Promoting Education of Public Pension Trustees in Georgia ......As a plan sponsor, there are many plan design options available, each with the potential to provide plan participants

Hello Everyone! I hope this letter finds you well.

I am pleased to announce that the association’s recent Fifth Annual Trustee School was a huge success. It was wonderful to see so many of you in Macon, and I enjoyed meeting many new friends. Once again, I would like to thank the Program Committee members for all their hard work. The curriculum this year was robust and timely, providing a great environment to both learn and grow. I would also like to thank the instructors, as well. Without their participation, the GAPPT could not meet its mission of providing quality education. I am already looking forward to our 2019 Trustee School in Athens!

I am also excited to mention several good things happening within the GAPPT. The Board of Directors meeting in April was a productive one. We established goals that we, as an association, plan to work toward:

1. Strengthen the economic sustainability of the association; 2. Deepen relationships with members to increase knowledge,

effectiveness and capacity of collective actions; and 3. Build awareness of the association to both the public and sector

it serves. (Continued on page 2)

Tim Milligan Pension Board (I) Candidate My background; I have earned BS in Business as well as a Master of Business Administration (w/ honors) from Regis University. For the last 4 years, Tim has served on the City of Marietta’s Pension Board, also working on its calculation committee. He also serves on the board of trustees for the Georgia Firefighter Pension fund, where he was appointed by Gov. Deal back in 2012. Additionally, Tim has been involved with the GAPPT for the last 3 years, completing the CPPT in its inaugural year.

Volume 8, Issue 2 May 2018

News and Reports

Promoting Education of Public Pension Trustees in Georgia

Registration for the Ninth Annual Conference is now open! Conference details and links are available on www.gappt.org.

Inside This Edition

Pages 1-2 Message from the President

Georgia Association of Public Pension Trustees

Message from the President Tim Milligan

Pages 3-4 Paradigm Shift: Improving Fundamentals Turn Skepticism into Optimism

Page 6 Plan Sponsor Member Spotlight

Pages 5-6 Auto Enrollment – Is This Tool Missing from Your Toolbox?

Pages 7-8 Divest or Engage?

Pages 11-14 Death, Taxes and Short-Term Underperformance: International Funds

Page 9 Affiliate Member Spotlight

Pages 15-16 Windfall Elimination Provision

Page 17 Notes from the Executive Director

Page 10 Ninth Annual Conference


Continued from Page 1 – Message from the President

President Tim Milligan

Trustee, Georgia Firefighters’ Pension Fund

Vice President Tracy Wells-Ransom

Deputy Director, Georgia Firefighters’ Pension Fund

Treasurer Harold Grindle

Emeritus Member & Retired CFO, Fulton County Schools

Secretary Ersula May

Retirement Services Coordinator, Fulton County Schools

Director at Large 1 Michaela Thompson

Director of Finance, Georgia Ports Authority

Director at Large 2 Morgan Wurst

Executive Director, Georgia Firefighters’ Pension Fund Director at Large 3

Matthew Hamby Deputy Chief Financial Officer,

City of Gainesville

Affiliate Board Chair Mike Thistleton

Victory Capital Management

Georgia Association of Public Pension

Trustees

Board of Directors

Our hope is these goals will build upon the solid foundation that is already in place, allowing for growth and engagement of the association. Trustees have a profound responsibility, and we must work to educate and support each of them.

Another decision we recently undertook relates to the timing of our Annual Conference and Trustee School. As you are aware, we had to cancel last year’s conference due to Hurricane Irma. Cancelling a conference of our size is not a simple task, and it could have had the potential to negatively affect the financial sustainability of the association. Knowing our members enjoy coastal locations, the Board has decided to switch the timing of the conference from its usual dates in September to March. Our annual Trustee School will be moved to September. Since we have contracts signed for our 2018 and 2019 events, (with the 2019 conference at the Legacy Lodge at Lake Lanier), it will be 2020 before we institute the change. More to come on all that!

As always, if you have an idea or suggestion, wish to serve on a committee, or if there is something we can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact myself, the board or Sue Reynolds. We are here to assist!

All the best,

Tim Milligan

Page 2

Ninth Annual Conference September 17-20, 2018

The Hyatt Regency ~ Savannah, Georgia

Sixth Annual Trustee School March 18-20, 2019

The Classic Center & Hyatt Place ~ Athens, Georgia

Tenth Annual Conference September 16-19, 2019

The Legacy Lodge at Lake Lanier ~ Buford, Georgia

SAVE THE DATES!

UPCOMING GAPPT EDUCATIONAL EVENTS

Interested in becoming more involved with the GAPPT? Nominations for all open positions on the Board of Directors will take place this July.


Last year was yet another impressive year for equity prices. With a 24.6% total return, the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI) experienced the best annual performance of this bull market aside from the rebound from the bottom in 2009. Since the commencement of this bull market through the end

of 2017, ACWI has experienced a total return of 275%, or 16.2% annualized. For comparison purposes, ACWI returned a total of 346%, or 13.0% annually, from January 1988 through the bull market peak of March 2000, making the current bull market even more powerful per annum1. Despite its strength, this bull market has exemplified the adage that “bull markets climb a wall of worry,” as skepticism of equities has been consistent and pervasive. However, there are finally signs of abatement in this apprehension. To be clear, this wall of worry has not fully been ascended; rather, concerns are expressed less often and with less trepidation.

A paradigm shift from skepticism to optimism typically marks a transition from the end of the beginning of the bull market to the beginning of the end. However, mere optimism is not enough for the market to crescendo; rather, market sentiment must move from optimistic confidence into euphoric exhilaration. There are some examples of potential excesses fueled by cryptocurrencies and record prices in art and ultra-luxury real estate. However, the last two market peaks experienced extreme exhilaration. Notably, in 1998-2000, “clicks and eyeballs” were the golden ticket to riches, while in 2005-2007, “housing prices will never go down” was the latest version of “this time is different.”

That is not what we are seeing today for numerous reasons:

1. Valuation levels need to be normalized for interest rate levels. At today’s lower interest rates, current valuations are still high but not as excessive as they would be under a higher interest rate regime.

2. The most often-quoted valuation measure, the 10-year cyclical adjusted price-to-earnings ratio is poised to decline as the earnings collapse of 2008 rolls out of the 10-year lookback period. Although some companies today are trading at high valuations, they are real companies with real products and cash flow; this is in sharp contrast to the Internet bubble in which many companies were highly valued without any particular product or service of note.

