Gips Compliance

GIPS Compliance — Global Investment Performance Standards

Regulatory status current as of June 2026 — verify effective dates, dollar thresholds, and pending rulemakings against current SEC/FINRA/FinCEN and CFA Institute sources before advising.

Core Concepts

GIPS Overview and Applicability

The Global Investment Performance Standards are voluntary ethical standards maintained by the CFA Institute for calculating and presenting investment performance. GIPS are not law — no regulator mandates compliance — but they are widely adopted by investment managers seeking institutional mandates, as many institutional investors, consultants, and plan sponsors require or strongly prefer GIPS-compliant track records.

GIPS applies to "firms," defined as an investment firm, subsidiary, or division held out to clients or prospective clients as a distinct business entity. The definition of the firm is foundational: a firm must define itself consistently and cannot change its definition to manipulate compliance. A firm claiming GIPS compliance must do so on a firm-wide basis. A firm cannot claim compliance for select composites or strategies while excluding others — compliance is all or nothing.

The 2020 edition of GIPS (effective January 1, 2020) is the current standard, replacing the 2010 edition. Key changes in the 2020 edition include provisions for pooled fund reports, enhanced requirements for overlay strategies, broader applicability to asset owners, and streamlined advertising guidelines. The 2020 edition maintains the core principles that have defined GIPS since inception: fair representation of performance, full disclosure of material information, and comparability across firms and time periods.

GIPS compliance is self-declared — there is no central authority that grants or certifies GIPS compliance. A firm claims compliance by including a specific compliance statement in its GIPS-compliant presentations. However, the claim carries weight precisely because it binds the firm to a comprehensive set of requirements that can be (and frequently are) tested through independent verification.

Composite Construction

Composite construction is the foundation of GIPS compliance. A composite is an aggregation of one or more portfolios managed according to a similar investment mandate, objective, or strategy. The purpose of composites is to prevent cherry-picking — firms cannot show only their best-performing accounts while hiding underperformers.

Inclusion requirements. All actual, fee-paying, discretionary portfolios must be included in at least one composite. The key terms are:

• Actual portfolios — only real portfolios with real assets. Simulated, model, or backtested portfolios are never included in composites.
• Fee-paying — portfolios that pay advisory fees to the firm. Non-fee-paying portfolios (such as employee accounts or pro bono accounts) may be included in composites, but the firm must disclose their inclusion.
• Discretionary — portfolios over which the firm has full investment authority to implement its intended strategy. Portfolios with client-imposed restrictions that materially prevent the firm from implementing its strategy are non-discretionary and must be excluded.

Timing of inclusion. New portfolios must be included in their respective composites on a timely and consistent basis. The GIPS standards recommend inclusion at the beginning of the next full measurement period after the portfolio is funded and invested. For example, if a new portfolio is funded on March 15 and the firm uses monthly measurement periods, the portfolio would be included in the composite beginning April 1. The firm must apply the same timing policy consistently across all composites.

Exclusion of portfolios. Portfolios must be excluded from composites only for valid, documented reasons:

• Non-discretionary status (client-imposed restrictions that prevent strategy implementation)
• Portfolios below a stated minimum asset level (if the firm has set a minimum, it must apply it consistently and disclose it)
• Portfolios in the process of funding or liquidation (significant cash flows that temporarily prevent strategy implementation)

Terminated portfolios. When a client terminates a portfolio, the portfolio must remain in the composite through the last full measurement period that the portfolio was under management. The terminated portfolio's historical returns remain in the composite permanently — they cannot be removed after the fact.

Prohibition on retroactive composite creation. Firms cannot create composites retroactively to cherry-pick favorable performance histories. Composite creation dates must be documented and disclosed.

Composite switches. If a portfolio's mandate changes and it moves from one composite to another, the switch must be documented with the effective date. Historical returns remain in the original composite; the portfolio's returns are included in the new composite only from the switch date forward.

Documentation. All composite membership decisions — inclusions, exclusions, switches, and the rationale for each — must be documented and retained.

Performance Calculation Requirements

GIPS requires time-weighted returns (TWR) to eliminate the distorting effects of external cash flows (which are controlled by the client, not the manager). The goal is to measure the manager's investment skill independent of client-directed deposits and withdrawals.

Valuation requirements. Firms must use actual (not estimated) valuations. Prior to January 1, 2010, quarterly valuation was the minimum; since then, firms must value portfolios on the date of all large external cash flows, or more frequently. Best practice (and required for many institutional composites) is daily valuation.

