded in 1853, The Travelers Companies, Inc. is a Fortune 500 company, a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and a leading provider of property casualty insurance for businesses. Thank you for considering Travelers for your client's insurance coverages. We look forward to discussing this opportunity with you. Sincerely, Lisa Craig Travelers Bond & Specialty Insurance *A.M. Best's rating of A+ applies to Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America as well as to certain insurance subsidiaries of Travelers that are members of the Travelers Insurance Companies pool; other subsidiaries are included in another rating pool or are separately rated. For a listing of companies rated by A.M. Best and other rating services visit www.travelers.com. Ratings listed herein are as of May 2014, are used with permission, and are subject to changes by the rating services. For the latest rating, access www.ambest.com. LTR-4000 Rev. 07-16 Page 1 of 3 © 2016 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America QUOTE OPTION #1 CRIME COVERAGES: Crime Single Loss Single Crime Single Loss Single Insuring Limit of Loss Insuring Limit of Loss Agreements Insurance Retention Agreements Insurance Retention A - Fidelity F - Computer Crime 1. Employee Theft See Endorsement 1. Computer Fraud Not Covered 2. ERISA Fidelity Not Covered 2. Computer Program and Electronic Not Covered 3. Employee Theft of Client Not Covered Data Restoration Expense Property B - Forgery or Alteration Not Covered G - Funds Transfer Fraud Not Covered C - On Premises Not Covered H - Personal Accounts Protection 1. Personal Accounts Forgery or Alteration Not Covered 2. Identity Fraud Expense Reimbursement Not Covered D - In Transit Not Covered I- Claim Expense $5,000 $0 E - Money Orders and Not Covered Counterfeit Money Insured's Premises Covered: Worldwide, except TOTAL ANNUAL PREMIUM - $213.00 (Other term options listed below, if available) LIMIT DETAIL: Shared Additional Defense Limit of Liability: N/A Crime Policy Aggregate Limit of Insurance: N/A PREMIUM DETAIL: Term Payment Type Premium Taxes Surcharges Total Premium Total Term Premium 3 Year Installment $213.00 $0.00 $0.00 $213.00 $639.00 POLICY FORMS APPLICABLE TO QUOTE OPTION # 1: CRI-2001-0109 Crime Declarations Page CRI-3001-0109 Crime Policy Form ENDORSEMENTS APPLICABLE TO QUOTE OPTION # 1: ACF-7006-0511 Removal of Short -Rate Cancellation Endorsement CRI-19072-0315 Global Coverage Compliance Endorsement — Adding Financial Interest Coverage and Sanctions Condition and Amending Territory Condition CRI-19076-0116 Replace Insuring Agreement A.2. ERISA Fidelity Endorsement CRI-4029-0210 Florida Changes Endorsement CRI-4031-0109 Table of Contents Florida CRI-5010-0613 Florida Cancellation or Termination Endorsement CRI-7125-0109 Government Entity Crime Endorsement CONTINGENCIES APPLICABLE TO QUOTE OPTION # 1: LTR-4000 Rev. 07-16 Page 2 of 3 © 2016 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. This quote is contingent on the acceptable underwriting review of the following information prior to the quote expiration date. 1 NONE NOTICES: It is the agent's or broker's responsibility to comply with any applicable laws regarding disclosure to the policyholder of commission or other compensation we pay, if any, in connection with this policy or program. Important Notice Regarding Compensation Disclosure For information about how Travelers compensates independent agents, brokers, or other insurance producers, please visit this website: http://www.travelers.com/w3c/legal/Producer Compensation_Disclosure.html If you prefer, you can call the following toll -free number: 1-866-904-8348. Or you can write to us at Travelers, Agency Compensation, One Tower Square, Hartford, CT 06183. Coverage Disclaimer: THIS QUOTE DOES NOT AMEND, OR OTHERWISE AFFECT, THE PROVISIONS OR COVERAGE OF ANY RESULTING INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED BY TRAVELERS. IT IS NOT A REPRESENTATION THAT COVERAGE DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST FOR ANY PARTICULAR CLAIM OR LOSS UNDER ANY SUCH POLICY. COVERAGE DEPENDS ON THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ACTUAL POLICY ISSUED, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM OR LOSS AND ANY APPLICABLE LAW. THE PRECEDING OUTLINES THE COVERAGE FORMS, LIMITS OF INSURANCE, POLICY ENDORSEMENTS AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN THIS QUOTE. ANY POLICY COVERAGES, LIMITS OF INSURANCE, POLICY ENDORSEMENTS, COVERAGE SPECIFICATIONS, OR OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT YOU HAVE REQUESTED THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS QUOTE HAVE NOT BEEN AGREED TO BY TRAVELERS. PLEASE REVIEW THIS QUOTE CAREFULLY AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR TRAVELERS REPRESENTATIVE. LTR-4000 Rev. 07-16 Page 3 of 3 © 2016 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. UNDERSTAND. SERVICE. INNOVATE. Copyright © 2015 USI Insurance Services LLC ® THE PENSION RESOURCE CENTER, LLC 4360 Northlake Boulevard, Suite 206 ❖ Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Phone (561) 624-3277 ❖ Fax (561) 624-3278 ❖ www.RESOURCECENTERS.COM PALM BEACH GARDENS FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND DISBURSEMENTS FEBRUARY 1, 2017 • AGINCOURT $ 5,075.90 (Investment Management Fee for QE 12/31/2016) • BOGDAHN GROUP $ 7,500.00 (Investment Consultant Fee for QE 12/31/2016) • DANA INVESTMENT ADVISORS — Acct. #715cb $ 5,805.14 (Investment Management Fee for the QE 9/30/2016) • DANA INVESTMENT ADVISORS — Acct. #715cc $23,917.72 (Investment Management Fee for the QE 9/30/2016) • DANA INVESTMENT ADVISORS — Acct. #715cb $ 6,284.49 (Investment Management Fee for the QE 12/31/2016) • DANA INVESTMENT ADVISORS — Acct. #715cc $24,955.83 (Investment Management Fee for the QE 12/31/2016) • ELLEN SCHAFER $ 450.00 (PRC Computer Programmer — Load retirees into payment system) • FIDUCIARY MANAGEMENT TRUST $15,995.00 (Investment Management Fee for the QE 9/30/2016) • FIDUCIARY MANAGEMENT TRUST $16,899.00 (Investment Management Fee for the QE 12/31/2016) • GH&A $ 4,895.60 (Investment Management Fee for QE 12/31/2016) • KSDT& CO $ 2,670.00 (Progress Auditing Billing FYE 9/30/16) • RBC GLOBAL ASSET MANAGEMENT $ 9,514.93 (Investment Management Fee for QE 9/30/2016) • REGIONS MORGAN KEEGAN TRUST $ 7,891.26 (Custodial Fee for October - December 2016) • RESOURCE CENTERS $ 3,825.00 (Administrator Fee for December 2016 & January 2017) • SUGARMAN & SUSSKIND $ 2,223.00 (Legal Fees for November 2016) Total Disbursements for Approval $137,902.87 (Trustee) (Trustee) Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Fund Balance Sheet FY 2017 Account Description End October End November End December 1001 CenterState Bank 0.00 0.00 200,006.85 Regions Bank -Consolidated 1500 Cash and Equivalents 2,345,801.45 1,767,720.92 1,723,178.86 1510 Equities 41 069 058.38 43 053 308.94 43 993 635.55 1520 Fixed 19,343,939.41 19,576,790.35 19,626,195.13 1523 Balanced Mutual Funds 4,067,535.06 4,054,617.97 41108,032.70 1525 International 2,305,946.06 2,260,230.95 2,276,950.73 1540 Partnerships 4,228,877.98 4,242,891.71 4,242,891.71 1550 Accrued Income 133,417.20 170,203.39 164,121.15 1561 Due from Brokers 38 643.60 1,439,955.95 0.00 1562 Due to Brokers (57,701.15) (1,432,808.87) (87,882.42) Regions Bank Total 73 475 517.99 75 132 911.31 76 047 123.41 1604 American Core Realty Fund 4,347,002.99 4,347,002.99 4,347,002.99 1633 RBC Global Asset Management 4,412,046.57 4,359,868.17 4,510,932.56 1637 U.S. Real Estate Investment 4,461,129.00 4,461,129.00 4,666,978.00 2000 Accounts Payable 97 116.62 94 282.79 91 774.48 TOTAL RESERVE FUND (MARKET VALUE): 86,598,579.93 1 88,206,628.68 1 89,680,269.33 Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Fund Statement of Income and Expense FY 2017 Account Description End October End November I End December Year To Date Income• 4000 Employer Contributions 2,882,604.00 0.00 0.00 2,882,604.00 4100 Employee Contributions 19 657.16 34 147.92 51 142.27 104 947.35 Realized Gain/Loss-Mgr Held 4433 RBC Global Asset Management 51.36 27 589.14 4,479.37 32 017.15 4437 U.S. Real Estate Investment 0.00 0.00 (10,737.00) (10,737.00) Unrealized Gain/Loss-Mgr Held 4533 RBC Global Asset Management (66,903.67) (79,584.67) 136,928.16 (9,560.18) 4537 U.S. Real Estate Investment 0.00 0.00 213 188.00 213 188.00 4600 Interest & Dividend Income 98,100.41 126,211.44 347,885.51 572,197.36 4800 Regions Bank Adjustments 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 Realized Gain/Loss-Regions Bank 4810 Equities 1.19 78 910.28 26 836.65 105 745.74 4820 Fixed (6,662.25) (16,274.53) (9,395.17) (32,331.95) 4825 International 0.00 (2,646.08) 514.29 (2,131.79) Unrealized Gain/Loss-Regions Bank 4910 Equities 988 765.20 1,862,819.04 699 391.14 1,573,444.98 4920 Fixed 55,569.39 (313,047.03) 126,358.46 (131,119.18) 4923 Balanced Mutual Funds 34 309.11 26 775.78 26 895.13 34 189.76 4925 International (102,273.21) 32,573.22 38,759.28 (30,940.71) 4940 Partnerships 0.00 14 013.73 0.00 14 013.73 Total Income 1,856,964.93 1,737,936.68 1,652,246.09 5,247,147.70 Account Description End October End November End December Year To Date Expense: 5000 Benefit Payments 119,299.74 119,299.74 119,299.74 357,899.22 5310 Monthly DROP Distributions 10 350.78 10 350.78 10 350.78 31 052.34 6040 Investment Management Fee 0.00 0.00 48,710.00 48,710.00 6610 ADR Fees 0.00 0.00 14.50 14.50 6730 RBC-Other Expenses 251.93 237.41 228.42 717.76 6790 Rounding 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 Total Expense 1 129,902.45 129,887.93 178,605.44 438,395.82 Reserve Fund Last Period 84 871 517.45 86 598 579.93 88 206 628.68 84 871 517.45 Balance To From Reserve 1,727,062.48 1,608,048.75 1,473,640.65 4,808,751.88 TOTAL RESERVE FUND 86,598,579.93 88,206,628.68 89,680,269.33 89,680,269.33 City of Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund Large Cap Core Equity Manager Analysis September 30, 2016 WWW.BOGDAHNGROUP.COM THE BOGDAHN GRoup. ,implff hk ►`(lur inveslauew and fiduciai-r e/cci%ions Introduction As of 9/30/2016 Purpose for this Manager Evaluation Report This search is to evaluate potential replacement options for Dana Large Cap Equity. Investment Options for this Manager Evaluation Report Firm Name Strategy Name Vehicle Management Fee Atlanta Capital Management High Quality Select Equity SA 0.70% on first $50 million 0.50% on next $100 million 0.40% on next $350 million Clarkston Capital Partners Large Cap SA 0.55% Symphony Asset Management Low Volatility Equity Instl (NOPRX) MF 0.78% Parnassus Investments Core Equity Instl (PRILX) MF 0.67% Dana Investment Advisors Large Cap Equity SA 0.75% on first $3 million 0.60% thereafter Asset Class Overview As of 9/30/2016 Defiinitions and Characteristics US Large Cap Core is typically defined as all US -based companies with a market capitalization over $10 billion. The majority of these are well -established companies with diverse, global businesses and long records of operational performance. The largest companies are followed closely by Wall Street, and their stocks have high daily liquidity. The primary benchmarks for strategies in this space are the Russell 1000 and the S&P 500. The indexes contain many names below the $10 billion large -cap threshold, but the indexes are dominated by the larger names on a market cap basis with the largest 20 accounting for over 25% of the index. The weighted average market cap of the Russell 1000 typically exceeds $100 billion, while the median market cap is less than $10 billion. The largest sectors by market cap are Technology, Financials, Health Care and Consumer Discretionary. Role within a Portfolio The role of a US Large Cap Core strategy is to provide the primary US equity exposure in a portfolio, which is the largest driver of appreciation in portfolio value. Mature US companies also often pay dividends, so a diversified large cap core strategy will have an income yield higher than other equity asset classes. Most core equity strategies balance exposures to value and growth stocks and will have a meaningful exposure to many midcap stocks with market caps under $10 billion. Benchmark and Peer Group This US Large Cap Core Equity search report will use the following benchmark and the following peer group: Index - S&P 500: The index was created in 1957 and was the first market -cap -weighted index. Stocks are selected by a committee. For inclusion in the index, a company must be based in the US, have a minimum market cap of $5.3 billion, have at least 50% of its shares publicly traded, and have positive as -report earnings over the most recent four quarters. Companies remain in the index until removed by the committee or through acquisition. Morningstar Category - Large Blend US Equity: Portfolios where neither growth nor value characteristics predominate. These portfolios tend to invest across the spectrum of US industries, and owing to their broad exposure, the portfolios' returns are often similar to those of the S&P 500 Index. Investment Option Comparison Firm and Investment Option Information As of 9/30/2016 Firm Information Firm Name Firm City Firm State or Province Firm Phone Firm Web Address SA Firm Total Assets Strategy Information Atlanta High Quality Select Equity Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Atlanta Capital Management Company,LLC Atlanta GA 404-876-9411 www.aticap.com 17,395,138,000.00 Clarkston Capital Partners, LLC Bloomfield Hills MI 248-723-8000 www.clarkstoncapital.com 2,710,430,000.00 Nuveen Parnassus Chicago San Francisco IL CA 312-917-8146 +1 9993505 www.nuveen.com www.parnassus.com Atlanta High Quality Select Equity Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Ticker NOPRX Inception Date 10/2/2006 4/1/2005 9/28/2007 Investment Type Separate Account Separate Account Open -End Fund Fund Size 146,967,006 Strategy Assets if Separate Account or CIl 616,485,000 414,580,000 218,140,000 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional PRILX 4/28/2006 Open -End Fund 14,923,535,271 Dana Large Cap Equity Dana Investment Advisors Inc Brookfield WI 262-782-3631 www.danainvestment.com 7,209,100,000.00 Dana Large Cap Equity 6/30/1999 Separate Account 2,760,700,000 Current Portfolio Comparison As of 9/30/2016 Atlanta Clarkston Nuveen Parnassus Dana High Capital Symphony q LaCrap S&P Quality Large Low Euityy 500 Select Cap Volatility Institutional Equity TR USD Equity Composite Equity I COMPOSITION # of Holdings 30 34 106 38 54 505 %Asset in Top 10 Holdings 50.22 48.01 20.32 39.31 21.48 17.95 Asset Alloc Cash % 0.00 10.92 0.75 1.25 0.84 0.00 Asset Alloc Equity % 98.80 89.08 98.50 98.75 99.16 100.00 Asset Alloc Bond % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asset Alloc Other % 1.20 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 CHARACTERISTICS Average Market Cap (mil) 23,656.54 86,301.05 35,292.00 49,502.88 46,208.72 78,283.33 P/E Ratio (TTM) 24.50 18.66 21.73 19.67 19.35 19.86 P/B Ratio (TTM) 3.20 3.34 2.77 2.93 2.76 2.73 LT Earn Growth 9.97 7.56 9.70 9.89 8.58 8.60 Dividend Yield 0.96 2.79 2.25 2.17 2.48 2.28 ROE % (TTM) 24.35 27.01 20.10 22.18 22.03 21.25 GICS SECTORS % Energy % 0.00 0.00 9.39 3.22 7.24 7.52 Materials % 11.52 0.00 3.35 4.47 2.99 2.91 Industrials % 3.01 18.89 17.31 15.52 9.64 10.46 Consumer Discretionary % 20.93 1.62 8.94 6.50 12.62 12.32 Consumer Staples % 5.22 28.06 8.25 12.75 9.96 9.26 Healthcare % 15.60 11.96 12.59 15.25 14.60 13.74 Financials % 26.40 17.80 15.91 12.66 12.81 14.65 Information Technology % 17.33 21.67 16.97 25.27 21.10 20.81 Telecom Services % 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 2.70 2.50 Utilities % 0.00 0.00 3.93 2.22 3.24 3.07 Real Estate % 0.00 0.00 2.56 2.14 3.09 2.77 MARKET CAPITALIZATION Market Cap Giant % 14.31 50.24 29.48 37.81 39.40 49.86 Market Cap Large % 34.31 28.87 33.40 36.51 25.05 36.28 Market Cap Mid % 50.19 9.96 30.97 20.77 34.71 13.48 Market Cap Small % 0.00 0.00 4.63 3.65 0.00 0.14 Market Cap Micro % 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Historical Portfolio Characteristics Comparison As of 9/30/2016 Historical Number of Holdings 200.0 180.0 160.0 140.0 rn c 120.0 0 *k 100.0 80.0 60.0 J` fly. 40.0 20.0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Historical Cash Allocation 17.5 15.0 c 0 12.5 0 s m 10.0 U U O a 7.5 m Q 5.0 2.5 0.0 2011 2012 - Atlanta High Quality Select Equity Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 2013 Historical Percentage of Assets in Top 10 Holdings 60.0 55.0 50.0 c a 45.0 o 0 40.0 H c N 35.0 Q �. 3 0. 0 25.0 20.0 15.0 2008 2010 2012 2014 Historical Portfolio Turnover 140.0 120.0 100.0 0 .Z6 80.0 `m O C r 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 2014 2015 2016 Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite - Dana Large Cap Equity 2016 2009 2011 2013 2015 - Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Historical Portfolio Characteristics Comparison As of 9/30/2016 Historical P/E Ratio 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 0 Of 18.0 w ` a 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Historical Earnings Growth 22.0 20.0 18.0 0 16.0 c7 w 14.0 J 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 2008 - Atlanta High Quality Select Equity Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 2010 2012 Historical P/B Ratio 4.5 4.0 3.5 0 CU 3.0 m a 2.5 2.0 - 1.5 1.0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Historical Dividend Yield 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 0 2.5 2.0 J 1.5 V 1.0 0.5 2014 2016 Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite - Dana Large Cap Equity 2008 2010 2012 2014 - Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I - S&P 500 TR USD 2016 Current and Historical Holdings Based Style Analysis As of 9/30/2016 Current Portfolio Holdings -Style Map co C� N 21 (6 J 75 O E U) O 0 U_ Deep -Val Core -Val Atlanta High Quality Select Equity Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Historical Holdings -Based Style Trail Time Period: 10/31/2006 to 9/30/2016 N 21 (6 J E U) O U_ 75 Core Core-Grth High-Grth Deep -Val Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite Dana Large Cap Equity Core -Val Core Core-Grth High-Grth ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I ■ S&P 500 TR USD Quantitative Review Trailing Performance As of 9/30/2016 Peer Group (5-95%): Open End Funds - U.S. - Large Blend 18.0 16.0 ■ 14.0 12.0 ■ 8.0 6.0 ■ 4.0 2.0 0.0 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8 Years 9 Years 10 Years 1 Year Rank 2 Years Rank 3 Years Rank 4 Years Rank 5 Years Rank 6 Years Rank 7 Years Rank 8 Years Rank 9 Years Rank 10 Years Rank Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) 11.59 62 9.51 4 9.80 36 12.51 34 16.37 11 14.60 3 13.25 10 11.24 13 8.42 14 9.26 13 Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) 16.68 7 8.72 5 11.61 4 14.08 6 16.29 13 13.72 10 12.76 23 9.85 41 7.51 17 7.86 20 Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity 1 9.99 77 6.45 29 10.84 13 12.38 38 15.09 47 13.14 26 13.26 10 10.44 21 7.06 20 7.06 37 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 13.41 42 7.08 13 10.76 15 13.84 7 16.33 12 13.54 14 13.12 13 10.72 16 9.16 12 9.88 11 Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 7.07 90 3.25 77 8.59 62 11.12 67 14.76 53 12.51 41 12.24 37 8.99 65 5.72 49 6.61 51 S&P 500 TR USD 15.43 11 7.11 13 11.16 7 13.15 15 16.37 11 13.68 10 13.17 12 10.44 21 6.26 31 7.24 31 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Dana Large Cap Equity(net) All Returns Net of Fees. Performance data shown prior to fund's inception date represents extended performance for an older share class of the same strategy. ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I ■ S&P 500 TR USD Calendar Year Performance As of 9/30/2016 Peer Group (5-95%): Open End Funds - U.S. - Large Blend 45.0 37.5 30.0 ••• ■ ■ 22.5 • • 15.0 ••• ■ •® ■ •• ■ • E 7.5 •00 ■ � 0.0 • -7.5 -15.0 -22.5 • -30.0 •• • -37.5 ■ -45.0 YTD 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 YTD Rank 2015 Rank 2014 Rank 2013 Rank 2012 Rank 2011 Rank 2010 Rank 2009 Rank 2008 Rank 2007 Rank 2006 Rank Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) 6.06 57 2.97 9 11.85 50 30.37 72 20.42 5 4.11 11 18.12 10 23.62 74 -29.71 9 13.06 11 4.62 97 Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) 9.54 8 2.46 13 13.25 26 35.12 19 9.94 93 8.09 2 7.12 99 28.46 42 -28.23 6 -0.10 91 12.10 82 Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity 1 3.65 84 3.98 4 14.59 10 30.87 67 13.19 76 3.54 12 15.02 35 27.89 46 -32.36 14 -1.95 93 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 8.18 18 -0.33 50 14.70 10 34.15 25 15.64 47 3.38 13 9.10 94 28.96 38 -22.74 1 14.37 7 14.94 52 Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 2.06 92 -1.36 60 15.20 6 32.80 37 15.86 41 2.36 17 18.09 10 18.81 91 -33.50 19 5.25 54 13.93 66 S&P 500 TR USD 7.84 22 1.38 20 13.69 18 32.39 41 16.00 38 2.11 19 15.06 34 26.46 54 -37.00 45 5.49 49 15.79 30 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 0 Dana Large Cap Equity(net) ■ S&P 500 TR USD Rolling Return Analysis As of 9/30/2016 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 30.0 22.5 15.0 c 7.5 0.0 -7.5 -15.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Return Rankings Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 c �5 50.0 z of 75.0 100.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) — Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional — Dana Large Cap Equity(net) — S&P 500 TR USD Rolling Excess Return Analysis As of 9/30/2016 Rolling Excess Returns Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 12.5 10.0 7.5 ;_ aZ 5.0 2.5 X W 0.0 — v -2.5 -5.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Excess Return Rankings Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 E 0 am Q� 50.0 N U X W 75.0 100.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) — Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional — Dana Large Cap Equity(net) — S&P 500 TR USD Current and Historical Risk and Reward As of 9/30/2016 Risk -Reward: 5-Year Time Period: 10/1/2011 to 9/30/2016 Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 21.0 18.0 15.0 c: 12.0 a� 9.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Std Dev 10.0 Risk -Reward: Rolling 5-Year Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 5 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 30.0 20.0 0.0 -10.0 12.0 14.0 0.0 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 Std Dev ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I ■ S&P 500 TR USD 20.0 24.0 Current and Historical Risk and Reward As of 9/30/2016 Risk -Reward: 10-Year Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 12.0 10.0 8.0 E m o: 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 9.0 Std Dev Risk -Reward: Rolling 10-Year Time Period: 10/1/2001 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 10 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 14.0 11.0 8.0 c m 5.0 2.0 -1.0 -4.0 0 15.0 18.0 0.0 Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 Std Dev ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I ■ S&P 500 TR USD 20.0 24.0 Rolling Risk Analysis As of 9/30/2016 Rolling Standard Deviation Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 25.0 22.5 20.0 17.5 0 a 65 15.0 12.5 mom 10.0 7.5 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Standard Deviation Rankings Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 o 50.0 U) 75.0 100.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) — Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional — Dana Large Cap Equity(net) — S&P 500 TR USD Rolling Risk Analysis As of 9/30/2016 Rolling Tracking Error Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 10.0 c Y 4.0 F 2.0 0.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Tracking Error Rankings Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 `o w` rn 50.0 c U H 75.0 100.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) — Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional — Dana Large Cap Equity(net) — S&P 500 TR USD Multi Statistic Analysis As of 9/30/2016 13.6 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) 13.4 13.2 13.0 12.8 Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) 12.6 12.4 12.2 12.0 ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity 1 11.8 11.6 11.4 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 11.2 11.0 10.8 10.6 Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8 ■ S&P 500 TR USD 9.6 - Std Dev 5 Yr Time Period: 10/1/2011 to 9/30/2016 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 Sharpe Ratio 5 Yr 2.5 0.5 6.0 2.0 0.0 5.5 1.5 -0.5 � 5.0 1.0 ® -1.0 4.5 0.5 -1.5 0.0 4.0 • -0.5 2.0 3.5 -1.0 -2.5 3.0 -1.5 -3.0 2.5 -2.0 -3.5 -2.5 2.0 -4.0 -3.0 1.5 -4.5 -3.5 5.0 1.0 -4.0 -4.5 -5.5 0.5 -5.0 -6.0 - 0.0 Alpha 5 Yr Information Ratio 5 Yr Tracking Error 5 Yr Std Dev Rank Sharpe Rank Alpha Rank Information Rank Tracking Rank Ratio Ratio Error Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) 10.67 82 1.52 2 1.53 3 0.00 11 3.89 22 Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) 9.85 92 1.64 1 2.32 2 -0.02 13 3.61 24 Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity 1 10.01 92 1.50 4 0.68 5 -0.50 41 2.58 48 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 9.78 93 1.66 1 2.47 2 -0.01 12 3.66 24 Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 11.36 57 1.29 47 -1.31 51 -0.63 49 2.56 49 S&P 500 TR USD 11.12 69 1.46 6 0.00 11 0.00 100 Multi Statistic Analysis As of 9/30/2016 18.5 - 10 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) 18.0 17.5 Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) 17.0 16.5 Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I 16.0 15.5 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 15.0 14.5 Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 14.0 13.5 ■ S&P 500 TR USD 13.0 Std Dev 10 Yr Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Std Dev Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) 15.49 Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) 15.35 Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity 1 13.77 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 13.48 Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 14.67 S&P 500 TR USD 15.25 Rank 46 51 77 79 72 57 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 • -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5 -3.0 -3.5 Sharpe Ratio 10 Yr Sharpe Rank Ratio 0.54 16 0.46 23 0.49 20 0.67 13 0.39 45 0.42 32 40 Alpha 10 Yr 0.8 7.0 0.5 � 6.5 0.3 6.0 0.0 -0.3 5.5 -0.5 5.0 -0.8 4.5 -1.0 -1.3 4.0 -1.5 3.5 -1.8 3.0 -2.0 2.5 -2.3 -2.5 2.0 -2.8 1.5 -3.0 1.0 -3.3 -3.5 0.5 -3.8 0.0 Information Ratio 10 Yr Tracking Error 10 Yr Alpha Rank Information Rank Tracking Rank Ratio Error 2.22 2 0.39 3 5.14 18 1.00 8 0.12 13 5.36 15 1.57 5 0.18 9 4.44 26 3.32 1 0.59 2 4.49 25 -0.27 35 -0.22 39 2.88 55 0.00 24 0.00 100 Up and Down Market Capture As of 9/30/2016 Current Up and Down Market Capture: 5-Year Time Period: 10/1/2011 to 9/30/2016 Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 120.0 100.0 80.0 0 m n U 60.0 a D 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Down Capture Ratio Historical Up and Down Market Capture: Rolling 5-Year Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 5 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 140.0 120.0 100.0 0 .Z6 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 120.0 0.0 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Down Capture Ratio ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I ■ S&P 500 TR USD 100.0 120.0 Up and Down Market Capture As of 9/30/2016 Current Up and Down Market Capture: 10-Year Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 120.0 100.0 80.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Down Capture Ratio Historical Up and Down Market Capture: Rolling 10-Year Time Period: 10/1/2001 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 10 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 140.0 120.0 100.0 0 .Z6 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 120.0 0.0 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Down Capture Ratio ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I ■ S&P 500 TR USD 100.0 120.0 Batting Average and Drawdown As of 9/30/2016 Batting Average Source Data: Monthly Return Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 60.0 55.0 50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 a 30.0 25.0 m 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 3 Years 5 Years 7 Years 10 Years Drawdown Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Monthly Return 0.0 -5.0 �� t` -10.0 \ d -15.0 -20.0 -25.0 -30.0 -35.0 -40.0 -45.0 -50.0 -55.0 2007 2005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 — Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) — Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional — Dana Large Cap Equity(net) — S&P 500 TR USD MPT Statistics As of 9/30/2016 MPT Statistics: 5-Year Time Period: 10/1/2011 to 9/30/2016 Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD Atlanta Clarkston Nuveen Parnassus Dana High Capital Symphony Core Large Quality Large Equity Cap See t Cap(net) VolaLo y Institutional Equity(net) e Eq(nReturn Equity I 16.37 16.29 15.09 16.33 14.76 Excess Return -0.01 -0.09 -1.29 -0.05 -1.62 Std Dev 10.67 9.85 10.01 9.78 11.36 Downside Std Dev 2.24 1.99 1.73 2.46 2.09 Beta 0.90 0.84 0.88 0.83 0.99 Sortino Ratio 3.17 3.09 2.96 3.22 2.40 Tracking Error 3.89 3.61 2.58 3.66 2.56 R2 87.81 89.87 95.18 89.63 94.92 Sharpe Ratio 1.47 1.58 1.45 1.59 1.27 Treynor Ratio 18.09 19.28 17.07 19.50 14.74 Information Ratio 0.00 -0.02 -0.50 -0.01 -0.63 Alpha 1.53 2.32 0.68 2.47 -1.31 Skewness 0.25 -0.14 0.03 -0.12 -0.01 Kurtosis 0.49 0.54 0.37 -0.10 0.91 Batting Average 43.33 41.67 50.00 50.00 48.33 Up Capture Ratio 89.48 91.21 89.20 91.89 94.15 Up Period Percent 65.00 76.67 66.67 70.00 65.00 Best Quarter 13.45 12.91 11.22 12.72 13.77 Longest Up -Streak Return 13.50 26.76 15.38 18.59 17.21 Longest Up -Streak # of Periods 5.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Down Capture Ratio 71.15 76.74 83.49 78.17 100.45 Down Period Percent 35.00 23.33 33.33 30.00 35.00 Worst Quarter -3.68 -4.52 -4.95 -3.90 -7.52 Longest Down -Streak Return -6.78 -5.70 -5.93 -6.43 -8.23 Longest Down -Streak # of Periods 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 Max Drawdown -6.78 -6.47 -7.97 -6.43 -11.44 Max Drawdown # of Periods 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 MPT Statistics As of 9/30/2016 MPT Statistics: 10-Year Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD Atlanta Clarkston Nuveen Parnassus Dana High Capital Symphony Core Large Quality Large Equity Cap See t Cap(net) VolaLo y Institutional Equity(net) e Eq(nReturn Equity I 9.26 7.86 7.06 9.88 6.61 Excess Return 2.02 0.62 0.80 2.64 -0.63 Std Dev 15.49 15.35 13.77 13.48 14.67 Downside Std Dev 3.08 2.48 2.89 2.66 2.38 Beta 0.96 0.95 0.84 0.85 0.94 Sortino Ratio 0.87 0.74 0.79 1.05 0.64 Tracking Error 5.14 5.36 4.44 4.49 2.88 R2 89.21 88.17 93.12 91.93 96.48 Sharpe Ratio 0.60 0.52 0.54 0.71 0.45 Treynor Ratio 8.79 7.44 7.99 10.69 6.12 Information Ratio 0.39 0.12 0.18 0.59 -0.22 Alpha 2.22 1.00 1.57 3.32 -0.27 Skewness -0.73 -0.71 -0.69 -0.82 -0.83 Kurtosis 1.87 3.32 1.54 2.05 1.86 Batting Average 50.83 41.67 50.93 53.33 50.00 Up Capture Ratio 101.21 92.66 89.45 93.50 94.12 Up Period Percent 62.50 68.33 60.19 65.00 60.83 Best Quarter 17.41 21.45 12.27 17.68 13.84 Longest Up -Streak Return 38.52 26.76 30.77 51.53 17.21 Longest Up -Streak # of Periods 8.00 9.00 8.00 10.00 7.00 Down Capture Ratio 90.88 86.63 82.28 77.01 95.38 Down Period Percent 37.50 31.67 39.81 35.00 39.17 Worst Quarter -19.54 -24.48 -20.58 -19.07 -22.30 Longest Down -Streak Return -15.43 -12.65 -13.27 -14.65 -17.08 Longest Down -Streak # of Periods 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Max Drawdown -43.73 -47.09 -42.41 -35.35 -46.81 Max Drawdown # of Periods 16.00 21.00 16.00 16.00 21.00 Investment Option Narratives Atlanta High Quality Select Equity As of 9/30/2016 Firm Overview Atlanta Capital Management (ACM) was founded in 1969 and is based in Atlanta, GA. ACM operates as an autonomous subsidiary of Eaton Vance Corporation, a Boston -based investment management company listed on the New York Stock Exchange (ticker: EVN). Twenty-one ACM employees retain a minority equity interest in the firm. In November 2008, Eaton Vance and Atlanta Capital established a long-term incentive plan that enabled key employees to expand their ownership interest in future years. ACM is managed by a six -member Management Committee comprised of the key leadership professionals who direct the firm's investment management, client service, new business development and operations functions. Members include: Kelly Williams, CPA, Chip Reed, CFA, Richard England, CFA, Joe Hudepohl, CFA, Jim Womack, CFA and Jim Skesavage. Team Overview Portfolio managers Chip Reed, CFA and Bill Bell, CFA previously co -managed a mid- to large -cap portfolio at the Florida State Board of Administration prior to joining Atlanta Capital in 1998 and 1999, respectively. Matt Hereford, CFA managed a concentrated portfolio at Invesco, Inc. prior to joining the firm in 2002. Atlanta Capital's Core Equity team is comprised of three portfolio managers and one investment specialist. Each portfolio manager serves as a generalist and conducts his own analytical research while investment decisions are made on a consensus basis. Chip Reed, CFA, Bill Bell, CFA and Matt Hereford, CFA are responsible for all purchase and sell decisions. Strategy Overview ACM believes companies that exhibit consistent earnings and cash flow growth over time will outperform the broader market over a full market cycle. The team purchases companies in strong financial condition whose equities are priced below their fair value estimate. Companies with volatile earnings streams, short operating histories, high levels of debt, weak cash flow generation and low returns on capital are further excluded from consideration. ACM seeks to own innovative businesses that dominate a niche, maintain high barriers to entry, and have consistent demand over an economic cycle. The team conducts bottom -up proprietary research and meets with management teams for each of the companies in the portfolio. Stock purchases are analyzed as if ACM were a potential acquirer of the entire business. Stocks are primarily selected from companies comprising the Russell 10000 Index with market capitalizations of at least $3 billion and financial quality ranked above - average by nationally recognized common stock rating services. Financial quality is measured by a company's demonstrated ability to consistently grow earnings over at least a 20 quarter operating history; while a 40 quarter history is preferred. Average holding period is three to five years, with average turnover of 25%. Portfolios will be index agnostic and concentrated, with portfolios averaging 25-30 stocks. Expectations ACM will perform best in markets driven by individual company fundamentals, when high -quality companies are in favor, and in turbulent markets where there is a flight to quality. They may struggle in markets dominated by "low -quality" markets where non -earners, low ROE or leveraged companies are in favor. Portfolio will tend to be systematically overweight Mid Cap stocks and underweight "Mega" Cap stocks, so would be expected to fact headwinds when "Mega" Cap stocks are in favor. Concentrated, high active share, index -agnostic approach will lead them to large sector and risk factor bets relative to the index, which could cause significant index -relative short-term performance swings. Clients will need a long-term perspective. Points to Consider Reed, Bell and Hereford also manage ACM's High Quality Small Cap ($1.913 in AUM) and High Quality SMID Cap ($8.86), whereas the High Quality Select Equity product only has $500MM. While we have not seen any instances of lack of focus on the Select Equity product, given the disparity in assets and incentives, this disparity does warrant close examination going forward. Recommendation Summary There is much to like about the team and ACM's investment process. The team has been very stable and has worked together successfully for over 12 years. Unlike other managers who may trade on shorter -term factors, ACM looks at the long-term business prospects and utilizes a three -to -five year investment horizon. The team's bonus compensation structure aligns perfectly with this holding period. We believe ACM's High Quality Select Equity strategy fits well with clients looking for an all-weather Core strategy that has historically added significant value over the long-term, but who is willing to tolerate significant quarter -to -quarter relative performance swings due the strategy's concentrated, index -agnostic approach. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Atlanta High Quality Select Equity - Asset Allocation Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -Stock -Cash Other Atlanta High Quality Select Equity - Equity Sectors (GICS) Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 9/30/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Atlanta High Quality Select Equity - Equity Regional Exposure Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -North America % -United Kingdom % Europe dev % -Africa/Middle East % Australasia % 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 -Energy % Materials % -Industrials % Consumer Discretionary % -Consumer Staples % -Healthcare % Financials % Information Technology % Atlanta High Quality Select Equity - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 MAN d 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -Giant % Large % -Mid % Small % -Micro % Atlanta High Quality Select Equity - Equity Style Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 9/30/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2015 2016 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Large Value % Large Core % Mid Value % -Mid Core % Small Value % Small Core % -Large Growth % -Mid Growth % Small Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Return Distribution -Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 12.0 10.0 0 `m 8.0 d 0 6.0 E 7 Z 4.0 2.0 0.0 ■ ■ ■ -24.0 -20.0 -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 liksm 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 Excess Return Distribution - Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 8.0 7.0 0 6.0 d 5.0 0 4.0 E 7 3.0 Z 2.0 1.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ 24.0 0.0 -8.0 -To -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -t.0 0.0 t.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 TO 8.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD c 120.0% am c L w t 90.0% 0 am U) r 60.0% _m x m C Q 30.0% 0.0% -30.0% -50.0% -20.0% 10.0% S&P 500 TR USD Return 40.0% 70.0% 100.0% 130.0% Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite As of 9/30/2016 Firm Overview Clarkston Capital Partners (Clarkston) was founded in 2007 by brothers Jeffrey and Jerry Hakala. The firm is headquartered in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and is 85% employee owned. The remaining 15% is owned by individuals, all of whom are clients. The firm offers US equity products. Team Overview Clarkston's investment team is led by the firm's founders, Jeffrey and Jerry Hakala. Jeff was formerly a CPA and brings a foundation in financial statement analysis to the team. Jerry gained his experience at Ford Motor Company as a financial analyst and internal auditor where he was required to model and analyze large amounts of data. Together they developed Clarkston's investment philosophy and proprietary CRONOATM (which stands for Cash Return on Net Operating Assets) model that drives the investment process. Jeff currently serves as the firm's Chief Investment Officer with Jerry acting as Director of Research. Jeremy Modell was added to the investment team in 2011. The investment team makes all decisions by majority vote and is supported by a team of five research analysts. All investment team members and analysts are generalists however, team members usually take a lead role in select sectors. Strategy Overview Expectations We expect the strategy to outperform in down markets and underperform in extremely strong up markets. Other than direction, there are no market factors that we feel are overly positive or negative contributors to relative performance. Concentrated, high active share, index -agnostic approach will lead them to large sector and risk factor bets relative to the index, which could cause significant index -relative short-term performance swings and clients will need a long-term perspective Since inception, have tended to capture 90-95% of up -markets and 80-85% of down -markets. Points to Consider Clarkston has a strong absolute value focus and will hold significant levels of cash (up to 20%) at times if they feel they lack opportunities. There is a degree of Key Man risk if Jerry or Jeff Hakala were to leave the firm. Recommendation Summary Clarkston invests in high quality companies operated by strong management teams at market prices that are The Research Group is favorable on Clarkston's team and process. The firm and investment team is tight knit below their assessment of intrinsic value. The team refers to this philosophy as Quality Value. They define and entrepreneurial in spirit. Jeff Hakala has demonstrated command of the portfolio and the CRONOA quality companies as those that possess sustainable competitive advantages that result in consistently high approach is unique, compelling, and proven. The investment philosophy focuses on capital preservation, but CRONOATM. These companies must be operated by capable management teams, which possess the ability to does not compromise on security selection, as only the team's best ideas make the portfolio. This combination generate high returns on capital. Clarkston strives to identify and purchase businesses when their market price is makes the strategy an ideal fit for clients seeking downside protection without sacrificing significant upside. We significantly less than the cash flow assessment of their true value. The philosophy is governed by a disciplined have confidence that the strategies can excel over extended periods and across varying market dynamics. investment methodology, which results in a concentrated portfolio of quality businesses trading at reasonable values. Clarkston applies minimal constraints with no benchmark relative restrictions. Individual security weights are capped at 7% and sector and industry weights are limited to a maximum of 30% on an absolute basis. Cash can be as high as 20% but can be managed to a lower level if client directed. Portfolios will hold 30-40 stocks. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite -Asset Allocation Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 -Stock Other 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Bond -Cash Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite - Equity Sectors (GIGS) Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite - Equity Regional Exposure Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -North America % Latin America % -United Kingdom % Europe dev % -Europe emrg % -Africa/Middle East % Australasia % Japan % Asia dev % Asia emrg % 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 -Energy % Consumer Discretionary % Financials % Utilities % Materials % -Consumer Staples % Information Technology % -Real Estate % Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 - 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -Giant % Large % -Mid % Small % -Micro % Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite - Equity Style Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 2015 2016 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Industrials % -Healthcare % -Large Value % Large Core % Telecom Services % Mid Value % -Mid Core % Small Value % Small Core % -Large Growth % -Mid Growth % Small Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Return Distribution - Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 14.0 12.0 10.0 d 0 8.0 `m E 6.0 Z 4.0 2.0 0.0 28 0 -24.0 -20.0 -16.0 -12.0 -&0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 Excess Return Distribution - Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 12.0 10.0 0 `m 8.0 a 0 6.0 E Z 4.0 1 0.0 8.0 1M 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 -14.0 -12.0 -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD C 30.0% ro c a 0 20.0% m `m J (4 .Q 0 10.0% 0 rn Y M U 0.0% -10.0% -20.0% -20.0% S&P 500 TR USD Return -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% J 0• 20.0% 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 30.0% Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity As of 9/30/2016 Firm Overview Symphony Asset Management LLC ("Symphony") is headquartered in San Francisco, CA with offices in New York, NY. A SEC -registered Investment Advisor since inception in 1994, Symphony manages assets for a global institutional investor base across an integrated platform of hedge funds, long -only strategies and structured products in senior bank loans, high yield bonds, convertible bonds and equities. Symphony has approximately $17.5 billion in assets under management and employs over 80 individuals, approximately 40% of which are investment professionals. Symphony is an indirect subsidiary of Nuveen Investments, Inc. ("Nuveen"), which in turn is owned by TIAA CREF. Nuveen/TIAA-CREF has been Symphony's parent since 2001. Team Overview Ross Sakamoto and Marc Snyder have ultimate decision -making authority for stocks to be included and sold out of the portfolio with input of the covering analyst. Snyder is considered the lead manager for Low Volatility Equity. Investment decisions are consensus based. As CIO, Gunther Stein has ultimate veto power, but rarely exercises this privilege. Strategy Overview Symphony believes that outperformance stems from having a knowledge advantage on its competition and gaining unique perspectives on companies. The team attempts to leverage this unique insight by generating alpha via stock selection within risk -focused portfolio construction. The investment approach puts the emphasis on stock selection and it is in this area that we believe Symphony has a distinct edge on its competition. The firm's product suite includes both hedge fund and private debt strategies. Equity and credit analysts are grouped in a "paired" structure in an open concept seating arrangement to "industrialize" the investment team and maximize cross pollination of ideas. As a result, Symphony's equity analysts consider downside consequences differently compared to competitors given their ability to short stocks in the hedge funds. This adds a unique layer to long -only analysis. Furthermore, Symphony's private lending capabilities provides the equity team unique insight. Access to private companies allows for greater transparency (as private companies are not subject to Reg FD) and this knowledge can be leveraged when deciding whether to invest in a publicly traded competitor company within the same industry. The portfolio is constructed utilizing a combination of bottom up and top down analyses. Stein's top down views and those of the portfolio managers guide the framework for the overall portfolio construction, including what kinds and levels of risks to take. Portfolios will hold 75 to 100 stocks. Beta is targeted to be 0.85 to 0.95. Industry weights will be +/- 10% vs. the index and turnover is expected to average 50-100%. Expectations Symphony's Low Volatility Equity Strategy seeks to minimize absolute volatility by selecting stocks within a predetermined risk budget and balance the risk/reward of the strategy. This investment strategy is designed to reduce the magnitude of losses during bear markets, while maintaining upside during bull markets. Symphony's defensive positioning is a byproduct of its lower overall beta approach, although the Fund focuses on generating superior risk -adjusted returns across a diverse range of sectors. The Fund has historically had greater exposure to higher quality stocks within the Russell 1000 Index. Therefore, the Symphony Low Volatility Equity Strategy typically outperforms relative to the Russell 1000 Index during periods of negative market environments characterized by a "flight to quality" where higher quality, lower beta stocks outperform. The strategy should appeal to investors who prefer a lower volatility approach, but one that is not subject to the sector concentration risk typically associated with low volatility strategies. Points to Consider While we believe the broad product suite, which includes hedge funds and private debt offerings, provides the team with unique insights, we also view it as a potential negative in that analysts have to consider far more variables when making recommendations than many of their peers at competitor firms. This could lead to added distractions. However, we take solace in that the team is deep (over 30 analysts of which approximately two- thirds are dedicated to equity strategies) with each analyst focused entirely on a small sub -set of industries. This results in a reduced workload, making the need to look at each company through a broader lens less of a concern. Clients who prefer a separate account will have to look elsewhere. Symphony Low Vol is currently mutual fund only. They are considering launching a commingled vehicle, but separate accounts are not an option at this time. Recommendation Summary Symphony's investment process is regimented and predictable. The focus on capital preservation and "targeted volatility" in a sector neutral framework allows the strategy to participate in up markets while preserving capital in down markets better than most managed volatility strategies that simply overweight defensive sectors. In addition, the team will invest in high beta companies within the context of a targeted total portfolio beta. This further insures that the strategy won't disproportionately suffer from macroeconomic headwinds or a narrow market environment. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I -Asset Allocation Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -Stock -Cash Other Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I - Equity Sectors (GIGS) Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 9/30/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I - Equity Regional Exposure Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 9/30/2016 Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 9/30/2016 100.0 100.0 87.5 80.0 75.0 60.0 62.5 40.0 50.0 37.5 20.0 25.0 0.0 12.5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0.0 -North America % Latin America % -United Kingdom % 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Europe dev % -Africa/Middle East % Asia dev % -Giant % Large % -Mid % Asia emrg % Small % -Micro % 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 -Energy % Consumer Discretionary % Financials % Utilities % Materials % -Consumer Staples % Information Technology % -Real Estate % Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I - Equity Style Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 9/30/2016 100.0 90.0 "qrm 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 2015 2016 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Industrials % -Healthcare % -Large Value % Large Core % Telecom Services % Mid Value % -Mid Core % Small Value % Small Core % -Large Growth % -Mid Growth % Small Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Return Distribution - Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Time Period: 10/1/2007 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 12.0 10.0 0 `m 8.0 d 0 s.o E Z 4.0 2.0 00 i■ ■ 6 -24.0 -20.0 -18.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 Excess Return Distribution - Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Time Period: 10/1/2007 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 10.0 9.0 (n 8.0 0 0 .` zo m a s.o 0 50 E 4.0 Z 3.0 01.0 .0 ■ ■ 24.0 .0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 10/1/2010 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD c 28.0% iv Q24.0% w a j 20.0% 3 0 J T C r 16.0% fl. E cn � aa) 12.0% m z 8.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 8.0% 12.0% 16.0% S&P 500 TR USD Return 20.0% 40 IEEE 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 24.0% 28.0% Parnassus Core Equity Institutional As of 9/30/2016 Firm Overview Parnassus Investments (Parnassus) is an independent and employee -owned boutique asset management firm based in San Francisco, CA. The firm was founded in 1984 by Jerome ("Jerry") L. Dodson and SEC -registered as an Investment Advisor the next year. The firm manages six investment strategies; four US equity, one fixed income, and one Asia strategy. The vast majority of the assets are in the US equity strataegies. Parnassus has always been an employee- and family -owned firm, making a long-term strategic plan to remain independent in 2004. The firm began providing key employees and employees with ten years of service the opportunity to become owners of the firm in 2010. The firm now boasts 26 employees with a stake in ownership. Team Overview Todd Ahlsten has been the lead Portfolio Manager since 2001 and has been with Parnassus since 1995. Benjamin Allen was added to the fund as a co -PM in 2012 as a result of the firm moving to a dual PM structure (Allen previously was the Director of Research and a Sr. Analyst). The Core Equity strategy is the only product Ahlsten and Allen are responsible for managing. In addition to the two PMs, the investment team for the Core Equity Fund is comprised of eight analysts and one trader. PMs also serve as analysts. Each analyst acts as a generalist, covering a limited number of "focus industries". Strategy Overview The investment philosophy is to own good businesses at reasonable prices. By following a disciplined bottom -up fundamental process, Parnassus believes they are better able to make high conviction investments that enable investors to build wealth responsibly over the long-term. The investment team looks at four key criteria during its company -specific review. First, the company's products or services have to be more relevant in the economy five years from now than they are today. Second, the company must have a sustainable competitive advantage. Third, the company has to be run by quality management teams with appropriate incentives. Once the investment team determines that a company's intrinsic value is increasing, the investment team performs a detailed valuation that results in a probability weighted, multi -scenario, three-year price target for the stock. They are long-term investors and historic turnover ratio is around 20% annually. Portfolios are concentrated into 40 stocks and they have a very flexible policy in regards to sector and/or industry diversification. The one limitation is a maximum sector overweight, which is 2x that of the weighting in the S&P 500. Expectations Like most high -quality managers, the strategy tends to do well in down markets and markets focused on stock fundamentals, and trails in strong up -markets that are often led by low -quality stocks (non -earners, low ROE, highly leveraged.) While we do not consider this an all -cap strategy, the weighted average market cap of the strategy tends to be considerably smaller than the benchmark and the portfolio can have significant exposure to stocks as small as $1 B. The concentrated, index -agnostic approach will lead to large sector and risk factor bets relative to the index, which could cause significant index -relative short-term performance swings and clients will need a long-term perspective. Since inception, have tended to capture 80-90% of up -markets and 75-85% of down -markets. Points to Consider The strategy is now near the halfway point of its stated capacity of $30B. While the listed capacity would appear to be low enough for the fund to continue to dip into mid cap, the fund may be contrained in its ability to take material positions in stocks below $5B without taking a significant stake in ownership and increased liquidity risk. Parnassus has integrated ESG into its company analysis since its inception. If Ahlsten and Allen are deciding between two companies with similar characteristics, they will invest in the one with the better ESG profile. Although ESG is commonly thought to be only for conscientious investors, Parnassus believes such guidelines, intentionally or not, have been a powerful risk management tool over the years. The stated $100M separate account minimum is very high, but an institutional mutual fund is offered. Recommendation Summary Parnassus has an investment framework that is applied consistently. Its intense focus on three core criteria (Relevancy, Moat, and Management) as primary investment objectives has proven effective. The team prefers concentrated portfolio construction with loose risk management constraints. Lead PM Ahlsten's constant focus on risk allows the strategy to perform like a diversified offering despite its high active share. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional - Asset Allocation Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 -Stock Other 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Bond -Cash Parnassus Core Equity Institutional - Equity Sectors (GICS) Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional - Equity Regional Exposure Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -North America % Latin America % -United Kingdom % Europe dev % -Africa/Middle East % Japan % Asia dev % 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 Aftoomm" 0.0 '-alkok- - --- -- - - - - __ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -Giant % Large % -Mid % Small % -Micro % Parnassus Core Equity Institutional - Equity Style Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 11111111111111110 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 2015 2016 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Energy % Materials % -Industrials % Consumer Discretionary % -Consumer Staples % -Healthcare % -Large Value % Large Core % -Large Growth % Financials % Information Technology % Utilities % Mid Value % -Mid Core % -Mid Growth % -Real Estate % Small Value % Small Core % Small Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Return Distribution - Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 12.0 10.0 0 `m 8.0 d 0 6.0 E 7 Z 4.0 2.0 0.0 ■ ■ ■ -24.0 -20.0 -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 Excess Return Distribution - Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 8.0 7.0 0 6.0 d 5.0 6 4.0 E 7 3.0 Z .0 1.0 T &0 12.0 WO 20.0 24.0 0.0 -&0 -TO -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -M -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 TO 8.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD c 120.0% m c 100.0% N c Z, '5 80.0% o- w a� `o U = 60.0% m c `m a- 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% ®4 -20.0% -50.0% -20.0% 10.0% 40.0% S&P 500 TR USD Return 70.0% 100.0% 130.0% Dana Large Cap Equity As of 9/30/2016 Firm Overview Dana Investment Advisors ("Dana") was founded and began managing assets in 1980. The firm has been independent and 100% employee owned since its founding and feels this independence allows it to build its business prudently, with a proper focus on generating superior, consistent, risk -adjusted returns for its clients. Dana implemented an equity ownership program in July 2001 whereby certain key employees receive stock and stock options according to a pre -determined vesting schedule. Dana considers exact ownership percentages to be confidential information, but that ownership participation is spread out among approximately 20+ employees. Team Overview Duane Roberts, CFA is the lead portfolio manager for Dana's Large Cap Equity Strategy. Roberts has 19 years of experience managing equity portfolios, and has been the lead on Dana's Large Cap Equity Strategy since its 1999 inception and has final say on all portfolio decisions. He is supported in the portfolio management role by and Greg Dahlman, CFA, Michael Honkamp, CFA and David Stamm, CFA. Strategy Overview Dana employs a hybrid investment approach consisting of quantitative modeling and fundamental analysis. Multiple risk controls are implemented to attempt to reduce volatility, while maintaining a focus on security selection. Security selection is the focus of the investment process, as portfolios are run sector neutral versus the index. Idea generation starts with a proprietary, multi -factor, quantitative scoring of all stocks in the large cap universe. Each stock is ranked (from 0 to 100) by four separate models. The first model focuses on valuation levels of a company relative to other companies in the same economic sector. The second model examines the trade-off between growth and valuation levels, while also incorporating factors that help identify sustainable growth. The third model looks at changes in investor expectation, and trends in forward earnings estimates. Finally, a composite ranking is generated that incorporates the other three model ranks, looking for strength in all three areas. The same models are used for all sectors, ranks are sector -relative. After the quantitative evaluation process is completed, stocks and industries that their team deems attractive are put through a rigorous set of fundamental techniques. The fundamental process is primarily bottom -up, with some consideration given to broad investment themes and demographic trends. Initial sector weights match the benchmark S&P 500. The large cap core target portfolios typically hold between 50 and 55 securities. Within each sector, positions are equally weighted, as Dana believes this minimizes volatility of the portfolio. Expectations Dana will perform best in markets driven where individual company fundamentals matter and less in markets dominated by a concentrated sub -set of sectors outperforming due to their sector neutral approach. Their relative value bias may cause them to struggle in markets where growth significantly outperforms value. The most challenging period for Dana's equity strategies to out -perform would be during periods where lower quality stocks, or more highly valued momentum -oriented names significantly outperform the market averages. They will also struggle in environments where "mega" caps lead the markets as they tend to have overweight exposure to mid caps relative to the index. Points to Consider It seems to us that the recent inclusion of a momentum factor into the quantitative model and investment process changes to increase market cap and growth in the portfolio in response to the macro environment are at odds with Dana's historical emphasis on relative value and will potentially limit future outperformance potential. We identified several major deficiencies in Dana's quantitative process that, in our opinion, do not compare favorably to best -in -class quantitative managers. The LCC product has struggled over the past 18 months through 9/30/16. The strategy has posted six straight quarters of underperformance for over 500 bps of underperformance versus the S&P 500 during this time period. This magnitude of underperformance is significant relative to the product's history. Recommendation Summary Dana LCC's recent poor performance have caused us to re-exame the entire investment process and review recent portfolio positioning. Ultimately, while we think that Dana's style has been out of favor and could be poised for a recovery if the market starts to focus on fundamentals, there were several significant issues uncovered during our most recent in-depth examination of the investment process that cause us to believe that Dana Large Cap Core may not be a best -in -class option for our clients. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Dana Large Cap Equity - Asset Allocation Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 -Stock 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -Cash Other Dana Large Cap Equity - Equity Sectors (GICS) Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Dana Large Cap Equity - Equity Regional Exposure Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -North America % Latin America % -United Kingdom % Europe dev % Asia dev % 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 -Energy % Consumer Discretionary % Financials % Utilities % Materials % -Consumer Staples % Information Technology % -Real Estate % Dana Large Cap Equity - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 14PRIMM 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -Giant % Large % -Mid % Dana Large Cap Equity - Equity Style Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 r 2015 2016 10.0 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Industrials % -Healthcare % Telecom Services % -Large Value % Large Core % Mid Value % -Mid Core % -Large Growth % -Mid Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Return Distribution - Dana Large Cap Equity(net) Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 12.0 10.0 0 `m 8.0 a 0 6.0 9 E 7 Z 4.0 2.0 0.0 M ■ EdLii -24.0 -20.0 -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 Excess Return Distribution - Dana Large Cap Equity(net) Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 11.0 10.0 N 9.0 0 8.0 a_ 7.6 6.0 N � 5.0 >_ 40 Z 3.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 0.0 -3.0 -20 -1.0 0.0 10 2.0 3.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD C 130.0% ry am c T 100.0% Cr W m U 2)70.0% • w• J C C 40.0% • �• • 10.0% • • • • -20.0% • • • • •• -50.0% -50.0% -20.0% 10.0% 40.0% 70.0% 100.0% 130.0% S&P 500 TR USD Return Definitions Alpha -A measure of the difference between a portfolio's actual returns and its expected performance, given its level of risk as measured by beta. Batting Average — A measure of a manager's ability to consistently beat the market. It is calculated by dividing the number of months in which the manager beat or matched an index by the total number of months in the period. Best Quarter- This is the highest quarterly (3 month) return of the investment since its inception. is symmetric with skewness 0. Sortino Ratio - The Sortino Ratio is similar to Sharpe Ratio except it uses downside risk (Downside Deviation) in the denominator. It was developed in early 1980's by Frank Sortino. Since upside variability is not necessarily a bad thing, Sortino ratio is sometimes more preferable than Sharpe ratio. Standard Deviation - A statistical measure of the range of a portfolio's performance. It represents the variability of returns around the average return over a specified time period. Beta - A measure of the sensitivity of a portfolio to the movements in the market. It is a measure of the Tracking Error - This is a measure of the standard deviation of a portfolio's excess returns versus its portfolio's systematic risk. designated market benchmark. Down Period Percent - Number of months below 0 divided by the total number of months. Downmarket Capture Ratio - The ratio of average portfolio performance over the designated benchmark during periods of negative returns. A lower value indicates better product performance. Downside Std Dev - This measures only deviations below a specified benchmark. Excess Return- This is a measure of an investment's return in excess of a benchmark. Information Ratio - This calculates the value-added contribution of the manager and is derived by dividing the excess rate of return of the portfolio by the tracking error. The higher the Information Ratio, the more the manager has added value to the portfolio. Longest Down -Streak Return - Return for the longest series of negative monthly returns. Longest Down -Streak # of Periods - Longest series of negative monthly returns. Longest Up -Streak Return - Return for the longest series of positive monthly returns. Longest Up -Streak - Longest series of positive monthly returns. Kurtosis - Kurtosis indicates the peakedness of a distribution. For normal distribution, Kurtosis is 3. Max Drawdown - The peak to trough decline during a specific record period of an investment or fund. It is usually quoted as the percentage between the peak to the trough. Max Drawndown # of Periods - This is the number of months that encompasses the max drawdown for an investment. R-Squared - The percentage of a portfolio's performance that can be explained by the behavior of the appropriate benchmark. A high R-Squared means the portfolio's performance has historically moved in the same direction as the appropriate benchmark. Return - Compounded rate of return for the period. Sharpe Ratio - Represents the excess rate of return over the risk free return divided by the standard deviation of the excess return. The result is an absolute rate of return per unit of risk. A higher value demonstrates better historical risk -adjusted performance. Skewness - Skewness reflects the degree of asymmetry of a distribution. If the distribution has a longer left tail, the function has negative skewness. Otherwise, it has positive skewness. A normal distribution Treynor Ratio - Similar to Sharpe Ratio, Treynor Ratio is a measurement of efficiency utilizing the relationship between annualized risk -adjusted return and risk. Unlike Sharpe Ratio, Treynor Ratio utilizes "market" risk (beta) instead of total risk (standard deviation). Good performance efficiency is measured by a high ratio. Up period Percent - Number of months above 0 divided by the total number of months. Upmarket Capture Ratio - The ratio of average portfolio performance over the designated benchmark during periods of positive returns. A higher value indicates better product performance. Worst Quarter - This is the lowest quarterly (3 month) return of the investment since its inception. Disclosures The Bogdahn Group compiled this report for the sole use of the client for which it was prepared. The Bogdahn group uses the results from this evaluation to make observations and recommendations to the client. When client -specific performance is shown, The Bogdahn Group uses time -weighted calculations, which are founded on standards recommended by the CFA Institute. In these cases, the performance -related data shown are based on information that is received from custodians. As a result, this provides The Bogdahn Group with a reasonable basis that the investment information presented is free from material misstatement. The strategies listed may not be suitable for all investors. We believe the information provided here is reliable, but do not warrant its accuracy or completeness. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Any information contained in this report is for informational purposes only and should not be construed to be an offer to buy or sell any securities, investment consulting, or investment management services. Additional information included in this document may contain data provided by index databases, public economic sources and the managers themselves. This document may contain data provided by Barclays. Barclays Index data provided by way of Barclays Live. This document may contain data provided by Standard and Poor's. Nothing contained within any document, advertisement or presentation from S&P Indices constitutes an offer of services in jurisdictions where S&P Indices does not have the necessary licenses. All information provided by S&P Indices is impersonal and is not tailored to the needs of any person, entity or group of persons. Any returns or performance provided within any document is provided for illustrative purposes only and does not demonstrate actual performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future investment results. This document may contain data provided by MSCI, Inc. Copyright MSCI, 2012. Unpublished. All Rights Reserved. This information may only be used for your internal use, may not be reproduced or re disseminated in any form and may not be used to create any financial instruments or products or any indices. This information is provided on an "as is" basis and the user of this information assumes the entire risk of any use it may make or permit to be made of this information. Neither MSCI, any of its affiliates or any other person involved in or related to compiling, computing or creating this information makes any express or implied warranties or representations with respect to such information or the results to be obtained by the use thereof, and MSCI, its affiliates and each such other person hereby expressly disclaim all warranties (including, without limitation, all warranties of originality, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, non -infringement, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose) with respect to this information. Without limiting any of the foregoing, in no event shall MSCI, any of its affiliates or any other person involved in or related to compiling, computing or creating this information have any liability for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, punitive, consequential or any other damages (including, without limitation, lost profits) even if notified of, or if it might otherwise have anticipated, the possibility of such damages. This document may contain data provided by Russell Investment Group. Russell Investment Group is the source owner of the data contained or reflected in this material and all trademarks and copyrights related thereto. The material may contain confidential information and unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, dissemination or redistribution is strictly prohibited. This is a user presentation of the data. Russell Investment Group is not responsible for the formatting or configuration of this material or for any inaccuracy in presentation thereof. This document may contain data provided by Morningstar. All rights reserved. Use of this content requires expert knowledge. It is to be used by specialist institutions only. The information contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar and/or its content providers; (2) may not be copied, adapted or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information, except where such damages or losses cannot be limited or excluded by law in your jurisdiction. Past financial performance is not guarantee of future results. �J THE BOGDAHN GROUP. cimpiif h� q your investment and fiduciary decisions Orlando 4901 Vineland Road, Suite 600 Orlando, Florida 32811 866.240.7932 Chicago I Cleveland I Detroit I Milwaukee I Pittsburgh I Tulsa City of Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund Small Cap Core Equity Manager Analysis September 30, 2016 WWW.BOGDAHNGROUP.COM THE BOGDAHN GRoup. ,implff hk ►`(lur inveslauew and fiduciai-r e/cci%ions Introduction As of 9/30/2016 Purpose for this Manager Evaluation Report This search is to evaluate potential replacement options for Dana Small Cap Equity. Investment Options for this Manager Evaluation Report Firm Name Strategy Name Vehicle Management Fee Champlain Investment Partners Champlain Small Company Instl (CIPNX) MF 1.06% Delaware Management Company Delaware Small Cap Core R6 (DCZRX) MF 0.87% J.P. Morgan Investment Management JPMorgan U.S. Small Company R6 (JUSMX) MF 0.74% Dana Investment Advisors Small Cap Equity SA 0.75% on first $3 million; 0.60% thereafter Asset Class Overview As of 9/30/2016 Defiinitions and Characteristics US Small Cap Core is typically defined as all US -based companies with a market capitalization between $300 million and $2 billion. These companies typically have single business lines, a US focus, and higher growth potential than larger cap names. Many of the companies are less followed by Wall Street which result in lower average daily trading volumes. The primary benchmark for strategies in this space is the Russell 2000 Index. The index contains the smallest 2000 stocks in the Russell 3000 on Russell's annual reconstitution day, typically calculated at the end of May. The largest sectors of the index are Financials and Technology, with the Consumer sectors and Healthcare all accounting for meaningful percentages between 10% and 15%. The index is well diversified by market cap with no single name dominating. Role within a Portfolio The primary role of a US Small Cap Core strategy is to provide exposure to smaller US companies that have greater growth potential and diversify away from mega -cap stocks. The higher expected growth leads to both higher long- term expected returns and higher expected volatility. Most Small Cap Core equity strategies balance exposures to value and growth stocks and typically purchase stocks with a market cap less than $3 billion. The lack of Wall Street research and diversity of the index gives managers the ability to build portfolios substantially different from the benchmark, so tracking error can also be higher. Benchmark and Peer Group This US Small Cap Core Equity search report will use the following benchmark and peer group: Index — Russell 2000 Index: Consists of the 2000 smallest stocks by market cap in the Russell 3000 index on the index's reconstitution ranking day, typically done at the end of May. Peer Group - Small Blend: Small -blend portfolios favor U.S. firms at the smaller end of the market -capitalization range. Some aim to own an array of value and growth stocks while others employ a discipline that leads to holdings with valuations and growth rates close to the small -cap averages. Stocks in the bottom 10% of the capitalization of the U.S. equity market are defined as small cap. The blend style is assigned to portfolios where neither growth nor value characteristics predominate. Investment Option Comparison Firm and Investment Option Information As of 9/30/2016 Firm Information Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Firm Name Champlain Funds Delaware Investments JPMorgan Firm City Burlington Philadelphia New York Firm State or Province VT PA NY Firm Web Address www.cipvt.com www.delawareinvestments.com www.jpmorganfunds.com SA Firm Total Assets 174,189,370,000.00 Strategy Information Ticker Inception Date Investment Type Fund Size Strategy Assets if Seperate Account or CIT Champlain Small Company Institutional CIPNX 8/31 /2016 Open -End Fund 1,223,251,256 3,540,090,000 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 DCZRX 5/2/2016 Open -End Fund 1,869,904,434 2,572,885,000 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 JUSMX 11/1/2011 Open -End Fund 1,719,751,212 Dana Small Cap Equity Dana Investment Advisors Inc Brookfield WI www.danainvestment.com 7,209,100,000.00 Dana Small Cap Equity 7/30/1999 Separate Account 406,200,000 Current Portfolio Comparison As of 9/30/2016 Champlain Delaware JPMorgan Dana Small Small US Small Small Russell Company Cap Company 0 Cap Institutional Core R6 TR US Equity R6 COMPOSITION # of Holdings 78 148 391 65 1,961 %Asset in Top 10 Holdings 26.06 11.87 11.64 17.51 2.64 Asset Alloc Cash % 4.80 2.18 3.07 0.82 0.00 Asset Alloc Equity % 95.20 95.96 96.84 99.18 100.00 Asset Alloc Bond % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asset Alloc Other % 0.00 1.86 0.09 0.00 0.00 CHARACTERISTICS Average Market Cap (mil) 2,115.87 1,743.91 1,359.10 1,912.53 1,633.64 P/E Ratio (TTM) 27.10 20.88 17.77 20.71 21.43 P/B Ratio (TTM) 2.53 2.19 1.89 2.70 2.07 LT Earn Growth 10.47 15.31 10.45 13.48 11.17 Dividend Yield 0.95 1.31 1.74 1.24 1.76 ROE % (TTM) 8.34 9.52 7.63 18.32 6.88 GICS SECTORS % Energy % 1.77 3.61 3.02 2.99 3.61 Materials % 3.54 6.86 4.08 4.65 5.00 Industrials % 17.22 18.28 15.90 14.05 14.82 Consumer Discretionary % 9.93 9.89 11.37 12.78 12.71 Consumer Staples % 8.17 1.63 3.00 3.14 2.92 Healthcare % 21.16 14.47 14.15 14.15 12.56 Financials % 20.17 18.83 17.59 17.56 19.15 Information Technology % 18.05 17.16 19.46 18.07 17.14 Telecom Services % 0.00 0.73 0.80 0.74 0.73 Utilities % 0.00 2.45 3.40 3.75 3.64 Real Estate % 0.00 6.08 7.23 8.14 7.74 MARKET CAPITALIZATION Market Cap Giant % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Market Cap Large % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Market Cap Mid % 7.57 7.57 6.29 17.60 6.90 Market Cap Small % 70.01 61.97 50.46 52.08 61.06 Market Cap Micro % 17.63 26.42 39.76 29.50 32.04 Historical Portfolio Characteristics Comparison As of 9/30/2016 Historical Number of Holdings Historical Percentage of Assets in Top 10 Holdings 700.0 30.0 27.5 600.0 25.0 500.0 a 22.5 c o_ 0 400.0 a 20.0 300.0 N 17.5 Q 15.0 200.0 12.5 100.0 10.0 1.04 0.0 7.5 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2008 2010 Historical Cash Allocation 12.0 10.0 0 J 8.0 L N U 0 6.0 a a 4.0 2.0 0.0 2011 2012 - Champlain Small Company Institutional Dana Small Cap Equity 2013 Historical Portfolio Turnover 130.0 105.0 M O IY am '0 80.0 c D F- 55.0 30.0 2014 2015 2016 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Russell 2000 TR USD J 2012 2014 2016 2009 2011 2013 2015 - JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Historical Portfolio Characteristics Comparison As of 9/30/2016 Historical P/E Ratio 27.5 25.0 22.5 o 20.0 CO Of a 17.5 15.0 12.5 10.0 7.5 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Historical Earnings Growth 17.0 16.0 15.0 s 3 0 C7 14.0 E CO w j 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 2008 2010 - Champlain Small Company Institutional Dana Small Cap Equity 2012 2014 2016 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Russell 2000 TR USD Historical P/B Ratio 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 0 CO 2.0 m a 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 Historical Dividend Yield 7.0 6.0 5.0 a r 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 - JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Current and Historical Holdings Based Style Analysis As of 9/30/2016 Current Portfolio Holdings -Style Map cv 0 N 21 tB J O E U) O U_ Deep -Val Core -Val Core Core-Grth High-Grth Historical Holdings -Based Style Trail Time Period: 10/31/2006 to 9/30/2016 (D 0) (6 J E U) O U_ 75 Deep -Val Core -Val Core Core-Grth High-Grth Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6 ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Dana Small Cap Equity ■ Russell 2000 TR USD Quantitative Review Trailing Performance As of 9/30/2016 Peer Group (5-95%): Open End Funds - U.S. - Small Blend 24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 • ■ ■ ■ 8.0 19 6.0 ■ ■ 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0 -4.0 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8 Years 9 Years 10 Years 1 Year Rank 2 Years Rank 3 Years Rank 4 Years Rank 5 Years Rank 6 Years Rank 7 Years Rank 8 Years Rank 9 Years Rank 10 Years Rank Champlain Small Company Institutional 23.71 2 12.96 3 9.11 8 13.51 17 15.57 36 13.76 15 13.48 20 10.50 32 8.78 19 10.14 16 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 13.26 53 7.57 38 7.85 23 13.53 16 17.47 10 14.43 8 14.33 10 11.07 21 7.20 32 7.64 35 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 16.11 23 9.38 16 8.50 13 14.10 6 18.28 3 14.15 11 14.41 9 11.64 16 8.03 22 8.19 27 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 4.91 93 5.51 62 7.12 34 12.76 29 17.38 12 14.82 6 14.58 8 11.08 21 6.96 36 7.23 41 Russell 2000 TR USD 15.47 30 8.12 30 6.71 40 12.12 41 15.82 31 12.35 36 12.49 36 9.47 52 6.50 43 7.07 44 Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) ■ Russell 2000 TR USD All Returns Net of Fees. Performance data shown prior to fund's inception date represents extended performance for an older share class of the same strategy. ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Calendar Year Performance As of 9/30/2016 Peer Group (5-95%): Open End Funds - U.S. - Small Blend 60.0 52.5 45.0 37.5 30.0 22.5 15.0 7.5 �i■ 0.0 -7.5 -15.0 -22.5 -30.0 -37.5 -45.0 -52.5 ■ g®■ O YTD 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 YTD Rank 2015 Rank 2014 Rank 2013 Rank 2012 Rank 2011 Rank 2010 Rank 2009 Rank 2008 Rank 2007 Rank 2006 Rank Champlain Small Company Institutional 17.17 4 -1.21 14 4.07 59 36.21 60 10.66 87 3.88 6 24.30 66 23.86 82 -24.04 3 10.84 5 14.03 64 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 9.21 62 -3.35 34 8.85 7 43.24 14 15.62 48 0.58 15 28.72 18 27.35 61 -35.07 56 -4.52 75 17.06 32 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 10.70 48 -3.05 31 8.71 8 40.66 23 21.63 5 -3.69 55 27.15 32 35.08 28 -34.18 49 -6.36 83 15.87 45 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 2.63 98 1.56 4 6.20 30 45.53 9 18.67 17 1.43 11 31.42 8 21.54 87 -33.73 46 -8.98 91 15.41 51 Russell 2000 TR USD 11.46 34 -4.41 48 4.89 49 38.82 37 16.35 35 -4.18 60 26.85 36 27.17 63 -33.79 47 -1.57 56 18.37 22 Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6 ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) ■ Russell 2000 TR USD Rolling Return Analysis As of 9/30/2016 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 30.0 22.5 15.0 c 7.5 / 0.0 -7.5 -15.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Return Rankings Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 _ 25.0 c �5 50.0 z of 75.0 100.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6—JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) — Russell 2000 TR USD Rolling Excess Return Analysis As of 9/30/2016 Rolling Excess Returns Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 8.0 6.0 4.0 E Z 2.0 0.0 X X W -2.0 -4.0 -6.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Excess Return Rankings Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 E 0 m 50.0 N U X W 75.0 100.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6—JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) — Russell 2000 TR USD Current and Historical Risk and Reward As of 9/30/2016 Risk -Reward: 5-Year Time Period: 10/1/2011 to 9/30/2016 Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 21.0 18.0 15.0 12.0 a� 9.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 Champlain Small Company Institutional Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 9.0 Std Dev Risk -Reward: Rolling 5-Year Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 5 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 -10.0 .0 15.0 18.0 0.0 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 ■ Russell 2000 TR USD 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Std Dev ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Current and Historical Risk and Reward As of 9/30/2016 Risk -Reward: 10-Year Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 12.0 10.0 8.0 E m o: 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 Champlain Small Company Institutional Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 12.0 Std Dev Risk -Reward: Rolling 10-Year Time Period: 10/1/2001 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 10 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 14.0 12.0 10.0 c 8.0 m 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 .0 20.0 24.0 0.0 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 ■ Russell 2000 TR USD 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 Std Dev ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Rolling Risk Analysis As of 9/30/2016 Rolling Standard Deviation Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 30.0 25.0 a� 20.0 U) 15.0 10.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Standard Deviation Rankings Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 o 50.0 CO 75.0 100.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6—JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) — Russell 2000 TR USD Rolling Risk Analysis As of 9/30/2016 Rolling Tracking Error Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 8.0 6.0 `o w` c 4.0 U (6 F 2.0 0.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Tracking Error Rankings Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 `o w` rn 50.0 c U H 75.0 100.0 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6—JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) — Russell 2000 TR USD Multi Statistic Analysis As of 9/30/2016 16.8 1.3 Champlain Small Company Institutional 16.5 1.2 16.3 16.0 1.2 15.8 15.5 1.1 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 15.3 � 15.0 ■ 1.1 14.8 1,0 14.5 ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 14.3 1.0 14.0 0.9 13.8 • 13.5 0.9 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 13.3 13.0 0.8 12.8 0.8 12.5 ■ Russell 2000 TR USD 12.3 - 0.7 Std Dev 5 Yr Time Period: 10/1/2011 to 9/30/2016 ■ Sharpe Ratio 5 Yr 3.5 1.2 8.5 3.0 1.0 8.0 2.5 0.8 7.5 2.0 40 0.6 7.0 1.5 6.5 0.4 1.0 6.0 0.2 5.5 0.5 0.0 5.0 0.0 -0.2 4.5 -0.5 -0.4 4.0 -1.0 -0.6 3.5 0.8 3.0 2.0 2.5 -2.5 -1.0 • 2.0 -3.0 -1.2 1.5 -3.5 -1.4 1.0 -4.0 -1.6 0.5 -4.5 - -1.8 0.0 Alpha 5 Yr Information Ratio 5 Yr Tracking Error 5 Yr Std Dev Rank Sharpe Rank Alpha Rank Information Rank Tracking Rank Ratio Ratio Error Champlain Small Company Institutional 13.63 76 1.14 25 1.79 23 -0.05 41 4.80 29 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 14.34 49 1.21 12 2.32 14 0.57 9 2.90 77 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 15.27 17 1.19 15 2.06 18 1.10 1 2.23 90 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 14.71 39 1.18 17 2.33 13 0.35 16 4.50 35 Russell 2000 TR USD 15.02 26 1.05 41 0.00 58 0.00 100 Multi Statistic Analysis As of 9/30/2016 22.0 0.6 0.6 Champlain Small Company Institutional 21.5 0.6 21.0 0.6 0.5 20.5 0.5 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 20.0 0.5 ■ 0.5 19.5 0.5 19.0 0.4 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 0.4 18.5 0.4 18.0 0.4 0.4 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 17.5 0.3 17.0 0.3 0.3 16.5 0.3 ■ Russell 2000 TR USD 16.0 - 0.3 Std Dev 10 Yr Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 0 Sharpe Ratio 10 Yr 4.0 0.6 9.0 3.5 0.5 8.5 0.4 8.0 3.0 0.3 7.5 2.5 0.2 7.0 0.1 2.0 0.0 6.5 1.5 -0.1 6.0 -0.2 5.5 1.0 -0.3 5.0 0.5 -0.4 4.5 0.5 4.0 0.0 -0.6 3.5 -0.5 -0.7 3.0 -1.0 -0.8 2.5 -1.5 -0.9 2.0 -1.0 -2.0 1.1 1.5 -1.2 1.0 -2.5 -1.3 0.5 -3.0 -1.4 0.0 Alpha 10 Yr Information Ratio 10 Yr Tracking Error 10 Yr Std Dev Rank Sharpe Rank Alpha Rank Information Rank Tracking Rank Ratio Ratio Error Champlain Small Company Institutional 16.73 72 0.56 17 3.77 4 0.53 7 5.77 30 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 19.27 40 0.35 41 0.74 33 0.19 22 3.05 81 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 20.24 21 0.36 38 1.02 28 0.44 10 2.54 87 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 18.49 56 0.35 43 0.64 35 0.03 35 4.71 48 Russell 2000 TR USD 19.85 29 0.31 51 0.00 52 0.00 100 Up and Down Market Capture As of 9/30/2016 Current Up and Down Market Capture: 5-Year Time Period: 10/1/2011 to 9/30/2016 Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 120.0 100.0 80.0 0 m n U 60.0 a D 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Down Capture Ratio 100.0 Historical Up and Down Market Capture: Rolling 5-Year Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 5 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 140.0 120.0 100.0 0 .Z6 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 120.0 0.0 Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) ■ Russell 2000 TR USD 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 Down Capture Ratio ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Up and Down Market Capture As of 9/30/2016 Current Up and Down Market Capture: 10-Year Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 120.0 100.0 80.