Issue Contents:

The Voice

An Overdue Moment: Honoring Neil Riddles

By Patrick W. Fowler

One of the things we value most at TSG is taking the time to recognize the people who helped shape this profession long before it became as established as it is today. That brings us to a recognition that is both meaningful and, frankly, long overdue.

We are proud to highlight Neil Riddles, who was inducted into the Performance & Risk Measurement Hall of Fame in 2022.

Neil’s contributions to performance measurement have quietly influenced generations of practitioners. 

Like many Hall of Fame inductees, Neil never sought recognition. His impact came through consistent, thoughtful work, sharing ideas, mentoring others, and elevating the conversation around performance and risk. Those kinds of contributions do not always come with immediate applause, but they endure.

The Hall of Fame exists to recognize exactly this kind of legacy. It is not about a single paper, presentation, or role. It is about sustained influence and meaningful contributions that stand the test of time. Neil’s induction reflects that standard in every way.

We are grateful for Neil’s role in shaping our profession and pleased to take this moment to acknowledge his place among those who have left a lasting mark on performance measurement.

Congratulations, Neil, and thank you for everything you have given to this community.

To view the full list of Hall of Fame inductees and discover how you can nominate someone, visit our website here.

Quote of the Month

“He has most unwarrantably abused the privilege which all politicians have of being ugly.”

– Houston Telegraph

“It is plain that nature took but little trouble in fashioning his outer man, but a gem may be encased in a rude casket.”

– The Amboy Times

Source: Lincoln and the Irish, Niall O’Dowd

Compliance Corner

Common Compliance Challenges for Investment Firms

From Vigilant, LLC.

In today’s regulatory environment, even well-intentioned investment firms can run into compliance pitfalls that create risks or attract examiner attention. Small oversights in routine processes may result in deficiencies, reporting issues, or enforcement concerns if they aren’t addressed proactively.

Frequent areas where firms get tripped up include:
• Outdated or incomplete policies and procedures, failing to reflect current business practices or recent regulatory changes.
• Deficiencies in annual reviews and documentation, particularly for compliance programs required under SEC and FINRA rules.
• Advertising and marketing issues, such as unclear performance claims or missing disclosures under the SEC’s Marketing Rule.
• Weak supervisory oversight, including unclear roles and responsibilities within compliance functions.
• Books and records problems, where required documentation either isn’t maintained fully or isn’t in the proper format for retention.
• Gaps in surveillance of trades and communications, which remain a strong focus for regulators.

Recognizing these common missteps can help firms focus their internal reviews and training, reduce regulatory risk, and strengthen overall compliance processes.

GIPS 2030

New Monthly Series: Looking Ahead to the Next Version of the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®)

As the investment industry continues to evolve, so must the GIPS standards. To support ongoing dialogue and thoughtful progress, we’re introducing a new monthly newsletter feature focused on proposed changes to the next version of the GIPS standards.

Each month, we’ll highlight a specific area where clarification, alignment, or modernization could help the Standards better reflect today’s regulatory environment and industry practices. Our goal is constructive discussion, grounded in real-world application and the shared objective of promoting fair representation and full disclosure.

We also invite readers to submit topics they would like us to explore in future issues. If there’s an area of the Standards that you find challenging, ambiguous, or ripe for improvement, we’d love to hear from you.

This Month’s Topic: Rethinking Model Net Returns

For our first topic, we’re focusing on the use of model investment management fees when calculating net-of-fees returns, and whether current requirements consistently lead to performance information that is most meaningful to today’s prospective clients and investors.

The GIPS standards permit firms to use either actual or model fees, but impose an important constraint: model-fee net returns must always be equal to or lower than returns calculated using actual investment management fees. This safeguard is intended to prevent overstated performance and protect against misleading presentations.

At the same time, the Standards also require that any model fee used be appropriate to the prospective client or investor. In practice, these two conditions do not always align. When actual historical fees are materially different from the fees a current prospect would expect to pay, anchoring model net returns to those historical fees may technically satisfy the “no higher than actual” test while producing results that are disconnected from the prospective client’s likely experience.

From a prospect’s perspective, the key question is not whether net returns are lower than those calculated using fees charged many years ago, but whether the performance reflects fees relevant to the intended audience today. Fee schedules evolve over time due to changes in asset levels, strategy design, pricing practices, and market competition. As a result, historical actual fees may offer limited decision-useful insight for a current prospect.

