That was the real question on the table in June, when DIMWG (Discretionary Investment Management Working Group) got 48 organizations — OCIOs, consultants, search and evaluation firms, and specialized attorneys — into one room (virtually) to hash it out live, polls and all.
Some context, for those that are new to the topic: DIMWG has been at this for 8 years. The group’s prior consensus work were inputs into the CFA Institute’s GIPS OCIO standards, which are now in effect. So the question isn’t whether the standards are adhereable — it’s whether the industry would benefit from slicing the composites a further to be useful for those actually using the data: asset owners, consultants, and third-party evaluators who request more refined data.
Here’s where the attendees landed:
📊 61% thought there’s a case for additional sub-composites within the return-seeking corridors (think: splitting that wide 51%-70% Moderate band) — vs. 39% who said the current corridors are workable as-is 📊 75% want to keep pushing on liquidity/illiquidity classifications — because an OCIO sitting on mostly public markets and one running 40%+ illiquids shouldn’t be judged on the same curve 📊 87% — by far the strongest consensus — want sub-composites for liability-sensitive, pension-style portfolios. Hedging a liability isn’t the same exercise as chasing total return, and the data shouldn’t be blind to that reality 📊 On format for next steps: 41% want to break into smaller working subgroups next, ahead of another web meeting (35%) or getting back in a room together (24%)
Worth flagging: the group was clear that in-person meetings are still where the real consensus gets built — that’s where DIMWG has made its best progress over the years. But for now, the vote says: get the right people working on the specific problems in smaller groups, then bring it back to the full DIMWG community.
One more thing made it onto the radar that wasn’t even on the agenda: leverage. The use of derivatives and portfolio leverage — especially inside private market strategies — can quietly distort how comparable two composites really are. Many agreed that that’s a topic worthy of DIMWG’s attention in the future.
Bottom line: GIPS OCIO standards weren’t the finish line, they were an important milestone in what is likely to be a continuing refinement process. The industry is still working out how to make the data more usable, more comparable, and harder to game — without creating new mandates or piling more reporting burden onto OCIOs.