PENSION PLAN COMMITTEE - jhsmiami.org HEALTH TRUST BOARD OF TRUSTEES Pension Plan Committee Darryl K. Sharpton, Chairperson Joaquin del Cueto Mojdeh L. Khaghan Date, Time and Location

PENSION PLAN COMMITTEE

PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST BOARD OF TRUSTEES Pension Plan Committee Darryl K. Sharpton, Chairperson

Joaquin del Cueto Mojdeh L. Khaghan

Date, Time and Location January 31, 2012 – 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Jackson Memorial Hospital 1611 N. W. 12th Avenue West Wing Board Room Miami, FL 33136

AGENDA 1. Approval of the Meeting Minutes (Darryl K. Sharpton, Chairperson, Pension Plan Committee)

(a) *November 16, 2011 2. *PHT Defined Benefit Retirement Plan 2012 Actuarial Valuation Report (Robert Bruechert, Senior Actuary, Towers Watson) 3. * PHT Defined Benefit Retirement Plan Investment Summary for 4th Quarter Ending 12/31/11 (Brian Jones, Consulting Services Group, LLC) 4. * Watchlist Guidelines (Brian Jones, Consulting Services Group, LLC) 5. *Replacement of Atalanta Sosnoff: Purpose, Process and Recommendation (Brian Jones, Consulting Services Group, LLC) 6. *Performance Comparison – Public Health Trust vs. Florida Retirement System (Brian Jones, Consulting Services Group, LLC) 7. * Discussion Regarding Manager of Managers (Brian Jones, Consulting Services Group, LLC) 8. Recommended Approval of the PHT Investment Policy Statement (Mark T. Knight, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, Jackson Health System) (a) *PHT Investment Policy Comparison (b) *PHT Investment Policy Statement Recommended for Approval (Draft) Agenda items noted with an asterisk (*) indicate that the supporting documents are attached.

1. Approval of the Meeting Minutes

PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST FINANCIAL RECOVERY BOARD Pension Plan Committee Darryl K. Sharpton, Chairman Joaquin del Cueto

Date and Place November 16, 2011 – 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. West Wing Board Room

ATTENDANCE Pension Plan Committee Darryl K. Sharpton Joaquin del Cueto Jackson Health System Carlos A. Migoya Tala Teymour Rosa Ruiz Maria Huot-Barrientos Mark T. Knight Brian Dean Felisa Yarns Consulting Services Group, LLC Curtis W. Williams Miami-Dade County Attorney Valda Christian Eugene Shy, Jr.

Pension Plan Committee Meeting November 16, 2011 Page 2 Call to Order With a quorum being present the Pension Plan Committee meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. by Darryl K. Sharpton, Chairman. 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes

Mr. Sharpton requested a motion to approve the meeting minutes from September 29, 2011 with the following exception:

Page 4, Item #4 – Any reference to Retirement Plan Committee should be changed to

Pension Plan Committee Mr. Sharpton also made reference to the numbering of the meeting minutes from September 29, 2011. Ivenette Cobb advised that the numbering of the minutes were done in accordance to the order of discussion of agenda items during that meeting. Mr. Sharpton moved approval; seconded by Mr. del Cueto and carried without dissent.

2. PHT Defined Retirement Plan Investment Summary for 3rd Quarter Ending 9/30/11

Curtis Williams of Consulting Services Group, LLC (CSG) provided a performance summary report for the 3rd quarter ending 9/30/11. The Greece default on sovereign debt caused debt failure leading to heavy volatility in the market for September. This type of volatility has not been present since the financial crisis of 2008. Three managers, however, outperformed their indexes on the equity side – Iron Bridge, Advisory Research and Brandes International. Mr. Williams shared the total fund performance for the trailing four quarters ending 9/30/11 was -0.9%. Equity income underperformed at -3.9%. and fixed income performed at 3.4%. There is a total fund return of 7.1% for the month of October with a total market fund value of $392 million. Carlos A. Migoya, President and CEO of Jackson Health System, inquired about the 4.4% average actuarial objective for the fund since inception. Mr. Williams confirmed this number and shared the actuarial objective of 8% for the overall fund is fairly high in comparison to the industry standard ranging from 7 ½ % to 8%. Joaquin del Cueto, Pension Plan Committee member, reminded the committee that the time horizon for the fund is 30 years and the actuarial figure involves more than just investments made over a 10 year period. Benefit design and payouts must be taken into consideration. Mr. Migoya shared the difference in the contribution rate JHS has to pay has to be analyzed as well. Mr. Williams stated an organization would have to offset what they contribute to the fund by reducing benefits, making greater contributions or seeking better market returns. Mr. Sharpton inquired about the frequency in which CSG monitors the actuarial return in relation to performance. Mark Knight, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, informed the committee that CSG provides monitoring through their quarterly performance reports. However, JHS staff and CSG are in contact informally on a monthly basis to review the managers’ performance. Mr. Sharpton requested that going forward there should be feedback given from CSG earlier than on a quarterly basis to the Committee so that members are not waiting on one report to review and make a decision in one session.

Pension Plan Committee Meeting November 16, 2011 Page 3

Mr. Williams made a recommendation to replace Atalanta Sosnoff with Sands Capital Management (Sands). Mr. Shaprton indicated he was not prepared to move forward with this recommendation and is concerned with the rating model/watch list criteria utilized for the performance of the managers. Mr. Knight advised Mr. Shaprton that he had reviewed the change of manager recommendation and CSG is following the guidelines provided by PHT. Mr. Sharpton is concerned with the recommendation for replacement because the quarterly performance report does not show the deficiencies of Atalanta Sosnoff. Mr. Sharpton requested a schedule of metrics from CSG that reflects the issues concerning Atalanta Sosnoff. Mr. Sharpton informed CSG that he needs to have more information from them regarding the rating system for the watch list and how to maximize the return and mitigate risk. At this point Mr. Sharpton is not comfortable with moving forward in closing gaps in terms of risk. Mr. del Cueto inquired about other managers besides Sands that may be suitable as a replacement. Mr. Williams indicated he would bring other large cap growth options. Mr. Williams shared the following formal research process is utilized by CSG:

1. Managers must pass quantitative screens and are prioritized for further research by the research advisory board 2. CSG visits the managers at their location ensuring those individuals involved with strategy and trading are engaged 3. Managers come to CSG’s offices to make presentations 4. Process fully vetted in which CSG takes a vote to include the manager on the “approved manager list”

3. Update on Investment Policy Guidelines Mr. del Cueto inquired if the draft of the investment policy guidelines was the new investment policy. Mr. Knight shared the two documents, the investment policy and investment policy guidelines, were combined into one single draft document. JHS staff and CSG are comfortable with the changes made in the draft document and these changes were compared to other organizations.. Mr. Sharpton advised the group that no action would be taken today on the draft document because of the limited opportunity for review. Mr. del Cueto inquired if CSG is applying the new proposed policy guidelines into the rating system for managers. Mr. Knight shared the copy of the investment policy guidelines given to the committee last year is the living document and CSG’s compliance criteria is based on the current document not the draft document. Mr. Sharpton made a request for Mr. Knight to meet with the committee within the next 10 days for review of the investment policy and policy guidelines so that definitive action is taken at the next meeting regarding this item. Mr. Williams stated that CSG would follow up with the request; however, another layer of fees would be added. It was suggested that it could be CSG as a manager of managers reporting to the Committee and making asset allocation shifts and another group would perform discretionary consulting. Mr. Migoya suggested the committee should have a manager of mangers and advisor to consult with when making changes on funds. Mr. Knight advised the Committee that it is not a best practice to have the same company be the consultant and manager of managers.

Pension Plan Committee Meeting November 16, 2011 Page 4

Mr. del Cueto shared that the committee has a fiduciary responsibility and if he is on the committee he feels as though the Investment Advisor needs to provide him the necessary information and the committee must analyze it and feel comfortable and act accordingly. Mr. del Cueto does not want someone making changes/decisions if he is a fiduciary. Mr. del Cueto does not agree with hiring a Manager of Managers as it would represent an additional cost. Mr. Migoya shared another main issue to take into consideration is JHS’ ability to cover the underperformance of the plan. Mr. Migoya shared the committee is better off having professionals with this background make the decisions and obtain a second professional opinion before the committee makes a decision regarding funding. Mr. Migoya advised this matter has to be addressed immediately as the Committee concentrates on the structure. Mr. del Cueto mentioned his concerns about the draft of the investment policy guidelines. These guidelines give power of approving and making funding changes to the Pension Plan Committee, where historically those decisions were made by the full Board. Mr. del Cueto asked the County Attorney’s Office to review if the Pension Plan Committee can have this authority before the draft of the investment policy guidelines are approved so that JHS does not have a mixed document. Mr. del Cueto also requested a copy of the Florida Statutes 215.37. Mr. Sharpton advised Mr. Knight the draft investment policy guidelines were too lengthy. Mr. Sharpton inquired if the Committee is in compliance right now with the current, legal document. CSG confirmed that JHS was in compliance and the draft does take into account the current practice. 4. Pension Plan Committee Member Assignments Mr. Sharpton decided to defer this item until the investment policy and guidelines are approved, which the Committee expects to take place at the committee meeting next month.

Adjournment The meeting of the pension Plan Committee adjourned at 3:00p.m. Audio Recorded and Transcribed by Felisa Yarns Executive Assistant Human Resources Division

The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida Defined Benefit Retirement Plan

Actuarial Valuation Report For the Plan Year Ending December 31, 2012

November 2011

The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida i

November 2011

Table of Contents

Purpose and actuarial statement .......................................................................................................... 1

Section 1 : Summary of results ............................................................................................................. 3

Contributions ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Comments on results ......................................................................................................................... 4

Summary of principal valuation results .............................................................................................. 5

Participant information ........................................................................................................................ 6

Section 2 : Actuarial exhibits ................................................................................................................ 7

2.1 Summary of valuation results ................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Summary of valuation liabilities ................................................................................................ 8

2.3 Statement of Plan Assets at December 31, 2010 and change in plan assets during plan year .................................................................................................................................. 9

2.4 Development of actuarial value of assets .............................................................................. 10

2.5 Development of Normal Cost ................................................................................................. 11

2.6 Supplementary Funding Information and Funding History .................................................... 12

2.7 Accumulated Plan Benefits .................................................................................................... 14

Section 3 : Participant data ................................................................................................................. 15

3.1 Summary of plan participants ................................................................................................ 15

3.2 Age and service distribution of participating employees ........................................................ 16

3.3 Reconciliation of Participants ................................................................................................. 17

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................ 19

Statement of actuarial assumptions and methods ........................................................................... 19

Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................ 25

Summary of principal plan provisions .............................................................................................. 25

The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida 1

November 2011

Purpose and actuarial statement

As requested by the Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida (PHT), this report documents the results of an actuarial valuation of the Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida Defined Benefit Retirement Plan as of January 1, 2011. The primary purpose of this valuation is to determine contribution requirements of the plan for the plan year beginning January 1, 2012. In addition, the report develops information under the Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 25. This report should not be used for other purposes, distributed to others outside the Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida or relied upon by any other person without prior written consent from Towers Watson Delaware Inc.

Except where we expressly agree in writing, this report should not be disclosed or provided to any third party, other than as provided below. In the absence of such consent and an express assumption of responsibility, no responsibility whatsoever is accepted by us for any consequences arising from any third party relying on this report or any advice relating to its contents.

The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida may make a copy of this report available to auditors or appropriate governmental agencies of the plan or the plan sponsor, but we make no representation as to the suitability of this report for any purpose other than that for which it was originally provided and accept no responsibility or liability to the auditors in this regard. The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida should draw the provisions of this paragraph to the attention of the auditors or appropriate governmental agencies when providing this report to them.

In preparing this valuation, we have relied upon information and data provided to us by the Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida and other persons or organizations designated by the Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida. An audit of the financial and participant data provided was not performed, but we have checked the data for reasonableness as appropriate based on the purpose of the valuation. We have relied on all the information provided, including plan provisions and asset information, as complete and accurate.

The results summarized in this report involve actuarial calculations that require assumptions about future events. We believe that the assumptions and methods used in this report are reasonable and appropriate for the purposes for which they have been used.

Required Actuarial Certification

This actuarial valuation and/or cost determination was prepared and completed by us or under our direct supervision, and we acknowledge responsibility for the results. To the best of our knowledge, the results are complete and accurate, and in our opinion, the techniques and assumptions used are reasonable and meet the requirements and intent of Part VII Chapter 112, Florida Statutes. There is no benefit or expense to be provided by the plan or paid from the plan’s assets for which liabilities or current costs have not been established or otherwise taken into account in the valuation. All known events or trends which may require a material increase in plan costs or required contribution rates have been taken into account in the valuation.

2 The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida

Towers Watson Confidential

The undersigned consultants with actuarial credentials meet the Qualification Standards of the American Academy of Actuaries to render the actuarial opinions contained herein. Our objectivity is not impaired by any relationship between the Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida and our employer, Towers Watson Delaware Inc.

Robert W. Bruechert. Associate, Society of Actuaries Enrolled Actuary No. 11-4448 Towers Watson

J. Steven Pak Fellow, Society of Actuaries Enrolled Actuary No. 11-5793 Towers Watson

K:\Jackson\2011\Rpt\JHS 1-1-2011 Funding Report.doc


November 2011

Section 1: Summary of results

Contributions

Employer contributions are assumed to be made throughout the plan year. Differences in the investment return due to contributions actually being made at any other time will be recognized as an actuarial gain or loss in the following valuation. The minimum required contribution represents a funding level which will satisfy the minimum funding requirements under Part VII, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes.

All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars

Actuarial Valuation Date 01/01/2011 01/01/2010

Plan Year 2012 2011

Minimum Required Employer Contribution

Percent of Payroll 9.51% 9.51%

Contribution history as a percent of payroll

The actuarial funding method adopted seeks to maintain the plan’s funding requirements as a consistent percentage of payroll. As shown in the table below, the plan’s funding requirements had become relatively stable, with exceptions in 2002, 2004 and 2010 – reflecting adverse plan experience during those years.

Plan Year

Minimum Required Contribution as a

Percentage of Payroll Change from

Prior Year

1998 7.52% -

1999 7.52% 0%

2000 7.21% (0.31%)

2001 7.21% 0%

2002 8.51% 1.30%

2003 8.51% 0%

2004 9.78% 1.27%

2005 8.92% (0.86%)

2006 8.58% (0.34%)

2007 8.84% 0.26%

2008 8.79% (0.05%)

2009 8.62% (0.17%)

2010 9.92% 1.30%

2011 9.51% (0.41%)

2012 9.51% 0%



Comments on results

The funded status of the plan increased from 2010 to 2011. The ratio of the market value of plan assets to the actuarial present value of accumulated plan benefits increased from 143% as of January 1, 2010 to 149% as of January 1, 2011. This is due primarily to a favorable return on assets during the year (12.4% on the market value versus 8% assumed).

The minimum required contribution as a percentage of pay remained unchanged from 9.51% in 2011 to 9.51% in 2012. The changes in the minimum required contributions are primarily due to the net effect of the following factors:

The return on the actuarial value of assets for the year was approximately 4.8% versus the expected return of 8%. This loss increased the normal cost rate by about 0.31%.

The Average Valuation Pay for continuing active participants decreased by 0.83% compared with an assumed increase of between 6% and 7%. This resulted in a net gain on salary experience which reduced the normal cost rate by about 0.58%.

Actual employee turnover resulted in a gain relative to expected turnover. This reduced the normal cost rate by about 0.05%. This was offset by a loss on the retirement and mortality experience which resulted in an increase of 0.04% in the normal cost rate.

All other experience produced a net increase in the normal cost rate by about 0.28%.

Plan provisions and assumptions

Appendix A outlines the assumptions and methods used in the valuation. As of January 1, 2011, the interest and mortality assumptions are the same as those used as of January 1, 2010 and the asset method used a smoothing method and was unchanged from the prior year. There were no other changes in the actuarial assumptions from the prior year.

Appendix B outlines our understanding of the principal provisions of the plan being valued. There were no changes to the plan provisions from the prior valuation.


November 2011

Summary of principal valuation results

The summary of key assets, Liabilities, Normal Cost, Credit Balances and Accumulated Plan Benefits are shown below.


Plan Years Beginning 01/01/2011 01/01/2010

Value of Assets1 Market Value $369,739,398 $289,458,850

Statement Value $369,739,398 $289,458,850

Actuarial Value $375,610,012 $317,499,376

Rate of Return on Assets

Market Value 12.4% 20.1%

Actuarial Value 4.8% 12.3%

Liability Targets and Normal Costs

Present Value of Accrued Benefits $248,414,240 $202,862,161

Present Value of Expected Benefits $698,434,876 $671,456,719

Normal Cost as Percent of Payroll 9.51% 9.51%

Minimum Required Contribution for Prior Period $43,648,808 $41,999,933

Present Value of Future Normal Costs $322,824,864 $353,881,175

Present Value of Future Compensation $3,530,970,589 $3,870,165,348

1 Asset values shown include any receivable contributions payable at the end of the prior plan year, but are not reduced by

credit balances.