3. The leverage in the system today is nothing like the peak of the housing bubble with excessive spending on credit.

4. Breadth is still strong across different sectors and across the globe. Cracks began to assert themselves well in advance of the prior market tops.

5. While things appear pricey on the surface, there is more underlying strength than at first glance. Overvaluation, the bears’ number one argument, is a condition that is necessary but not sufficient, as anyone who invested in the late 1990s can attest. In other words, expensive assets can become far more expensive before the market wakes up to any concerns.

It is an exercise in futility to attempt to predict specifically when the peak will come. The benefit of a quantitative, model-driven investment process is that it intentionally waits until the market’s momentum confirms a turn for the bearish is at hand. Evidence shows that the amount gained by listening to the model and not selling out of bull markets or buying into bear markets too early more-than offsets what is forfeited by the inability to perfectly time peaks and troughs. (Continued on Page 4) 1 Source: FactSet

Page 3

Paradigm Shift: Improving Fundamentals Turn Skepticism into Optimism Gabriel Lembeck, CFA ~ Director of Research Balentine


Balentine’s current model readings indicate an equity market top is not imminent. Despite the volatility experienced so far in 2018, this aging bull market appears to have life left in it. This is a contrarian indicator that will propel stocks.

Though the outlook for 2018 maintains a bullish posture, the strategic outlook over the next seven years is meager. International equities are poised to outperform domestic equities on a long-term basis. This stems from looser international monetary policy, more compelling valuations, and expected mean reversion in performance. The most effective determinant of an asset’s long-term returns is the starting valuation; therefore, strong performance in the equity markets often leads to a reduced forecast in long-term returns. Adding to this projection is an increase in global uncertainty, owing not just to geopolitical issues, but also due to the effects of central bank’s actions, such as those first implemented in the throes of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Central bankers and planners have created a world in which uncertainty looking forward has substantially increased because they effectively borrowed certainty from the future in smoothing equity price returns during that time period. This was not by chance, as the central banks have been explicit about targeting asset prices in their quest for reflation. Unfortunately, these policies tend to be asymmetric in that central banks are often proactive in preventing further downside, but reactive in slowing asset price inflation. Economist Hyman Minsky famously noted that stability begets instability; unless wage growth can be sustained, a rise in asset prices will not last, which could lead to exacerbated volatility in equity markets. Put differently, this bull market’s ability to persist is less about reflation and more about income gains from stronger capital investment than has been seen to date.

What should investors do in the face of uncertainty? While market turmoil may cause short-term weakness during some point in the forthcoming seven-year cycle, investors should find a quantitative, process-driven investment process to ensure that decisions to move in and out markets are supported by fundamentals rather than calendars or emotions. ~ END

Page 4

Continued from Page 3 – Paradigm Shift: Improving Fundamentals Turn Skepticism into Optimism


One of the most important contributions a consultant can make to a client’s retirement program is creating a plan design that

meets the unique needs of the plan sponsor and the participants for which the retirement benefit is being provided. Each plan sponsor is trying to solve for a retirement gap unique to their own participants. Those who have a defined benefit program or who are eligible to receive a social security benefit are typically looking at a different retirement scenario than those who are solely dependent on participant-directed plans. In addition, those who have the option to receive employer contributions into a retirement plan have a different opportunity than those who are solely reliant on their own contributions to meet their retirement savings needs.

As a plan sponsor, there are many plan design options available, each with the potential to provide plan participants opportunities to help them better reach their retirement goals. One of the most widely recognized plan design options is automatic enrollment. In 2006, the Pension Protection Act (PPA) addressed the fiduciary issue of automatically enrolling participants into “voluntary” retirement programs (401(k) and 403(b)) by establishing a default investment election safe harbor, and addressing the wage garnishment issue by amending ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) to specifically preempt any state law “that would directly or indirectly prohibit or restrict” any automatic enrollment arrangement.

Automatic enrollment has generally been considered by behavioral finance and retirement industry professionals to be one of the most effective plan design features to increase plan participation. Studies show that participation in automatically enrolled plans increase to 75-95% of eligible employees – Vanguard, How America Saves: 2013. Several books and research papers, which could be an entirely separate blog, have been published to document the general increase in participation from the implementation of automatic enrollment.

Unfortunately, PPA did not cover public sector sponsored plans, which remain subject to State wage law. AndCo recently reviewed the wage laws for all 50 States and discovered that only 7 states allow for state and local governmental plan sponsors to implement automatic enrollment for deferred compensation. Several state retirement systems have recently sponsored and passed legislation that allowed the state retirement system and its agencies, (and in some cases local employers who elected to participate in the state plan), to implement automatic enrollment. A handful of states would allow anti-garnishment from wages for automatic enrollment if it was part of a collective bargaining agreement. Twenty-six states contain prohibitive language in their wage law due to the requirement for any payroll deduction to be authorized in writing by the employee. It should also be noted that in five States, the wage law language appeared unclear as to whether automatic enrollment would be permitted; and therefore, would require a legal opinion as to the ability for a plan sponsor to implement the feature.

If automatic enrollment is such an effective tool for increasing plan participation, what is a public sector plan sponsor to do without this in their toolbox? Some may argue that one option is to amend state wage law. Easier said than done but we are seeing some activity in various states. (Continued on Page 6)

Page 5

Auto Enrollment – Is This Tool Missing from Your Toolbox? Amy Heyel ~ Retirement Plan Consultant AndCo Consulting


Position: Financial Services Specialist, Fulton County Tax Commissioner Office

Plan: Fulton County Employees’ Retirement System • Plan Assets: $1.4 Billion • Number of Board Trustees: Eleven

Consultant: Keith Stronkowsky, CFA Senior Consultant, NEPC

GAPPT Member Since: 2014

Current GAPPT Position: Member of the Program Committee and CPPT Designee

Why did you get involved with the GAPPT? I became involved with GAPPT as a result of a nomination. Someone had nominated me for the position of Director at Large (Position 3) in 2017. Unfortunately, I did not win the election. The defeat did not deter me from assisting with GAPPT. I was later asked to be a part of the Program Committee. I feel like I made a very good choice in joining the committee. I have had the chance to work directly with some dynamic people. These members are passionate about seeing GAPPT grow. I am blessed to be a member. I have learned more about pension operations and I also have developed into a better pension trustee for my plan as a result of being involved with GAPPT.

What is your favorite tip for our Plan Sponsor members? Since having been on the Board and a Member of GAPPT, the most important tip I have for Plan Sponsor Members is to get involved. It makes no difference if you are a seasoned Board member or newly elected. There is a place for you here at GAPPT. Once you find it, the various interactions with the members will allow you to grow within the organization. We all can add value.

