Pension Board - Regular Meeting

We're good now. All right. Calling the uh pension board meeting to order. All right. Let's u start with the minutes. Do I need to roll call? Roll call. Go ahead. Mike Frenber here. Let's see. Ted Isac here. Jennifer Yakley here. Alan Robbins here. Good. And then we have uh uh commissioners uh Hadley Bhur Bugler and uh Isenway absent. So item one, item one, approving the minutes. Um do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve the minutes. Is there a second? You can vote. Alan, I think that has to be Alan. might it second. Okay. Robin second. Okay. Is there any discussion? All right. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? I. Awesome. Okay. I think you guys are up. Right. That's right. Tom and Jonathan, go for [Music] it. All right. So, uh, we have the first quarter report. Uh, we can speak through some of the fun of April, but we survived, right? That's good. Is that good? Yeah, especially since all of us are investment people. So, yeah, you know, we although it was good information if you I thought some of the uh statistics were Yeah. were interesting. Yeah, definitely. Obviously, it was good. A wild ride, but I recommend anybody read it. More to come probably, right? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Uh so some of the b additional business that we'll have and I'll let Jonathan go through the the report is remember last time you authorized us to do a high yield search. Uh so that is in there. Uh

Jonathan will say a little more on this, but coincidentally perhaps uh not long after it was coincidentally uh after uh we talked to you guys about doing a search uh principal informed us that they actually swapped out the high yield product that you had access to to another one. And the other one was the one we actually used with other clients. The one that you were using, the only one you could use, right? put it that way was one that we we went to no no one was using. So that one actually was shutting down because like I no assets were in there assets were decreasing. So we'll still do a search but what was more of a kind of a code red it's not as not as bad but we still think makes sense to to talk through that. Um we have some some options like so is the replacement of principal product still or is it Yes. Well, one the So, the principal switched into another principal product and the search we have is non-principal products. Got it. But you're saying the one they're switching to is one that you do use with Yes. Yeah. Um, so the other options in there and and as a reminder from like a sizing standpoint with your um cushion and all that, we talked about maybe kind of a half measure, maybe taking half a million out now and as things kind of continue eventually taking more out. So, we'll talk through that. And then last but not least, uh some of the changes that have been made, propose some changes to the investment guidelines. So, that's on the menu, but we'll keep you moving. Perfect. All right. Thanks, Tom. Darren's already on the page that I was going to instruct you all to get to, but page four in the in the report, exhibit one. So, this is your market value page. Uh it shows all the market values beginning of the quarter. So January 1st through March 31st. Uh so you see at the total fund level, the fund started out

the quarter with just over $23 million. He had net cash flow net cash flow out of $555,000, just a little over that. And ended the quarter with $22,377,58. And uh as you go up and down pages four and five, you see the percent of portfolio. Uh and then to the right of that, policy percent. So policy percent is the target waiting that that you want to try to maintain for all all your investments and your composits. Uh as you go up and down the pages you see pretty close uh in in most cases at the composite level. Little underweight US equities, little overweight cash. And I'll get to why cash is a little heavy here in just a moment. Uh two things I want to point out. Uh the first thing Tom already briefly discussed, you see there's two principal high yields on page four. So, one is the one that we lost access to and they actually shut it down and merged it into the new principal high yield fund that you are now in. And that occurred on uh February 28th. So, uh we kind of had to flip flip the old one out and put the new one in. Uh more on that here in a bit when we get to performance. And then on page five, you see the uh on the top of page five, principal US property. We did have a pretty sizable uh redemption request in for that investment. And you see that through the quarter uh just over $573,000 came out of that investment. So now we're actually at target for real estate. The target that was just set at the last meeting of 5%. Great. So yeah, thankfully the floodgates kind of finally opened and they uh they paid out they actually fully paid down the redemption Q principal did. So good to see that. That was inclusive of the one that we increased last time to come down to Target and everything happened right away. Mhm. Yeah. They uh they just said let's let's get it done. Sweet. Good. Yeah. Thankfully, real estate may have it looks like it's kind of bottomed. So, they're trying to get those redemption cues wound down and and uh start start