Large cash flow policy. Each firm must define what constitutes a "large" external cash flow and apply the definition consistently. Common thresholds are 10% of portfolio value, though firms may set lower thresholds. Portfolios must be valued on the date of any cash flow that meets the threshold.

Return calculation methods:

• True daily valuation — the gold standard. Portfolio is valued every day, and returns are calculated daily, then geometrically linked. Eliminates all cash flow timing distortion.
• Modified Dietz — an approximation method that weights cash flows by the fraction of the measurement period they were present. Acceptable when the firm does not have daily valuations, but accuracy decreases with large or frequent cash flows.

Gross-of-fees and net-of-fees returns:

• Gross-of-fees return — the total return of the portfolio reduced only by actual trading expenses (commissions, transaction costs). Gross returns reflect the manager's investment skill before the impact of advisory fees.
• Net-of-fees return — gross-of-fees return reduced by investment management/advisory fees. Net returns reflect the return actually experienced by the client (before taxes).

Firms must present at least one of gross-of-fees or net-of-fees returns in GIPS-compliant presentations. If only one is presented, it must be clearly labeled. Many institutional clients and consultants expect to see both. If model or estimated fees are used to calculate net returns (because actual fees are not deducted at the portfolio level), the methodology and fee assumptions must be disclosed.

Composite return calculation. Composite returns must be calculated by asset-weighting the individual portfolio returns, using beginning-of-period values or a method that reflects the timing of cash flows (such as beginning-of-period values plus weighted cash flows). Equal-weighted composite returns may be presented as supplemental information but cannot replace the required asset-weighted composite return.

Prohibition on linking non-actual performance. Firms must not link simulated, model, backtested, or hypothetical performance with actual performance. A firm cannot show a backtest from 2015-2019 followed by live composite returns from 2020 onward as a continuous track record. If supplemental information includes hypothetical performance, it must be clearly labeled and segregated from actual composite results.

Presentation and Reporting Requirements

GIPS-compliant presentations (also called "GIPS Reports" in the 2020 edition) are the primary vehicle through which firms communicate composite performance to prospective clients. The presentation requirements are detailed and specific.

Required elements of a GIPS-compliant presentation: there are eleven required elements (composite description; benchmark description and returns; number of portfolios; composite and total firm assets; internal dispersion; three-year ex-post standard deviation; annual returns; composite creation date; fee schedule; the prescribed compliance statement; and availability of the composite list). Load references/presentation-elements.md for the full element-by-element detail when drafting or reviewing a GIPS Report.

Complete annual periods. Firms must present complete annual performance (January 1 through December 31, or the firm's fiscal year). Firms cannot present only cherry-picked favorable time periods. Partial-year returns are presented only for the composite's inception year or the current year-to-date (if the presentation is prepared mid-year).

Supplemental information. Any performance information beyond the required elements (such as attribution analysis, sector breakdowns, or characteristics) must be labeled as "Supplemental Information." Supplemental information must not contradict or be inconsistent with the required GIPS presentation and must be clearly distinguished from the required elements.

Currency. The currency used for reporting must be disclosed. If composite returns are presented in a currency different from the portfolios' base currencies, the conversion methodology must be disclosed.

Verification

Verification is an independent review of a firm's GIPS compliance performed by a qualified third party. Verification is optional under GIPS but is strongly recommended by the CFA Institute and is increasingly expected by institutional investors and consultants.

Two levels of assurance:

1. Firm-wide verification — the verifier assesses whether (a) the firm has complied with all the GIPS composite construction requirements on a firm-wide basis, and (b) the firm's policies and procedures are designed to calculate and present performance in compliance with GIPS. Firm-wide verification does not test the accuracy of individual composite returns.

2. Performance examination (composite-level) — a deeper review of a specific composite's performance calculations. The verifier tests whether the composite's returns have been accurately calculated and presented in accordance with GIPS. A performance examination can only be performed after firm-wide verification has been completed for the same period.

Scope and duration. Verification covers a minimum of one year but is typically performed for the full period of the firm's claimed GIPS compliance. Many institutional clients and consultant databases require verification covering the entire track record. Once engaged, most firms continue verification annually.

Limitations. Verification provides a level of assurance but does not guarantee the accuracy of any specific composite presentation. The verifier relies on information provided by the firm, and the scope of testing is not as comprehensive as a financial statement audit. Verification reports typically include language clarifying these limitations.

