Executive Summary Community Foundations Report FY2013

Transcription

1

2

3 Executive Summary Community Foundations Report FY2013 Demographic Profile The fifty Community Foundations participating in this year s Commonfund Benchmarks Study Community Foundations Report represent just over $17.0 billion in total endowment assets, with 62 percent of the population having participated in last year s Study. Institutions with assets between $ Million comprised fifty-six percent of this year s total institutions, followed by institutions with assets Over $500 Million (24 percent) and those with assets Under $101 Million (20 percent). This Report covers the 2013 fiscal year (January 1 December 31, 2013). Returns Among all Community Foundations, FY2013 returns, as of December 31, 2013, averaged 15.2 percent (all returns reported net of fees), building on the strong 12.2 percent return from FY2012. Average FY2013 returns among institutions with assets Under $101 Million (16.1 percent) outperformed those reported by both institutions with assets Over $500 Million and between $ Million (15.0 and 14.9 percent, respectively). (When viewing FY2013 returns in this year s Council on Foundations Commonfund Study of Investments for Private Foundations, the inverse was true institutions with assets Over $500 Million reported an average return of 16.5 percent, outperforming both other size cohorts, 15.5 and 15.2 percent, respectively.) Returns for the trailing three-year period averaged 8.5 percent among all participating Community Foundations, compared to last year s 7.7 percent. Trailing five-year returns increased markedly to 12.0 percent from 2.3 percent last year, as the poor returns of FY2008 dropped out of the five-year calculation. Trailing 10-year returns gained an average 6.7 percent. Of the major asset classes reported among all Community Foundations, domestic equities produced the strongest average FY2013 return (30.9 percent), more than doubling last year s return (14.8 percent), followed by international equities (15.1 percent) and alternative strategies (10.2 percent up from 6.4 percent in FY2012). Short-term securities/cash/other produced an average return of 1.9 percent, while fixed income was the only major asset class to generate a negative return (-0.7 percent) a marked reversal from last year s 8.0 percent gain. Of the sub-asset classes of alternative strategies, venture capital, distressed debt and marketable alternative strategies produced the strongest FY2013 returns (15.4, 12.7 and 11.0 percent, respectively), followed by energy and natural resources (9.6 percent). Commodities and managed futures generated the weakest FY2013 return, at -6.1 percent. 3

4 Executive Summary Community Foundations Report FY2013 Returns (continued) Eighty percent of all Community Foundations reported having long-term return objectives, predominantly in the ranges of percent (more common among large and mid-size institutions) and percent (more common among institutions with assets Under $101 Million). Asset Allocations As of December 31, 2013, participating Community Foundations average dollar-weighted asset allocation was: 28 percent to domestic equities, 27 percent to alternative strategies, 23 percent to international equities (up from 19 percent in FY2012), 13 percent to fixed income (down from 18 percent in FY2012) and 9 percent to short-term securities/cash/other (up from 6 percent in FY2012). Community Foundations with assets Over $500 Million reported the highest average allocation to alternative strategies (29 percent) and double the allocation of both other size cohorts to short-term securities/cash/other (10 percent), while domestic and international equities and fixed income allocations (27, 21 and 13 percent, respectively) were lowest. Community Foundations with assets Under $101 Million showed the greatest propensity to allocate toward domestic and international equities (33 and 25 percent, respectively) and fixed income (17 percent) during FY2013, collectively higher than both other size cohorts albeit moderately in comparison to the mid-size institutions group. Spending and Fund Flows The average effective spending rate for Community Foundations participating in this year s Study calculated by dividing endowment dollars spent by the beginning endowment value was 4.8 percent, down modestly from 4.9 percent in FY2012. The highest FY2013 effective spending rate, 5.2 percent, was found among institutions with assets Over $500 Million. The lowest effective spending rate, 3.8 percent, occurred among institutions with assets Under $101 Million, down from 4.4 percent last year, while mid-size institutions reported an average effective spending rate of 5.0 percent. (When viewing this year s Council on Foundations Commonfund Study of Investments for Private Foundations, FY2013 effective spending rates reported among mid-size and smaller institutions were notably higher, at 5.7 and 5.3 percent, respectively.) Among all Community Foundations, 45 percent reported a decreased effective spending rate during FY2013, with an average percentage decrease of -0.5 percent, while 13 percent reported an increase in effective spending rate, with an average percentage increase of 0.8 percent. Thirty-six percent reported no change. 4