getting people to contribute again. Flip ahead a few pages to page 12. I just flipped ahead because a lot of the performance information is repeated. So, in the top page 12, you have the total fund composite. Uh you see for the quarter it was uh just down4% versus.5% for at the level of the benchmark. Uh so just ahead slightly as you go across the page for longer dated time frames you see it's kind of a mixed bag. You see uh for one year you were a bit behind. Uh same story for 3 years and seven years. Five years you're a bit ahead and then since inception you are behind. and rankings wise. So, comparing the plan to other uh public defined benefit plans, you see the rankings are kind of mixed. Typically in the in the middle to low levels, 100 being the lowest, one being the highest that you could be in the universe. Next, you have your fixed income composite. And unfortunately, that was a rough spot for the quarter. Uh you see it was up only 1.9% versus 2.8% for the benchmark uh the Bloomberg aggregate index. uh the underlying or well sorry I should uh for the long term though the fixed income composite has done pretty well typically ahead of the benchmark uh slightly behind for one year and since inception and then looking under the hood you see uh principal core fixed income uh that's done pretty well it's typically been ahead or just behind its benchmark across all time frames rankings typically uh mid to low then you have principal core plus bond long-term that's done well but ranked low and uh more recently ly it's it's struggled a bit uh over the uh the quarter to uh threeyear time frame across the page there. It has uh it has underperformed. Next you have that new principal high yield account. We do still have the other uh principal high yield account that was that ceased to exist. That's that's baked into the composite level data and the total fund data. Uh but since we didn't have any

information for that go going into the end of the quarter, it wouldn't populate a return. So this is your new one. Uh but just for the sake of continuity, I wanted to see for the quarter if you combined your returns for the prior one that discontinued and the new one for the just for the for the quarter for that three-month time frame, it returned about4% between the two. So behind the benchmark. And then lastly for fixed income, you have Aristotle Pacific. That's your your bank loan manager. And they were doing pretty well. uh more recently they are starting to struggle uh underperforming for the quarter and for the year and uh just in line with the benchmark going back to uh since inception when you uh first hired them on in September of 2022 but ranked high since inception in the top 20% of their universe. Uh but overall uh for the quarter uh print the your core and core plus held up fairly well, but we kind of got drugged down a bit by those more higher octane fixed income components with your uh high yield and uh and floating rate bank loans. Next on page 13, I'll be very brief on this one. Uh your US equity composite was actually a bright spot. Uh it was ahead of the benchmark for the quarter, only down 4.4 versus 4.7 for the benchmark. uh longer term lagging because we did have that tilt toward uh a higher uh tilt towards small cap and midcap stocks. Uh that was since reduced uh more recently to bring it more in line with the waitings of the Russell 3000. Uh but the underlying your Vanguard S&P 500 uh index fund, Vanguard Midcap index fund, and the Eyesshares uh S&P small cap fund uh those are all in line with their with their benchmarks that they're trying to track. Page 14 at the very top you have your non- US equity composite uh that was behind for the quarter kind of mixed long-term you see it is ahead for one year and five years but otherwise it has typically lagged and looking under the hood uh van

uh the total uh total international stock index the the uh all world xus small cap index and the emerging markets index actually doing well recently typically outperforming the indexes they're trying to track but long term they have lagged Typically you will see that tracking error with uh with international index funds just much harder to uh replicate than US US equity index funds. Can I can I ask on the three-month numbers there? It says it's up 4% for the quarter. Am I reading that right? But every fund below is beating the benchmark like what how does that tie into the total international return when So from from an additive perspective it depends on the waitings. So I believe you're more equally weighted across all of them. So the total international fund is more developed stocks and that's really where much of the higher returns you saw in international equities was more from developed markets. Uh but your small cap exposure and emerging market exposure was behind that. So you have 18% allocated to non US 11 of that is that Vanguard total international stock. So that's five and a half%. So that's definitely pulling harder. I'd like to see the other two drug it down each. So, it's just a weight. Yeah. Unfortunate those others drug it down, but you know, that's that's the way it is. Then you have your real estate composite. Just one account in there, the principal US property account. Uh, and that that matches all along all the way. You see it struggled in the last three years. It has underperformed for all those time frames, uh, one month through three years. But long-term, it's either at least matched the index or outperformed. Then you have your private equity composite, and that's just a partners group, the open-ended uh private equity fund. And you see that has outperformed as well long-term. We didn't have the benchmark yet for for the first quarter. It takes a while for

