Pension Board - Regular Meeting

Are you Okay. Awesome. All right. Let's call the meeting to order. Um, we'll start with the minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? That we approve the minutes. Thank you. Is there a second? Excellent. Any discussion, corrections, anything? All in favor? Any opposed? Great. All right. Do we have to is Jonathan up or do we have to do anything else? I don't think so. I think uh he can come on up and just introduce himself.

Jonathan Bryant, Marquette Associates. Good evening everyone. Uh if you go ahead and open up your books, there's a cover page and then a soft cover page behind it. Table of contents shows you what we have in the book today. So we have your second quarter performance report, a asset allocation sheet with some rebalancing recommendations as well as the benefit index calculation, the the cushion that you have with uh that you could take out of principal right now. Uh we have a fixed income core plus search which is the going to be the primary agenda item after the uh performance report. And then uh we also threw in our the the high yield search from the prior meeting to uh just in case we wanted to revisit it. I don't think we probably will, but uh anyways, let's hop in. On the first page, you'll see our uh invite for the 2025 investment symposium. It'll be in Chicago

uh September 26 at the Union League club. Uh I handed out a uh an updated version of that sheet to It has everything on it. It has our agenda um how to to to book yourself in if you want to go in person. We also are going to be live streaming it and then I think also, you know, if you can't make either, they'll post it to YouTube as well. So, we had that on hiatus last year and uh we're bringing it back this year. With that, we have a Marquette update. For sake of time, we'll go ahead and skip that. Then, we have a second quarter 2025 market environment. It's 50 pages. I'm I was going to say we probably don't need to go through it. Uh, you know,

hopefully you read through it or look at least look through it. Does anybody have any questions about it? Anybody? No. Okay. The biggest news was that that payrolls print last Friday, that big revision downward and how that shifted rate cut expectations. Looking like more rate cuts now because of that, but we'll see. We'll see.

Yeah. That's why I just feel like I've been saying that for four years now. We'll see. See? Uh, go ahead and flip to exhibit one. That's the quarterly report. There you go. Jennifer's got it. Now, if you flip ahead to page one, this is your manager status page. Uh, this is where we highlight any managers if there's any issues with them. As you can see, they're all in compliance here. So, no issues there. But just for your minutes, just know that they're all in compliance. Flip ahead a few more pages to page five. I think I flipped ahead too much. Page four and five. So there's your market value page. Uh you ended the quarter with 23,827,91. Uh and to the right of that you see a percent of portfolio column. That is the current waiting for the investments uh compared to the total value of the fund as of the state of the report. Compare that to the the column to the right of that one that uh your policy percent column. Those are your target waiting. So you see pretty close to target weightings. No real issues there as of the end of June. Flip ahead to page six. Yes, six shows you how your plan looks compared to other uh public defined benefit plans. Won't spend any time there. Page seven shows you the historical asset allocation, how it's changed over time, last four years. Page eight, I will spend a brief moment on. This page shows you the market value history of the plan going back 10 years and then summary of cash flows below that. You see for the quarter uh plan started out with about $22.4 million had negative cash flow of about 45,000 out and uh had positive investment change so appreciation in assets and income of uh just under 1.5 million. That's how we arrive at that uh 23.8 million roughly for the end of the quarter. You see the same information for time frames going