What would you like to know about other Georgia Pension Plans? As I have grown on the Board and being involved with GAPPT, I enjoy networking with the other members. I always ask about plan size along with number of employees and retirees. Lately, I have been interested in finding out if other members plans are closed and if so, when? I enjoy comparing the statistics of my plan with that of other Georgia Pension Plans. I keep an official mental log. ~ END

Page 6

Plan Sponsor Member Spotlight Andrew Stephens Jr. Fulton County Employees’ Retirement System

In the State of Georgia (which has allowed the State Retirement System to automatically enroll and escalate employees since 2009), the House of Representatives introduced and passed House Bill 692 on February 6, 2018, which would allow for automatic enrollment of deferred compensation plans sponsored at the local level, specifically “to provide that the governing authority of a municipality may pay costs or fees associated with an employee's participation in a deferred compensation plan; to provide that certain public employees may be automatically enrolled in deferred compensation plans, to provide for related matters; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes”. Although received favorably by the Senate, the bill did not pass before the regular session ended on March 30, 2018. Georgia along with other states such as Alaska and Montana, through legislative initiatives, are trying to address the disconnect between wage law language drafted long before the creation of deferred compensation plans, and the need to help employees meet their retirement savings goals using tools already implemented in the private sector. It is not the easiest road to take, but it is arguably one with an impactful result.

Automatic enrollment may not be the tool needed for every public-sector plan sponsor to meet its program’s goals, but it would be useful to have the ability to at least consider the feature when looking at best practices in plan design. ~ END

This article represents AndCo Consulting’s proprietary material and has been prepared for use within the Georgia Association of Public Pension Trustees “News and Reports.” Any reproduction or reuse of the article without the express written consent of AndCo is strictly prohibited. The views and opinions expressed are solely those of AndCo Consulting. This should not be regarded as investment advice or as a recommendation regarding any particular course of action.

Continued from Page 5 – Auto Enrollment – Is This Tool Missing from Your Toolbox?


The recent spate of deadly shootings in the U.S.—especially those involving schoolchildren—has prompted some institutional

investors to ask about ways to use their portfolio assets to signal they would like to see meaningful change related to firearms and their role in society. While the notion of wielding shareholder influence to sway corporate policies is not new, it is being considered to a greater degree in the debate around gun violence. Much of the coverage on this issue centers on divestment. For some asset owners, divestment may be reasonable, but for many it is neither a prudent nor reasonable course of action. Alternatively, engagement may be an effective means of achieving a social objective while staying true to the fund’s goals.

WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS? Investors should consider their investment mandate (i.e., the fiduciary duty of the fund to its beneficiaries), fund size, existing investment vehicles and relationships, exposure to gun-related securities, and other factors when assessing their options:

• Use investments in gun manufacturers and related areas to influence their policies through engagement or proxy voting.

• Divest of holdings in gun manufacturers and related areas with a thorough policy on which holdings to exclude and a clear understanding of the implementation challenges.

• Pursue a combination of engagement and divestment. • Make no changes to current investments and pursue other means to express their views, such as political or

regulatory change.

Investors should understand that both engagement and divestment can expose them to “headline risk” from either side of the gun debate, whether from being associated with companies that have a negative public perception or from taking an activist stance in divesting from them. This should factor into their decision-making.

HOW CAN MY FUND ENGAGE? Engagement typically takes one of two forms:

• Communicate to investment managers that this issue is important to the fund, and find out what they are doing and how they are engaging with companies on the issue.

• Use third-party services, such as Institutional Shareholder Services, Glass Lewis, or Egan-Jones Proxy Services, to outline goals and implement solutions around civilian gun violence using proxy voting and other solutions.

WHAT ABOUT DIVESTING? Divestment is very often a less-than-desirable strategy due to both the financial impact and administrative burden it can bring to an asset owner. In addition, divestment removes the possibility of engagement to try to enact change. For funds that opt to pursue divestment, they will need to define which companies or industries will fall under the funds’ exclusionary definition (e.g., gun manufacturers, retailers, ammunition manufacturers, suppliers, etc.), and determine what revenue thresholds to use in deciding how central gun sales or manufacturing is to a company’s core business. For example, Walmart is a large gun and ammunition retailer in absolute sales and dollars, but the revenue to the company is small as a percentage of its total sales). Funds then would need to create customized indices that screen out critical areas by industry, sub-industry, or company (stock). One issue to consider: Privately held gun companies would not be screened out as they are not included in equity index universes, and there are a number of such firms. (Continued on Page 8)

Page 7

Divest or Engage? Brian K. Smith, CFA ~ Senior Vice President Atlanta Fund Sponsor Consulting Callan LLC


In practice, gun-related exposure in major indices is extremely small at around half a percentage point (0.5%) for both the MSCI ACWI Index and the Russell 3000, and that is primarily reflective of Walmart; active managers might have more substantial holdings, depending on the strategy. Another consideration is bonds issued by private and public companies.

Investors weighing divestment should also consider:

• QUESTIONABLE IMPACT: Will divesting certain stocks or sectors have a lasting impact on furthering social goals? Is the size of the investment material, or would the institutional investor have to band together with others to gain materiality?

• CRITICAL SCRUTINY: Some institutional investors, public pension funds in particular, have faced scrutiny due to underfunded plans and fund management decisions, causing critics to question the appropriateness of factoring strictly non-financial information into investment decision-making. They point out that fund beneficiaries and taxpayers will ultimately pay the cost of any poor and costly decisions.

• FUND FOCUS: Most institutional funds were not created to serve as vehicles for social policy but rather to provide retirement income or fund another explicit goal.

• FIDUCIARY DUTY: Laws governing pension funds typically require those overseeing investment decisions to do so to fulfill the purpose of each trust or fund and not for any other purpose.

• COSTS: Transaction costs vary depending on how many securities and funds are involved.

• INTERNAL RESOURCES: Many funds lack the internal resources to address divestment. This can be outsourced but those costs will need to be considered. Divestment decisions must be reviewed regularly to ensure they are current.

Importantly, any fund considering divestment should start by documenting a policy that includes a consideration process to follow before making a decision. This helps prevent emotional reactions.

Page 8

Continued from Page 7 – Divest or Engage?

Aon is proud to support The Georgia Association of Public Pension Trustees and The Fifth Annual Trustee School.