the for them to to calculate those. Typically about 3 month lag. Uh but long term, it has outperformed. And then cash. Uh we don't keep a lot in cash, but uh it's been a good place to keep money the last uh last few years. Thankfully that uh short-term rates have been up uh in the long uh over the last few years. Uh otherwise they've been pretty minuscule as you all know. And then I'll finish the annualized performance. The next few pages are uh individual calendar years, but I'll skip those and we'll go ahead and skip to the fee page, which is page 21. All right, Darren's got it. So, what this page shows is we take the market values as of the end of the quarter, uh, estimate what the fees would be based on that those values, and you see what the estimated annual fee is for each each investment, uh, on the right hand side there, what that equates to in in terms of an expense ratio, and then it compares it to the industry median for similar type investments and strategies. Uh and then there's a blue row uh second blue row from the from the uh bottom of the page. Uh we aggregate all those fees together, calculate an expense ratio, and then compare it to the industry median. And so we're estimating as of the end of March, you're paying about $85,973 annually to all these investment managers. Uh that equates to expense ratio of 38 basis points. And uh that is just slightly higher than what the industry median would be of 35 basis points. So, three basis points above the industry median. And then below that, we have our fee and then uh the custodial fee for regions and and total that up down there as well. And that'll conclude the first quarter report. Any questions? All right. I I'll skip through the rest of this because it's uh benchmark history and characteristics pages for the underlying investments. So, we'll go ahead and skip to I believe there's a handout at the very back uh of

the uh of the of the quarterly report. So, if it had page numbers, it'd be page uh 39 and 40 of the exhibit the trade recommendations right there. Yep. Of this. Okay. Sorry, just the timing of the meeting. We couldn't generate it till this morning. So, uh we'll go with the rebalance page here. Uh so, you see all all the investments. uh as of April 30th and then uh totaled up at the composite level and then and and then as well at the very bottom there just for the total fund pretty much uh in line target or waiting wise uh again under for US equities over on cash as we as we saw at the as and then the uh March quarterly report uh we we estimated the total plan had a valuation as of at the end of April of 22 million254,780 Just for fun, I did estimate your return for April. It probably won't be exactly this, but only down 0.55%. So, not bad. If you hibernated the whole month, it's almost like nothing happened. And then, uh, we have recommendations for rebalancing. And, uh, I wanted to take a more measured approach with this. I didn't want to bring us all the way back up to our target for US equities, but I wanted to at least bring some in uh from from international equities. Uh so we'll as of the end of this once once I finish explaining essentially the the US equity composite will still be 2% below its target. Currently it's 3% below target. Anyways, here are the recommendations. uh recommend contributing $140,000 to the Vanguard S&P 500 fund, 80,000 to the EyesShares S&P Small Cap Fund, taking 170,000 from the Vanguard Total International Fund, 10,000 from the Vanguard Emerging Markets Fund,

40,000 from the Vanguard International Small Cap Fund, and then when we get to fixed income, recommend replenishing the principal core fixed income account. that's where your benefits are being paid out of. Uh so that gets drawn down over the course of the quarter. Recommending 500,000 be contributed to that. Uh 500,000 be taken from the principal high yield account. And that's going to kind of be in in a in conjunction with with what Tom is going to get into here in just a moment with your uh high yield search. 500,000 go to a new high yield fund yet to be determined. and then take 500,000 from cash, but still keeping a bit of a buffer given the volatility we've seen in the markets recently. Are these um these are not based on the the the uh um the new percentages? No, it is. It is. Mhm. And I must have read. Yeah, the uh the 5% for real estate, right? I thought maybe I read it wrong. So the the large cash position is based on the redemption from principal, the real estate redemption. Yeah. So it's reallocating the cash and then Darren, we get there's a big payment that comes in June. Oh, I see. Yeah. The city will contribute the rest of the property tax collections. It's about two $300,000. Okay, that'll just be an influx into the it goes into that core plus or the sorry the core fixed income the one that's used for the benefit payments. It'll go in there and that'll be reallocated. So we just we'll ask for less in August. We're asking we'll recommend we'll re um