back and you see that overall your net investment change has uh has well outpaced the negative cash flow the plan has. So even though you have money flowing out on one side at least your assets are are keeping up well ahead of that uh cash flow out. Skip ahead a few more pages to page 12 and uh we'll dive right into performance here. So the plan for the quarter uh was ahead of its benchmark had a return of 6.7% just slightly ahead of the benchmark ranked in the middle of its universe year-to- date also slightly ahead with a return of 6.4% again ranked in the middle of its universe. Going back in time returns and rankings are a bit mixed. Uh one year and three years you're a bit behind. 5 years are slightly ahead of the benchmark. Uh 7 years slightly behind. 10 years right on the money at a you know 7.3 versus 7.3 for the benchmark since inception we are behind rankings typically are mid to low but I will mention that you're your actuarial target rate of return is 7% and you have achieved that for most time frames except for the uh since inception period uh looking under the hood uh your fixed income composite and the underlying managers there overall your fixed income composite has done well it's it's outperformed for pretty much all time frames except slightly behind year-to- date and just matching the benchmark since inception. Rankings are mixed uh mostly middle to low with a more in the short term. You do have some high high rankings for the three-month and three-year periods. Principal core fixed income is your core manager. They have outperformed all time frames except for seven years. They're just matching for that time frame. Uh near-term rankings are high typically in the top 20% of their universe. long-term, medium to long-term uh rankings are typically mid to low. Uh then you have your principal core plus bond fund and this is the the one that

we're going to discuss more in detail here in a bit. Um they had a pretty good quarter. They're slightly ahead year-to date, but for one year and three years, you see they they had pretty pretty rough uh returns there and and ranked really low in their universe for the core plus fixed income universe. uh and rankings typically in the long term are low even though they are ahead of their benchmark for those time frames. Principal high yield, this is the one we discussed at the prior meeting. Uh so initially you were forced into what they called their high income fund. So you didn't really have a choice. That was the only high yield option you had with principal. Uh they decided to discontinue that fund and actually put you in the better version of the fund which is called the high yield fund. Uh and at the meeting we we discussed that at length and uh decided you know this is actually a pretty well a top pick for Marquette clients. We have quite a few clients in that fund and and performance is pretty good for them. Just uh we don't have the long-term performance data for them since they just made that change back in March. Uh slightly behind for the quarter and behind since inception, but it's only a few months worth of data. So not really going to uh fault them for that. Aristotle Pacific is your floating rate bank loan manager. Uh they were ahead for the quarter uh behind for year-to date in one year and since inception just matching the benchmark but ranked high long term. So they they've overall had a good start. We got them back in September of 2022. So we'll get some more long-term uh performance data here uh at the end of next quarter or this quarter I should say. Page 13, US equities. Uh overall, US equity composite has underperformed its benchmark of the Russell 3000. Uh rankings are mixed typically in the mid to low areas though. It's been that slug that we have in midcap and small cap that's hurt us the most in the long term. Unfortunately, uh small cap hurt us this time around.

Uh but looking under the hood, Vanguard uh S&P 500 index fund has done really well. Uh typically ranked high, matching its index like it's supposed to. uh active management has just not done a good job in large cap in the large cap space. So indexing has been really the the key there. Vanguard midcap has done really well actually uh had a really good start uh for one year. It's actually ahead of large cap and ranked typically in the top 25% of its universe for for all the time frames we have so far. The eyeshares fund unfortunately it has a bit of a quality uh bias in the small cap space. So, if you're in the Russell 2000, there's more junk in there. Uh more unprofitable companies. Uh unfortunately, that quality bias did cost us a bit uh in the small cap space. Even though it's matching the index, I'm just saying compared to other small cap indexes, it it hasn't done as well since we brought them bond back in April 2024. Long-term though, you'd expect that to change. Page 14, non- US equity composite. Uh the short term, it's done well. It's ahead for the quarter, ahead for one year, long-term underperforming. I attribute most of that long-term underperformance to that slug we have in emerging markets. Uh, and you know, we have a lot of clients, most our clients do have an a spec a uh designated exposure to emerging markets and that has has hurt them as well. Long-term, you'd expect that to change. Uh, but overall, non- US equities have done well this year. uh US equities were the the bell of the ball in 23 and 24. Um I think at the start of this year we mentioned you know 20% plus returns in the S&P uh typically don't go three years in a row. We'll see this year but uh non- US equities have kind of taken up the mantle of being one of the best performing asset classes so far this year. uh various reasons uh capital