We would welcome a future evolution of the GIPS standards that more clearly prioritizes investor relevance alongside conservatism, for example by:

• Placing greater emphasis on model fees that reflect fees expected to be charged to the intended audience, rather than defaulting to historical actual fees,
• Clarifying how firms should evaluate whether net returns remain appropriate and not misleading when actual and prospective fees differ materially, and
• Reinforcing the principle that model net returns should support informed investment decisions, not just mechanical comparisons.

Strengthening this alignment would preserve the protective intent of the Standards while enhancing the practical value of model performance for prospective clients and investors and advancing fair representation.

We look forward to continuing this series and to engaging with the community on how the GIPS standards can continue to evolve. If you have a topic you would like us to address in a future issue, please reach out as we welcome your ideas and perspectives.

Industry Dates and Conferences

What to Expect From TSG in 2026

Looking Ahead to 2026: New Offerings, Expanded Events, and Deeper Industry Collaboration

As we head into 2026, TSG is expanding its platform of events, research, and industry resources designed to support performance, attribution, risk, and GIPS® professionals across the globe. The newly released 2026 Partnership Opportunities outline a robust lineup of conferences, forums, research initiatives, and media channels that continue to connect practitioners, asset owners, consultants, and technology providers in meaningful ways.

A major new initiative is TSG’s Performance Technology Vendor Matrix, an independent, transparent, vendor-populated comparison tool covering composites, rates of return, attribution, risk, and related functionality. The Matrix is being built to help firms evaluate systems side-by-side based on real-world capabilities and use cases. We are grateful for the early support and collaboration from First Rate, John Norwood Consulting, and Confluence, whose input and engagement have been instrumental in shaping the structure and content of this resource as it comes to market.

TSG’s flagship events remain central to our mission. PMAR North America will take place June 10–11, 2026, in New Brunswick, New Jersey, followed by PMAR Europe on September 16, 2026, in London. Both conferences continue TSG’s long-standing commitment to high-quality, practitioner-led programming rather than pay-to-play panels, with opportunities for deep discussion around performance measurement, attribution, and risk.

Research also remains a core focus. In 2026, TSG will relaunch the Asset Owner Performance Measurement Survey, building on prior editions that have become a benchmark for understanding how asset owners structure teams, select technology, integrate risk, and manage data. The survey will again offer sponsors visibility, thought leadership opportunities, and access to detailed results.

Beyond conferences and research, TSG continues to invest in year-round engagement through the Performance Measurement Forum, Asset Owner Roundtable, and regional networking events focused on data analytics and performance measurement. These small-group, interactive settings are designed to encourage open dialogue, shared learning, and lasting professional connections.

Together, these initiatives reflect TSG’s ongoing commitment to advancing best practices and supporting the evolving needs of the global performance community, with 2026 shaping up to be one of our most ambitious and collaborative years yet.

TSG 2026 Events Calendar

Mark Your Calendars! Let’s make 2026 a year to remember.

For information on the 2026 events and partnership opportunities, please contact Patrick Fowler at 732-873-5700.

That’s a Good Question

“I’d love to understand the technical differences between GIPS and performance certification (i.e., what makes the performance certification review more labor intensive). ”

Response from John D. Simpson, CIPM

With GIPS verifications, a lot of the review is focused on the firm’s documented GIPS policies and testing, on a sampling basis, that the firm follows its policies consistently.  While a firm may have many composites, a GIPS verification does not attest to the accuracy of any specific performance report or presentation.

With a performance certification, the focus is on the accuracy of a given performance presentation.  Thus, the verifier is doing more testing of the accounting, valuation, and performance calculations associated with the given composite, the statistical information in the given performance presentation, the disclosures included, etc.  Composite membership testing, including exclusions related to the given strategy, may also be part of the review.  In some ways, a performance certification can be considered somewhat similar to the review known as a GIPS performance examination, which is a secondary, composite-specific review that firms may elect to do in addition to a firmwide GIPS verification.  Both performance certifications and GIPS composite performance examinations review the accuracy of a given performance presentation for a composite.

Potpourri

Article Submissions

The Journal of Performance Measurement^® Is Currently Accepting Article Submissions

The Journal of Performance Measurement is currently accepting article submissions on topics including performance measurement, risk, ESG, AI, and attribution. We are particularly interested in articles that cover practical performance issues and solutions that performance professionals face every day. All articles are subject to a double-blind review process before being approved for publication. White papers will also be considered. For more information and to receive our manuscript guidelines, please contact Douglas Spaulding at DougSpaulding@TSGperformance.com.

Submission deadlines

Spring Issue: March 30th, 2026

Summer Issue: May 29th, 2026

For any questions, please reach out to Doug Spaulding at DougSpaulding@TSGperformance.com.