iowa public employees' retirement system investment cost ... ibs presentation cy2018_0.pdf ·...

Paul Martiniello, IMBA, CIM®

Director

September 19th, 2019

Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System

Investment Cost Effectiveness Analysis - Summary of ResultsFor the 5 year period ending December 31, 2018

Key takeaways

Returns

• Your 5-year net total return was 5.8%. This was above the U.S. median of 5.4% and above the peer median of 5.6%.

• Your 5-year policy return was 5.6%. This was above the U.S. median of 5.3% and equal to the peer median of 5.6%.

Value added

• Your 5-year net value added was 0.2%. This was above the U.S. median of 0.0% and above the peer median of -0.1%.

Cost

• Your investment cost of 38.9 bps was below your benchmark cost of 47.3 bps. This suggests that your fund was low

cost compared to your peers.

• Your fund was low cost because you paid less than peers for similar services and you had a lower cost implementation

style.

© 2019 CEM Benchmarking Inc. Executive Summary | 1

Participating assets ($ trillions)

*2018 assets includes both received and expected data.

This benchmarking report compares your cost and return performance to the 280

funds in CEM's extensive pension database.

• 161 U.S. pension funds participate. The median U.S.

fund had assets of $8.6 billion and the average U.S. fund

had assets of $23.9 billion. Total participating U.S. assets

were $3.9 trillion.

• 76 Canadian funds participate with assets totaling $1.5

trillion.

• 36 European funds participate with aggregate assets

of $3.1 trillion. Included are funds from the Netherlands,

Norway, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Denmark and the

U.K.

• 5 Asia-Pacific funds participate with aggregate assets

of $746.4 trillion. Included are funds from Australia,

New Zealand, China and South Korea.

• 2 Gulf region funds participate.

The most meaningful comparisons for your returns and

value added are to the U.S. universe.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18*


To preserve client confidentiality, given potential access to documents as permitted by the Freedom of Information Act, we do not disclose your peers' names

in this document.

The most valuable comparisons for cost performance are to your custom peer group

because size impacts costs.

Peer group for Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System

• 18 U.S. sponsors from $16.0 billion to $54.0 billion

• Median size of $29.0 billion versus your $30.5 billion

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

$ b

illio

ns


Total returns, by themselves, provide little insight

into the reasons behind relative performance.

Therefore, we separate total return into its more

meaningful components: policy return and

value added.

Your 5-year

Net total fund return 5.8%

- Policy return 5.6%

= Net value added 0.2%

This approach enables you to understand the

contribution from both policy mix decisions

(which tend to be the board's responsibility) and

implementation decisions (which tend to be

management's responsibility).

Your 5-year net total return of 5.8% was above both the U.S. median of 5.4% and the peer

median of 5.6%.

U.S. net total returns - quartile rankings

-7%

-2%

3%

8%

13%

18%

5 year

-7%

-2%

3%

8%

13%

18%

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014

Legend

your value

median

90th

75th

25th

peer med

10th


• Long term capital market expectations

• Liabilities

• Appetite for risk

Each of these three factors is different across

funds. Therefore, it is not surprising that policy

returns often vary widely between funds.

Your 5-year policy return of 5.6% was above the U.S. median of 5.3% and equal to

the peer median of 5.6%.

Your policy return is the return you could have earned

passively by indexing your investments according to

your policy mix.

U.S. policy returns - quartile rankings

Having a higher or lower relative policy return is not

necessarily good or bad. Your policy return reflects your

investment policy, which should reflect your:

To enable fairer comparisons, the policy returns of all participants, including your fund, were

adjusted to reflect private equity benchmarks based on lagged, investable, public-market indices.

Prior to this adjustment, your 5-year policy return was 6.0%, 0.3% higher than your adjusted 5-year

policy return of 5.6%. Mirroring this, your 5-year total fund net value added would be 0.3% lower.

-7%

-2%

3%

8%

13%

18%

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014

-7%

-2%

3%

8%

13%

18%

5 year

Legend

your value

median

90th

75th

25th

peer med

10th


• Your U.S. More/ Your U.S.

Fund Avg. Less Fund Avg.