5 Executive Summary Community Foundations Report FY2013 Spending and Fund Flows (continued) Over half (56 percent) of all Community Foundations reported increased spending dollars during FY2013, consistent across all size cohorts, with the average percentage increase ranging from 7.4 percent among institutions with assets Over $500 Million to 17.3 percent among institutions with assets between $ Million. The predominant FY2013 spending policy across all size cohorts was to spend a percentage of a moving average (ranging from a reported 86 percent of institutions with assets between $ Million to 67 percent of institutions with assets Over $500 Million), with the average percentage ranging from percent. Thirty-eight percent of all Community Foundations reported increased gifts and donations during FY2013, with the median percentage increase being 29.0 percent, while only 10 percent reported decreased gifts (with the median percentage decrease being 14.0 percent) and just over one-quarter (26 percent) reported no change. Resources, Management and Governance Among participating Community Foundations, an average 5.9 separate individual managers were reported being utilized for direct investments in alternative strategies during FY2013, followed by domestic and international equities (4.8 and 4.4, respectively). Institutions with assets Over $500 Million reported using the greatest average number of managers for all mandates listed, predominantly for direct investments in alternative strategies (13.1), domestic and international equities (6.4 and 6.3, respectively) the latter being up notably from an average 4.7 in FY2012. Eighty-eight percent of all Community Foundations reported using consultants during FY2013; primarily for performance measurement, manager selection, policy review and asset allocation/rebalancing. Among all Community Foundations, an average 0.9 full-time equivalent (FTE) was reported being staffed in the investment function during FY2013, while the median number of FTEs was 0.5. **Reading this Report** Some of the data in this Executive Summary refer to a supplemental set of data tables provided in the Appendix of this Report. In addition, we include a demographic table of data highlighting endowment fund flows during FY

6 Percent (%) The Benchmarks Leaders Top Quartile Performers Demographics Fiscal Year 2013 Total Institutions Top Quartile Total Institutions (50) (12) Over $500 Million 12 3 $ Million 28 6 Under $101 Million 10 3 Note: Top quartile is defined as the top 25 percent of 48 institutions that provided return data. Asset Allocation Comparison Fiscal Year 2013 Average Reported Returns One-, Three-, Five- and 10-Year Total Institutions Top Quartile Total Institutions Top Quartile 18.1% 27% 9% 23% 28% 13% 23% 22% 2% 15% 38% 15.2% 8.5% 9.6% 12.0% 13.2% 6.7% 7.3% Domestic equities International equities Fixed income Alternative strategies Short-term securities/cash/other FY2013 net annual total return 3-year net return 5-year net return 10-year net return Dollar-weighted Unless otherwise indicated, all performance information reflects net total returns. 6

7 Average One-, Three-, Five- and 10-Year Net Returns numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million FY2013 net annual total return year net return year net return year net return Note: Ninety six percent of participating institutions (48 of the 50 participants) provided return data for the most recent fiscal year, 88% (44 institutions) provided three-year return data, 86% (43 institutions) provided five-year return data and 70% (35 institutions) provided 10-year return data. Return data cited in this report represent the average returns for institutions providing data for each period. Among the Total Community Foundations group, FY2013 returns averaged 15.2%, while three-year returns averaged 8.5%. For the trailing five-year period, returns gained an average 12.0%, while 10-year returns averaged 6.7%. Among Institutions with assets Under $101 Million, FY2013 returns averaged 16.1%, while returns for the trailing five-year period averaged 12.2%, both outperforming that of Institutions with assets Over $500 Million (15.0% and 11.9%, respectively) and Institutions with assets between $ Million (14.9% and 12.0%, respectively). Among Institutions with assets Over $500 Million, three-year returns averaged 8.6%, modestly outperforming both other size cohorts (both 8.4%, respectively). For the trailing 10-year period, Institutions with assets between $ Million reported an average return of 6.6%, moderately underperforming that of both other size cohorts (both 6.9%, respectively). 7