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Down Capture Ratio Historical Up and Down Market Capture: Rolling 10-Year Time Period: 10/1/2001 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 10 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 120.0 100.0 80.0 0 .Z6 m a U 60.0 n 40.0 20.0 0.0 120.0 0.0 Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) ■ Russell 2000 TR USD 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 Down Capture Ratio ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Batting Average and Drawdown As of 9/30/2016 Batting Average Source Data: Monthly Return Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 Growth TR USD 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 45.0 2 40.0 Q' 35.0 0130.0 m 25.0 CO 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 3 Years Drawdown Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Monthly Return 0.0 -5.0 / -10.0 -15.0 -20.0 -25.0 -30.0 -35.0 -40.0 -45.0 -50.0 -55.0 -60.0 2007 No II■■ I ■■ �1 I ■ ■■ I no I I I ■ ■■ I ■■ I I I ■ ■■ I ■■ I I ■ ■■ I ■■ I I I ■ ■■ I ■■ 1 1 I ■ ■■ I I I ■■ I ■■ I I 1 ■ on I I ■■ I I ■■ I I 1 ■ ■■ I I ON I ■ I I I ■ 2005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 — Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6 — JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) — Russell 2000 TR USD 2015 2016 MPT Statistics As of 9/30/2016 MPT Statistics: 5-Year Time Period: 10/1/2011 to 9/30/2016 Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD Return Excess Return Std Dev Downside Std Dev Beta Sortino Ratio Tracking Error R2 Sharpe Ratio Treynor Ratio Information Ratio Alpha Skewness Kurtosis Batting Average Up Capture Ratio Up Period Percent Best Quarter Longest Up -Streak Return Longest Up -Streak # of Periods Down Capture Ratio Down Period Percent Worst Quarter Longest Down -Streak Return Longest Down -Streak # of Periods Max Drawdown Max Drawdown # of Periods Champlain Small Company Institutional 15.57 -0.25 13.63 3.23 0.86 2.04 4.80 89.94 1.13 17.99 -0.05 1.79 -0.03 0.45 53.33 91.14 66.67 13.54 30.61 7.00 83.87 33.33 -10.15 -14.34 3.00 -14.89 8.00 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 17.47 1.64 14.34 1.56 0.94 2.29 2.90 96.34 1.19 18.54 0.57 2.32 0.33 1.64 51.67 97.31 66.67 17.55 32.30 6.00 84.61 33.33 -9.75 -12.82 3.00 -14.03 7.00 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 18.28 2.45 15.27 0.85 1.01 2.19 2.23 97.87 1.17 18.08 1.10 2.06 0.08 0.57 58.33 104.86 66.67 15.97 23.11 7.00 94.78 33.33 -11.74 -13.58 3.00 -15.33 8.00 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 17.38 1.56 14.71 2.47 0.93 2.24 4.50 91.09 1.16 18.50 0.35 2.33 0.39 2.02 53.33 96.74 63.33 16.58 16.79 5.00 83.96 36.67 -9.97 -13.78 3.00 -16.85 8.00 MPT Statistics As of 9/30/2016 MPT Statistics: 10-Year Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD Return Excess Return Std Dev Downside Std Dev Beta Sortino Ratio Tracking Error R2 Sharpe Ratio Treynor Ratio Information Ratio Alpha Skewness Kurtosis Batting Average Up Capture Ratio Up Period Percent Best Quarter Longest Up -Streak Return Longest Up -Streak # of Periods Down Capture Ratio Down Period Percent Worst Quarter Longest Down -Streak Return Longest Down -Streak # of Periods Max Drawdown Max Drawdown # of Periods Champlain Small Company Institutional 10.14 3.06 16.73 3.66 0.81 0.89 5.77 93.09 0.61 11.46 0.53 3.77 -0.89 2.71 59.17 90.94 65.83 17.87 19.24 9.00 77.14 34.17 -23.44 -18.96 5.00 -40.99 16.00 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 7.64 0.57 19.27 1.83 0.96 0.63 3.05 97.68 0.44 7.10 0.19 0.74 -0.59 1.70 51.67 96.30 61.67 20.67 50.83 7.00 93.27 38.33 -26.15 -24.14 5.00 -53.87 21.00 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 8.19 1.12 20.24 1.52 1.01 0.65 2.54 98.45 0.45 7.27 0.44 1.02 -0.51 1.25 55.00 101.98 65.00 22.77 46.20 8.00 98.16 35.00 -26.91 -26.45 5.00 -54.86 21.00 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 7.23 0.16 18.49 2.89 0.91 0.61 4.71 94.55 0.43 7.07 0.03 0.64 -0.60 1.77 51.67 90.15 60.00 18.17 45.70 8.00 87.21 40.00 -25.17 -16.84 6.00 -55.23 21.00 Investment Option Narratives Champlain Small Company Institutional As of 9/30/2016 Firm Overview Champlain Investment Partners (CIP) is based in Burlington, VT, and began operations on September 17, 2004. The firm offers US equity and emerging market equity strategies. The firms' original partners were former employees of National Life Group's investment management subsidiar. The founders initially owned 60% of the equity and Rosemont Investment Partners, LLC, provided strategic capital to the firm and had the remaining 40% ownership stake. CIP's partners began purchasing equity from Rosemont in January 2007. In October 2008, the remaining equity (25%) was purchased by CIP, giving CIP employees complete ownership of the firm. Currently, there are fourteen employee partners and the firm has a 10 year minority revenue share with Kudu Investment Mgmt and Rosemont Partners. The firm also has an office in Irvine, CA. Team Overview The small cap strategy is managed by a dedicated team of five senior investment professionals - Scott Brayman, Corey Bronner, Joe Farley, Van Harissis and David O'Neal. Brayman leads the investment team and is ultimately responsible for ensuring the investment process is followed. The team has dedicated analysts for what they believe to be the three most dynamic sectors: consumer (led by Bronner), health care (led by O'Neal), and technology (led by Farley). Brayman serves as lead analyst for financials, industrials, and energy, and Harissis serves as a generalist for the strategy with a focus on supporting the consumer sector. The investment team also includes senior associate analysts for each sector group. The decision -making is collaborative and as such voting procedures are not applicable. If a senior member of the investment team strongly disagrees with another member's buy recommendation, it is highly unlikely the stock will be purchased. Strategy Overview The market cap range for new holdings is between $250M and $2.513 for SCC. The first step in the process applies CIP's sector factors. CIP has specific factors for each of the five major sectors (consumer, financials, health care, industrials, and technology) that they use to eliminate stocks that do not possess the characteristics that they want. For consumer they avoid fashion risk; in financials they avoid businesses that only are trying to capture a spread and focus on niche opportunities; in health care they minimize their exposure to government reimbursement risk; in industrials they look for innovators and/or problem solvers; and for technology they avoid rapid product obsolescence. Industries that they avoid include: Utilities, Metals and Mining, Telecom Services, REITs, Construction and Engineering, Technology Hardware, Semiconductors, Biotech, and many parts of Consumer Discretionary. The next step of the process is fundamental research, which targets specific company attributes including high or excess returns on capital, strong balance sheets, credible and sincere management, high quality earnings, superior growth relative to other companies in the sector, and a predictable business model. The third and final step of the process is a valuation analysis to determine fair value. They eliminate holdings that exceeds the fair value estimate, when information invalidates the original investment premise, and also will trim positions exceeding 3% of the portfolio and when sectors exceed the established sector weight rule. Sector weights in large sectors are held at 75-125% of S&P SmallCap 600 or no more than 20% absolute of the portfolio in any of the five large sectors. Individual position sizes are typically no more than 5% of the portfolio, but they will trim when positions go above 3%. They will not have more than 10% cash (although they state it is rare to be above 5% cash). Sector factors cause them to exclude more than half of the GICS industries. Portfolios will hold 75-100 names with turnover of 30-50%. Expectations We expect CIP's strategies to outperform their respective benchmarks when there is a flight to quality in addition to holding up well in "normal" market environments. We expect them to underperform in strong up -markets, generally when speculation, momentum, and periods where low -quality and highly -cyclical companies are favored. Typically, during this environment, few of their high -quality factors (e.g. high ROE, high Price/Sales, low ROE volatility, low Debt/Cap, low 5- Year Beta) will outperform. Tracking error is generally around 6-7%. Points to Consider While decisions are team -managed, Brayman is the clear driver of the process and culture. He is relatively young and stated he has no plans to retire, but there is no true succession plan in place. While we think that Brayman has ceded sole control over the portfolio since the early days of the track record, he is an important contributor, the architect of the process and built the team. We believe, particularly for Tech and Healthcare names, that each those lead analysts are making all the calls in those sectors, with Brayman signing off. And Brayman was adamant that he can't just put whatever he wants into the portfolio without getting sign off from the rest of the team. But our recommendation would need to be re-evaluated if Brayman would no longer part of the team. The SCC strategy had previously been closed since 2007, but has recently reopened in 2016 and has $500MM in capacity as of 9/30/16. Recommendation Summary We recommend CIP's SCC strategy for The Bogdahn Group's Recommended list. The disciplined and consistent approach to investing in good companies with strong cash flows and defensible competitive positions at reasonable prices is simple but effective. The Sector Factors that they use are logical and help embed risk management into the core of the process, which is supplemented by other significant risk management resources. The team is cohesive and highly skilled versus their peer group. This could be used as a stand-alone manager for clients that are focused on down -side protection or used in tandem with a more cyclically -sensitive manager that does well in up -markets. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Champlain Small Company Institutional -Asset Allocation Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -Stock -Cash Other Champlain Small Company Institutional - Equity Sectors (GIGS) Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Champlain Small Company Institutional - Equity Regional Exposure Champlain Small Company Institutional - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 100.0 87.5 87.5 75.0 75.0 62.5 62.5 50.0 50.0 37.5 37.5 25.0 25.0 12.5 0.0 12.5 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0.0 -North America % Latin America % Europe dev % 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -Africa/Middle East % -Mid % Small % -Micro % 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Champlain Small Company Institutional - Equity Style Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 2015 2016 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Energy % Materials % -Industrials % Consumer Discretionary % -Consumer Staples % -Healthcare % Mid Value % -Mid Core % -Mid Growth % Financials % Information Technology % Small Value % Small Core % Small Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Return Distribution - Champlain Small Company Institutional Excess Return Distribution - Champlain Small Company Institutional Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return Source Data: Quarterly Return Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 14.0 9.0 3.0 12.0 7.0 10.o 0 `m `m 6.0 a a O 8.0 O 5.0 N N E6.0 E 4.0 7 7 Z Z 3.0 4.0 2.0 ilkiim 2.0 ■ ■ ■ 11 h ■ 10 ■ ■ ■ ■. ■ 0.0 0.0 -28.0 -24.0 -20.0 -16.0 -12.0 -&0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 -7.0 -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD c 120.0% m c 0 .j c 90.0% c m a E 0 U 60.0% E U) c a E t 30.0% U 0.0% -30.0% -50.0% -20.0% 10.0% 40.0% Russell 2000 TR USD Return 70.0% 100.0% 130.0% Delaware Small Cap Core R6 As of 9/30/2016 Firm Overview Delaware Investments was founded in 1929 and is based in Philadelphia, PA. The firm's first mutual fund was introduced in 1938. Delaware was among the first to offer small company stock funds, single -state municipal bond funds, high yield corporate bond funds, and short -to -intermediate -term government bond funds. Delaware now offers a product in most major equity categories, covering all domestic market capitalizations and investment styles. In 2010, Delaware's former parent, Lincoln National Corporation, sold Delaware to Macquarie Affiliated Managers, Inc., a subsidiary of Macquarie Group Limited (Macquarie). Macquarie is a global provider of banking, financial, advisory, investment and fund management services headquartered in Australia. Macquarie is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX: MQG) and is regulated by APRA, the Australian banking regulator, as the owner of Macquarie Bank Limited. Delaware sits within Macquarie Asset Management (MAM), one of five operating businesses within Macquarie. Today, the firm also has offices in Boston, MA, San Diego, CA, London, UK, Munich, GER, and Zurich, CH. Team Overview The four -person SCC team has an average of 22 years of investment experience, 15 years of experience with the firm, and 10 years of experience covering small -cap stocks. As CIO of the Core Equity team, Francis Morris, Senior Vice President, Chief Investment Officer - Core Equity, has the ultimate responsibility for all Small -Cap Core portfolio investment and allocation decisions. In addition to Morris, the team consists of Portfolio Managers Chris Adams, Michael Morris, and Donald Padilla. Each team member has sector specific research responsibilities and the team talks daily and formally meets three times per week. Strategy Overview The initial universe consists of all stocks within the Russell 2000 Index. They utilize the input of quantitative analysis as a screening methodology for which to focus their fundamental efforts. The Core Equity team employs a proprietary model to rank every stock in the universe on a daily basis. The model considers measures of value (e.g., present value), expectations (e.g., earnings revisions, momentum) and quality (e.g., financial quality, management). A total model score is calculated for each stock and then all stocks in the universe are ranked by decile from most attractive (decile #10) to least attractive (decile #1). A second sector specific model ranks a stock against other stocks in its sector. The focus of the Core Equity team's portfolio managers and analysts is largely on fundamental analysis. Fundamental efforts focus around a company's competitive positioning, financial statement analysis, sector specific valuation analysis, and management quality/track record. Securities become candidates for sale when: The security reaches its price target; Research identifies a negative change in fundamentals; Better opportunities arise through a relative -value assessment; A deterioration in quantitative metrics; The stock's market capitalization exceeds that of the high end of the Russell 2000 Index (or graduates from the Russell 2000 Index). The strategy will deviate no more than +/- 2% on sector weights (industry weights are unconstrained), and targets a tracking error budget of 24%. Portfolios are diversified, ranging from 125-175 names. The team uses extensive risk management tools to monitor portfolios in multiple areas in an effort to limit macro and factor risks, as well as style and capitalization creep. Turnover has averaged 60-80% per year. Expectations Tracking error is targeted to be in the 24% range, which is relatively low vs. peers. The combination of the quantitative and fundamental research process generally results in the portfolio displaying a quality bias. The overall portfolio will generally possess a lower risk profile than the broad market. In times when higher risk, lower quality stocks outperform, the strategy will tend to lag. Although the strategy outperformed in 2012, the investment team uses this environment as one in which they would expect to underperform. Intra stock correlations serve as the best indicator of expected relative performance, and is represented well by both 2013 and 2008 — years in which the range of stock outcomes within the universe was significant. The lower the correlations, the greater opportunity the investment team has to outperform via stock selection. The strategy will tend to underweight Biotechs and REITs. Points to Consider Our primary concern relates to the team's capacity. With a Large Cap and Small Cap strategy under their watch, Morris estimated that each PM is closely monitoring 80 securities between current investments and "bench" names. This does not include new ideas generated by the team's quant screens, which each analyst will be assigned to review. In confronting this challenge, the team does employ plausible shortcuts to help manage the universe it oversees. This includes leveraging sell side analyst models as a starting point for valuation work rather than building models from scratch. The timesaving created by this shortcut is not significant, however, so it does little to lessen our main concern. Given the constraints surrounding portfolio construction, the recent breakout of Real Estate as a separate sector will force the investment team to have a weighting in REITs within a narrow range of the benchmark. The investment team has been underweight to REITs for quite some time and Morris did not exude confidence when discussing REIT selection as he did when highlighting other sectors. Consequently, this is an issue that will require our close attention moving forward. Recommendation Summary Delaware combines a quantitative and qualitative process that serves as the framework to provide the team with a strong subset of candidates. The investment team then performs rigorous fundamental due diligence in an effort to uncover quality companies trading at an attractive valuation relative to industry peers. It is the robust portfolio construction process and active management of risk factors that ensures relative performance is primarily driven by stock selection. This process also lends itself to consistent, favorable results. It is the combination of these factors that lead us to recommend the strategy as suitable for all client types and plan sizes. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Asset Allocation Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 -Stock Other 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Bond -Cash Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Equity Regional Exposure Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -North America % Latin America % -United Kingdom % Europe dev % -Europe emrg % -Africa/Middle East % Australasia % Asia emrg % Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Large % -Mid % Small % -Micro % Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Equity Sectors (GIGS) Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Equity Style Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 100.0 90.0 90.0 80.0 80.0 70.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 50.0 50.0 40.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 1 1 10.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Energy % Materials % -Industrials % Consumer Discretionary % -Consumer Staples % -Healthcare % -Large Growth % Mid Value % -Mid Core % Financials % Information Technology % Telecom Services % -Mid Growth % Small Value % Small Core % Utilities % -Real Estate % Small Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Return Distribution - Delaware Small Cap Core R6 Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 14.0 12.0 10.0 d 0 8.0 `m E 6.0 Z 4.0 2.0 0.0 , -28.0 -24.0 -20.0 -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 Excess Return Distribution - Delaware Small Cap Core R6 Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 16.0 14.0 12.0 d 10.0 0 &0 E = 6.0 Z 4.0 2.0 1 , 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD C 40.0% iu ( j 30.0% a m U m u) 20.0% N �N ° 10.0% des a 0.0% -10.0% -20.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% Russell 2000 TR USD Return V 20.0% to 2.0 3.0 4.0 30.0% 40.0% JPMorgan US Small Company R6 As of 9/30/2016 Firm Overview J.P. Morgan was founded in 1861 and has offered asset management services for over a century, most recently through J.P. Morgan Asset Management Inc. (JPMAM), a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Over its history, the parent company grew through a multitude of mergers and acquisitions with the latest in 2000 combining J.P. Morgan and Chase Manhatten Bank. The firm also purchased Bear Stearns in 2008, which broadened its capabilities in prime brokerage and energy trading. JPMAM was founded and registered with the SEC in 1984. The firm offers a diverse array of investment products across all asset classes. The firm is headquartered in New York and has offices across the globe including London, Frankfurt, Columbus (OH), Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Much of the firm's asset management division, including the entire US equity team, is located in the same office on Park Avenue in midtown Manhattan. The parent firm is a publically traded company on the NYSE (Ticker: JPM). Team Overview The SCC strategy is managed by Dennis Ruh[ and Phil Hart. Ruhl is the Head of the JPMAM US Behavioral Finance Group. A member of the team since 2001, Ruhl also acts as a portfolio manager and leads quantitative research and implementation for the broader US Behavioral Finance Team. Hart is a portfolio manager and Head of the Behavioral Finance Small Cap Equity Group. A JPMAM employee since 2003, his responsibilities include managing structured small -cap core and small -cap value strategies. All final decisions lie with the portfolio managers. The QDV strategies are supported by five qualitative and five quantitative research analysts. Strategy Overview QDV is an acronym for the focus of the investment team: Quality, Deployment of Capital, and Valuation. The QDV Small Cap Core strategy is managed using an investment process that blends quantitative and fundamental investing. This four step process begins by employing a disciplined methodology that seeks to identify stocks in each economic sector that have high quality earnings, strong management teams (as measured by capital deployment decisions), and attractive valuations. Within the earnings quality factor, the team focuses on working capital and accruals. The team focuses on capex and changes in share count within capital deployment. In the valuation factor, the team takes a holistic approach to capture valuation levels — looking at current, forward and trailing valuation signals. Within each sector, stocks are ranked according to their relative attractiveness and placed into quintiles based upon those rankings. For risk management purposes, there is typically exposure to all quintiles. The QDV strategies typically have 60-70% in the top two quintiles, with 10-15% in the third quintile, and between 5-10% in the fourth and fifth quintile. JPMAM then uses a quadratic optimizer to create a portfolio of well -diversified, compensated risks that seeks to deliver consistent returns, by overweighting the stocks with the highest return potential based upon the proprietary stock rankings and minimizing uncompensated risk relative to the benchmark. The sell process revolves around selling out and/or reducing exposure to stocks that have deteriorating rankings, while adding to or buying stocks within the same sector with improving alpha scores. Thus, the sell discipline relies heavily on quantitative output. Stocks ranked in the fifth quintile become sell candidates. Portfolios are diversified, with 350-400 stocks. The expected turnover for the strategy is 40%-60% per annum. To minimize sector risk, the portfolio managers weigh sectors in the portfolios within +/-1 % of the sector weights of the benchmark. Finally, to control stock -specific risk, individual stock weights in the portfolios are limited to +/-2% relative to the stock's weight in the index. Expectations Tracking error, which is expected to average 2-3%, is low versus peers. The strategy tend to perform best when market volatility and value spreads (the difference between the cheapest and most expensive stocks) are low. The portfolio tends to slightly overweight stocks less than $213, so may be expected to well when small cap outperform mid caps. It will also slightly overweight lower valuation stocks (P/E, P/S). The strategy tends to struggle during periods of heightened volatility and when value spreads widen quickly, or, better stated, during market inflection points. Points to Consider Being a wholly -owned entity of one of the largest banks in the world prohibits the ability to share equity amongst the team. The cumulative ownership of the portfolio managers is de minimis, as is their holdings in the strategies. There is some key -person risk in both Ruh] and Hart. The departure of either would cause us to reevaluate our recommendation. Recommendation Summary With a well -diversified product that has tight constraints in portfolio construction, alpha is mostly a result of security selection instead of allocation to an industry, sector, beta, style, market cap, or other various risk factors. The process utilizes tight portfolio constraints and an optimizer to ensure style purity — a quality that can be challenging to find in the small cap space for products with a mutual fund. This style consistency improves performance consistency and limits factor risk, both key contributors to our attraction in the products. We believe JPMorgan's US Behavioral Finance team offers a compelling option in Small Cap Core. The blending of the quantitative and qualitative process, in addition to the tight constraints in portfolio construction, leads to consistent and repeatable performance. The two portfolio managers have considerable experience together and their demonstrated skill gives us confidence in the performance into the future. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 - Asset Allocation Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 -Stock Other 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Bond -Cash JPMorgan US Small Company R6 - Equity Regional Exposure Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -North America % Latin America % -United Kingdom % Europe dev % -Europe emrg % -Africa/Middle East % Australasia % Asia emrg % JPMorgan US Small Company R6 - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 had 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Large % -Mid % Small % -Micro % JPMorgan US Small Company R6 - Equity Sectors (GIGS) JPMorgan US Small Company R6 - Equity Style Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 100.0 90.0 90.0 Pod 80.0 80.0 70.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 50.0 50.0 40.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Energy % Materials % -Industrials % Consumer Discretionary % -Consumer Staples % -Healthcare % -Large Value % Mid Value % -Mid Core % Financials % Information Technology % Telecom Services % -Mid Growth % Small Value % Small Core % Utilities % -Real Estate % Small Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Return Distribution - JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Excess Return Distribution - JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Time Period: 1/1/2012 to 9/30/2016 Time Period: 1/1/2012 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 8.0 Source Data: Quarterly Return 11.0 7.0 N 10.0 N 9.0 o s.° 0 8.0 d 5.0 W d 7.0 O O 6.0 N 4.0 9 N -0 5.0 Z3.0 Z 4.0 2,0 1.0 = L nM L 1 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 120 16.0 -3.0 -20 -1.0 0.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 10/1/2010 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD C 30.0% iu T C a25.0% E o U W 20.0% U C 01 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 8.0% 12.0% 16.0% 20.0% 24.0% 28.0% Russell 2000 TR USD Return Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Dana Small Cap Equity - Asset Allocation Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -Stock -Cash Other Dana Small Cap Equity - Equity Sectors (GIGS) Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 ■ 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Dana Small Cap Equity - Equity Regional Exposure Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -North America % Europe dev % -Europe emrg % 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Dana Small Cap Equity - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 50.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Large % -Mid % Small % -Micro % Dana Small Cap Equity - Equity Style Time Period: 12/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 I 10.0 2015 2016 0.0 -Energy % Materials % -Industrials % Consumer Discretionary % -Consumer Staples % -Healthcare % Financials % Information Technology % Telecom Services % Utilities % -Real Estate % 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Large Growth % -Mid Growth % Small Growth % Mid Value % -Mid Core % Small Value % Small Core % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 9/30/2016 Return Distribution - Dana Small Cap Equity(net) Excess Return Distribution - Dana Small Cap Equity(net) Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return Source Data: Quarterly Return 12.0 12.0 10.0 10.0 0 0 `m 8.0 `m 8.0 a a 0 0 6.0 6.0 E E Z 4.0 Z 4.0 0.0 ■ ■ ■ ' ' ■ 0.0 -28.0 -24.0 -20.0 -16.0 -12.0 -&0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 -TO -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 10/1/2006 to 9/30/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 150.0% am c �:,120.0% Cr W • a m U 90.0% �E 'DID • Q60.0% ••• • • 30.0% 0.0% -30.0% 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 TO • -60.0% I -50.0% -20.0% 10.0% 40.0% 70.0% 100.0% 130.0% Russell 2000 TR USD Return Definitions Alpha -A measure of the difference between a portfolio's actual returns and its expected performance, given its level of risk as measured by beta. Batting Average — A measure of a manager's ability to consistently beat the market. It is calculated by dividing the number of months in which the manager beat or matched an index by the total number of months in the period. Best Quarter- This is the highest quarterly (3 month) return of the investment since its inception. is symmetric with skewness 0. Sortino Ratio - The Sortino Ratio is similar to Sharpe Ratio except it uses downside risk (Downside Deviation) in the denominator. It was developed in early 1980's by Frank Sortino. Since upside variability is not necessarily a bad thing, Sortino ratio is sometimes more preferable than Sharpe ratio. Standard Deviation - A statistical measure of the range of a portfolio's performance. It represents the variability of returns around the average return over a specified time period. Beta - A measure of the sensitivity of a portfolio to the movements in the market. It is a measure of the Tracking Error - This is a measure of the standard deviation of a portfolio's excess returns versus its portfolio's systematic risk. designated market benchmark. Down Period Percent - Number of months below 0 divided by the total number of months. Downmarket Capture Ratio - The ratio of average portfolio performance over the designated benchmark during periods of negative returns. A lower value indicates better product performance. Downside Std Dev - This measures only deviations below a specified benchmark. Excess Return- This is a measure of an investment's return in excess of a benchmark. Information Ratio - This calculates the value-added contribution of the manager and is derived by dividing the excess rate of return of the portfolio by the tracking error. The higher the Information Ratio, the more the manager has added value to the portfolio. Longest Down -Streak Return - Return for the longest series of negative monthly returns. Longest Down -Streak # of Periods - Longest series of negative monthly returns. Longest Up -Streak Return - Return for the longest series of positive monthly returns. Longest Up -Streak - Longest series of positive monthly returns. Kurtosis - Kurtosis indicates the peakedness of a distribution. For normal distribution, Kurtosis is 3. Max Drawdown - The peak to trough decline during a specific record period of an investment or fund. It is usually quoted as the percentage between the peak to the trough. Max Drawndown # of Periods - This is the number of months that encompasses the max drawdown for an investment. R-Squared - The percentage of a portfolio's performance that can be explained by the behavior of the appropriate benchmark. A high R-Squared means the portfolio's performance has historically moved in the same direction as the appropriate benchmark. Return - Compounded rate of return for the period. Sharpe Ratio - Represents the excess rate of return over the risk free return divided by the standard deviation of the excess return. The result is an absolute rate of return per unit of risk. A higher value demonstrates better historical risk -adjusted performance. Skewness - Skewness reflects the degree of asymmetry of a distribution. If the distribution has a longer left tail, the function has negative skewness. Otherwise, it has positive skewness. A normal distribution Treynor Ratio - Similar to Sharpe Ratio, Treynor Ratio is a measurement of efficiency utilizing the relationship between annualized risk -adjusted return and risk. Unlike Sharpe Ratio, Treynor Ratio utilizes "market" risk (beta) instead of total risk (standard deviation). Good performance efficiency is measured by a high ratio. Up period Percent - Number of months above 0 divided by the total number of months. Upmarket Capture Ratio - The ratio of average portfolio performance over the designated benchmark during periods of positive returns. A higher value indicates better product performance. Worst Quarter - This is the lowest quarterly (3 month) return of the investment since its inception. Disclosures The Bogdahn Group compiled this report for the sole use of the client for which it was prepared. The Bogdahn group uses the results from this evaluation to make observations and recommendations to the client. When client -specific performance is shown, The Bogdahn Group uses time -weighted calculations, which are founded on standards recommended by the CFA Institute. In these cases, the performance -related data shown are based on information that is received from custodians. As a result, this provides The Bogdahn Group with a reasonable basis that the investment information presented is free from material misstatement. The strategies listed may not be suitable for all investors. We believe the information provided here is reliable, but do not warrant its accuracy or completeness. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Any information contained in this report is for informational purposes only and should not be construed to be an offer to buy or sell any securities, investment consulting, or investment management services. Additional information included in this document may contain data provided by index databases, public economic sources and the managers themselves. This document may contain data provided by Barclays. Barclays Index data provided by way of Barclays Live. This document may contain data provided by Standard and Poor's. Nothing contained within any document, advertisement or presentation from S&P Indices constitutes an offer of services in jurisdictions where S&P Indices does not have the necessary licenses. All information provided by S&P Indices is impersonal and is not tailored to the needs of any person, entity or group of persons. Any returns or performance provided within any document is provided for illustrative purposes only and does not demonstrate actual performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future investment results. This document may contain data provided by MSCI, Inc. Copyright MSCI, 2012. Unpublished. All Rights Reserved. This information may only be used for your internal use, may not be reproduced or re disseminated in any form and may not be used to create any financial instruments or products or any indices. This information is provided on an "as is" basis and the user of this information assumes the entire risk of any use it may make or permit to be made of this information. Neither MSCI, any of its affiliates or any other person involved in or related to compiling, computing or creating this information makes any express or implied warranties or representations with respect to such information or the results to be obtained by the use thereof, and MSCI, its affiliates and each such other person hereby expressly disclaim all warranties (including, without limitation, all warranties of originality, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, non -infringement, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose) with respect to this information. Without limiting any of the foregoing, in no event shall MSCI, any of its affiliates or any other person involved in or related to compiling, computing or creating this information have any liability for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, punitive, consequential or any other damages (including, without limitation, lost profits) even if notified of, or if it might otherwise have anticipated, the possibility of such damages. This document may contain data provided by Russell Investment Group. Russell Investment Group is the source owner of the data contained or reflected in this material and all trademarks and copyrights related thereto. The material may contain confidential information and unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, dissemination or redistribution is strictly prohibited. This is a user presentation of the data. Russell Investment Group is not responsible for the formatting or configuration of this material or for any inaccuracy in presentation thereof. This document may contain data provided by Morningstar. All rights reserved. Use of this content requires expert knowledge. It is to be used by specialist institutions only. The information contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar and/or its content providers; (2) may not be copied, adapted or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information, except where such damages or losses cannot be limited or excluded by law in your jurisdiction. Past financial performance is not guarantee of future results. �J THE BOGDAHN GROUP. cimpiif h� q your investment and fiduciary decisions Orlando 4901 Vineland Road, Suite 600 Orlando, Florida 32811 866.240.7932 Chicago I Cleveland I Detroit I Milwaukee I Pittsburgh I Tulsa Investment Performance Review Period Ending December 31, 2016 Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Fund DROP AndCo Consulting 1 (844) 44-ANDCO I AndCoConsultingxom Formerly The Bogdahn Group Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' DROP Plan Investment Option Performance Review As of December 31, 2016 Fund Plan Balance ($) Manager Style Asset Level Expense Category Median *Consecutive Qtr Return & 3 & 5 Year 3 & 5 Year Rank 3 & 5 Year Positive 3 & 5 Tenure (millions) Ratio Exp Ratio Rank Return > Index < 50th %-tile < 50th %-tile < 50th /o-tile Year Alpha VT Vantagepoint Core Bond Index 1.4 US Fixed 1,701.1 15 bps 50 bps NO YES NO (5) NO (5) 57 (3) 82 (5) 64 (3) 82 (5) -0.38 (5)-0.42 (5) (VQCIX) Income Dodge & Cox Income (DODIX) - 16.2 US Fixed 46,632.5 43 bps 66 bps YES YES Yes Yes 11 3 6 1 1.30 2.12 Income Fidelity Puritan (FPURX) 189,863 8.3 Moderate Allocation 24,982.5 55 bps 89 bps YES YES NO (2) Yes 14 14 18 19 -1.71 (5)-1.08 (5) US Equity Invesco Diversified Dividend (LCEYX) - 5.2 Large Cap 21,498.4 50 bps 79 bps YES YES Yes Yes 3 12 1 1 3.45 3.81 Value US Equity VT Vantagepoint 500 Stock Index (VQFIX) 74,526 11.1 Large Cap 974.4 15 bps 79 bps YES YES NO (5) NO (5) 44 44 45 42 -0.37 (5) -0.38 (5) Blend US Equity Parnassus Core Equity (PRBLX) - 10.2 Large Cap 15,285.6 88 bps 91 bps YES YES NO (5) NO (2) 30 28 13 3 0.15 1.40 Blend US Equity Oppenheimer Main Street (MIGYX) 6.1 Large Cap 8,139.2 69 bps 79 bps YES YES NO (2) NO (2) 13 18 14 19 -0.22 (2)-0.16 (2) Blend US Equity Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX) 26.4 Large Cap 102,721.9 70 bps 91 bps YES YES NO (3) NO (4) 43 41 24 11 -1.35 (2)-0.13 (2) Growth VT Vantagepoint SMID Company Index 10.6 US Equity 720.8 15 bps 100 bps NO YES NO (5) NO (5) 48 38 45 32 -0.26 (5)-0.17 (5) (VQSIX) Mid Cap Fidelity Diversified International (FDIVX) 63,564 15.8 Global Equity Large Cap 18 391.4 105 bps 105 bps YES YES Yes Yes 46 4 48 2 0.09 1.59 Nuveen Real Estate (FARCX) - 8.8 Real Estate 4,501.5 105 bps 102 bps YES YES NO (5) NO (5) 18 19 26 27 -0.15 (1) 0.01 Sector Equity Stable PLUS Fund 421,868 Value/Cash Management Fund meets criteria Fund does not currently meet criteria Fund has not met criteria for more than 4 quarters *Less than 4 consecutive quarterly returns below the index and peer rankings below the 75v' percentile (`more than 4 quarters' evaluation criteria excludes index funds). ^The following fund share classes do not have long-term history, and, for compliance purposes, a different share class has been used (Original > Proxy): �\ VQCIX > VPCDX LCEYX > DDFIX VQFIX> VPSKX VQSIX> VPSIX 1 Comparative Performance Trailing Returns Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' DROP Plan Investment Option Comparative Performance As of December 31, 2016 QTD 1 YR 3 YR 5 YR 7 YR 10 YR Inception Inception Date Bond VT Vantagepoint Core Bond Index (VQCIX) -3.03 Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index -2.98 IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (MF) Median -2.72 Dodge & Cox Income (DODIX) -1.24 Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index -2.98 IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (MF) Median -2.72 Balanced/Asset Allocation VT Puritan (FPURX) 0.33 60% S&P 500/40% BC Gov/Cred 0.93 IM Mixed -Asset Target Alloc Growth (MF) Median 0.87 U.S. Stock VT Invesco Diversified Dividend (LCEYX) 5.03 Russell 1000 Value Index 6.68 IM U.S. Large Cap Value Equity (MF) Median 6.85 VT Vantagepoint 500 Stock Index (VQFIX) 3.85 S&P 500 Index 3.82 IM S&P 500 Index (MF) Median 3.72 VT Parnassus Core Equity (PRBLX) 2.20 S&P 500 Index 3.82 IM U.S. Large Cap Core Equity (MF) Median 3.68 VT Oppenheimer Main Street (MIGYX) 4.27 S&P 500 Index 3.82 IM U.S. Large Cap Core Equity (MF) Median 3.68 VT Contrafund (FCNTX) -0.55 Russell 1000 Growth Index 1.01 IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (MF) Median -1.20 VT Vantagepoint SMID Company Index (VQSIX) 6.08 Russell 2500 Index 6.12 IM U.S. SMID Cap Core Equity (MF) Median 8.80 International/Global Stock VT Diversified International (FDIVX) -4.73 MSCI EAFE (Net) Index -0.71 IM International Large Cap Growth Equity (MF) Median -4.18 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Returns are expressed as percentages. (75) 2.38 (73) 2.66 (57) 1.81 (82) 3.20 (78) 3.90 (61) 4.50 (64) 04/01/1999 (71) 2.65 (60) 3.03 (30) 2.23 (59) 3.63 (56) 4.34 (38) 4.96 (28) 2.85 2.80 2.42 3.72 4.12 4.75 (3) 5.61 (2) 3.46 (11) 3.77 (3) 4.39 (15) 5.05 (6) 6.83 (1) 02/01/1989 (71) 2.65 (60) 3.03 (30) 2.23 (59) 3.63 (56) 4.34 (38) 6.38 (6) 2.85 2.80 2.42 3.72 4.12 6.20 (68) 5.03 (84) 5.78 (14) 10.14 (14) 9.28 (13) 5.89 (16) 7.98 (24) 06/01/1995 (50) 8.48 (25) 6.67 (4) 9.72 (23) 9.38 (12) 6.24 (11) 7.83 (27) 6.70 3.90 8.76 7.76 4.72 7.12 (86) 14.61 (43) 9.50 (3) 14.80 (14) 12.65 (13) N/A 13.12 (13) 11/01/2008 (57) 17.34 (22) 8.59 (7) 14.80 (14) 12.72 (12) 5.72 (35) 12.44 (25) 14.00 6.80 13.52 10.93 5.05 11.52 (7) 11.64 (40) 8.48 (44) 14.23 (44) 12.40 (43) 6.53 (45) 4.72 (60) 04/01/1999 (11) 11.96 (7) 8.87 (1) 14.66 (1) 12.83 (1) 6.95 (4) 5.15 (3) 11.53 8.43 14.14 12.31 6.48 4.81 (82) 10.40 (47) 7.92 (30) 14.22 (28) 11.80 (36) 9.47 (2) 10.51 (5) 09/01/1992 (45) 11.96 (29) 8.87 (7) 14.66 (16) 12.83 (12) 6.95 (24) 9.35 (28) 10.16 7.29 13.39 11.34 6.12 8.74 (35) 11.70 (31) 8.53 (13) 14.57 (18) 12.64 (16) 6.73 (29) 7.17 (41) 12/01/1996 (45) 11.96 (29) 8.87 (7) 14.66 (16) 12.83 (12) 6.95 (24) 7.54 (28) 10.16 7.29 13.39 11.34 6.12 6.91 (39) 3.37 (36) 6.43 (43) 13.46 (41) 11.89 (30) 7.88 (28) 12.22 (N/A) 06/01/1967 (16) 7.08 (8) 8.55 (8) 14.50 (21) 13.03 (8) 8.33 (15) N/A 1.98 6.09 12.95 11.13 7.18 N/A (88) 17.33 (70) 6.65 (48) 14.43 (38) 13.40 (32) 7.79 (35) 7.81 (87) 04/01/1999 (87) 17.59 (68) 6.93 (43) 14.54 (35) 13.56 (29) 7.69 (38) 9.64 (55) 19.67 6.51 13.65 12.41 7.20 9.88 (70) -3.73 (78) -1.32 (46) 7.52 (4) 4.47 (24) 1.30 (77) 7.84 (34) 01/01/1992 (3) 1.00 (17) -1.60 (52) 6.53 (29) 3.81 (59) 0.75 (90) 4.95 (100) -0.86 -1.51 5.95 3.95 1.83 6.87 2 Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' DROP Plan Investment Option Comparative Performance As of December 31, 2016 QTD 1 YR 3 YR 5 YR 7 YR 10 YR Inception Inception Date Specialty VT Nuveen Real Estate Securities (FARCX) -2.91 (54) 6.79 (40) 13.20 (18) 11.71 (19) 13.66 (12) 5.87 (8) 11.97 (14) 07/01/1995 MSCI U.S. REIT Index -2.96 (55) 8.60 (20) 13.23 (16) 11.87 (15) 13.63 (13) 4.96 (26) 10.85 (47) IM Real Estate Sector (MF) Median -2.79 6.17 12.17 10.85 12.78 4.43 10.79 Stable Value/Cash Management VT PLUS Fund 0.44 (56) 1.72 (63) 1.77 (52) 1.96 (43) 2.28 (44) 2.89 (34) 3.16 (40) 01/01/2005 BofA Merrill Lynch 3 Month U.S. T-Bill 0.08 (96) 0.33 (100) 0.14 (100) 0.12 (100) 0.12 (100) 0.80 (100) 1.32 (100) IM U.S. GIC/Stable Value (SA+CF) Median 0.47 1.91 1.82 1.79 2.26 2.78 3.07 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Returns are expressed as percentages. 