U.S. Stock 24% 18% 6% 8.1% 7.7%

EAFE Stock 0% 5% -5% n/a³ 0.9%

ACWIxUS Stock 16% 6% 11% 1.0% 1.1%

Other Stock² 0% 14% -14% n/a³ n/a³

• Total Stock 41% 43% -3% 5.3% 4.9%

U.S. Bonds 28% 12% 16% 2.7% 2.7%

Long Bonds 0% 20% -20% n/a³ 5.4%

Inflation Indexed Bonds 5% 1% 3% 1.4% 1.9%

Fixed Income - Emerging 1% 1% 1% 4.2% 2.7%

Cash 1% 0% 1% 0.6% 0.6%

Other Fixed Income 4% 4% 0% n/a³ n/a³

Total Fixed Income 39% 38% 0% 2.6% 4.0%

Hedge Funds 0% 4% -5% n/a³ 2.4%

Real Estate ex-REITs 6% 5% 1% 9.4% 9.5%

Other Real Assets² 3% 2% 1% n/a³ n/a³

Private Equity 11% 6% 5% 12.8% 13.4%

Total 100% 100% 0%

1. 5-year weights are based only on plans with 5 years of continuous data.2.Other stock includes emerging market stock, global stock stock. Other real assets includes

commodities, natural resources, infrastructure and REITS.

3. A value of 'n/a' is shown if asset class return are not available for the full 5 years or if they are

broad and incomparable.

Your 5-year policy return of 5.6% was slightly above the U.S. median of 5.3%

primarily because of:

5-year average policy mix¹5-year bmk.

return

Your mix of benchmarks in stock, which had a

positive effect. You had a 24% 5-year average

allocation to U.S. stock compared to a 18%

allocation for the U.S. universe. U.S. stock had

strong performance over the past 5 years.

Your mix of benchmarks in fixed income, which

had a negative impact and slightly offset the

above. You had a 28% 5-year average allocation

to U.S. bonds compared to a 12% allocation for

the U.S. universe. U.S. bonds had poor

performance over the past 5 years.


Net Policy Net value

Year Return Return Added

2018 -1.1% -0.8% -0.3%

2017 14.6% 14.0% 0.5%

2016 7.8% 8.3% -0.5%

2015 1.3% 0.1% 1.2%

2014 7.4% 7.3% 0.2%

5-Year 5.8% 5.6% 0.2%

To enable fairer comparisons, the value added for each participant including your fund was adjusted

to reflect private equity benchmarks based on investable public market indices. Prior to this

adjustment, your fund’s 5-year total fund net value added was -0.1%.

Net value added is the component of total return from active management. Your 5-

year net value added was 0.2%.

Net value added equals total net return minus policy

return. U.S. net value added - quartile rankings

Value added for Iowa Public Employees'

Retirement System

Your 0.2% 5-year value added translates

into approximately $0.3 billion of

cumulative value added over 5 years, or

$0.4 billion more than if you had earned the

U.S. median of 0.0%.

Your 5-year net value added of 0.2% compares to a

median of -0.1% for your peers and 0.0% for the U.S.

universe.

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

5 year

Legend

your value

median

90th

75th

25th

peer med

10th


Comparisons of your 5-year net return and net value added by major asset class.

1. To enable fairer comparisons, the private equity benchmarks of all participants, including your fund were adjusted to reflect lagged, investable, public-market indices.

Prior to this adjustment, your fund’s 5-year private equity net value added was -0.1%.

-1%

3%

7%

11%

15%

U.S. StockEmerging

Market StockACWxU.S. Stock Fixed Income REITS Real Estate Private Equity¹

Your fund -0.3% -0.5% -0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 1.4% 3.1%

U.S. average -0.4% -0.3% 0.3% -0.1% -0.5% 0.2% -0.9%

Peer average -0.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.8% -0.5%

5-year average net value added by major asset class

-1%3%7%

11%15%

U.S. StockEmerging Market

StockACWxU.S. Stock Fixed Income REITS Real Estate Private Equity¹

Your fund 7.8% 1.2% 0.8% 2.7% 8.4% 10.9% 15.9%

U.S. average 7.3% 1.3% 1.4% 4.0% 5.8% 9.8% 12.6%

Peer average 7.3% 1.6% 1.5% 3.7% 6.6% 10.7% 13.3%

Your % of assets 24.3% 3.7% 12.5% 37.6% 2.0% 5.8% 11.9%

5-year average net return by major asset class


Overseeing Passive Active Perform.