Participant information

Participant data used in the actuarial valuation for the plan year beginning January 1, 2011 are summarized below along with comparable information from one year ago:


Census Date 01/01/2011 01/01/2010

Participating Employees

Number 6,665 7,428

Annual Plan Compensation Limited by IRC § 401(a)(17) $451,944,219 $507,364,573

Average Annual Plan Compensation Limited by IRC §401(a)(17) $67,809 $68,304

Average Attained Age 44.50 years 43.31 years

Average PHT Service 6.47 years 5.36 years

Participants with Deferred Benefits

Number 985 797

Annual Deferred Benefits $5,600,366 $3,940,511

Average Annual Deferred Benefits $5,686 $4,944

Participants Receiving Benefits

Number 234 149

Annual Benefit Payments $2,146,941 $1,335,778

Average Annual Benefit Payments $9,175 $8,965


November 2011

Section 2: Actuarial exhibits

2.1 Summary of valuation results


Plan Year Beginning 01/01/2011 01/01/2010

A Active Participants

1 Participating employees 6,665 7,428

2 Annual plan compensation $459,901,877 $516,215,968

3 Annual plan compensation (limited by IRC §401(a)(17)) $451,944,219 $507,364,573

B Assets

1 Market value of assets with receivable contributions $369,739,398 $289,458,850

2 Statement value $369,739,398 $289,458,850

3 Actuarial Value $375,610,012 $317,499,376

C Contribution Range

1 Minimum required contribution, prior to credit balance ( as a percentage of payroll) 9.51% 9.51%

2 Credit balance available 0 0

3 Prior Period Actual Contributions $43,648,808 $41,999,933



2.2 Summary of valuation liabilities


Plan Year Beginning 01/01/2011 01/01/2010

A Present Value of Expected Benefits

1 Active Benefits

a Retirement benefits $450,886,102 $440,592,851

b Vesting benefits $168,038,225 $169,047,669

c Disability benefits $11,911,884 $11,875,373

d Death benefits $17,605,622 $17,290,696

e Total Active Liability $648,441,833 $638,806,589

2 Terminated vested participants $26,664,187 $18,393,558

3 Retirees and beneficiaries $23,328,856 $14,256,572

4 Total present value of expected benefits $698,434,876 $671,456,719

5 Liabilities due and unpaid $0 $0

B Present Value of Accumulated Benefits

1 Active vested benefits $161,680,695 $136,336,683

2 Terminated vested benefits $26,664,187 $18,393,558

3 Retired and beneficiary benefits $23,328,856 $14,256,572

4 Non-vested benefits $36,740,502 $33,875,368

5 Total $248,414,240 $202,862,161


November 2011

2.3 Statement of Plan Assets at December 31, 2010 and change in plan assets during plan year


Statement of Plan Assets at December 31, 2010

A Assets by Category Market Value 1 Cash and Money Market $14,312,942 2 Corporate Bonds $107,950,026 3 Government Bonds $27,068,293 4 Agency Bonds $3,661,951 5 Mutual Funds $0 6 International Bonds $7,370,215 7 International Equities $29,226,541 8 Domestic Equities $180,149,431 Receivable Contribution $0 Total Assets $369,739,398

Plan Year Beginning Plan Year Ending

January 1, 2010December 31, 2010

B Reconciliation of Market Value of Assets1

1 Market value of assets at beginning of plan year $289,458,850

2 Employer contributions $43,648,808

3 Employee contributions $0

4 Benefit payments made $(1,881,545)

5 Investment return, net of investment expenses $38,513,285

6 Market value of assets at end of plan year $369,739,398

C Rate of Return on Invested Assets using Time-Weighted Transactions

1 Weighted invested assets $309,585,944

2 Rate of return 12.4%

1 Without receivable employer contributions.



2.4 Development of actuarial value of assets


Amount

A Derivation of 2010 Asset (Gain)/Loss

1 Fair value of assets as of January 1, 2010 $289,458,850

2 Contributions during the plan year $43,648,808

3 Benefit payments $(1,881,545)

4 Expected return based on 8.0% assumption:

a Contributions $1,685,429

b Benefit Payments – mid-year $(75,262)

c Beginning of year balance $23,156,708

5 Expected fair value as of January 1, 2011 $355,992,988

6 Actual Fair Value as of January 1, 2011 $369,739,398

7 (Gain)/Loss for 2010 $(13,746,410)

B Actuarial Value of Assets

1 Fair value of assets at January 1, 2011 $369,739,398

2 Employer contributions receivable $0

3 Market value of assets as of January 1, 2011 $369,739,398

4 Adjustments

a 80% of 2010 (Gain)/Loss $(10,997,128)

b 60% of 2009 (Gain)/Loss $(16,275,844)

c 40% of 2008 (Gain)/Loss $33,091,042

d 20% of 2007 (Gain)/Loss $52,544

5 Preliminary actuarial value of assets at January 1, 2011 $375,610,012

6 80% of Market of value assets at January 1, 2011 $295,791,518

7 120% of Market value of assets at January 1, 2011 $443,687,278

8 Actuarial value of assets at January 1, 2011 $375,610,012


November 2011

2.5 Development of Normal Cost

The Normal Cost is the portion of the cost of projected benefits which is allocated to the current year by the actuarial cost method. The Normal Cost for the plan year beginning January 1, 2011 is determined as follows:


Plan Year Ending 12/31/2011

A Development of Normal Cost as of January 1, 2011

1 Actuarial Present Value of Expected Benefits $698,434,876

2 Actuarial Value of Assets $375,610,012

3 Credit Balance $0

4 Present Value of Future Normal Costs $322,824,864

5 Actuarial Present Value of Future Compensation $3,530,970,589

6 Normal Cost Percentage (A4/A5 and adjusted for Interest) 9.51%

B Development of Credit Balance

1 Credit (Deficit) Balance as of January 1, 2010 $0

2 Interest on B1 above $0

3 Minimum Required Contribution for 2010 (9.51% of participating payroll) $43,648,808

4 Employer Contribution for 2010 $43,648,808

5 Interest on Additional Contributions for Payment Date to January 1, 2011 $0

6 Credit (Deficit) Balance as of January 1, 2011 $0



2.6 Supplementary Funding Information and Funding History


A Schedule of Employer Contributions

Year Ended December 31 Annual Required Contribution Percentage Contributed

2000 $6,014,669 104%

2001 $8,771,314 100%

2002 $12,711,107 100% 2003 $17,740,441 100% 2004 $25,470,445 100% 2005 $24,353,498 100%

2006 $27,173,609 100% 2007 $34,956,333 100% 2008 $39,038,314 100% 2009 $41,999,933 100%

2010 $43,648,808 100%

B Schedule of Funding Progress

Actuarial Valuation

Date Actuarial Value

of Assets

Actuarial Accrued Liability

(AAL) – Entry Age

Unfunded Actuarial

Accrued Liability (UAAL)

Funded Ratio

Covered Payroll

UAAL as a Percentage of Covered

Payroll

01/01/2008 $228,617,427 $233,618,579 $5,001,152 97.86% $413,953,247 1.21%

01/01/2009 $244,340,288 $301,791,714 $57,451,426 80.96% $489,729,929 11.73%

01/01/2010 $317,499,376 $366,833,476 $49,334,100 86.55% $507,364,573 9.72%

01/01/2011 $375,610,012 $434,325,695 $58,715,680 86.48% $451,944,219 12.99%

C Comparison of Actual and Assumed Salary Increases and Investment Return

Salary Increases Investment Return

Year Ended Actual Assumed* Actual Market

Value Actual Actuarial

Value Assumed

12/31/2005 7.78% 6.00% 7.50% N/A 8.00%

12/31/2006 12.02% 6.00% 12.90% N/A 8.00%

12/31/2007 7.66% 6.00% 7.87% 7.97% 8.00%

12/31/2008 7.04% 7.00% (33.21%) (10.71%) 8.00%

12/31/2009 7.08% 7.00% 20.1% 12.3% 8.00%

12/31/2010 (0.83%) 7.00% 12.4% 4.8% 8.00%

*Decreased to 5.00% after 10 years of service prior to 2008; decreased to 6.00% after 10 years of service beginning in 2008


November 2011

D Actuarial Valuation Methods and Assumptions

Valuation date January 1, 2011

Actuarial cost method Aggregate

Asset valuation method Five year smoothing

Actuarial assumptions:

Investment rate of return 8.0%

Projected salary increases:

Merit increases – first 10 years of service 4.5%

Merit increases – after 10 years of service 3.5%

Cost-of-living increases – all years of service 2.5%

Total projected salary increase:

In first 10 years of service 7.0%

Service after 10 years 6.0%



2.7 Accumulated Plan Benefits


Number of Participants Vested Present Value

A Present Value of Accumulated Benefits as ofJanuary 1, 2011

1 Vested accumulated benefits

a Participating active employees1 3,386 $161,680,695

b Participants with deferred benefits 985 $26,664,187

c Participants receiving benefits 234 $23,328,856

d Total vested accumulated benefits $211,673,738

2 Non-vested accumulated benefits 4,605 $36,740,502

3 Total accumulated benefits2 $248,414,240

4 Market value of assets3 $369,739,398

5 Funded accumulated benefits 148.84%

B Reconciliation of Present Value of Accumulated Benefits

1 Present value of accumulated benefits at January 1, 2010 $202,862,161

2 Changes during the year due to:

a Benefits accumulated $32,593,093

b Actuarial (gains)/losses ($3,920,628)

c Decrease in the discount period $18,761,159

d Actual benefits paid ($1,881,545)

e Plan amendment 0

f Change of assumptions 0

g Net increase/(decrease) $45,552,079

3 Present value of accumulated benefits at January 1, 2011 $248,414,240

Actuarial assumptions and methods

The same actuarial assumptions shown in Appendix A were used to determine the present value of accumulated benefits. The same plan provisions shown in Appendix B were used to determine the present value of accumulated benefits. For the prior valuation, an interest discount rate of 8.00% was used.

1 Of these 3,386 are fully vested and 0 are partially vested. There are also 3,279 non-vested participating employees for a

total of 6,665 participating employees. The effect of any plan provision changes recognized for minimum funding requirements for the plan year beginning January 1, 2011 is included.

2 This does not represent liabilities on a plan termination basis for which a separate extensive analysis would be required. 3 Assets include accrued contributions of $ 0 not yet deposited at December 31, 2010.


November 2011

Section 3: Participant data

3.1 Summary of plan participants


Census Date 01/01/2011 01/01/2010

A Participating Employees

1 Number 6,665 7,428

2 Total annual plan compensation limited by IRC §401(a)(17) $451,944,219 $507,364,573

3 Average plan compensation/salary $67,809 $68,304

4 Average age (years) 44.50 43.31

5 Average PHT credited service (years) 6.47 5.36

B Participants with Deferred Benefits

1 Number 985 797

2 Total annual pension $5,600,366 $3,940,511

3 Average annual pension $5,686 $4,944

4 Average age (years) 48 47

5 Distribution at January 1, 2011

Age Number

AverageAnnual Pension

Under 40 232 $5,405

40-44 173 $6,066

45-49 195 $6,136

50-54 155 $5,880

55-59 121 $5,759

60-64 65 $5,897

65 and over 44 $2,461

C Participants Receiving Benefits

1 Number 234 149

2 Total annual pension $2,146,941 $1,335,778

3 Average annual pension $9,175 $8,965

4 Average age (years) 67 67

5 Distribution at January 1, 2011

Age Number

AverageAnnual Pension

Under 55 9 $6,828

55-59 16 $6,634

60-64 59 $8,489

65-69 76 $9,717

70-74 48 $10,296

75-79 13 $6,100

80-84 7 $13,258

85 and over 6 $12,258



3.2 Age and service distribution of participating employees

Number and average plan compensation limited by IRC §401(a)(17) distributed by attained age and attained years of credited service.


Attained Years of Credited Service and Number and Average Compensation/Salary (limited)1

Attained Age 0 1 2 3 4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-25 Total

Under 25 10 17 34 13 7 81

35,778 41,244 37,205 28,460 31,042 35,940

25-29 34 43 160 99 102 103 541

47,930 36,414 51,130 50,941 52,563 48,379 49,471

30-34 27 52 159 122 110 254 69 793

44,894 54,986 57,743 58,810 63,745 62,670 51,230 59,133

35-39 25 32 122 112 151 373 174 2 991

69,474 59,683 61,390 60,726 71,353 74,268 67,898 64,310 68,978

40-44 25 31 103 100 135 330 258 1 983

55,406 58,602 69,025 61,904 62,960 74,861 75,977 39,662 70,547

45-49 24 29 91 94 149 346 219 1 953

70,643 52,343 63,030 67,564 71,593 70,454 74,229 38,309 69,925

50-54 19 26 89 70 131 353 239 2 929

86,176 76,741 67,810 69,344 69,084 67,606 77,290 164,855 71,301

55-59 12 9 54 65 129 298 181 3 1 752

102,240 67,360 72,190 63,105 76,107 77,817 80,170 202,893 245,000 77,400

60-64 12 5 20 23 84 171 123 1 439

83,739 98,204 83,708 78,848 73,036 78,503 72,054 214,965 76,583

65-69 2 4 1 14 36 61 28 1 147

26,198 98,018 18,740 61,448 67,665 65,163 57,555 33,146 63,803

70 & over 1 4 6 14 25 6 56

147,262 34,982 62,902 66,682 66,446 55,211 64,117

Total 191 248 837 718 1,048 2,314 1,297 11 1 6,665 Total Average of Limited Pay 63,276 55,868 60,607 61,195 67,657 70,786 73,243 126,644 245,000 67,809

1 Age and service totals for purposes of determining category are based on exact (not rounded) values


November 2011

3.3 Reconciliation of Participants

Active

Participants

Terminated Vested

ParticipantsRetirees and Beneficiaries Total

Participants included in the1/1/2010 Valuation 7,428 797 149 8,374 Terminations (Non Vested) (672) 0 0 (672) Terminations (Vested) (227) 227 0 0 Retired/Disabled (51) (33) 84 0 Deaths (1) 0 (1) (2) New Participants 168 0 0 168 Rehires 54 (10) 0 44 Data / Adjustments (34) 4 2 (28) Participants included in the1/1/2011 Valuation 6,665 985 234 7,884



This page is intentionally blank.


November 2011

Appendix A

Statement of actuarial assumptions and methods

Plan Sponsor

The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida

Investment Yield

8.00% per year, net of investment expenses

Actuarial Cost Method

The actuarial cost method is the Aggregate Actuarial Cost Method. Under this method, the excess of the present value of projected benefits over the actuarial value of assets is spread evenly over the expected future compensation of active participants presently under Normal Retirement Age. Gains and losses resulting from fluctuations in plan experience are similarly amortized as part of the normal cost.

Inclusion Date

The valuation date coincident with or next following the employee’s date of hire. Each employee as of January 1, 2011 who received at least a month of wages during 2010 is included in the valuation

Plan-related Expenses

The amount included this year for plan-related administrative expenses is $0. Investment expenses are netted against investment return.

Mortality

RP 2000 Mortality Table, sex-distinct, without projection. This mortality table is applicable to deaths while not-in-the-line-of-duty.



Disabled Mortality Rates

Sample annual disabled mortality rates are shown below:

Age Males Females

20 2.6% 2.6%

30 2.6% 2.6%

40 2.6% 2.6%

50 3.1% 3.1%

60 6.2% 6.2%

70 8.9% 8.9%

80 14.4% 14.4%

90 45.5% 45.5%

100 100.0% 100.0%

Retirement

Sample annual rates at which participants are assumed to retire are shown below:

Age Males Females

55 20% 20%

60 10% 10%

62 50% 50%

65 50% 50%

70 100% 100%

Disability Rates

The annual rates at which participants are assumed to become disabled (not in-the-line-of-duty) by age and gender are shown below:

Age Males Females

20 0.045% 0.045%

30 0.045% 0.045%

40 0.055% 0.055%

50 0.129% 0.129%

60 0.587% 0.587%


November 2011

Termination Rates (not due to disability retirement or mortality)

The rates at which participants are assumed to terminate by age and service are shown below:

Age First Three Years After Three Years

22 20% 16%

27 18% 14%

32 16% 12%

37 16% 10%

42 14% 10%

47 12% 8%

52 12% 6%

57 10% 6%

Form of Payment

Benefits are assumed to be paid in the normal annuity form applicable to the particular benefit.