Selecting a verifier. The verifier must be independent of the firm. Most GIPS verifiers are accounting firms, performance measurement consultants, or specialized GIPS compliance firms. The firm should evaluate the verifier's GIPS expertise, industry experience, and the depth of testing procedures.

Verification report. The verifier issues a verification report covering the specific time period reviewed. If verification is obtained, the firm's GIPS compliance statement must be updated to reflect the verification status and the periods covered.

Error Correction

Firms claiming GIPS compliance must have documented policies and procedures for identifying, evaluating, and correcting errors in composite performance.

Materiality thresholds. The firm must establish materiality thresholds that define when an error is significant enough to require reissuance of corrected GIPS-compliant presentations. Materiality thresholds should be specific and quantitative — for example, an error is material if it changes composite returns by more than 50 basis points for any annual period, or if it changes the composite's ranking relative to the benchmark (outperformance to underperformance or vice versa). Thresholds may vary by composite based on the strategy's expected return range.

Material errors — correction and reissuance:

• Correct the error in all affected periods.
• Reissue corrected GIPS-compliant presentations to all parties who received the erroneous version (prospective clients, consultants, databases, verifiers).
• Disclose the nature of the error and the correction within the presentation or in an accompanying communication.
• Notify the firm's verifier (if applicable) of the error and correction.

Immaterial errors — prospective correction:

• Correct the error going forward (prospective correction).
• No reissuance of previously distributed presentations is required.
• The firm should still document the error, its impact, and the decision not to reissue.

Documentation. All errors must be documented regardless of materiality, including:

• The nature and cause of the error
• The periods and composites affected
• The quantitative impact on composite returns
• The materiality assessment and determination
• The corrective actions taken
• The date corrections were implemented

Error prevention. Robust error correction policies should be paired with preventive controls: automated reconciliation of portfolio returns, systematic composite membership reviews, periodic recalculation of composite returns, and independent review of GIPS-compliant presentations before distribution.

Bundled Fees and Wrap/SMA Programs

GIPS includes special provisions for wrap fee and separately managed account (SMA) programs, recognizing that the fee structures and distribution models differ from traditional advisory relationships.

Wrap fee/SMA composites. Firms must create separate composites for wrap fee/SMA portfolios if the fee structure causes these portfolios to have materially different net returns compared to non-wrap portfolios managed under the same strategy. In practice, most firms maintain separate composites for their wrap/SMA business.

Return presentation for wrap composites:

• Pure gross-of-fees returns — returns that have not been reduced by any fees, including trading costs (which are typically bundled into the wrap fee). Pure gross returns are useful for comparing investment skill across managers, since wrap fees vary by sponsor.
• All-in net-of-fees returns — returns reduced by the entire wrap fee (which includes advisory, trading, custody, and sponsor fees). This reflects the actual return to the end investor.

Firms must present either pure gross-of-fees or net-of-fees returns (or both) for wrap/SMA composites. The methodology for calculating returns and the fees deducted must be clearly disclosed.

Model performance and overlay strategies. GIPS 2020 introduced provisions allowing the use of model performance under specific conditions for overlay strategies (e.g., a manager that provides a model portfolio to the SMA sponsor, with the sponsor executing trades). Model performance may be presented only if the manager does not have discretion over the actual portfolios and only provides the model. The presentation must clearly disclose that the performance is based on a model and describe how it was calculated.

SMA sponsor responsibilities. SMA sponsors that market investment management services to prospective SMA clients must present composite performance. If the sponsor is the firm claiming GIPS compliance, it must maintain composites of the SMA portfolios it manages. If the sponsor distributes performance from sub-advisers, the sub-adviser is responsible for GIPS compliance of that performance, and the sponsor must ensure it is presenting compliant data.

Pooled Funds Under GIPS 2020

The 2020 edition of GIPS introduced specific provisions recognizing that pooled fund investors (as distinct from separate account clients) have different information needs and distribution channels.

Limited-distribution pooled funds (LDPFs). These are funds distributed through one-on-one presentations rather than broad marketing channels — typically hedge funds, private equity funds, real estate funds, and institutional commingled vehicles. LDPFs must be included in appropriate composites and may also have their own GIPS Pooled Fund Report. The pooled fund report includes fund-level information (total return, benchmark, fund size) and must comply with the same rigor as composite-level presentations.