flight out of the US due to the volatility with the current admin uh stimulus proposed by European countries for defense spending and uh uh currency effect as well. So you know weakening of the US dollar has has lifted uh all these non- US uh equity managers. Uh Vanguard uh total international funds doing well overall but rankings are typically mid to low. uh Vanguard All World XUS small cap similar story doing well but ranked low overall. Uh Vanguard emerging markets and this is really what's dragged down the non- US equity composite unfortunately. Uh matching the benchmark for the most part uh but typically ranked mid to low as well. Uh next you have real estate and you just have one manager there is principal and they had a really excellent quarter of 1.8% versus8 for the benchmark. that's really helped their long-term numbers. Uh just matching year-to- date. Uh a little bit behind for one year, but those long-term numbers really improved. They're typically ahead for the most part, except since inception where they are just matching the benchmark. Then private equity, we don't have the benchmark return yet for the second quarter. It's typically lagged, quite lagged. Uh but overall, you look at the long-term numbers there for uh Partners Group, and uh they're doing well ahead of the benchmark for pretty much every uh long-term time frame. With that, I'll skip ahead a few pages to page 20. Always like to look at the plan from a risk return standpoint. This is a five-year time frame. Uh plan is the blue square, benchmark is the black diamond. The median of the universe is the middle of the crosshairs. Uh you see the plan is is ahead of the benchmark uh from a return perspective, but behind the uh the median of the universe. uh but it als but it has uh less standard deviation or volatility than than the benchmark and the median of the universe. Uh so overall from risk return

standpoint not doing bad. Uh page 21 I do want to spend a moment here. Uh the these are your fees for all your managers and we compile them uh at the bottom there and and on in the blue rows and we estimate you're paying your managers about $90,488 uh annually. That's based on the ending market value for all these managers on June 30th. Uh that equates to an expense ratio of 38 basis points, just under 4/10en of a percent. And unfortunately, that is higher than than what we would expect you all to be paying, which is the median of about 35 basis points. And unfortunately, I have to point the finger primarily to principal. uh the vehicles that that you guys have available to you are typically at a higher expense ratio than alternatives in those spaces. Uh for instance uh your the core fund is about 1.6 times more expensive than the median. The core plus fund is almost 2.3 times more expensive than the median and the uh the high yield fund is a little more reasonable. It's only 1.3 times more expensive. So uh unfortunately those are uh those are hurting us in the fee categories. uh partners group is the only one that's not a principal fund that that is higher than the the median and we also put down um our fee and then uh your custodial fee with add regions and total that up at the bottom as well. Any questions on the quarterly report?

I have one sort of rhetorical that you know with all your brilliant minds at Marquette you did make the comment that small cap you know historically will come back that type of thing. M do you really think it's going to come back? Because you know in today's world the internet companies these IPOs they're not coming out as small caps and growing and if it's a private company and it's small and these doing well the behemoths are buying them. So there's a lot of pardon my French crap in the small cap and will that change? So you don't have to answer that today. You can give us your opinion but yeah I'd like to hear

it's a good question. It seems small cap really really started struggling with interest rates and that could be because there's a lot of zombie I call them zombie companies you know they just perpetually exist but don't really make much of a profit or grow. Um it's a good question. Our model suggests that it will but model suggest a lot of things right. So that's why I say it's your model but it anyway it's more rhetorical but

