Compliance

Composites, and
what GIPS means.

Maintaining composites using GIPS methodology and claiming compliance with the GIPS standards are different things. The conflation causes most of the trouble here.

Two things that sound identical and are not

There is a meaningful difference between maintaining composites using GIPS methodology and claiming compliance with the GIPS standards. Firms conflate them constantly, usually in good faith, and the conflation is the source of most of the trouble in this area.

Using the methodologyClaiming compliance
What it means Returns calculated and composites constructed following the standards' methods A firm-wide assertion that every requirement of the standards is met
ScopeCan apply to some composites Applies to the whole firm, not selected products
What it requiresDiscipline and consistent calculation Policies, documentation, error correction, disclosure, and ongoing maintenance
VerificationNot applicable Optional but expected, performed by an independent verifier
What you may say That composites follow GIPS methodology That the firm claims compliance — with the required disclosures attached

Saying the second when only the first is true is a marketing problem that becomes a regulatory one. Saying the first plainly is honest and, for most firms, sufficient.

What a composite is actually for

A composite groups accounts managed to the same strategy so that a track record describes the strategy rather than a flattering account. That is the whole point. Selecting the good accounts is precisely what composites exist to prevent.

Which means the hard part is not the arithmetic. It is the discipline of inclusion: every discretionary account managed to that strategy, added in a defined way, removed in a defined way, with the reasons recorded.

Where firms come unstuck

The test that finds most problems: could you explain, from records rather than memory, why any single account is in or out of a given composite?

Why it is worth doing even without a claim

Three reasons that have nothing to do with compliance. It gives you an honest answer to what your strategy has done. It makes performance comparable across time when your platform changes. And it is one of the first things examined during due diligence when a firm is sold — a firm that can produce clean composites is priced differently from one that cannot.

Our own position, stated plainly

Composites on our platform are maintained using GIPS methodology, computed by the same records that executed the trades. We do not claim GIPS compliance, and any provider telling you the distinction does not matter is telling you something useful about how they read rules generally.

Questions this did not answer? Ask them directly — that is what the twenty minutes is for.

Book 20 minutes with Kyle