Broad-distribution pooled funds (BDPFs). These are funds available to the general public through broad distribution channels — typically mutual funds and ETFs. GIPS 2020 allows BDPFs to present a GIPS Pooled Fund Report in lieu of a composite-level report, recognizing that prospective investors in a mutual fund evaluate the fund itself rather than a composite of accounts. BDPF reports must include: fund description, benchmark description and returns, fund returns (total return net of total expense ratio), fund inception date, total fund assets, and the GIPS compliance statement.

Calculation consistency. Pooled fund returns must be calculated following the same performance calculation standards as composite returns — time-weighted returns, actual valuations, and proper treatment of external cash flows. The fact that a vehicle is a pooled fund does not relax the calculation requirements.

Relationship between composites and pooled fund reports. A pooled fund is typically included in a composite alongside any separate accounts managed with the same strategy. The firm may present the composite report, the pooled fund report, or both to prospective investors, depending on the audience. Prospective separate account clients should receive the composite report; prospective pooled fund investors should receive the pooled fund report.

Advertising Guidelines

GIPS 2020 includes specific provisions for advertisements — abbreviated communications designed to attract prospective clients or pooled fund investors. GIPS-compliant advertisements are distinct from full GIPS-compliant presentations; they contain less information but must still meet specific requirements.

Required elements of a GIPS-compliant advertisement:

• Definition of the firm
• GIPS compliance statement for advertisements
• Composite or pooled fund description
• Benchmark description
• Returns for standardized periods: 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year annualized returns (or since inception if the track record is shorter), ending as of the most recent period
• Period-end date
• Currency used for reporting
• Description of whether returns are gross or net of fees

Prohibition on non-compliant performance to prospective clients. A firm claiming GIPS compliance must not present performance to prospective clients unless that performance is in a GIPS-compliant format — either a full GIPS Report (composite or pooled fund report) or a GIPS-compliant advertisement. Presenting non-compliant performance to a prospective client, even informally, violates the GIPS standards.

Relationship to regulatory advertising rules. GIPS advertising guidelines exist alongside (not in place of) regulatory requirements such as the SEC Marketing Rule and FINRA Rule 2210. A firm must comply with both GIPS and applicable regulatory advertising rules. In cases of conflict, the more restrictive standard governs. For example, GIPS requires specific time periods, while the SEC Marketing Rule requires 1-, 5-, and 10-year periods — a GIPS-compliant firm subject to the Marketing Rule must satisfy both sets of requirements.

Worked Examples

Example 1: Firm Seeking to Include Back-Tested Performance in a New Composite

Scenario: A mid-size equity manager launches a new concentrated growth strategy in January 2023 and creates a composite for it. The firm has three years of backtested model performance (January 2020 through December 2022) showing a 19% annualized return. The portfolio manager wants to present the backtest followed by the live composite returns from January 2023 onward as a continuous track record to prospective institutional clients.

Compliance Issues:

1. Prohibition on linking simulated and actual performance. GIPS standards explicitly prohibit linking simulated, model, backtested, or hypothetical performance with actual composite performance. Presenting a backtest from 2020-2022 followed by live returns from 2023 onward as a continuous return series violates this requirement. The composite track record can only begin with the first actual portfolio return.

2. Composite must contain only actual portfolios. The backtest is not an actual portfolio. It cannot be placed in a composite, and the composite inception date cannot predate the first actual portfolio's inclusion.

3. Supplemental information constraints. Backtested performance may be presented alongside (not linked to) the composite track record, but only if it is clearly labeled as supplemental information, is not linked to the actual returns, and includes disclosure of the methodology, assumptions, and limitations of the backtest. The supplemental label must be prominent.

4. Misleading presentation risk. Even if the backtest is shown separately, presenting it in a way that implies continuity with actual performance (e.g., in the same return table with actual returns, or on the same chart with a continuous line) would be misleading and inconsistent with GIPS principles of fair representation.

Analysis: The firm must present the composite track record beginning with the first actual portfolio return in January 2023. If the firm wishes to show the backtested model performance, it may do so as clearly labeled supplemental information, in a separate section or table from the actual composite returns, with comprehensive disclosure including: (a) the model is hypothetical and does not represent actual trading; (b) the methodology, security selection criteria, and rebalancing assumptions; (c) the impact of transaction costs, fees, and slippage (which backtests often understate); (d) the risk that backtested results reflect the benefit of hindsight and may not be achievable in live trading. The firm must not geometrically link the backtested returns with the live composite returns under any circumstances. For a new composite with limited history, the firm should focus on building the actual track record and can supplement with the portfolio manager's prior performance at a predecessor firm (if applicable and if the portability requirements are met) rather than relying on backtested data.