tough question. Yeah, we'll see. All right. Well, with that, I'll uh I'll flip to exhibit two. We just have a bunch of like characteristics pages after that. So, you know, don't want to spend the time to go through all those, but it's there there for your information if you need it. So, this one doesn't have a page number, but it's your it's your asset allocation sheet. There you go. Um, so this what this page shows is uh values for all your investments as of the end of July because we we kind of marry this with the benefit index calculation because that's when they give it to us as of is the end of the month. So we do have a slight rebalancing recommendation here um primarily to replenish your your principal core fixed income fund because that's where they pull the benefits out of uh so there's quite a bit of negative cash flow out of that investment. So recommendation here is well I'll tell you real quick though overall the fund is uh is is uh near its targets for its asset classes. Uh the fund as of the end of July 31st had uh just above $23.8 million. Uh August 1st might have changed that a little bit but it it looks like things have probably come back. Uh but anyways here's the recommendation. So, we recommend pulling $25,000 from the Vanguard S&P 500 fund, 15,000 from the Vanguard Midcap Fund, contribute 50,000 to iShares core S&P Small Cap Fund, take 25,000 out of the Vanguard Total International Fund, 20,000 out of the Vanguard Emerging Markets Fund. Uh 25,000 out of the Vanguard International Small Cap Fund. contribute 150,000 to the principal core fixed income fund and then take 90,000 out of the fidelity cash. That's the cash that's sitting at uh region's bank in a money market fund and that's a lot of residual from the final payout we received from uh principal real estate.

Nope. I noticed the numbers on real estate are pretty much at close to 5%. Have we gotten everything we need out of it? It's all It's all out. It's all done. Yep. Okay. Just need approval. Sorry. A motion, I guess. Is there a motion to approve Jonathan's recommendations? Motion to approve Jonathan's recommendations. Right. Any discussion, questions, anything? How strongly do you feel about the small cap? um not enough to make changes to spend time at I mean it's at 6% right now I believe

7% 7% I don't think 6% 6% I don't think it's it's worth the discussion I mean I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time right now I think it's a discussion to have that's why I said it was sort of rhetorical that it's a discussion in the future that if it continues to do what it does continue to underperform you know what do you do about it my only question about that is do you do you really want to fill that space with with new dollars. Well, I think I would say yes because you've got to stick to your models at at this time is my recom what I would say. I think we just approved that allocation earlier this year. Yeah. So, I mean I ask the question.

No, it's a good question. I but I don't think we should. It's the I think we got to stay where we are. I would think with when interest rates if interest rates finally start coming down you'll see small caps probably at least for a period outperform could be and hope so. Yeah, that's my take at least. I hope you're right. Yeah, I hope I am too. Good question. Anything else? All right. All in favor? All right. You need a second. We did. Who seconded it? I have motion. I made a motion. What's that? Oh, I thought Allan made the mo I Well, I made the motion to approve and Jonathan and Mike, I made the motion to to approve.

But you asked for the motion. You asked for the motion. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Okay. So, Ted made the motion. I made the mo I'll make the motion. Michael will I apologize. I thought I made the motion. All right. All right. All good. We'll uh and then and then all in favor I I Okay. Any opposed? Excellent. Right. Sorry, Jennifer.

That's okay. With that, if you just flip one more page, it's the it's the it's the one on behind uh the rebalance sheet there. So, as we've been as we've uh been discussing pretty much every meeting is, you know, how do we get money out of principal? What's the smart way smart places to put it? Initially, we were thinking high yield because we were in a fund that wasn't doing very well. And then right before the prior meeting, principal said, "Oh, we're going to discontinue this one and put you in in our good high yield fund." So, took a lot of the punch out of that search as Tom would say. Um, so we've come back with a core plus search. And what this page shows is it shows you the investments and uh with principal and the the liquidity volatility factor they're each one's multiplied by to to arrive at the uh present value of it or the value they want you to keep there based on the benefit index calculation they give us.