Implementation can vary substantially by asset class and vehicle type. Publicly traded securities held in a separately managed account present the most straightforward example, as the investor could work directly with the investment manager to remove objectionable securities from the portfolio. But investments in pooled or 40 Act vehicles make divestment of specific securities extremely difficult, as one investor does not have the flexibility to dictate which specific securities are included in the strategy. In these cases an investor may need to divest of the entire fund to avoid prohibited securities. ~ END

Did you request a credit for the 2017 annual conference cancellation? Information was recently emailed to all conference credit recipients. Please contact Sue Reynolds at [email protected] with any registration questions or concerns.


How did you get involved with the GAPPT? I attended the very first conference in Macon on behalf of my firm. Little did I know how much I would enjoy it or get involved.

What do you enjoy most about the GAPPT? First, I enjoy the people. It is great to see people dedicated to the future of others. I have enjoyed getting to know people over the years.

The school and Basic class, in particular, are my favorite parts of GAPPT. The Basic class is usually a combination of experienced and new trustees. I love watching the more experienced trustees help others. But the best part is after the test when I see the confident faces. Some come to class timid and unsure of what to expect, what they know and how they will pass the test. Only to leave realizing they knew more than they thought and that asking questions is the best thing they can do for themselves and the beneficiaries.

Give us your thoughts on the GAPPT, and what will be your focus in 2018? The school has been a great success, but it can always be better! We will be doing a comprehensive review of the curriculum. The goal is to provide an education that is comprehensive, consistent and a significant benefit to the participants. Please share your ideas!

Atlanta Capital is an SEC registered investment advisory firm that specializes in managing high quality stock and bond portfolios on behalf of institutional and individual investors. For nearly 50 years, Atlanta Capital has remained dedicated to a single investment philosophy which has been successfully executed over a variety of market conditions. Today, our philosophy is consistently applied across a broad range of traditional equity and fixed income investment strategies. We believe the experience and stability of our investment professionals are the hallmarks of our organization. Atlanta Capital operates as an independent subsidiary of Eaton Vance Corp., a Boston-based investment management company listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

GAPPT members may reach Peggy at the following:

Peggy Taylor, CFA Investment Specialist, Principal Atlanta Capital Management 1075 Peachtree Rd, Ste 2100 Atlanta, GA 30309 T: 404-682-2520 M: 404-822-0553 [email protected]

Page 9

Affiliate Member Spotlight Peggy Taylor, Atlanta Capital Management

In every issue of the GAPPT “News and Reports”, the association will highlight a Plan Sponsor and an Affiliate member who have given their time, effort, and support to GAPPT’s educational programming and our membership. If you would like to nominate

a fellow member for a profile spotlight, please contact Michaela Thompson at [email protected] or

Sue Reynolds at [email protected].

Is Proud to Support

The Georgia Association of Public Pension Trustees

Peggy Taylor, CFA Atlanta Capital Management Co., LLC

1075 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309

404-976-9411 [email protected]

www.atlcap.com


Details about the upcoming Ninth Annual Conference are now available on the GAPPT website. Learn more about our planned networking events, including the Annual Plan Sponsor – Affiliate Golf Outing, a private trolley tour of historic Savannah, and the ever-popular Association Dinner and Casino Night. Links are now available to register online, as well as to make your hotel reservations at the recently-renovated Hyatt Regency Savannah. Additional information will be included in the next edition of the “News and Reports”. We look forward to what will be an outstanding and informative event. See you in Savannah this September!

Page 10

REGISTRATION IS NOW OPEN! Ninth Annual GAPPT Conference

SEPTEMBER 17-20, 2018 / HYATT REGENCY SAVANNAH

Please contact Amed Avila at (877) 384-1111 or [email protected].

© 2017 Fiduciary Trust Company International and subsidiaries (doing business as Fiduciary Trust International) are part of the Franklin Templeton Investments family of companies. All rights reserved.

fiduciarytrust.com

KNOW A GREAT MASTER CUSTODIAN?

SAFEKEEPING OF ASSETS.

WHAT DO YOU NEED?

ONE NAME COMES TO MIND.

KTMC.COM

ONE OF AMERICA’S LEADINGLITIGATION FIRMSBENCHMARK LITIGATION

NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL PLAINTIFFS’ HOT LIST 2016

FULLY ENGAGED means EXPERIENCE across cultures, currencies and courtrooms

Proud to Support

the GAPPT Since Its Inception


“In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” 1 - Benjamin Franklin

Since the Brandes Institute first published its “Death, Taxes and Short-Term

Underperformance” pieces more than 10 years ago, they have become a staple among constituents who regularly ask for updates and/or variations on the original theme. While the years have changed since our first study, the overall conclusions from earlier research remain consistent—the best-performing funds had 1- to 3-year stretches when performance was weak relative to their benchmarks and/or peers. But underperformance, even up to three years, had relatively little impact on the best-performing funds’ ability to deliver strong gains over a 10-year period. Ultimately, we believe our research shows it may prove shortsighted to fire good managers when they underperform. To put it a slightly different way, we believe our work underscores the importance of having patience and conviction in managers when many investors seem increasingly focused on shorter-term results.

Of course, our work still does not provide the ever-elusive insights on how to identify the top-performing funds now for the next 10 years. At the same time, in our opinion, good, active managers are characterized by proven investment philosophies, consistent processes and smart people who manage with conviction for the long term. We believe with these traits, managers may be more apt to deliver solid long-term returns.

Stepping back, we took Ben Franklin’s quote above and added a third inevitability (short-term underperformance among active managers) to his famous quip about life’s certainties. The original Death, Taxes and Short-Term Underperformance studies examined a number of asset classes. Here, we revisit our work on international mutual funds. Responding to requests from our constituents, we sought to identify some distinguishing characteristics of top-performing managers, as well as some negative characteristics that distinguish those in the bottom peer ranks. However, our work toward these goals proved inconclusive, as we will describe.

INVESTIGATING SHORT-TERM UNDERPERFORMANCE AMONG INTERNATIONAL FUNDS • Identify the top long-term performers • Reveal their short-term challenges

To investigate actively managed international funds, we applied the same methodology as in previous studies. Using the Morningstar database, we focused on international mutual funds that had at least 10 years of performance data as of June 30, 2017. Global funds, multiple share classes, index funds and enhanced index funds were excluded, yielding a sample size of 213 funds.

The sample was divided into deciles based on the funds’ performance for the entire 10-year period. For example, decile 1 consisted of the 21 funds with the highest 10-year returns, while the 22 funds with the next-highest returns formed decile 2, and so on.2 All mutual fund performance figures assume the reinvestment of interest and capital gains, include the impact of the funds’ fees and expenses, and do not include the impact of taxes.