8 Average Returns by Asset Class for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Average FY2013 total return 15.2 Domestic equities 30.9 Fixed income -0.7 International equities 15.1 Alternative strategies 10.2 Private equity (LBOs, mezzanine, M&A funds and international private equity) 8.3 Marketable alternative strategies (hedge funds, absolute return, market neutral, long/short, 130/30, event-driven and derivatives) 11.0 Venture capital 15.4 Private equity real estate (non-campus) 8.0 Energy & natural resources 9.6 Commodities and managed futures -6.1 Distressed debt 12.7 Short-term securities/cash/other 1.9 Short-term securities/cash 0.1 Other 13.6 Of the major asset classes reported among all Community Foundations, domestic equities produced the strongest average FY2013 return (30.9%), more than doubling last year s return (14.8%), followed by international equities (15.1%) and alternative strategies (10.2% up from 6.4% in FY2012). Short-term securities/cash/other produced an average return of 1.9%, while fixed income was the only major asset class to generate a negative return (-0.7%) a marked reversal from last year s 8.0% gain. Among the sub-asset classes of alternatives reported by all Community Foundations, venture capital, distressed debt and marketable alternative strategies produced the strongest FY2013 returns (15.4%, 12.7% and 11.0%, respectively), followed by energy and natural resources (9.6%). Commodities and managed futures generated the weakest FY2013 return, at -6.1%. 8

9 Asset Allocations for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Domestic equities Fixed income International equities Alternative strategies Short-term securities/cash/other Dollar-weighted Average FY2013 asset allocation among the Total Community Foundations group was 28% to domestic equities, 27% to alternative strategies, 23% to international equities, 13% to fixed income and 9% to short-term securities/cash/other. Institutions with assets Over $500 Million reported the highest average allocation to alternative strategies (29%) during FY2013 than both other size cohorts (25% and 20%, respectively), while short-term securities/cash/other allocation (10%) was double that of both other size cohorts (both 5%, respectively). Institutions with assets Under $101 Million and with assets between $ Million showed a greater propensity to allocate toward domestic equities (33% and 31%, respectively), international equities (25% and 24%, respectively) and fixed income (17% and 15%, respectively), than Institutions with assets Over $500 Million (27%, 21% and 13%, respectively) during FY

10 Alternative Strategies Asset Mix for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Dollar-weighted Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Responding institutions Private equity (LBOs, mezzanine, M&A funds and international private equity) Marketable alternative strategies (hedge funds, absolute return, market neutral, long/short, 130/30, event-driven and derivatives) Venture capital Private equity real estate (non-campus) Energy and natural resources (oil, gas, timber, commodities and managed futures) Distressed debt The predominant FY2013 alternative strategies allocation among all size cohorts was to marketable alternative strategies, highest among Community Foundations with assets Under $101 Million (67%), moderately lower among Community Foundations with assets Over $500 Million (63%) and those with assets between $ Million (59%). Institutions with assets Under $101 Million reported the highest average allocation to energy and natural resources (19%), notably higher than both other size cohorts (12% and 13%, respectively), while private equity allocation (3%) was conversely markedly lower than both other cohorts (both 13%, respectively). Institutions with assets between $ Million showed a greater propensity to allocate toward venture capital (7%) than both other size cohorts (2% and 1%, respectively), and a lesser propensity to allocate toward distressed debt (2%) than both other cohorts (4% and 6%, respectively). 10

11 Portfolio Rebalancing for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Rebalanced portfolio Eighty-four percent of the Total Community Foundations group reported rebalancing their portfolios during FY2013. Ninety percent of Institutions with assets Under $101 Million reported rebalancing during FY2013, highest among the size cohorts, followed closely by Institutions with assets between $ Million (86%). Three-quarters (75%) of Institutions with assets Over $500 Million reported rebalancing during FY2013, lowest among constituencies. 11

12 Portfolio Rebalancing Frequency for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Responding institutions Calendar-based Annually Semi-annually Quarterly Monthly Other Market value-based Target- and range-based Response to major gifts or other cash flows Other multiple responses allowed Among the Total Community Foundations group using a calendar-based approach to portfolio rebalancing during FY2013, 27% reported they rebalanced quarterly (half of Institutions with assets Under $101 Million highest among constituencies), while an average 13% reported they rebalance annually and/or monthly, respectively. (No Institutions with assets Under $101 Million reported rebalancing annually.) Among those utilizing a market value-based methodology, an average 87% predominantly used a target- and range-based approach, while 53% rebalanced in response to major gifts or other cash flows, both mostly consistent across all size cohorts. 12

13 Average Annual Effective Spending Rates for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million FY2013 effective spending rate Among the Total Community Foundations group, the average FY2013 effective spending rate was 4.8%. Institutions with assets Over $500 Million reported the highest average FY2013 effective spending rate (5.2%) among all size cohorts, followed closely by Institutions with assets between $ Million (5.0%). Among Institutions with assets Under $101 Million, the average FY2013 effective spending rate was 3.8%, significantly lower than both other size cohorts. 13