So we they put us in a in a fund that you would rather have us in correct. Yeah. Was that fund not available all along? Yeah. Yeah. They're they gave you a very limited universe at principal and the one that you guys had access to was that the crappy one that they discontinued. I I just want to make note of that. I want to make note of that on the record. So that that they're that they're limiting us on funds. Yeah. And they're requiring us to be have a certain amount in their funds. And I think that there's something there that is inappropriate. Yeah. I just want to put on record what we do with

allowing access. Yeah, we've just seen what what's available. Well, what's on the sheet is what's Well, this is the calculation that they give us, I should say. It's not really what's available to you guys. It's kind of their their universe in that on their platform. But I guess depending on the fund, they only allow you certain choices, which is unfortunate, but Do you see any other places? These are they're originally contractually they go back to

Yeah. Usually on these type of plans they have their list for just these plans and unless they open it up to to put you in a different contract, they don't offer other plans. I've dealt with this with dealing with John Hancock in right now with older plans. The same thing and they're the same as Yeah. They kind of got their their fangs in long ago and it's just something we got and they don't like to change because Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, you mean like outside of principal's platform?

So, this so this one was the one initially start of the year. it was in the fund that we didn't want to be in and that's why we came with a search at the prior meeting to try to get us out of it and get into something else. But, uh, getting us switched to that, there really wasn't much value in in switching at that point. So, well, and not to get ahead of you, but with the real estate redemption, I've never seen the cushion over $2 million. So, now we have some flexibility to leave principle with this core plus or other high yield funds, right?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We have a lot more flexibility now. Uh the the fund overall we've had appreciation in the fixed income assets there. So that's that's provided a lot more cushion. Uh I wouldn't So the recommendation that what Tom and I discussed is we were going to recommend taking 1 million from the core plus fund and choosing another core plus manager to to give that to outside of principal. Uh so it would be at regions bank. uh that to me seems to be the most bang for our buck at this point in time. And as time goes on, we can see how that cushion changes. And if we get over, you know, 1.2 million or 1 million again, we can start pulling some more out and and shifting more toward that core plus fund outside of principal.

Do you want to go over the core plus options that you put together?

Yeah, we can. I just wanted to spend a moment here because it shows you that cushion. So, we could do a million, we could do 1.2 or 1.3. It kind of depends on your comfort level. But we will see our options here in exhibit 3. Now, if you flip to page two of exhibit 3, you'll see our options here. So, we included principle for comparison purposes. We're not recommending you're going to have to keep some with them, but we we don't recommend keeping it all with them. Uh we have Baird, Lumis sales, PIMCO, and Credential. And you see a brief summary of of details of each strategy on the second half of the page. So you see they're uh they're all mutual funds except for principal. Uh you see various uh product AUM, vehicle AUM, vehicle is specifically in the mutual funds. What what's in there? So Barrett has about 38 million, Lumis has 10 million, FIMCO has 45, uh, Principal only has 141 million, which is very low. And then Credential has 75 million in this uh, in this vehicle and AUM in this vehicle, I should say. They're all core plus strategies. They're all compared up against the Bloomberg US Aggregate Index. Their uh, approaches you see beared u, principal and credential. They're typically fundamental managers and they have a bottom up process when choosing the securities in their portfolios. Lumis and PIMCO take a combined approach. So they'll do fundamental and quantitative and they'll they'll do top down and bottom up or it's more pronounced I should say not that bar principle or credential ignore the macro environment. Uh and then there's some key attributes. You see Baird, Lumis, Principal, and Credential. They all highlight security or sector and security selection. Um Baird and PIMCO are both all considered all-w weather portfolios. So no matter what, they

should do fairly well or they won't have as as many large draw downs as maybe some of the other managers. Uh so just a brief overview there of uh of the strategies. More importantly though, you kind of get to the meat of it here in a bit. So page three, it shows you where they estimated sources of value added. Uh Baird is kind of the standout here. Most their val estimated value add is from security selection. Second most being sector selection. All the other managers, their primary uh value ad is in sector selection with security selection being second to that. I would highlight to you that PIMCO is kind of the most balanced. They have a uh a wider base of different value ad value ads there compared to the other managers. Page four. Can you go can you just explain security selection?

So just the individual holdings. So like the the individual bonds that they're looking at they're evaluating those bonds.