Compensation Increases

Future compensation is assumed to increase at the rate of 7.0% per year during the first ten years of an employee’s career at the PHT (2.5% due to cost-of-living, and 4.5% due to merit increases). After the first ten years compensation is assumed to increase at the rate of 6.0% per year (2.5% due to cost-of-living, and 3.5% due to merit increases).

Valuation Compensation

Compensation during the plan year is assumed to be the greater of:

(1) Actual Compensation earned during the prior plan year, increased by salary scale; (2) Annual Compensation rate for the current plan year.

Future Increases in Maximum Benefits and Plan Compensation Limitations

Accrued benefits projected to be paid in future years are limited to the maximum presently allowed under IRC §415. Plan compensation is limited to the maximum presently allowed under IRC §401(a)(17). Future increases in the maximum annual benefit and compensation limit are assumed to be 2.5% per year.

Marriage

For purposes of valuing the pre-retirement surviving spouse’s benefit, 100% of eligible participants are assumed to be married and male spouses are assumed to be 3 years older than female spouses.



Eligibility for Health Insurance Subsidy

100% of employees who retire from active service are assumed to take Health Insurance Subsidy.

Employees

It was assumed there will be no new or rehired employees.

Asset Method

Moving average of market values as of the current and four preceding valuation dates, increased by 4/5th of the cash flow (contributions, minus disbursements, plus net investment income other than realized gains and losses) for the year preceding the valuation date, 3/5th of the cash flow for the second preceding year, etc, adjusted for receivable contributions as of the valuation date. This amount is then subject to a 20% corridor around the market value of assets (including the receivable contributions) as of the valuation date.

Participant Data

Employee data was supplied by the Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida as of the census date.

Benefits not Included in Valuation

We believe that we have reflected all significant Plan provisions in this valuation.

Nature of Actuarial Calculations

The results documented in this report are estimates based on data that may be imperfect and on assumptions about future events. Certain plan provisions may be approximated or deemed insignificant and therefore are not valued. Assumptions may be made about participant data or other factors. Reasonable efforts were made in this valuation to ensure that items that are significant in the context of the actuarial liabilities or costs are treated appropriately, and not excluded or included inappropriately.

A range of results, different from those presented in this report could be considered reasonable. The numbers are not rounded, but this is for convenience only and should not imply precision, which is not inherent in actuarial calculations.

The assumptions selected for this valuation other than those prescribed by law, generally reflect long-term average expectations. If overall future plan experience is less favorable than assumed, the relative level of plan costs or contribution requirements determined in this valuation will likely increase in future valuations. Future actuarial measurements may differ significantly from the current measurements presented in this report due to such factors as the following: plan experience differing from that anticipated by the economic or demographic assumptions; increases or decreases expected as part of the natural operation of the methodology used for the measurements and changes in plan


November 2011

provisions or applicable law. It is beyond the scope of this actuarial valuation to analyze the potential range of future pension contributions, but we can do so upon request.

Changes in Assumptions and Methods Since Last Actuarial Valuation

There were no changes to the assumptions since the last actuarial valuation.



This page is intentionally blank.


November 2011

Appendix B

Summary of principal plan provisions

Plan Sponsor

The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida

Plan

The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County Florida Defined Benefit Retirement Plan

Effective Date and Most Recent Amendment

The plan was originally effective January 1, 1996. The last amendment reflected herein is effective July 1, 2006.

Plan Year

The twelve-month period ending December 31st

Eligibility and Participation

Immediate eligibility. Participation in the plan is compulsory as to all employees whose most recent date of hire occurred on or after January 1, 1996.

Creditable Service

Creditable Service means all service with PHT subsequent to December 31, 1995, military service and workers’ compensation credit as allowed under the plan. However, in no event shall more than one year of creditable service be granted during any 12-month period. Monthly service credit is awarded for each month salary is paid for service performed.

Vesting Service

Vesting services is equal to Creditable Service, plus all of an employee’s service with the Florida Retirement System.

Vested Benefits Upon Termination of Service

A Participant shall become vested with completion of six or more years of vesting service.



Average Final Compensation

The highest five plan years (not necessarily consecutive) of total compensation received divided by five.

Normal Retirement Benefit

Eligibility: Normal retirement age is the first day of the month following the earlier of: (i) completion of 6 or more years of continuous service and attainment of age 62, or (ii) completion of 30 years of continuous service, which may include a maximum of 4 years of military service credit so long as such credit is not claimed under any other system, regardless of age.

Benefit: The amount of monthly benefit is determined as one-twelfth of the product of (A) and (B), where:

1. “A” is a percent of Average Final Compensation based on the participant’s date of retirement.

Up to normal retirement age 1.60% One year after normal retirement age 1.63% Two years after normal retirement age 1.65% Three or more years after normal retirement age 1.68%

2. “B” is the number of years and any fractional part of a year of creditable service earned subsequent to January 1, 1996.

Early Retirement Benefit

Eligibility: A Participant is eligible for a reduced early retirement benefit upon completion of six years of continuous service. A Participant is eligible for an unreduced early retirement benefit after 30 years of continuous service.

Benefit: The Normal Retirement Benefit, actuarially reduced for commencement of benefits before the normal retirement date as follows:

i. 5/12 if 1% for each month a participant’s early retirement date precedes his normal retirement date of age 62

Vesting Schedule

100% vested with 6 or more years of Vesting Service, otherwise 0% vested.


November 2011

Disability Benefit

1. In-Line-of-Duty: If disability occurs in the line of duty, the participant is entitled to a monthly benefit equal to his normal retirement benefit reduced actuarially but not less than 42% of his average monthly compensation.

2. Not In-Line-of-Duty: If disability occurs other than in the line of duty and after the completion

of eight or more years of service, the participant is entitled to a monthly benefit equal to his normal retirement benefit reduced actuarially but not less than 25% of his average monthly compensation.

Death Benefit

1. In-Line-of-Duty: The surviving spouse of a member whose death occurs in the line of duty is entitled to a monthly pension equal to the greater of one-half of the member’s monthly salary at the time of death or the member’s vested accrued benefit payable as a 100% joint-and-survivor annuity.

2. Not In-Line-of-Duty: The surviving spouse of a member whose death does not occur in the

line of duty is entitled to a monthly pension equal to the member’s vested accrued benefit, if any, payable as a 100% joint-and-survivor annuity.

Cost of living Adjustment

A 3% cost of living increase applies to the Retirement Benefit after retirement.

Forms of Retirement Annuity

1. Normal: Life annuity for a single Participant. An actuarially equivalent joint & 50% survivor annuity for a married Participant.

2. Optional: A Participant may elect an actuarially equivalent optional form of payment, including

joint & survivor annuities (50%, 66 2/3%, 75% or 100%), or life with 10 years certain.

Health Insurance Subsidy

Employees who retire from active employment and who provide evidence of insurance, are eligible for a medical insurance subsidy for their lifetime only, equal to $5 per month per year of Creditable Service (up to 30 years).

Changes in Plan Provisions since Last Actuarial Valuation

There were no changes in plan provisions since the last actuarial valuation.

Public Health Trust/Jackson Memorial Hospital

Investment Performance Analysis

Period EndedDecember 31, 2011

We have compiled the accompanying summary of the market value, performance statistics and performance results ofthe Public Health Trust/Jackson Memorial Hospital as of December 31, 2011. Our responsibility is to evaluate theperformance results of the investment advisors through comparisons with market indices and other universeperformance data deemed appropriate and to make observations and recommendations thereon.

We performed time-weighted rates of return calculations in accordance with standards recommended by the CFAInstitute. The calculations performed are based on information provided to us by the custodians. Our approach is toanalyze transactions reflected in the custodian statements as well as review the audited market values of the portfolio.This provides us with a reasonable basis, not absolute, that the investment information presented is free from asignificant misstatement. We believe that our method of evaluating and measuring performance results of the Fundprovides us a reasonable basis for our observations and recommendations.

Therefore, the investment information referred to above presents the market value as of December 31, 2011 and theperformance results of the investment advisors for the calendar quarter then ended and nothing came to our attentionthat would cause us to believe the information is significantly misstated.

Consulting Services Group, LLC does not provide tax advice to clients. All investors with tax considerations, includingthe effect of UBTI resulting from alternative investment strategies, are strongly urged to consult their tax advisorsregarding tax issues.

Certain of the information contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar Inc. and/or its content providers; (2) maynot be copied or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor itscontent providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information. Past performanceis no guarantee of future results.

Consulting Services Group, LLC

Consulting Services Group, LLC. 1

CONTENTS

1 Total Plan Investment Analysis

10 Total Equity Investment Analysis

16 Atalanta Sosnoff Large Cap Growth

20 Northern Trust Large Cap Growth

24 Horizon Large Cap Value

28 iShares Russell 1000 Value Index Fund

32 Ironbridge Capital Management

36 Advisory Research Small Cap Value

40 Artio International Equity I

44 Thornburg International Equity

50 SCM Advisors

54 Taplin, Canida & Habacht

58 PIMCO Total Return Fund

62 Victory Investment Grade Convertibles

65 Watch List

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Trailing 4 Investment Performance Performance Results Relative to Actuarial Objective: 8.0%Quarters Objectives Results

Trailing Three Year Return (annualized) 9.5%Total Fund Total Composite Index: 0.7% -2.0%

60% S&P 500 / 40% Barclays Agg: 4.7% Trailing FiveYear Return (annualized) 1.3%Equity & Cash Equity Composite Index: -2.9% -6.5%

S&P 500: 2.1% Annualized Return Since Inception (8/9/01) 4.8%Fixed & Cash Fixed Composite Index: 7.8% 6.8%

Barclays Aggregate: 7.8%

Portfolio DiversificationInvestment Guidelines and Policy Appendix A Guidelines For Separate Accounts

Strategic Current Qtr EndRanges(1) Targets(2)

Allocation Overall Fixed Income investment grade: No Violations

Total Equity 50% - 75% 60.0% 54.0% Fixed Income max of 10% in one issue: No Violations Domestic Large Cap 15% - 60% 30.0% 26.2% Domestic Small/Mid Cap 15% - 35% 20.0% 19.7% International 0% - 20% 10.0% 8.2%

Trailing 3 Volatility Guidelines ActualTotal Fixed & Cash 25% - 50% 30.0% 35.8% Years Annualized Std. Deviation Volatiliy

Total Other 0% - 25% 10.0% 10.2% Total Fund volatility maximum =120% of comp. = 18.1% 12.4%Total Equity volatility maximum = 120% of comp. = 29.6% 20.7%

Total Fund 100.0% 100.0% Total Fixed volatility maximum = 120% of comp. = 5.1% 3.5%

Public Health Trust / Jackson Memorial HospitalInvestment Policy Review

December 31, 2011

(2) The Current Target percentages are established and modified by the Investment Sub-Committee and must fall within the Board approved Strategic Ranges.

(1) Strategic Ranges are approved by the Board of Trustees and establish the minimum & maximum allowable allocations. Changes to the ranges require Board approval.

3


Total Fund$397.3 Million and 100.0% of Fund

Cash Flow Summary

Quarter Ending December 31, 2011Beginning

Market Value Withdrawals Contributions Net InvestmentChange

EndingMarket Value

_

Atalanta Sosnoff Large Cap Growth $22,505,062 -$39,020 $658,617 $1,909,086 $25,033,745Northern Trust Large Cap Growth $27,537,987 -$31,679 $658,617 $1,930,193 $30,095,118Horizon Core Value $21,258,572 -$41,512 $658,617 $1,458,842 $23,334,519iShares Russell 1000 Value $22,028,360 -$421 $667,177 $2,824,910 $25,520,026IronBridge Capital Management SCC $28,025,594 -$76,849 $658,617 $3,454,226 $32,061,588Advisory Research Small Cap Value $39,818,635 -$107,167 $1,097,695 $5,264,019 $46,073,183Artio International Equity I $15,241,861 -$250 $439,328 -$20,656 $15,660,283Brandes Institutional International Equity $16,615,886 -$17,022,859 $301,594 $105,380 --Thornburg International Equity -- $0 $17,173,854 -$411,470 $16,762,384SCM Advisors Core Fixed Income $45,815,727 -$62,581 $878,156 $1,115,171 $47,746,473Taplin, Canida & Habacht Core Fixed Income $48,203,802 -$41,462 $878,156 $1,101,771 $50,142,268PIMCO Total Return Institutional $40,801,727 $0 $878,156 $921,422 $42,601,305Victory Investment Grade Convertible Securities $38,615,209 -$62,462 $878,156 $1,099,889 $40,530,792Cash $577,125 -$9,489,285 $10,617,275 $94 $1,705,209Total $367,045,547 -$26,975,547 $36,444,015 $20,752,877 $397,266,893

XXXXX

Cash Flow Summary

Calendar Year Ending December 31, 2011Beginning

Market Value Withdrawals Contributions Net InvestmentChange

EndingMarket Value

_

Atalanta Sosnoff Large Cap Growth $25,438,629 -$1,170,085 $2,751,330 -$1,986,129 $25,033,745Northern Trust Large Cap Growth $27,408,737 -$99,589 $2,751,330 $34,640 $30,095,118Horizon Core Value $22,921,161 -$173,778 $2,751,364 -$2,164,228 $23,334,519iShares Russell 1000 Value $22,777,693 -$932 $2,760,281 -$17,016 $25,520,026IronBridge Capital Management SCC $30,558,867 -$339,649 $2,759,199 -$916,829 $32,061,588Advisory Research Small Cap Value $43,348,632 -$365,307 $4,586,823 -$1,496,965 $46,073,183Artio International Equity I $18,440,175 -$750 $1,835,042 -$4,614,184 $15,660,283Brandes Institutional International Equity $18,050,777 -$17,023,359 $1,696,736 -$2,724,153 --Thornburg International Equity -- $0 $17,173,854 -$411,470 $16,762,384SCM Advisors Core Fixed Income $41,259,805 -$229,001 $3,668,727 $3,046,942 $47,746,473Taplin, Canida & Habacht Core Fixed Income $43,150,151 -$645,965 $3,668,440 $3,969,642 $50,142,268PIMCO Total Return Institutional $37,316,100 $0 $3,668,440 $1,616,765 $42,601,305Victory Investment Grade Convertible Securities $38,436,894 -$240,685 $3,668,440 -$1,333,856 $40,530,792Cash $631,765 -$40,794,050 $41,867,247 $247 $1,705,209Total $369,739,386 -$61,083,150 $95,607,253 -$6,996,594 $397,266,893


Total Fund$397.3 Million and 100.0% of Fund

Asset Allocation vs. TargetAs Of December 31, 2011

Policy Range Policy % Current % Difference* %_

Domestic Large Cap 15.0% - 60.0% $119,180,068 30.0% $103,983,408 26.2% -$15,196,660 -3.8%

Domestic Small/Mid Cap 15.0% - 35.0% $79,453,378 20.0% $78,134,771 19.7% -$1,318,607 -0.3%

International 0.0% - 20.0% $39,726,689 10.0% $15,660,283 3.9% -$24,066,406 -6.1%

Total Fixed & Cash 25.0% - 50.0% $119,180,068 30.0% $142,195,255 35.8% $23,015,187 5.8%

Total Other 0.0% - 25.0% $39,726,689 10.0% $40,530,792 10.2% $804,102 0.2%

Unassigned -- -- -- $16,762,384 4.2% $16,762,384 4.2%

Total $397,266,892 100.0% $397,266,892 100.0%

Ending December 31, 2011 Inception

Name Market Value($)

% ofPortfolio

3 Mo(%)

1 Yr(%)

3 Yrs(%)

5 Yrs(%)

7 Yrs(%)

Return(%) Since

_

Total Fund 397,266,892 100.0 5.7 -2.0 9.5 1.3 3.7 4.8 Jul-01Market Index Composite 6.8 0.7 11.1 1.9 4.2 -- Jul-0160/40 S&P 500/BC Aggregate 7.5 4.7 11.6 2.8 4.2 4.1 Jul-01Total Equity 214,540,846 54.0 8.3 -6.5 9.4 -2.2 2.0 3.7 Aug-01

Equity Market Composite 11.9 -2.9 13.5 -1.0 3.0 4.6 Aug-01S&P 500 11.8 2.1 14.1 -0.3 2.6 3.0 Aug-01Atalanta Sosnoff Large Cap Growth 25,033,745 6.3 8.5 -7.6 8.7 -- -- -4.3 Nov-07

Russell 1000 Growth 10.6 2.6 18.0 2.5 3.8 0.2 Nov-07Northern Trust Large Cap Growth 30,095,118 7.6 7.0 0.6 15.5 -- -- -0.6 Nov-07

Russell 1000 Growth 10.6 2.6 18.0 2.5 3.8 0.2 Nov-07Horizon Core Value 23,334,519 5.9 6.7 -8.3 9.2 -6.4 -- -0.2 Mar-05

Russell 1000 Value 13.1 0.4 11.5 -2.6 2.0 2.0 Mar-05iShares Russell 1000 Value 25,520,026 6.4 12.8 0.1 -- -- -- 19.9 Mar-09