All right. So this is what you're requesting correct? Yes. Right. We get I'll make a motion to to move forward with the recommendations um Tom and Jonathan uh based on the changes um they have presented. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Discussion anything any Allan you have any questions? He's driving. I don't want him to have an accident. You're muted, Alan. You might be able to unmute him, Darren. Yeah, I can potentially. No, you can ask. Ask. That's lame. What are they talking about? All right, we'll take that as a Allan. Give me a thumbs up. Thumbs up. Oh, I think he's okay. Thumbs up. There we go. There we go. Perfect. All right. The minute show. Yes. Let the minute show that Allan gives a thumbs up emoji. All in favor? Any opposed? Any abstensions? All right, we're good. So, so obviously you have a little bit extra cash, 100,000 plus influx from the city. So, we have a fun summer with parkets. That's just less that we have to do at the next meeting. So, yeah, that seems pretty. Okay. All right. And over to Tom. Oh, he's coming in. Can you lock the door? Unlock. No, not unlock it. Lock it. Oh, there he is. You see him? Oh, good. We can just leave him on uh real time of Yeah. Just leave him out there. So, uh next order of business is the uh

Yes. I know. Yeah. So, I'm very well for the last 35 years. It's like a reality show. I liked you better on there than I can mute you. You can turn off Allan. Say his name again. Yeah. All right. You're good. Shut that off. So meta. Yeah, too much. Go ahead. Too much. Uh, okay. So, next section is the high yield search. And um, as I mentioned, not as code red, I guess, as uh, as it was previously, but still think it makes sense to have this have this conversation. Uh, if you turn to what is the second page of exhibit two? Oh, yeah. Uh so this this is who we have in the in the lineup. So you have uh we have JP Morgan, Namura, New and Principal. And this is the new new to us uh principal fund. So always list some high level things there. Uh so down below JP Morgan their fundamental bottom up they tend to have lower turnover. Uh they focus their focus is really on their quality of of security selection. And we're also fundamental uh bottom up, you know, their their focus more is on kind of a low low tracking area. You'll see they have a lot more securities uh in their uh in their portfolio. Uh and then you have New Bean. Um they're more of a combined approach, a little bit of quantitative thrown in there. Um they do, you see it says loan bias. So some of these high yield funds tend to sneak in bank loans

in there and that's going to be fine. You just need to be mindful of that. We already do have bank loans obviously. So um we'll we'll talk through that and then principal um the new one for us now we kind of view this obviously as all weather many of these are all these are all weather they like to say that their focus is on security selections. Uh so let's jump to maybe page four that'll do this page page three they're they're all pretty close to each other on on their estimated sources of value ads so I won't even worry about that. Uh so this page just gives you a snapshot of kind of the overall high level quality as well as just some kind of metrics within there. Uh so as I mentioned Namora has has a greater number of holdings. Not all those are individual uh companies though they will they will go up and down the credit stack from different from the same companies. So just be mindful mindful of that. You can see spreads on there. Time to maturity principal is an outlier on them. They've uh they're at seven seven years right now. U average quality most are are B+ average quality new beam uh is the outlier on that uh which is B likely due to some of their uh lower grade loans. Uh next maybe jump to page six. This is this is a good one to kind of look at some main differences here. So we have different different categories there overall within these um syndicated bank loans. Uh you see JP Morgan 7% Nura is kind of a rounding error noven at 16% principal at a rounding error as well. I said you already do have bank loans uh within there with with Aristotle Pacific. Um so if I were to kind of knock someone right now I I Newbine they do a great job. We have a