3 Investment Performance Review Period Ending December 31, 2016 Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Fund (Preliminary Universe and Real Estate Data) AndCo Consulting 1 (844) 44-ANDCO I AndCoConsultingxom Formerly The Bogdahn Group AndCo Firm Rebrand On the cover of your standard quarterly report, and on all documents we will be sending to you going forward, you will notice your name comes before ours. That is not by accident. Everything from the services we provide to how we are structured as an organization is designed to ensure that you, our client, comes first. We take our role as an independent institutional consulting firm and plan fiduciary very seriously, and we believe this approach and philosophy adds real value to our clients. To ensure that the client always comes first in the service equation and that our fiduciary responsibility is never compromised, the important principles of independence, objectivity and transparency are embodied in our mission and vision statements and define who we are as an organization. They are engrained in our culture and corporate values and used to guide our actions every day. Over the years, the investment environment has grown more complex and we've seen our staff grow and our expertise and services advance to serve our expanding clientele. To strengthen business continuity and meet the needs of our clients, we recently began a program to broaden employee ownership of our firm. Inherently, as we thought about our mission (To represent the sole interest of our clients by redefining independence), vision (To be a transformational organization viewed as the leader in our industry), and the passion behind our service culture, we wanted to do something significant that would better reflect who we are as an organization and how we never compromise our client -first mentality and service philosophy. Why a Company Rebrand? After more than a decade of growth and original brand equity, why would a company rebrand now? Though client -first consulting has been a cornerstone of our company since its inception, with the milestone of transitioning majority ownership from our founder to the firm's next generation of leadership, it became the perfect opportunity to reintroduce ourselves to the world as AndCo. We have always believed the assets of our firm were the collective body of individuals working together to serve our clients. It has always been bigger than one or even a handful of people. We feel this rebrand is a better reflection of this belief and conviction along with our mission and vision. Our team members could work at other places but they choose to work at AndCo because they believe this approach is better for clients. Business will continue as usual, as the leadership and team you have come to know and trust will not be impacted by this rebrand. Why AndCo? As AndCo, we want your first impression to be our commitment to client -first consulting. Our promise to you spans from our very foundation up to the name on our building. Most importantly, this company rebrand sets the stage for the future of our firm, and your place in it. At AndCo, it is always: III Our Clients ■ Broad asset class returns were mixed for the 41h quarter. Domestic equity indices posted positive performance for the quarter, while broad international equity and fixed income benchmarks were negative for the period. The quarter's investment cycle was dominated first by the U.S. presidential election, and then by the largely anticipated Federal Reserve (Fed) interest rate hike in December. The uncertainty that drove equity returns lower during the first half of the quarter gave way to a string of positive macroeconomic data and a Trump victory that drove equity benchmarks, particularly in the U.S., higher through the remainder of the quarter. Trump's platform of strengthening infrastructure, deregulation, and lower personal and corporate taxes drove expectations higher for both domestic growth and inflation. The broad market Russell 3000 Index returned 4.2% for the quarter. The small cap Russell 2000 Index more than doubled performance of other capitalization indices with a return of 8.8% for the quarter and a strong 21.3% for the trailing one-year period. ■ International equity market benchmarks stumbled during the quarter with the broad market MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Index posting a return of -1.3% for the period in U.S. dollar (USD) terms. Despite the difficult quarter, the broad market index returned a moderate 4.5% for 2016. Developed markets (-0.7%) outperformed emerging markets (-4.2%) for the quarter as developed market economic data was generally positive. However, emerging markets substantially outperformed developed markets for the one-year period with the MSCI Emerging Markets Index returning 11.2% versus a return of 1.0% for the MSCI EAFE Index. ■ The quarter's strong economic backdrop led the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to follow through on investors' expectations and raise short-term interest rates for the first time in 2016. The same events that drove domestic equity markets higher were a headwind for fixed income markets. As a result, the U.S. Treasury yield curve rose dramatically during the quarter with modestly elevated rates at shorter maturities and larger increases in mid - to -long-term maturities. All investment grade benchmarks were negative for the quarter, but the mortgage -backed securities sector was down less than other investment grade sectors due to its shorter duration. Although the 4th quarter took back some of 2016's earlier gains, investment grade benchmarks finished in positive territory for the year. The Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index was the best performer over the one-year period, advancing a solid 6.1 %. Corporate issues benefited from increased demand for yield which led to credit spread compression, especially in lower quality issues. Quarter Performance MSCI ACWxUS 1.3% MSCI EAFE -0.7% C MSCI Emerg Mkts -4.2% S&P 500 Russell 3000 Russell 1000 Russell MidCap Russell 2000 Barclays US Agg Barclays US Govt Barclays US TIPS Barclays MBS Barclays Corp IG 3-Month T-Bill -3.0% -3.7% -2.4% -2.0% -2.8% 0.1 % The Market Environment Major Market Index Performance As of December 31, 2016 3.8% 4.2% 3.8% 3.2% 8.8% 1 -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% MSCI ACWxUS MSCI EAFE MSCI Emerg Mkts S&P 500 Russell 3000 Russell 1000 Russell MidCap Russell 2000 Barclays US Agg Barclays US Govt Barclays US TIPS Barclays NIBS Barclays Corp IG 3-Month T-Bill 1-Year Performance 4.5% 1.0% 11.2% 12.0% 12.7% 12.1% 13.8% 21.3% 2.6% 1.0% 4.7% 1.7% 6.1 % 0.3% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0% 22.0% Source: Investment Metrics 3 • U.S. equity index returns were positive across the style and capitalization spectrum for the 4th quarter as well as for calendar year 2016. During the quarter, index returns were driven by encouraging economic data including improvements in GDP growth, employment, housing, and consumer confidence being reported throughout the period. Domestic markets continued to rally after the November presidential election with several domestic indices hitting new highs on expectations resulting from Trump's "market -friendly" policy objectives. While the Fed did increase interest rates in December, the market reaction was relatively tame as the rate hike was widely expected. • Small cap benchmarks posted the quarter's strongest performance for both value and growth issues. At the core, the small cap Russell 2000 Index returned a robust 8.8% for the quarter and a stellar 21.3% for the year. Although still positive, the core large cap Russell 1000 Index returned a lower 3.8% for the quarter and 12.1 % for the year. This dispersion is not totally outside of the norm as small cap stocks generally outperform large cap stocks during "risk -on" market expansions. Interestingly, mid cap stocks finished behind both small and large cap issues for the quarter. This is partially due to the Russell Midcap Index's higher allocations to the real estate and utilities sectors, which were two of the worst performing sectors for the quarter. • Value benchmarks more than doubled their comparable growth benchmarks across the capitalization spectrum for both the quarter and one-year periods. Unlike prior quarters where value index outperformance was driven by exposure to higher yielding "bond proxy" sectors, this quarter's returns were led by exposure to cyclical sectors, particularly financials. Value -style outperformance persists over the one-year period with double-digit returns ranging from an impressive 31.7% for the Russell 2000 Value Index to a still strong 17.3% for the Russell 1000 Value Index. In contrast, growth index performance lagged value results substantially, returning 11.3% and 7.1 % for the Russell 2000 Growth and Russell 1000 Growth respectively. ■ Domestic equity valuations appear stretched relative to historical levels based on Forward Price/Earnings ratios (P/E), with even the cheapest relative indices trading marginally above historical valuations. The large and midcap growth indices have valuation levels near their respective historical averages, while the remaining indices fall between 110% and 137% of their 15-year averages. The Market Environment Domestic Equity Style Index Performance As of December 31, 2016 Quarter Performance - Russell Style Series 3000 Value 3000 Index 3000 Growth 1.2% 1000 Value 1000 Index 1000 Growth 1.0% MidCap Value MidCap Index MidCap Growth 2000 Value 2000 Index 2000 Growth 0.5% 7.2% 4.2% 6.7% 3.8% 5.5% 3.2% 8.8% 3.6% 14.1 % 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 1-Year Performance - Russell Style Series 3000 Value 3000 Index 3000 Growth 1000 Value 1000 Index 1000 Growth MidCap Value MidCap Index MidCap Growth 2000 Value 2000 Index 2000 Growth 18.4% 12.7% 7.4% 17.3% 12.1% 7.1 % 20.0% 13.8% 7.3% 21.3% 11.3% 31.7% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% l i Source: Investment Metrics 4 Large cap sector performance spanned a range of nearly 25% during the 4th quarter, with results in five of eleven economic sectors outpacing the Russell 1000 Index return, and eight of eleven sectors posting gains for the period. Financials were the clear leader during the quarter, posting a strong return of 20.4%, which nearly tripled the result of any other sector. Financials benefited from expectations for potential deregulation as well as the impact of higher interest rates on future profitability. The industrials (7.6%) and materials (4.9%) sectors also outperformed for the period as Trump's promise for increased investment in U.S. infrastructure brightened the outlook for both sectors. The energy sector (7.0%) also posted a solid gain for the quarter as oil prices rose following an OPEC agreement to cut supply in November. Prices rose further after several non -OPEC countries indicated they would also reduce production. The real estate and health care sectors were the weakest performers for the quarter, both posting -4.1 % for the period. Real estate and other "bond proxy" sectors such as consumer staples and utilities were impacted by higher interest rates, reducing the demand for more defensive equity issues. The health care sector's weak performance was more symptomatic of the uncertainty surrounding the future of heath care regulation under a new Administration determined to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Despite some divergence in the 4th quarter, sector performance over the one-year period was robust with ten of eleven sectors posting positive results and seven putting up double-digit gains. Small cap sector results were roughly in -line with large caps for the 41h quarter, with five of eleven economic sectors outpacing the Russell 2000 Index return for the quarter and ten of eleven sectors posting positive results for the period. Most of the trends observable in large cap index sector performance also impacted the small cap sectors, but to a larger, positive degree. Similar to large cap issues, higher yielding, defensive sectors lagged the more cyclical, economically sensitive sectors. Over the trailing one-year period the materials, financials, industrials, and energy sectors each posted returns in excess of 30%. The sole negative small cap sector for the year was health care with a return of -7.5%. ■ Using S&P 500 sector valuations as a proxy for the market, Forward P/E ratios for five GICS sectors were below their long-term averages at quarter -end. The technology and health care sectors were trading at the largest discount to their long-term average P/E ratios. In contrast, the energy and utilities sector valuations were the most extended relative to their historical P/E ratios. The Market Environment GICS Sector Performance & (Sector Weight) As of December 31, 2016 Russell 1000 Consumer Disc (12.6%) Consumer Staples (9.1 %) Energy (7.1 %) Financials (13.8%) Health Care (13.6%) Industrials (10.3%) Info Technology (20.8%) Materials (3.2%) Real Estate (3.8%) Telecom Services (2.5%) Utilities (3.2%) -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% Consumer Disc (12.7%) Consumer Staples (3.0%) Energy (3.3%) Financials (18.3%) Health Care (13.2%) Industrials (14.4%) Info Technology (17.6%) Materials (4.8%) Real Estate (8.1 %) Telecom Services (0.7%) Utilities (3.8%) Russell 2000 ■Quarter ❑1-Year i0.4% 21.4% 19.1% ] 18.9% 23.9% 17.2% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% ■Quarter 1:11-Year 7.9% 12.7% 6.4% 23.1 % 18.0% 30.2% 23.4 % 35.1 % -6.2% -7.5% 12.5% 32.4% 5.0% 23.4% 11.4% 48.4% 4.0% 23.2% 9.1 % 20.6% 5.3% 23.2% 15.0% -5.0% 5.0% 15.0% 25.0% 35.0% 45.0% l� Source: Morningstar Direct 5 The Market Environment Russell 1000Return Apple Inc Top 10 Weighted 2.95% Stocks e 3.0% Return 12.5% Information Technology Microsoft Corp 2.19% 8.6% 15.1 % Information Technology Exxon Mobil Corp 1.75% 4.3% 19.9% Energy Johnson & Johnson 1.47% -1.8% 15.3% Health Care JPMorgan Chase & Co 1.46% 30.5% 34.6% Financials Berkshire Hathaway Inc B 1.43% 12.8% 23.4% Financials Amazon.com Inc 1.35% -10.4% 10.9% Consumer Discretionary General Electric Co 1.35% 7.5% 4.6% Industrials AT&T Inc 1.22% 6.0% 29.9% Telecommunication Services Facebook Inc A 1.20% -10.3% 9.9% Information Technology Russell 1000 CVR Energy Inc 10 Performing Weight 0.00% Stocks (by 1-Qtr Return 91.7% Quarter)Top I -Year Return -27.2% Sector Energy CoreCivic Inc 0.01% 79.4% 0.8% Real Estate United States Steel Corp 0.02% 75.4% 319.6% Materials California Resources Corp 0.00% 70.3% -8.6% Energy NVIDIA Corp 0.25% 56.0% 226.9% Information Technology SVB Financial Group 0.04% 55.3% 44.4% Financials KeyCorp 0.09% 50.9% 42.1 % Financials EP Energy Corp A 0.00% 49.5% 49.5% Energy Goldman Sachs Group Inc 0.43% 48.9% 34.9% Financials SLM Corp 0.02% 47.5 % 69.0°% Financials Russell 1000 Twilio Inc A 10 Performing Weight 0.00% Stocks (by Quarter)Bottom 1 -Qtr 1-Year Return Return -55.2°% N/A Sector 9 Information Technology Puma Biotechnology Inc 0.00% -54.2% -60.8% Health Care Community Health Systems Inc 0.00% -51.6% -74.5% Health Care Fitbit Inc A 0.00% -50.7% -75.3% Information Technology GoPro Inc A 0.00% -47.8% -51.6% Consumer Discretionary Hertz Global Holdings Inc 0.01% -46.3% -61.8% Industrials GNC Holdings Inc 0.00% -45.1 % -63.0% Consumer Discretionary Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc 0.01% -44.8% -60.2% Health Care Juno Therapeutics Inc 0.01% -37.2% -57.1% Health Care Groupon Inc 0.01% -35.5% 8.1% Consumer Discretionary Source: Morningstar Direct Top 10 Index Weights & Quarterly Performance for the Russell 1000 & 2000 As of December 31, 2016 If Russell 2000 Advanced Micro Devices Inc Top 10 Weighted Weight 0.45% Stocks 1-Qtr Return 64.1% 1-Year Return 295.1% 11�� M Sector Information Technology Microsemi Corp 0.33% 28.6% 65.6% Information Technology Webster Financial Corp 0.26% 43.7% 50.0% Financials Prosperity Bancshares Inc 0.26% 31.4% 53.5% Financials Bank of the Ozarks Inc 0.25% 37.5% 8.0% Financials RSP Permian Inc 0.23% 15.1% 82.9% Energy Curtiss-Wright Corp 0.23% 8.2% 44.4% Industrials EMCOR Group Inc 0.23% 18.8% 48.2% Industrials Aspen Technology Inc 0.23% 16.9% 44.8% Information Technology PrivateBancorp Inc 0.23% 18.0% 32.2% Financials Quarter)Top 10 Performing Stocks (by Russell 2000��� eight &I-QtrA 1-Year Sector Return Wins Finance Holdings Inc 0.01% 508.7 % 1400.0% Financials Key Energy Services Inc 0.00% 293.0% -66.2% Energy Peabody Energy Corp 0.00% 222. %% -34.9% Energy Altisource Asset Management Corp 0.00% 189.2% 211.8% Real Estate Seventy Seven Energy Inc 0.00% 138.7% 4185.7% Energy AK Steel Holding Corp 0.17% 111.4% 355.8% Materials Era Group Inc 0.02% 110.8% 52.2% Energy NL Industries Inc 0.00% 107.4% 168.1% Industrials Fred's Inc 0.03% 106.1% 15.6% Consumer Discretionary Pier 1 Imports Inc 0.04% 104.8% 77.9% Consumer Discretionary 2000Bottom 10 Performing Stocks (by Quarter) Russell Weight I -Qtr 1-Year Sector Return Return Code Rebel Corp 0.00% -98.0%-100.0% Information Technology Republic Airways Holdings Inc 0.00% -93.4% -98.5% Industrials Basic Energy Services Inc 0.00% -92.5% -97.7% Energy Ophthotech Corp 0.01% -89.5% -93.8% Health Care Cempra Inc 0.01% -88.4% -91.0% Health Care Violin Memory Inc 0.00% -88.2% -98.2% Information Technology Adeptus Health Inc Class A 0.01% -82.3% -86.0% Health Care 6D Global Technologies Inc 0.00% -80.0% -99.7% Information Technology Proteon Therapeutics Inc 0.00% -79.6% -87.7% Health Care Anthera Pharmaceuticals Inc 0.00% -79.4% -86.0% Health Care ■ As the USD versus local currency return charts illustrate, the USD's strength was a major headwind for international index performance during the 4th quarter as well as over the trailing one-year period. The primary factor contributing to the return differentials in 2016 was increasing divergence in U.S. monetary policy (tightening) relative to other developed countries (further accommodation). While the U.S. growth prospects support reduced monetary stimulus, economic data in the Eurozone supports a continuation of monetary accommodation to bolster what has been a slow recovery. As such, the European Central Bank (ECB) lengthened its quantitative easing program, originally scheduled to end in March 2017, to December 2017. Although the program was extended, the ECB reduced the size of monthly purchases from $80 billion euros to $60 billion euros. This economic divergence was further reinforced after the election as Trump's pro -growth policies and protectionist views on trade, if enacted, favor additional USD strength. ■ The 41h quarter's USD performance was negative for both developed (-0.7%) and emerging (4.2%) markets. While emerging market performance (-1.4%) was also negative in local currency terms for the period, the currency impact was more pronounced in developed market results with the MSCI-EAFE Index's local currency return of 7.1% representing a 7.9% spread relative to the benchmark's USD returns. While USD strength is also evident in the one-year performance of developed markets (1.0% USD vs. 5.3% local), USD emerging market performance of 11.2% marginally outpaced the emerging market local currency return of 9.7%. Japanese equities advanced considerably in local currency terms as a weaker yen was viewed as a major tailwind to its export driven economy. The U.K. also posted a solid quarter in local currency terms on the back of a weakening pound sterling and continued stimulus. Despite their local currency return strength, the USD returns of both countries were negative for the quarter with Japan returning -0.2% and the U.K. returning -0.9%. ■ While the 4th quarter's emerging market results were negatively impacted by rising yields, a stronger USD, and fears surrounding future U.S. trade and foreign policy, one-year performance in emerging markets was more than double the returns posted by developed markets. Although one-year of outperformance does not represent a trend, emerging market investors are hoping for a continuance of 2016's emerging market performance surge after several years of lagging results relative to domestic and developed international equity markets. Source: MSCI Global Index Monitor (Returns are Net) The Market Environment International and Regional Market Index Performance (Country Count) As of December 31, 2016 AC World x US (45) WORLD x US (22) EAFE (21) Europe & ME (16) Pacific (5) Emerging Mkt (23) EM EMEA (10) EM Asia (8) Quarter Performance -1.3% -0.4% -0.7% 0.5% -1.0% -4.2% -1.4% NOW 1.8% -6.1 % -3.1 % 3.7% ■USD ❑Local Currency 4.9% 6.9% 7.1% 5.3% 10.2% EM Latin Amer (5) I -0.9% 1.2°i° 7:j . 1 -8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 1-Year Performance I■USD ❑Local Currency AC World x US (45) WORLD x US (22) EAFE (21) Europe & ME (16) Pacific (5) Emerging Mkt (23) EM EMEA (10) EM Asia (8) EM Latin Amer (5) 7 -5.0% 4.5% 7.0% 2.8% 6.5% 1.0% 5.3% 6.8% 4.2%, 2.3% 11.2% 7.7699% 7% 19.9% 12.2% 31.0% 24.3% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% The Market Environment Consumer Discretionary Sector Weight 12.5% QuarterIVISCI-EAFE 1.6% -1.3% Consumer Staples 11.2% -10.3% -2.8% Energy 5.5% 10.4% 26.8% Financials 21.2% 9.5% -1.7% Health Care 10.7% -7.8% -11.8% Industrials 14.0% -1.9% 6.7% Information Technology 5.5% -3.2% 3.6% Materials 7.9% 3.4% 24.3% Real Estate 3.7% -7.4% 2.6% Telecommunication Services 4.5% -6.9% -7.3% Utilities Total 3.4% 100.0% -7.4% -5.5% Consumer Discretionary 11.5% Quarter -0.9% -0.6% Consumer Staples 9.8% -10.1 % -1.9% Energy 7.3% 8.3% 31.3% Financials 23.4% 6.8% 4.0% Health Care 8.1 % -8.1 % -13.1 % Industrials 11.7% -2.2% 6.3% Information Technology 9.3% -5.0% 10.7% Materials 8.0% 2.6% 27.6% Real Estate 3.3% -7.9% 1.4% Telecommunication Services 4.7% -6.7% -4.1% Utilities Total 3.2% ii -7.2% -3.3% IVISCI - Emerging Mkt Consumer Discretionary Sector Weight 10.3% Quarter Return -9.5% 1 -Year Keturn 0.9% Consumer Staples 7.2% -10.5% 0.4% Energy 7.9% 8.0% 36.5% Financials 24.4% -0.7% 15.0% Health Care 2.5% -9.6% -7.5% Industrials 5.8% -6.2% -1.9% Information Technology 23.3% -6.3% 16.8% Materials 7.4% 4.2% 31.4% Real Estate 2.6% -10.5% -1.8% Telecommunication Services 5.9% -6.2% 2.0% Utilities Total 2.9% ii i -6.8% 3.2% Source: MSCI Global Index Monitor (Returns are Net in USD) U.S. Dollar International Index Attribution & Country Detail As of December 31, 2016 Country Japan Weight 24.1% Weight 17.0% • -. Retur�lllllllllllllllfReturnM -0.2% , 2.40 United Kingdom 18.3% 12.9% -0.9% -0.1% France 10.2% 7.2% 2.9% 4.9% Germany 9.3% 6.5% 1.5% 2.8% Switzerland 8.7% 6.1 % -3.9% -4.9% Australia 7.4% 5.2% 0.7% 11.5% Netherlands 3.3% 2.3% -2.1 % 4.8% Hong Kong 3.3% 2.3% -9.0% 2.3% Spain 3.1% 2.2% 2.2% -1.0% Sweden 2.8% 2.0% -0.8% 0.6% Italy 2.1 % 1.5% 10.8% -10.5% Denmark 1.7% 1.2% -8.7% -15.8% Singapore 1.2% 0.9% -3.6% 1.4% Belgium 1.2% 0.8% -11.8% -7.6% Finland 1.0% 0.7% -4.4% -4.7% Israel 0.7% 0.5% -11.3% -24.9% Norway 0.7% 0.5% 2.4% 13.3% Ireland 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% -7.1% Austria 0.2% 0.1% 6.5% 11.3% New Zealand 0.2% 0.1% -10.9% 18.4% Portugal Total EAFE Countries 0.2% i0 0.1% -2.9% 3.6% 1.0% Canada Total D- F 7.1 % ,,rO.7% 3.3% i 24.6% China 6.0% -7.1% 0.9% Korea 3.3% -5.6% 8.8% Taiwan 2.8% -2.2% 18.5% India 1.9% -8.0% -1.4% Brazil 1.7% 2.1 % 66.2% South Africa 1.6% -4.1% 17.9% Russia 1.0% 18.6% 54.8% Mexico 0.8% -7.9% -9.2% Indonesia 0.6% -7.8% 17.0% Malaysia 0.6% -8.4% -3.9% Thailand 0.5% -1.8% 26.6% Philippines 0.3% -12.8% -6.6% Chile 0.3% 2.2% 15.6% Poland 0.3% 3.4% 0.1% Turkey 0.2% -13.7% -8.5% Qatar 0.2% 0.7% 6.3% United Arab Emirates 0.2% -1.5% 13.6% Colombia 0.1% -2.3% 26.5% Peru 0.1% 2.5% 55.6% Greece T 0.1% 15.3% -12.1% Hungary 0.1% 9.3% 35.4% Czech Republic 0.0% -3.4% -5.0% Egypt Total ACWIxUS Countries 0.0% 100.0% -23.3% -11.5% • After defying logic and market expectations with solid positive results for most of 2016, fixed income benchmarks fell across various sectors and quality segments during the 41h quarter as the reality of higher interest rates and inflation expectations exerted their powerful impact on yields. On the interest rate front, market rates rose through the quarter as investors prepared for a telegraphed, and ultimately realized, interest rate increase of 25 basis points (bps) by the Fed. The December increase was supported by continued improvement in the U.S. economy, and represented the sole Fed rate increase for 2016. On the inflation front, Donald Trump's victory in the U.S. presidential election also played a role in the quarter's negative fixed income results as market expectations after the victory shifted sentiment toward potentially higher inflation and economic growth. ■ Looking through the quality lens, each of the fixed income quality segment benchmarks (with the exception of high yield) finished the 4th quarter down roughly -3%. The high yield (lower quality) benchmark was the only index to post a positive result for the quarter with a return of 1.8%. The high yield index benefited from its lower duration (less interest rate sensitivity) as well as a steady compression in credit spreads that offset the impact of generally higher market yields. Extending the comparison to the one-year period, the quality benchmarks all posted positive results with annual returns displaying an inverse relationship with their quality. ■ Examining results on a sector basis shows the nominal Treasury sector feeling the largest impact from the yield curve shift with a 4th quarter return of -3.8%. The lower -duration TIPS index returned -2.4% for the quarter. The mortgage sector posted the quarter's best relative result with a return of -2.0% benefiting from its lower duration. Given the previously mentioned negative impact of USD strength on foreign investments, the 4th quarter was a particularly difficult quarter for global fixed income markets with the Global Aggregate ex-U.S. index returning-10.3%. Despite the 4th quarter's negative index results, each sector and global benchmark posted positive results for the trailing one-year period. The Market Environment Domestic Bond Sector & Broad/Global Bond Market Performance (Duration) As of December 31, 2016 AAA (5.4) AA (6.2) A (7.5) Baa (7.3) U.S. High Yield (4.1) U.S. Treasury(6.1) U.S. Mortgage (4.6) U.S. Corporate IG (7.3) U.S. TIPS (4.9) Aggregate (5.9) Intermediate Agg (4.3) Global Agg x US (7.8) Multiverse (6.7) Quarter Performance -3.0% -3.1 % -3.2% z.7% 1.8% -3.8% 2.0% -2.8% -2.4% -3.0% -2.0% -10.3% -6.7% -12.0% -10.0% -8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 1-Year Performance AAA (5.4) AA (6.2) A (7.5) Baa (7.3) U.S. High Yield (4.1) U.S. Treasury (6.1) U.S. Mortgage (4.6) U.S. Corporate IG (7.3) U.S. TIPS (4.9) ■ The Fed stated that future rate increases will be implemented at a Aggregate (5.9) measured pace and will be based on an ongoing assessment of current Intermediate Agg (4.3) economic data. However, future policy action by the new Trump Global Agg x US (7.8) Administration and global economic developments will likely impact the Multiverse (6.7) pace of future interest rate increases as well. 1.4% 3.1 % 4.7% 7.9 0 17.1% 1.0% 1.7% 6.1 % 4.7% 2.6% 2.0% 1.5% 2.8% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% Source: Barclays Capital Live 9 ` - Much of the index performance detailed in the bar graphs on the previous page is visible on a time series basis by reviewing the line graphs to the right. The 1-Year Trailing Market Rates' chart illustrates that after trading in a tight range for most of the year, the 10-year Treasury yield (green line) rose dramatically over the final months of 2016, closing at a yield (2.45%) near its one-year high. The blue line illustrates changes in the BAA OAS (Option Adjusted Spread). This measure quantifies the additional yield premium that investors require to purchase and hold non -Treasury issues. The steady decline in credit spreads throughout 2016 is equivalent to an interest rate decrease on corporate bonds, which results in a tailwind for corporate bond index returns. While there was some upside momentum in credit spreads early in 2016, they have narrowed by over 1.25% since their high on February 111h The lower graph provides a snapshot of the U.S. Treasury yield curve at each of the last four calendar quarters and clearly illustrates the unrest that materialized in Treasury yields during the 41h quarter. While each of the last three quarter -end yield curves show a fairly tight distribution, the December 31st reading is higher at all maturities with both short- and long- term rates finishing 2016 near the high end of their respective 12-month trading ranges. This upward shift caused yields to rise an average of 22 bps for maturities of less than one-year, 60 bps for the two- to five-year maturity range, and 81 bps for the seven- to thirty-year maturity range. Greater yield increases at the longer end of the curve represent a "steepening" of the yield curve which conveys market anticipation of higher interest rates in the future. Given the magnitude of the increase in yields that occurred during the period, it is no surprise that most fixed income indices finished the quarter in negative territory. In a rising rate environment, it is also expected that longer -duration market indices will fall more than equivalent lower -duration benchmarks. Finally, while global benchmarks are impacted by the same yield and duration factors as domestic benchmarks, they have the additional powerful lever of currency impact. This currency effect can either be an offsetting benefit to negative yield and duration factors in a rising rate environment or an exacerbation of negative performance as it was during the 41h quarter. 1-Year Trailing Market Rates 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 The Market Environment Market Rate & Yield Curve Comparison As of December 31, 2016 0.00 i Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Treasury Yield Curve 1 mo 3 mo 6 mo 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr 5 yr 7 yr 10 yr 20 yr 30 yr Source: US Department of Treasury, FRED (Federal Reserve of St. Louis) 10 Schedule of Investable Assets $108,000,009 $99,692,316 $91,384,623 $83,076,930 $74,769,237 $66,461,544 $58,153, 851 m R $49,846,158 Y R $41,538,465 $33,230,772 $24,923,079 $16,615,386 $8,307,693 $0 Schedule of Investable Assets Total Fund August 1, 2007 To December 31, 2016 9,371 13,931 ($8,307,693) 7/07 1/08 7/08 1/09 7/09 1/10 7/10 1/11 7/11 1/12 7/12 1/13 7/13 1/14 7/14 1/15 7/15 1/16 7/16 12/16 — Total Fund Net Cash Flow HE September 30, 2016 : $80,603,428 Cash & Equi Other Real Global Fixed Domestic Fixed International Domestic Equity Cash & C Global Fi Domestic Fi mrernauunai Asset Allocation by Asset Class Total Fund As of December 31, 2016 December 31, 2016: $85,319,371 Domestic Equity Allocation Allocation Market Value Allocation Market Value Allocation ■ Domestic Equity 39,420,219 48.9 ■ Domestic Equity 43,723,575 51.2 International Equity 8,184,714 10.2 International Equity 8,067,919 9.5 • Domestic Fixed Income 15,450,978 19.2 ■ Domestic Fixed Income 15,903,619 18.6 Global Fixed Income 3,918,293 4.9 Global Fixed Income 4,244,380 5.0 ■ Real Estate 8,808,132 10.9 ■ Real Estate 9,013,981 10.6 ■ Other Assets 4,101,844 5.1 ■ Other Assets 4,124,355 4.8 Cash & Equivalents 719,248 0.9 Cash & Equivalents 241,543 0.3 12 September 30, 2016 : $80,603,428 R&D TSMI is (LC) uciary is /SC\ E Asset Allocation By Manager Total Fund As of December 31, 2016 December 31, 2016: $85,319,371 TSMI is (LC) Allocation Allocation Market Value Allocation Market Value Allocation ■ VG TSMI 11,817,443 14.7 ■ VG TSMI 14,625,737 17.1 ■ Dana (LC) 15,341,664 19.0 ■ Dana (LC) 16,038,134 18.8 ■ Fiduciary 8,537,504 10.6 ■ Fiduciary 9,020,903 10.6 ■ Dana (SC) 3,723,608 4.6 ■ Dana (SC) 4,038,801 4.7 RBC 4,473,788 5.6 RBC 4,510,933 5.3 EuroPacific 3,710,926 4.6 EuroPacific 3,556,986 4.2 ■ Agincourt 7,802,572 9.7 ■ Agincourt 8,070,083 9.5 ■ GHA 7,648,405 9.5 ■ GHA 7,833,536 9.2 Templeton GB 3,918,293 4.9 Templeton GB 4,244,380 5.0 ■ American 4,347,003 5.4 ■ American 4,347,003 5.1 ■ Intercontinental 4,461,129 5.5 ■ Intercontinental 4,666,978 5.5 ■ BlackRock MAI 4,101,844 5.1 ■ BlackRock MAI 4,124,355 4.8 R & D 719,248 0.9 R & D 241,543 0.3 13 Asset Allocation vs. Target Allocation Total Fund As of December 31, 2016 Asset Allocation vs. Target Allocation Domestic Equity N1.25% International Equity -0.54 i1 Broad Market Fixed Income -0.54 i1 Intermediate Fixed Income -0.82 A Global Fixed Income -0.03 id Real Estate 10.56% Other Assets -0.17 1 Cash Equivalents 1 0.28i -11.00 % -9.00 % -6.00 % -3.00 % 0.00% 3.00% 6.00% 9.00% 11.00% Allocation Differences Market Value Allocation % ° $ ( ) Target (/°) Domestic Equity 43,723,575 51.2 50.0 International Equity 8,067,919 9.5 10.0 Broad Market Fixed Income 8,070,083 9.5 10.0 Intermediate Fixed Income 7,833,536 9.2 10.0 Global Fixed Income 4,244,380 5.0 5.0 Real Estate 9,013,981 10.6 10.0 Other Assets 4,124,355 4.8 5.0 Cash Equivalents 241,543 0.3 0.0 Total Fund 85,319,371 100.0 100.0 14 Asset Allocation Total Fund As of December 31, 2016 Asset Allocation Attributes Domestic Equity International Domestic Fixed Global Fixed Real Estate Real Return Cash Equivalent Total Fund Equity Income Income M % M % M % M % M % M % M % M % Total Domestic Equity 42,522,823 97.25 - - - 1,200,752 2.75 43,723,575 51.25 Vanguard Total Stock Index (VITSX) 14,625,737 100.00 - - - - - 14,625,737 17.14 Dana (Large Cap) 15,877,459 99.00 - - - 160,675 1.00 16,038,134 18.80 Fiduciary Management, Inc. 8,021,055 88.92 - - 999,848 11.08 9,020,903 10.57 Dana (Small Cap) 3,998,572 99.00 - - 40,229 1.00 4,038,801 4.73 Total International Equity - - 8,067,919 100.00 - - - - - 8,067,919 9.46 RBC International Portfolio - 4,510,933 100.00 - - - 4,510,933 5.29 American Funds EuroPacific Gr R6 (RERGX) - 3,556,986 100.00 - - 3,556,986 4.17 Total Domestic Fixed Income - - - - 15,572,593 97.92 - - - - - - 331,026 2.08 15,903,619 18.64 Agincourt Capital Management 7,801,346 96.67 - 268,737 3.33 8,070,083 9.46 Garcia, Hamilton & Associates - 7,771,247 99.20 - 62,290 0.80 7,833,536 9.18 Total Global Fixed Income - - - 4,244,380 100.00 - - - - 4,244,380 4.97 Templeton Global Bond Adv (FBNRX) - 4,244,380 100.00 4,244,380 4.97 Total Real Estate - - - - - - - - 9,013,981 100.00 - - - 9,013,981 10.56 American Core Realty Fund - - - 4,347,003 100.00 4,347,003 5.09 Intercontinental Real Estate - - 4,666,978 100.00 4,666,978 5.47 Total Other Assets - - - - - 4,108,033 99.60 16,322 0.40 4,124,355 4.83 BlackRock Multi -Asset Income Fund (BIICX) - - - - 4,108,033 99.60 16,322 0.40 4,124,355 4.83 Receipt & Disbursement - - - - - - - - - - - - 241,543 100.00 241,543 0.28 Total Fund Portfolio 42,522,823 49.84 8,067,919 9.46 15,572,593 18.25 4,244,380 4.97 9,013,981 10.56 4,108,033 4.81 1,789,643 2.10 85,319,371 100.00 15 Plan Sponsor TF Asset Allocation vs. All Public Plans -Total Fund 68.0 60.0 52.0 44.0 36.0 e m 28.0 0 0 a 20.0 12.0 E: 4.0 r, u 40 r� u Plan Sponsor TF Asset Allocation Total Fund As of December 31, 2016 -4.0 -12.0 US Equity Intl. Equity US Fixed Income Intl. Fixed Income Alternative Inv. Real Estate Cash • Total Fund 51.25 (28) 9.46 (86) 18.64 (89) 4.97 (52) 4.81 (58) 10.56 (21) 0.30 (91) 5th Percentile 57.79 19.96 44.23 9.78 20.95 12.85 6.59 1 st Quartile 51.32 14.40 34.71 5.31 11.92 10.09 2.48 Median 47.41 13.10 30.17 5.01 5.23 8.27 1.42 3rd Quartile 42.81 10.25 22.75 4.47 3.51 5.35 0.83 95th Percentile 30.45 7.39 15.74 3.21 0.68 2.68 0.11 Parentheses contain percentile rankings. l � 16 Financial Reconciliation Total Fund 1 Quarter Ending December 31, 2016 Financial Reconciliation Quarter to Date Market Value 10/01/2016 Net Transfers Contributions Management Distributions Fees Other Expenses Income Apprec./ Deprec. Market Value 12/31/2016 Total Domestic Equity 39,420,219 2,200,000 2,200,000 - - - 237,187 1,866,169 43,723,575 Vanguard Total Stock Index (VITSX) 11,817,443 2,200,000 2,200,000 91,991 516,302 14,625,737 Dana (Large Cap) 15,341,664 - - 97,436 599,034 16,038,134 Fiduciary Management, Inc. 8,537,504 33,690 449,709 9,020,903 Dana (Small Cap) 3,723,608 - 14,069 301,124 4,038,801 Total International Equity 8,184,714 - - - - -718 72,663 -188,741 8,067,919 RBC International Portfolio 4,473,788 -718 15,375 22,487 4,510,933 American Funds EuroPacific Gr R6 (RERGX) 3,710,926 - - - - 57,288 -211,228 3,556,986 Total Domestic Fixed Income 15,450,978 1,000,000 1,000,000 -200,000 - 125,521 -472,879 15,903,619 Agincourt Capital Management 7,802,572 500,000 500,000 - 79,670 -312,160 8,070,083 Garcia, Hamilton & Associates 7,648,405 500,000 500,000 -200,000 45,851 -160,720 7,833,536 Total Global Fixed Income 3,918,293 - - - - - 17,018 309,069 4,244,380 Templeton Global Bond Adv (FBNRX) 3,918,293 - - 17,018 309,069 4,244,380 Total Real Estate 8,808,132 - - - -8,494 - 52,110 162,233 9,013,981 American Core Realty Fund 4,347,003 - - - - 4,347,003 Intercontinental Real Estate 4,461,129 -8,494 52,110 162,233 4,666,978 Total Other Assets 4,101,844 - - - - - 42,842 -20,331 4,124,355 BlackRock Multi -Asset Income Fund (BIICX) 4,101,844 - - 42,842 -20,331 4,124,355 Receipt & Disbursement 719,248 -3,200,000 3,116,382 -3,589,326 - -4,968 348 -141 241,543 Total Fund Portfolio 80,603,428 - 6,316,382 -3,789,326 -8,494 -5,686 547,687 1,655,379 85,319,371 17 Financial Reconciliation Total Fund October 1, 2016 To December 31, 2016 Financial Reconciliation Fiscal Year to Date Market Value 10/01/2016 Net Transfers Management Contributions Distributions Fees Other Expenses Return On Investment Income Apprec./ Deprec. Market Value 12/31/2016 Total Domestic Equity 39,420,219 2,200,000 2,200,000 - - - 2,103,356 237,187 1,866,169 43,723,575 Vanguard Total Stock Index (VITSX) 11,817,443 2,200,000 2,200,000 608,294 91,991 516,302 14,625,737 Dana (Large Cap) 15,341,664 - - 696,470 97,436 599,034 16,038,134 Fiduciary Management, Inc. 8,537,504 483,399 33,690 449,709 9,020,903 Dana (Small Cap) 3,723,608 - 315,193 14,069 301,124 4,038,801 Total International Equity 8,184,714 - - - - -718 -116,078 72,663 -188,741 8,067,919 RBC International Portfolio 4,473,788 -718 37,862 15,375 22,487 4,510,933 American Funds EuroPacific Gr R6 (RERGX) 3,710,926 - - - - -153,940 57,288 -211,228 3,556,986 Total Domestic Fixed Income 15,450,978 1,000,000 1,000,000-200,000 -347,359 125,521 -472,879 15,903,619 Agincourt Capital Management 7,802,572 500,000 500,000 - -232,490 79,670 -312,160 8,070,083 Garcia, Hamilton & Associates 7,648,405 500,000 500,000-200,000 -114,869 45,851 -160,720 7,833,536 Total Global Fixed Income 3,918,293 - - - - - 326,087 17,018 309,069 4,244,380 Templeton Global Bond Adv (FBNRX) 3,918,293 - 326,087 17,018 309,069 4,244,380 Total Real Estate 8,808,132 - - - -8,494 - 214,343 52,110 162,233 9,013,981 American Core Realty Fund 4,347,003 - - - - 4,347,003 Intercontinental Real Estate 4,461,129 - -8,494 214,343 52,110 162,233 4,666,978 Total Other Assets 4,101,844 - - - - - 229511 42,842 -20,331 4,124,355 BlackRock Multi -Asset Income Fund (BIICX) 4,101,844 - 22,511 42,842 -20,331 4,124,355 Receipt & Disbursement 719,248 -3,200,000 3,116,382-3,589,326 - -4,968 207 348 -141 241,543 Total Fund Portfolio 80,603,428 - 6,316,382-3,789,326 -8,494 -5,686 2,203,066 547,687 1,655,379 85,319,371 18 Comparative Performance Total Fund As of December 31, 2016 Comparative Performance Trailing Returns QTR FYTD 1 YR 3 YR 5 YR 7 YR Inception Inception Date Total Fund Portfolio (Gross) 2.63 (3) 2.63 (3) 8.17 (23) 6.28 (3) 10.60 (2) 9.27 (6) 5.88 (45) 05/01/1998 Total Fund Policy 1.25 (25) 1.25 (25) 8.63 (12) 6.10 (4) 10.20 (6) 9.55 (4) 5.65 (64) All Public Plans -Total Fund Median 0.73 0.73 6.95 4.52 8.51 8.01 5.81 Total Fund Portfolio (Net) 2.61 2.61 7.81 5.83 10.10 8.77 5.32 05/01/1998 Total Fund Policy 1.25 1.25 8.63 6.10 10.20 9.55 5.65 Total Equity 3.92 3.92 9.86 6.58 13.22 10.88 8.09 07/31/2008 Total Equity Policy 3.41 3.41 11.59 6.95 13.44 11.57 8.03 Total Domestic Equity 4.96 (28) 4.96 (28) 10.96 (41) 7.88 (21) 13.95 (37) 11.79 (40) 8.59 (23) 07/01/2002 Total Domestic Equity Policy 4.21 (37) 4.21 (37) 12.74 (25) 8.43 (11) 14.67 (18) 12.92 (16) 8.09 (39) IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median 3.58 3.58 9.81 6.49 13.41 11.33 7.67 Total International Equity -1.42 (27) -1.42 (27) 4.15 (39) -0.30 (28) 9.37 (13) 6.48 (16) 5.20 (25) 01/01/2006 Total International Equity Policy -1.20 (25) -1.20 (25) 5.01 (34) -1.32 (43) 6.44 (42) 3.88 (47) N/A MSCI EAFE Index -0.68 (20) -0.68 (20) 1.51 (55) -1.15 (40) 7.02 (32) 4.28 (40) 3.32 (58) IM International Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median -3.70 -3.70 2.12 -1.70 5.91 3.69 3.63 Total Fixed Income -0.09 -0.09 4.02 3.04 3.50 4.34 4.76 07/01/2002 Total Fixed Income Policy -3.73 -3.73 2.19 2.02 1.50 2.75 4.03 Total Domestic Fixed Income -2.13 (6) -2.13 (6) 3.36 (44) 3.40 (44) 3.45 (16) N/A 3.41 (23) 09/01/2011 Total Domestic Fixed Income Policy -2.51 (17) -2.51 (17) 2.31 (95) 2.73 (97) 2.11 (98) 3.22 (100) 2.15 (99) IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Median -2.80 -2.80 3.10 3.30 2.83 4.18 2.98 Total Global Fixed Income 8.32 (1) 8.32 (1) 6.78 (13) 1.52 (33) 4.44 (6) N/A 3.31 (18) 09/01/2011 Citigroup World Government Bond Index -8.53 (98) -8.53 (98) 1.60 (79) -0.84 (83) -0.99 (90) 0.89 (92) -1.31 (88) IM Global Fixed Income (MF) Median -3.95 -3.95 3.35 0.43 1.44 2.50 0.93 Total Real Estate Total Real Estate Policy NCREIF Property Index IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median Total Other Assets 50% MSCI World/50% BC Agg IM Flexible Portfolio (MF) Median 2.43 (N/A) 2.43 (N/A) 9.03 (N/A) 12.18 (N/A) 12.91 (N/A) 13.03 (N/A) 6.59 (N/A) 07/01/2006 2.19 (N/A) 2.19 (N/A) 9.30 (N/A) 12.22 (N/A) 11.93 (N/A) 12.43 (N/A) 7.86 (N/A) 0.00 (N/A) 0.00 (N/A) 6.13 (N/A) 10.38 (N/A) 10.54 (N/A) 11.43 (N/A) 7.22 (N/A) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.55 (33) 0.55 (33) 6.66 (44) N/A N/A N/A 5.13 (41) 12/01/2015 -0.51 (59) -0.51 (59) 5.54 (58) 3.88 (24) 6.73 (39) 6.44 (43) 4.12 (53) -0.26 -0.26 6.21 2.14 6.05 5.99 4.33 Returns for periods greater than 1 yr. are annualized. Returns are expressed as percentage. Dana Large Cap Portfolio: Managed as broad equity from 7/1/2002-1/1/2008; large cap value from 1/1/2008-1/1/2011; and core equity from 1/1/2011 to present. Dana Custom Index: 100 % Russell 3000 Index prior to 1/1/2008; 100% Russell 1000 Value Index 1/1/2008-12/31/2010; 100 % S&P 500 Index 1/1/2011-present. 19 Comparative Performance Total Fund As of December 31, 2016 QTR FYTD 1 YR 3 YR 5 YR 7 YR Inception Inception Date Total Domestic Equity Vanguard Total Stock Index (VITSX) 4.12 (41) 4.12 (41) 12.67 (26) 8.40 (11) N/A N/A 12.04 (15) 04/01/2013 Vanguard Total Stock Market Index 4.11 (42) 4.11 (42) 12.68 (26) 8.40 (11) 14.63 (17) 12.96 (11) 12.04 (15) IM U.S. Multi -Cap Core Equity (MF) Median 3.56 3.56 9.75 6.47 13.41 11.30 10.69 Dana (Large Cap) 4.54 (27) 4.54 (27) 6.79 (85) 6.88 (79) 13.51 (70) 12.06 (69) 8.15 (74) 07/01/2002 Dana Custom Index 3.82 (50) 3.82 (50) 11.96 (31) 8.87 (39) 14.66 (44) 12.90 (44) 7.85 (91) IM U.S. Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median 3.82 3.82 10.41 8.41 14.41 12.72 8.47 Fiduciary Management, Inc. 5.66 (22) 5.66 (22) 16.48 (5) 9.28 (17) N/A N/A 11.10 (32) 08/01/2013 Russell 3000 Index 4.21 (49) 4.21 (49) 12.74 (34) 8.43 (22) 14.67 (51) 12.92 (51) 10.70 (37) IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median 4.01 4.01 10.02 7.49 14.70 12.99 9.87 Dana (Small Cap) 8.46 (64) 8.46 (64) 11.67 (93) 6.79 (67) 16.27 (46) 16.40 (18) 8.97 (76) 05/01/2005 Russell 2000 Index 8.83 (60) 8.83 (60) 21.31 (40) 6.74 (68) 14.46 (75) 13.24 (87) 9.04 (76) IM U.S. Small Cap Core Eauitv (SA+CF) Median 9.29 9.29 20.35 8.33 15.90 14.89 10.17 Total International Equity RBC International Portfolio 0.85 (36) 0.85 (36) 6.77 (20) 1.65 (13) 12.96 (3) 9.76 (1) 7.00 (8) 01/01/2006 MSCI AC World ex USA -1.20 (68) -1.20 (68) 5.01 (32) -1.32 (63) 5.48 (86) 3.39 (86) 3.53 (81) IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median -0.20 -0.20 3.39 -0.52 7.18 4.86 4.18 American Funds EuroPacific Gr R6 (RERGX) -4.15 (93) -4.15 (93) 1.01 (50) N/A N/A N/A -2.72 (34) 03/01/2015 MSCI AC World ex USA -1.20 (37) -1.20 (37) 5.01 (13) -1.32 (36) 5.48 (74) 3.39 (58) -3.00 (40) IM International Multi -Cap Core Equity (MF) Median -1.56 -1.56 0.99 -1.78 6.24 3.65 -3.37 Returns for periods greater than 1 yr. are annualized. Returns are expressed as percentage. Dana Large Cap Portfolio: Managed as broad equity from 7/1/2002-1/1/2008; large cap value from 1/1/2008-1/1/2011; and core equity from 1/1/2011 to present. Dana Custom Index: 100 % Russell 3000 Index prior to 1/1/2008; 100 % Russell 1000 Value Index 1/112008-12/31/2010; 100 % S&P 500 Index 1/1/2011-present. 20 Comparative Performance Total Fund As of December 31, 2016 QTR FYTD 1 YR 3 YR 5 YR 7 YR Inception Inception Date Total Domestic Fixed Income Agincourt Capital Management -2.83 (57) -2.83 (57) 3.53 (36) 3.37 (47) 2.84 (48) 4.19 (50) 5.36 (39) 10/01/2008 Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index -2.98 (76) -2.98 (76) 2.65 (79) 3.03 (83) 2.23 (92) 3.63 (88) 4.35 (95) IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Median -2.80 -2.80 3.10 3.30 2.83 4.18 5.15 Garcia, Hamilton & Associates -1.42 (19) -1.42 (19) 3.19 (20) 3.43 (7) 4.02 (3) 4.48 (6) 5.29 (5) 07/01/2008 Bloomberg Barclays Intermed Aggregate Index -2.05 (77) -2.05 (77) 1.97 (76) 2.43 (54) 1.95 (77) 3.11 (73) 3.72 (79) IM U.S. Intermediate Duration (SA+CF) Median -1.86 -1.86 2.38 2.44 2.30 3.33 4.10 Total Global Fixed Income Templeton Global Bond Adv (FBNRX) 8.32 (1) 8.32 (1) 6.78 (13) 1.54 (33) 4.47 (6) N/A 4.50 (9) 10/01/2011 Citigroup World Government Bond Index -8.53 (98) -8.53 (98) 1.60 (79) -0.84 (83) -0.99 (90) 0.89 (92) -0.97 (89) IM Global Fixed Income (MF) Median -3.95 -3.95 3.35 0.43 1.44 2.50 1.46 Total Real Estate American Core Realty Fund 0.00 (N/A) 0.00 (N/A) 5.83 (N/A) 10.87 (N/A) 11.25 (N/A) 11.78 (N/A) 5.40 (N/A) 07/01/2006 NCREIF Fund Index -Open End Diversified Core (EW) 2.19 (N/A) 2.19 (N/A) 9.30 (N/A) 12.22 (N/A) 12.20 (N/A) 13.29 (N/A) 6.05 (N/A) IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Intercontinental Real Estate 4.80 (N/A) 4.80 (N/A) 12.19 (N/A) 13.50 (N/A) 14.63 (N/A) N/A 14.96 (N/A) 10/01/2010 NCREIF Fund Index -Open End Diversified Core (EW) 2.19 (N/A) 2.19 (N/A) 9.30 (N/A) 12.22 (N/A) 12.20 (N/A) 13.29 (N/A) 13.13 (N/A) IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Other Assets BlackRock Multi -Asset Income Fund (BIICX) 0.55 (33) 0.55 (33) 6.66 (44) N/A N/A N/A 5.13 (41) 12/01/2015 50% MSCI World/50% BC Agg -0.51 (59) -0.51 (59) 5.54 (58) 3.88 (24) 6.73 (39) 6.44 (43) 4.12 (53) IM Flexible Portfolio (MF) Median -0.26 -0.26 6.21 2.14 6.05 5.99 4.33 Returns for periods greater than 1 yr. are annualized. Returns are expressed as percentage. Dana Large Cap Portfolio: Managed as broad equity from 7/1/2002-1/1/2008; large cap value from 1/1/2008-1/1/2011; and core equity from 1/1/2011 to present. Dana Custom Index: 100% Russell 3000 Index prior to 1/1/2008; 100% Russell 1000 Value Index 1/1/2008-12/31/2010; 100% S&P 500 Index 1/1/2011-present. 