Russell 1000 Value 13.1 0.4 11.5 -2.6 2.0 20.4 Mar-09IronBridge Capital Management SCC 32,061,588 8.1 12.3 -2.6 14.4 2.6 4.4 6.2 Apr-04

Russell 2000 15.5 -4.2 15.6 0.2 3.2 5.1 Apr-04Advisory Research Small Cap Value 46,073,183 11.6 13.2 -3.1 9.4 -0.1 4.4 8.4 Aug-01

Russell 2000 Value 16.0 -5.5 12.4 -1.9 2.3 6.6 Aug-01Artio International Equity I 15,660,283 3.9 0.0 -23.3 1.0 -7.2 1.0 3.4 Dec-03

MSCI EAFE 3.3 -12.1 7.6 -4.7 1.7 3.9 Dec-03Thornburg International Equity 16,762,384 4.2 -- -- -- -- -- -2.4 Nov-11

MSCI EAFE 3.3 -12.1 7.6 -4.7 1.7 -0.9 Nov-11



Total FundPerformance Summary As of December 31, 2011



Total FundPerformance Summary As of December 31, 2011

Ending December 31, 2011 Inception

Name Market Value($)

% ofPortfolio

3 Mo(%)

1 Yr(%)

3 Yrs(%)

5 Yrs(%)

7 Yrs(%)

Return(%) Since

_

Total Fixed 140,490,046 35.4 2.3 6.8 9.7 7.3 6.4 6.5 Aug-01Fixed Income Market Composite 1.1 7.8 6.8 6.5 5.6 5.7 Aug-01Barclays Capital Aggregate 1.1 7.8 6.8 6.5 5.6 5.7 Aug-01SCM Advisors Core Fixed Income 47,746,473 12.0 2.3 7.0 8.6 6.7 5.7 6.0 Aug-01

Barclays Capital Aggregate 1.1 7.8 6.8 6.5 5.6 5.7 Aug-01Taplin, Canida & Habacht Core Fixed Income 50,142,268 12.6 2.3 8.9 11.4 7.9 -- 7.2 Sep-05

Barclays Capital Aggregate 1.1 7.8 6.8 6.5 5.6 6.0 Sep-05PIMCO Total Return Institutional 42,601,305 10.7 2.2 4.2 8.9 8.0 -- 7.1 Sep-05

Barclays Capital Aggregate 1.1 7.8 6.8 6.5 5.6 6.0 Sep-05Total Alternative 40,530,792 10.2 2.9 -3.1 10.0 0.9 2.3 -- Sep-02

Victory Investment Grade Convertible Securities 40,530,792 10.2 2.9 -3.1 10.0 -- -- 0.4 Feb-07Merrill Lynch Investment Grade Convertibles Inc. 144a 2.3 -3.0 9.5 -1.0 0.7 -1.3 Feb-07

Total Cash 1,705,209 0.4 Cash 1,705,209 0.4

XXXXX

Public Health TrustInvestment Manager Review (net of fees)

December 31, 2011Watchlist Performance Criteria

Investment Dollar Percent of Target Strategy/Prof. Trailing 4 Qtr. Rolling 3 Year Perf. Rolling 3 Year Perf. Rolling 5 Year Perf. Rolling 5 Year Perf.Manager Allocation Total Allocation Changes (Mgr.v. Index) vs. Bench. (6/12) vs. Peer Median (6/12) vs. Bench. (8/12) vs. Peer Median (8/12)

Atalanta Sosnoff - LCG $25,033,745 6.3% 7.5% None -10.2% Pass Pass Fail Pass

Northern Trust - LCG $30,095,118 7.6% 7.5% None -2.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

Horizon - LCV $23,334,519 5.9% 7.5% None -8.7% Fail Fail Fail Fail

Russell 1000 Value ETF - LCV $25,520,026 6.4% 7.5% None -0.3% Fail Fail N/A N/A

IronBridge Capital - SCC $32,061,588 8.1% 7.5% None 1.6% Pass Pass Pass Pass

Advisory Research - SCV $46,073,183 11.6% 12.5% None 2.4% Pass Fail Pass Fail

Artio Int'l Equity - IE $15,660,283 3.9% 5.0% None -11.2% Fail Fail Pass Pass

Thornburg Intl. - IE $16,762,384 4.2% 5.0% None -0.8% Pass Pass Pass Pass

SCM - CB $47,746,473 12.0% 10.0% None -0.8% Pass Pass Fail Pass

Taplin, Canida, Habacht - CB $50,142,268 12.6% 10.0% None 1.1% Pass Pass Pass Pass

PIMCO - CB $42,601,305 10.7% 10.0% None -3.6% Pass Pass Pass Pass

Victory Capital - Conv $40,530,792 10.2% 10.0% None -0.1% Pass Fail Pass Fail

8

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Atalanta Sosnoff 93.0% 99.4% 56.6% 12.1% 37.1% 19.4% 1.9% 63.0% 72.8% 16.4%

Northern Trust 35.0% 52.4% 50.4% 33.2% 20.0% 72.2% 36.7% 42.0% 16.0% 27.6%

Horizon 95.0% 13.3% 61.9% 98.8% 0.0% 1.1% 25.9% 4.6% 13.8% 2.8%

Russell 1000 Value ETF 50.0% 27.7% 75.6% 62.9% 68.7% 7.7% 31.7% 17.3% N/A N/A

IronBridge Capital 58.0% 83.7% 81.9% 22.8% 3.0% 60.0% 82.2% 42.7% 18.5% 26.8%

Advisory Research 52.0% 81.5% 99.1% 3.9% 12.8% 33.8% 1.0% 6.7% 69.9% 5.3%

Artio Int'l Equity 99.0% 59.6% 84.3% 51.5% 14.3% 7.2% 22.3% 18.4% 53.0% 3.1%

Thornburg Intl. 44.0% 17.8% 44.9% 38.8% 0.5% 54.5% 20.9% 79.0% 42.3% 34.7%

Denotes Top quartile performance Denotes Second quartile performance

Denotes Third quartile performance Denotes Bottom quartile performance

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

SCM 67.0% 31.9% 63.8% 27.5% 29.2% 20.8% 23.4% 30.2% 32.5% 24.2%

Taplin, Canida, Habacht 4.0% 27.4% 28.8% 31.8% 63.0% 19.8% 11.4% 26.8% 11.3% 69.4%

PIMCO 98.0% 24.7% 46.2% 13.7% 0.6% 54.0% 8.2% 15.6% 35.3% 11.5%

Victory Capital 29.0% 100.0% 100.0% 3.1% 47.3% 49.6% 53.9% 61.1% 100.0% 34.8%

Denotes Top quartile performance Denotes Second quartile performance

Denotes Third quartile performance Denotes Bottom quartile performance

Public Health Trust/ Jackson Memorial HospitalLong Only Peer Group Comparison

December 31, 2011

Return Rank

Return Rank

9

Investment AnalysisTotal Equity



Total Equity

Total Equity Characteristics

PortfolioMSCIACWIGross

INDUSTRY SECTOR DISTRIBUTION (% Equity)

Energy 6.34 12.08

Materials 4.25 8.00

Industrials 10.01 10.47

Consumer Discretionary 13.39 10.01

Consumer Staples 14.30 10.65

Health Care 5.20 9.33

Financials 13.48 18.50

Information Technology 11.82 12.17

Telecommunications 0.00 4.86

Utilities 0.53 3.94

Unclassified 20.68 0.00

Portfolio Russell3000

COMPANY SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Weighted Ave. Market Cap. ($B) 31.86 76.56

Median Market Cap. ($B) 3.81 0.89

Large Cap. (%) 15.58 40.92

Medium/Large Cap. (%) 12.90 25.31

Medium Cap. (%) 27.49 16.87

Medium/Small Cap. (%) 18.12 9.81

Small Cap. (%) 25.91 7.10

Top HoldingsISHARES TST.RUSSELL 1000 VAL. 11.64%

THORNBURG INTL VALUE FD-I 7.81%

ARTIO INTERNATIONAL EQUITY I 7.30%

NORTHERN INST DIVS ASSETS-SH 4.01%

APPLE 1.33%

GOOGLE 'A' 1.29%

LEUCADIA NATIONAL 1.10%

LIBERTY MEDIA LIBERTY CAP ORD SHSCLASS A 1.00%

GATX 0.83%

MASTERCARD 0.75%


Total Equity


Country AllocationVersus MSCI ACWI Gross - Quarter Ending December 31, 2011

Manager Index Manager IndexAllocation

(USD)Allocation

(USD)Return(USD)

Return(USD)

_

Top 10 LargestCountries

United States 88.3% 44.4% 11.0% 11.8%Canada 2.2% 4.6% 9.5% 5.2%United Kingdom 1.7% 8.5% 11.6% 9.1%Hong Kong 1.3% 1.0% 18.0% 6.3%Japan 1.0% 8.8% 3.4% -3.9%France 0.9% 3.5% 11.6% 2.8%Germany 0.8% 3.0% 16.6% 3.8%China* 0.6% 2.1% 18.4% 8.3%Singapore 0.5% 0.7% 5.6% -1.0%Switzerland 0.4% 3.3% 19.2% 4.2%Total-Top 10 LargestCountries 97.6% 79.9% 11.1% 8.1%

_

Total Equity Characteristics


PORTFOLIO CHARACTERISTICS

Price To Earnings 19.53 15.89

P/E Excluding Negative Earnings 23.55 16.86

P/E Median 16.91 14.07

Price To Book 3.14 3.37

Price To Book Median 2.58 1.74

Price To Cash Flow 12.50 10.62

Price To Sales 3.14 2.38

Dividend Yield (%) 1.45 2.04

Weighted Ave. Market Cap. ($B) 31.86 76.56


Beta 1.04 1.00



Total Domestic EquityDomestic Equity Characteristics As of December 31, 2011

Equity Characteristics Within Separate AccountsPortfolio Russell 3000

Number of Holdings 285 2,946Weighted Avg. Market Cap. ($B) 31.86 76.56Median Market Cap. ($B) 3.81 0.89Price To Earnings 19.53 15.89Price To Book 3.14 3.37Price To Sales 3.14 2.38Return on Equity (%) 17.01 18.86Yield (%) 1.45 2.04


Top HoldingsISHARES TST.RUSSELL 1000 VAL. 13.71%NORTHERN INST DIVS ASSETS-SH 4.72%APPLE 1.57%GOOGLE 'A' 1.51%LEUCADIA NATIONAL 1.30%LIBERTY MEDIA LIBERTY CAP ORD SHS CLASS A 1.18%GATX 0.98%MASTERCARD 0.88%KAISER ALUMINUM 0.87%DELTIC TIMBER 0.86%Total 27.58%

_

Top Negative ContributorsPortfolio Index Relative

Weight % Weight % Contribution% Return %

MF GLOBAL HOLDINGS (MFGLQ) 0.00% -0.57% -98.18%AMAZON.COM (AMZN) 0.61% 0.45% -0.14% -19.95%SEARS HOLDINGS (SHLD) 0.30% 0.01% -0.24% -41.57%GREEN MNT.COF.ROASTERS (GMCR) 0.06% 0.04% -0.08% -51.74%DECKERS OUTDOOR (DECK) 0.36% 0.02% -0.10% -18.88%ORACLE (ORCL) 0.38% 0.70% 0.03% -10.57%EV ENERGY PARTNERS (EVEP) 0.70% -0.05% -7.10%DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG 'A' (DWA) 0.45% 0.01% -0.05% -8.72%ILLUMINA (ILMN) 0.00% -0.03% -25.51%ICICI BK.ADR 1:2 (IBN) 0.00% -0.04% -23.88%Total 2.86% 1.23%

_

Top Positive ContributorsPortfolio Index Relative

Weight % Weight % Contribution% Return %

ISHARES TST.RUSSELL 1000 VAL. (IWD) 13.71% 1.74% 12.96%GATX (GMT) 0.98% 0.01% 0.32% 41.86%GOOGLE 'A' (GOOG) 1.51% 1.16% 0.05% 25.41%AMERICAN RAILCAR INDS. (ARII) 0.65% 0.00% 0.26% 55.59%TRINITY INDS. (TRN) 0.79% 0.02% 0.25% 40.89%CABOT OIL & GAS 'A' (COG) 0.77% 0.06% 0.21% 22.64%MEN'S WEARHOUSE (MW) 0.67% 0.01% 0.15% 24.73%CORE MARK HOLDING (CORE) 0.55% 0.00% 0.14% 30.12%AVNET (AVT) 0.73% 0.03% 0.13% 19.21%CARRIZO O&G. (CRZO) 0.71% 0.01% 0.13% 22.25%Total 21.08% 1.31%

_


Total Domestic EquityDomestic Equity Holdings As of December 31, 2011



Top Negative Contributors

Return % Gain/LossAMAZON.COM (AMZN) -19.95% -$245,842ORACLE (ORCL) -10.57% -$65,936CITIGROUP (C) 2.75% $5,707EMC (EMC) 2.62% $5,830DIRECTV 'A' (DTV) 1.16% $8,522WELLPOINT (WLP) 1.86% $9,087APACHE (APA) 13.07% $15,736PROCTER & GAMBLE (PG) 6.44% $16,691CAPITAL ONE FINL. (COF) 6.84% $16,810ENSCO ADR 1:1 (ESV) 16.84% $17,697

_

Top Positive Contributors

Return % Gain/LossGOOGLE 'A' (GOOG) 25.41% $274,453UNION PACIFIC (UNP) 30.51% $135,324CVS CAREMARK (CVS) 21.84% $123,955EXXON MOBIL (XOM) 17.39% $118,716NEWS CORP.'A' (NWSA) 15.25% $92,071EXPRESS SCRIPTS 'A' (ESRX) 20.56% $90,678SCHLUMBERGER (SLB) 14.77% $90,418PFIZER (PFE) 23.62% $82,258WALT DISNEY (DIS) 26.46% $80,597APPLE (AAPL) 6.21% $80,484

_

Top HoldingsNORTHERN INST DIVS ASSETS-SH 6.97%

GOOGLE 'A' 5.42%

APPLE 4.46%

MICROSOFT 3.83%

INTERNATIONAL BUS.MCHS. 3.31%

EXXON MOBIL 3.18%

GENERAL ELECTRIC 3.11%

QUALCOMM 2.99%

SCHLUMBERGER 2.79%

NEWS CORP.'A' 2.77%


Atalanta Sosnoff Large Cap GrowthCharacteristics

PortfolioRussell

1000Growth

Number of Holdings 54 588

Weighted Avg. Market Cap. ($B) 112.21 94.94





Return on Equity (%) 25.34 29.85

Yield (%) 1.66 1.61

Beta 0.95 1.00

R-Squared 0.97 1.00

Atalanta Sosnoff Large Cap seeks to invest in companies entering into or already in

a cycle of accelerating earnings growth. It is their belief that such earnings growth is

a reliable, proven, long-term indicator of relative stock returns. This is a powerful

approach because of the compounding effect of rising earnings multiplied by

expanding valuation and because it works in a variety of

environments. Opportunities can be uncovered in either growth or value stocks, but

there is an extant need to see catalysts in place to propel earnings. The portfolio is

biased toward companies that are dominant in their industry and those that are

owner-operated. Atalanta Sosnoff's commitment to the preservation of capital has

enabled clients to significantly outperform their benchmarks over that period.



