PERAC Memo #1 - 2016: Schedule 7 Report
Schedule 7 Report
View original on mass.gov →Summary
PERAC Memo #1/2016 announces the release of the 2014 Schedule 7 Fee Report, which for the first time compiles and publishes investment management, consultant, and custodian fees as reported by retirement boards in an easy-to-read format, alongside 2014 investment performance and asset data. The report reflects unaudited data as submitted (with noted gaps, including some boards omitting managers and Belmont's absent filing), and PERAC cautions that fee levels should be evaluated in context of investment performance rather than in isolation. No specific action is required of boards beyond awareness of the published data and ensuring the accuracy/completeness of their own future Schedule 7 filings.
Full Text
PERAC Memo # 1 / 2016
M E M O R A N D U M TO: All Retirement Boards FROM: Joseph E. Connarton, Executive Director RE: Schedule 7 Report
DATE: January 8, 2016
The Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission (PERAC) is pleased to release its 2014 Schedule 7 Fee Report. This edition of the Report represents the first time that investment management fees (investment management, consultant and custodian) as reported by the retirement boards in Schedule 7 of their Annual Report of Financial Condition have been replicated and published in an easy to read format.
PERAC has not conducted an audit of the information submitted and the Report exhibits are the actual Schedule 7 filings received as part of the 2014 Annual Report(s) of Financial Condition. As noted in the Introduction, in some cases the board did not include all the investment managers providing service to the board, and in Belmont no Schedule 7 is available because the 2014 Annual Report of Financial Condition has not been filed.
Each Exhibit also includes investment performance and asset data for each retirement board as published in PERAC’s Annual Report for 2014.
In assessing this material it should be kept in mind that the level of cost, in and of itself, is neither a positive nor a negative. More important is whether the performance justifies the cost.