21 Comparative Performance Total Fund As of December 31, 2016 Comparative Performance Fiscal Year Returns FYTD FY2016 FY2015 FY2014 FY2013 FY2012 FY2011 FY2010 FY2009 FY2008 FY2007 FY2006 FY2005 Total Fund Portfolio (Gross) 2.63(3) 9.07(66) 1.87(7) 12.50(6) 15.11 (12) 18.93 (28) 0.08(54) 8.61 (83) 0.00(74) -11.96(33) 11.67 (88) 8.65 (45) 14.35(17) Total Fund Policy 1.25(25) 11.33(9) 0.43(26) 12.13 (10) 14.70 (16) 19.99 (12) 2.54(10) 9.32 (68) -1.86(86) -14.02(63) 13.39 (66) 9.16 (35) 9.23(84) All Public Plans -Total Fund Median 0.73 9.66 -0.54 10.16 12.51 17.93 0.22 9.93 1.59 -12.96 14.09 8.44 11.45 Total Fund Portfolio (Net) 2.61 8.54 1.41 12.01 14.56 18.28 -0.37 8.14 -0.46 -12.30 10.96 7.92 13.82 Total Fund Policy 1.25 11.33 0.43 12.13 14.70 19.99 2.54 9.32 -1.86 -14.02 13.39 9.16 9.23 Total Equity 3.92 10.82 -0.20 15.44 22.06 25.54 -4.38 10.56 -1.59 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Equity Policy 3.41 14.20 -2.23 15.81 21.82 27.76 -0.89 9.91 -4.90 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Domestic Equity 4.96(28) 11.02(54) 0.72(22) 17.57 (34) 21.70 (60) 26.53 (1) -2.59(61) 11.15 (32) -3.60(38) -16.51(9) 14.18 (71) 10.21 (31) 21.50(14) Total Domestic Equity Policy 4.21 (37) 14.96(13) -0.49 (34) 17.76 (30) 21.60 (61) 30.20 (1) 0.55 (30) 10.96 (35) -6.42 (61) -21.52 (38) 16.52 (52) 10.22 (31) 12.69(71) IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median 3.58 11.36 -1.58 16.24 22.87 -1.16 -1.58 9.72 -5.48 -22.55 16.64 8.91 14.79 Total International Equity -1.42(27) 9.61(51) -5.28(29) 4.49 (52) 24.24 (24) 20.29 (19) -10.51(43) 8.14 (54) 11.28(30) -30.51(46) 24.22 (72) N/A N/A Total International Equity Policy -1.20(25) 9.80(50) -11.78(63) 5.22 (43) 22.69 (31) 14.33 (68) -8.94(31) 3.71 (76) 3.80(56) -30.13(42) N/A N/A N/A MSCI EAFE Index -0.68(20) 7.06(67) -8.27(46) 4.70 (49) 24.29 (24) 14.33 (68) -8.94(31) 3.71 (76) 3.80(56) -30.13(42) 25.38 (64) 19.65 (46) 26.32(56) IM International Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median -3.70 9.70 -8.89 4.62 18.39 16.55 -11.38 8.93 5.19 -31.13 28.15 19.18 27.05 Total Fixed Income -0.09 3.96 1.30 5.04 0.12 8.82 3.39 9.20 15.33 0.03 5.24 3.64 1.77 Total Fixed Income Policy -3.73 5.44 1.57 2.66 -1.56 4.11 4.22 7.52 9.69 4.16 5.43 3.54 1.48 Total Domestic Fixed Income -2.13(6) 4.86(94) 3.55(10) 4.65 (43) -0.24 (14) 8.27 (14) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Domestic Fixed Income Policy -2.51 (17) 4.38(97) 2.95(58) 3.34 (96) -0.80 (30) 4.31 (98) 4.22(90) 7.52 (96) 9.69(90) 4.16(20) 5.43 (27) 3.54 (87) 1.48(100) IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Median -2.80 5.65 3.02 4.50 -1.24 6.60 5.26 9.27 12.28 2.54 5.15 3.87 3.10 Total Global Fixed Income 8.32(1) 0.84(100) -7.62(90) 6.54 (10) 3.33(3) 13.25(5) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Citigroup World Government Bond Index -8.53(98) 9.71(14) -3.83(54) -0.07 (97) -4.60 (83) 3.29 (97) 4.61(8) 4.99 (94) 13.78(51) 5.90(6) 8.69 (33) 2.23 (63) 3.02(75) IM Global Fixed Income (MF) Median -3.95 7.19 -3.70 3.53 -1.52 7.19 1.71 7.82 13.91 -1.47 7.71 2.53 4.99 Total Real Estate 2.43 (N/A) 11.16(48) 14.00 (68) 13.05 (46) 15.18 (38) 12.45 (56) 15.92 (77) 2.44 (80) -32.96 (38) 4.98 (34) 21.07 (12) N/A N/A Total Real Estate Policy 2.19(N/A) 10.62(68) 14.71 (64) 12.39 (70) 11.84 (81) 11.00 (77) 16.10(76) 5.84 (53) -22.09(5) 5.27(28) 17.31 (68) N/A N/A NCREIF Property Index 0.00(N/A) 9.22(95) 13.48(74) 11.26 (89) 11.00 (83) 11.00 (77) 16.10(76) 5.84 (53) -22.09(5) 5.27(28) 17.31 (68) 17.62 (54) 19.19(71) IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median N/A 11.02 15.93 12.90 13.22 12.90 16.62 6.39 -34.80 3.23 18.34 18.08 19.98 Total Other Assets 50% MSCI World/50% BC Agg IM Flexible Portfolio (MF) Median 0.55(33) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.51 (59) 8.79(43) -0.71 (17) 8.39 (46) 9.16 (44) 13.82 (63) 0.99(30) 8.26 (71) 5.44(38)-11.78(20) 13.22 (48) 9.16 (34) 11.00(49) -0.26 8.27 -4.47 8.01 8.30 15.69 -0.77 9.55 3.27 -17.27 12.88 8.14 10.89 Returns for periods greater than 1 yr. are annualized. Dana Large Cap Portfolio: Managed as broad equity from 7/1/2002-1/1/2008; large cap value from 1/1/2008-1/1/2011; and core equity from 1/1/2011 to present. Dana Custom Index: 100% Russell 3000 Index prior to 1/1/2008; 100% Russell 1000 Value Index 1/1/2008-12/31/2010; 100% S&P 500 Index2 1/2011-present. Total Domestic Equity Vanguard Total Stock Index (VITSX) Vanguard Total Stock Market Index IM U.S. Multi -Cap Core Equity (MF) Median Dana (Large Cap) Dana Custom Index IM U.S. Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median Fiduciary Management, Inc. Russell 3000 Index IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median Dana (Small Cap) Russell 2000 Index IM U.S. Small Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median Total International Equity Comparative Performance Total Fund As of December 31, 2016 FYTD FY2016 FY2015 FY2014 FY2013 FY2012 FY2011 FY2010 FY2009 FY2008 FY2007 FY2006 FY2005 4.12(41) 15.00(12)-0.57(34) 17.78 (30) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.11(42) 14.99(12)-0.55(34) 17.77 (30) 21.50 (62) 30.28 (16) 0.71 (23) 11.16 (30)-6.03(56)-21.19(31) 16.98 (45) 10.38 (28) 14.70(50) 3.56 11.36 -1.61 16.24 22.79 26.40 -1.74 9.59 -5.44 -22.80 16.55 8.86 14.61 4.54(27) 7.09(93)-0.05(52) 20.65 (29) 19.62 (62) 31.58 (22)-0.89(73) 10.10 (41)-13.66(97)-12.23(7) 15.43 (72) 10.93 (45) 18.87(23) 3.82(50) 15.43(21) -0.61 (62) 19.73 (45) 19.34 (65) 30.20 (45) 0.95(54) 8.90 (59)-10.62(92)-21.56(62) 16.52 (58) 10.22 (58) 14.57(56) 3.82 13.03 -0.02 19.25 20.61 29.73 1.15 9.47 -5.77 -20.45 16.97 10.76 15.03 5.66(22) 15.05(11) 1.78(30) 14.12 (69) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.21(49) 14.96(11) -0.49 (47) 17.76 (27) 21.60 (80) 30.20 (31) 0.55 (58) 10.96 (51) -6.42 (59) -21.52 (67) 16.52 (63) 10.22 (35) 14.57(77) 4.01 11.34 -1.08 16.17 24.35 27.65 1.01 11.05 -5.83 -20.69 18.09 9.29 18.66 8.46 (64) 5.64(96) 6.55 (21) 11.03 (15) 31.48 (55) 39.20 (7) 3.82 (13) 15.86 (36) -13.06 (83) -21.93 (80) 8.02 (89) 5.23 (79) N/A 8.83(60) 15.47(43) 1.25(71) 3.93 (78) 30.06 (70) 31.91 (54)-3.53(77) 13.35 (72)-9.55(65)-14.48(25) 12.34 (71) 9.92 (32) 17.95(82) 9.29 14.60 3.25 6.82 31.90 32.35 -0.64 14.54 -7.66 -17.57 14.69 8.16 21.88 RBC International Portfolio 0.85(36) 10.68(29)-4.42(20) 10.00 (8) 27.45 (18) 24.65 (4)-8.87(54) 12.31 (10) 7.72(41)-29.87(70) 24.22 (48) N/A N/A MSCI AC World ex USA-1.20(68) 9.80(32)-11.78(81) 5.22 (57) 16.98 (83) 15.04 (52)-10.42(68) 8.00 (39) 6.43(50)-29.97(70) 31.06 (14) 19.36 (72) 29.48(28) IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median -0.20 8.35 -9.08 5.72 22.91 15.39 -8.62 5.02 6.29 -27.34 23.87 20.92 26.92 American Funds EuroPacific Gr R6 (RERGX)-4.15(93) 8.52(28) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MSCI AC World ex USA-1.20(37) 9.80(15)-11.78(87) 5.22 (31) 16.98 (15) 15.04 (49)-10.42(35) 8.00 (20) 6.43(23)-29.97(34) 31.06 (6) 19.36 (28) 29.48(8) IM International Multi -Cap Core Equity (MF) Median -1.56 6.02 -7.98 4.32 13.77 14.95 -11.16 4.46 1.60 -31.11 24.83 18.28 25.21 Returns for periods greater than 1 yr. are annualized. Dana Large Cap Portfolio: Managed as broad equity from 7/1/2002-1/1/2008; large cap value from 1/1/2008-1/1/2011; and core equity from 1/1/2011 to present. Dana Custom Index: 100 % Russell 3000 Index prior to 1/1/2008; 100% Russell 1000 Value Index 1/1/2008-12/31/2010; 100 % S&P 500 Indeff /2011-present. Comparative Performance Total Fund As of December 31, 2016 FYTD FY2016 FY2015 FY2014 FY2013 FY2012 FY2011 FY2010 FY2009 FY2008 FY2007 FY2006 FY2005 Total Domestic Fixed Income Agincourt Capital Management-2.83(57) 5.87(38) 2.96(58) 4.40 (53) -1.40 (60) 6.96 (43) 4.92(14) 9.55 (39) 14.76(17) N/A N/A N/A N/A Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index-2.98(76) 5.19(79) 2.94(59) 3.96 (80) -1.68 (79) 5.16 (91) 5.26(7) 8.16 (87) 10.56(82) 3.65(32) 5.14 (53) 3.67 (76) 2.80(82) IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Median -2.80 5.65 3.02 4.50 -1.24 6.60 4.49 9.27 12.28 2.54 5.15 3.87 3.10 Garcia, Hamilton & Associates Bloomberg Barclays Intermed Aggregate Index IM U.S. Intermediate Duration (SA+CF) Median Total Global Fixed Income Templeton Global Bond Adv (FBNRX) Citigroup World Government Bond Index IM Global Fixed Income (MF) Median Total Real Estate American Core Realty Fund NCREIF Fund Index -Open End Diversified Core (EW) IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median Intercontinental Real Estate NCREIF Fund Index -Open End Diversified Core (EW) IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median Total Other Assets BlackRock Multi -Asset Income Fund (BIICX) 50% MSCI World/50% BC Agg IM Flexible Portfolio (MF) Median -1.42(19) 3.86(57) 4.15(4) 4.88(9) 0.88(8) 9.51 (5) 2.32(91) 8.87 (27) 15.91(7) N/A N/A N/A N/A -2.05(77) 3.57(72) 2.95(30) 2.74 (57) -0.71 (77) 4.31 (83) 4.22(23) 7.52 (77) 9.69(81) 4.16(36) 5.33 (69) 3.84 (60) 2.23(41) -1.86 3.89 2.70 2.87 -0.28 5.57 3.60 8.25 11.50 3.26 5.49 3.91 2.09 8.32(1) 0.84(100)-7.57(90) 6.53 (10) 3.44(3) 13.25(5) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -8.53(98) 9.71(14)-3.83(54) -0.07 (97) -4.60 (83) 3.29 (97) 4.61(8) 4.99 (94) 13.78(51) 5.90(6) 8.69 (33) 2.23 (63) 3.02(75) -3.95 7.19 -3.70 3.53 -1.52 7.19 1.71 7.82 13.91 -1.47 7.71 2.53 4.99 0.00(N/A) 9.04(97) 13.98(68) 12.49 (66) 12.27 (72) 11.57 (67) 16.11 (70) 2.72 (77)-32.96(38) 4.98(34) 16.31 (82) N/A N/A 2.19 (N/A) 10.62(68) 14.71 (64) 12.39 (70) 12.47 (69) 11.77 (66) 18.03 (41) 6.14 (52) -36.09 (54) 3.73 (46) 17.84 (58) 17.49 (55) 18.91(73) N/A 11.02 15.93 12.90 13.22 12.90 16.62 6.39 -34.80 3.23 18.34 18.08 19.98 4.80(N/A) 13.30(25) 13.88(69) 13.98 (37) 18.19 (10) 13.33 (43) 15.80(77) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.19(N/A) 10.62(68) 14.71 (64) 12.39 (70) 12.47 (69) 11.77 (66) 18.03(41) 6.14 (52)-36.09(54) 3.73(46) 17.84 (58) 17.49 (55) 18.91(73) N/A 11.02 15.93 12.90 13.22 12.90 16.62 6.39 -34.80 3.23 18.34 18.08 19.98 0.55(33) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.51 (59) 8.79(43) -0.71 (17) 8.39 (46) 9.16 (44) 13.82 (63) 0.99(30) 8.26 (71) 5.44(38)-11.78(20) 13.22 (48) 9.16 (34) 11.00(49) -0.26 8.27 -4.47 8.01 8.30 15.69 -0.77 9.55 3.27 -17.27 12.88 8.14 10.89 Returns for periods greater than 1 yr. are annualized. Dana Large Cap Portfolio: Managed as broad equity from 7/1/2002-1/1/2008; large cap value from 1/1/2008-1/1/2011; and core equity from 1/1/2011 to present. Dana Custom Index: 100% Russell 3000 Index prior to 1/1/2008; 100% Russell 1000 Value Index 1/1/2008-12/31/2010; 100% S&P 500 Index V1/2011-present. Historical Statistics 3 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Strategy Review Total Fund Portfolio I Total Fund Policy As of December 31, 2016 Historical Statistics 5 Years Return Standard Sharpe Market Up Up Down Market Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Investment 6.28 4.73 1.30 105.89 10.00 116.82 2.00 Investment 10.60 6.43 1.60 106.29 17.00 123.27 3.00 Index 6.10 4.43 L35 100.00 10.00 100.00 2.00 Index 10.20 5.90 1.68 100.00 17.00 100.00 3.00 Risk and Return 3 Years 6.4 6.3 e E 6.2 d 6.1 6.0 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 3 Year Rolling Percentile Rank All Public Plans -Total Fund 0.0 25.0 K m .c d � 50.0 `m E Tu 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 20 14 (70%) 3 (15%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) Index 20 20 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 25 Risk and Return 5 Years 10.7 10.6 • 10.5 e E 10.4 d K 10.3 10.2 10.1 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 5 Year Rolling Percentile Rank All Public Plans -Total Fund 0.0 ,^ 40 25.0 m c � 2 50.0 a E 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 20 11 (55%) 0 (0%) 7 (35%) 2 (10%) Index 20 13 (65%) 2 (10%) 5 (25%) 0 (0%) Plan Sponsor Peer Group Analysis vs. All Public Plans -Total Fund 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 c 4.0 2.0 O 0.0 A O� 00 00 MA � � M -2.0- -4.0 - 1- 1, -➢. 1 9. QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR • Investment 2.63 (3) 2.63 (3) 8.17 (23) 4.97 (7) 6.28 (3) 9.84 (2) 10.60 (2) • Index 1.25 (25) 1.25 (25) 8.63 (12) 4.82 (8) 6.10 (4) 9.57 (4) 10.20 (6) Median 0.73 0.73 6.95 3.31 4.52 7.61 8.51 Comparative Performance 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Sep-2016 Jun-2016 Mar-2016 Investment 3.08 (65) 1.26 (90) 0.98 (53) Index 3.34 (52) 2.12 (36) 1.67 (18) Median 3.38 1.91 1.04 26 Strategy Review Total Fund Portfolio I Total Fund Policy As of December 31, 2016 Plan Sponsor Peer Group Analysis vs. All Public Plans -Total Fund 26.0 23.0 20.0 17.0 O 14.0 O 11.0 O 3 8.0 i 5.0 2.0 • -1.0 -4.0 -7.0 -10.0 `01 0 qA Oct-2015 Oct-2014 Oct-2013 Oct-2012 Oct-2011 Oct-2010 To To To To To To Sep-2016 Sep-2015 Sep-2014 Sep-2013 Sep-2012 Sep-2011 • Investment 9.07 (66) 1.87 (7) 12.50 (6) 15.11 (12) 18.93 (28) 0.08 (54) • Index N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Median 9.66 -0.54 10.16 12.51 17.93 0.22 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Dec-2015 Sep-2015 Jun-2015 3.48 (20) -4.62 (35) 0.06 (38) 3.77 (10) 4.52 (30) 0.23 (29) 2.88 -5.04 -0.11 Historical Statistics 3 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market Up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Strategy Review Vanguard Total Stock Index (VITSX) I Vanguard Total Stock Market Index As of December 31, 2016 Historical Statistics 5 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market Up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Investment 8.40 10.86 0.79 99,95 10.00 99.88 2.00 Investment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Index 8.40 10.86 0.79 100.00 10.00 100.00 2.00 Index 14.63 10.55 1.35 100.00 17.00 100.00 3.00 Risk and Return 3 Years 8.4 8.3 10.8 1 f Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 3 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Multi -Cap Core Equity (MF) 0.0 25.0 ♦♦♦����^ '�� `m a c 50.0 d 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 4 4 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) - Index 20 11 (55%) 9 (45%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 27 Risk and Return 5 Years 14.7 14.6 10.5 10.6 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 5 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Multi -Cap Core Equity (MF) 0.0 c 25.0 i����������♦♦ ���� d .c 2 50.0 !a c d 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 0 0 0 0 0 Index 20 15 (75%) 5 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Multi -Cap Core Equity (MF) 20.0 17.0 14.0 •O 11.0 c 8.0 LY •O 5.0 2.0 -1.0 -4.0 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR • Investment 4.12 (41) 4.12 (41) 12.67 (26) 6.37 (14) 8.40 (11) N/A N/A O Index 4.11 (42) 4.11 (42) 12.68 (26) 6.36 (14) 8.40 (11) 14.19 (17) 14.63 (17) Median 3.56 3.56 9.75 4.16 6.47 13.01 13.41 Comparative Performance 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Sep-2016 Jun-2016 Mar-2016 Investment 4.42 (53) Index 4.41 (54) Median 4.48 2.67 (21) 2.69 (20) 1.38 0.95 (38) 0.95 (38) 0.36 Strategy Review Vanguard Total Stock Index (VITSX) I Vanguard Total Stock Market Index As of December 31, 2016 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Multi -Cap Core Equity (MF) 44.0 38.0 32.0 O 26.0 20.0 •O 00 14.0 L 3 N 8.0 2.0 O 00 -4.0 -10.0 -16.0 -22.0 Oct-2015 Oct-2014 Oct- 2013 Oct- 2012 Oct- 2011 Oct- 2010 To To To To To To Sep-2016 Sep-2015 Sep-2014 Sep-2013 Sep-2012 Sep-2011 • Investment 15.00 (12) -0.57 (34) 17.78 (30) N/A N/A N/A 0 Index 14.99 (12) -0.55 (34) 17.77 (30) 21.50 (62) 30.28 (16) 0.71 (23) Median 11.36 -1.61 16.24 22.79 26.40 -1.74 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Dec-2015 Sep-2015 Jun-2015 6.26 (15) 6.25 (16) 4.87 -7.26 (37) -7.26 (36) -8.02 0.06 (43) 0.08 (41) -0.10 28 Historical Statistics 3 Years Standard Sharpe Up Up Down Down Return Deviation Ratio Market Quarters Market Quarters Capture Capture Investment 6.88 10.64 0.67 89.50 8.00 98.45 4.00 Index 8.87 10.59 0.85 100.00 11.00 100.00 1.00 Risk and Return 3 Years 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 c V 7.5 19 7.0 6.5 6.0 10.5 10.6 10 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment 0 Index 3 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) 0.0 c 25.0 50.0 ♦♦ 1u Of 75.0 100.0 I B 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Strategy Review Dana (Large Cap) I Dana Custom Index As of December 31, 2016 Historical Statistics 5 Years Standard Sharpe Up Up Down Down Return Deviation Ratio Market Quarters Market Quarters Capture Capture Investment 13.51 10.48 1.26 95.02 14.00 98.37 6.00 Index 14.66 10.28 1.38 100.00 17.00 100.00 3.00 Risk and Return 5 Years 15.0 14.7- / 14.4 - e 14.1 - 13.8 13.5- 13.2 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment 0 Index 5 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) 0.0 c 25.0 m d ,ram ♦ 4%` 2 50.0 ,� , ,♦�, ♦ �I 75.0 �,,,►,,�I 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3114 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 20 0 (0%) 10 (50%) 8 (40%) 2 (10%) - Investment 20 0 (0%) 4 (20%) 11 (55%) 5 (25%) - Index 20 0 (0%) 9 (45%) 11 (55%) 0 (0%) - Index 20 0 (0%) 7 (35%) 6 (30%) 7 (35%) 29 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) 20.0 17.0 . 14.0 O 0 0 O � 11.0 8.0 0 0 5.0 O 0 O O EL d 2.0 -1.0 -4.0 i t I o I QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR • Investment 4.54 (27) 4.54 (27) 6.79 (85) 2.85 (87) 6.88 (79) 12.94 (77) 13.51 (70) • Index 3.82 (50) 3.82 (50) 11.96 (31) 6.54 (35) 8.87 (39) 14.33 (44) 14.66 (44) Median 3.82 3.82 10.41 5.84 8.41 14.07 14.41 Comparative Performance 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Sep-2016 Jun-2016 Mar-2016 Investment 1.72 (85) 1.06 (75) -0.64 (73) Index 3.85 (54) 2.46 (40) 1.35 (33) Median 4.01 2.07 0.61 Strategy Review Dana (Large Cap) I Dana Custom Index As of December 31, 2016 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) 44.0 38.0 32.0 26.0 20.0 0 0 00 E 0 14.0 m tY 8.0 2.0 00 -4.0 -10.0 00 0 0 -16.0 ➢ Oct-2015 Oct-2014 Oct- 2013 Oct- 2012 Oct- 2011 Oct- 2010 To To To To To To Sep-2016 Sep-2015 Sep-2014 Sep-2013 Sep-2012 Sep-2011 • Investment 7.09 (93) -0.05 (52) 20.65 (29) 19.62 (62) 31.58 (22) -0.89 (73) • Index 15.43 (21) -0.61 (62) 19.73 (45) 19.34 (65) 30.20 (45) 0.95 (54) Median 13.03 -0.02 19.25 20.61 29.73 1.15 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Dec-2015 Sep-2015 Jun-2015 4.83 (77) -7.35 (68) -0.91 (82) 7.04 (25) -6.44 (45) 0.28 (49) 5.94 -6.63 0.26 30 Historical Statistics 3 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market Up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Strategy Review Fiduciary Management, Inc. I Russell 3000 Index As of December 31, 2016 Historical Statistics 5 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market Up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Investment 9.28 10.61 0.88 97.62 9.00 88.54 3.00 Investment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Index 8.43 10.88 0.79 100.00 11.00 100.00 1.00 Index 14.67 10.56 1.35 100.00 18.00 100.00 2.00 Risk and Return 3 Years 9.6 9.3 9.0 d � 8.7 8.4 8.1 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 11 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 3 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) 0.0 25.0 K 50.0 d 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 2 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) - Index 20 1 (5%) 7 (35%) 12 (60%) 0 (0%) 31 Risk and Return 5 Years 14.7 14.6 10.5 10.6 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 5 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) 0.0 25.0 m 2 50.0 00' d 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3114 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 0 0 0 0 0 Index 20 0 (0%) 5 (25%) 15 (75%) 0 (0%) Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) 20.0 17.0 14.0 O 11.0 i 8.0 O 5.0 O O 2.0 -1.0 -4.0 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR 0 • Investment 5.66 (22) 5.66 (22) 16.48 (5) 7.73 (14) 9.28 (17) N/A N/A O Index 4.21 (49) 4.21 (49) 12.74 (34) 6.43 (36) 8.43 (22) 14.23 (45) 14.67 (51) Median 4.01 4.01 10.02 5.27 7.49 13.87 14.70 Comparative Performance 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Sep-2016 Jun-2016 Mar-2016 Investment 3.48 (73) Index 4.40 (61) Median 4.93 2.00 (51) 2.63 (41) 2.02 4.44 (3) 0.97 (41) 0.19 Strategy Review Fiduciary Management, Inc. I Russell 3000 Index As of December 31, 2016 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) 52.0 44.0 36.0 O 28.0 O 20.0 O •O 12.0 4.0 �O O -4.0 -12.0 -20.0 Oct-2015 Oct-2014 Oct- 2013 Oct- 2012 Oct- 2011 Oct- 2010 To To To To To To Sep-2016 Sep-2015 Sep-2014 Sep-2013 Sep-2012 Sep-2011 • Investment 15.05 (11) 1.78 (30) 14.12 (69) N/A N/A N/A 0 Index 14.96 (11) -0.49 (47) 17.76 (27) 21.60 (80) 30.20 (31) 0.55 (58) Median 11.34 -1.08 16.17 24.35 27.65 1.01 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Dec-2015 Sep-2015 Jun-2015 4.37 (63) 6.27 (22) 5.20 -6.68 (32) -7.25 (45) -7.57 -0.72 (75) 0.14 (49) 0.13 32 Historical Statistics 3 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market Up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Strategy Review Dana (Small Cap) I Russell 2000 Index As of December 31, 2016 Historical Statistics 5 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market Up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Investment 6.79 14.03 0.53 88.60 9.00 85.03 3.00 Investment 16.27 13.37 1.19 94.59 16.00 79.12 4.00 Index 6.74 15.76 0.49 100.00 9.00 100.00 3.00 Index 14.46 14.49 1.00 100.00 16.00 100.00 4.00 Risk and Return 3 Years 6.8 • 6.7 13.5 13.8 14.1 14.4 14.7 15.0 15.3 15.6 15.9 16.2 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 3 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Small Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) 0.0 c 25.0 m K m .c d � `m a 50.0 c 75.0 ♦♦�4010�� 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 20 15 (75%) 3 (15%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) - Index 20 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (40%) 12 (60%) 33 Risk and Return 5 Years 17.0 16.5 16.0 e E 15.5 d K 15.0 14.5 14.0 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 14.0 14.2 14.4 14.6 14.8 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 5 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Small Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) 0.0 c 25.0 m m c I m 2 50.0 !a E 75.0 �00 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3114 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 20 9 (45%) 8 (40%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) Index 20 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (50%) 10 (50%) Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Small Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) 36.0 32.0 28.0 24.0 O 20.0 c L 16.0 tY 12.0 8.0 00 00 p • •O 4.0 0.0 -4.0 Strategy Review Dana (Small Cap) I Russell 2000 Index As of December 31, 2016 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Small Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) 52.0 44.0 36.0 O 28.0 c 20.0 L • 3 O m O 12.0 4.0 O 0 -4.0 -12.0 -20.0 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR * Investment 8.46 (64) 8.46 (64) 11.67 (93) 6.77 (77) 6.79 (67) 15.42 (55) 16.27 (46) O Index 8.83 (60) 8.83 (60) 21.31 (40) 7.68 (69) 6.74 (68) 13.99 (73) 14.46 (75) Median 9.29 9.29 20.35 9.11 8.33 15.49 15.90 Comparative Performance 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Sep-2016 Jun-2016 Mar-2016 Investment 4.41 (92) Index 9.05 (28) Median 7.53 2.90 (55) 3.79 (39) 3.12 -4.18 (95) -1.52 (70) -0.43 • 0 X Oct-2015 Oct-2014 Oct- 2013 Oct- 2012 Oct- 2011 Oct- 2010 To To To To To To Sep-2016 Sep-2015 Sep-2014 Sep-2013 Sep-2012 Sep-2011 * Investment 5.64 (96) 6.55 (21) 11.03 (15) 31.48 (55) 39.20 (7) 3.82 (13) O Index 15.47 (43) 1.25 (71) 3.93 (78) 30.06 (70) 31.91 (54) -3.53 (77) Median 14.60 3.25 6.82 31.90 32.35 -0.64 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Dec-2015 Sep-2015 Jun-2015 2.61 (73) 3.59 (43) 3.41 -9.79 (50) -11.92 (84) -9.82 1.34 (24) 0.42 (50) 0.40 34 Historical Statistics 3 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Strategy Review RBC International Portfolio I MSCI AC World ex USA As of December 31, 2016 Historical Statistics 5 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Investment 1.65 13.43 0.18 107.31 7.00 89.22 5.00 Investment 12.96 14.51 0.91 122.45 14.00 84.52 6.00 Index -1.32 12.53 -0.05 100.00 6.00 100.00 6.00 Index 5.48 13.23 0.46 100.00 12.00 100.00 8.00 Risk and Return 3 Years 2.8 2.1 1.4 0.7 d 0.0 K -0.7 -1.4 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.4 1; Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 3 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) 0.0 m 25.0 K m .c d 50.0 E d 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 20 17 (85%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) Index 20 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 7 (35%) 12 (60%) 35 Risk and Return 5 Years 16.0 14.0 12.0 e E 10.0 d K 8.0 6.0 4.0 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 14.0 14.2 14.4 14.6 14.8 15.0 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 5 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) 0.0 c 25.0 m m .c 50.0 �1 a y w 75.0 ,,�✓I� ,� ^� __ 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3114 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 20 18 (90%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Index 20 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 8 (40%) 10 (50%) Peer Group Analysis - IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) 17.0 14.0 11.0 • 8.0 • 5.0 0 i 3 • tY 0 2.0 -1.0 0 0 0 -4.0 -7.0 -10.0 Strategy Review RBC International Portfolio I MSCI AC World ex USA As of December 31, 2016 Peer Group Analysis - IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) 44.0 36.0 28.0 20.0 0 � O 12.0 00 • d 4.0 0 -4.0 -12.0 0 -20.0 -28.0 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR * Investment 0.85 (36) 0.85 (36) 6.77 (20) 4.02 (10) 1.65 (13) 8.76 (6) 12.96 (3) O Index -1.20 (68) -1.20 (68) 5.01 (32) -0.25 (73) -1.32 (63) 2.70 (87) 5.48 (86) Median -0.20 -0.20 3.39 1.05 -0.52 4.89 7.18 Comparative Performance 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Sep-2016 Jun-2016 Mar-2016 00 Oct-2015 Oct-2014 Oct- 2013 Oct- 2012 Oct- 2011 Oct- 2010 To To To To To To Sep-2016 Sep-2015 Sep-2014 Sep-2013 Sep-2012 Sep-2011 * Investment 10.68 (29) -4.42 (20) 10.00 (8) 27.45 (18) 24.65 (4) -8.87 (54) O Index 9.80 (32) -11.78 (81) 5.22 (57) 16.98 (83) 15.04 (52) -10.42 (68) Median 8.35 -9.08 5.72 22.91 15.39 -8.62 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Dec-2015 Sep-2015 Jun-2015 Investment 12.89 (3) -5.54 (98) -0.71 (38) 4.54 (37) -10.24 (45) Index 7.00 (52) -0.40 (34) -0.26 (32) 3.30 (58) -12.10 (77) Median 7.06 -1.41 -1.69 3.82 -10.78 1.77 (43) 0.72 (69) 1.36 36 Historical Statistics 3 Years Standard Sharpe Up up Down Down Return Deviation Ratio Market Quarters Market Quarters Capture Capture Investment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Index -1.32 12.53 -0.05 100.00 6.00 100.00 6.00 Risk and Return 3 Years -1.3 e E -1.4 d -1.5 1 12.5 12 Risk (Standard Deviation % ) Investment O Index 3 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM International Multi -Cap Core Equity (MF) 0.0 c 25.0 c I 50.0 ! ,#4 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 0 0 0 0 0 - Index 20 3 (15%) 3 (15%) 8 (40%) 6 (30%) 37 Strategy Review American Funds EuroPacific Gr R6 (RERGX) I MSCI AC World ex USA As of December 31, 2016 Historical Statistics 5 Years Standard Sharpe Up Up Down Down Return Deviation Ratio Market Quarters Market Quarters Capture Capture Investment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Index 5.48 13.23 0.46 100.00 12.00 100.00 8.00 Risk and Return 5 Years 5.5 5.4 13.2 13.3 Risk (Standard Deviation % ) Investment O Index 5 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM International Multi -Cap Core Equity (MF) 0.0 25.0 ♦, 2 50.0 E `♦ d ,♦ 75.0 If 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 0 0 0 0 0 Index 20 7 (35%) 4 (20%) 3 (15%) 6 (30%) Peer Group Analysis - IM International Multi -Cap Core Equity (MF) 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 O 4.0 i 2.0 LY • 0.0 O O p -2.0 -4.0 -6.0 -8.0 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR • Investment -4.15 (93) -4.15 (93) 1.01 (50) N/A N/A N/A N/A O Index -1.20 (37) -1.20 (37) 5.01 (13) -0.25 (52) -1.32 (36) 2.70 (70) 5.48 (74) Median -1.56 -1.56 0.99 -0.20 -1.78 3.39 6.24 Comparative Performance 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Sep-2016 Jun-2016 Mar-2016 Investment 8.23 (2) Index 7.00 (22) Median 6.17 -0.32 (24) -0.40 (25) -1.10 -2.32 (51) -0.26 (26) -2.25 Strategy Review American Funds EuroPacific Gr R6 (RERGX) I MSCI AC World ex USA As of December 31, 2016 Peer Group Analysis - IM International Multi -Cap Core Equity (MF) 44.0 36.0 28.0 20.0 12.0 �O d iY O 4.0 -4.0 -12.0 -20.0 -28.0 N C Oct-2015 Oct-2014 Oct- 2013 Oct- 2012 Oct- 2011 Oct- 2010 To To To To To To Sep-2016 Sep-2015 Sep-2014 Sep-2013 Sep-2012 Sep-2011 • Investment 8.52 (28) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 Index 9.80 (15) -11.78 (87) 5.22 (31) 16.98 (83) 15.04 (49) -10.42 (35) Median 6.02 -7.98 4.32 21.81 14.95 -11.16 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Dec-2015 Sep-2015 Jun-2015 2.97 (73) 3.30 (62) 3.52 -9.81 (45) -12.10 (86) -9.98 1.12 (49) 0.72 (66) 1.05 38 Historical Statistics 3 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market Up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Strategy Review Agincourt Capital Management I Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index As of December 31, 2016 Historical Statistics 5 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market Up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Investment 3.37 3.03 1.08 105.65 9.00 99.35 3.00 Investment 2.84 2.95 0.94 109.21 15.00 95.20 5.00 Index 3.03 2.98 0.98 100.00 9.00 100.00 3.00 Index 2.23 2.89 0.75 100.00 14.00 100.00 6.00 Risk and Return 3 Years 3.5 3.4 • 3.3 e 3.2 d K 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 3 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 3 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) 0.0 m 25.0 K m .c d 50.0 a c 1u 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 20 0 (0%) 6 (30%) 14 (70%) 0 (0%) Index 20 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 20 (100%) 39 Risk and Return 5 Years 3.0 2.8 2.6 a 12 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.8 2.9 3.0 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 5 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) 0.0 c 25.0 m m .c m 50.0 d EL 1n Of 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 14 0 (0%) 6 (43%) 8 (57%) 0 (0%) Index 20 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 19 (95%) Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) 8.0 6.0 4.0 O -2.0 •O •O -4.0 -6.0 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR Strategy Review Agincourt Capital Management I Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index As of December 31, 2016 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) 12.0 10.0 8.0 • 6.0 • O o •o L • 4.0 •O 2.0 0.0 • O -2.0 -4.0 Oct-2015 Oct-2014 Oct- 2013 Oct- 2012 Oct- 2011 Oct- 2010 To To To To To To Sep-2016 Sep-2015 Sep-2014 Sep-2013 Sep-2012 Sep-2011 * Investment -2.83 (57) -2.83 (57) 3.53 (36) 2.09 (40) 3.37 (47) 2.10 (48) 2.84 (48) 0 Investment 5.87 (38) 2.96 (58) 4.40 (53) -1.40 (60) 6.96 (43) 4.92 (68) O Index -2.98 (76) -2.98 (76) 2.65 (79) 1.59 (89) 3.03 (83) 1.74 (83) 2.23 (92) 0 Index 5.19 (79) 2.94 (59) 3.96 (80) -1.68 (79) 5.16 (91) 5.26 (49) Median -2.80 -2.80 3.10 1.94 3.30 2.07 2.83 Median 5.65 3.02 4.50 -1.24 6.60 5.26 Comparative Performance 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Ending Ending Ending Sep-2016 Jun-2016 Mar-2016 Dec-2015 Sep-2015 Jun-2015 Investment 0.72 (45) Index 0.46 (77) Median 0.68 2.49 (37) 221 (70) 2.33 3.21 (18) 3.03 (50) 3.03 -0.64 (86) -0.57 (72) -0.45 1.25 (36) 1.23 (40) 1.14 -1.71 (75) -1.68 (72) -1.60 40 Historical Statistics 3 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market Up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Strategy Review Garcia, Hamilton & Associates I Bloomberg Barclays Intermed Aggregate Index As of December 31, 2016 Historical Statistics 5 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market Up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Investment 3.43 2.52 1.31 122.95 9.00 97.92 3.00 Investment 4.02 2.55 1.53 142.94 16.00 79.32 4.00 Index 2.43 2.13 1.09 100.00 9.00 100.00 3.00 Index 1.95 2.08 0.90 100.00 15.00 100.00 5.00 Risk and Return 3 Years 3.9 3.6 3.3 e 3.0 d 2.7 2.4 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2 Risk (Standard Deviation % ) Investment O Index 3 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Intermediate Duration (SA+CF) 0.0 c 25.0 m K m a 50.o c75.0 d 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 20 20 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0 % ) - Index 20 0 (0%) 3 (15%) 10 (50%) 7 (35%) 41 Risk and Return 5 Years 4.5 4.0 • 3.5 3.0 d K 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Risk (Standard Deviation % ) Investment O Index 5 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Intermediate Duration (SA+CF) 0.0 c 25.0 m m .c m 50.0 a 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 15 15 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0 % ) Index 20 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 12 (60%) 8 (40 % ) Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Intermediate Duration (SA+CF) 5.3 4.4 3.5 2.6 • 1.7 c 0.8 LY -0.1 -1.0 • • 1.9 O O -2.8 -3.7 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR • O 0 * Investment -1.42 (19) -1.42 (19) 3.19 (20) 2.44 (14) 3.43 (7) 2.80 (4) 4.02 (3) O Index -2.05 (77) -2.05 (77) 1.97 (76) 1.59 (81) 2.43 (54) 1.55 (68) 1.95 (77) Median -1.86 -1.86 2.38 1.86 2.44 1.67 2.30 Comparative Performance 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Sep-2016 Jun-2016 Mar-2016 Investment 0.28 (60) Index 0.31 (56) Median 0.36 1.31 (82) 1.44 (72) 1.58 3.02 (2) 2.31 (55) 2.33 Strategy Review Garcia, Hamilton & Associates I Bloomberg Barclays Intermed Aggregate Index As of December 31, 2016 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Intermediate Duration (SA+CF) 12.0 10.0 • 8.0 6.0 3 4.0 O 2.0 0.0 0 -2.0 -4.0 Oct-2015 Oct-2014 Oct- 2013 Oct- 2012 Oct- 2011 Oct- 2010 To To To To To To Sep-2016 Sep-2015 Sep-2014 Sep-2013 Sep-2012 Sep-2011 * Investment 3.86 (57) 4.15 (4) 4.88 (9) 0.88 (8) 9.51 (5) 2.32 (91) O Index 3.57 (72) 2.95 (30) 2.74 (57) -0.71 (77) 4.31 (83) 4.22 (23) Median 3.89 2.70 2.87 -0.28 5.57 3.60 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Dec-2015 Sep-2015 Jun-2015 -0.77 (95) -0.51 (64) -0.42 1.74 (1) 1.08 (31) 0.93 -1.04 (95) -0.67 (61) -0.61 42 Historical Statistics 3 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Strategy Review Templeton Global Bond Adv (FBNRX) I Citigroup World Government Bond Index As of December 31, 2016 Historical Statistics 5 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market Up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Investment 1.54 6.53 0.25 -29.07 7.00 -48.26 5.00 Investment 4.47 7.16 0.63 45.71 13.00 -20.76 7.00 Index -0.84 5.89 -0.13 100.00 6.00 100.00 6.00 Index -0.99 5.30 -0.18 100.00 9.00 100.00 11.00 Risk and Return 3 Years 2.4 1.8 1.2 0.6 d 0.0 -0.6 -1.2 -1.8 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 Risk (Standard Deviation % ) Investment O Index 3 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM Global Fixed Income (MF) 0.0 c 25.0 m m c 50.0 d 75.0 100.0 i 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 10 4 (40%) 3 (30%) 1 (10%) 2 (20 % ) - Index 20 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 2 (10%) 16 (80%) 43 Risk and Return 5 Years 6.0 4.0 e 2.0 d K 0.0 -2.0 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 Risk (Standard Deviation % ) Investment O Index 5 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM Global Fixed Income (MF) 0.0 25.0 m 50.0 a 75.0 00 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 2 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0 % ) Index 20 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 3 (15%) 14 (70%) Peer Group Analysis - IM Global Fixed Income (MF) 14.0 11.0 8.0 5.0 2.0 O 3 N LY -1.0 O -4.0 -7.0 O O -10.0 -13.0 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR * Investment 8.32 (1) 8.32 (1) 6.78 (13) 1.30 (30) 1.54 (33) 1.74 (23) 4.47 (6) O Index -8.53 (98) -8.53 (98) 1.60 (79) -1.02 (68) -0.84 (83) -1.64 (83) -0.99 (90) Median -3.95 -3.95 3.35 -0.05 0.43 -0.29 1.44 Comparative Performance 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Sep-2016 Jun-2016 Mar-2016 Investment -1.23 (100) Index 0.30 (95) Median 1.47 -0.33 (100) 3.41 (9) 2.39 0.13 (100) 7.09 (6) 3.15 Strategy Review Templeton Global Bond Adv (FBNRX) I Citigroup World Government Bond Index As of December 31, 2016 Peer Group Analysis - IM Global Fixed Income (MF) 17.0 14.0 11.0 O 8.0 5.0 E 2.0 O -1.0 -4.0 O i -7.0 • -10.0 -13.0 • C Oct-2015 Oct-2014 Oct- 2013 Oct- 2012 Oct- 2011 Oct- 2010 To To To To To To Sep-2016 Sep-2015 Sep-2014 Sep-2013 Sep-2012 Sep-2011 * Investment 0.84 (100) -7.57 (90) 6.53 (10) 3.44 (3) 13.25 (5) N/A O Index 9.71 (14) -3.83 (54) -0.07 (97) -4.60 (83) 3.29 (97) 4.61 (8) Median 7.19 -3.70 3.53 -1.52 7.19 1.71 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Dec-2015 Sep-2015 Jun-2015 2.30 (1) -1.23 (77) -0.75 -6.08 (100) 1.71 (1) -0.29 -0.24 (10) -1.55 (41) -1.97 44 Strategy Review American Core Realty Fund I NCREIF Fund Index -Open End Diversified Core (EW) As of December 31, 2016 Historical Statistics 3 Years Historical Statistics 5 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market �p Down Up Down Market Down Return Standard Sharpe Market Up Market Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Investment 10.87 2.33 4.39 89.51 12.00 N/A N/A Investment 11.25 1.87 5.65 92.58 20.00 N/A N/A Index 12.22 1.20 9.33 100.00 12.00 N/A N/A Index 12.20 1.07 10.56 100.00 20.00 N/A N/A Risk and Return 3 Years 12.8 12.4 12.0 e E 11.6 d 11.2 10.8 • 10.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment 0 Index 3 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) 0.0 m 25.0 K m .c U 50.0 ^ E ,♦ r r� 75.0 �s 100.0 ��gg 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 19 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7 (37%) 12 (63%) Index 19 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 16 (84%) 2 (11 %) Risk and Return 5 Years 12.6 12.3 12.0 e E 11.7 d K 11.4 11.1 10.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 5 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) 0.0 c 25.0 m m a50.0 ��w ♦, 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 19 0 (0%) 7 (37%) 2 (11%) 10 (53%) Index 19 0 (0%) 7 (37%) 12 (63%) 0 (0%) l� 45 Strategy Review Intercontinental Real Estate I NCREIF Fund Index-ODCE (VW) As of December 31, 2016 Historical Statistics 3 Years Historical Statistics 5 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Up Down Market Up Down Market Down Return Standard Sharpe Market Up Market Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Investment 13.50 2.98 4.28 111.80 12.00 N/A N/A Investment 14.63 2.89 4.77 119.16 20.00 N/A N/A Index 12.05 1.26 8.75 100.00 12.00 N/A N/A Index 12.20 1.16 9.76 100.00 20.00 N/A N/A Risk and Return 3 Years 14.0 13.6 13.2 e E 12.8 d K 12.4 12.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment 0 Index 3 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) 0.0 c 25.0 m K m 50.0 a 75.0 ♦,`.000. 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 13 1 (8%) 11 (85%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) - Index 19 0 (0%) 3 (16%) 15 (79%) 1 (5%) Risk and Return 5 Years 15.6 15.0 14.4 13.8 E d 13.2 K 12.6 12.0 11.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Investment O Index 5 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) 0.0 c 25.0 m 50.0 E 1 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3114 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 5 0 (0%) 5 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Index 19 0 (0%) 8 (42%) 11 (58%) 0 (0%) l� 46 Historical Statistics 3 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Strategy Review BlackRock Multi -Asset Income Fund (BIICX) 1 50% MSCI World/50% BC Agg As of December 31, 2016 Historical Statistics 5 Years Return Standard Sharpe Up Market Up Market Down Down Deviation Ratio Capture Quarters Capture Quarters Investment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Investment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Index 3.88 5.56 0.69 100.00 8.00 100.00 4.00 Index 6.73 5.69 1.16 100.00 14.00 100.00 6.00 Risk and Return 3 Years 4.2 4.1 4.0 e E 3.9 d K 3.8 3.7 3.6 5.5 5 Risk (Standard Deviation % ) Investment O Index 3 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM Flexible Portfolio (MF) 0.0 25.0 '40 I d ,^..V0 I 50.0 E 'I 1u 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 0 0 0 0 0 Index 20 5 (25%) 10 (50%) 4 (20%) 1 (5%) 47 Risk and Return 5 Years 6.8 6.7 1 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 Risk (Standard Deviation % ) Investment O Index 5 Year Rolling Percentile Rank IM Flexible Portfolio (MF) 0.0 25.0 u 50.0 a" E 'I d 75.0 100.0 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 9/14 3/15 9/15 3/16 12/16 Total Period 5-25 25-Median Median-75 75-95 Count Count Count Count Investment 0 0 0 0 0 Index 20 1 (5%) 15 (75%) 2 (10%) 2 (10%) Peer Group Analysis - IM Flexible Portfolio (MF) 23.0 20.0 17.0 14.0 11.0 i 8.0 LY • 5.0 2.0 O O -1.0 -4.0 -7.0 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR • Investment 0.55 (33) 0.55 (33) 6.66 (44) N/A N/A N/A N/A O Index -0.51 (59) -0.51 (59) 5.54 (58) 2.92 (28) 3.88 (24) 5.82 (29) 6.73 (39) Median -0.26 -0.26 6.21 1.47 2.14 4.38 6.05 Comparative Performance 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Sep-2016 Jun-2016 Mar-2016 Investment 3.05 (50) Index 2.72 (56) Median 3.01 2.34 (53) 1.72 (63) 2.42 0.59 (56) 1.52 (41) 0.77 Strategy Review BlackRock Multi -Asset Income Fund (BIICX) 1 50% MSCI World/50% BC Agg As of December 31, 2016 Peer Group Analysis - IM Flexible Portfolio (MF) 32.0 26.0 20.0 14.0 8.0 O O L 3 d 2.0 O -4.0 r -10.0 -16.0 -22.0 9 W C r] Oct-2015 Oct-2014 Oct- 2013 Oct- 2012 Oct- 2011 Oct- 2010 To To To To To To Sep-2016 Sep-2015 Sep-2014 Sep-2013 Sep-2012 Sep-2011 • Investment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 Index 8.79 (43) -0.71 (17) 8.39 (46) 9.16 (44) 13.82 (63) 0.99 (30) Median 8.27 -4.47 8.01 8.30 15.69 -0.77 1 Qtr 1 Qtr 1 Qtr Ending Ending Ending Dec-2015 Sep-2015 Jun-2015 N/A 2.56 (26) 1.14 N/A -3.59 (23) -5.72 N/A -0.59 (39) -0.92 48 Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Plan Preliminary Compliance Checklist as of December 31, 2016 1. The total plan return equaled or exceeded the total plan benchmark over the trailing three year period. ✓ 2. The total plan return equaled or exceeded the total plan benchmark over the trailing five year period. ✓ 3. The total plan return ranked within the top 40th percentile of its peer group over the trailing three year period. ✓ 4. The total plan return ranked within the top 40th percentile of its peer group over the trailing five year period. ✓ 5. The total plan return equaled or exceeded the actuarial earnings assumption over the trailing three year period. ✓ 6. The total plan return equaled or exceeded the actuarial earnings assumption over the trailing five year period. ✓ 1. Total domestic equity returns meet or exceed the benchmark over the trailing three and five year periods. ✓ 2. Total domestic equity returns ranked within the top 40th percentile of its peer group over the trailing three and five year periods. ✓ 3. Total international equity returns meet or exceed the benchmark over the trailing three and five year periods. ✓ 4. Total international equity returns ranked within the top 40th percentile of its peer group over the trailing three and five year periods. ✓ 5. The total equity allocation was less than or equal to 75% but greater than or equal to 55% of the total fund value at market. ✓ 6. The total domestic equity allocation was less than or equal to 65% but greater than or equal to 45% of the total fund value at market. ✓ 7. The total international equity allocation was less than or equal to 15% but greater than or equal to 5% of the total fund value at market. ✓ 1. Total domestic fixed income returns meet or exceed the benchmark over the trailing three and five year periods. ✓ 2. Total domestic fixed income returns ranked within the top 40th percentile of its peer group over the trailing three and five year periods. ✓ 3. Total global fixed income returns meet or exceed the benchmark over the trailing three and five year periods. ✓ 4. Total global fixed income returns ranked within the top 40th percentile of its peer group over the trailing three and five year periods. ✓ 5. The total fixed income allocation was less than or equal to 35% but greater than or equal to 15% of the total fund value at market. ✓ 6. All fixed income investments had a minimum rating of investment grade or higher as determined by a major credit rating service. ✓ Real Estate Compliance: 1. Total Real Estate allocation was less than 15% of the total plan assets at market. ✓ 004 THE ^ 49 BOG: Gn�UY Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Plan Preliminary Compliance Checklist as of September 30, 2016 1. VG TSMI ✓ 2. Dana LC ✓ 3. Fiduciary ✓ 4. Dana SC ✓ 5. RBC ✓ 6. EuroPacific ✓ 7. Agincourt ✓ 8. GHA ✓ 9. Templeton GB ✓ 10. American ✓ 11. Intercontinental ✓ 12. BlackRock MAI ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ \ THE ^ 50 BOG: Gnvvr Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Fund Pension Trust Fund Fee Analysis As of December 31, 2016 Estimated Market Value Estimated Annual Fee MM Annual Fee N* Vanguard Total Stock Index (VITSX) 0.04 14,625,737 5,850 Dana (Large Cap) 0.63 16,038,134 100,729 Fiduciary Management, Inc. 0.75 9,020,903 67,657 Dana (Small Cap) 0.71 4,038,801 28,733 Total Domestic Equity 0.46 43,723,575 202,969 RBC International Portfolio 0.88 4,510,933 39,696 American Funds EuroPacific Gr R6 (RERGX) 0.49 3,556,986 17,429 Total International Equity 0.71 8,067,919 57,125 Agincourt Capital Management 0.25 8,070,083 20,175 Garcia, Hamilton & Associates Total Domestic Fixed Income Templeton Global Bond Adv (FBNRX) Total Global Fixed Income American Core Realty Fund Intercontinental Real Estate Total Real Estate BlackRock Multi -Asset Income Fund (BIICX) Total Other Assets Total Cash"" Total Fund 0.25 0.25 0.52 0.52 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.55 0.55 0.52 *Excludes incentive fees. -Manager fees associated with money market or cash accounts are not tracked. Mutual fund related expenses updated on an annual basis. 