14 Changes to Effective Spending Rates for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Increased spending rate Average percentage increase Decreased spending rate Average percentage decrease No change No answer/uncertain Among the Total Community Foundations group, 45% reported a decreased effective spending rate during FY2013, with an average percentage decrease of -0.5%, while 13% reported an increase in effective spending rate, with an average percentage increase of 0.8%. Thirty-six percent reported no change. Among Institutions with assets Over $500 Million, 62% reported a decreased effective spending rate, consistent with 60% of Institutions with assets Under $101 Million, with average percentage decreases of -0.6% and -0.4%, respectively. One-third (33%) of Institutions with assets between $ Million reported a decreased effective spending rate, lowest among constituencies, with an average percentage decrease of -0.4%. Among Institutions with assets between $ Million, 17% reported an increase in effective spending rate, with an average percentage increase of 0.9%, both moderately higher than that of Institutions with assets Over $500 Million 13% of whom reported an increased effective spending rate, with an average percentage increase of 0.5%. No Institutions with assets Under $101 Million reported an increase in effective spending rate during FY

15 Spending Policy for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Spent all current income Percentage of a moving average Average percentage Decide on an appropriate rate each year Grow distribution at predetermined inflation rate Spend a pre-specified percentage of beginning market value Average pre-specified percentage spent Last year's spending plus inflation with upper and lower bands Weighted average or hybrid method (Yale/Stanford Rule) Other multiple responses allowed The predominant FY2013 spending policy across all constituencies was to spend a percentage of a moving average (ranging from an average 86% among Institutions with assets between $ Million to 67% of Institutions with assets Over $500 Million), with the average percentage ranging from %. Seventeen percent of Institutions with assets Over $500 Million reported spending a pre-specified percentage of beginning market value, followed by 7% of Institutions with assets between $ Million, while both cohorts reported the average percentage being 5.0%. Twenty percent of Institutions with assets Under $101 Million reported they decide on an appropriate rate each year, followed by 8% of Institutions with assets Over $500 Million and 4% of Institutions with assets between $ Million. 15

16 Changes to Spending Dollars for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Increased spending dollars Average percentage increase Median percentage increase Decreased spending dollars Average percentage decrease Median percentage decrease No change No answer/uncertain Among the Total Community Foundations group, 56% reported increased spending dollars during FY2013, with the average percentage increase being 14.6% (median increase, 10.6%). Eighteen percent reported decreased spending dollars, with the average percentage decrease being 6.0% (median decrease, 5.0%), while 16% reported no change. Among Institutions with assets Over $500 Million, 58% reported increased spending dollars, with an average percentage increase of 7.4% and a median increase of 6.4% both lowest among the size cohorts. Seventeen percent reported decreased spending dollars, with an average percentage decrease of 9.2% (highest among constituencies), while 8% reported no change (lowest among constituencies). Among Institutions with assets between $ Million, 54% reported increased spending dollars, with an average percentage increase of 17.3% (highest among constituencies) and a median increase of 11.5%. Twenty-one percent reported decreased spending dollars, highest among constituencies, with an average percentage decrease of 5.8%, while 14% reported no change. Among Institutions with assets Under $101 Million, 60% reported increased spending dollars, with an average percentage increase of 12.7% and a median increase of 14.8%, the latter being highest among constituencies. Ten percent reported decreased spending dollars, with an average percentage decrease of 0.5% (lowest among constituencies), while 30% reported no change (highest among constituencies). 16

17 Professional Staffing of Investment Function for Fiscal Year 2013 Number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Average number of FTEs Median number of FTEs Among the Total Community Foundations group, an average 0.9 full-time equivalent (FTE) was reported being staffed in the investment function during FY2013, while the median number of FTEs was 0.5 (which can be more indicative of true employment levels). Among Institutions with assets Over $500 Million, an average and median 1.5 FTEs were reported being staffed in the investment function, both notably higher than all other size cohorts. Among Institutions with assets between $ Million, an average 0.6 FTE was reported being staffed in the investment function, while the median number of FTEs was 0.4, both lowest among constituencies. Among Institutions with assets Under $101 Million, an average 0.8 FTE was reported being staffed in the investment function, while the median number of FTEs was