of external fees base fees fees ² Total

Stock - U.S. Broad/All 305 3,589 12,116 16,010

Stock - Emerging -7 1,439 1,433

Stock - ACWI x U.S. 628 2,095 501 3,224

Fixed Income - U.S. -23 5,322 1,828 7,127

Fixed Income - Emerging 600 404 1,004

Fixed Income - Inflation Indexed 121 218 339

Fixed Income - High Yield 1,715 222 1,937

Cash 250 250

REITs 113 498 925 1,536

Real Estate ex-REITs ² 9,550 9,550

Natural Resources ² 1,394 1,394

Other Real Assets ² 558 558

Diversified Private Equity - LP ¹ ² 7,600 58,699 66,299

Private Credit - External ² 4,506 4,506

Derivatives/Overlays 342 150 1,482 1,118 3,092

118,257 37.9bp

Oversight, custodial and other costs ³

Oversight of the fund 1,452

Trustee & custodial 774

Consulting and performance measurement 358

Audit 159

Other 311

Total oversight, custodial & other costs 3,055 1.0bp

121,312 38.9bp

Your investment costs were $121.3 million or 38.9 basis points in 2018.

Total excluding private asset performance fees

Total investment costs (excl. transaction costs & private asset performance fees)

Asset management costs by asset class

and style ($000s)

Internal External Management Footnotes

1. Fees are the weighted average

management cost calculated using

the detailed limited partnership

survey provided.

2. Total cost excludes

carry/performance fees for real

estate, infrastructure, natural

resources and private equity.

Performance fees are included for

the public market asset classes and

hedge funds.

3. Excludes non-investment costs,

such as PBGC premiums and

preparing checks for retirees.


•

• Fund size. Bigger funds have advantages of scale.

Your total investment cost of 38.9 bps was below the peer median of 52.8 bps.

Differences in total investment cost are often caused by

two factors that are often outside of management's

control:

Total investment cost

excluding transaction costs and

private asset performance fees

Asset mix, particularly holdings of the highest cost

asset classes: real estate (excl. REITS),

infrastructure, hedge funds and private equity.

These high cost assets equaled 20% of your funds

assets at the end of 2018 versus a peer average of

20%.

Therefore, to assess whether your costs are high or low

given your unique asset mix and size, CEM calculates a

benchmark cost for your fund. This analysis is shown on

the following page.

0 bp

10 bp

20 bp

30 bp

40 bp

50 bp

60 bp

70 bp

80 bp

90 bp

100 bp

Peer U.S. universe

Legend

your value

median

90th

75th

25th

peer avg

10th


$000s basis points

121,312 38.9 bp

Your benchmark cost 147,428 47.3 bp

Your excess cost (26,116) (8.4) bp

Benchmark cost analysis suggests that, after adjusting for fund size and asset mix,

your fund was low cost by 8.4 basis points in 2018.

Your benchmark cost is an estimate of what your cost

would be given your actual asset mix and the median

costs that your peers pay for similar services. It

represents the cost your peers would incur if they had

your actual asset mix.

Your total cost of 38.9 bp was below your benchmark

cost of 47.3 bp. Thus, your cost savings were 8.4 bp.

Your cost versus benchmark

Your total investment cost


$000s bps

1. Lower cost implementation style

• Use of active management vs. lower cost passive 3,950 1.3

• More external management vs. lower cost internal 5,458 1.8

• Less partnerships as a percentage of external (7,564) (2.4)

• Less fund of funds (6,046) (1.9)

• More co-investment as a percentage of LP/Co (5,491) (1.8)

• More overlays 2,385 0.8

(7,309) (2.3)

2. Paying less than peers for similar services

• External investment management costs (14,674) (4.7)

• Oversight, custodial & other costs (4,134) (1.3)

(18,808) (6.0)

Total savings (26,116) (8.4)

Your fund was low cost because you paid less than peers for similar services and you

had a lower cost implementation style.