lot of clients, but being that you already have uh that allocation in there, I'd have to look a little beyond that. Uh and then high yield bonds, most of them are going to, you know, be heavy on that. Uh once again, the exception is is new and that bankable number will go up and down. That could be that can be low single digits, but they've been uh they've been flexing into that. And performance, historical performance on page seven. Like I said, this is the new to us principal fund. If it was not, it look a little uglier than it did. Uh so on here you can see the overall returns standard deviation uh on there. Obviously performance is not indicative of future results, but we like to at least see kind of how they have done uh through time. You can kind of make some inferences uh inferences there. long-term speaking um you know has has kind of been the the leader overall from a return standpoint. Uh principal the new to us principal fund um certainly holding its own. So the the one that we were forced to use would would not look as good as this for sure. Um from a volatility standpoint just kind of zeroing in on that. historically principles kind of been on the lower end outside of outside of the year-to- date so far. But on there, you know, you can kind of see that JP Morgan uh you know, from a return return standpoint, historically has kind of been the weakest weakest of these through most periods beyond. So, I'll interrupt you real fast. Please do. Can I ask you a quick question? Yes. If we pick principle, it helps our our first index. Thank you. Yeah.

Correct. Yes. Do you feel that any of the three JP Morgan, Namura or Naveen is much better that we shouldn't care about the index that they override or is it is principle like it's sort of flipping coins and we should keep it because of the index? I hate to make decisions that way, but we're in that. Yeah, obviously. So your your um cushion is at like 1.4 or so. So you're obviously very comfortable. I mean I'm just talking about this could be two years from now, three years from now, whatever. It still helps us. So yeah, our house view currently. So think about our top picks in in high yield. Uh new is up there for clients. That's it's more for clients that maybe not have bank loans. Uh and Nura are are kind of number two for mutual funds. We have others that have commingled funds and all that which obviously we're not doing that. Um just purely from that if my research people were here they would say making making the switch at least starting that process uh to someone like in this case Namura would be would be their recommendation or preference fees are a little lower too uh and you look if if you also look at the potential uh kind of let's go to so it's in the velocity look at the excess return correlation just to kind of see how they've interacted historically speak. What's that? No. And the reason as you're looking for that and obviously past performance can't correct you know we we know that. So but 10 years principal is 4.8 is five. So we're talking about you know two and standard deviation is 6.6

higher. It is. It is. It's a little higher and I get that. But we're talking about um what 20 basis points. Am I 20 or Yeah. Yeah. Still obviously it's it I mean again is it worth that? You know over the seven-year period you're you're the you're at the same thing, right? The fiveyear period you're 10 basis points. Yep. Um I'm looking at new mira so versus principal in three years you're you're better so that's why man I'm not and you know I'm not a fan of principal at all. So yeah I mean the punch that this search would have had they not done that is has been softened up clearly yeah with switching us to the product that we would have wanted to be in the first place. Mhm. Um so just from a fee standpoint just so you know uh 67 basis points which is lower than what bless you what the previous principal fund was. So 67 basis points and no mura in this for this discussion is at 54 but they're but the the returns are net of fees returns are net fees so it's you know yeah and I don't want to pay any extra than we have to. So anyway so that's that's what I bring back to you guys. Yeah, this uh benefit calculation does not assume we're taking I know in the trade recommendations it's 500,000 out, but this is still assuming we're keeping it all in. So benefit benefit I I did it on my without updating it was 950,000 the benefit if you pull out 500,000. So it's not really one to one. Um and where do we where do we like to be like kind of at a million? It's it's it is it will change to a degree from a philosophy standpoint as you've reduced your risk doesn't necessarily need to be you know if it was all in equities I'd say two million right so 1 million it seems to

be historically a comfort level but you've you've reduced the amount of just volatility and risk within there one one thing I'll just show you page 43 no as I said as you were looking for that I wanted to ask you that question and it might be rhetorical today it is like I said the punch on this has has been that's that's okay. We still wanted to discuss this. Uh so this uh the top table here is the five-year excess return correlations relative to the to the high yield index. So if we were to say okay you you got principal we know that you're going to you're going to keep that to some degree there either all of it or some of it. Uh how which ones at least complement the most from a excess return correlation standpoint? No more looks like it would have the the relatively speaking best pairing between the between the group at least from the past uh the past five years. So I said this is not flashing code red if it's your obviously your decision from a comfort level you've seen returns you've seen you understand the fees um you know another alternative I guess we could look at potentially down the line is um is core plus Well, you have you have four plus that's a bigger beast to four is going to be for a long time but you also have four plus and that that's another space where there are a lot of other options out there we could start denting that if you looked at the if you look at the excess return correlations over 10ear period guys are burned out you have any because if I look at the fiveyear period of time that's an aberition in what's on bond market. Sure. For a long time. So five years correlation there 10 years. I was part of the process to update update the uh search books. Okay.