18 Outsourcing of Investment Function for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Have substantially outsourced Considering substantially outsourcing Neither No answer/uncertain Among the Total Community Foundations group, more than half (60%) reported they have neither outsourced the investment management function, nor are considering it, while an average 34% have substantially outsourced and only 4% are considering outsourcing. Among Institutions with assets Over $500 Million, nearly all (92%) reported they have neither outsourced the investment management function, nor are considering it, significantly higher than both other size cohorts, while only 8% have substantially outsourced (notably lower than both other size cohorts) and none are considering outsourcing. Among Institutions with assets between $ Million, just over half (54%) reported they have neither outsourced the investment management function, nor are considering it, while 36% have substantially outsourced and 7% are considering outsourcing. Among Institutions with assets Under $101 Million, 60% reported they have substantially outsourced the investment function, notably higher than both other size cohorts, while the remaining 40% have neither outsourced, nor are considering it, and none are considering outsourcing. 18

19 Number of Managers Used by Asset Class in Fiscal Year 2013 average number Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Domestic equities Fixed income International equities Alternative strategies (direct) Alternative strategies (fund of funds) Among the Total Community Foundations group, an average 5.9 separate individual managers were reported being utilized for direct investments in alternative strategies during FY2013, followed by domestic equities (4.8), international equities (4.4) and fund-of-funds investments in alternatives (3.7). Institutions with assets Over $500 Million reported utilizing the highest average number of separate managers for all mandates listed most notably direct investments in alternatives (13.1), domestic and international equities (6.4 and 6.3, respectively) and fund-of-funds investments in alternatives (5.7). Among Institutions with assets between $ Million, an average 4.6 separate individual managers were reported being used for domestic equities, followed by direct investments in alternatives (4.5) and international equities (4.3). An average 2.9 managers were reported being used for fund-of-funds investments in alternatives, lowest among the size cohorts. Among Institutions with assets Under $101 Million, an average 3.5 separate individual managers were reported being used for fund-of-funds investments in alternative strategies, followed by domestic equities (3.4) and fixed income (2.9) both lowest among the size cohorts. Average manager use for international equities and direct investments in alternatives (2.3 and 2.0, respectively) was considerably lower than both other size cohorts. 19

20 Responsible for Ongoing Due Diligence numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Board Investment or finance committee Dedicated internal staff Consultant (is not an outsourced investment manager) Consultant (is an outsourced investment manager) Outsourced investment manager (is not a consultant) Other No answer/uncertain multiple responses allowed Among the Total Community Foundations group, investment or finance committee was the most commonly cited entity that performed ongoing due diligence on investment managers hired (62%) the predominant entity cited among Institutions with assets between $ Million (68%) and Institutions with assets Under $101 Million (50%). Institutions with assets Over $500 Million more often have dedicated internal staff (67%), or utilize a consultant that is not an outsourced investment manager (83%) both significantly higher than the other size cohorts. Half (50%) of Institutions with assets between $ Million cited using a consultant that is not an outsourced investment manager, while only 20% of Institutions with assets Under $101 Million reported doing so. 20

21 Ongoing Due Diligence Procedures Employed in Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million On-site manager visits at my institution On-site visits with managers at their offices Telephone conference calls with managers Quantitative attribution analysis of manager performance Position-based risk analysis Peer group comparisons Annual due diligence questionnaire updates Third-party evaluations of managers Other No answer/uncertain multiple responses allowed The most commonly reported due diligence procedures employed during FY2013 across all size cohorts were: quantitative attribution analysis of manager performance (62% among Total more common among large and mid-size institutions); telephone conference calls with managers (60% among Total most common among Institutions with assets Over $500 Million, 83%); peer group comparisons (58% among Total); on-site manager visits at my institution (56% among Total) and on-site visits with managers at their offices (46% among Total). Half (50%) of Institutions with assets Under $101 Million reported employing third-party evaluations of managers during FY2013, highest among constituencies. 21

22 Conflict of Interest Policies numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Have conflict of interest policy For board For investment committee For board and investment committee Stricter standard applies to investment committee Policy applies to senior staff Allow board members to conduct business with organization Have process for resolution of potential conflicts Recusal and disclosure Recusal only Disclosure only Other multiple responses allowed Nearly all (96%) Community Foundations reported having a conflict of interest policy, predominantly for the board and investment committee (82%) or solely for the board (14%). Nearly all (92%) Community Foundations reported their policy applies to senior staff. Institutions with assets Under $101 Million showed a greater propensity to allow board members to conduct business with the organization (50%) than both other size cohorts (33% and 32%, respectively). All (100%) have a process for resolution of potential conflicts, primarily recusal and disclosure (83% among total). 22