Yeah. Where whereas with the sector they're looking at like oh industrial bonds or you know not so much tech but uh more so the the underlying sectors there. Page four shows you the uh the top of the page shows you uh relative portfolio weightings compared to the Bloomberg aggregate index and uh up means they have a higher waiting of those uh those credit ratings and below means they have a lower lower waiting. So you see most of them have uh are underweight or have less uh government uh bonds except for PIMCO. They're just slightly belco is probably the most balanced. They don't they don't tend to deviate much in credit quality. Um you see that credential has a bias to AAA's. Uh bar has a bias to triple B's and uh so does principal. And then uh principal and credential have a bias to uh to holding below investment grade assets. So below triple fee is below investment grade. Uh and then you see some more information below there. You see number of holdings. Uh PIM PIMCO has the highest number of holdings. So potentially the most diverse. Uh behind them is Bear and Credential. Lumis and principal have the the most concentrated, the the least amount of holdings. Uh you see yield the worst there for all the investments. So that's the worst possible yield their bonds could on average their bond portfolio could yield. uh you see their coupons current current yield essentially is what that is time to mature average time to maturity for the portfolio. So Lumis and PMCO have a longer maturity uh bias uh principal has the least or lowest maturity average effective duration is a sensitivity to interest rates. So interest rates go up, bond prices go down, vice versa, they go lower, prices go up. uh and you see that Lumis, PIMCO, principal have a higher duration than the index. Been credential have a lower lower uh sensitivity to interest rates compared to the index.

Then you see their average uh portfolio quality on the far right there. Page five, this dives more into the sectors that they they tend to favor. Government is essentially the exact same as what we showed before. Uh securitized, so mortgage back securities, asset back securities, things like that. uh PIMCO, principal and credential tend to favor them. They have more than the index would uh investment grade corporate bonds bar tends to favor as well as principal and high yield corporate principal tends to favor them as well. Page but I'd say this is the most important pages coming up page six and seven. So page six shows you your annualized performance for all these managers going back 10 years. And the highlights here show you instances where they've outperformed the benchmark for those time frames and instance instances where they had less standard deviation than the benchmark for those time frames or less volatility I should say. Uh, and I know there's a lot of numbers there and it could take a minute to kind of formulate uh your thoughts, but just looking at this, I would say your top performer is Credential, but with higher volatility. Bear, I'd say, is your second best or second top performer, but they do it with less volatility. typically instances where credential has the be the highest return compared to all these managers in the index bear's just slightly behind them but with much less volatility. U so I would say in terms of favoritis well not favoritism but I would say be would be your best choice but there's more reasons why and I'll get into them here in a moment. Page seven shows you uh calendar year returns. So again, you see credential tends to shoot the lights out more compared to all the other managers. But in terms of just consistency, so average performance above the benchmark, bar outperformed the benchmark eight times

going back to 2015 for all these years. Uh Credential did seven, Lumis did seven, Pimco did six, and Principal did five. So I'd say Beard is probably the most consistent. um they're not shooting the lights out like credential, but they're getting credential-like returns with less volatility. And page eight shows you a bunch of uh do they is there any place they look at the um the manager's duration with with because a lot of times the teams within these teams changed and I saw in 2015 for example where Lumis looks like crap and then it seems to turn around. So is that because they made a

team change maybe? Yeah we have some pages on that. Okay. So there there are more deep dives into the managers starting on page 14, but go ahead with yours. We'll get to that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um so page eight shows you a bunch of different risk statistics. Uh what I mainly wanted to highlight is the is the chart in the top left corner. Uh you'll see all the different managers and where they sit on the risk return uh quadrant chart here. Bar is the only one and this is only for a 5-year period. It's because you're in Milwaukee with Northwestern Mutual. They're in the Northwest Court. Yeah, I know.