My research people would say 10 years to look at that is too much noise at that point. Too much noise at 10 years. Yes. Interesting. I I took your stance on it. Can you turn your microphone on? There you go. Now you're Well, their duration's at seven and a week. Yeah. Well, that's the other ones at five. I think the appeal too is we get 500,000 out of principal that could later be rebalanced into something else, right? If you don't need it. Sure. Sure. But I guess the the flip side to that is if you're like, hey, like I said, if this was the old product, we'd have a different posture, right? Um so I guess the issue is if you do start pulling out and say okay principal high yield you know we're going to start that process then effectively if you wanted to look at you know four plus you're kind of you can't do that for years. So, so that was like plan C in my back pocket here was to was if you weren't interested because clearly there's not a huge So, I guess the question is is that is core plus underperformed relatively I mean are we better off moving core plus than and leaving the because it it from again past performance but phase one past performance principle high yield the one that we're in now really has not it's not like oh my guy. It's no longer. Yeah. Your kind of your order of you know problem children was I yield was right was the problem child and they they self- selected out of that. So I guess if you maybe go back just so you can get exhibit one page 12 is is the history of fixed income funds and obviously the principal high yield is only your

experience. Um can I ask another question? Yes sir. related to has there been any change in the makeup of their managers of their core bond portfolio and their high yield bond portfolio? Maybe bring in a different team from a different uh firm that may have some impact on the way they view things therefore impacting the returns. The high yield is a wholly different team. So they swapped it out. These are completely differently different people. um they've been they've been at that at that product for a long time. On the core side of things, principal tends to they're in most of them are in De Moines. It's it's a pretty stable stable group. So there's not a ton of So if we were going to look at Core Plus, yes. Would we go outside principal? Yes. Okay. My recommendation um would be to look at Core Plus next. Yeah. And then come back and make a decision. But stay with high yield where we have it now at principal and come back with core plus because maybe it's a better option to move some of the core plus. Yeah. Rather than the high yield anybody that makes sense. The core plus itself is the problem or is it I always uh that one I thought I remember way back with the the benchmarking was the problem like what do we benchmark this thing against because it's kind of an odd odd critter itself. It is um you know that's what we have against the mortgage back too because they are heavy in in in some mortgage back securities there which you know you want a core plus you want a little more diversification especially on the the plus side of things. I don't want to just be saying okay all we do is mortgages. Um we do a lot of work with you know like commerce that like they Scott Colbert they'll make do do a great job on core i4 plus mandates on that. Um there's just there's a lot more options in that space and I guess the only thing

we just want to make sure obviously if you were to say okay let's getting ahead of ourselves here pull some out of the core plus fund. I think there there were some time periods where that fund was pulled for benefits. I don't know why or yeah um that one wasn't available for the principal let us know that one we couldn't use that one to pull benefits for whatever I don't know if there was uh time period that they you know that they couldn't they pulled from liquidate in in certain so that's why we have to use we have to use that fixed income yeah that's or something I do remember they for some reason they did pull from the 4 plus b so I guess I should say I should back up too because I'm trying to like talk you out of using this one because it's a problem child but we're looking to get money out principle and that's one of the one that would next that's the next one that we would go to. Yeah. Yeah. If high yield is is gonna stay. So I it's a different kind of problem not because it's not meeting benchmarks but because this is the next one in the list that would exit to go to a different product. Yeah. I mean in I don't know how many 20 years whatever that whatever that is probably if if we had the ability to just say let's start from scratch with no constraints. you have a principal real estate fund, that would probably be it. Yeah. No, I I we all agree with that. Yeah. That's a great obviously high yield is is right. It's a better option than it was, but correct. So, let's do that. Let's why don't you guys come back with some some options there and we can look at it as a whole and with the uh with everything along with the uh what's it called? How you own the core plus no the uh the index index. Thank you. It's a big word for me right now. The index where we can stay where we you know we're comfortable with that. Thank you. It's a big word. So, all