23 Voting Members on Investment Committee for Fiscal Year 2013 average number Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Voting investment committee members Among the Total Community Foundations group, the average number of voting members on the investment committee was 8.2 during FY2013, mostly consistent across all size cohorts modestly higher among Community Foundations with assets between $ Million (8.3), slightly lower among Community Foundations with assets Under $101 Million (8.0). 23

24 Investment Committee Credentials for Fiscal Year 2013 average number Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Investment committee members who are investment professionals Investment committee members with alternative strategies experience Non-trustee voting members Among the Total Community Foundations group, the average reported number of FY2013 investment committee members that are investment professionals was 5.2 (consistent across all size cohorts), while the average number with alternative strategies experience was 3.5. Non-trustee voting members averaged 3.9 during FY2013. Institutions with assets Over $500 Million reported having the highest average number of FY2013 investment committee members with alternative strategies experience (4.4), while this number was lowest among Institutions with assets Under $101 Million (2.0). Institutions with assets Under $101 Million reported having an average 4.8 non-trustee voting members on the investment committee during FY2013, highest among constituencies. 24

25 APPENDIX I SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES 25

26 Investable Assets Not Part of Endowment numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Investable assets not part of endowment Long-Term Return Objectives for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Have return objectives Less than 5% % % % % % and over Do not have return objectives No answer/uncertain Average Median

27 EW Asset Allocations for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Domestic equities Fixed income International equities Alternative strategies Short-term securities/cash/other Equal-weighted Domestic Equity Asset Mix for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Responding institutions Active Indexed (passive/enhanced) Dollar-weighted 27

28 Fixed Income Asset Mix for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Responding institutions Domestic investment-grade (active) Domestic investment-grade (passive) Domestic non-investment grade (active or passive) International bonds (active or passive) Emerging markets (active or passive) Dollar-weighted International Equity Asset Mix for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Responding institutions Active MSCI EAFE Passive/index MSCI EAFE Emerging markets Dollar-weighted 28

29 EW Alternative Strategies Asset Mix for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Responding institutions Private equity (LBOs, mezzanine, M&A funds and international private equity) Marketable alternative strategies (hedge funds, absolute return, market neutral, long/short, 130/30, event-driven and derivatives) Venture capital Private equity real estate (non-campus) Energy and natural resources (oil, gas, timber, commodities and managed futures) Distressed debt Equal-weighted 29

30 Detailed Asset Allocations for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Dollar-weighted Domestic equities Fixed income International equities Alternative strategies Private equity (LBOs, mezzanine, M&A funds and international private equity) Marketable alternative strategies (hedge funds, absolute return, market neutral, long/short, 130/30, event-driven and derivatives) Venture capital Private equity real estate (non-campus) Energy & natural resources Commodities and managed futures Distressed debt Alternatives not broken out Short-term securities/cash/other Short-term securities/cash Other

31 EW Asset Allocations for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Equal-weighted Domestic equities Fixed income International equities Alternative strategies Private equity (LBOs, mezzanine, M&A funds and international private equity) Marketable alternative strategies (hedge funds, absolute return, market neutral, long/short, 130/30, event-driven and derivatives) Venture capital Private equity real estate (non-campus) Energy & natural resources Commodities and managed futures Distressed debt Alternatives not broken out Short-term securities/cash/other Short-term securities/cash Other

32 Percent Allocated to Liquidity Categories in Fiscal Year 2013 Responding numbers in percent (%) Institutions 33 Daily 52 Monthly 13 Quarterly 12 Semi-annually 1 Annually 5 Illiquid 16 Other 1 32

33 Classifications Used in Constructing Portfolio numbers in percent (%) Classifications used Growth assets 70 Risk reduction 68 Inflation protection (real asset, TIPS) 72 Opportunistic 36 Liquidity 36 Duration 24 Other 6 No answer/uncertain multiple responses allowed Total Institutions

34 Employs Risk Limits and Guidelines Within Portfolio numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Employs limits or guidelines Employs hard limits Employs soft limits No answer/uncertain Types of Risk Metrics Used numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Responding institutions Volatility calculations (standard deviation, etc.) 81 * 86 * Greek letter measures of return (alpha, beta, etc.) 52 * 50 * VaR calculations based on returns (top down) 29 * 36 * VaR calculations based on positions (bottom up) 33 * 43 * Other 5 * 7 * multiple responses allowed *Sample size too small to analyze 34