Atalanta Sosnoff Large Cap GrowthRISK RETURN STATISTICS

January 01, 2009 Through December 31, 2011Atalanta Sosnoff Large Cap

Growth Russell 1000 Growth

RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSNumber of Periods 36 36Maximum Return 9.59 10.97Minimum Return -8.62 -7.63Annualized Return 8.68 18.02Total Return 28.38 64.37Annualized Excess Return Over Risk Free 8.58 17.91Annualized Excess Return -9.33 0.00 RISK SUMMARY STATISTICSBeta 0.95 1.00Upside Deviation 9.77 10.97Downside Deviation 10.20 9.69 RISK/RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSAnnualized Standard Deviation 17.31 18.01Alpha -0.62 0.00Sharpe Ratio 0.50 0.99Excess Return Over Market / Risk -0.54 0.00Tracking Error 3.06 0.00Information Ratio -3.05 -- CORRELATION STATISTICSR-Squared 0.97 1.00Correlation 0.99 1.00 Market Proxy: Russell 1000 GrowthRisk-Free Proxy: 91 Day T-Bills

Return SummaryEnding December 31, 2011

Fourth Quarter1 Year Ending

12/31/113 Years Ending


12/31/11

Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank

Atalanta Sosnoff Live and Comp 8.5 % 72 -7.6 % 93 8.7 % 99 -0.7 % 84

Russell 1000 Growth 10.6 24 2.6 20 18.0 22 2.5 41



Atalanta Sosnoff Large Cap Growth




Return % Gain/LossGOOGLE 'A' (GOOG) 25.41% $196,430NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO (NOV) 32.96% $168,247KANSAS CTY.STHN. (KSU) 36.13% $145,754INTUITIVE SURGICAL (ISRG) 27.10% $132,594STARBUCKS (SBUX) 23.86% $103,168F5 NETWORKS (FFIV) 49.36% $101,528APPLE (AAPL) 6.21% $101,291SCHLUMBERGER (SLB) 14.77% $90,410JOHNSON CONTROLS (JCI) 19.20% $88,558WALT DISNEY (DIS) 26.46% $87,301

_


Return % Gain/LossGREEN MNT.COF.ROASTERS (GMCR) -51.74% -$203,950AMAZON.COM (AMZN) -19.95% -$180,068ILLUMINA (ILMN) -25.51% -$67,181POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL (PPO) -22.17% -$62,913ACME PACKET (APKT) -27.42% -$58,750DECKERS OUTDOOR (DECK) -18.88% -$58,638VERTEX PHARMS. (VRTX) -25.30% -$51,505CERNER (CERN) -10.61% -$45,655SALESFORCE.COM (CRM) -11.22% -$38,819ORACLE (ORCL) -10.57% -$35,840

_


APPLE 5.76%

GOOGLE 'A' 3.78%

AMAZON.COM 2.69%

QUALCOMM 2.65%

SCHLUMBERGER 2.54%

INTUITIVE SURGICAL 2.07%

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO 2.05%

JOHNSON CONTROLS 2.01%

AMERICAN EXPRESS 1.92%

Characteristics

PortfolioRussell

1000Growth








Yield (%) 0.90 1.61

Beta 1.02 1.00

R-Squared 0.96 1.00


Northern Trust Large Cap GrowthNorthern Trust believes quality growth stocks provide higher risk-adjusted returns overthe long term. They seek to produce superior, long-term results through the applicationof a process that focuses on quality companies with both a strong history and potentialfor growth.

They employ a research group that initially screens a universe of stocks based

on:

1) Five year history of financial and operating

strength.

2) Three year projections of financial and operating

strength.

3) Short term earnings momentum and relative price

movements.

4) Market caps of at least $200 Million.



Northern Trust Large Cap GrowthRISK RETURN STATISTICS

January 01, 2009 Through December 31, 2011Northern Trust Large Cap

Growth Russell 1000 Growth

RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSNumber of Periods 36 36Maximum Return 11.80 10.97Minimum Return -8.17 -7.63Annualized Return 15.53 18.02Total Return 54.21 64.37Annualized Excess Return Over Risk Free 15.43 17.91Annualized Excess Return -2.48 0.00 RISK SUMMARY STATISTICSBeta 1.02 1.00Upside Deviation 10.89 10.97Downside Deviation 10.09 9.69 RISK/RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSAnnualized Standard Deviation 18.66 18.01Alpha -0.20 0.00Sharpe Ratio 0.83 0.99Excess Return Over Market / Risk -0.13 0.00Tracking Error 3.55 0.00Information Ratio -0.70 -- CORRELATION STATISTICSR-Squared 0.96 1.00Correlation 0.98 1.00 Market Proxy: Russell 1000 GrowthRisk-Free Proxy: 91 Day T-Bills





12/31/11


Northern Trust Large Cap Growth 7.0 % 85 0.6 % 35 15.5 % 49 2.8 % 35

Russell 1000 Growth 10.6 24 2.6 20 18.0 22 2.5 41



Northern Trust Large Cap Growth




Return % Gain/LossSEARS HOLDINGS (SHLD) -41.57% -$406,041DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG 'A' (DWA) -8.72% -$78,012ICICI BK.ADR 1:2 (IBN) -23.88% -$64,737CME GROUP (CME) -0.53% -$2,304WYNN RESORTS (WYNN) 0.67% $1,697BROOKFIELD ASSET MAN.'A' (NYS) (BAM) 0.19% $2,150COHEN & STEERS (CNS) 1.05% $2,598INTERCONTINENTAL EX. (ICE) 1.94% $5,375CARNIVAL (CCL) 8.58% $8,407LOEWS (L) 9.16% $9,595

_


Return % Gain/LossGENERAL GW.PROPS. (GGP) 25.96% $182,131AUTONATION (AN) 12.48% $171,117SWIRE PAC.'A' ADR.1:1 (SWRAY) 20.72% $135,276IMPERIAL OIL (C:IMO) 23.72% $125,234MASTERCARD (MA) 17.61% $122,677GUGGENHEIM CHIN.RLST.ETF (TAO) 12.10% $82,347MARKET VECTORS GAMING ETF (BJK) 10.64% $78,677GREENLIGHT CAPITAL RE A (GLRE) 14.13% $78,337JARDEN (JAH) 6.04% $77,882GRUPO TELEVISA SPN.ADR 1:5 (TV) 14.52% $76,891

_

Top HoldingsLIBERTY MEDIA LIBERTY CAP ORD SHSCLASS A 9.19%

AUTONATION 6.53%

JARDEN 5.85%

BROOKFIELD ASSET MAN.'A' (NYS) 4.94%

LEUCADIA NATIONAL 4.57%

JARDINE STGC.HDG. UNSPONSORED ADR1:2 4.19%

GENERAL GW.PROPS. 3.76%

MASTERCARD 3.51%

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG 'A' 3.50%

MARKET VECTORS GAMING ETF 3.43%

Characteristics

PortfolioRussell

1000Value








Yield (%) 1.11 2.58

Beta 0.93 1.00

R-Squared 0.85 1.00


Horizon Core Value

Horizon's investment philosophy is based on the premise that the key determinant of aportfolio' s long-term return is risk, and the recognition that every investment has someinherent risk. The simple, yet profound, mathematical fact that losses and gains of thesame magnitude are not equal (a 10% gain followed by a 10% loss results in a net loss)and that larger losses require even larger gains merely to break even (a 33% lossrequires a 50% offsetting gain) is perhaps the most ignored variable in portfoliomanagement. Consequently, the Horizon methodology entails rigorous in-houseresearch emphasizing stress tests for all foreseeable adverse conditions. This revealssecurities with asymmetric return properties--those for which reward potential exceedsdownside risk, both in magnitude and probability. The philosophy is value-oriented anduses time as an ally. A fundamental premise of value investing is that consensusopinion is frequently wrong and that the most profitable opportunities are to be found inand out-of-favor companies. Through research distinguishes between permanent andtemporary problems, and patience permits the latter to be resolved.



Horizon Core ValueRISK RETURN STATISTICS

January 01, 2009 Through December 31, 2011Horizon Core Value Russell 1000 Value

RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSNumber of Periods 36 36Maximum Return 13.76 11.45Minimum Return -11.98 -13.36Annualized Return 9.24 11.55Total Return 30.37 38.79Annualized Excess Return Over Risk Free 9.14 11.44Annualized Excess Return -2.30 0.00 RISK SUMMARY STATISTICSBeta 0.93 1.00Upside Deviation 12.50 10.64Downside Deviation 11.58 13.86 RISK/RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSAnnualized Standard Deviation 21.20 20.98Alpha -0.10 0.00Sharpe Ratio 0.43 0.55Excess Return Over Market / Risk -0.11 0.00Tracking Error 8.40 0.00Information Ratio -0.27 -- CORRELATION STATISTICSR-Squared 0.85 1.00Correlation 0.92 1.00 Market Proxy: Russell 1000 ValueRisk-Free Proxy: 91 Day T-Bills






12/31/11


Horizon Core Value 6.7 % 99 -8.3 % 95 9.2 % 94 -6.4 % 99

Russell 1000 Value 13.1 30 0.4 48 11.5 65 -2.6 81


Horizon Core Value




iShares Russell 1000 Value

The iShares Russell 1000 Value Index Fund seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the largecapitalization value sector of the U.S. equity market, as represented by the Russell 1000 Value Index. The index represents approximately 50 % of the total market capitalization ofthe Russell 1000 Index.




RISK RETURN STATISTICSJanuary 01, 2009 Through December 31, 2011

iShares Russell 1000 Value Russell 1000 ValueRETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSNumber of Periods 36 36Maximum Return 11.27 11.45Minimum Return -13.36 -13.36Annualized Return 11.07 11.55Total Return 37.01 38.79Annualized Excess Return Over Risk Free 10.96 11.44Annualized Excess Return -0.48 0.00 RISK SUMMARY STATISTICSBeta 0.99 1.00Upside Deviation 10.62 10.64Downside Deviation 13.73 13.86 RISK/RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSAnnualized Standard Deviation 20.85 20.98Alpha -0.03 0.00Sharpe Ratio 0.53 0.55Excess Return Over Market / Risk -0.02 0.00Tracking Error 0.50 0.00Information Ratio -0.95 -- CORRELATION STATISTICSR-Squared 1.00 1.00Correlation 1.00 1.00 Market Proxy: Russell 1000 ValueRisk-Free Proxy: 91 Day T-Bills








12/31/11


iShares Russell 1000 Value 12.8 % 41 0.1 % 50 11.1 % 75 -2.9 % 85

Russell 1000 Value 13.1 30 0.4 48 11.5 65 -2.6 81




Return % Gain/LossTHOMAS & BETTS (TNB) 36.81% $150,793NEWMARKET (NEU) 30.95% $114,640ZOLL MED. (ZOLL) 67.41% $105,067SUCCESSFACTORS (SFSF) 73.42% $96,722LINCOLN ELECTRIC HDG. (LECO) 35.44% $95,268COMPLETE PRDN.SVS. (CPX) 78.04% $95,174ROBBINS & MYERS (RBN) 40.02% $94,465MOOG 'A' (MOGA) 34.67% $93,228UNIT (UNT) 25.68% $85,206LEAPFROG ENTS.'A' (LF) 65.88% $81,951

_


IronBridge Capital Management SCC


Return % Gain/LossDECKERS OUTDOOR (DECK) -18.88% -$105,741K12 (LRN) -29.54% -$57,107ATHENAHEALTH (ATHN) -17.51% -$47,352CEPHEID (CPHD) -11.38% -$37,685POLYCOM (PLCM) -11.27% -$28,463INFORMATICA (INFA) -9.82% -$22,954BRUKER (BRKR) -8.20% -$22,630SKYWORKS SLTN. (SWKS) -9.69% -$19,341NEOGEN (NEOG) -11.80% -$17,907REDWOOD TST. (RWT) -6.71% -$17,863

_


ISHARES TST.RUSSELL 2000 IDX.FD. 2.02%

TRACTOR SUPPLY 1.97%

MID-AMER.APT COMMUNITIES 1.79%

THOMAS & BETTS 1.75%

ALLEGHANY 1.71%

OWENS & MINOR 1.63%

CULLEN FO.BANKERS 1.56%

NEWMARKET 1.56%

DECKERS OUTDOOR 1.42%

Characteristics


Number of Holdings 118 1,966







Yield (%) 1.32 1.28

Beta 0.93 1.00

R-Squared 0.98 1.00

The first step in the decision-making process involves screening a broad equity universe of

small cap stocks. This initial step is what we call the life cycle analysis. We strive to

understand where a company is in its life cycle and how it ranks through a series of

proprietary multi-factor scores relative to other companies in the same life cycle class. All

companies go through at least one period of development, growth, maturity, and decline

throughout the firm's life cycle. Correctly determining where a firm is within the life cycle is

critical since it will influence our path of analysis. Based on the life cycle analysis, we take

approximately 600 companies and then apply the second step, which involves a wealth

creation analysis to determine whether capital investment is creating or destroying

shareholder value. During this stage, we focus on the level, trend and sustainability of cash

flow return on investment. At this stage of the process, if a company is highly ranked

according to its life cycle, and if the firm is taking the appropriate measures to create value,

the firm will be considered for further evaluation.



IronBridge Capital Management SCCRISK RETURN STATISTICS

January 01, 2009 Through December 31, 2011IronBridge CapitalManagement SCC Russell 2000

RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSNumber of Periods 36 36Maximum Return 17.63 15.46Minimum Return -12.58 -12.15Annualized Return 14.35 15.63Total Return 49.53 54.59Annualized Excess Return Over Risk Free 14.25 15.52Annualized Excess Return -1.28 0.00 RISK SUMMARY STATISTICSBeta 0.93 1.00Upside Deviation 14.20 14.34Downside Deviation 13.42 14.02 RISK/RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSAnnualized Standard Deviation 23.76 25.34Alpha -0.02 0.00Sharpe Ratio 0.60 0.61Excess Return Over Market / Risk -0.05 0.00Tracking Error 3.65 0.00Information Ratio -0.35 -- CORRELATION STATISTICSR-Squared 0.98 1.00Correlation 0.99 1.00 Market Proxy: Russell 2000Risk-Free Proxy: 91 Day T-Bills





12/31/11


IronBridge Capital Management SCC 12.3 % 87 -2.6 % 58 14.4 % 78 2.6 % 30

Russell 2000 15.5 53 -4.2 70 15.6 60 0.2 59



IronBridge Capital Management SCC




Return % Gain/LossGATX (GMT) 41.86% $468,748AMERICAN RAILCAR INDS. (ARII) 55.59% $421,001TRINITY INDS. (TRN) 40.89% $419,215CABOT OIL & GAS 'A' (COG) 22.64% $352,561MEN'S WEARHOUSE (MW) 24.73% $243,934CORE MARK HOLDING (CORE) 30.12% $233,901AVNET (AVT) 19.21% $214,830CARRIZO O&G. (CRZO) 22.25% $212,129ANALOGIC (ALOG) 26.75% $208,431ORIENTAL FINL.GP. (OFG) 25.85% $203,086

_


Return % Gain/LossMF GLOBAL HOLDINGS (MFGLQ) -98.18% -$932,082EV ENERGY PARTNERS (EVEP) -7.10% -$85,860RESOLUTE ENERGY (REN) -4.93% -$58,739CHICO'S FAS (CHS) -2.07% -$17,675STAGE STORES (SSI) 0.83% $6,214LEUCADIA NATIONAL (LUK) 1.40% $13,450DELTIC TIMBER (DEL) 1.32% $20,470ENDEAVOUR INTL. (END) 8.90% $30,807ENSTAR GROUP (ESGR) 3.12% $33,175CAPITALSOURCE (CSE) 9.30% $35,366

_

Characteristics

PortfolioRussell

2000Value

Number of Holdings 42 1,354







Yield (%) 1.45 1.95

Beta 0.89 1.00

R-Squared 0.96 1.00


KAISER ALUMINUM 3.45%

GATX 3.45%

DELTIC TIMBER 3.41%

TECH DATA 3.18%

TRINITY INDS. 3.12%

CABOT OIL & GAS 'A' 3.06%

HEALTHCARE SVS.GP. 2.90%

AVNET 2.89%

FOOT LOCKER 2.87%


Advisory Research Small Cap Value

Advisory Research Small Cap Value invests in stocks that are overlooked,undervalued on a price-to-book basis, and are believed to have minimaldownside risk. The companies that provide the best opportunities are thosewith undervalued assets that are typically off the radar screens of most firmsor have been abandoned by the investment community. Once thesecompanies have been pinpointed, it attempts to identify a catalyst that willcause the valuation of the company to be realized in the marketplace. Advisory Research focuses on identifying intrinsic value, whichminimizes the risk of losing capital.