But yeah, I' I'd say that Beard and Credential are the standouts here. Um they're they're all good managers. Well, well, I won't say Principal is a bad manager, but we're trying to get get out of there. Um these are all top picks. Beard, Lumis, PIMCO, Credential, they're they're all top picks in the core plus space from Marquette, from our research team. But I'd say beard probably looks the best. For instance, in these risk in these uh statistics below, they have a better information ratio, better alpha. Well, just behind alpha, sorry, for credential. And this is only looking at 5-year period, so don't don't look too deep into it, but um an information ratio, sorry, is a measure of risk adjusted value added by the manager. And then, uh batting average is a new new statistic they added. That's uh it's based on monthly returns going back five years in this instance. So anytime the manager either matches the benchmark or outperforms, that's where they're getting that ratio. So 71.7% of the time both Bar and Credential outperformed the Bloomberg aggregate index uh on a monthly basis going back five years. Uh and then you have your up capture down capture. Um credential has the best up capture, best down capture is bared. If you take the difference between them uh between up and down uh credential looks the best bar looked the second best again only for a fiveyear time frame.

How much are we are we looking to transfer in here? So initially we were thinking half a million but that cushion got bolstered quite a bit. So Tom and I were going to recommend a million dollars at this time. So question you're talking about bear and principal. Does it make sense to do half a million bar half a million principal or is that Oh no no no uh credential. Trust me, I was confusing them. Yeah. When I was going through it, you could, but it's such a small piece. I know. That's why I was asking, is it worth it? I' I'd say probably just stick with one for now. Um once may maybe once we get out of principal, we can go back to that conversation cuz uh we're not even going to get half of the allocation out of uh principal core plus at this time.

Gotcha. But uh just recommending a million at this time. And I I do want to show you the fees really quick. I think this kind of sells it here on page 10. So you see the the uh the fee schedules and expense ratios for all these managers. Bear by far has the lowest at 30 basis points. Principal by far has the highest at 72 basis points and all the others are kind of in the same range between about 04 and four five uh percent. So, you need a mo you need a motion. Well, yeah. I conversation, questions, comments on

Well, let's Can you go back to the managers and just answer that question of the managers? Oh, the uh on the on their teams. Yeah, they're all extremely long tenured. Okay, good for Yeah, they all should be pretty long tenur. I wish they put a little average down there, but uh years of experience for BARD, for instance, uh 30 to 40 or almost 50 years of experience. Years of their firms typically in the mid20s. Uh years in rules, pretty high except for a couple who are in their roles more recently. You just go to Lumis and Lumis sales. Just Lumis. I just want to see years of the firm. Yeah. So page 16, okay, is Lumis. So they're us you're use your sorry their years of experience are varied. Um,

it goes beyond that point when they had it. So, that's all I wanted. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Not not so much space on team changes, right? That's all I want to say. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, I'm going to make a motion, Jennifer. That we take Jonathan's recommendation and move a million dollars from the principal Core Plus to the Bay. Is it Core Plus or Core Bond Fund? Core Plus bond fund. Um, is there a second? I second it. All right. Discussion, questions, conversations, anybody.

I mean, given our hatred of principle, does it make any sense to go above a million? You do have the option to with that cushion. Uh, we could keep a million dollar cushion with with principal. Just with volatility, I don't know how much that'll shift. What is what is the recommended? I mean, what is the maximum you would feel comfortable doing? The maximum I would say is 1.2. All right. So, let's change the um recommendation to 1.2 million from 1 million. And the the general cash comes out of the core fixed income account. Yeah. Ellen has to accept your I accepted I accepted raise one. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mike. No, I just The cash flow comes out of the core fixed income plus.

Yeah, that's why you got to replenish it pretty much every every meeting, right? So, any other questions or comments? What's the risk that if the cushion drops, we just push it back? We just send it pull it back. How easy is it to push money back in? Uh, you just sell some securities and and at region's bank and send it. Yeah. As long as you can transfer it easily, the selling takes a day. Yeah. Pretty quick. Can't dare them to call us out on it. Yeah. All right. Since the motion's on the table, uh, all in favor? I Any oppose? No. Perfect.