Example 2: Discovering Non-Discretionary Portfolios Were Incorrectly Included in a Composite

Scenario: During a routine composite review, a GIPS-compliant firm discovers that 12 non-discretionary portfolios were included in its U.S. Large Cap Value composite for two years (2023 and 2024). These portfolios had client-imposed restrictions (concentrated stock positions that could not be sold, sector exclusions) that prevented the firm from fully implementing the strategy. The non-discretionary portfolios happened to outperform the strategy average, inflating composite returns by approximately 75 basis points in 2023 and 40 basis points in 2024. The erroneous composite returns were distributed to 30 prospective clients and submitted to two consultant databases.

Compliance Issues:

1. Composite construction violation. Non-discretionary portfolios must be excluded from composites under GIPS. Including these 12 portfolios for two years violates the composite construction requirements.

2. Error materiality assessment. The firm must apply its documented error correction policy. A 75-basis-point impact in 2023 would exceed most firms' materiality thresholds (commonly 50 basis points). The 40-basis-point impact in 2024 may or may not be material depending on the firm's threshold. The firm must evaluate each period independently.

3. Reissuance obligation. If the error is determined to be material (which the 2023 impact almost certainly is), the firm must: (a) remove the 12 portfolios from the composite for the affected periods and recalculate composite returns; (b) reissue corrected GIPS-compliant presentations to all 30 prospective clients and both consultant databases that received the erroneous version; (c) include disclosure of the error and correction.

4. Verification notification. If the firm is verified, the verifier must be notified of the error. Depending on the verifier's assessment, the verification report for the affected periods may need to be revised or reissued.

5. Process remediation. The firm must identify why the non-discretionary portfolios were included — was the discretionary/non-discretionary classification process flawed? Were portfolio restrictions not properly communicated to the performance team? The root cause must be addressed to prevent recurrence.

Analysis: The firm should immediately remove the 12 non-discretionary portfolios from the composite for 2023 and 2024 and recalculate composite returns. Given that the 2023 impact (75 basis points) exceeds typical materiality thresholds, the firm must prepare corrected GIPS-compliant presentations and distribute them to all recipients of the erroneous version. The reissuance should include a cover letter or footnote explaining that the composite was restated due to the inclusion of non-discretionary portfolios and disclosing the magnitude of the correction. For 2024 (40 basis points), the firm should apply its specific materiality threshold — if the threshold is 50 basis points, the 2024 error is immaterial and does not require separate reissuance, though it will be corrected as part of the broader restatement. The firm should also review all other composites for similar classification errors, strengthen its process for identifying and documenting portfolio discretionary status, and consider whether additional training for client-facing and operations staff is warranted. All actions, decisions, and communications should be documented in the firm's error correction log.

Example 3: Small RIA Considering GIPS Compliance

Scenario: A small registered investment adviser with $120 million in assets under management, 5 client portfolios, and a single U.S. balanced strategy (60/40 equity/fixed income) is considering claiming GIPS compliance. The firm's founder, who has 20 years of industry experience, believes GIPS compliance would enhance credibility when pursuing institutional mandates. The firm has never undergone GIPS verification and is unsure whether GIPS is practical given its size.

Compliance Issues:

1. No minimum firm size for GIPS. GIPS does not set a minimum firm size, number of portfolios, or asset level. A firm with 5 portfolios and $120 million can claim GIPS compliance provided it meets all requirements. The standards are designed to be scalable.

2. Composite construction with a single strategy. Since all 5 portfolios follow the same U.S. balanced strategy, the firm would have one composite containing all 5 portfolios. This is straightforward — no complex composite assignment decisions are needed. However, the firm must still document its composite construction policies, including criteria for inclusion/exclusion, timing of new portfolio inclusion, and treatment of terminated portfolios.

3. Minimum presentation requirements. The firm must present at least five years of composite performance (or since inception, if the composite has existed for less than five years), building to ten years. If the firm has managed the strategy for fewer than five years, it presents performance since inception. The firm must also present the required elements: composite description, benchmark description and returns, number of portfolios, composite and firm assets, internal dispersion (if six or more portfolios for the full year — with only five portfolios, the firm may state that the number is five or fewer and omit dispersion), three-year annualized ex-post standard deviation, fee schedule, and compliance statement.

4. Firm-wide compliance. Even with a single strategy, the firm must claim compliance on a firm-wide basis. If the firm manages any other portfolios (e.g., the founder's personal account managed as part of the firm's business), those must be addressed — either included in the composite (if discretionary and fee-paying), excluded with documentation, or defined outside the firm's scope.