Advisory Research Small Cap ValueRISK RETURN STATISTICS

January 01, 2009 Through December 31, 2011Advisory Research Russell 2000 Value

RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSNumber of Periods 36 36Maximum Return 15.02 15.87Minimum Return -12.64 -14.28Annualized Return 9.39 12.36Total Return 30.90 41.87Annualized Excess Return Over Risk Free 9.29 12.26Annualized Excess Return -2.97 0.00 RISK SUMMARY STATISTICSBeta 0.89 1.00Upside Deviation 13.04 14.82Downside Deviation 15.62 16.34 RISK/RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSAnnualized Standard Deviation 24.12 26.42Alpha -0.14 0.00Sharpe Ratio 0.39 0.46Excess Return Over Market / Risk -0.12 0.00Tracking Error 5.56 0.00Information Ratio -0.53 -- CORRELATION STATISTICSR-Squared 0.96 1.00Correlation 0.98 1.00 Market Proxy: Russell 2000 ValueRisk-Free Proxy: 91 Day T-Bills



Advisory Research Small Cap Value





12/31/11


Advisory Research 13.2 % 85 -3.1 % 52 9.4 % 99 -0.1 % 67

Russell 2000 Value 16.0 55 -5.5 70 12.4 91 -1.9 93


Top Countries as of 10/31/2011United Kingdom 13.29%

China 10.24%

Japan 8.97%

Germany 6.17%

France 5.66%

Hong Kong 4.75%

Canada 4.74%

Switzerland 4.65%

Russia 4.56%

India 3.78%

Fund Characteristics as of 10/31/2011Versus MSCI EAFE

Sharpe Ratio (3 Year) 0.04

Average Market Cap ($mm) 16,805.03

Price/Earnings 12.06

Price/Book 1.61

Price/Sales 1.24

Price/Cash Flow 4.69

Dividend Yield 2.13

Number of Equity Holdings 220

R-Squared (3 Year) 0.93

Alpha (3 Year) -0.51%



Return % Gain/LossROYAL DUTCH SHELL A(LON) (UKIR:RDSA) 19.76% $70,679XSTRATA (UKIR:XTA) 18.87% $40,572NOVO NORDISK 'B' (DK:NON) 14.99% $37,139BG GROUP (UKIR:BG.) 10.61% $35,254IVANHOE MINES (C:IVN) 28.11% $32,096VODAFONE GROUP (UKIR:VOD) 11.71% $31,382BHP BILLITON (UKIR:BLT) 7.77% $29,587SAIPEM (I:SPM) 19.67% $29,461SUNCOR ENERGY (C:SU) 12.76% $29,126ROLLS-ROYCE HOLDINGS (UKIR:RR.) 26.37% $24,733

_

Sector Allocation as of 10/31/2011BASIC MATERIALS 9.29%

COMMUNICATION SERVICES 2.13%

CONSUMER CYCLICAL 16.74%

CONSUMER DEFENSIVE 5.01%

ENERGY 7.81%

FINANCIAL SERVICES 9.18%

HEALTHCARE 7.47%

INDUSTRIALS 14.63%

REAL ESTATE 2.43%

TECHNOLOGY 3.04%

UTILITIES 0.27%


Return % Gain/LossCTRIP.COM INTL.ADR 4:1 (CTRP) -27.23% -$59,223FRAPORT (XET) (D:FRAX) -17.27% -$51,040CELLTRION (KO:ORC) -15.92% -$32,867ERSTE GROUP BANK (O:ERS) -32.11% -$20,640HDFC BANK ADR 1:3 (HDB) -9.85% -$17,610NEWCREST MINING (A:NCMX) -7.86% -$15,175POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN(C:POT) -5.15% -$13,619

DRAGON OIL (UKIR:DGO) -5.94% -$10,264SYDNEY AIRPORT (A:SYDX) -9.97% -$9,558KOMERCNI BANKA (CZ:KOM) -9.13% -$9,404

_


Artio International Equity IThe Artio Global International Equity Fund believes that well diversified international equity portfolios provide better risk-adjusted returns than overly concentrated portfolios. Theirresearch process is primarily based on fundamental assessment of companies, sectors, and macroeconomic influences on regions and countries. They will invest in companies ofall sizes although they have a preference for the liquidity that larger companies provide. They seek companies where the stock price does not reflect the value of expected futurecash flows. In developed markets they are bottom-up stock- and sector driven. In developing markets they will focus more on macro economic variables. They tend to be heavilyweighted in those sectors where they are finding attractively valued companies.



Artio International Equity I


Artio International Equity I MSCI EAFERETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSNumber of Periods 36 36Maximum Return 12.15 12.80Minimum Return -15.22 -11.51Annualized Return 0.98 7.65Total Return 2.98 24.75Annualized Excess Return Over RiskFree 0.88 7.55

Annualized Excess Return -6.67 0.00 RISK SUMMARY STATISTICSBeta 0.99 1.00Upside Deviation 12.50 12.17Downside Deviation 15.14 13.09 RISK/RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSAnnualized Standard Deviation 23.29 22.75Alpha -0.51 0.00Sharpe Ratio 0.04 0.33Excess Return Over Market / Risk -0.29 0.00Tracking Error 6.11 0.00Information Ratio -1.09 -- CORRELATION STATISTICSR-Squared 0.93 1.00Correlation 0.97 1.00 Market Proxy: MSCI EAFERisk-Free Proxy: 91 Day T-Bills






12/31/11


Artio International Equity I 0.0 % 97 -23.3 % 99 1.0 % 99 -7.2 % 94

MSCI EAFE 3.3 74 -12.1 35 7.6 66 -4.7 61


Artio International Equity I



Top Countries as of 11/30/2011United Kingdom 20.10%

Germany 12.39%

Japan 10.72%

Switzerland 7.22%

China 6.84%

France 6.54%

Canada 5.36%

United States 3.54%

Israel 3.02%

Denmark 2.52%

Thornburg's philosophy is deceptively simple: To invest in promising companies when selling at a discount to intrinsic value. The equity team developed a new approach to value,

which is at the core of Thornburg's investment philosophy and permeates every aspect of the stock selection and portfolio construction process. This philosophy defines value in

three categories: Basic Value, Consistent Earners, and Emerging Franchises. Thornburg's focus is on real returns - net total returns after inflation, taxes and investment

expenses. This consideration is the primary component of every investment decision.

Sector Allocation as of 11/30/2011BASIC MATERIALS 4.94%

COMMUNICATION SERVICES 3.96%

CONSUMER CYCLICAL 18.50%

CONSUMER DEFENSIVE 11.96%

ENERGY 8.88%

FINANCIAL SERVICES 15.49%

HEALTHCARE 10.39%

INDUSTRIALS 12.09%

REAL ESTATE 0.00%

TECHNOLOGY 7.45%

UTILITIES 0.00%

Fund Characteristics as of 11/30/2011Versus MSCI EAFE

Sharpe Ratio (3 Year) 0.45

Average Market Cap ($mm) 40,012.02

Price/Earnings 12.44

Price/Book 1.83

Price/Sales 1.35

Price/Cash Flow 7.26

Dividend Yield 2.60

Number of Equity Holdings 66

R-Squared (3 Year) 0.95

Alpha (3 Year) 0.20%


Thornburg International Equity



Thornburg International EquityAs of December 31, 2011


Thornburg InternationalEquity MSCI EAFE

RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSNumber of Periods 36 36Maximum Return 11.97 12.80Minimum Return -10.29 -11.51Annualized Return 9.46 7.65Total Return 31.17 24.75Annualized Excess Return Over Risk Free 9.36 7.55Annualized Excess Return 1.81 0.00 RISK SUMMARY STATISTICSBeta 0.89 1.00Upside Deviation 13.13 12.17Downside Deviation 12.09 13.09 RISK/RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSAnnualized Standard Deviation 20.71 22.75Alpha 0.20 0.00Sharpe Ratio 0.45 0.33Excess Return Over Market / Risk 0.09 0.00Tracking Error 5.18 0.00Information Ratio 0.35 -- CORRELATION STATISTICSR-Squared 0.95 1.00Correlation 0.98 1.00 Market Proxy: MSCI EAFERisk-Free Proxy: 91 Day T-Bills






12/31/11


Thornburg International Equity 4.1 % 56 -12.9 % 44 9.5 % 45 -0.4 % 9

MSCI EAFE 3.3 74 -12.1 35 7.6 66 -4.7 61


Thornburg International Equity



Total Fixed$140.5 Million and 35.4% of Fund


SCM's fixed income product aims to enhance portfolio return over time without incurring interest rate or credit risk which is significantly greater than that of the market. Value is

added in four ways: disciplined interest rate anticipation, sector rotation, issue selection, and trading opportunities. Duration is quantitatively measured and limited to small

deviations around a pre-selected target. Fixed income portfolios hold an average of 130 positions.

Sector Distribution History

Barclays Capital US Agg TRIX

Seneca Capital ManagementCore Fixed Income

Q411 Q411

UST/Agency 42.0% 9.0%

Corporate 19.9% 51.7%

MBS 33.8% 37.5%

ABS 0.2% 1.5%

Foreign 4.0% --

Muni -- 0.3%

Yankee -- --

Other -- --



SCM Advisors Core Fixed Income

Top HoldingsUNITED STATES TREASURY 26.12%

FN 30YR 5.92%

UST 3.500 02/15/39 3.67%

FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP POOL #G0-6380 0% 12-31-2040 BEO 2.44%

FH 30YR GOLD 2.18%

FN AD0727 1.99%

FN 931983 1.59%

NORTHERN INST DIVS ASSETS-SH 1.40%

FN AA7001 1.03%

J P MORGAN CHASE COML MTG SECS 1.01%





Seneca Capital Management Barclays Capital AggregateRETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSNumber of Periods 36 36Maximum Return 2.41 1.61Minimum Return -1.03 -1.56Annualized Return 8.64 6.77Total Return 28.23 21.71Annualized Excess Return Over Risk Free 8.54 6.67Annualized Excess Return 1.87 0.00 RISK SUMMARY STATISTICSBeta 0.76 1.00Upside Deviation 1.95 1.79Downside Deviation 1.18 1.79 RISK/RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSAnnualized Standard Deviation 2.83 2.82Alpha 0.28 0.00Sharpe Ratio 3.02 2.36Excess Return Over Market / Risk 0.66 0.00Tracking Error 1.98 0.00Information Ratio 0.95 -- CORRELATION STATISTICSR-Squared 0.57 1.00Correlation 0.75 1.00 Market Proxy: Barclays Capital AggregateRisk-Free Proxy: 91 Day T-Bills








12/31/11


Seneca Capital Management 2.3 % 1 7.0 % 67 8.6 % 39 6.7 % 41

Barclays Capital Aggregate 1.1 66 7.8 23 6.8 80 6.5 48


Sector Distribution History

Barclays Capital USAgg TR IX

Taplin, Canida &Habacht Core Fixed

Income

Q411 Q411

UST/Agency 42.0% 6.4%

Corporate 19.9% 87.1%

MBS 33.8% 2.6%

ABS 0.2% 4.7%

Foreign 4.0% 0.9%

Muni -- --

Yankee -- 0.5%

Other -- -2.2%

Taplin, Canida, & Habacht's strategy in managing core fixed income portfolios is to beat their benchmark by employing U.S. Government/Agencies, high quality corporates, and

mortgaged-backed securities. The emphasis on corporate bonds is born out of a desire to capture the historical performance advantage enjoyed by corporates over governments

and mortgages. Taplin, Canida, and Habacht identifies the most attractive sector and issue opportunities among governments/agencies and mortgage-backed securities through the

use of yield curve and yield spread strategies.



DGX 1.208 03/24/14 FRN 2.01%

UST 2.000 07/15/14 1.95%

DTV 6.000 08/15/40 '40 1.89%

SOUTHERN POWER CO 1.61%

IBM 0.377 06/15/12 FRN 1.50%

TELX 7.125 10/01/37 1.34%

CAPITAL AUTO RECEIVABLES ASSET TRUST 1.33%

MS 0.729 10/15/15 FRN 1.26%

GNMA POOL #0782156 5.000% 05/20/2037 DD 05/01/07 1.25%


Taplin, Canida & Habacht Core Fixed Income





Taplin, Canida & HabachtCore Fixed Income Barclays Capital Aggregate

RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSNumber of Periods 36 36Maximum Return 3.68 1.61Minimum Return -1.61 -1.56Annualized Return 11.37 6.77Total Return 38.14 21.71Annualized Excess Return Over Risk Free 11.27 6.67Annualized Excess Return 4.60 0.00 RISK SUMMARY STATISTICSBeta 1.10 1.00Upside Deviation 3.50 1.79Downside Deviation 1.55 1.79 RISK/RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSAnnualized Standard Deviation 4.48 2.82Alpha 0.30 0.00Sharpe Ratio 2.51 2.36Excess Return Over Market / Risk 1.03 0.00Tracking Error 3.25 0.00Information Ratio 1.42 -- CORRELATION STATISTICSR-Squared 0.48 1.00Correlation 0.69 1.00 Market Proxy: Barclays Capital AggregateRisk-Free Proxy: 91 Day T-Bills








12/31/11


Taplin, Canida & Habacht Core Fixed Income 2.3 % 1 8.9 % 4 11.4 % 10 7.9 % 2



Maturities as of 06/30/20111 to 3 Years 17.83%

3 to 5 Years 21.49%

5 to 7 Years 8.68%

7 to 10 Years 5.26%

10 to 15 Years 8.37%

15 to 20 Years 4.24%

20 to 30 Years 19.46%

Greater than 30 Years 14.59%

Credit Quality as of 06/30/2011AAA 64.00%

AA 9.00%

A 13.00%

BBB 8.00%

BB 3.00%

B 2.00%

Below B 1.00%

Not Rated 0.00%

Top Holdings as of 06/30/2011PIMCO FDS PRIVATE ACCOUNTPORTFOLIO SER 19.11%

FNMA 7.23%

FNMA 2.55%

CDX IG16 5Y SP BOA 2.07%

CDX IG16 5Y SP BPS 2.04%

FNMA 1.79%

US TREASURY NOTE 0.75% 1.54%

IRS EUR R 6ME/3.5 09/21/11 BRC 1.43%

FNMA 3.5% 1.25%

FNMA 1.14%


Fund Information as of 11/30/2011

Fund Name Pimco Fds Total Return BdFund I

Ticker PTTRX

Category Intermediate-Term Bond

Benchmark Barclays Capital Aggregate

Expense Ratio 0.46%

Fund Assets ($mm) 142,635.90

Share Class Inception Date 5/11/1987

Manager Tenure 25


PIMCO Total Return Institutional

The PIMCO Total Return Fund attempts maximum total return, consistent with preservation of capital and prudent investment management. PIMCO believes that a diversified

approach to adding value will deliver more consistent results, so PIMCO employs multiple concurrent strategies and takes only moderate risk in each, thereby reducing the risk of

poor performance arising from any single source. Strategies utilized include duration management, yield curve or maturity structuring, sector rotation and all bottom-up techniques

including in-house credit and quantitative research.





Pimco Total Return Barclays Capital AggregateRETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSNumber of Periods 36 36Maximum Return 2.57 1.61Minimum Return -1.73 -1.56Annualized Return 8.87 6.77Total Return 29.04 21.71Annualized Excess Return Over Risk Free 8.77 6.67Annualized Excess Return 2.10 0.00 RISK SUMMARY STATISTICSBeta 0.80 1.00Upside Deviation 2.13 1.79Downside Deviation 1.80 1.79 RISK/RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSAnnualized Standard Deviation 3.69 2.82Alpha 0.27 0.00Sharpe Ratio 2.37 2.36Excess Return Over Market / Risk 0.57 0.00Tracking Error 2.96 0.00Information Ratio 0.71 -- CORRELATION STATISTICSR-Squared 0.38 1.00Correlation 0.61 1.00 Market Proxy: Barclays Capital AggregateRisk-Free Proxy: 91 Day T-Bills





12/31/11


PIMCO Total Return Institutional 2.2 % 1 4.2 % 98 8.9 % 30 8.0 % 1








Victory Investment Grade Convertible Securities

Process focuses on the intrinsic value of the underlying common stock as well as on the convertible security itself. The underlying equity analysis looks for the best combination of

intrinsic value, statistical cheapness and earnings revision. The underlying fixed income analysis encompasses financial statement factors in addition to trends of pertinent financial

ratios such as pre-tax interest coverage, current ratio, return on equity and profit margins. Convertible characteristics they analyze include quality, intrinsic value, conversion

premium, break-even, investment value, yield advantage, call and put features, liquidity, and sensitivity/horizon analysis. They purchase when the underlying equity exhibits superior

valuation characteristics, coupled with the most compelling combination of statistical cheapness and earnings revision; underlying bond exhibits solid cash flow or improving

fundamentals; and convertible particulars are attractive.





Victory Capital Management Merrill Lynch InvestmentGrade Convertibles Inc. 144a

RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSNumber of Periods 36 36Maximum Return 7.22 6.10Minimum Return -4.48 -3.94Annualized Return 10.00 9.53Total Return 33.11 31.39Annualized Excess Return Over Risk Free 9.90 9.42Annualized Excess Return 0.47 0.00 RISK SUMMARY STATISTICSBeta 1.07 1.00Upside Deviation 5.56 4.85Downside Deviation 5.07 4.57 RISK/RETURN SUMMARY STATISTICSAnnualized Standard Deviation 10.26 9.45Alpha -0.01 0.00Sharpe Ratio 0.96 1.00Excess Return Over Market / Risk 0.05 0.00Tracking Error 1.90 0.00Information Ratio 0.25 -- CORRELATION STATISTICSR-Squared 0.97 1.00Correlation 0.98 1.00 Market Proxy: Merrill Lynch Investment Grade Convertibles Inc. 144aRisk-Free Proxy: 91 Day T-Bills






12/31/11


Victory Capital Management 2.9 % 77 -3.1 % 29 10.0 % 97 0.7 % 94

Merrill Lynch Investment Grade Convertibles Inc. 144a 2.3 83 -3.0 28 9.5 98 -1.0 99



Watch List Criteria

Public Health Trust / Jackson Memorial Hospital

Quantitative Factors

Three Year Factors Fail Criteria Action Steps1 Annualized net performance for trailing 3 years Performance below BM in 6 of last 12 quarters Place on WL

2 Annualized net performance for trailing 3 years Performance below peer group median in 6 of last 12 quarters Place on WL

Five Year Factors Fail Criteria1 Annualized net performance for trailing 5 years Performance below BM in 4 of last 12 quarters Place on WL


SHORT TERM UNDERPERFORMANCE INDICATOR: Any manager falling behind its primary benchmark by 7% will be prioritized for review at the next investment committee meeting by the investment consultant.