(Continued on Page 12) 1 Source: notable-quotes.com, from a letter to Jean Baptiste LeRoy, 11/13/1789. 2

Per statistical convention, all deciles contained 21 or 22 funds, except decile 10 which contained 20.

Page 11

Death, Taxes and Short-Term Underperformance: International Funds The Brandes Institute

The Sample: 213 Mutual Funds From the Morningstar database as of 6/30/17

1. Actively managed non-U.S. funds 2. 10 years of performance data available 3. Multiple share classes excluded 4. Global funds, index funds and

enhanced index funds excluded


Exhibit 1 shows the top 21 mutual funds in the sample posted an annualized gain of at least 3.41% over the 10-year period. All of these “decile 1” funds outperformed the MSCI EAFE Index (the Index or the benchmark), which returned 1.03% during the decade. There have been numerous studies recently questioning the ability of active managers to outperform respective indices, particularly in the more efficient, large-capitalization segment. However, each of the decile 1

funds delivered at least 238 basis points of outperformance vs. the benchmark on an annualized basis. In addition, all of the funds in deciles 1 through 5 outperformed the MSCI EAFE benchmark, which was ranked in decile 6. For our universe and study period, the median manager was better than the benchmark.

SHORT-TERM SNAPSHOTS

REVEAL DRAMATIC

UNDERPERFORMANCE VS.

BENCHMARK While more than 50% of active international managers beat the benchmark for the 10-year period as a whole, this changes significantly over shorter periods. For the 21 funds in decile 1, many underperformed the Index by wide margins—with active returns ranging from 2.54% to -21.56% during their worst 1-year rolling periods, as illustrated in Exhibit 2. (On average, these funds trailed the Index by -7.64% in their worst 1-year rolling period.) For most of the funds, the worst 3-year rolling period underperformance versus the Index was also substantial.

The poor relative returns illustrated in Exhibit 2 may have been deemed “unrecoverable” by a frustrated investor, prompting them to select another

manager. However, abandoning one of these top-performing funds during a streak of poor returns probably would have been a mistake. Our research shows significant short-term underperformance among international equity funds was not unusual, even for those funds that outperformed over the long term. (Continued on Page 13)

Page 12

Continued from Page 11 – Death, Taxes, and Short-Term Underperformance: International Funds

“...the best-performing funds had 1- to 3-year stretches when performance was weak relative to their benchmarks and/or peers”

2

The sample was divided into deciles based on the funds’ performance for the entire 10-year period. For example, decile 1 consisted of the 21 funds with the highest 10-year returns, while the 22 funds with the next-highest returns formed decile 2, and so on.2 All mutual fund performance figures assume the reinvestment of interest and capital gains, include the impact of the funds’ fees and expenses, and do not include the impact of taxes.

Exhibit 1 shows the top 21 mutual funds in the sample posted an annualized gain of at least 3.41% over the 10-year period. All of these “decile 1” funds outperformed the MSCI EAFE Index (the Index or the benchmark), which returned 1.03% during the decade. There have been numerous studies recently questioning the ability of active managers to outperform respective indices, particularly in the more efficient, large-capitalization segment. However, each of the decile 1 funds delivered at least 238 basis points of outperformance vs. the benchmark on an annualized basis. In addition, all of the funds in deciles 1 through 5 outperformed the MSCI EAFE benchmark, which was ranked in decile 6. For our universe and study period, the median manager was better than the benchmark.

Exhibit 1: The Top Funds Outperformed the Benchmark by More Than 238 Basis Points, Annualized International Funds Ranked by 10-Yr. Annualized Performance, 2007–2017

Source: Morningstar, Brandes Institute; as of 06/30/17. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. One cannot invest directly in an index.

2 Per statistical convention, all deciles contained 21 or 22 funds, except decile 10 which contained 20.

(annualized 6 MSCI EAFE Index 1.03%0.92%

10-year perf.) 70.47%

80.17%

9-0.64%

10

1 Top 21 Funds3.41%

22.59%

31.97%

41.53%

breakpoints 51.19%

“…the best-performing funds had 1- to 3-year stretches when

performance was weak relative to their benchmarks and/or peers.”

3

Short-Term Snapshots Reveal Dramatic Underperformance vs. Benchmark

While more than 50% of active international managers beat the benchmark for the 10-year period as a whole, this changes significantly over shorter periods. For the 21 funds in decile 1, many underperformed the Index by wide margins—with active returns ranging from 2.54% to -21.56% during their worst 1-year rolling periods, as illustrated in Exhibit 2. (On average, these funds trailed the Index by -7.64% in their worst 1-year rolling period.) For most of the funds, the worst 3-year rolling period underperformance versus the Index was also substantial.

Exhibit 2: The Top Funds Underperformed by 764 Basis Points, on Average Top 21 Funds: Relative Performance vs. MSCI EAFE Index, 2007-2017 (Annualized)

Worst 1-Year Rolling Period Worst 3-Year Rolling Period Range 2.54% to -21.56% 1.17% to -10.30% Average -7.64% -3.77%


The poor relative returns illustrated in Exhibit 2 may have been deemed “unrecoverable” by a frustrated investor, prompting them to select another manager. However, abandoning one of these top-performing funds during a streak of poor returns probably would have been a mistake. Our research shows significant short-term underperformance among international equity funds was not unusual, even for those funds that outperformed over the long term. In fact, poor short-term relative returns were common among each of the funds exhibiting the best long-term results. These findings illustrate the importance of looking past short-term performance and focusing on longer-term return potential.

Underperformance vs. Peers

In addition to investigating performance relative to the Index, we studied these funds’ performance relative to peers over the decade, ranking them over rolling quarterly, 1-year and 3-year periods. Similar to the pattern exhibited for benchmark-relative returns, the top-performing funds each found themselves in lower deciles when compared with their peers over shorter periods.

In fact, in terms of quarterly performance, all 21 of the top funds (100%) made at least one below-median appearance (at or below decile 6) during the decade—and 19 (90%) of them showed up in the worst decile (decile 10) for at least one quarter. When it came to 1-year and 3-year periods, the top 21 funds also experienced underperformance vs. peers, as shown in Exhibit 3. For example, 100% of the funds made at least one appearance in deciles 6 or 7 for 1-year returns. Looking at 3-year returns, for example, 86% were below median at least once and a third of the top decile funds landed in the bottom decile over a 3-year period.

