HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Fire Pension 030617THE 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 Monday March 6, 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. Minutes:
• Regular Meeting Held on November 2, 2016
• Regular Meeting Held on February 1, 2017
4. Investment Monitor Report: AndCo Consulting (Dan Johnson)
• 2/28/2017 Flash Performance Report
• Domestic Small Cap & Large Cap Core Equity Manager Analysis
• Templeton Global Bond Update
• GHA Benchmark Follow up
• ICMA Update
• Custodial Transition Update
5. Attorney Report: Sugarman & Susskind, P.A. (Pedro Herrera)
• BanCorpSouth, Inc. Litigation Update
6. Administrative Report: Resource Centers (Audrey Ross)
• Disbursements
• Benefit Approvals
• Financial Statements
7. Old Business
8. New Business
• 2017/2018 Fiduciary Liability Insurance Renewal Quote
• Disability Review
9. Next Meeting Previously Scheduled Wednesday May 3, 2017 at 1 PM
10. 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.
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
PALM BEACH GARDENS FIREFIGHTERS'
PENSION FUND
MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2017
RATIFICATION OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS
APPLICATIONS FOR DISTRIBUTIONS OF DROP & SHARE ACCOUNTS
WILLIAM SCHANEEN
Action:
MICHAEL SOUTHARD
Action:
DROP ACCOUNT:
Date of Retirement: 12/09/2016
Date of Birth: 08/19/1956
Type of Distribution: rollover
Total Gross Distribution: $172,859.85
Tax Withholding (0%): $ 0.00
Total Net Distribution: $172,859.85
SHARE ACCOUNT:
Date of Retirement:
12/09/2016
Date of Birth:
08/19/1956
Type of Distribution:
rollover
Total Gross Distribution:
$156,264.01
Tax Withholding (0%):
$ 0.00
Total Net Distribution:
$156,264.01
y:/_10MITKK6li1►1M
Date of Retirement:
06/02/2016
Date of Birth:
08/04/1952
Type of Distribution:
rollover
Total Gross Distribution:
$7,456.22
Tax Withholding (0%):
$ 0.00
Total Net Distribution:
$7,456.22
ANTHONY VAZQUEZ
Action:
SHARE ACCOUNT:
Date of Retirement:
01/03/2017
Date of Birth:
12/28/1959
Type of Distribution:
cash
Total Gross Distribution:
$140,152.23
Tax Withholding (20%):
$ 28,030.45
Total Net Distribution:
$112,121.78
APPLICATION FOR REFUND OF CONTRIBUTIONS
CASEY BEELER Date of Termination 10/19/2016
Date of Hire 06/05/2006
Action:
Payment Type CASH
Total Refund Amount $36,467.48
Tax Withholding (20%) $ 7,293.50
Net Distribution $29,173.98
Chairman
Secretary
Date 3/6/2017
Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Fund
Balance Sheet
FY 2017
Account Description
End October
End November
End December
End January
1001
CenterState Bank
0.00
0.00
200,006.85
310,857.75
1300
Prepaid Other
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,708.78
Regions Bank -Consolidated
1500
Cash and Equivalents
2,345,801.45
1,767,720.92
1,723,178.86
1,856,359.20
1510
Equities
41,069,058.38
43,053,308.94
43,993,635.55
44,594,431.76
1520
Fixed
19 343 939.41
19 576 790.35
19 626 195.13
19 769 941.26
1523
Balanced Mutual Funds
4,067,535.06
4,054,617.97
4,108,032.70
4,163,001.27
1525
International
2,305,946.06
2,260,230.95
2 276 950.73
2 408 487.09
1540
Partnerships
4,228 877.98
4,242,891.71
4,242 891.71
4,242,891.71
1550
Accrued Income
133 417.20
170 203.39
164 121.15
153 631.05
1561
Due from Brokers
38,643.60
1,439,955.95
0.00
33,657.52
1562
Due to Brokers
57 701.15
1 432 808.87
87 882.42
245 262.99
Regions Bank Total
73,475,517.99
75,132,911.31
76,047 123.41
76,977,137.87
1604
American Core Realty Fund
4 347 002.99
4f347,002.99
4 386 992.84
4f386,992.84
1633
RBC Global Asset Management
4,412,046.57
4,359,868.17
4,510,932.56
4,723,263.76
1637
U.S. Real Estate Investment
4,461,129.00
4 461 129.00
4 666 978.00
4 666 978.00
1649
ICMA-RC
709,102.49
719,453.27
732,072.55
732,072.55
2000
Accounts Payable
99 701.17
99 504.79
165 374.56
162 869.23
TOTAL RESERVE FUND (MARKET VALUE):
87,305,097.87
88,920,859.95
90,378,731.65
91,638,142.32
Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Fund
Disability Pension Review (March 2017)
Member
BIVINS, TOBY
BUSH, KATHLEEN
HODGKINS, RICHARD
MITCHELL, KEVIN
WEAVER, DANIEL
Tyne of
Dates of Prior
DOB
DOR
Retirement
Board Review
12/9/1971
4/5/2008
LOD
9/10/11
10/13/1958