35 Applies Stress or Scenario Tests to Portfolio numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Yes No No answer/uncertain Uses Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) Criteria for Portfolio numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Environmental Social Governance Other None No answer/uncertain multiple responses allowed 35

36 Percentage of Operating Budget Funded by Endowment numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Average percentage of operating budget funded by endowment Median percentage of operating budget funded by endowment Increased Decreased No change No answer/uncertain Cost of Managing Investment Programs for Fiscal Year 2013 Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Responding institutions Average cost ($ in thousands) 1,592 3,516 1, Average cost (basis points) Median cost (basis points)

37 Included in Cost Calculations numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Asset management fees and mutual fund expenses Direct expenses Incentive/performance fees paid to asset managers Internal staff Consultant fees/outsourcing fees Other multiple responses allowed Percentage of Endowment Under Water for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Responding institutions Percentage of endowment under water 1.6 * 1.9 * *Sample size too small to analyze 37

38 Changes in Gifts and Donations for Fiscal Year 2013 numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Increase in gifts Median percent increase Decrease in gifts Median percent decrease No change No answer/uncertain Organization has a Chief Investment Officer numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Yes No No answer/uncertain

39 Responsible for Investment Oversight numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Board Investment committee Executive leadership//staff Other multiple responses allowed Consultant Use numbers in percent (%) Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Used consultant Services used Asset allocation/rebalancing Manager selection Policy review Performance attribution and measurement Outsourced investment management ESG review Other multiple responses allowed 39

40 APPENDIX II DEMOGRAPHIC TABLE 40

41 D.1 Endowment Fund Flows for Fiscal Year 2013 dollars ($) in thousands Total Institutions Over $500 Million $ Million Under $101 Million Total beginning period endowment value 14,500,199 8,818,525 5,157, ,367 Total additions to investment pool 1,633, , , ,765 Total withdrawals from investment pool -1,147, , ,754-88,258 Adjustment to account for non-responding institutions 2,018,421 1,371, ,209 54,446 Total ending period endowment value 17,005,151 10,517,240 5,887, ,320 41

42 APPENDIX III PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS 42

43 Participating Public (Community) Foundations A Amarillo Area Foundation, TX Aspen Community Foundation, CO B Baton Rouge Area Foundation, LA Boston Foundation, MA C Central Indiana Community Foundation, IN Chester County Community Foundation, PA The Cleveland Foundation, OH Columbus Jewish Foundation, OH Community Foundation for Muskegon County, MI Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan, MI Community Foundation of Abilene, TX Community Foundation of Collier County, FL The Community Foundation of Greater Atlanta, GA Community Foundation of Greater Chattanooga, TN Community Foundation of Lorain County, OH Community Foundation of St. Joseph County, IN The Community Foundation Serving Richmond and Central Virginia, VA Community Funds, Inc. - Affiliated with New York Community Trust, NY D Dallas Jewish Community Foundation, TX E Endeavor Foundation, AR G Grand Rapids Community Foundation, MI Greater Cincinnati Foundation, OH Greater Milwaukee Foundation, WI Greater New Orleans Foundation, LA Greater Texas Foundation, TX Gulf Coast Community Foundation, FL H Hampton Roads Community Foundation, VA Hawaii Community Foundation, HI Health Foundation of South Florida, Inc. & Affiliates, FL J Jewish Community Foundation of Greater Hartford, CT Jewish Community Foundation of Greater Kansas City, KS Jewish Community Foundation of San Diego, CA K Kalamazoo Community Foundation, MI M Madison Community Foundation, WI Maine Community Foundation, ME McPherson County Community Foundation, KS The Miami Foundation, FL Music Center Foundation, CA 43

44 Participating Public (Community) Foundations O The Oregon Community Foundation, OR P The Pittsburgh Foundation, PA R The REACH Healthcare Foundation, KS Rochester Area Community Foundation, NY Rose Community Foundation, CO S The Saint Paul Foundation, MN Silicon Valley Community Foundation, CA Sioux Falls Area Community Foundation, SD St. Luke's Health Initiatives, AZ V Valley Baptist Legacy Foundation, TX Vermont Community Foundation, VT Y York County Community Foundation, PA 44

45 45