64

Watch List Criteria

Public Health Trust / Jackson Memorial Hospital

Qualitative Factors

Factor Action Steps1 Intentional deviation from stated investment Place on WL, terminate if no longer consistent with PHT objectives

philosophy and style

2 Changes in ownership/business plan Place on WL if determined the change will detrimentally affect performance

3 Client Servicing Place on WL if service deterioration inhibits ability to monitor,terminate if issue is not resolved

4 Turnover of key personnel on PHT product Place on WL if turnover will impair firm's investment capabilities

5 Material change in client/AUM in PHT product Place on WL if determined that change might detrimentally affect performance

6 Advent of Material Litigation Place on WL if nature, seriousness and likely impact of charges on the firm and investment product warrant

65

Large Cap Growth Managers Zephyr StyleADVISOR: CSG Holdings, LLC

Manager vs Universe: Return Rank12-Quarter Moving Windows, Computed QuarterlyZephyr Large Growth Universe (Morningstar)

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q4 1999 Q4 2001 Q4 2003 Q4 2005 Q4 2007 Q4 2009 Q4 2011

Atalanta SosnoffNorthern TrustRussell 1000 Growth

5th to 25th Percentile25th Percentile to MedianMedian to 75th Percentile75th to 95th Percentile

Manager vs Universe: Return Rank20-Quarter Moving Windows, Computed QuarterlyZephyr Large Growth Universe (Morningstar)

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q4 2001 Q4 2003 Q4 2005 Q4 2007 Q4 2009 Q4 2011

Atalanta SosnoffNorthern TrustRussell 1000 Growth


Created with Zephyr StyleADVISOR. Manager returns supplied by: Morningstar, Inc.66

Large Cap Value Managers Zephyr StyleADVISOR: CSG Holdings, LLC

Manager vs Universe: Return Rank12-Quarter Moving Windows, Computed QuarterlyZephyr Large Value Universe (Morningstar)

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q4 1999 Q4 2001 Q4 2003 Q4 2005 Q4 2007 Q4 2009 Q4 2011

Horizon AssetRussell 1000 Value ETFRussell 1000 Value


Manager vs Universe: Return Rank20-Quarter Moving Windows, Computed QuarterlyZephyr Large Value Universe (Morningstar)

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q4 2001 Q4 2003 Q4 2005 Q4 2007 Q4 2009 Q4 2011

Horizon AssetRussell 1000 Value ETFRussell 1000 Value



Small Cap Core Managers Zephyr StyleADVISOR: CSG Holdings, LLC

Manager vs Universe: Return Rank12-Quarter Moving Windows, Computed Quarterly

Zephyr Small Core Universe (Morningstar)

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q2 2002 Q4 2003 Q4 2005 Q4 2007 Q4 2009 Q4 2011

IronBridgeRussell 2000


Manager vs Universe: Return Rank20-Quarter Moving Windows, Computed QuarterlyZephyr Small Core Universe (Morningstar)

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q2 2004 Q4 2005 Q4 2006 Q4 2007 Q4 2008 Q4 2009 Q4 2010 Q4 2011

IronBridgeRussell 2000


Created with Zephyr StyleADVISOR. Manager returns supplied by: Morningstar, Inc.

68

Small Cap Value Managers Zephyr StyleADVISOR: CSG Holdings, LLC

Manager vs Universe: Return Rank12-Quarter Moving Windows, Computed QuarterlyZephyr Small Value Universe (Morningstar)

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q4 1999 Q4 2001 Q4 2003 Q4 2005 Q4 2007 Q4 2009 Q4 2011

Advisory ResearchRussell 2000 Value


Manager vs Universe: Return Rank20-Quarter Moving Windows, Computed QuarterlyZephyr Small Value Universe (Morningstar)

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q4 2001 Q4 2003 Q4 2005 Q4 2007 Q4 2009 Q4 2011

Advisory ResearchRussell 2000 Value



International Equity Managers Zephyr StyleADVISOR: CSG Holdings, LLC

Manager vs Universe: Return Rank12-Quarter Moving Windows, Computed QuarterlyInternational Mutual Universe (Unique Funds)

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q4 1999 Q4 2001 Q4 2003 Q4 2005 Q4 2007 Q4 2009 Q4 2011

Artio International Equity FundThornburg International Value IMSCI EAFE Index


Manager vs Universe: Return Rank20-Quarter Moving Windows, Computed QuarterlyInternational Mutual Universe (Unique Funds)

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q4 2001 Q4 2003 Q4 2005 Q4 2007 Q4 2009 Q4 2011

Artio International Equity FundThornburg International Value IMSCI EAFE Index



Core Fixed Income Managers Zephyr StyleADVISOR: CSG Holdings, LLC


Core Fixed Income Mutual Funds

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q4 1999 Q4 2001 Q4 2003 Q4 2005 Q4 2007 Q4 2009 Q4 2011

SCM AdvisorsTCHPIMCO Total Return FundBarclays Capital U.S. Aggregate



Core Fixed Income Mutual Funds

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q4 2001 Q4 2003 Q4 2005 Q4 2007 Q4 2009 Q4 2011

SCM AdvisorsTCHPIMCO Total Return FundBarclays Capital U.S. Aggregate



Convertible Bond Managers Zephyr StyleADVISOR: CSG Holdings, LLC

Manager vs Universe: Return Rank12-Quarter Moving Windows, Computed QuarterlyConvertible Bond Universe (I/G and Blend)

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q4 1999 Q4 2001 Q4 2003 Q4 2005 Q4 2007 Q4 2009 Q3 2011

Victory Capital ManagementMerrill Lynch Inv. Grade US Conv, Incl 144A


Manager vs Universe: Return Rank20-Quarter Moving Windows, Computed QuarterlyConvertible Bond Universe (I/G and Blend)

Ret

urn

Ran

k

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q4 2001 Q4 2003 Q4 2005 Q4 2007 Q4 2009 Q3 2011

Victory Capital ManagementMerrill Lynch Inv. Grade US Conv, Incl 144A



Public Health Trust/Jackson Memorial

Hospital

Investment Manager Monitoring

Guidelines

December 2010

Draft One

Overview

Investment manager retention and termination decisions have high costs, whether to retain

unskilled managers for too long, terminate a skilled manager prematurely or transition assets

between managers. Additionally, the variability of most managers’ returns complicates

straightforward evaluations of skill. Without comprehensive assessments of manager skill,

PHT/JMH has little assurance that the manager hired today will perform better than the

manager terminated yesterday.

These Investment Manager Monitoring Guidelines (“Guidelines”) provide a systematic,

consistent, and diligent framework for manager retention and termination decisions to help

avoid untimely and haphazard actions that may adversely impact fund returns. In addition, the

Guidelines are intended to:

1. Foster a long-term approach to manager evaluations that is forward looking.

2. Provide a systematic quantitative framework to evaluate manager skill that is balanced

against qualitative assessments of factors relevant to future performance.

3. Promote timely and appropriate responses to actual and potential performance issues.

4. Provide flexibility to allow application across all public markets asset classes,

management styles, and market environments.

Inevitably, each retention/termination assessment will have unique circumstances.

Accordingly, it is intended that the Guidelines be flexible enough to account for specific

manager, asset class, and market-related factors, but, it is also intended that exceptions to

the Guidelines be rare.

Time Horizon

Fluctuating rates of return characterize the securities markets, particularly during short-

term time periods. Accordingly, PHT/JMH has principally adopted a three to five year

horizon in evaluating managers relative to established benchmarks and peers.

Manager Evaluation, Watch List, and Termination Standards

As a result of exercising its fiduciary duty to monitor its investment managers, PHT/JMH

may from time to time need to give consideration to replacing managers that are not

achieving expected performance.

If an investment manager fails to meet the Watch List standards defined in Section II,

PHT/JMH, subject to a thorough review of the manager’s organization and investment

process, may decide to terminate a relationship. Additionally, certain extraordinary events

may be the basis for an immediate termination, regardless of historical performance,

including, but are not limited to:

1. Revisions to the business plan of the Manager

2. A key decision maker leaves the Manager

3. A rapid increase/decrease in accounts or assets under manager at the Manager

4. A significant change in the investment philosophy of the Manager

5. Manager is involved in material litigation, fraud or conflicts of interest

6. Manager experiences material client-servicing problems

In evaluating investment managers for the purposes of Watch List and retention/termination,

PHT/JMH will consider qualitative factors likely to impact the future performance of the

portfolio in addition to current historical rates of return. Although quantitative assessments of

manager success are useful in judging whether managers have been successful in the past, they

can be poor predictors of future success. Since PHT/JMH’s goal is to determine the likelihood of

future success, it is important that retention/termination decisions focus on the qualitative

aspects of each manager’s investment process, as well as quantitative assessments of past

performance.

Watch List

The purpose of a Watch List is to define the conditions that will cause PHT/JMH to formally

evaluate the continued retention of an investment manager. Placing a manager on the Watch

List is an intermediate step toward either resolving the problem or terminating the manager.

The qualitative and quantitative conditions for placing a manager on the Watch List are

described below:

Qualitative Criteria

Qualitative Factors

Factor Action Steps

1 Intentional deviation from s tated investment Place on W L, terminate if no longer cons istent with PHT objectives

philosophy and s tyle

2 Changes in ownership/business plan Place on W L if determined the change will detrimentally affect performance

3 Client Servicing Place on W L if service deterioration inhibits ability to monitor,

terminate if is sue is not resolved

4 Turnover of key personnel on PHT product Place on W L if turnover will impair firm's investment capabilities

5 Material change in client/AUM in PHT product Place on W L if determined that change might detrimentally affect performance

6 Advent of Material Litigation Place on W L if nature, seriousness and likely impact of charges

on the firm and inves tment product warrant

Quantitative Criteria

Quantitative Factors

Three Year Factors Fail Criteria Action Steps

1 Annualized net performance for trailing 3 years Performance below BM in 6 of last 12 quarters Place on WL


Five Year Factors Fail Criteria

1 Annualized net performance for trailing 5 years Performance below BM in 4 of last 12 quarters Place on WL


Short Term Indicator

Managers falling 10% below their primary benchmark over a trailing four quarter review will be

highlighted by the consultant for specific discussion at the next meeting, even if they do not

trigger other watch-list criteria. If the committee discussion does not alleviate discomfort with

the manager, they should be prioritized for an in person review at a subsequent committee

meeting.

Formal Review Process

When a manager is placed on the Watch List, PHT/JMH, with the assistance of the Consultant,

will conduct a formal manager evaluation. The evaluation includes the following steps:

1. A letter to the manager stating the reasons for being placed on the Watch List

consistent with these guidelines

2. An analysis of recent transactions, holdings and portfolio characteristics to

determine the cause of underperformance and/or verify a change in style

3. A Retention Review may be conducted on a manager, although under no

circumstance shall a manager be on Watch List for more than 4 quarters without a

Retention Review

4. A review of other viable investment alternatives to identify other product providers

in the event the firm or product is subsequently terminated

The purpose of a Retention Review is to provide independent and expert input to the decision

to retain or terminate the manager. A Retention Review is a thorough, in-depth due diligence

effort, similar in scope and focus to the initial manager selection process. A Retention Review

explores all elements of a manager’s performance, organization, personnel, and investment

philosophy and process. The Retention Review will focus on whether the investment manager

currently embodies characteristics sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that PHT/JMH’s

investment objectives will be achieved in the future.

In addition to the thorough, in-depth due diligence effort, the Retention Review report will

include:

1. Recommendation to retain or terminate the manager

2. If a recommendation is made to retain the manager, identification of key issues

which should be closely monitored going forward.

3. If a recommendation is made to terminate the manager, alternative action(s) will be

suggested for redeploying the portfolio’s assets.

Consulting Services Group, LLCwww.csgllc.com

Public Health TrustReplacement of Atalanta Sosnoff:

Purpose, Process & Recommendation

December 2011

PAST PERFORMANCE DOES NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE RESULTS. The information

provided in this document was obtained from several sources including eVestment Alliance, Zephyr

Associates and the investment managers themselves. CSG did not independently verify this

information.

Consulting Services Group, LLCwww.csgllc.com 2

Summary: Purpose, Process & Recommendation Purpose:

• Why terminate Atalanta Sosnoff when they are passing the Watchlist Criteria?

• Although Atalanta Sosnoff passes the trailing period Watchlist Criteria as of September 30, 2011, the Investment

Manager Monitoring Guidelines (see attached) state that “certain extraordinary events may be the basis for an

immediate termination, regardless of historical performance, including…(1) Revisions to the business plan of the

Manager” (e.g. structural/ownership changes).

• In a memo dated 3/10/2010, CSG described the ownership change taking place at Atalanta Sosnoff – specifically, the

sale of 49% of the firm to Evercore. CSG concluded at that time there was no indication the transaction with Evercore

would affect the management of CSG client portfolios; however, “there is the possibility that performance could be

affected . . . CSG will be carefully monitoring the performance and management of its client portfolios to gauge the

long-term effects of this transaction.”

• In 18 of 19 months since CSG’s March 2010 memo, Atalanta Sosnoff has underperformed its benchmark index;

therefore, our Research Advisory Board (after multiple meetings with the manager) determined that better large cap

growth alternatives were available to our clients.

Process:

• How are replacement candidates identified?

• CSG’s consultants and analysts are active in manager research and due diligence – oversight of this work is conducted

by CSG’s Research Advisory Board. A summary the RAB’s four level process is described on the following two pages.

Recommendation:

• Who is CSG’s recommendation and why?

• CSG is recommending Sands Capital Management for several reasons:

• Sands’ investment strategy is a good complement to PHT’s other large cap growth manager (Northern Trust);

most notably, Sands actively manages a concentrated portfolio of approximately 25 stocks (see page 5)

compared to NT’s enhanced index approach that owns approximately 70 stocks.

• Although more volatile than NT (due to a more concentrated portfolio), Sands’ volatility (see page 11) over

time has been rewarded with performance in the top 10% of its peers over the trailing 10 years (see page 8).

• The 50/50 blend of Sands/NT has produced attractive historical returns (see pages 12-14).


Research Advisory Board

Research Advisory Board Screening Process

Level I

• Define the quantitative characteristics a manager must possess to be considered as a

manager who can deliver superior performance for CSG clients

• Use Zephyr, eVestment Alliance, Morningstar, and Excel to screen the universe of

investment products

• Level I results are reviewed by the Research Advisory Board

Level II

• Review the strategies passing Level I in order to prioritize the managers that should

receive in-depth research and analysis

• Creation of a comprehensive research report focusing on the firm and the strategy’s

performance and characteristics.