5. Verification decision. Verification is optional but increasingly expected by institutional allocators. For a small firm seeking its first institutional mandates, verification substantially enhances credibility. The cost of verification for a small, single-composite firm is typically modest (roughly $5,000-$15,000 annually as of mid-2020s pricing — obtain current quotes, as fees vary by verifier and firm complexity). Given the firm's goal of pursuing institutional business, verification is a worthwhile investment.

6. Operational requirements. The firm must maintain: (a) written GIPS compliance policies and procedures; (b) portfolio valuations that meet GIPS standards (actual valuations, valued on dates of large cash flows); (c) documentation of composite membership decisions; (d) error correction policies with defined materiality thresholds; (e) a complete list and description of composites; (f) records supporting all performance calculations.

Analysis: GIPS compliance is both practical and advisable for this firm. The single-strategy structure simplifies composite construction significantly — no complex assignment decisions, no risk of composite overlap, and straightforward documentation. The firm should begin by: (a) drafting GIPS-compliant policies and procedures covering composite construction, performance calculation, error correction, and presentation; (b) defining the firm (ensuring the definition captures all relevant business activities); (c) constructing the composite by including all five discretionary, fee-paying portfolios; (d) calculating composite returns using time-weighted methods with asset weighting; (e) preparing a GIPS-compliant presentation with all required elements; (f) engaging a GIPS verifier before making the compliance claim, as verification from the outset establishes credibility and catches any issues before the firm begins distributing compliant presentations. The total cost of initial GIPS adoption — including policy drafting, performance system configuration, and first-year verification — is typically manageable for a firm of this size and represents a meaningful competitive advantage in the institutional market.

Common Pitfalls

• Claiming GIPS compliance at the composite level rather than on a firm-wide basis — compliance must cover the entire firm as defined under GIPS.
• Linking backtested, model, or simulated performance to actual composite returns to create a longer or more favorable track record.
• Removing terminated portfolios from composites after the fact, thereby introducing survivorship bias into composite returns.
• Failing to include new portfolios in composites on a timely and consistent basis, allowing the firm to delay adding underperforming portfolios.
• Using estimated rather than actual portfolio valuations for return calculations, particularly around large external cash flows.
• Presenting composite returns without all required elements (omitting internal dispersion, three-year standard deviation, composite creation date, or fee schedule).
• Setting composite minimum asset levels but not applying them consistently across all portfolios and time periods.
• Creating composites retroactively to capture only favorable performance histories.
• Presenting non-GIPS-compliant performance to prospective clients while claiming GIPS compliance for other materials — once a firm claims GIPS compliance, all performance shown to prospective clients must be in a compliant format.
• Failing to maintain documentation for composite membership decisions, making it impossible for a verifier to assess whether composites were constructed properly.
• Not establishing or applying materiality thresholds for error correction, leading to either excessive reissuances for trivial errors or failure to reissue for significant errors.
• Using equal-weighted composite returns in GIPS presentations instead of the required asset-weighted returns.
• Omitting the GIPS compliance statement or using non-standard compliance language.
• Confusing verification with a guarantee of accuracy — verification provides assurance about processes and policies but does not certify the correctness of every return.
• Presenting GIPS-compliant advertisements without the required elements (firm definition, compliance statement, benchmark, standardized-period returns).

Cross-References

• performance-metrics (wealth-management plugin): GIPS requires time-weighted return calculation consistent with the TWR methods defined in the performance-metrics skill; composite return accuracy depends on correct application of Modified Dietz or true daily valuation methods.
• performance-attribution (wealth-management plugin): Attribution analysis presented alongside GIPS-compliant reports must be labeled as supplemental information and cannot contradict or be inconsistent with the reported composite returns.
• performance-reporting (wealth-management plugin): GIPS constrains how performance can be presented in client and prospective-client reports, including required elements, standardized time periods, and the prohibition on cherry-picked performance.
• advertising-compliance (compliance plugin): GIPS advertising guidelines layer on top of SEC Marketing Rule and FINRA Rule 2210 requirements; firms subject to both must comply with the more restrictive standard for each element.
• fee-disclosure (compliance plugin): GIPS requires fee schedule disclosure in compliant presentations and mandates clear labeling of gross-of-fees versus net-of-fees returns, consistent with the broader fee transparency requirements covered in the fee-disclosure skill.