Reasons for your low cost status

Excess Cost/

(Savings)


Asset class/categoryStock - U.S. Broad/All 7,640 (3) 7,637 10.1 bp

Stock - Emerging (1,232) (3,549) (4,781) (37.1) bp

Stock - ACWI x U.S. (2,637) (6,578) (9,216) (23.8) bp

Fixed Income - U.S. 4,661 (7,844) (3,184) (3.7) bp

Fixed Income - Emerging 102 (301) (199) (5.3) bp

Fixed Income - Inflation Indexed (18) (620) (638) (4.3) bp

Fixed Income - High Yield 140 (493) (353) (4.7) bp

Cash -- -- Excluded Excluded

REITs 526 (80) 446 8.9 bp

Real Estate ex-REITs (5,566) (2,672) (8,238) (46.6) bp

Natural Resources (81) (89) (170) (8.4) bp

Other Real Assets 0 (1,645) (1,645) (74.3) bp

Diversified Private Equity (11,538) 8,955 (2,583) (6.4) bp

Private Credit (1,690) 247 (1,443) (29.2) bp

Derivatives and overlays 2,385 0 2,385 0.8 bp

Oversight, custodial & other n/a (4,134) (4,134) (1.3) bp

Total (7,309) (18,808) (26,116) (8.4) bp

The table below provides a summary of why you are high/low cost relative to the

peer-median by asset class.

Why are you high/(low) cost by asset class?

Impl.

style

$000s

Paying

more/(less)

$000s

Total

$000s

Total

bps


Implementation style¹

•

•

1. The graph above does not take into consideration the impact of derivatives.

The values in the graph above are calculated using average holdings.

Differences in cost performance are often caused by differences in implementation

style.

Implementation style is defined as the way in

which your fund implements asset allocation. It

includes internal, external, active, passive and fund

of funds styles.

The greatest cost impact is usually caused by

differences in the use of:

External active management because it tends to

be much more expensive than internal or

passive management. You used more external

active management than your peers (your 78%

versus 70% for your peers).

Within external active holdings, fund of funds

usage because it is more expensive than direct

fund investment. You had less in fund of funds.

Your 0% of hedge funds, real estate and private

equity in fund of funds compared to 15% for

your peers.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Your Fund Peers U.S. Funds

Internal passive 0% 2% 3%

Internal active 0% 9% 5%

External passive 22% 19% 19%

External active 78% 70% 73%


Cost/

Asset class by (savings)

implementation choice* in $000s bps

A B C A X B X C

Total More/

Passive vs. Active assets Passive Active (less)

Stock - U.S. Broad/All 7,560 40.3% 70.1% (29.8%) 1.0 bp 34.7 bp (33.7) bp 7,605

Stock - Emerging 1,288 46.2% 21.8% 24.4% 7.6 bp 59.6 bp (52.0) bp (1,632)

Stock - ACWI x U.S. 3,872 43.7% 23.7% 20.0% 5.4 bp 40.4 bp (35.1) bp (2,712)

Fixed Income - U.S. 8,545 8.2% 14.2% (6.1%) 2.3 bp 13.7 bp (11.4) bp 588

Fixed Income - Inflation Indexed 1,496 53.1% 37.0% 16.2% 1.4 bp 9.5 bp (8.1) bp (197)

REITs 501 35.9% 53.7% (17.8%) 6.3 bp 39.6 bp (33.4) bp 297

Less passive 3,950 1.3 bp

Passive Internal External More/

Internal passive vs. external passive assets passive passive less

Stock - Emerging 595 0.0% 38.2% (38.2%) 4.7 bp 9.4 bp (4.6) bp 105

Fixed Income - U.S. 698 0.0% 3.4% (3.4%) 1.3 bp 2.4 bp (1.1) bp 3

Less int. passive as % of total passive 108 0.0 bp

Total impact of differences in active vs. passive implementation styles 4,058 1.3 bp

* Implementation styles where you are exactly the same as your peers (i.e. style impact is zero) are not shown.

Differences in implementation style and their impacts are shown below.

Calculation of the cost impact of differences in implementation style

Assets by

style

($mils)

Style %Your

fund

Peer

average

More/

(less) Benchmark cost

More/

(less)¹

1. The 'style premium' is calculated as the difference between the style-weighted peer-median cost of the two styles being compared.