Thank you. We'll, uh, we'll continue to revisit the cushion at at future meetings and and try to continue to leg out of principal core plus into bar core plus. Good. All right. Perfect. And I had the high yield coach in there if we needed it, but I don't think we need it because we already made a decision. So, perfect. All right. Anything else, Jonathan? No. All we had. Perfect. Thank you very much. Awesome. Thank you. All right. You want me to move to end? Yes. I don't know if we're done. Well, it's number four on the agenda. Yeah. Do we have anything else to discuss?

I don't have anything else to discuss other than I would uh note that we did meet with the attorney. Yes. Um, but I have not um received any information back from him, but we did talk to him to the attorney about our ability to get completely out of principal. Um, we've given him all the information and he is still analyzing it. Great.

So, so yeah, I'll I'll clarify. So when we at our last meeting, I had asked permission to find an attorney cuz I had some ref referrals as a contract attorney to see not an ORISA attorney, but a contract to see if we could try and get out of this principal contract. So the board approved that and Darren, Jennifer, and I met with the gentleman um couple months ago, maybe. I think it was beginning of June. Yeah, some around beginning of June. and it was approved and he is working on with somebody else to try and see if we can what steps we could take to get out of the principal contract. Can we my recommendation would be to also give him the information on the high yield as well?

Just how they just worse spot and they decide to change it because I Yeah, I mean we could tell them. I think it's more of a contractual thing that's contractual as well. I know it's contractual but I think it's is there I mean that's all part of it but yeah we could tell I there's no problem with explain it to him. Yeah. So good. Can you share who the attorney is? Um, we can, but I His last name is Lacader. His what? Last name is Lacader and I Matt. Matt. Matt L. Laster. Yeah. I don't know. I didn't know him. I don't know.

But I had talked to somebody who um was did some Orisa stuff and everything like that. Asked for a recommendation for a contract attorney and that's who he recommended. It's interesting. So cool. Yeah, thank you for doing that. Yeah, so hopefully we are successful with that. Um any old business, new business, anything else anybody's got? Can we set the next meeting date in November? I know sometimes we have to uh change that. Oh, I think we had already changed that one. So I have a favor to ask Jennifer or Darren. Can we send out meeting invites? Yes.

With um these meetings like a year in advance so that not just the next meeting but like the next three or four meetings so they're on the calendar and then we can always change them. Yes, we appreciate it. Yeah. Okay. So, I need you to remind me when is the next November 6th. November 6th. So, Tom I know is is out on the 6th. So, he gave me alternative dates. Okay. So he gave me the fourth. Well, let me ask you a question before you do that. Are you here on the six? Should be, I think. I mean, no offense, but Jonathan, you do a very nice job. Thank you. We don't I don't think it's that complicated that we need to everybody's schedule for Tom.

Let me just double check on that here for me. And if anybody disagrees, please let me know. I'm sure he won't mind. He's at another meeting that day out of town. So, Nope. I'm free. Is anybody opposed to Yeah, if we can get them down at least and I can figure out weird on the calendar. It's always it's always the first Thursday of the month after the end of the quarter. Okay. Is that okay? Yeah.

Yeah. That's we we changed that a while back because it was because we used to go back and forth like, "Okay, when's the next meeting?" When I took over, I was like, we are just going to we have to be consistent because every other committee probably is consistent. Yes. Yeah. I like why why isn't the investment committee or the pension committee? So, yeah. Appreciate it. All right. We'll keep it where it is and we'll get there. All right. Anything else? And just as a reminder, I've got probably at least two more meetings, but um once I move, I'm ineligible, I think. So, and we will not have a going away party, right? No party. Motion to not have it going on my There you go. I thought we were going to be invited to the house warming point.

All right. Anything else? All right. Motion to adjurnn. I move. Thank you. Meaning adjourn. Jennifer, I have one. Oh, you this is five o'clock pension.