Exhibit 3: Over 10 Years, All of the Top-Performing Funds Fell Behind At Some Point Percentage of Top 21 Funds With at Least One Appearance at or Below

Based on . . . Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 Decile 10 Å Underperforming Funds Worst-Performing Funds Æ

Quarterly Performance 100% 100% 100% 100% 90%

Ann. 1-Year Performance 100% 100% 90% 81% 71%


Source: Morningstar, Brandes Institute; as of 06/30/17. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.


In fact, poor short-term relative returns were common among each of the funds exhibiting the best long-term results. These findings illustrate the importance of looking past short-term performance and focusing on longer-term return potential.

UNDERPERFORMANCE VS. PEERS In addition to investigating performance relative to the Index, we studied these funds’ performance relative to peers over the decade, ranking them over rolling quarterly, 1-year and 3-year periods. Similar to the pattern exhibited for benchmark-relative returns, the top-performing funds each found themselves in lower deciles when compared with their peers over shorter periods.


Again, these findings suggest that short-term underperformance relative to peers is to be expected, even for international equity funds that performed well over the long term.

CHARACTERISTICS SHARED BY OUTPERFORMERS VS. UNDERPERFORMERS? This study suggests that short-term underperformance, while frustrating, may not necessarily be a cause for alarm over a longer-term horizon. At the request of some of our constituents, we looked for common traits among the best and worst performers. However, based on our analysis, there do not appear to be definitive traits associated with either strong or weak performers. Here are the characteristics we investigated:

︎- Assets under management - Number of holdings (concentration) - Manager tenure - Tracking error - Standard deviation (volatility) - Annualized turnover - Expense ratio (Continued on Page 14)

Page 13


3

Short-Term Snapshots Reveal Dramatic Underperformance vs. Benchmark

While more than 50% of active international managers beat the benchmark for the 10-year period as a whole, this changes significantly over shorter periods. For the 21 funds in decile 1, many underperformed the Index by wide margins—with active returns ranging from 2.54% to -21.56% during their worst 1-year rolling periods, as illustrated in Exhibit 2. (On average, these funds trailed the Index by -7.64% in their worst 1-year rolling period.) For most of the funds, the worst 3-year rolling period underperformance versus the Index was also substantial.

Exhibit 2: The Top Funds Underperformed by 764 Basis Points, on Average Top 21 Funds: Relative Performance vs. MSCI EAFE Index, 2007-2017 (Annualized)

Worst 1-Year Rolling Period Worst 3-Year Rolling Period Range 2.54% to -21.56% 1.17% to -10.30% Average -7.64% -3.77%


The poor relative returns illustrated in Exhibit 2 may have been deemed “unrecoverable” by a frustrated investor, prompting them to select another manager. However, abandoning one of these top-performing funds during a streak of poor returns probably would have been a mistake. Our research shows significant short-term underperformance among international equity funds was not unusual, even for those funds that outperformed over the long term. In fact, poor short-term relative returns were common among each of the funds exhibiting the best long-term results. These findings illustrate the importance of looking past short-term performance and focusing on longer-term return potential.

Underperformance vs. Peers

In addition to investigating performance relative to the Index, we studied these funds’ performance relative to peers over the decade, ranking them over rolling quarterly, 1-year and 3-year periods. Similar to the pattern exhibited for benchmark-relative returns, the top-performing funds each found themselves in lower deciles when compared with their peers over shorter periods.


Exhibit 3: Over 10 Years, All of the Top-Performing Funds Fell Behind At Some Point Percentage of Top 21 Funds With at Least One Appearance at or Below

Based on . . . Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 Decile 10 Å Underperforming Funds Worst-Performing Funds Æ

Quarterly Performance 100% 100% 100% 100% 90%



Source: Morningstar, Brandes Institute; as of 06/30/17. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Are you interested in becoming more involved with the GAPPT? Please contact a committee chairperson to learn about the association’s standing

committees, position availability, and member responsibilities. Additional information can also be found on the GAPPT website at www.gappt.org.


The results are shown in Exhibit 4. Note, for the top and bottom decile funds, we show not only the median fund in each decile, but the range across each decile for each trait:

For all of these traits, the results were inconclusive, revealing no meaningful relationships. We also wonder about the important distinction between correlation and causation. For example, having more assets under management generally was associated with top performers, but not always. And we ask whether a large asset base was the cause of those funds’ outperformance or a result of strong returns that attracted new assets. Conversely, lower relative returns may have triggered a decline in assets under management—not vice versa. One could have the same debate about manage tenure. There were other traits where lower figures tended to be better such as turnover, standard deviation and expenses, but again, there were meaningful exceptions (noted in the ranges in Exhibit 4) and we would not draw any meaningful conclusions.

One comment about tracking error: lower tracking error for poor performers, as well as the median fund, may suggest that a number of these funds were closet indexers. But before drawing strong conclusions, we suggest a closer investigation of these funds, including a thorough holdings-based analysis.

SHORT-TERM UNDERPERFORMANCE AS NORMAL AS DEATH AND TAXES Overall, whether relative to a benchmark or peers, short-term performance can be frustrating. However, this updated study again illustrated that it may not necessarily be a cause for alarm. Poor results may be an inherent

byproduct of the investment process that is behind a successful longer-term record. Unfortunately, we were unable to pinpoint specific traits that were consistent across the best (or worst) performing funds during our study period.

Ultimately, we believe this brief study’s key point remains: underperformance in shorter periods— such as one quarter, one year, and perhaps even a few years—can be a normal part

of the investment experience, even for funds that perform well over longer periods. In our opinion, investors who keep this in mind may be better positioned for long-term success. ~ END

This material was prepared by the Brandes Institute, a division of Brandes Investment Partners®. It is intended for informational purposes only. It is not meant to be an offer, solicitation or recommendation for any products or services. The foregoing reflects the thoughts and opinions of the Brandes Institute. The views expressed by the participants may not represent the views of the Brandes Institute or Brandes Investment Partners.

Page 14


...underperformance in shorter periods – such as one quarter, one year, and perhaps even a few years – can be a normal part of the investment experience....

4

Again, these findings suggest that short-term underperformance relative to peers is to be expected, even for international equity funds that performed well over the long term.

Characteristics Shared by Outperformers vs. Underperformers?