Passive % of total assets

Internal passive % of

passive assets


Cost/



A B C A X B X C

Active Internal External More/

Internal active vs. external active assets active active (less)

Stock - U.S. Broad/All 4,513 0.0% 0.3% (0.3%) 6.3 bp 34.8 bp (28.5) bp 35

Stock - Emerging 693 0.0% 8.1% (8.1%) 11.3 bp 63.8 bp (52.5) bp 295

Stock - ACWI x U.S. 2,182 0.0% 1.1% (1.1%) 10.0 bp 40.8 bp (30.8) bp 75

Fixed Income - U.S. 7,847 0.0% 32.7% (32.7%) 3.0 bp 18.9 bp (15.9) bp 4,070

Fixed Income - Emerging 377 0.0% 9.7% (9.7%) 6.7 bp 34.7 bp (27.9) bp 102

Fixed Income - Inflation Indexed 701 0.0% 24.3% (24.3%) 1.6 bp 12.1 bp (10.5) bp 179

Fixed Income - High Yield 751 0.0% 7.8% (7.8%) 8.4 bp 32.4 bp (24.0) bp 140

REITs 321 0.0% 17.9% (17.9%) 7.2 bp 46.7 bp (39.6) bp 228

Real Estate ex-REITs 1,768 0.0% 1.8% (1.8%) 29.6 bp 101.9 bp (72.3) bp 226

Less int. active as % of total active 5,350 1.7 bp

Total impact of differences in implementation style on this page 5,350 1.7 bp




Assets by

style

($mils)

Style %Your

fund

Peer

average

More/

(less)

More/

(less)¹Benchmark cost


3. 'Evergreen' refers to funds without a finite life. This year they were captured as 'external not fund of fund' on the online survey.

Internal active % of

active assets


Cost/



A B C A X B X C

External Ever- LP/Co/ More/

Evergreen vs. LP/Co/FoF assets green FoF (less)

Real Estate ex-REITs 1,768 100.0% 56.3% 43.7% 69.1 bp 144.0 bp (74.9) bp (5,792)

Natural Resources 202 100.0% 93.2% 6.8% 73.3 bp 132.3 bp (58.9) bp (81)

Private Credit 495 100.0% 40.2% 59.8% 86.1 bp 143.2 bp (57.1) bp (1,690)

More evergreen % of external (7,564) (2.4) bp

LP/Co/ More/

LP/Co vs. Fund of funds FoF assets LP/Co FoF (less)

Diversified Private Equity 4,015 100.0% 79.0% 21.0% 156.5 bp 228.3 bp (71.8) bp (6,046)

More fund of funds % of LP/Co/FoF (6,046) (1.9) bp

LP/Co Co- Limited More/

Co-investment vs. LP assets invest. Partner. (less)

Diversified Private Equity 4,015 11.3% 2.1% 9.2% 11.0 bp 159.6 bp (148.6) bp (5,491)

More co-investment % of LP/Co (5,491) (1.8) bp

Impact of higher use of portfolio level overlays 2,385 0.8 bp

Total impact of differences in implementation style on this page (16,717) (5.4) bp




Assets by

style

($mils)¹

Style %Your

fund

Peer

average

More/

(less)

More/

(less)²Benchmark cost

1. 'Amount fees are based on' is the basis for calculating costs for private assets.


Evergreen fund % of

external

LP and Co % of

LP/Co/Fund of funds

Co-investment % of

limited partnerships

Overlays


Your avg Cost/holdings Peer More/ (savings)

Style in $mils median (less) $000s

External asset management (A) (B) (A X B)

Stock - U.S. Broad/All passive 3,047 1.0 1.0 (0.0) (3)

Stock - U.S. Broad/All active 4,513 34.8¹ 34.8 0.0 0

Stock - Emerging passive 595 -0.1 9.4 (9.5) (564)

Stock - Emerging active 693 20.8¹ 63.8 (43.1) (2,985)

Stock - ACWI x U.S. passive 1,690 3.7 5.4 (1.7) (279)

Stock - ACWI x U.S. active 2,182 11.9¹ 40.8 (28.9) (6,299)

Fixed Income - U.S.* passive 698 -0.3 2.4 (2.7) (188)

Fixed Income - U.S. active 7,847 9.1¹ 18.9 (9.8) (7,657)

Fixed Income - Emerging active 377 26.7¹ 34.7 (8.0) (301)

Fixed Income - Inflation Indexed passive 795 1.5 1.4 0.1 10

Fixed Income - Inflation Indexed active 701 3.1¹ 12.1 (9.0) (630)