7/2/2004
LOD
7/26/11
10/18/1957
1/5/2000
LOD
2/28/11
5/6/1969
2/22/1999
LOD
11/28/11
6/28/60
10/14/2002
NLOD
7/26/11
Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Fund
Disability Pension Review (March 2017)
Member
BIVINS, TOBY
BUSH, KATHLEEN
HODGKINS, RICHARD
MITCHELL, KEVIN
WEAVER, DANIEL
Tyne of
Dates of Prior
DOB
DOR
Retirement
Board Review
12/9/1971
4/5/2008
LOD
9/10/11
10/13/1958
7/2/2004
LOD
7/26/11
10/18/1957
1/5/2000
LOD
2/28/11
5/6/1969
2/22/1999
LOD
11/28/11
6/28/60
10/14/2002
NLOD
7/26/11
Resource Centers
Accounts Payable Check Register
PALM BEACH GARDENS FIRE
3/6/2017 Meeting
Check
Number Date Payee and Description Amount
1037
February 9, 2017
Pension Resource Centers
$1,642.77
Monthly Fee November 2016
1038
February 14, 2017
FPPTA
30.00
Ed Morejon CPPT Re-Cert 2016
1039
February 14, 2017
FPPTA
30.00
Tom Murphy CPPT Re-Cert 2016
1040
March 1, 2017
City of Palm Beach Gardens
13,696.95
1041
February 23, 2017
City of Palm Beach Gardens
100.75
Hodgkins Double Deduction by error
Total $15,500.47
Chairman
Secretary
Date
Palm Beach Gardens Firefighters' Pension Fund
Statement of Income and Expense
FY 2017
Account Description
End October
End November
End December
End January
Year To Date
Income:
4000
Employer Contributions
2,882,604.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,882,604.00
4100
Employee Contributions
19 657.16
34 147.92
51 142.27
34 122.55
139 069.90
4190
ICMA-RC DROP Contributions
10,350.78
10,350.78
10,350.78
0.00
31,052.34
Realized Gain/Loss-Mgr Held
4404
American Core Realty Fund
0.00
0.00
(10,056.30)
0.00
(10,056.30)
4433
RBC Global Asset Management
51.36
27 589.14
4,479.37
18.98
32 036.13
4437
U.S. Real Estate Investment
0.00
0.00
(10,737.00)
0.00
(10,737.00)
Unrealized Gain/Loss-Mgr Held
4504
American Core Realty Fund
0.00
0.00
26,929.12
0.00
26,929.12
4533
RBC Global Asset Management
66 903.67
79 584.67
136 928.16
208 225.20
198 665.02
4537
U.S. Real Estate Investment
0.00
0.00
213,188.00
0.00
213,188.00
4549
ICMA-RC Gain/Loss
0.00
0.00
2,268.50
0.00
2,268.50
4600
Interest & Dividend Income
98,100.41
126,211.44
383,100.04
95,612.36
703,024.25
4710
Securities Litigation
0.00
0.00
0.00
136.17
136.17
4800
Regions Bank Adjustments
(0.04)
0.00
0.00
(0.05)
(0.09)
Realized Gai n/Loss-Reg ions Bank
4810
Equities
(1.19)
78,910.28
26,836.65
11,092.75
116,838.49
4820
Fixed
(6,662.25)
16 274.53
(9,395.17)
(4,668.01)
36 999.96
4825
International
0.00
(2,646.08)
514.29
0.00
(2,131.79)
Unrealized Gai n/Loss-Reg ions Bank
4910
Equities
988,765.20)
18621819.04
699,391.14
988,444.15
2,561,889.13
4920
Fixed
55 569.39
313 047.03
126 358.46
37 073.23
168 192.41
4923
Balanced Mutual Funds
(34,309.11)
(26,775.78)
26,895.13
38,653.68
4,463.92
4925
International
102 273.21
32 573.22
1 38 759.28
1 71 053.54
1 40 112.83
4940
Partnerships
1 0.00
1 14 013.73
1 0.00
1 0.00
14 013.73
Total
Income
1,867,315.71
1,748,287.46
1,716,952.72
1,405,618.09
6,738,173.98
Account Description
End October
End November
End December
End January
Year To Date
Expense:
5000
Benefit Payments
119,299.74
119,299.74
119,299.74
123,783.00
481,682.22
5020
Disability Payments
0.00
0.00
0.00
6,883.24
6,883.24
5030
ICMA-RC DROP Benefit Payments
10,350.78
10,350.78
10,350.78
10,350.78
41,403.12
6000
Custodian Fees
2,584.55
21637.45
2,669.26
0.00
7 891.26
6020
Investment Consultant Fees
0.00
0.00
7,500.00
0.00
7,500.00
6040
Investment Management Fee
0.00
0.00
119 016.32
0.00
119 016.32
6110
Administrator Fees
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,200.00
2,200.00
6130
Bank Charges
0.00
0.00
0.00
65.00
65.00
6140
Computer Services
0.00
0.00
0.00
450.00
450.00
6150
Legal Fees
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,223.00
2,223.00
6610
jADR Fees
1 0.00
0.00
14.50
0.00
14.50
6730
RBC-Other Expenses
1 251.93
237.41
228.42
252.40
970.16
6790
lRounding
0.00
1 0.00
2.00
0.00
2.00
Total
Expense
132,487.00
132,525.38
259,081.02
146,207.42
670,300.82
Reserve Fund Last Period
85 570 269.16
87 305 097.87
88 920 859.95
90 378 731.65
85 570 269.16
Balance To From Reserve
1,734,828.71
1,615,762.08
1,457,871.70
1,259,410.67
6,067,873.16
TOTAL RESERVE FUND
87,305,097.87
1 88,920,859.95
90,378,731.65
91,638,142.32
91,638,142.32