51 7,833,536 15,903,619 4,244,380 4,244,380 4,347,003 4,666,978 9,013,981 4,124, 355 4,124,355 241,543 85,319,371 19,584 39,759 22,071 22,071 47,817 51,337 99,154 22,684 22,684 443,762 Fee Schedule 0.04 % of Assets 0.75 % of First $3 M 0.60 % Thereafter 0.75 % of First $25 M 0.65 % of Next $25 M 0.60 % of Next $50 M 0.55 % Thereafter 0.75 % of First $3 M 0.60 % Thereafter 0.88 % of Assets 0.49 % of Assets 0.25 % of First $25 M 0.20 % of Next $75 M 0.15 % of Next $100 M 0.10 % Thereafter 0.25 % of Assets 0.52 % of Assets 1.10 % of Assets 1.10 % of Assets 0.55 % of Assets Benchmark History Investment Policy Benchmarks As of December 31, 2016 Total Fund Policy Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Allocation Mandate Weight May-1998 J u I-2013 S&P 500 Index 60.00 Russell 3000 Index 55.00 Blmbg. Barc. U.S. Gov't/Credit 35.00 MSCI AC World ex USA 10.00 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 5.00 Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index 10.00 Bloomberg Barclays Intermed Aggregate Index 10.00 Jan-2001 Citigroup World Government Bond Index 5.00 S&P 500 Index 65.00 NCREIF Fund Index -Open End Diversified Core (EW) 10.00 Blmbg. Barc. U.S. Gov't/Credit 30.00 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 0.00 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 5.00 Dec-2015 Apr-2003 Russell 3000 Index 50.00 S&P 500 Index 65.00 MSCI AC World ex USA 10.00 Bloomberg Barclays Intermediate US Govt/Credit Idx 30.00 Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index 10.00 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 5.00 Bloomberg Barclays Intermed Aggregate Index 10.00 Citigroup World Government Bond Index 5.00 Jul-2005 NCREIF Fund Index -Open End Diversified Core (EW) 10.00 S&P 500 Index 55.00 50% MSCI World/50% BC Agg 5.00 5.00 Bloomberg Barclays Intermediate US Govt/Credit Idx 30.00 Citigroup 3 Month T-Index MSCI EAFE Index 10.00 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 5.00 Oct-2007 Russell 3000 Index 55.00 Bloomberg Barclays Intermed Aggregate Index 30.00 MSCI EAFE Index 10.00 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 5.00 Jul-2008 Russell 3000 Index 55.00 Bloomberg Barclays Intermed Aggregate Index 25.00 MSCI EAFE Index 10.00 NCREIF Property Index 10.00 Oct-2011 Russell 3000 Index 55.00 MSCI EAFE Index 10.00 Bloomberg Barclays Intermed Aggregate Index 20.00 Citigroup World Government Bond Index 5.00 NCREIF Property Index 10.00 52 Benchmark History Investment Policy Benchmarks As of December 31, 2016 Total Equity Policy Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Dana Custom Index Allocation Mandate Weight (` Jul-2008 Jul-2002 MSCI EAFE Index 15.00 Russell 3000 Index 100.00 Russell 3000 Index 85.00 Jan-2008 Oct-2011 Russell 1000 Value Index 100.00 MSCI EAFE Index 15.00 Russell 3000 Index 85.00 Jan-2011 S&P 500 Index 100.00 J u I-2013 Russell 3000 Index 85.00 MSCI AC World ex USA 15.00 Total Domestic Equity Policy Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Allocation Mandate Weight (%) May-1998 Jun-2003 S&P 500 Index 100.00 MSCI US Broad Market Index 100.00 Jul-2005 Jun-2013 Russell 3000 Index 100.00 CRSP U.S. Total Market TR Index 100.00 Oct-2011 Russell 3000 Index 100.00 Total International Equity Policy Allocation Mandate Weight (° May-2007 MSCI EAFE Index 100.00 J u I-2013 MSCI AC World ex USA 100.00 Prior to 6/1/2011, the data and inception dates for Dana LC and Dana SC were provided by the manager. 53 Total Domestic Fixed Income Policy Allocation Mandate Weight (%) May-1998 Blmbg. Barc. U.S. Gov't/Credit 100.00 Apr-2003 Bloomberg Barclays Intermediate US Govt/Credit Idx 100.00 Benchmark History Investment Policy Benchmarks As of December 31, 2016 Total Real Estate Policy Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Jul-2006 NCREIF Property Index 100.00 Oct-2011 NCREIF Property Index 100.00 Oct-2007 Jul-2013 Bloomberg Barclays Intermed Aggregate Index 100.00 NCREIF Fund Index -Open End Diversified Core (EW) 100.00 Oct-2011 Bloomberg Barclays Intermed Aggregate Index 100.00 J u I-2013 Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index 50.00 Bloombera Barclays Intermed Aaareaate Index 50.00 Prior to 6/1/2011, the data and inception dates for Dana LC and Dana SC were provided by the manager. 54 E� Report Statistics Definitions and Descriptions Active Return - Arithmetic difference between the manager's performance and the designated benchmark return over a specified time period. Alpha - A measure of the difference between a portfolio's actual performance and its expected return based on its level of risk as determined by beta. It determines the portfolio's non -systemic return, or its historical performance not explained by movements of the market. Beta - A measure of the sensitivity of a portfolio to the movements in the market. It is a measure of the portfolio's systematic risk. Consistency - The percentage of quarters that a product achieved a rate of return higher than that of its benchmark. Higher consistency indicates the manager has contributed more to the product's performance. Distributed to Paid In (DPI) - The ratio of money distributed to Limited Partners by the fund, relative to contributions. It is calculated by dividing cumulative distributions by paid in capital. This multiple shows the investor how much money they got back. It is a good measure for evaluating a fund later in its life because there are more distributions to measure against. Down Market Capture - The ratio of average portfolio performance over the designated benchmark during periods of negative returns. A lower value indicates better product performance Downside Risk - A measure similar to standard deviation that utilizes only the negative movements of the return series. It is calculated by taking the standard deviation of the negative quarterly set of returns. A higher factor is indicative of a riskier product. Excess Return - Arithmetic difference between the manager's performance and the risk -free return over a specified time period. Excess Risk - A measure of the standard deviation of a portfolio's performance relative to the risk free return. Information Ratio - This calculates the value-added contribution of the manager and is derived by dividing the active rate of return of the portfolio by the tracking error. The higher the Information Ratio, the more the manager has added value to the portfolio. Public Market Equivalent (PME) - Designs a set of analyses used in the Private Equity Industry to evaluate the performance of a Private Equity Fund against a public benchmark or index. R-Squared - The percentage of a portfolio's performance that can be explained by the behavior of the appropriate benchmark. A high R-Squared means the portfolio's performance has historically moved in the same direction as the appropriate benchmark. Return - Compounded rate of return for the period. Sharpe Ratio - Represents the excess rate of return over the risk free return divided by the standard deviation of the excess return. The result is an absolute rate of return per unit of risk. A higher value demonstrates better historical risk -adjusted performance. Standard Deviation - A statistical measure of the range of a portfolio's performance. It represents the variability of returns around the average return over a specified time period. Total Value to Paid In (TVPI) - The ratio of the current value of remaining investments within a fund, plus the total value of all distributions to date, relative to the total amount of capital paid into the fund to date. It is a good measure of performance before the end of a fund's life Tracking Error - This is a measure of the standard deviation of a portfolio's returns in relation to the performance of its designated market benchmark. Treynor Ratio - Similar to Sharpe ratio but utilizes beta rather than excess risk as determined by standard deviation. It is calculated by taking the excess rate of return above the risk free rate divided by beta to derive the absolute rate of return per unit of risk. A higher value indicates a product has achieved better historical risk -adjusted performance. Up Market Capture - The ratio of average portfolio performance over the designated benchmark during periods of positive returns. A higher value indicates better product performance. 55 Disclosures AndCo compiled this report for the sole use of the client for which it was prepared. AndCo is responsible for evaluating the performance results of the Total Fund along with the investment advisors by comparing their performance with indices and other related peer universe data that is deemed appropriate. AndCo uses the results from this evaluation to make observations and recommendations to the client. AndCo uses time -weighted calculations which are founded on standards recommended by the CFA Institute. The calculations and values shown are based on information that is received from custodians. AndCo analyzes transactions as indicated on the custodian statements and reviews the custodial market values of the portfolio. As a result, this provides AndCo with a reasonable basis that the investment information presented is free from material misstatement. This methodology of evaluating and measuring performance provides AndCo with a practical foundation for our observations and recommendations. Nothing came to our attention that would cause AndCo to believe that the information presented is significantly misstated. This performance report is based on data obtained by the client's custodian(s), investment fund administrator, or other sources believed to be reliable. While these sources are believed to be reliable, the data providers are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of their statements. Clients are encouraged to compare the records of their custodian(s) to ensure this report fairly and accurately reflects their various asset positions. The strategies listed may not be suitable for all investors. We believe the information provided here is reliable, but do not warrant its accuracy or completeness. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Any information contained in this report is for informational purposes only and should not be construed to be an offer to buy or sell any securities, investment consulting, or investment management services. Additional information included in this document may contain data provided by from index databases, public economic sources and the managers themselves. This document may contain data provided by Bloomberg Barclays. Bloomberg Barclays Index data provided by way of Barclays Live. This document may contain data provided by Standard and Poor's. Nothing contained within any document, advertisement or presentation from S&P Indices constitutes an offer of services in jurisdictions where S&P Indices does not have the necessary licenses. All information provided by S&P Indices is impersonal and is not tailored to the needs of any person, entity or group of persons. Any returns or performance provided within any document is provided for illustrative purposes only and does not demonstrate actual performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future investment results. This document may contain data provided by MSCI, Inc. Copyright MSCI, 2017. Unpublished. All Rights Reserved. This information may only be used for your internal use, may not be reproduced or redisseminated in any form and may not be used to create any financial instruments or products or any indices. This information is provided on an "as is" basis and the user of this information assumes the entire risk of any use it may make or permit to be made of this information. Neither MSCI, any of its affiliates or any other person involved in or related to compiling, computing or creating this information makes any express or implied warranties or representations with respect to such information or the results to be obtained by the use thereof, and MSCI, its affiliates and each such other person hereby expressly disclaim all warranties (including, without limitation, all warranties of originality, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, non -infringement, merchantability and fitness fora particular purpose) with respect to this information. Without limiting any of the foregoing, in no event shall MSCI, any of its affiliates or any other person involved in or related to compiling, computing or creating this information have any liability for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, punitive, consequential or any other damages (including, without limitation, lost profits) even if notified of, or if it might otherwise have anticipated, the possibility of such damages. This document may contain data provided by Russell Investment Group. Russell Investment Group is the source owner of the data contained or reflected in this material and all trademarks and copyrights related thereto. The material may contain confidential information and unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, dissemination or redistribution is strictly prohibited. This is a user presentation of the data. Russell Investment Group is not responsible for the formatting or configuration of this material or for any inaccuracy in presentation thereof. This document may contain data provided by Morningstar. All rights reserved. Use of this content requires expert knowledge. It is to be used by specialist institutions only. The information contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar and/or its content providers; (2) may not be copied, adapted or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information, except where such damages or losses cannot be limited or excluded by law in your jurisdiction. Past financial performance is not guarantee of future results. 56 Putting clients first. AndCo Consulting 1 (844) 44-ANDCO I AndCo Consulting. com Formerly The Bogdahn Group Large Cap Core Equity Manager Analysis December 31, 2016 City of Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund AndCo Consulting 1 (866) 246-7932 1 .1ziclCoC«nsulrin, .r oni ForrzzerIN, The Sogdahn Group Introduction As of 12/31/2016 Purpose for this Manager Evaluation Report This search is to evaluate potential replacement options for Dana Large Cap Equity. Investment Options for this Manager Evaluation Report Firm Name Strategy Name Vehicle Management Fee Atlanta Capital Management High Quality Select Equity SA 0.70% on first $50 million 0.50% on next $100 million 0.40% on next $350 million Clarkston Capital Partners Large Cap SA 0.55% Symphony Asset Management Low Volatility Equity Instl (NOPRX) MF 0.78% Parnassus Investments Core Equity Instl (PRILX) MF 0.67% Dana Investment Advisors Large Cap Equity SA 0.75% on first $3 million 0.60% thereafter Asset Class Overview As of 12/31/2016 Defiinitions and Characteristics US Large Cap Core is typically defined as all US -based companies with a market capitalization over $10 billion. The majority of these are well -established companies with diverse, global businesses and long records of operational performance. The largest companies are followed closely by Wall Street, and their stocks have high daily liquidity. The primary benchmarks for strategies in this space are the Russell 1000 and the S&P 500. The indexes contain many names below the $10 billion large -cap threshold, but the indexes are dominated by the larger names on a market cap basis with the largest 20 accounting for over 25% of the index. The weighted average market cap of the Russell 1000 typically exceeds $100 billion, while the median market cap is less than $10 billion. The largest sectors by market cap are Technology, Financials, Health Care and Consumer Discretionary. Role within a Portfolio The role of a US Large Cap Core strategy is to provide the primary US equity exposure in a portfolio, which is the largest driver of appreciation in portfolio value. Mature US companies also often pay dividends, so a diversified large cap core strategy will have an income yield higher than other equity asset classes. Most core equity strategies balance exposures to value and growth stocks and will have a meaningful exposure to many midcap stocks with market caps under $10 billion. Benchmark and Peer Group This US Large Cap Core Equity search report will use the following benchmark and the following peer group: Index - S&P 500: The index was created in 1957 and was the first market -cap -weighted index. Stocks are selected by a committee. For inclusion in the index, a company must be based in the US, have a minimum market cap of $5.3 billion, have at least 50% of its shares publicly traded, and have positive as -report earnings over the most recent four quarters. Companies remain in the index until removed by the committee or through acquisition. Morningstar Category - Large Blend US Equity: Portfolios where neither growth nor value characteristics predominate. These portfolios tend to invest across the spectrum of US industries, and owing to their broad exposure, the portfolios' returns are often similar to those of the S&P 500 Index. Investment Option Comparison Firm and Investment Option Information As of 12/31/2016 Firm Information Firm Name Firm City Firm State or Province Firm Phone Firm Web Address SA Firm Total Assets Strategy Information Atlanta High Quality Select Equity Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Atlanta Capital Management Company,LLC Atlanta GA 404-876-9411 www.aticap.com 17,646,956,000.00 Clarkston Capital Partners, LLC Bloomfield Hills MI 248-723-8000 www.clarkstoncapital.com 2,855,120,000.00 Nuveen Parnassus Chicago San Francisco IL CA 312-917-8146 +1 9993505 www.nuveen.com www.parnassus.com Atlanta High Quality Select Equity Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Ticker NOPRX Inception Date 10/2/2006 4/1/2005 9/28/2007 Investment Type Separate Account Separate Account Open -End Fund Fund Size 142,344,239 Strategy Assets if Separate Account or CIl 664,402,000 428,130,000 210,920,000 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional PRILX 4/28/2006 Open -End Fund 14, 980,195,438 Dana Large Cap Equity Dana Investment Advisors Inc Brookfield WI 262-782-3631 www.danainvestment.com 7,172,000,000.00 Dana Large Cap Equity 6/30/1999 Separate Account 2,550,400,000 Current Portfolio Comparison As of 12/31/2016 Atlanta Clarkston Nuveen Parnassus Dana High Capital Symphony q LaCrap S&P Quality Large Low Euityy 500 Select Cap Volatility Institutional Equity TR USD Equity Composite Equity I COMPOSITION # of Holdings 29 37 105 38 55 505 %Asset in Top 10 Holdings 52.01 46.06 21.02 37.98 21.98 18.23 Asset Alloc Cash % 0.00 14.06 0.24 2.91 0.87 0.00 Asset Alloc Equity % 98.71 85.94 99.76 97.09 99.13 100.00 Asset Alloc Bond % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asset Alloc Other % 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CHARACTERISTICS Average Market Cap (mil) 21,546.90 82,042.52 36,526.41 50,442.40 49,443.22 80,532.68 P/E Ratio (TTM) 24.13 20.27 21.97 19.90 19.35 20.32 P/B Ratio (TTM) 3.15 3.39 2.82 3.01 2.67 2.79 LT Earn Growth 10.37 7.83 9.79 10.08 9.76 8.78 Dividend Yield 0.90 2.56 2.28 2.13 2.43 2.25 ROE % (TTM) 24.41 27.44 19.97 22.11 21.90 21.16 GICS SECTORS % Energy % 0.00 0.00 9.65 3.18 7.35 7.56 Materials % 11.35 0.00 3.32 4.34 2.90 2.84 Industrials % 4.14 16.03 16.39 15.06 10.25 10.27 Consumer Discretionary % 20.93 1.80 9.22 6.86 12.01 12.03 Consumer Staples % 4.70 26.13 8.00 13.27 9.46 9.37 Healthcare % 16.64 12.10 12.52 15.35 13.80 13.63 Financials % 28.05 21.80 16.51 11.82 14.96 14.81 Information Technology % 14.19 22.13 16.35 25.76 20.48 20.77 Telecom Services % 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 2.69 2.66 Utilities % 0.00 0.00 4.07 2.27 3.18 3.17 Real Estate % 0.00 0.00 3.10 2.08 2.93 2.89 MARKET CAPITALIZATION Market Cap Giant % 15.64 47.85 30.99 36.97 42.10 50.16 Market Cap Large % 34.64 25.96 34.43 34.70 23.29 36.16 Market Cap Mid % 42.84 12.14 30.00 23.28 33.75 13.29 Market Cap Small % 5.59 0.00 4.35 2.14 0.00 0.14 Market Cap Micro % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Historical Portfolio Characteristics Comparison As of 12/31/2016 Historical Number of Holdings 200.0 180.0 160.0 140.0 c =o 120.0 *k 100.0 80.0 60.0 J` 40.0 20.0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Historical Cash Allocation 17.5 15.0 c 0 12.5 0 s m 10.0 U U O a 7.5 m Q 5.0 2.5 0.0 2011 2012 - Atlanta High Quality Select Equity Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 2013 201 Historical Percentage of Assets in Top 10 Holdings 60.0 55.0 �50.0 c a 45.0 0 0 40.0 H N 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Historical Portfolio Turnover 140.0 120.0 100.0 0 80.0 `m O C r 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 4 2015 2016 Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite - Dana Large Cap Equity 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 - Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Historical Portfolio Characteristics Comparison As of 12/31/2016 Historical P/E Ratio 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 0 Of 18.0 w a � 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 i, 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Historical Earnings Growth 22.0 20.0 18.0 0 16.0 w 14.0 J 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 2008 2010 - Atlanta High Quality Select Equity Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 2012 Historical P/B Ratio 4.5 I 4.0 3.5 0 CU 3.0 m a 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Historical Dividend Yield 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 } 0 2.5 2.0 1 1.5 1.0 0.5 2014 2016 2008 Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite - Dana Large Cap Equity l .i I' d� v , 2010 2012 2014 - Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I - S&P 500 TR USD 2016 Current and Historical Holdings Based Style Analysis As of 12/31/2016 Current Portfolio Holdings -Style Map co C� N 21 J 75 O E U) O 0 U_ Deep -Val Core -Val Atlanta High Quality Select Equity Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Historical Holdings -Based Style Trail Time Period: 1/31/2007 to 12/31/2016 (D 0) (6 J E U) O U_ 75 Core Core-Grth High-Grth Deep -Val Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite Dana Large Cap Equity Core -Val Core Core-Grth High-Grth ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I ■ S&P 500 TR USD Quantitative Review Trailing Performance As of 12/31/2016 Peer Group (5-95%): Open End Funds - U.S. - Large Blend 17.0 16.0 15.0 14.0 13.0 12.0 ■ 11.0 E 10.0 9.0 ■ 8.0 7.0 6.0®� ■ 5.0 �• 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 ■ 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8 Years 9 Years 10 Years 1 Year Rank 2 Years Rank 3 Years Rank 4 Years Rank 5 Years Rank 6 Years Rank 7 Years Rank 8 Years Rank 9 Years Rank 10 Years Rank Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) 6.10 90 4.52 58 6.91 58 12.35 63 13.92 39 12.22 20 13.04 11 14.31 21 8.30 17 8.77 15 Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) 13.71 12 7.93 5 9.68 5 15.55 3 14.41 23 13.33 6 12.42 26 14.31 21 8.55 16 7.65 21 Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity 1 6.09 90 5.03 51 8.13 27 13.41 40 13.37 52 11.67 36 12.14 34 14.00 30 7.57 22 7.13 29 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 10.60 47 4.99 51 8.13 27 14.12 17 14.42 22 12.50 12 12.01 37 14.00 30 9.18 14 9.69 12 Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 6.50 88 2.50 84 6.57 64 12.59 59 13.24 55 11.35 43 12.29 29 13.08 53 6.61 46 6.47 48 S&P 500 TR USD 11.96 25 6.54 15 8.87 8 14.33 11 14.66 15 12.47 13 12.83 15 14.45 17 7.11 29 6.95 33 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Dana Large Cap Equity(net) All Returns Net of Fees. Performance data shown prior to fund's inception date represents extended performance for an older share class of the same strategy. ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I ■ S&P 500 TR USD Calendar Year Performance As of 12/31/2016 Peer Group (5-95%): Open End Funds - U.S. - Large Blend 45.0 37.5 30.0 •� ■ 22.5 ■ 15.0 ■ N• ■ �� ■ •� ■ • 7.5 ��� ■ 0.0 ■ �•� ■ • -7.5 -15.0 -22.5 -30.0 •00 -37.5 ■ -45.0 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2016 Rank 2015 Rank 2014 Rank 2013 Rank 2012 Rank 2011 Rank 2010 Rank 2009 Rank 2008 Rank 2007 Rank Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) 6.10 90 2.97 9 11.85 50 30.37 72 20.42 5 4.11 11 18.12 10 23.62 74 -29.71 9 13.06 11 Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) 13.71 12 2.46 13 13.25 26 35.12 19 9.94 93 8.09 2 7.12 99 28.46 42 -28.23 6 -0.10 91 Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity 1 6.09 90 3.98 4 14.59 10 30.87 67 13.19 76 3.54 13 15.02 35 27.89 45 -32.36 14 -1.95 93 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 10.60 47 -0.33 50 14.70 10 34.15 25 15.64 47 3.38 13 9.10 94 28.96 38 -22.74 1 14.37 7 Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 6.50 88 -1.36 60 15.20 6 32.80 37 15.86 41 2.36 17 18.09 10 18.81 91 -33.50 19 5.25 54 S&P 500 TR USD 11.96 25 1.38 20 13.69 18 32.39 41 16.00 38 2.11 19 15.06 34 26.46 54 -37.00 45 5.49 49 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Dana Large Cap Equity(net) ■ S&P 500 TR USD Rolling Return Analysis As of 12/31/2016 Rolling Returns Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 25.0 20.0 \ 15.0 E 10.0 x 5.0 0.0 -5.0 �\ -10.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Return Rankings Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 C �5 50.0 z of 75.0 100.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) — Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional — Dana Large Cap Equity(net) — S&P 500 TR USD Rolling Excess Return Analysis As of 12/31/2016 Rolling Excess Returns Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 12.5 10.0 7.5 Z 5.0 2.5 U X W 0.0 -2.5 -5.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Excess Return Rankings Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 E m 50.0 N U X W 75.0 100.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) — Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional — Dana Large Cap Equity(net) — S&P 500 TR USD Current and Historical Risk and Reward As of 12/31/2016 Risk -Reward: 5-Year Time Period: 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016 Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 18.0 15.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 6.0 Std Dev Risk -Reward: Rolling 5-Year Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 5 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 27.0 22.0 17.0 7.0 2.0 -3.0 0 10.0 12.0 0.0 Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 Std Dev ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I ■ S&P 500 TR USD 20.0 24.0 Current and Historical Risk and Reward As of 12/31/2016 Risk -Reward: 10-Year Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 12.0 10.0 8.0 E m o: 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 9.0 Std Dev Risk -Reward: Rolling 10-Year Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 10 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 13.0 11.0 9.0 c 7.0 m 5.0 3.0 1.0 -1.0 0 15.0 18.0 0.0 Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 Std Dev ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I ■ S&P 500 TR USD 20.0 24.0 Rolling Risk Analysis As of 12/31/2016 Rolling Standard Deviation Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 25.0 22.5 20.0 17.5 0 a 65 15.0 12.5 10.0 7.5 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Standard Deviation Rankings Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 0 50.0 75.0 ------------------- 100.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) — Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional — Dana Large Cap Equity(net) — S&P 500 TR USD Rolling Risk Analysis As of 12/31/2016 Rolling Tracking Error Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 10.0 c Y 4.0 F 2.0 0.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Tracking Error Rankings Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 `o w` rn 50.0 c U H 75.0 100.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) — Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional — Dana Large Cap Equity(net) — S&P 500 TR USD Multi Statistic Analysis As of 12/31/2016 12.6 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) 12.4 12.2 12.0 Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) 11.8 11.6 11.4 ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I 11.2 11.0 10.8 10.6 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 10.4 10.2 10.0 Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 9.8 9.6 9.4 • ■ S&P 500 TR USD - 9.2 Std Dev 5 Yr Time Period: 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Dana Large Cap Equity(net) S&P 500 TR USD 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 • ■ 1.4 1.3 1.3 • 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 Sharpe Ratio 5 Yr 2.0 0.5 5.5 1.5 0.0 5.0 1.0 -0.5 � 4.5 0.5 -1.0 0.0 4.0 • -0.5 -2.0 3.5 � -1.0 -2.5 3.0 -1.5 3.0 2.5 ®� -2.0 -2.5 3.5 2.0 -3.0 4.0 1.5 -3.5 -4.5 1.0 -4.0 -5.0 -4.5 5.5 0.5 -5.0 -6.0 - 0.0 Alpha 5 Yr Information Ratio 5 Yr Tracking Error 5 Yr Std Dev Rank Sharpe Rank Alpha Rank Information Rank Tracking Rank Ratio Ratio Error 10.06 84 1.37 12 0.72 5 -0.19 28 3.90 21 9.30 93 1.54 2 1.83 2 -0.07 20 3.44 27 9.49 92 1.40 6 0.33 8 -0.52 46 2.50 50 9.52 92 1.50 2 1.56 3 -0.07 20 3.37 28 10.61 57 1.24 48 -1.13 50 -0.55 47 2.59 47 10.37 73 1.40 5 0.00 11 0.00 100 Multi Statistic Analysis As of 12/31/2016 19.0 1.2 3.5 0.8 7.0 10 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) 1.1 3.0 0.5 6.5 18.5 � 1.1 0.3 2.5 6.0 18.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 -0.3 5.5 Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) 17.5 0.9 1.5 -0.5 5.0 17.0 0.9 -0.8 � 0.8 1.0 4.5 1.0 Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity 1 16.5 0.8 0.5 -1 3 4.0 0.7 16.0 0.0 -1.5 3.5 0.7 • 15.5 ® 0.6 -0.5 -1.8 3.0 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 0.6 -2.0 -1.0 2.5 15.0 0.5 ® -2.3 -1.5 -2.5 2.0 14.5 0.5 0.440 -2.0 -2.8 1.5 Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 14.0 - 0.4 -3.0 -2.5 1.0 0.3 J6-3.3 13.5 0.3 3.0 -3.5 0.5 ■ S&P 500 TR USD 13.0 0.2 -3.5 - -3.8 0.0 Std Dev 10 Yr Sharpe Ratio 10 Yr Alpha 10 Yr Information Ratio 10 Yr Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Dana Large Cap Equity(net) S&P 500 TR USD Tracking Error 10 Yr Std Dev Rank Sharpe Rank Alpha Rank Information Rank Tracking Rank Ratio Ratio Error 15.56 45 0.52 18 2.03 3 0.35 4 5.16 18 15.37 50 0.45 23 1.08 8 0.13 13 5.36 16 13.66 76 0.50 19 1.43 6 0.14 12 4.39 28 13.53 79 0.66 14 3.38 1 0.61 2 4.46 26 14.74 71 0.39 43 -0.15 31 -0.17 35 2.87 56 15.28 56 0.41 34 0.00 25 0.00 100 Up and Down Market Capture As of 12/31/2016 Current Up and Down Market Capture: 5-Year Time Period: 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016 Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 120.0 100.0 80.0 0 m n U 60.0 a D 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Down Capture Ratio Historical Up and Down Market Capture: Rolling 5-Year Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 5 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 140.0 120.0 100.0 0 .Z6 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 120.0 0.0 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Down Capture Ratio ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I ■ S&P 500 TR USD 100.0 120.0 Up and Down Market Capture As of 12/31/2016 Current Up and Down Market Capture: 10-Year Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 120.0 100.0 80.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Down Capture Ratio Historical Up and Down Market Capture: Rolling 10-Year Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 10 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 140.0 120.0 100.0 0 .Z6 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 120.0 0.0 Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Dana Large Cap Equity(net) 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Down Capture Ratio ® Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I ■ S&P 500 TR USD 100.0 120.0 Batting Average and Drawdown As of 12/31/2016 Batting Average Source Data: Monthly Return Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 55.0 50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 Q' 30.0 c' 25.0 m 20.0 CO 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 3 Years Drawdown Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Monthly Return 0.0 -5.0 �. -10.0 -15.0 -20.0 -25.0 -30.0 -35.0 -40.0 -45.0 -50.0 -55.0 2007 2008 5 Years 2009 2010 2011 7 Years 10 Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 — Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) — Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Parnassus Core Equity Institutional — Dana Large Cap Equity(net) — S&P 500 TR USD MPT Statistics As of 12/31/2016 MPT Statistics: 5-Year Time Period: 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016 Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD Atlanta Clarkston Nuveen Parnassus Dana High Capital Symphony Core Large Quality Large Equity Cap See t Cap(net) VolaLo y Institutional Equity(net) e Eq(nReturn Equity I 13.92 14.41 13.37 14.42 13.24 Excess Return -0.74 -0.25 -1.29 -0.24 -1.42 Std Dev 10.06 9.30 9.49 9.52 10.61 Downside Std Dev 2.24 1.85 1.61 2.07 2.09 Beta 0.90 0.85 0.89 0.87 0.99 Sortino Ratio 2.58 2.74 2.57 2.77 2.13 Tracking Error 3.90 3.44 2.50 3.37 2.59 R2 86.00 89.24 94.52 89.53 94.03 Sharpe Ratio 1.34 1.49 1.36 1.46 1.22 Treynor Ratio 15.33 16.85 14.89 16.46 13.22 Information Ratio -0.19 -0.07 -0.52 -0.07 -0.55 Alpha 0.72 1.83 0.33 1.56 -1.13 Skewness -0.15 -0.42 -0.31 -0.28 -0.50 Kurtosis -0.35 0.14 -0.25 -0.39 0.05 Batting Average 41.67 41.67 48.33 46.67 50.00 Up Capture Ratio 89.04 90.80 89.59 93.25 94.64 Up Period Percent 65.00 75.00 65.00 68.33 65.00 Best Quarter 13.45 12.91 11.22 12.72 13.77 Longest Up -Streak Return 13.50 26.76 15.38 18.59 17.21 Longest Up -Streak # of Periods 5.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Down Capture Ratio 79.82 79.39 86.72 85.39 100.71 Down Period Percent 35.00 25.00 35.00 31.67 35.00 Worst Quarter -3.68 -4.52 -4.95 -3.90 -7.52 Longest Down -Streak Return -3.83 -5.70 -3.66 -3.04 -3.28 Longest Down -Streak # of Periods 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 Max Drawdown -6.78 -6.47 -7.97 -6.43 -11.44 Max Drawdown # of Periods 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 MPT Statistics As of 12/31/2016 MPT Statistics: 10-Year Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD Atlanta Clarkston Nuveen Parnassus Dana High Capital Symphony Core Large Quality Large Equity Cap See t Cap(net) VolaLo y Institutional Equity(net) e Eq(nReturn Equity I 8.77 7.65 7.13 9.69 6.47 Excess Return 1.82 0.71 0.61 2.74 -0.48 Std Dev 15.56 15.37 13.66 13.53 14.74 Downside Std Dev 3.05 2.50 2.83 2.63 2.37 Beta 0.96 0.94 0.84 0.85 0.95 Sortino Ratio 0.84 0.73 0.80 1.04 0.64 Tracking Error 5.16 5.36 4.39 4.46 2.87 R2 89.20 88.21 93.12 92.09 96.52 Sharpe Ratio 0.57 0.51 0.55 0.70 0.45 Treynor Ratio 8.39 7.35 8.06 10.58 6.08 Information Ratio 0.35 0.13 0.14 0.61 -0.17 Alpha 2.03 1.08 1.43 3.38 -0.15 Skewness -0.70 -0.70 -0.70 -0.81 -0.81 Kurtosis 1.77 3.29 1.58 1.97 1.77 Batting Average 50.00 42.50 49.55 53.33 50.83 Up Capture Ratio 101.28 92.68 89.37 94.35 94.91 Up Period Percent 61.67 67.50 60.36 65.00 60.00 Best Quarter 17.41 21.45 12.27 17.68 13.84 Longest Up -Streak Return 38.52 26.76 30.77 51.53 17.21 Longest Up -Streak # of Periods 8.00 9.00 8.00 10.00 7.00 Down Capture Ratio 92.07 86.38 82.87 77.89 95.70 Down Period Percent 38.33 32.50 39.64 35.00 40.00 Worst Quarter -19.54 -24.48 -20.58 -19.07 -22.30 Longest Down -Streak Return -15.43 -12.65 -13.27 -14.65 -17.08 Longest Down -Streak # of Periods 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Max Drawdown -43.73 -47.09 -42.41 -35.35 -46.81 Max Drawdown # of Periods 16.00 21.00 16.00 16.00 21.00 Investment Option Narratives Atlanta High Quality Select Equity As of 12/31/2016 Firm Overview Atlanta Capital Management (ACM) was founded in 1969 and is based in Atlanta, GA. ACM operates as an autonomous subsidiary of Eaton Vance Corporation, a Boston -based investment management company listed on the New York Stock Exchange (ticker: EVN). Twenty-one ACM employees retain a minority equity interest in the firm. In November 2008, Eaton Vance and Atlanta Capital established a long-term incentive plan that enabled key employees to expand their ownership interest in future years. ACM is managed by a six -member Management Committee comprised of the key leadership professionals who direct the firm's investment management, client service, new business development and operations functions. Members include: Kelly Williams, CPA, Chip Reed, CFA, Richard England, CFA, Joe Hudepohl, CFA, Jim Womack, CFA and Jim Skesavage. Team Overview Portfolio managers Chip Reed, CFA and Bill Bell, CFA previously co -managed a mid- to large -cap portfolio at the Florida State Board of Administration prior to joining Atlanta Capital in 1998 and 1999, respectively. Matt Hereford, CFA managed a concentrated portfolio at Invesco, Inc. prior to joining the firm in 2002. Atlanta Capital's Core Equity team is comprised of three portfolio managers and one investment specialist. Each portfolio manager serves as a generalist and conducts his own analytical research while investment decisions are made on a consensus basis. Chip Reed, CFA, Bill Bell, CFA and Matt Hereford, CFA are responsible for all purchase and sell decisions. Strategy Overview ACM believes companies that exhibit consistent earnings and cash flow growth over time will outperform the broader market over a full market cycle. The team purchases companies in strong financial condition whose equities are priced below their fair value estimate. Companies with volatile earnings streams, short operating histories, high levels of debt, weak cash flow generation and low returns on capital are further excluded from consideration. ACM seeks to own innovative businesses that dominate a niche, maintain high barriers to entry, and have consistent demand over an economic cycle. The team conducts bottom -up proprietary research and meets with management teams for each of the companies in the portfolio. Stock purchases are analyzed as if ACM were a potential acquirer of the entire business. Stocks are primarily selected from companies comprising the Russell 10000 Index with market capitalizations of at least $3 billion and financial quality ranked above - average by nationally recognized common stock rating services. Financial quality is measured by a company's demonstrated ability to consistently grow earnings over at least a 20 quarter operating history; while a 40 quarter history is preferred. Average holding period is three to five years, with average turnover of 25%. Portfolios will be index agnostic and concentrated, with portfolios averaging 25-30 stocks. Expectations ACM will perform best in markets driven by individual company fundamentals, when high -quality companies are in favor, and in turbulent markets where there is a flight to quality. They may struggle in markets dominated by "low -quality" markets where non -earners, low ROE or leveraged companies are in favor. Portfolio will tend to be systematically overweight Mid Cap stocks and underweight "Mega" Cap stocks, so would be expected to fact headwinds when "Mega" Cap stocks are in favor. Concentrated, high active share, index -agnostic approach will lead them to large sector and risk factor bets relative to the index, which could cause significant index -relative short-term performance swings. Clients will need a long-term perspective. Points to Consider Reed, Bell and Hereford also manage ACM's High Quality Small Cap ($1.913 in AUM) and High Quality SMID Cap ($8.86), whereas the High Quality Select Equity product only has $500MM. While we have not seen any instances of lack of focus on the Select Equity product, given the disparity in assets and incentives, this disparity does warrant close examination going forward. Recommendation Summary There is much to like about the team and ACM's investment process. The team has been very stable and has worked together successfully for over 12 years. Unlike other managers who may trade on shorter -term factors, ACM looks at the long-term business prospects and utilizes a three -to -five year investment horizon. The team's bonus compensation structure aligns perfectly with this holding period. We believe ACM's High Quality Select Equity strategy fits well with clients looking for an all-weather Core strategy that has historically added significant value over the long-term, but who is willing to tolerate significant quarter -to -quarter relative performance swings due the strategy's concentrated, index -agnostic approach. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Atlanta High Quality Select Equity -Asset Allocation Atlanta High Quality Select Equity - Equity Regional Exposure Atlanta High Quality Select Equity - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 87.5 87.5 75.0 75.0 75.0 62.5 62.5 62.5 50.0 50.0 50.0 37.5 37.5 37.5 25.0 25.0 25.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 MAN d 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -North America % -United Kingdom % Europe dev % -Giant % Large % -Mid -Stock -Cash Other -Africa/Middle East % Australasia % Small % -Micro % Atlanta High Quality Select Equity - Equity Sectors (GICS) Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Atlanta High Quality Select Equity - Equity Style Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2016 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Energy % Materials % -Industrials % -Large Value % Large Core % -Large Growth % Consumer Discretionary % -Consumer Staples % -Healthcare % Mid Value % -Mid Core % -Mid Growth % Financials % Information Technology % Small Value % Small Core % Small Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Return Distribution -Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 14.0 12.0 10.0 d 0 8.0 `m E 6.0 Z 4.0 2.0 0.0 ■ • ■ -24.0 -20.0 -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 Excess Return Distribution - Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 8.0 7.0 o 6.0 d 5.0 0 4.0 E 7 3.0 Z 2.0 1.0 ■ ■ ■ 24.0 00 -&0 -7.0 -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD c � 120.0% a) c w 90.0% U 0) 0) U) T G' 60.0% L _m c6 C 30.0% 0.0% -30.0% -50.0% -20.0% S&P 500 TR USD Return Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) 10.0% 40.0% = S&P 500 TR USD 70.0% 100.0% 130.0% -30.0% -50.0% -20.0% S&P 500 TR USD Return Atlanta High Quality Select Eq(net) 10.0% 40.0% = S&P 500 TR USD 70.0% 100.0% 130.0% Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite As of 12/31/2016 Firm Overview Clarkston Capital Partners (Clarkston) was founded in 2007 by brothers Jeffrey and Jerry Hakala. The firm is headquartered in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and is 85% employee owned. The remaining 15% is owned by individuals, all of whom are clients. The firm offers US equity products. Team Overview Clarkston's investment team is led by the firm's founders, Jeffrey and Jerry Hakala. Jeff was formerly a CPA and brings a foundation in financial statement analysis to the team. Jerry gained his experience at Ford Motor Company as a financial analyst and internal auditor where he was required to model and analyze large amounts of data. Together they developed Clarkston's investment philosophy and proprietary CRONOATM (which stands for Cash Return on Net Operating Assets) model that drives the investment process. Jeff currently serves as the firm's Chief Investment Officer with Jerry acting as Director of Research. Jeremy Modell was added to the investment team in 2011. The investment team makes all decisions by majority vote and is supported by a team of five research analysts. All investment team members and analysts are generalists however, team members usually take a lead role in select sectors. Strategy Overview Expectations We expect the strategy to outperform in down markets and underperform in extremely strong up markets. Other than direction, there are no market factors that we feel are overly positive or negative contributors to relative performance. Concentrated, high active share, index -agnostic approach will lead them to large sector and risk factor bets relative to the index, which could cause significant index -relative short-term performance swings and clients will need a long-term perspective Since inception, have tended to capture 90-95% of up -markets and 80-85% of down -markets. Points to Consider Clarkston has a strong absolute value focus and will hold significant levels of cash (up to 20%) at times if they feel they lack opportunities. There is a degree of Key Man risk if Jerry or Jeff Hakala were to leave the firm. Recommendation Summary Clarkston invests in high quality companies operated by strong management teams at market prices that are The Research Group is favorable on Clarkston's team and process. The firm and investment team is tight knit below their assessment of intrinsic value. The team refers to this philosophy as Quality Value. They define and entrepreneurial in spirit. Jeff Hakala has demonstrated command of the portfolio and the CRONOA quality companies as those that possess sustainable competitive advantages that result in consistently high approach is unique, compelling, and proven. The investment philosophy focuses on capital preservation, but CRONOATM. These companies must be operated by capable management teams, which possess the ability to does not compromise on security selection, as only the team's best ideas make the portfolio. This combination generate high returns on capital. Clarkston strives to identify and purchase businesses when their market price is makes the strategy an ideal fit for clients seeking downside protection without sacrificing significant upside. We significantly less than the cash flow assessment of their true value. The philosophy is governed by a disciplined have confidence that the strategies can excel over extended periods and across varying market dynamics. investment methodology, which results in a concentrated portfolio of quality businesses trading at reasonable values. Clarkston applies minimal constraints with no benchmark relative restrictions. Individual security weights are capped at 7% and sector and industry weights are limited to a maximum of 30% on an absolute basis. Cash can be as high as 20% but can be managed to a lower level if client directed. Portfolios will hold 30-40 stocks. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite -Asset Allocation Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite - Equity Regional Exposure Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 80.0 87.5 75.0 75.0 60.0 62.5 62.5 50.0 40.0 50.0 37.5 20.0 37.5 25.0 25.0 0.0 Mda 12.5 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 12.5 0.0 -North America % Latin America % -United Kingdom % 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Europe dev % -Europe emrg % -Africa/Middle East % 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Stock Bond -Cash Australasia % Japan % Asia dev % -Giant % Large % -Mid % Other Asia emrg % Small % -Micro % Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite - Equity Sectors (GIGS) Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Clarkston Capital Large Cap Composite - Equity Style Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 R%11E 2016 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Energy % Materials % -Industrials % Consumer Discretionary % -Consumer Staples % -Healthcare % -Large Value % Large Core % -Large Growth % Financials % Information Technology % Telecom Services % Mid Value % -Mid Core % -Mid Growth % Utilities % -Real Estate % Small Value % Small Core % Small Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Return Distribution - Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 14.0 12.0 10.0 d 0 8.0 `m E 6.0 Z 4.0 2.0 0.0 28 0 -24.0 -20.0 -16.0 -12.0 -&0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 Excess Return Distribution - Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 12.0 10.0 0 `m 8.0 a 0 6.0 E Z 4.0 1 0.0 1 8.0 1M 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 -14.0 -12.0 -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD C 30.0% N N C Q ()20.0% N m c0 J (0 @ 10.0% U C to j(0 • U 0.0% -10.0% -20.0% -20.0% S&P 500 TR USD Return Clarkston Capital Large Cap(net) -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% = S&P 500 TR USD 0• 20.0% 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 30.0% Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity As of 12/31/2016 Firm Overview Symphony Asset Management LLC ("Symphony") is headquartered in San Francisco, CA with offices in New York, NY. A SEC -registered Investment Advisor since inception in 1994, Symphony manages assets for a global institutional investor base across an integrated platform of hedge funds, long -only strategies and structured products in senior bank loans, high yield bonds, convertible bonds and equities. Symphony has approximately $17.5 billion in assets under management and employs over 80 individuals, approximately 40% of which are investment professionals. Symphony is an indirect subsidiary of Nuveen Investments, Inc. ("Nuveen"), which in turn is owned by TIAA CREF. Nuveen/TIAA-CREF has been Symphony's parent since 2001. Team Overview Ross Sakamoto and Marc Snyder have ultimate decision -making authority for stocks to be included and sold out of the portfolio with input of the covering analyst. Snyder is considered the lead manager for Low Volatility Equity. Investment decisions are consensus based. As CIO, Gunther Stein has ultimate veto power, but rarely exercises this privilege. Strategy Overview Symphony believes that outperformance stems from having a knowledge advantage on its competition and gaining unique perspectives on companies. The team attempts to leverage this unique insight by generating alpha via stock selection within risk -focused portfolio construction. The investment approach puts the emphasis on stock selection and it is in this area that we believe Symphony has a distinct edge on its competition. The firm's product suite includes both hedge fund and private debt strategies. Equity and credit analysts are grouped in a "paired" structure in an open concept seating arrangement to "industrialize" the investment team and maximize cross pollination of ideas. As a result, Symphony's equity analysts consider downside consequences differently compared to competitors given their ability to short stocks in the hedge funds. This adds a unique layer to long -only analysis. Furthermore, Symphony's private lending capabilities provides the equity team unique insight. Access to private companies allows for greater transparency (as private companies are not subject to Reg FD) and this knowledge can be leveraged when deciding whether to invest in a publicly traded competitor company within the same industry. The portfolio is constructed utilizing a combination of bottom up and top down analyses. Stein's top down views and those of the portfolio managers guide the framework for the overall portfolio construction, including what kinds and levels of risks to take. Portfolios will hold 75 to 100 stocks. Beta is targeted to be 0.85 to 0.95. Industry weights will be +/- 10% vs. the index and turnover is expected to average 50-100%. Expectations Symphony's Low Volatility Equity Strategy seeks to minimize absolute volatility by selecting stocks within a predetermined risk budget and balance the risk/reward of the strategy. This investment strategy is designed to reduce the magnitude of losses during bear markets, while maintaining upside during bull markets. Symphony's defensive positioning is a byproduct of its lower overall beta approach, although the Fund focuses on generating superior risk -adjusted returns across a diverse range of sectors. The Fund has historically had greater exposure to higher quality stocks within the Russell 1000 Index. Therefore, the Symphony Low Volatility Equity Strategy typically outperforms relative to the Russell 1000 Index during periods of negative market environments characterized by a "flight to quality" where higher quality, lower beta stocks outperform. The strategy should appeal to investors who prefer a lower volatility approach, but one that is not subject to the sector concentration risk typically associated with low volatility strategies. Points to Consider While we believe the broad product suite, which includes hedge funds and private debt offerings, provides the team with unique insights, we also view it as a potential negative in that analysts have to consider far more variables when making recommendations than many of their peers at competitor firms. This could lead to added distractions. However, we take solace in that the team is deep (over 30 analysts of which approximately two- thirds are dedicated to equity strategies) with each analyst focused entirely on a small sub -set of industries. This results in a reduced workload, making the need to look at each company through a broader lens less of a concern. Clients who prefer a separate account will have to look elsewhere. Symphony Low Vol is currently mutual fund only. They are considering launching a commingled vehicle, but separate accounts are not an option at this time. Recommendation Summary Symphony's investment process is regimented and predictable. The focus on capital preservation and "targeted volatility" in a sector neutral framework allows the strategy to participate in up markets while preserving capital in down markets better than most managed volatility strategies that simply overweight defensive sectors. In addition, the team will invest in high beta companies within the context of a targeted total portfolio beta. This further insures that the strategy won't disproportionately suffer from macroeconomic headwinds or a narrow market environment. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I -Asset Allocation Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I - Equity Regional Exposure Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 80.0 87.5 75.0 75.0 62.5 60.0 62.5 50.0 40.0 50.0 37.5 37.5 20.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 12.5 12.5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.0 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -North America % Latin America % -United Kingdom Europe dev % -Africa/Middle East % Asia dev % -Giant % Large % -Mid % -Stock -Cash Other Asia emrg % Small % -Micro % Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I - Equity Sectors (GIGS) Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 11 ill ■ '�' - � A 20.0 10.0 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I - Equity Style Time Period: 9/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 2016 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Energy % Materials % -Industrials % Consumer Discretionary % -Consumer Staples % -Healthcare % -Large Value % Large Core % -Large Growth % Financials % Information Technology % Telecom Services % Mid Value % -Mid Core % -Mid Growth % Utilities % -Real Estate % Small Value % Small Core % Small Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Return Distribution - Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Time Period: 10/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 14.0 12.0 1o.o a 0 8.0 `m E 6.0 , Z 4.0 2.0 0 .0 ■ L hJ -24.0 -20.0 -15.0 -120 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 80 12.0 10.0 20.0 24.0 Excess Return Distribution - Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I Time Period: 10/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 10.0 9.0 (n 8.0 0 0 -c zo m a s.o 0 50 E 4.0 Z 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 _ ■ -5.0 4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 1/1/2011 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD C 28.0% '5 24.0% o- w a 0 20.0% 3 0 J 16.0% 0 L E � cn 12.0% C N N Z 8.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 8.0% 12.0% S&P 500 TR USD Return M Nuveen Symphony Low Volatility Equity I • 16.0% = S&P 500 TR USD 20.0% IEEE 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 24.0% 28.0% Parnassus Core Equity Institutional As of 12/31/2016 Firm Overview Parnassus Investments (Parnassus) is an independent and employee -owned boutique asset management firm based in San Francisco, CA. The firm was founded in 1984 by Jerome ("Jerry") L. Dodson and SEC -registered as an Investment Advisor the next year. The firm manages six investment strategies; four US equity, one fixed income, and one Asia strategy. The vast majority of the assets are in the US equity strataegies. Parnassus has always been an employee- and family -owned firm, making a long-term strategic plan to remain independent in 2004. The firm began providing key employees and employees with ten years of service the opportunity to become owners of the firm in 2010. The firm now boasts 26 employees with a stake in ownership. Team Overview Todd Ahlsten has been the lead Portfolio Manager since 2001 and has been with Parnassus since 1995. Benjamin Allen was added to the fund as a co -PM in 2012 as a result of the firm moving to a dual PM structure (Allen previously was the Director of Research and a Sr. Analyst). The Core Equity strategy is the only product Ahlsten and Allen are responsible for managing. In addition to the two PMs, the investment team for the Core Equity Fund is comprised of eight analysts and one trader. PMs also serve as analysts. Each analyst acts as a generalist, covering a limited number of "focus industries". Strategy Overview The investment philosophy is to own good businesses at reasonable prices. By following a disciplined bottom -up fundamental process, Parnassus believes they are better able to make high conviction investments that enable investors to build wealth responsibly over the long-term. The investment team looks at four key criteria during its company -specific review. First, the company's products or services have to be more relevant in the economy five years from now than they are today. Second, the company must have a sustainable competitive advantage. Third, the company has to be run by quality management teams with appropriate incentives. Once the investment team determines that a company's intrinsic value is increasing, the investment team performs a detailed valuation that results in a probability weighted, multi -scenario, three-year price target for the stock. They are long-term investors and historic turnover ratio is around 20% annually. Portfolios are concentrated into 40 stocks and they have a very flexible policy in regards to sector and/or industry diversification. The one limitation is a maximum sector overweight, which is 2x that of the weighting in the S&P 500. Expectations Like most high -quality managers, the strategy tends to do well in down markets and markets focused on stock fundamentals, and trails in strong up -markets that are often led by low -quality stocks (non -earners, low ROE, highly leveraged.) While we do not consider this an all -cap strategy, the weighted average market cap of the strategy tends to be considerably smaller than the benchmark and the portfolio can have significant exposure to stocks as small as $1 B. The concentrated, index -agnostic approach will lead to large sector and risk factor bets relative to the index, which could cause significant index -relative short-term performance swings and clients will need a long-term perspective. Since inception, have tended to capture 80-90% of up -markets and 75-85% of down -markets. Points to Consider The strategy is now near the halfway point of its stated capacity of $30B. While the listed capacity would appear to be low enough for the fund to continue to dip into mid cap, the fund may be contrained in its ability to take material positions in stocks below $5B without taking a significant stake in ownership and increased liquidity risk. Parnassus has integrated ESG into its company analysis since its inception. If Ahlsten and Allen are deciding between two companies with similar characteristics, they will invest in the one with the better ESG profile. Although ESG is commonly thought to be only for conscientious investors, Parnassus believes such guidelines, intentionally or not, have been a powerful risk management tool over the years. The stated $100M separate account minimum is very high, but an institutional mutual fund is offered. Recommendation Summary Parnassus has an investment framework that is applied consistently. Its intense focus on three core criteria (Relevancy, Moat, and Management) as primary investment objectives has proven effective. The team prefers concentrated portfolio construction with loose risk management constraints. Lead PM Ahlsten's constant focus on risk allows the strategy to perform like a diversified offering despite its high active share. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional - Asset Allocation Parnassus Core Equity Institutional - Equity Regional Exposure Parnassus Core Equity Institutional - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 87.5 80.0 upopm" 75.0 75.0 62.5 60.0 62.5 50.0 40.0 50.0 37.5 37.5 25.0 20.0 25.0 4*401ftft__- 12.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.0 . _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -North America % Latin America % -United Kingdom -Stock Bond -Cash Europe dev % -Africa/Middle East % Japan % -Giant % Large % -Mid % Other Asia dev % Small % -Micro % Parnassus Core Equity Institutional - Equity Sectors (GICS) Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Parnassus Core Equity Institutional - Equity Style Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 I r 10.0 2016 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Energy % Materials % -Industrials % Consumer Discretionary % -Consumer Staples % -Healthcare % -Large Value % Large Core % -Large Growth % Financials % Information Technology % Utilities % Mid Value % -Mid Core % -Mid Growth % -Real Estate % Small Value % Small Core % Small Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Return Distribution - Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 14.0 12.0 10.0 d 0 8.0 `m E 6.0 7 Z 4.0 2.0 ■ ■ ■ 0.0 -24.0 -20.0 -Wo -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 Excess Return Distribution - Parnassus Core Equity Institutional Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 8.0 za o 6.0 d 5.0 0 4.0 E 7 3.0 Z 1 .0 1 4.0 &0 12.0 16.0 20.0 0.0 24.0 -&0 -TO -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -M -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 TO 8.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD c 120.0% m c .0 100.0% C: C Y 80.0% 7 W N � j 60.0% U) M m E 40.0% m a 20.0% 0.0% -20.0% -50.0% -20.0% S&P 500 TR USD Return Parnassus Core Equity Institutional 10.0% 40.0% S&P 500 TR USD 70.0% 100.0% 130.0% Dana Large Cap Equity As of 12/31/2016 Firm Overview Dana Investment Advisors ("Dana") was founded and began managing assets in 1980. The firm has been independent and 100% employee owned since its founding. Dana feels this independence allows it to build its business prudently, with a proper focus on generating superior, consistent, risk -adjusted returns for its clients. Dana implemented an equity ownership program in July 2001 whereby certain key employees receive stock and stock options according to a pre -determined vesting schedule. Dana considers exact ownership percentages to be confidential information, but that ownership participation is spread out among approximately 20+ employees. Team Overview Duane Roberts, CFA is the lead portfolio manager for Dana's Large Cap Equity Strategy. Roberts has approximately 20 years of experience managing equity portfolios, and has been the lead on Dana's Large Cap Equity Strategy since its 1999 inception and has final say on all portfolio decisions. He is supported in the portfolio management role by and Greg Dahlman, CFA, Michael Honkamp, CFA and David Stamm, CFA. Strategy Overview Dana employs a hybrid investment approach consisting of quantitative modeling and fundamental analysis. Multiple risk controls are implemented to attempt to reduce volatility, while maintaining a focus on security selection. Security selection is the focus of the investment process, as portfolios are run sector neutral versus the index. Idea generation starts with a proprietary, multi -factor, quantitative scoring of all stocks in the large cap universe. Each stock is ranked (from 0 to 100) by four separate models. The first model focuses on valuation levels of a company relative to other companies in the same economic sector. The second model examines the trade-off between growth and valuation levels, while also incorporating factors that help identify sustainable growth. The third model looks at changes in investor expectation, and trends in forward earnings estimates. Finally, a composite ranking is generated that incorporates the other three model ranks, looking for strength in all three areas. The same models are used for all sectors, ranks are sector -relative. After the quantitative evaluation process is completed, the investment team combines the output of the models with their judgement and experience to determine the stocks and industries that are attractive enough to put through a rigorous set of fundamental techniques. The fundamental process is primarily bottom -up, with some consideration given to broad investment themes and demographic trends. Initial sector weights match the benchmark S&P 500. The large cap core target portfolios typically hold between 50 and 55 securities. Within each sector, positions are equally weighted, as Dana believes this minimizes volatility of the portfolio. Expectations Dana will perform best in markets driven where company fundamentals drive stock performance more than industry or macroeconomic factors. We would not expect them to do well in markets dominated by a concentrated sub -set of sectors outperforming due to its sector neutral approach. The relative value bias may cause Dana to struggle in markets where growth significantly outperforms value. The most challenging period for Dana's equity strategies to out -perform would be during periods where lower quality stocks, or more highly valued momentum -oriented names significantly outperform the market averages. They will also struggle in environments where "mega" caps lead the markets as they tend to have overweight exposure to mid caps relative to the index. Points to Consider It seems to us that the recent inclusion of a momentum factor into the quantitative model and investment process changes to increase market cap and growth in the portfolio in response to the macro environment are at odds with Dana's historical emphasis on relative value and will potentially limit future outperformance potential. We identified several major deficiencies in Dana's quantitative process that, in our opinion, do not compare favorably to best -in -class quantitative managers. These include: factors in the model that have not proven efficacious over time; recent additions to the model that we think are reactionary in today's market environment; back testing methodologies that are not best in class; the same model is used across all sectors (save Financials) and style; and finally the flexibility allowed by the team to not use the highest ranked stocks in the model introduces uncertainty in the ability to predict future return patterns. The LCC product has struggled over the past 18 months through 9/30/16. The strategy has posted six straight quarters of underperformance for over 500 bps of underperformance versus the S&P 500 during this time period. This magnitude of underperformance is significant relative to the product's history. Recommendation Summary Dana's Large Cap Core period of underperformance in 2015 and 2016 forced us to re-examine the investment team and process. While we found the investment team to be capable, we came away with less conviction in the investment process. This is not to say that this strategy cannot outperform its benchmark over certain time periods. Dana's style has been out of favor and could be poised for a recovery if the market begins to reward companies with strong fundamentals, as opposed to being driven by macro considerations. The firm and strategy continue to meet our institutional criteria. Ultimately, though, we believe that there are better options than Dana Large Cap Core. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Dana Large Cap Equity - Asset Allocation Dana Large Cap Equity - Equity Regional Exposure Dana Large Cap Equity - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 87.5 87.5 75.0 75.0 75.0 62.5 62.5 62.5 50.0 50.0 50.0 37.5 37.5 37.5 25.0 25.0 25.0 12.5 12. 12.5 0.0 12.5 12. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 _North America % Latin America % -United Kingdom % 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Stock -Cash Other Europe dev % Asia dev % Asia emrg % -Giant % Large % -Mid % Dana Large Cap Equity - Equity Sectors (GICS) Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 90.0 OR 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -Energy % Materials % -Industrials % Consumer Discretionary % -Consumer Staples % -Healthcare % Financials % Information Technology % Telecom Services % Utilities % -Real Estate % Dana Large Cap Equity - Equity Style Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 i 2016 10.0 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Large Value % Large Core % Mid Value % -Mid Core % -Large Growth % -Mid Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Return Distribution - Dana Large Cap Equity(net) Excess Return Distribution - Dana Large Cap Equity(net) Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return Source Data: Quarterly Return 14.0 10.0 0.0 12.0 (n (n 8.0 -0 -0 10.0 0 8.0 0 6.0 50 E 6.0 E 4.0 Z Z 4.0 3.0 2,0 2.0 .00 0.0 _ ■ ■ . 1.0 -24.0 -20.0 -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 &0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 -3.0 -M -1.0 0.0 10 M 3.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD C 130.0% ry am c Z'100.0% w a 70.0% • m w J h C �• p 40.0% 10.0% go -20.0% • -50.0% -50.0% -20.0% 10.0% 40.0% 70.0% 100.0% 130.0% S&P 500 TR USD Return Dana Large Cap Equity(net) M S&P 500 TR USD Definitions Alpha -A measure of the difference between a portfolio's actual returns and its expected performance, given its level of risk as measured by beta. Batting Average — A measure of a manager's ability to consistently beat the market. It is calculated by dividing the number of months in which the manager beat or matched an index by the total number of months in the period. Best Quarter- This is the highest quarterly (3 month) return of the investment since its inception. is symmetric with skewness 0. Sortino Ratio - The Sortino Ratio is similar to Sharpe Ratio except it uses downside risk (Downside Deviation) in the denominator. It was developed in early 1980's by Frank Sortino. Since upside variability is not necessarily a bad thing, Sortino ratio is sometimes more preferable than Sharpe ratio. Standard Deviation - A statistical measure of the range of a portfolio's performance. It represents the variability of returns around the average return over a specified time period. Beta - A measure of the sensitivity of a portfolio to the movements in the market. It is a measure of the Tracking Error - This is a measure of the standard deviation of a portfolio's excess returns versus its portfolio's systematic risk. designated market benchmark. Down Period Percent - Number of months below 0 divided by the total number of months. Downmarket Capture Ratio - The ratio of average portfolio performance over the designated benchmark during periods of negative returns. A lower value indicates better product performance. Downside Std Dev - This measures only deviations below a specified benchmark. Excess Return- This is a measure of an investment's return in excess of a benchmark. Information Ratio - This calculates the value-added contribution of the manager and is derived by dividing the excess rate of return of the portfolio by the tracking error. The higher the Information Ratio, the more the manager has added value to the portfolio. Longest Down -Streak Return - Return for the longest series of negative monthly returns. Longest Down -Streak # of Periods - Longest series of negative monthly returns. Longest Up -Streak Return - Return for the longest series of positive monthly returns. Longest Up -Streak - Longest series of positive monthly returns. Kurtosis - Kurtosis indicates the peakedness of a distribution. For normal distribution, Kurtosis is 3. Max Drawdown - The peak to trough decline during a specific record period of an investment or fund. It is usually quoted as the percentage between the peak to the trough. Max Drawndown # of Periods - This is the number of months that encompasses the max drawdown for an investment. R-Squared - The percentage of a portfolio's performance that can be explained by the behavior of the appropriate benchmark. A high R-Squared means the portfolio's performance has historically moved in the same direction as the appropriate benchmark. Return - Compounded rate of return for the period. Sharpe Ratio - Represents the excess rate of return over the risk free return divided by the standard deviation of the excess return. The result is an absolute rate of return per unit of risk. A higher value demonstrates better historical risk -adjusted performance. Skewness - Skewness reflects the degree of asymmetry of a distribution. If the distribution has a longer left tail, the function has negative skewness. Otherwise, it has positive skewness. A normal distribution Treynor Ratio - Similar to Sharpe Ratio, Treynor Ratio is a measurement of efficiency utilizing the relationship between annualized risk -adjusted return and risk. Unlike Sharpe Ratio, Treynor Ratio utilizes "market" risk (beta) instead of total risk (standard deviation). Good performance efficiency is measured by a high ratio. Up period Percent - Number of months above 0 divided by the total number of months. Upmarket Capture Ratio - The ratio of average portfolio performance over the designated benchmark during periods of positive returns. A higher value indicates better product performance. Worst Quarter - This is the lowest quarterly (3 month) return of the investment since its inception. Disclosures AndCo compiled this report for the sole use of the client for which it was prepared. AndCo uses the results from this evaluation to make observations and recommendations to the client. When client -specific performance is shown, AndCo uses time -weighted calculations, which are founded on standards recommended by the CFA Institute. In these cases, the performance -related data shown are based on information that is received from custodians. As a result, this provides AndCo with a reasonable basis that the investment information presented is free from material misstatement. The strategies listed may not be suitable for all investors. We believe the information provided here is reliable, but do not warrant its accuracy or completeness. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Any information contained in this report is for informational purposes only and should not be construed to be an offer to buy or sell any securities, investment consulting, or investment management services. Additional information included in this document may contain data provided by index databases, public economic sources and the managers themselves This document may contain data provided by Barclays. Barclays Index data provided by way of Barclays Live. This document may contain data provided by Standard and Poor's. Nothing contained within any document, advertisement or presentation from S&P Indices constitutes an offer of services in jurisdictions where S&P Indices does not have the necessary licenses. All information provided by S&P Indices is impersonal and is not tailored to the needs of any person, entity or group of persons. Any returns or performance provided within any document is provided for illustrative purposes only and does not demonstrate actual performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future investment results. This document may contain data provided by MSCI, Inc. Copyright MSCI, 2012. Unpublished. All Rights Reserved. This information may only be used for your internal use, may not be reproduced or redisseminated in any form and may not be used to create any financial instruments or products or any indices. This information is provided on an "as is" basis and the user of this information assumes the entire risk of any use it may make or permit to be made of this information. Neither MSCI, any of its affiliates or any other person involved in or related to compiling, computing or creating this information makes any express or implied warranties or representations with respect to such information or the results to be obtained by the use thereof, and MSCI, its affiliates and each such other person hereby expressly disclaim all warranties (including, without limitation, all warranties of originality, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, non -infringement, merchantability and fitness fora particular purpose) with respect to this information. Without limiting any of the foregoing, in no event shall MSCI, any of its affiliates or any other person involved in or related to compiling, computing or creating this information have any liability for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, punitive, consequential or any other damages (including, without limitation, lost profits) even if notified of, or if it might otherwise have anticipated, the possibility of such damages. This document may contain data provided by Russell Investment Group. Russell Investment Group is the source owner of the data contained or reflected in this material and all trademarks and copyrights related thereto. The material may contain confidential information and unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, dissemination or redistribution is strictly prohibited. This is a user presentation of the data. Russell Investment Group is not responsible for the formatting or configuration of this material or for any inaccuracy in presentation thereof. This document may contain data provided by Morningstar. All rights reserved. Use of this content requires expert knowledge. It is to be used by specialist institutions only. The information contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar and/or its content providers; (2) may not be copied, adapted or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information, except where such damages or losses cannot be limited or excluded by law in your jurisdiction. Past financial performance is not guarantee of future results. Putting clients first. AndCo Consulting I I .I,lo. lilt ;ir-.� Fo»incrh The Bogdahn Group Small Cap Core Equity Manager Analysis December 31, 2016 City of Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund AndCo Consulting 1 (866) 246-7932 1 .1ziclCoC«nsulrin, .r oni ForrzzerIN, The Sogdahn Group Introduction As of 12/31/2016 Purpose for this Manager Evaluation Report This search is to evaluate potential replacement options for Dana Small Cap Equity. Investment Options for this Manager Evaluation Report Firm Name Strategy Name Vehicle Management Fee Champlain Investment Partners Champlain Small Company Instl (CIPNX) MF 1.06% Delaware Management Company Delaware Small Cap Core R6 (DCZRX) MF 0.87% J.P. Morgan Investment Management JPMorgan U.S. Small Company R6 (JUSMX) MF 0.74% Dana Investment Advisors Small Cap Equity SA 0.75% on first $3 million; 0.60% thereafter Asset Class Overview As of 12/31/2016 Defiinitions and Characteristics US Small Cap Core is typically defined as all US -based companies with a market capitalization between $300 million and $2 billion. These companies typically have single business lines, a US focus, and higher growth potential than larger cap names. Many of the companies are less followed by Wall Street which result in lower average daily trading volumes. The primary benchmark for strategies in this space is the Russell 2000 Index. The index contains the smallest 2000 stocks in the Russell 3000 on Russell's annual reconstitution day, typically calculated at the end of May. The largest sectors of the index are Financials and Technology, with the Consumer sectors and Healthcare all accounting for meaningful percentages between 10% and 15%. The index is well diversified by market cap with no single name dominating. Role within a Portfolio The primary role of a US Small Cap Core strategy is to provide exposure to smaller US companies that have greater growth potential and diversify away from mega -cap stocks. The higher expected growth leads to both higher long- term expected returns and higher expected volatility. Most Small Cap Core equity strategies balance exposures to value and growth stocks and typically purchase stocks with a market cap less than $3 billion. The lack of Wall Street research and diversity of the index gives managers the ability to build portfolios substantially different from the benchmark, so tracking error can also be higher. Benchmark and Peer Group This US Small Cap Core Equity search report will use the following benchmark and peer group: Index — Russell 2000 Index: Consists of the 2000 smallest stocks by market cap in the Russell 3000 index on the index's reconstitution ranking day, typically done at the end of May. Peer Group - Small Blend: Small -blend portfolios favor U.S. firms at the smaller end of the market -capitalization range. Some aim to own an array of value and growth stocks while others employ a discipline that leads to holdings with valuations and growth rates close to the small -cap averages. Stocks in the bottom 10% of the capitalization of the U.S. equity market are defined as small cap. The blend style is assigned to portfolios where neither growth nor value characteristics predominate. Investment Option Comparison Firm and Investment Option Information As of 12/31/2016 Firm Information Firm Name Firm City Firm State or Province Firm Web Address SA Firm Total Assets Strategy Information Ticker Inception Date Investment Type Fund Size Strategy Assets if Seperate Account or CIT Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6 Champlain Funds Delaware Investments Burlington Philadelphia VT PA www.cipvt.com www.delawareinvestments.com 174,189,370,000.00 Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6 CIPNX DCZRX 8/31 /2016 5/2/2016 Open -End Fund Open -End Fund 1,240,083,367 1,879,838,799 3,830,410,000 2,572,885,000 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 JPMorgan New York NY www.jpmorganfunds.com JPMorgan US Small Company R6 JUSMX 11/1/2011 Open -End Fund 1,725,290,161 Dana Small Cap Equity Dana Investment Advisors Inc Brookfield WI www.danainvestment.com 7,172,000,000.00 Dana Small Cap Equity 7/30/1999 Separate Account 429,600,000 Current Portfolio Comparison As of 12/31/2016 Champlain Delaware JPMorgan Dana Small Small US Small Small Russell Company Cap Company Cap 0 Institutional Core R6 Equity TR US R6 COMPOSITION # of Holdings 77 139 395 65 1,978 %Asset in Top 10 Holdings 26.60 12.43 11.98 19.61 2.69 Asset Alloc Cash % 4.57 1.75 4.52 0.84 0.00 Asset Alloc Equity % 95.43 97.67 95.48 99.16 100.00 Asset Alloc Bond % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asset Alloc Other % 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 CHARACTERISTICS Average Market Cap (mil) 2,209.25 1,970.67 1,488.62 1,990.27 1,682.78 P/E Ratio (TTM) 27.45 23.81 19.96 23.99 22.07 P/B Ratio (TTM) 2.54 2.39 2.06 3.02 2.14 LT Earn Growth 11.15 15.39 10.22 13.13 11.19 Dividend Yield 0.92 1.22 1.56 1.14 1.78 ROE % (TTM) 8.26 9.28 6.97 19.05 7.19 GICS SECTORS % Energy % 1.74 4.17 3.63 3.70 3.76 Materials % 3.68 7.02 4.15 4.67 4.88 Industrials % 16.77 19.43 16.59 14.71 14.61 Consumer Discretionary % 9.59 9.76 11.92 12.58 12.55 Consumer Staples % 8.90 0.90 2.72 2.76 2.97 Healthcare % 20.95 13.09 13.65 12.37 12.15 Financials % 21.86 19.97 18.56 19.75 19.88 Information Technology % 16.51 15.90 18.23 17.12 16.99 Telecom Services % 0.00 0.71 0.70 0.74 0.75 Utilities % 0.00 2.41 3.10 3.60 3.54 Real Estate % 0.00 6.65 6.76 8.00 7.93 MARKET CAPITALIZATION Market Cap Giant % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Market Cap Large % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Market Cap Mid % 10.90 12.07 10.76 12.88 8.04 Market Cap Small % 68.90 60.93 47.99 54.49 60.75 Market Cap Micro % 15.63 24.67 36.56 30.14 31.20 Historical Portfolio Characteristics Comparison As of 12/31/2016 Historical Number of Holdings Historical Percentage of Assets in Top 10 Holdings 700.0 30.0 27.5 600.0 IL n 25.0 rn 500.0 � V rn 0 22.5 c o_ 400.0 fl 20.0 H o S 300.0 N 17.5 Q 15.0 200.0 12.5 100.0 10.0 0.0 7.5 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2008 2010 Historical Cash Allocation Historical Portfolio Turnover 12.0 140.0 10.0 Q a) Q 4.0 2.0 0.0 2011 2012 - Champlain Small Company Institutional Dana Small Cap Equity 2013 2014 2015 2016 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Russell 2000 TR USD 120.0 0 100.0 [Y a) 0 80.0 E 60.0 40.0 20.0 2012 2014 2016 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 - JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Historical Portfolio Characteristics Comparison As of 12/31/2016 Historical P/E Ratio 27.5 25.0 22.5 o 20.0 CO af a 17.5 15.0 12.5 10.0 7.5 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Historical Earnings Growth 17.0 16.0 15.0 t 3 0 C7 14.0 E `m w F� 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 2008 2010 - Champlain Small Company Institutional Dana Small Cap Equity 2012 2014 2016 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Russell 2000 TR USD Historical P/B Ratio 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.5 0 CO (If 2.3 m a 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Historical Dividend Yield 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 - JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Current and Historical Holdings Based Style Analysis As of 12/31/2016 Current Portfolio Holdings -Style Map co 0 (D m` J O E U) O i U_ Deep -Val Core -Val Core Champlain Small Company Institutional Dana Small Cap Equity Core-Grth High-Grth Delaware Small Cap Core R6 ■ Russell 2000 TR USD Historical Holdings -Based Style Trail Time Period: 1/31/2007 to 12/31/2016 O rn M J (6 E U) O L U_ Deep -Val Core -Val Core Core-Grth High-Grth ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 , WO Quantitative Review Trailing Performance As of 12/31/2016 Peer Group (5-95%): Open End Funds - U.S. - Small Blend 30.0 28.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 • 6.0 ■ 4.0 2.0 0.0 ■ 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8 Years 9 Years 10 Years 1 Year Rank 2 Years Rank 3 Years Rank 4 Years Rank 5 Years Rank 6 Years Rank 7 Years Rank 8 Years Rank 9 Years Rank 10 Years Rank Champlain Small Company Institutional 28.22 6 12.55 6 9.65 8 15.76 13 14.72 34 12.84 19 14.41 21 15.55 33 10.29 21 10.34 19 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 21.50 40 8.37 36 8.53 21 16.32 8 16.18 12 13.42 12 15.49 9 16.91 13 9.52 29 8.02 37 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 20.87 46 8.25 38 8.40 22 15.70 14 16.86 7 13.15 14 15.05 13 17.39 9 10.08 23 8.31 32 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 11.18 96 6.27 67 6.24 57 14.94 25 15.67 19 13.17 14 15.61 9 16.34 20 9.28 31 7.30 48 Russell 2000 TR USD 21.31 42 7.68 47 6.74 49 13.99 42 14.46 40 11.12 43 13.24 40 14.90 46 8.07 51 7.07 52 Champlain Small Company Institutional Dana Small Cap Equity(net) Delaware Small Cap Core R6 ■ Russell 2000 TR USD 0 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Calendar Year Performance As of 12/31/2016 Peer Group (5-95%): Open End Funds - U.S. - Small Blend 60.0 52.5 45.0 37.5 30.0 22.5 N 15.0 7.5Of • ■ 0.0 ON -7.5 -15.0 -22.5 -30.0 -37.5 -45.0 -52.5 ■ 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2016 Rank 2015 Rank 2014 Rank 2013 Rank 2012 Rank 2011 Rank 2010 Rank 2009 Rank 2008 Rank 2007 Rank Champlain Small Company Institutional 28.22 6 -1.21 14 4.07 60 36.21 61 10.66 87 3.88 6 24.30 66 23.86 82 -24.04 3 10.84 5 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 21.50 40 -3.35 34 8.85 7 43.24 14 15.62 48 0.58 15 28.72 18 27.35 61 -35.07 57 -4.52 75 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 20.87 46 -3.05 31 8.71 8 40.66 23 21.63 5 -3.69 54 27.15 32 35.08 28 -34.18 49 -6.36 83 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 11.18 96 1.56 4 6.20 30 45.53 9 18.67 17 1.43 11 31.42 8 21.54 87 -33.73 47 -8.98 91 Russell 2000 TR USD 21.31 42 -4.41 49 4.89 49 38.82 37 16.35 36 -4.18 60 26.85 35 27.17 63 -33.79 47 -1.57 56 Champlain Small Company Institutional Dana Small Cap Equity(net) Delaware Small Cap Core R6 ■ Russell 2000 TR USD ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Rolling Return Analysis As of 12/31/2016 Rolling Returns Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 30.0 22.5 15.0 E 7.5 0.0 -7.5 -15.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Return Rankings Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 c �5 50.0 t of 75.0 100.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6—JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) — Russell 2000 TR USD Rolling Excess Return Analysis As of 12/31/2016 Rolling Excess Returns Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 8.0 6.0 4.0 c m 2.0 N N � 0.0 X w -2.0 -4.0 -6.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Excess Return Rankings Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 c m 50.0 N N N U X W 75.0 100.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6—JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) — Russell 2000 TR USD \, J Current and Historical Risk and Reward As of 12/31/2016 Risk -Reward: 5-Year Time Period: 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016 Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 21.0 18.0 15.0 c 12.