Fixed Income - High Yield active 751 25.8¹ 32.4 (6.6) (493)

REITs passive 180 6.3 6.3 0.0 0

REITs active 321 44.3¹ 46.7 (2.5) (80)

Real Estate ex-REITs active 1,768 54.0 69.1 (15.1) (2,672)

Natural Resources active 202 69.0 73.3 (4.4) (89)

Other Real Assets* active 222 25.2¹ 99.5 (74.3) (1,645)

Diversified Private Equity* CO 453 0.0 11.0 (11.0) (498)

Diversified Private Equity LP 3,563 186.1 159.6 26.5 9,453

Private Credit* active 495 91.1 86.1 5.0 247Total impact of paying more/less for external management (14,674)Total in bps (4.7) bp

1. You paid performance fees in these asset classes.'Excluded' indicates that the asset class was excluded from this analysis due to comparability concerns with peers.*Universe median used as peer data was insufficient.2. 'Amount fees are based on' is the basis for calculating costs for private assets.

The net impact of paying more/less for external asset management costs saved 4.7

bps.Cost impact of paying more/(less) for external asset management

Cost in bpsYour

Fund


Your avg Cost/

holdings Peer More/ (savings)

in $mils median (less) $000s(A) (B) (A X B)

Oversight 31,181 0.5 1.1 (0.6)

Consulting 31,181 0.1 0.3 (0.1)

Custodial 31,181 0.2 0.5 (0.3)

Audit 31,181 0.1 0.0 0.0

Other 31,181 0.1 0.2 (0.1)

Total for oversight, custodial, other¹ 1.0 2.3 (1.3) (4,134)

Total in bps (1.3) bp

The net impact of differences in oversight, custodial & other costs saved 1.3 bps.

Cost impact of differences in oversight, custodial & other costs

Cost in bpsYour

Fund

1. Oversight, custodial, and other costs are benchmarked using the peer median cost for the total of the pieces. The

individual line items are shown for comparison but not used in the benchmark.


$000s bps

1. Lower cost implementation style

• Use of active management vs. lower cost passive 3,950 1.3

• More external management vs. lower cost internal 5,458 1.8

• Less partnerships as a percentage of external (7,564) (2.4)

• Less fund of funds (6,046) (1.9)

• More co-investment as a percentage of LP/Co (5,491) (1.8)

• More overlays 2,385 0.8

(7,309) (2.3)

2. Paying less than peers for similar services

• External investment management costs (14,674) (4.7)

• Oversight, custodial & other costs (4,134) (1.3)

(18,808) (6.0)

Total savings (26,116) (8.4)

In summary, your fund was low cost because you paid less than peers for similar

services and you had a lower cost implementation style.

Reasons for your low cost status

Excess Cost/

(Savings)


5-Year net value added versus excess cost(Your 5-year: net value added 21 bps, cost savings 7 bps ¹)

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 5-yearNet value added -32.9bp 51.5bp -48.0bp 116.3bp 16.3bp 20.8bpExcess Cost -8.4bp -7.7bp -8.4bp -3.1bp -5.3bp -6.6bp

Your 5-year performance placed in the positive value added, low cost quadrant of

the cost effectiveness chart.

1. Your 5-year cost savings of 7 basis points is the average of your cost savings for the past 5 years.

-300bp

-200bp

-100bp

0bp

100bp

200bp

300bp

-40bp -30bp -20bp -10bp 0bp 10bp 20bp 30bp 40bp

Net

Val

ue

Ad

ded

Excess Cost

Global

U.S.

Peer

Your Results


Summary of key takeaways

Returns

• Your 5-year net total return was 5.8%. This was above the U.S. median of 5.4% and above the peer median of

5.6%.

• Your 5-year policy return was 5.6%. This was above the U.S. median of 5.3% and equal to the peer median of

5.6%.

Value added

• Your 5-year net value added was 0.2%. This was above the U.S. median of 0.0% and above the peer median of -

0.1%.

Cost and cost effectiveness

• Your investment cost of 38.9 bps was below your benchmark cost of 47.3 bps. This suggests that your fund was

low cost compared to your peers.

• Your fund was low cost because you paid less than peers for similar services and you had a lower cost

implementation style.


iowa public employees' retirement system investment cost ... ibs presentation cy2018_0.pdf ·...

Documents