This study suggests that short-term underperformance, while frustrating, may not necessarily be a cause for alarm over a longer-term horizon. At the request of some of our constituents, we looked for common traits among the best and worst performers. However, based on our analysis, there do not appear to be definitive traits associated with either strong or weak performers. Here are the characteristics we investigated:

� Assets under management � Number of holdings (concentration)

� Manager tenure � Tracking error

� Standard deviation (volatility) � Annualized turnover

� Expense ratio

The results are shown in Exhibit 4. Note, for the top and bottom decile funds, we show not only the median fund in each decile, but the range across each decile for each trait:

Exhibit 4: Top, Bottom and Median Decile Manager Characteristics (2007-2017)

Assets ($M)

Concentration (# of names)

Manager Tenure (Years)

Tracking Error

Standard Deviation (Volatility)

Annualized Turnover

%

Expense Ratio

(I Shares)

Median Top Decile Manager $5,561 92 8.33 5.33 18.01 26 1.13

Range (Low to High) $5 to $34,647 30 to 1,238 1.83 to

16.33 3.63 to 14.06

7.99 to 21.70 3 to 95 0.45 to

1.40

Median Manager $647 92 6.13 4.43 18.97 37 1.04

Median Bottom Decile Manager $203 103 4.32 4.48 19.35 64 1.34

Range (Low to High) $5 to $3869 51 to 656 0.33 to

20.92 2.98 to 10.68

18.43 to 24.97 15 to 198 0.58 to

2.90 Source: Morningstar, Brandes Institute; as of 06/30/17. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

For all of these traits, the results were inconclusive, revealing no meaningful relationships. We also wonder about the important distinction between correlation and causation. For example, having more assets under management generally was associated with top performers, but not always. And we ask whether a large asset base was the cause of those funds’ outperformance or a result of strong returns that attracted new assets. Conversely, lower relative returns may have triggered a decline in assets under management—not vice versa. One could have the same debate about manage tenure. There were other traits where lower figures tended to be better such as turnover, standard deviation and expenses, but again, there were meaningful exceptions (noted in the ranges in Exhibit 4) and we would not draw any meaningful conclusions.


As a reminder for our members, the GAPPT will be occasionally publish information from the Social Security Administration which affects public pension plans and retirees. A previous issue of “News and Reports” featured information on the Government Pension Offset. YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT OR

DISABILITY BENEFITS CAN BE REDUCED The Windfall Elimination Provision can affect how we calculate your retirement or disability benefit. If you work for an employer who doesn’t withhold Social Security taxes from your salary, such as a government agency or an employer in another country, any retirement or disability pension you get from that work can reduce your Social Security benefits. WHEN YOUR BENEFITS CAN BE AFFECTED This provision can affect you when you earn a retirement or disability pension from an employer who didn’t withhold Social Security taxes and you qualify for Social Security retirement or disability benefits from work in other jobs for which you did pay taxes.

The Windfall Elimination Provision can apply if:

- You reached 62 after 1985; or - You became disabled after 1985; and - You first became eligible for a monthly pension based on work where you didn’t pay Social Security taxes after 1985. This rule applies even if you’re still working.

This provision also affects Social Security benefits for people who performed federal service under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) after 1956. We won’t reduce your Social Security benefit amounts if you only perform federal service under a system such as the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS). Social Security taxes are withheld for workers under FERS.

HOW IT WORKS Social Security benefits are intended to replace only some of a worker’s pre-retirement earnings. We base your Social Security benefit on your average monthly earnings adjusted for average wage growth. We separate your average earnings into three accounts and multiply the accounts using three factors to compute your full Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). For example, for a worker who turns 62 in 2018, the

Page 15

Windfall Elimination Provision

first $895 of average monthly earnings is multiplied by 90 percent; earnings between $895 and $5397 by 32 percent; and the balance by 15 percent. The sum of the three amounts equals the PIA which is then decreased or increased depending on whether the worker starts benefits before or after full retirement age (FRA). This formula produces the monthly payment amount. When we apply this formula, the percentage of career average earnings paid to lower-paid workers is greater than higher-paid workers. For example, workers age 62 in 2018, with average earnings of $3,000 per month could receive a benefit at FRA of $1,479 (49 percent) of their pre-retirement earnings increased by applicable cost of living adjustments (COLAs). For a worker with average earnings of $8,000 per month, the benefit starting at FRA could be $2,636 (32 percent) plus COLAs. However, if either of these workers start benefits earlier, we’ll reduce their monthly benefit.

WHY WE USE A DIFFERENT FORMULA Before 1983, people whose primary job wasn’t covered by Social Security had their Social Security benefits calculated as if they were long-term, low-wage workers. They had the advantage of receiving a Social Security benefit representing a higher percentage of their earnings, plus a pension from a job for which they didn’t pay Social Security taxes. Congress passed the Windfall Elimination Provision to remove that advantage. Under the provision, we reduce the 90 percent factor in our formula and phase it in for workers who reached age 62 or became disabled between 1986 and 1989. For people who reach 62 or became disabled in 1990 or later, we reduce the 90 percent factor to as little as 40 percent.

SOME EXCEPTIONS The Windfall Elimination Provision doesn’t apply if:

- You’re a federal worker first hired after December 31, 1963; - You were employed on December 31, 1963, by a nonprofit organization that didn’t withhold Social Security taxes from your pay at first, but then began withholding Social Security taxes; - Your only pension is for railroad employment;

(Continued on Page 16)


Printed on recycled paper

The Windfall Elimination Provision doesn’t apply to survivors benefits. We may reduce widows or widowers benefits because of another law. For more information, read Government Pension Offset (Publication No. 05-10007).

Social Security years of substantial earningsIf you have 30 or more years of substantial earnings, we don’t reduce the standard 90 percent factor in our formula. See the first table that lists substantial earnings for each year.

The second table shows the percentage used to reduce the 90 percent factor depending on the number of years of substantial earnings. If you have 21 to 29 years of substantial earnings, we reduce the 90 percent factor to between 45 and 85 percent. To see the maximum amount we could reduce your benefit, visit www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/retire/wep-chart.html.

A guaranteeThe law protects you if you get a low pension. We won’t reduce your Social Security benefit by more than half of your pension for earnings after 1956 on which you didn’t pay Social Security taxes.

Contacting Social Security The most convenient way to contact us anytime, anywhere is to visit www.socialsecurity.gov. There, you can: apply for benefits; open a my Social Security account, which you can use to review your Social Security Statement, verify your earnings, print a benefit verification letter, change your direct deposit information, request a replacement Medicare card, and get a replacement SSA-1099/1042S; obtain valuable information; find publications; get answers to frequently asked questions; and much more.

If you don’t have access to the internet, we offer many automated services by telephone, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Call us toll-free at 1-800-772-1213 or at our TTY number, 1-800-325-0778, if you’re deaf or hard of hearing.