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 Champlain Small Company Institutional Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 9.0 Std Dev Risk -Reward: Rolling 5-Year Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 5 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 .0 15.0 18.0 0.0 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 ■ Russell 2000 TR USD 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Std Dev ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Current and Historical Risk and Reward As of 12/31/2016 Risk -Reward: 10-Year Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 12.0 10.0 8.0 c a) Of 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 Champlain Small Company Institutional Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 12.0 Std Dev Risk -Reward: Rolling 10-Year Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 10 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 14.0 12.0 10.0 c 8.0 a� 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 .0 20.0 24.0 0.0 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 ■ Russell 2000 TR USD 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 Std Dev ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Rolling Risk Analysis As of 12/31/2016 Rolling Standard Deviation Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 30.0 25.0 a� 20.0 15.0 10.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Standard Deviation Rankings Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 > o 50.0 75.0 100.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6—JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) — Russell 2000 TR USD \, J Rolling Risk Analysis As of 12/31/2016 Rolling Tracking Error Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 8.0 0.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Rolling Tracking Error Rankings Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 1st to 25th Percentile 26th to Median 51st to 75th Percentile 76th to 100th Percentile 0.0 25.0 / o J w` rn 50.0 c Y U F 75.0 100.0 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 03 06 09 12 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 —Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6—JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) — Russell 2000 TR USD Multi Statistic Analysis As of 12/31/2016 15.8 Champlain Small Company Institutional 15.6 15.4 15.2 15.0 14.8 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 14.6 ■ 14.4 14.2 14.0 ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 13.8 13.6 13.4 13.2 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 13.0 • 12.8 12.6 12.4 12.2 ■ Russell 2000 TR USD - 12.0 - Std Dev 5 Yr Time Period: 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 00 ■ Sharpe Ratio 5 Yr 4.0 1.2 8.0 3.5 1.0 7.5 3.0 0.8 7.0 2.5 0.6 6.5 • 2.0 ® 0.4 6.0 1.5 0.2 5.5 1.0 -0.0 5.0 0.5 -0.2 4.5 0.0 -0.4 4.0 -0.5 -0.6 3.5 -1.0 -0.8 3.0 -1.5 -1.0 2.5 -2.0 -1.2 2.0 -2.5 -1.4 1.5 -3.0 -1.6 1.0 -3.5 -1.8 0.5 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 Alpha 5 Yr Information Ratio 5 Yr Tracking Error 5 Yr Std Dev Rank Sharpe Rank Alpha Rank Information Rank Tracking Rank Ratio Ratio Error Champlain Small Company Institutional 13.09 82 1.12 23 2.29 17 0.05 37 4.96 25 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 13.81 55 1.16 13 2.49 13 0.56 10 3.06 76 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 15.03 17 1.11 24 1.90 26 1.10 2 2.18 91 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 13.53 67 1.15 16 2.60 12 0.28 22 4.35 40 Russell 2000 TR USD 14.62 27 0.98 48 0.00 61 0.00 100 , WO Multi Statistic Analysis As of 12/31/2016 22.5 Champlain Small Company Institutional 22.0 21.5 21.0 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 20.5 20.0 ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 19.5 19.0 18.5 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 18.0 17.5 17.0 r ■ Russell 2000 TR USD 16.5 Std Dev 10 Yr Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 0.6 4.5 0.7 9.0 • 0.6 4.0 0.6 • 8.5 0.6 0.5 8.0 0.6 3.5 0.4 7.5 0.6 3.0 0.3 7.0 0.5 2.5 0.2 6.5 0.5 0.1 2.0 0.0 6.0 • 0.5 1.5 -0.1 5.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 ® ® -0.2 5.0 -0.3 4.5 0.4 0.5 -0.4 4.0 0.4 0.0 -0.5 3.5 0.4 -0.6 0.4 0.5 3.0 0.4 -1.0 -0.7 2.5 -0.8 2.0 0.3 -1.5 -0.9 0.3 -1.0 1.5 -2.0 0.3 -1.1 1.0 0.3 -2.5 -1.2 0.5 0.3 -3.0 -1.3 0.0 Sharpe Ratio 10 Yr Alpha 10 Yr Information Ratio 10 Yr Tracking Error 10 Yr Std Dev Rank Sharpe Rank Alpha Rank Information Rank Tracking Rank Ratio Ratio Error Champlain Small Company Institutional 16.89 74 0.57 19 4.00 4 0.56 8 5.86 29 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 19.58 40 0.37 44 1.10 31 0.31 17 3.10 81 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 20.58 20 0.37 46 1.13 30 0.49 10 2.54 88 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 18.67 58 0.35 51 0.73 40 0.05 36 4.73 48 Russell 2000 TR USD 20.14 29 0.32 58 0.00 55 0.00 100 , WO Up and Down Market Capture As of 12/31/2016 Current Up and Down Market Capture: 5-Year Time Period: 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016 Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 120.0 100.0 80.0 0 .6 a� n U 60.0 a 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Down Capture Ratio 100.0 Historical Up and Down Market Capture: Rolling 5-Year Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 5 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 140.0 120.0 100.0 0 .6 80.0 n CO U a D 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 120.0 0.0 Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) ■ Russell 2000 TR USD 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 Down Capture Ratio ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Up and Down Market Capture As of 12/31/2016 Current Up and Down Market Capture: 10-Year Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 120.0 100.0 80.0 0 .6 a� n U 60.0 a 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Down Capture Ratio 100.0 Historical Up and Down Market Capture: Rolling 10-Year Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 10 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 120.0 100.0 80.0 0 .6 a� n CO 60.0 a D 40.0 20.0 0.0 120.0 0.0 Champlain Small Company Institutional Delaware Small Cap Core R6 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) ■ Russell 2000 TR USD 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 Down Capture Ratio ® JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Batting Average and Drawdown As of 12/31/2016 Batting Average Source Data: Monthly Return Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 45.0 a� 40.0 Q' 35.0 30.0 .0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Drawdown Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Monthly Return 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 -15.0 -20.0 -25.0 -30.0 -35.0 -40.0 -45.0 -50.0 -55.0 -60.0 2007 2008 — Champlain Small Company Institutional Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 2009 2010 2011 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 Russell 2000 TR USD 2012 2013 2014 2015 — JPMorgan US Small Company R6 2016 \, J MPT Statistics As of 12/31/2016 MPT Statistics: 5-Year Time Period: 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016 Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD Return Excess Return Std Dev Downside Std Dev Beta Sortino Ratio Tracking Error R2 Sharpe Ratio Treynor Ratio Information Ratio Alpha Skewness Kurtosis Batting Average Up Capture Ratio Up Period Percent Best Quarter Longest Up -Streak Return Longest Up -Streak # of Periods Down Capture Ratio Down Period Percent Worst Quarter Longest Down -Streak Return Longest Down -Streak # of Periods Max Drawdown Max Drawdown # of Periods Champlain Small Company Institutional 14.72 0.26 13.09 3.31 0.84 1.92 4.96 88.71 1.11 17.31 0.05 2.29 -0.33 -0.17 53.33 91.48 66.67 13.02 30.61 7.00 82.66 33.33 -10.15 -14.34 3.00 -14.89 8.00 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 16.18 1.72 13.81 1.56 0.92 2.10 3.06 95.72 1.15 17.38 0.56 2.49 -0.07 0.15 50.00 96.85 65.00 13.14 16.69 5.00 84.19 35.00 -9.75 -12.82 3.00 -14.03 7.00 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 16.86 2.40 15.03 0.82 1.02 1.96 2.18 97.92 1.11 16.46 1.10 1.90 -0.21 -0.34 58.33 105.94 66.67 14.63 23.11 7.00 97.14 33.33 -11.74 -13.58 3.00 -15.33 8.00 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 15.67 1.21 13.53 2.40 0.88 1.99 4.35 91.22 1.14 17.60 0.28 2.60 -0.39 -0.35 53.33 93.56 63.33 15.13 16.79 5.00 81.00 36.67 -9.97 13.78 3.00 16.85 8.00 MPT Statistics As of 12/31/2016 MPT Statistics: 10-Year Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD Return Excess Return Std Dev Downside Std Dev Beta Sortino Ratio Tracking Error R2 Sharpe Ratio Treynor Ratio Information Ratio Alpha Skewness Kurtosis Batting Average Up Capture Ratio Up Period Percent Best Quarter Longest Up -Streak Return Longest Up -Streak # of Periods Down Capture Ratio Down Period Percent Worst Quarter Longest Down -Streak Return Longest Down -Streak # of Periods Max Drawdown Max Drawdown # of Periods Champlain Small Company Institutional 10.34 3.28 16.89 3.68 0.81 0.92 5.86 93.18 0.63 11.91 0.56 4.00 -0.85 2.54 58.33 90.60 65.00 17.87 44.39 8.00 76.22 35.00 -23.44 -18.96 5.00 -40.99 16.00 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 8.02 0.96 19.58 1.83 0.96 0.67 3.10 97.66 0.46 7.61 0.31 1.10 -0.51 1.58 52.50 96.92 61.67 20.67 50.83 7.00 92.64 38.33 -26.15 -24.14 5.00 -53.87 21.00 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 8.31 1.25 20.58 1.54 1.01 0.67 2.54 98.50 0.46 7.49 0.49 1.13 -0.45 1.08 56.67 102.47 64.17 22.77 46.20 8.00 98.37 35.83 -26.91 -26.45 5.00 -54.86 21.00 Dana Small Cap Equity(net) 7.30 0.24 18.67 2.90 0.90 0.62 4.73 94.70 0.43 7.30 0.05 0.73 -0.57 1.63 52.50 90.30 60.00 18.17 45.70 8.00 87.18 40.00 -25.17 -16.84 6.00 -55.23 21.00 Investment Option Narratives Champlain Small Company Institutional As of 12/31/2016 Firm Overview Champlain Investment Partners (CIP) is based in Burlington, VT, and began operations on September 17, 2004. The firm offers US equity and emerging market equity strategies. The firms' original partners were former employees of National Life Group's investment management subsidiar. The founders initially owned 60% of the equity and Rosemont Investment Partners, LLC, provided strategic capital to the firm and had the remaining 40% ownership stake. CIP's partners began purchasing equity from Rosemont in January 2007. In October 2008, the remaining equity (25%) was purchased by CIP, giving CIP employees complete ownership of the firm. Currently, there are fourteen employee partners and the firm has a 10 year minority revenue share with Kudu Investment Mgmt and Rosemont Partners. The firm also has an office in Irvine, CA. Team Overview The strategy is managed by a dedicated team of seven investment professionals. Scott Brayman (lead decision maker since inception) leads the team and is ultimately responsible for ensuring the investment process is followed. Analyst coverage responsibilities are assigned by sector: Corey Bronner (joined 2010) — Consumer & Financials, supported by Scott Brayman; Joe Caligiuri (joined 2008) — Energy & Industrials, supported by Scott Brayman; Joe Farley (joined 2014) — Technology, supported by Andrew Hanson (joined 2010); Rob Hallisey (joined 2016), Erik Giard-Chase (joined 2012) — co -cover Health Care. Each member of the team is responsible for researching and applying the investment process to the prospective and current names in his sector(s), determining fair value, and recommending buy/sell action. The decision - making is collaborative and as such voting procedures are not applicable. If a senior member of the investment team strongly disagrees with another member's buy recommendation, it is highly unlikely the stock will be purchased. The team also includes two quantitative analysts who support the strategy by improving the risk model, diagnostic tools and attribution work. Strategy Overview The market cap range for new holdings is between $250M and $2.513 for SCC. The first step in the process applies CIP's sector factors. CIP has specific factors for each of the five major sectors (consumer, financials, health care, industrials, and technology) that they use to eliminate stocks that do not possess the characteristics that they want. For consumer they avoid fashion risk; in financials they avoid businesses that only are trying to capture a spread and focus on niche opportunities; in health care they minimize their exposure to government reimbursement risk; in industrials they look for innovators and/or problem solvers; and for technology they avoid rapid product obsolescence. Industries that they avoid include: Utilities, Metals and Mining, Telecom Services, REITs, Construction and Engineering, Technology Hardware, Semiconductors, Biotech, and many parts of Consumer Discretionary. The next step of the process is fundamental research, which targets specific company attributes including high or excess returns on capital, strong balance sheets, credible and sincere management, high quality earnings, superior growth relative to other companies in the sector, and a predictable business model. The third and final step of the process is a valuation analysis to determine fair value. They eliminate holdings that exceeds the fair value estimate, when information invalidates the original investment premise, and also will trim positions exceeding 3% of the portfolio and when sectors exceed the established sector weight rule. Sector weights in large sectors are held at 75-125% of S&P SmallCap 600 or no more than 20% absolute of the portfolio in any of the five large sectors. Individual position sizes are typically no more than 5% of the portfolio, but they will trim when positions go above 3%. They will not have more than 10% cash (although they state it is rare to be above 5% cash). Sector factors cause them to exclude more than half of the GICS industries. Portfolios will hold 75-100 names with turnover of 30-50%. Expectations We expect CIP's strategies to outperform their respective benchmarks when there is a flight to quality in addition to holding up well in "normal" market environments. We expect them to underperform in strong up -markets, generally when speculation, momentum, and periods where low -quality and highly -cyclical companies are favored. Typically, during this environment, few of their high -quality factors (e.g. high ROE, high Price/Sales, low ROE volatility, low Debt/Cap, low 5- Year Beta) will outperform. Tracking error is generally around 6-7%. Points to Consider While decisions are team -managed, Brayman is the clear driver of the process and culture. He is relatively young and stated he has no plans to retire, but there is no true succession plan in place. While we think that Brayman has ceded sole control over the portfolio since the early days of the track record, he is an important contributor, the architect of the process and built the team. We believe, particularly for Tech and Healthcare names, that each those lead analysts are making all the calls in those sectors, with Brayman signing off. And Brayman was adamant that he can't just put whatever he wants into the portfolio without getting sign off from the rest of the team. But our recommendation would need to be re-evaluated if Brayman would no longer part of the team. It should be noted that Champlain has seen three original partners and experienced members of the investment team retire in recent years. The end of 2015 brought the first notable departure at the firm - Dan Butler, a partner and the lead technology analyst, retired at the end of the year. Joe Farley was hired to replace him and had 18 months overlap with Butler to learn the portfolio. We spent time with Farley during our due diligence and believe him to be a top-notch tech analyst. It was also recently announced that David O' Neal and Van Harissis will retire in December, 2016 and February 2017. Harissis is an original partner and was lead analyst for the Consumer sector until 2014, when Corey Bronner was named lead Consumer analyst and Harissis began to focus on managing a concentrated LCV product that will be shuttered when he retires. O'Neal was lead analyst in Heathcare. Champlain replaced him with Robert Hallisey, who has significant healthcare research experience. We also spent significant time with Erik Giard-Chase, who is the associate analyst covering healthcare, during our due diligence and were impressed with his command of the space. While losing senior members of the investment team is not a positive, we have full confidence in the current team and believe that Champlain has done a good job of managing these transitions in a thoughtful manner. The SCC strategy had previously been closed since 2007, but has recently reopened in 2016 and has $500MM in capacity as of 9/30/16. Recommendation Summary We recommend CIP's SCC strategy for AndCo's Recommended list. The disciplined and consistent approach to investing in good companies with strong cash flows and defensible competitive positions at reasonable prices is simple but effective. The Sector Factors that they use are logical and help embed risk management into the core of the process, which is supplemented by other significant risk management resources. The team is cohesive and highly skilled versus their peer group. This could be used as a stand-alone manager for clients that are focused on down -side protection or used in tandem with a more cyclically -sensitive manager that does well in up -markets. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Champlain Small Company Institutional -Asset Allocation Champlain Small Company Institutional - Equity Regional Exposure Champlain Small Company Institutional - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 87.5 87.5 75.0 75.0 75.0 62.5 62.5 62.5 50.0 50.0 50.0 37.5 37.5 37.5 25.0 25.0 25.0 12.5 12.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -North America % Latin America % Europe dev 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Stock -Cash Other -Africa/Middle East % -Mid % Small % -Micro % Champlain Small Company Institutional - Equity Sectors (GICS) Champlain Small Company Institutional - Equity Style Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 100.0 90.0 90.0 80.0 80.0 70.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 50.0 50.0 40.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.0 -Energy % Consumer Discretionary % Financials % Materials % -Consumer Staples % Information Technology % -Industrials % -Healthcare % 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Mid Value % -Mid Core % Small Value % Small Core % -Mid Growth % Small Growth % \, J Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Return Distribution - Champlain Small Company Institutional Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 14.0 12.0 1n ° 10.0 d 0 8.0 N 9 6.0 Z 4.0 2.0 2.0 ■ _ a ■ -28.0 -24.0 -20.0 -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12,0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 Excess Return Distribution - Champlain Small Company Institutional Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD 9.0 8.0 'Uo' 7.0 0 W 6.0 0- 5.0 N E 4.0 Z 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -7.0 -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD c m 0 O 5 w 90.0% c a C (0 a E <j 60.0% m E U) c 30.0% m L U � 0.0% -30.0% -50.0% -20.0% Russell 2000 TR USD Return 111111111 Champlain Small Company Institutional • 10.0% 40.0% 70.0% 100.0% Russell 2000 TR USD 130.0% \, J Delaware Small Cap Core R6 As of 12/31/2016 Firm Overview Delaware Investments was founded in 1929 and is based in Philadelphia, PA. The firm's first mutual fund was introduced in 1938. Delaware was among the first to offer small company stock funds, single -state municipal bond funds, high yield corporate bond funds, and short -to -intermediate -term government bond funds. Delaware now offers a product in most major equity categories, covering all domestic market capitalizations and investment styles. In 2010, Delaware's former parent, Lincoln National Corporation, sold Delaware to Macquarie Affiliated Managers, Inc., a subsidiary of Macquarie Group Limited (Macquarie). Macquarie is a global provider of banking, financial, advisory, investment and fund management services headquartered in Australia. Macquarie is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX: MQG) and is regulated by APRA, the Australian banking regulator, as the owner of Macquarie Bank Limited. Delaware sits within Macquarie Asset Management (MAM), one of five operating businesses within Macquarie. Today, the firm also has offices in Boston, MA, San Diego, CA, London, UK, Munich, GER, and Zurich, CH. Team Overview The four -person SCC team has an average of 22 years of investment experience, 15 years of experience with the firm, and 10 years of experience covering small -cap stocks. As CIO of the Core Equity team, Francis Morris, Senior Vice President, Chief Investment Officer - Core Equity, has the ultimate responsibility for all Small -Cap Core portfolio investment and allocation decisions. In addition to Morris, the team consists of Portfolio Managers Chris Adams, Michael Morris, and Donald Padilla. Each team member has sector specific research responsibilities and the team talks daily and formally meets three times per week. Strategy Overview The initial universe consists of all stocks within the Russell 2000 Index. They utilize the input of quantitative analysis as a screening methodology for which to focus their fundamental efforts. The Core Equity team employs a proprietary model to rank every stock in the universe on a daily basis. The model considers measures of value (e.g., present value), expectations (e.g., earnings revisions, momentum) and quality (e.g., financial quality, management). Atotal model score is calculated for each stock and then all stocks in the universe are ranked by decile from most attractive (decile #10) to least attractive (decile #1). A second sector specific model ranks a stock against other stocks in its sector. The focus of the Core Equity team's portfolio managers and analysts is largely on fundamental analysis. Fundamental efforts focus around a company's competitive positioning, financial statement analysis, sector specific valuation analysis, and management quality/track record. Securities become candidates for sale when: The security reaches its price target; Research identifies a negative change in fundamentals; Better opportunities arise through a relative -value assessment; A deterioration in quantitative metrics; The stock's market capitalization exceeds that of the high end of the Russell 2000 Index (or graduates from the Russell 2000 Index). The strategy will deviate no more than +/- 2% on sector weights (industry weights are unconstrained), and targets a tracking error budget of 24%. Portfolios are diversified, ranging from 125-175 names. The team uses extensive risk management tools to monitor portfolios in multiple areas in an effort to limit macro and factor risks, as well as style and capitalization creep. Turnover has averaged 60-80% per year. Expectations Tracking error is targeted to be in the 24% range, which is relatively low vs. peers. The combination of the quantitative and fundamental research process generally results in the portfolio displaying a quality bias. The overall portfolio will generally possess a lower risk profile than the broad market. In times when higher risk, lower quality stocks outperform, the strategy will tend to lag. Although the strategy outperformed in 2012, the investment team uses this environment as one in which they would expect to underperform. Intra stock correlations serve as the best indicator of expected relative performance, and is represented well by both 2013 and 2008 — years in which the range of stock outcomes within the universe was significant. The lower the correlations, the greater opportunity the investment team has to outperform via stock selection. The strategy will tend to underweight Biotechs and REITs. Points to Consider Our primary concern relates to the team's capacity. With a Large Cap and Small Cap strategy under their watch, Morris estimated that each PM is closely monitoring 80 securities between current investments and "bench" names. This does not include new ideas generated by the team's quant screens, which each analyst will be assigned to review. In confronting this challenge, the team does employ plausible shortcuts to help manage the universe it oversees. This includes leveraging sell side analyst models as a starting point for valuation work rather than building models from scratch. The timesaving created by this shortcut is not significant, however, so it does little to lessen our main concern. Given the constraints surrounding portfolio construction, the recent breakout of Real Estate as a separate sector will force the investment team to have a weighting in REITs within a narrow range of the benchmark. The investment team has been underweight to REITs for quite some time and Morris did not exude confidence when discussing REIT selection as he did when highlighting other sectors. Consequently, this is an issue that will require our close attention moving forward. Recommendation Summary Delaware combines a quantitative and qualitative process that serves as the framework to provide the team with a strong subset of candidates. The investment team then performs rigorous fundamental due diligence in an effort to uncover quality companies trading at an attractive valuation relative to industry peers. It is the robust portfolio construction process and active management of risk factors that ensures relative performance is primarily driven by stock selection. This process also lends itself to consistent, favorable results. It is the combination of these factors that lead us to recommend the strategy as suitable for all client types and plan sizes. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Asset Allocation Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Equity Regional Exposure Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 87.5 80.0 75.0 75.0 FW 62.5 60.0 62.5 50.0 40.0 50.0 37.5 37.5 25.0 20.0 25.0 12.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -North America % Latin America % -United Kingdom -Stock Bond -Cash Europe dev % -Europe emrg % -Africa/Middle East % Large % -Mid % Small % Other Australasia % Asia emrg % -Micro % Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Equity Sectors (GICS) Delaware Small Cap Core R6 - Equity Style Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 100.0 90.0 90.0 80.0 80.0 70.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 50.0 50.0 40.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.0 -Energy % Consumer Discretionary % Financials % Utilities % Materials % -Consumer Staples % Information Technology % -Real Estate % 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Industrials % -Healthcare % -Large Growth % Mid Value % -Mid Core % Telecom Services % -Mid Growth % Small Value % Small Core % Small Growth % Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Return Distribution - Delaware Small Cap Core R6 Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 14.0 12.0 a 10.0 W d 0 8.0 `m E 6.0 Z 4.0 2.0 0.0 , -28.0 -24.0 -20.0 -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 Excess Return Distribution - Delaware Small Cap Core R6 Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 16.0 14.0 12.0 W d 10.0 0 8.0 E = 6.0 Z 4.0 1 , 2.0 A - 4.0 8.0 12,0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD c 40.0% ry am `0 30.0% U a m U E 20.0% �•" �N 3 Q10.0% �• 0.0% -10.0% -20.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% Russell 2000 TR USD Return Delaware Small Cap Core R6 Russell 2000 TR USD 20.0% 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 30.0% 40.0% L JPMorgan US Small Company R6 As of 12/31/2016 Firm Overview J.P. Morgan was founded in 1861 and has offered asset management services for over a century, most recently through J.P. Morgan Asset Management Inc. (JPMAM), a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Over its history, the parent company grew through a multitude of mergers and acquisitions with the latest in 2000 combining J.P. Morgan and Chase Manhatten Bank. The firm also purchased Bear Stearns in 2008, which broadened its capabilities in prime brokerage and energy trading. JPMAM was founded and registered with the SEC in 1984. The firm offers a diverse array of investment products across all asset classes. The firm is headquartered in New York and has offices across the globe including London, Frankfurt, Columbus (OH), Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Much of the firm's asset management division, including the entire US equity team, is located in the same office on Park Avenue in midtown Manhattan. The parent firm is a publically traded company on the NYSE (Ticker: JPM). Team Overview The SCC strategy is managed by Dennis Ruhl and Phil Hart. Ruhl is the Head of the JPMAM US Behavioral Finance Group. A member of the team since 2001, Ruhl also acts as a portfolio manager and leads quantitative research and implementation for the broader US Behavioral Finance Team. Hart is a portfolio manager and Head of the Behavioral Finance Small Cap Equity Group. A JPMAM employee since 2003, his responsibilities include managing structured small -cap core and small -cap value strategies. All final decisions lie with the portfolio managers. The QDV strategies are supported by five qualitative and five quantitative research analysts. Strategy Overview QDV is an acronym for the focus of the investment team: Quality, Deployment of Capital, and Valuation. The QDV Small Cap Core strategy is managed using an investment process that blends quantitative and fundamental investing. This four step process begins by employing a disciplined methodology that seeks to identify stocks in each economic sector that have high quality earnings, strong management teams (as measured by capital deployment decisions), and attractive valuations. Within the earnings quality factor, the team focuses on working capital and accruals. The team focuses on capex and changes in share count within capital deployment. In the valuation factor, the team takes a holistic approach to capture valuation levels — looking at current, forward and trailing valuation signals. Within each sector, stocks are ranked according to their relative attractiveness and placed into quintiles based upon those rankings. For risk management purposes, there is typically exposure to all quintiles. The QDV strategies typically have 60-70% in the top two quintiles, with 10-15% in the third quintile, and between 5-10% in the fourth and fifth quintile. JPMAM then uses a quadratic optimizer to create a portfolio of well -diversified, compensated risks that seeks to deliver consistent returns, by overweighting the stocks with the highest return potential based upon the proprietary stock rankings and minimizing uncompensated risk relative to the benchmark. The sell process revolves around selling out and/or reducing exposure to stocks that have deteriorating rankings, while adding to or buying stocks within the same sector with improving alpha scores. Thus, the sell discipline relies heavily on quantitative output. Stocks ranked in the fifth quintile become sell candidates. Portfolios are diversified, with 350400 stocks. The expected turnover for the strategy is 40%-60% per annum. To minimize sector risk, the portfolio managers weigh sectors in the portfolios within +/-1 % of the sector weights of the benchmark. Finally, to control stock -specific risk, individual stock weights in the portfolios are limited to +/-2% relative to the stock's weight in the index. Expectations Tracking error, which is expected to average 2-3%, is low versus peers. The strategy tend to perform best when market volatility and value spreads (the difference between the cheapest and most expensive stocks) are low. The portfolio tends to slightly overweight stocks less than $213, so may be expected to well when small cap outperform mid caps. It will also slightly overweight lower valuation stocks (P/E, P/S). The strategy tends to struggle during periods of heightened volatility and when value spreads widen quickly, or, better stated, during market inflection points. Points to Consider Being a wholly -owned entity of one of the largest banks in the world prohibits the ability to share equity amongst the team. The cumulative ownership of the portfolio managers is de minimis, as is their holdings in the strategies. There is some key -person risk in both Ruhl and Hart. The departure of either would cause us to reevaluate our recommendation. Recommendation Summary With a well -diversified product that has tight constraints in portfolio construction, alpha is mostly a result of security selection instead of allocation to an industry, sector, beta, style, market cap, or other various risk factors. The process utilizes tight portfolio constraints and an optimizer to ensure style purity — a quality that can be challenging to find in the small cap space for products with a mutual fund. This style consistency improves performance consistency and limits factor risk, both key contributors to our attraction in the products. We believe JPMorgan's US Behavioral Finance team offers a compelling option in Small Cap Core. The blending of the quantitative and qualitative process, in addition to the tight constraints in portfolio construction, leads to consistent and repeatable performance. The two portfolio managers have considerable experience together and their demonstrated skill gives us confidence in the performance into the future. Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 JPMorgan US Small Company R6 - Asset Allocation JPMorgan US Small Company R6 - Equity Regional Exposure JPMorgan US Small Company R6 - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 87.5 80.0 75.0 75.0 62.5 60.0 62.5 50.0 40.0 50.0 37.5 37.5 25.0 20.0 25.0 12.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -North America % Latin America % -United Kingdom 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Stock Bond -Cash Europe dev % -Europe emrg % -Africa/Middle East % Large % -Mid % Small % Other Australasia % Asia emrg % -Micro % JPMorgan US Small Company R6 - Equity Sectors (GICS) JPMorgan US Small Company R6 - Equity Style Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 100.0 90.0 90.0 80.0 80.0 70.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 50.0 50.0 40.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.0 -Energy % Consumer Discretionary % Financials % Utilities % Materials % -Consumer Staples % Information Technology % -Real Estate % 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Industrials % -Healthcare % -Large Value % Mid Value % -Mid Core % Telecom Services % -Mid Growth % Small Value % Small Core % Small Growth % \, J Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Return Distribution - JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Time Period: 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 8.0 7.0 rn 0 6.0 d 5.0 0 4.0 E = 3.0 Z 2.0 1.0 L nM L 0.0 16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 Excess Return Distribution - JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Time Period: 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return 12.0 10.0 rn 0 0 a� 8.0 a 0 6.0 E Z 4.0 2.0 0.0 12.0 16.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 1/1/2011 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD c 30.0% 0 (fl ry m 25.0% a E 0 U E 20.0% U) 0 1215.0% 7 a n 10.0% 0 5.0% FN E 0 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 8.0% 12.0% 16.0% 20.0% Russell 2000 TR USD Return [� JPMorgan US Small Company R6 Russell 2000 TR USD 1.0 2.0 3.0 24.0% 28.0% Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Dana Small Cap Equity - Asset Allocation Dana Small Cap Equity - Equity Regional Exposure Dana Small Cap Equity - Equity Market Capitalization Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 87.5 87.5 75.0 75.0 75.0 62.5 62.5 62.5 50.0 50.0 50.0 37.5 37.5 37.5 25.0 25.0 25.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Large % -Mid % Small % -Stock -Cash Other -North America % Europe dev % -Europe emrg % -Micro % Dana Small Cap Equity - Equity Sectors (GICS) Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 -Energy % Consumer Discretionary % Financials % Utilities % Dana Small Cap Equity - Equity Style Time Period: 3/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 . 10.0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.0 Materials % -Consumer Staples % Information Technology % -Real Estate % -Industrials % -Healthcare % Telecom Services % 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -Large Growth % -Mid Growth % Small Growth % Mid Value % -Mid Core % Small Value % Small Core % \, J Historical Portfolio Attributes As of 12/31/2016 Return Distribution - Dana Small Cap Equity(net) Excess Return Distribution - Dana Small Cap Equity(net) Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Source Data: Quarterly Return Source Data: Quarterly Return 12.0 12.0 10.0 10.0 0 0 a� 8.0 a� 8.0 a a 0 0 6.0 6.0 E E Z 4.0 Z 4.0 2.0 ' ' ■ 20 0.0 0.0 -28.0 -24.0 -20.0 -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12,0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 -7.0 -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3,0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Over/Under Benchmark Performance Time Period: 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shift Calculation Benchmark: Russell 2000 TR USD c � 150.0% m T120.0% � • w m 90.0% Ulogo M60.0% �� • c m 0 30.0% 4111 0.0% -30.0% ' -60.0% -50.0% -20.0% 10.0% 40.0% 70.0% 100.0% 130.0% Russell 2000 TR USD Return Dana Small Cap Equity(net) Russell 2000 TR USD \, J Definitions Alpha -A measure of the difference between a portfolio's actual returns and its expected performance, given its level of risk as measured by beta. Batting Average — A measure of a manager's ability to consistently beat the market. It is calculated by dividing the number of months in which the manager beat or matched an index by the total number of months in the period. Best Quarter- This is the highest quarterly (3 month) return of the investment since its inception. is symmetric with skewness 0. Sortino Ratio - The Sortino Ratio is similar to Sharpe Ratio except it uses downside risk (Downside Deviation) in the denominator. It was developed in early 1980's by Frank Sortino. Since upside variability is not necessarily a bad thing, Sortino ratio is sometimes more preferable than Sharpe ratio. Standard Deviation - A statistical measure of the range of a portfolio's performance. It represents the variability of returns around the average return over a specified time period. Beta - A measure of the sensitivity of a portfolio to the movements in the market. It is a measure of the Tracking Error - This is a measure of the standard deviation of a portfolio's excess returns versus its portfolio's systematic risk. designated market benchmark. Down Period Percent - Number of months below 0 divided by the total number of months. Downmarket Capture Ratio - The ratio of average portfolio performance over the designated benchmark during periods of negative returns. A lower value indicates better product performance. Downside Std Dev - This measures only deviations below a specified benchmark. Excess Return- This is a measure of an investment's return in excess of a benchmark. Information Ratio - This calculates the value-added contribution of the manager and is derived by dividing the excess rate of return of the portfolio by the tracking error. The higher the Information Ratio, the more the manager has added value to the portfolio. Longest Down -Streak Return - Return for the longest series of negative monthly returns. Longest Down -Streak # of Periods - Longest series of negative monthly returns. Longest Up -Streak Return - Return for the longest series of positive monthly returns. Longest Up -Streak - Longest series of positive monthly returns. Kurtosis - Kurtosis indicates the peakedness of a distribution. For normal distribution, Kurtosis is 3. Max Drawdown - The peak to trough decline during a specific record period of an investment or fund. It is usually quoted as the percentage between the peak to the trough. Max Drawndown # of Periods - This is the number of months that encompasses the max drawdown for an investment. R-Squared - The percentage of a portfolio's performance that can be explained by the behavior of the appropriate benchmark. A high R-Squared means the portfolio's performance has historically moved in the same direction as the appropriate benchmark. Return - Compounded rate of return for the period. Sharpe Ratio - Represents the excess rate of return over the risk free return divided by the standard deviation of the excess return. The result is an absolute rate of return per unit of risk. A higher value demonstrates better historical risk -adjusted performance. Skewness - Skewness reflects the degree of asymmetry of a distribution. If the distribution has a longer left tail, the function has negative skewness. Otherwise, it has positive skewness. A normal distribution Treynor Ratio - Similar to Sharpe Ratio, Treynor Ratio is a measurement of efficiency utilizing the relationship between annualized risk -adjusted return and risk. Unlike Sharpe Ratio, Treynor Ratio utilizes "market" risk (beta) instead of total risk (standard deviation). Good performance efficiency is measured by a high ratio. Up period Percent - Number of months above 0 divided by the total number of months. Upmarket Capture Ratio - The ratio of average portfolio performance over the designated benchmark during periods of positive returns. A higher value indicates better product performance. Worst Quarter - This is the lowest quarterly (3 month) return of the investment since its inception. Disclosures AndCo compiled this report for the sole use of the client for which it was prepared. AndCo uses the results from this evaluation to make observations and recommendations to the client. When client -specific performance is shown, AndCo uses time -weighted calculations, which are founded on standards recommended by the CFA Institute. In these cases, the performance -related data shown are based on information that is received from custodians. As a result, this provides AndCo with a reasonable basis that the investment information presented is free from material misstatement. The strategies listed may not be suitable for all investors. We believe the information provided here is reliable, but do not warrant its accuracy or completeness. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Any information contained in this report is for informational purposes only and should not be construed to be an offer to buy or sell any securities, investment consulting, or investment management services. Additional information included in this document may contain data provided by index databases, public economic sources and the managers themselves. This document may contain data provided by Barclays. Barclays Index data provided by way of Barclays Live. This document may contain data provided by Standard and Poor's. Nothing contained within any document, advertisement or presentation from S&P Indices constitutes an offer of services in jurisdictions where S&P Indices does not have the necessary licenses. All information provided by S&P Indices is impersonal and is not tailored to the needs of any person, entity or group of persons. Any returns or performance provided within any document is provided for illustrative purposes only and does not demonstrate actual performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future investment results. This document may contain data provided by MSCI, Inc. Copyright MSCI, 2012. Unpublished. All Rights Reserved. This information may only be used for your internal use, may not be reproduced or redisseminated in any form and may not be used to create any financial instruments or products or any indices. This information is provided on an "as is" basis and the user of this information assumes the entire risk of any use it may make or permit to be made of this information. Neither MSCI, any of its affiliates or any other person involved in or related to compiling, computing or creating this information makes any express or implied warranties or representations with respect to such information or the results to be obtained by the use thereof, and MSCI, its affiliates and each such other person hereby expressly disclaim all warranties (including, without limitation, all warranties of originality, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, non -infringement, merchantability and fitness fora particular purpose) with respect to this information. Without limiting any of the foregoing, in no event shall MSCI, any of its affiliates or any other person involved in or related to compiling, computing or creating this information have any liability for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, punitive, consequential or any other damages (including, without limitation, lost profits) even if notified of, or if it might otherwise have anticipated, the possibility of such damages. This document may contain data provided by Russell Investment Group. Russell Investment Group is the source owner of the data contained or reflected in this material and all trademarks and copyrights related thereto. The material may contain confidential information and unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, dissemination or redistribution is strictly prohibited. This is a user presentation of the data. Russell Investment Group is not responsible for the formatting or configuration of this material or for any inaccuracy in presentation thereof. This document may contain data provided by Morningstar. All rights reserved. Use of this content requires expert knowledge. It is to be used by specialist institutions only. The information contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar and/or its content providers; (2) may not be copied, adapted or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information, except where such damages or losses cannot be limited or excluded by law in your jurisdiction. Past financial performance is not guarantee of future results. Putting clients first. AndCo Consulting 1 �866) 240-7932 I :1►ulC��(:�,n�ulti►r,;;.currr F,nnrrh The Bogdahn Group