right, let's move. Should we move to section three? Yes. Exhibit three. Yeah, the guidelines. Just make sure this wouldn't impact anything. No. Yeah. No. Nothing nothing with the high yield decision should affect us. So, section Yeah. section exhibit three. Uh first page one, the date that's easy. Page two, no changes. Page three is a reflection of of the asset allocation that was chosen. Um just some tweaks throughout there as Jonathan mentioned, kind of pulling in a little bit of that mid small overweight. You still are a little bit overweight. You're just not kind of really extended there. Uh, real estate down to five and private equity up to seven and a half. I thought Mike demanded that we have round numbers on everything, didn't you? I must have I must have also been mapping during that for a bit. You love the halfs. Just feels I know. It just it's like really changing the world. I know. In fact, I think that my motion was you were your motion was the seven and a half. Not the motion. you wanted the seven and a half which screwed everything else up. The bottom of the page is uh it's just your total total benchmark reflecting reflecting those changes. Um MCI MSCI purchased what was Burgess what was before that Cambridge. So um benchmarks are good business. So everybody's everybody's tried that uh no changes until page nine which is the addendum. So this obviously the addendum may

change if we make any changes to uh any manager lineup. So but what we have right now is just the and I deleted some of these the blue ones are we have a habit of putting all these asset classes in even ones that make no sense for clients. So I just finally said let's get rid of those. Uh, so I did that and then in yellow, um, I just didn't know if there was going to be a change on principal. So we could just say make the changes as if it's uh, that's it. Yep. Change the require council approval, right? Is it just the it's just the targets? Yeah, just the just the main document. All right. So we should do that. Motion to approve. I think a motion to recommend recommended the council council recommended council Mike it discussion anything right all in favor I not going to ask fes because we all voted for it does Jennifer vote she Jennifer also does she vote she is a voting member yes okay well I didn't hear is she's still on? Yes, I vote yes. Okay, that's fine. I just didn't want to exclude you. I you know I don't know. Okay, I'm good. I Okay, that's that's why you know I was conscious that I I Yeah. Anyway, I didn't want to exclude you. Thank you. I appreciate that. We got our homework corpus search. Uh we'll we'll bring back the the high yield for discussion. And then uh one other thing, our symposium's coming back since Chicago. is also 26. It's also virtual. Uh Howard Marx is going to be our

keynote. And then Brazo was dead. What? I thought was dead. He uh he visits with us about once a year. So he's he's good. He's good. Uh so we got that. I know we're going to do like a panel on AI. So everybody I guess every conference you probably go to now has something like that. So we're gonna we're gonna join on that. Um then a variety of other things. private equity kind of exits and kind of the the slowness of exits and how how different strategies are kind of working through that. Um so yeah, bunch of other stuff. So you can join us in person or virtual full day uh at 5, but come the night before. Okay. Very good. All right. Any questions for these gentlemen? All right. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you. We appreciate it. Okay. We'll see you in August. Yeah. Yes. Me. Oh, good. He's uh I may be virtual or not. Okay. Family trip. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I can handle it. Coming. So, we got We'll bring our tough questions. Yeah. Yeah. Well, digging into the core plus. Yeah. Well, wild world. Exactly. Right. Good. Where you headed? So, we're gonna go to Los Angeles and San Diego. Nice. Very good. Say offer. No, I have a question for Jennifer, but does anybody have anything else for new business? Yes. So, I don't know if this is a needs to be official not, but I'm moving out of alette likely 12 to 18 months from now. So, I don't know if we wanted to backfill. I can't be on the pension board, I don't think, if I'm not a resident. Right. That's correct. Unless you work here. It's not happening. Sorry. So, just make I'm happy to serve until I

move, but just wanted to put that out there. Yeah. Um, we'll take a look. Yeah. Thank you for letting us know. Good. Any other new business? Old business. Jennifer, did you ever ask the council if I could talk to an attorney about uh our contract with principal? No, I did not ask them, but I will ask them on Tuesday. Okay. Okay, good. Um, and it's informal. You're more than welcome to be there, too. I don't know attorney. I was just referred to a few, so I just have names. So, perfect. I will. They're uh we're in work session um on Tuesday, so I will ask them then. Okay. Perfect. All right. Any other old business? Great. Motion to adjurnn. Meeting adjourned.