If you need to speak to a person, we can answer your calls from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. We ask for your patience during busy periods since you may experience a higher than usual rate of busy signals and longer hold times to speak to us. We look forward to serving you.

Social Security AdministrationPublication No. 05-10045 | ICN 460275 | Unit of Issue — HD (one hundred)

January 2018 (Recycle prior editions)Windfall Elimination Provision

Produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense

Years of substantial earnings Percentage

30 or more 90 percent29 85 percent28 80 percent27 75 percent26 70 percent25 65 percent24 60 percent23 55 percent22 50 percent21 45 percent20 or less 40 percent

Year Substantial earnings1937–1954 $9001955–1958 $1,0501959–1965 $1,2001966–1967 $1,6501968–1971 $1,9501972 $2,2501973 $2,7001974 $3,3001975 $3,5251976 $3,8251977 $4,1251978 $4,4251979 $4,7251980 $5,1001981 $5,5501982 $6,0751983 $6,6751984 $7,0501985 $7,4251986 $7,8751987 $8,1751988 $8,4001989 $8,9251990 $9,5251991 $9,900

Year Substantial earnings1992 $10,3501993 $10,7251994 $11,2501995 $11,3251996 $11,6251997 $12,1501998 $12,6751999 $13,4252000 $14,1752001 $14,9252002 $15,7502003 $16,1252004 $16,2752005 $16,7252006 $17,4752007 $18,1502008 $18,9752009–2011 $19,8002012 $20,4752013 $21,0752014 $21,7502015-2016 $22,0502017 $23,6252018 $23,850

- The only work you performed for which you didn’t pay Social Security taxes was before 1957; or - You have 30 or more years of substantial earnings under Social Security.

The Windfall Elimination Provision doesn’t apply to survivors benefits. We may reduce widows or widowers benefits because of another law. For more information, read the Government Pension Offset (Publication No. 05-10007). SOCIAL SECURITY YEARS OF SUBSTANTIAL EARNINGS If you have 30 or more years of substantial earnings, we don’t reduce the standard 90 percent factor in our formula. See the first table that lists substantial earnings for each year. The second table shows the percentage used to reduce the 90 percent factor depending on the number of years of substantial earnings. If you have 21 to 29 years of substantial earnings, we reduce the 90 percent factor between 45 and 85 percent. To see the maximum amount we could reduce your benefit, visit www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/wep-chart.htm. A GUARANTEE The law protects you if you get a low pension. We won’t reduce your Social Security benefit more than half of your pension for earnings after 1956 on which you didn’t pay Social Security taxes. CONTACTING SOCIAL SECURITY The most convenient way to contact us anytime, anywhere is to visit www.socialsecurity.gov. There, you can: apply for benefits; open a my Social Security account, which you can use to review your Social Security Statement, verify your earnings, print a benefits verification letter, change your direct deposit information, request a replacement Medicare card, and get a replacement 1099/1042S; obtain valuable information; find publications; get answers to frequently asked questions; and much more. If you don’t have access to the internet, we offer many automated services by telephone, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Call us toll-free at 1-800-772-1213 or at out TTY number 1-800-325-0778, if you are deaf or hard of hearing. If you need to speak to a person, we can answer your calls from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. We ask for your patience during busy periods since you may experience higher than usual rate of busy signals and longer hold times to speak to us. We look forward to serving you. ~END

This article was reproduced from Social Security Administration’s Publication No.05-10045 / ICN 460275 / January 2018.

Continued from Page 15 – Windfall Elimination Provision

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

Page 16


It is hard to believe that spring has arrived and summer is just around the corner. 2018 has been an exciting year of growth for the

association, and I look forward to what the rest of this year will bring to both the GAPPT and its members!

Since the last newsletter, the association held its Fifth Annual Trustee School at the Macon Marriott City Center. For the second year in a row, we saw a 24% increase in the number of Georgia Plans represented and overall, we increased attendance by 20%! Jonathan Davidson and the Program Committee planned an excellent educational curriculum for the Basic and Advanced Course attendees, and our CPPT designees enjoyed new and innovative Continuing Education sessions. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the event’s success, especially the instructors for their time and the sponsors for their generous support. It is with their involvement that the GAPPT is able to fulfill its mission of providing quality education to Georgia’s public pension trustees.

Last summer, the GAPPT membership approved a revision of the association’s bylaws. One much-needed change was to the timing of the association’s election process. Previously, elections for open board positions were held in March. Since officer installation takes place during the annual conference, new board members needed to wait six months before they could assume their elected position. Now, the nomination period will begin in July, with board elections in late August/early September. An email explaining the election process will be sent to all voting members in June.

With summer a month away, plans for the Ninth Annual Conference are almost complete. The Program Committee has confirmed the program schedule and speakers, and the details of our evening networking events have been finalized. This year, the association will be returning to the historic city of Savannah, Georgia. The recently renovated Hyatt Regency will again host our conference attendees and educational sessions, while just a few blocks away, the beautiful Charles H. Morris Center will be the site of Wednesday night’s Association Dinner and Casino Night. Conference details are currently available on the GAPPT website, including links to the online registration forms and for hotel reservations. Our conference webpage is continually updated, so please check back often to get the latest event details.

Finally, this is the time of the year when we start initial planning for our future programs. After the unfortunate cancellation of last year’s conference, the Board has decided to switch the dates of the association’s annual events. Please look for an announcement of the 2020 event locations and dates in the next newsletter.

As always, if you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions, please feel free to contact me. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing everyone in September!

Page 17

Notes from the Executive Director Sue Reynolds

Georgia Association of Public Pension Trustees Promoting Education for Public Pension Trustees in Georgia

P.O. Box 468447 ~ Atlanta, Georgia 31146 www.gappt.org

If you would like to submit an article for the

quarterly newsletter, please contact

Michaela Thompson, GAPPT newsletter

editor, at [email protected] or Sue

Reynolds, GAPPT Executive Director, at

[email protected].

The GAPPT “News and Reports” also accepts

advertisements from our Affiliate members’

firms.

The next submission date for articles and

advertisements is July 15, 2018.

The GAPPT “News and Reports" provides insight

and knowledge to the Association's members about current topics dealing with the economy, legal matters,

current pension news, and association news.

Articles and advertisements are selected from submissions

received from our Affiliate Members, and are not

necessarily endorsed by the GAPPT. The thoughts and opinions expressed are solely

those of the authors.

Documents

Promoting Education of Public Pension Trustees in Georgia ......As a plan sponsor, there are many plan design options available, each with the potential to provide plan participants