• Review of Level II report by Research Advisory Board for a unanimous pass or fail

vote on proceeding to Level III


Research Advisory Board

Level III

• On site due diligence visit by two CSG professionals focusing on the firm’s

investment process and philosophy as well as personnel, compliance, and operations

• Written report of due diligence findings presented to RAB for review

Level IV

• Manager research and due diligence is provided to consultants and senior analysts

• Manager visits CSG and presents their firm and strategy for final approval

Research Advisory Board Screening Process


Manager Summaries

Sands Cap. Mgmt. INTECH Stralem & Co. Atalanta Sosnoff

Qualitative Review

Ownership 100% Employee 95% Janus/5% Employee 100% Employee 51% EE/49% Other

Location Arlington, VA West Palm Beach, FL New York, NY New York, NY

Manager Tenure 12 Years 19 Years 45 Years 31 Years

Vehicle Type Separate Account Commingled Fund Separate Account Separate Account

Number of Holdings 28 183 30 46

Change in Investment Philosophy None None None None

Regulatory Issues None None None None

Quantitative Review

Trailing 3 Year Return vs Index (Relative) 8.3% -1.1% -2.4% -5.3%

Trailing 3 Year Peer Group Ranking (Percentile) 2.5% 40.1% 57.3% 89.9%

Trailing 5 Year Return vs Index (Relative) 4.1% -0.9% 1.1% -2.3%


Trailing 7 Year Return vs Index (Relative) 2.5% -0.4% 2.1% 0.7%


Trailing 10 Year Return vs Index (Relative) 4.7% 2.2% 2.9% 1.6%


Batting Average over last 10 Calendar Years vs Index 80.0% 60.0% 70.0% 60.0%

Batting Average over last 10 Calendar Years vs Universe Median 60.0% 50.0% 60.0% 60.0%

Trailing 10 Year Up/Down Market Capture 138%/105% 94%/81% 86%/68% 93%/84%

Estimated Fees 0.75% 0.52% 0.80% 0.94%

Large Cap Growth Manager - Review Summary


Correlation of Excess Returns

Zephyr StyleADVISOR Zephyr StyleADVISOR: CSG Holdings, LLC

Correlation Matrix: Excess Returns vs. Russell 1000 GrowthOctober 2001 - September 2011

1) Sands Capital: Large Cap Growth Equity

(1)

1.00

2) INTECH: Large Cap Growth -0.23

(2)

1.00

3) Stralem & Company: Stralem LCES -0.39 0.62

(3)

1.00

4) Northern Trust 0.08 0.44 0.26

(4)

1.00

5) Russell 1000 Growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(5)

0.00


Calendar Year Returns



Zephyr Large Growth Universe (eVestment Quarterly)

Retu

rn R

ank

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

Q4 2010 Q4 2009 Q4 2008 Q4 2007 Q4 2006 Q4 2005 Q4 2004 Q4 2003 Q4 2002 Q4 2001

Sands Capital: Large Cap Growth EquityINTECH: Large Cap GrowthStralem & Company: Stralem LCESAtalanta SosnoffNorthern TrustRussell 1000 Growth


M a n a g e r v s Un iv e rs e : Re tu rn


5th Percentile

Median

Rank

5.00%

25th Percentile 25.00%

Median 50.00%



Sands Capital: Large Cap Growth Equity 33.85%

INTECH: Large Cap Growth 39.73%

Stralem & Company: Stralem LCES 37.08%

Atalanta Sosnoff 38.39%

Dec 2010

906 mng

29.30%

19.88%

16.12%

13.51%

9.59%

27.22%

17.49%

10.82%

5.59%

Dec 2009

996 mng

52.04%

38.32%

32.89%

26.43%

17.83%

72.23%

27.63%

21.50%

31.37%

Dec 2008

1103 mng

-28.20%

-35.06%

-38.18%

-41.53%

-48.34%

-48.38%

-33.82%

-27.44%

-34.72%

Dec 2007

1115 mng

30.19%

18.85%

13.23%

8.93%

3.57%

19.73%

8.36%

13.58%

14.95%

Dec 2006

1043 mng

20.22%

14.93%

11.17%

7.75%

2.60%

-5.22%

7.97%

10.67%

14.62%

Dec 2005

961 mng

19.44%

12.55%

8.82%

5.81%

2.33%

10.99%

8.00%

13.52%

19.66%

Dec 2004

866 mng

23.07%

16.03%

11.92%

8.80%

5.19%

21.03%

15.82%

17.42%

9.02%

Dec 2003

808 mng

49.20%

35.65%

30.44%

26.46%

20.42%

36.73%

29.38%

23.29%

25.93%

Dec 2002

729 mng

-7.91%

-16.65%

-22.32%

-26.94%

-33.53%

-26.90%

-14.89%

-19.69%

-18.06%

Dec 2001

660 mng

6.75%

-5.74%

-12.41%

-19.16%

-29.60%

-15.42%

-4.56%

0.94%

-11.20%

Northern Trust 49.53% 15.49% 32.76% -37.80% 19.45% 6.70% 9.49% 11.37% 37.47% -20.78% -16.80%

Russell 1000 Growth 61.31% 16.71% 37.21% -38.44% 11.81% 9.07% 5.26% 6.30% 29.75% -27.88% -20.42%


Trailing Time Period Returns


Manager vs Universe: Return Rank through September 2011(not annualized if less than 1 year)


Retu

rn R

ank

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 7 years 10 years

Sands Capital: Large Cap Growth EquityINTECH: Large Cap GrowthStralem & Company: Stralem LCESAtalanta SosnoffNorthern TrustRussell 1000 Growth


Manager vs Universe: Return through September 2011(n o t a n n u a l i z e d i f le s s th a n 1 y e a r)


5th Percentile

MedianRank

5.00%


Median 50.00%



Sands Capital: Large Cap Growth Equity 10.13%

INTECH: Large Cap Growth 29.64%

Stralem & Company: Stralem LCES 14.78%

YTD

826 mng

-1.59%

-7.17%

-9.57%

-11.77%

-16.04%

-5.26%

-7.23%

-2.70%

1 year

826 mng

8.91%

3.80%

1.03%

-1.43%

-5.78%

9.61%

2.37%

3.45%

3 years

807 mng

9.74%

5.01%

2.90%

0.98%

-1.96%

12.95%

3.62%

2.32%

5 years

737 mng

6.00%

2.74%

0.87%

-0.59%

-2.61%

5.76%

0.72%

2.76%

Atalanta Sosnoff 51.41% -14.86% -6.65% -0.65% -0.63%

7 years

639 mng

8.59%

5.30%

3.95%

2.84%

1.38%

6.07%

3.23%

5.70%

4.29%

10 years

491 mng

8.90%

5.72%

4.22%

3.18%

1.78%

7.68%

5.24%

5.88%

4.60%

Northern Trust 31.57% -6.05% 5.72% 4.27% 2.32% 4.58% 5.58%

Russell 1000 Growth 82.02% -7.20% 3.78% 4.69% 1.62% 3.61% 3.01%


Excess Return/Batting Average

Excess Return/Batting Average Zephyr StyleADVISOR: CSG Holdings, LLC

Excess Return vs. Market Benchmark/Batting Average vs. Market BenchmarkSingle Computation

October 2001 - September 2011

Exc

ess

Retu

rn v

s. R

uss

ell 1000 G

row

th

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Batting Average vs. Russell 1000 Growth

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Sands Capital: Large Cap Growth Equity

INTECH: Large Cap Growth

Stralem & Company: Stralem LCES

Atalanta Sosnoff

Northern Trust

Market Benchmark:Russell 1000 Growth


Upside/Downside


Up/Down TableOctober 2001 - September 2011. Single Computation


Up

28

INTECH: Large Cap Growth 28

Down

12

12

Up

8.74

5.93

Down

-11.80

-8.45

UpMarket

8.94

6.28

DownMarket

-9.25

-7.05

Best

28.40

13.09

Worst

-30.58

-20.01

Best

72.23

40.62

Worst

-48.38

-33.82

UpCapture

137.5

94.3

DownCapture

104.9

81.2

R-Squared

89.10

94.88

# of Quarters Average Return (%)Average Return (%)

vs. MarketQuarter (%) 1-Year (%) Market Benchmark (%)

Stralem & Company: Stralem LCES 30 10 5.26 -8.88 5.76 -5.76 15.01 -18.22 42.49 -31.96 85.5 68.2 85.63

Atalanta Sosnoff 26 14 6.47 -7.75 6.25 -7.34 14.86 -16.98 43.68 -34.72 93.1 84.1 90.03

Northern Trust 28 12 6.97 -10.19 7.34 -8.43 16.25 -21.29 43.79 -37.80 111.6 95.1 95.89

Russell 1000 Growth 26 14 6.66 -8.97 6.66 -8.97 16.32 -22.79 49.75 -38.44 100.0 100.0 100.00


10 Year Risk/Return


Manager Risk/ReturnSingle Computation


Retu

rn

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

Standard Deviation

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%


INTECH: Large Cap Growth

Stralem & Company: Stralem LCES

Atalanta Sosnoff

Northern Trust

Market Benchmark:Russell 1000 GrowthCash Equivalent:Citigroup 3-month T-bill

Risk-Return TableOctober 2001 - September 2011: Annualized Summary Statistics


Return(%)

7.68INTECH: Large Cap Growth 5.24

Std Dev(%)

23.74

16.23

Betavs.

Market

1.1937

0.8422Stralem & Company: Stralem LCES 5.88 15.20 0.7491

SharpeRatio

0.2427

0.2043

0.2607

Observs.

40

40

40Atalanta Sosnoff 4.60 17.03 0.8605 0.1573 40Northern Trust 5.58 19.01 0.9912 0.1924 40Russell 1000 Growth 3.01 18.77 1.0000 0.0580 40


LCG Blends’ Trailing Returns


Manager vs Universe: Return Rank through September 2011(not annualized if less than 1 year)


Retu

rn R

ank

100%

75%

Median

25%

0%

YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 7 years 10 years

50% Sands Cap. / 50% Northern Trust50% INTECH / 50% Northern Trust50% Stralem / 50% Northern Trust50% Atalanta Sosnoff / 50% Northern TrustRussell 1000 Growth


Manager vs Universe: Return through September 2011(n o t a n n u a l i z e d i f le s s th a n 1 y e a r)


5th Percentile

MedianRank

5.00%


Median 50.00%



50% Sands Cap. / 50% Northern Trust 15.42%

50% INTECH / 50% Northern Trust 35.73%

50% Stralem / 50% Northern Trust 24.22%

YTD

826 mng

-1.59%

-7.17%

-9.57%

-11.77%

-16.04%

-5.69%

-6.64%

-4.42%

1 year

826 mng

8.91%

3.80%

1.03%

-1.43%

-5.78%

7.66%

4.05%

4.59%

3 years

807 mng

9.74%

5.01%

2.90%

0.98%

-1.96%

8.68%

3.96%

3.30%

5 years

737 mng

6.00%

2.74%

0.87%

-0.59%

-2.61%

4.12%

1.55%

2.58%

50% Atalanta Sosnoff / 50% Northern Trust 44.36% -10.40% -0.47% 1.89% 0.90%

7 years

639 mng

8.59%

5.30%

3.95%

2.84%

1.38%

5.40%

3.93%

5.17%

4.51%

10 years

491 mng

8.90%

5.72%

4.22%

3.18%

1.78%

6.68%

5.43%

5.78%

5.16%

Russell 1000 Growth 81.40% -7.20% 3.78% 4.69% 1.62% 3.61% 3.01%


LCG Blends’ 10 Year Risk/Return




Retu

rn

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

Standard Deviation

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

50% Sands Cap. / 50% Northern Trust

50% INTECH / 50% Northern Trust

50% Stralem / 50% Northern Trust

50% Atalanta Sosnoff / 50% Northern Trust




Return(%)

6.68

50% INTECH / 50% Northern Trust 5.43

Std Dev(%)

21.01

17.52

Betavs.

Market

1.0932

0.9168

50% Stralem / 50% Northern Trust 5.78 16.81 0.8710

SharpeRatio

0.2267

0.2003

0.2297

Observs.

40

40

40

50% Atalanta Sosnoff / 50% Northern Trust 5.16 17.78 0.9265 0.1821 40

Russell 1000 Growth 3.01 18.77 1.0000 0.0580 40


LCG Blends’ 3 Year Risk/Return




Retu

rn

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

Standard Deviation

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%


50% INTECH / 50% Northern Trust

50% Stralem / 50% Northern Trust

50% Atalanta Sosnoff / 50% Northern Trust




Return(%)

8.68

50% INTECH / 50% Northern Trust 3.96

Std Dev(%)

27.57

23.70

Betavs.

Market

1.1028

0.9481

50% Stralem / 50% Northern Trust 3.30 22.92 0.9119

SharpeRatio

0.3073

0.1585

0.1352

Observs.

12

12

12

50% Atalanta Sosnoff / 50% Northern Trust 1.89 23.51 0.9397 0.0719 12

Russell 1000 Growth 4.69 24.83 1.0000 0.1807 12

Market Value PHT FRS Pension FRS Investment Plan$402.4 Million $128.42 Billion $6.7 Billion

Annualized Net Performance PHT FRS Pension FRS Investment Plan1 Year 20.4% 22.0% 18.1%3 Year 4.2% 4.1% n/a5 Year 4.4% 4.9% 4.2%10 Year 5.7% 5.5% n/a

Broad Asset Allocation PHT FRS Pension FRS Investment PlanGlobal Equity 57.2% 51.0% n/a

Fixed Income & Cash 32.5% 26.0% n/aInv. Grade Convertibles 10.3% 0.0% n/a

Real Estate 0.0% 7.0% n/aPrivate Equity 0.0% 5.0% n/a

Strategic (e.g. Hedge Funds. Etc.) 0.0% 11.0% n/a100.0% 100.0% n/a

Prepared by CSG (Sources: CSG database, FL State Board of Administration)

Public Health Trust/Florida Retirement System ComparisonInformation as of June 30, 2011

CONSULTING SERVICES GROUP, LLC

TO: PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST PENSION COMMITTEE

FROM: BRIAN JONES & CURTIS WILLIAMS

SUBJECT: MANAGER OF MANAGER VEHICLES

DATE: 12/9/2011

CC:

Manager of manager programs exist in a variety of formats and there are many potential variables to examine when comparing the various options. In order to help facilitate this discussion, should the Pension Committee desire, CSG has prepared this summary memo to briefly describe three primary types of manager of manager programs by comparing them in several key areas of interest. Please keep in mind this is not an all-encompassing review of the subject material, but rather basic information to facilitate discussion and determine if any additional action is desired.

The three types of manager of manager programs examined are:

1. Brokerage/Wire House Platforms

2. Commingled Trust Programs

3. Consulting Model

The areas in which the three programs were reviewed include:

1. Examples of firms operating these various programs

2. Typical point of contact within each organization

3. Structure of investment options

4. Approach to asset allocation

5. Safekeeping of assets

6. Fee ranges

7. Liquidity

2

Brokerage Platform Commingled Trust Programs

Consulting Model

1. Examples Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan

TIAA-CREF, CommonFund

CSG, Cambridge

2. Contact Relationship manager Relationship Manager Investment Consultant

3. Investment Management

Internally managed “products” and outside investment managers accessed via separate accounts, mutual funds and commingled funds

Internally managed “strategies” and outside investment managers accessed via commingled trust vehicles

No internally managed strategies – all strategies independently managed and accessed via separate account, mutual funds, and commingled funds

4. Asset Allocation Structure

Client portfolio built and tactically adjusted using the platform’s model portfolios and the client’s policy guidelines

Per policy guidelines, assets are allocated to commingled vehicles, each representing an asset class (e.g. Core equity, Fixed income, etc.)

Strategic (long-term) asset allocation is developed for each client and tactical (short-term) adjustments are governed by policy guidelines

5. Safekeeping Assets are held in client’s name at firm’s brokerage affiliate

Assets are commingled with other investors and held by master custodian

Assets are held by the client’s master custodian in the client’s name

6. Fee Range (General Estimate Only)

125 – 175 basis points 125 – 150 basis points 115 – 130 basis points

7. Typical Liquidity

Daily to 3 days Monthly or Quarterly Daily to 3 days

We hope this general information is helpful and we look forward to a more in depth discussion should you choose to examine the manager of manager landscape further.

Thank you.

8. Recommended Approval of the PHT Investment Policy Statement

IPS Content PHT Policy: 1997-Current Draft IPS: Update 2011

Delegation of Responsibilities None stated Section I.A. Pension Plan Committee

Section I. B. Investment Advisor (Consultant)

Section I.C. Investment Managers

Section I.D. Custodian

Investment Objective Balanced approach Section II.A.(1) In accordance with 215.47

Well diversified Section II.A.(5) reasoned diversification

In accordance with 215.47

Performance Objectives 60/40 blend of S&P and Barclays Section II.B.(1) Achieve actuarial assumption over rolling 3-5 year periods

Aggregate Bond Index over a 5 year period Section II.B.(3) Out perform composite index benchmark

Liquidity Requirements Below average for eight years then slightly greater Section II.A.(3) Annual cash flow sufficient to meet benefit payments and cash expenditures

Section III.B.(4) Securities should be readily workable

Risk Tolerance Above average Section II.C. Volatility defined

Taxes Tax exempt Tax exempt

Legal Issues In accordance with 215.47 Section II.A.(1) In accordance with 215.47

Unique Circumstances Will not authorize use of derivatives, options, futures, shorts Section IV.A.(1)-(8): Equity Guidelines

Section IV.C.(1)-(9): Fixed Guidelines

Section IV.F.: Statement on Alternative Investments

Reporting Montly/Quarterly to Retirement Committee and annually to Fiscal Affairs Committee Section I.B.(4) Advisor/Consultant provides PPC with relevant performance data

Section I.C.(8) Advisor/Consultant prepare and present quarterly reports to PPC

Section V.A.(2) Investment managers' quarterly reporting

Plan Asset Allocation Guidelines None Section III Asset Allocation Guidelines

A.(1) Asset Allocation Ranges

A.(2) Target Asset Allocation

Section IV Asset Class Guidelines

A. Equity Holdings

B. Equity Objectives

C. Fixed Holdings

D. Fixed Objectives

E. Cash Holdings

F. Alternative Investments

Investment Manager Guidelines None Section V Investment Manager Guidelines

A. Communication

B. Meetings

Glossary of Terms None Appendix

PHT Investment Policy Comparison

November 21, 2011

Documents

PENSION PLAN COMMITTEE - jhsmiami.org HEALTH TRUST BOARD OF TRUSTEES Pension Plan Committee Darryl K. Sharpton, Chairperson Joaquin del Cueto Mojdeh L. Khaghan Date, Time and Location