HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUDGET AND FINANCE AGENDA 04-01-13central
Sanitary District
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA
SANITARY DISTRICT
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Member Nejedly
Member Pilecki (Alternate)
Monday, April 1, 2013
3:00 p.m.
Middle Conference Room
1470 Enea Circle, Second Floor
Concord, California
INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC
ADDRESSING THE COMMITTEE ON AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
JAMES A. NEJEDLY
President
DAVID R. WILLIAMS
President Pro Tent
PAUL H. CAUSEY
MICHAEL R. MCGILL
TAD J. PILECKI
PHONE: (925) 228 -9500
FAX. (925) 676 -7211
www.centralsan.org
Anyone wishing to address the Committee on an item listed on the agenda will be heard when the
Committee Chair calls for comments from the audience. The Chair may specify the number of minutes
each person will be permitted to speak based on the number of persons wishing to speak and the time
available. After the public has commented, the item is closed to further public comment and brought to the
Committee for discussion. There is no further comment permitted from the audience unless invited by the
Committee.
ADDRESSING THE COMMITTEE ON AN ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
In accordance with state law, the Committee is prohibited from discussing items not calendared on the
agenda. You may address the Committee on any items not listed on the agenda, and which are within their
jurisdiction, under PUBLIC COMMENTS. Matters brought up which are not on the agenda may be
referred to staff for action or calendared on a future agenda.
AGENDA REPORTS
Supporting materials on Committee agenda items are available for public review at the Reception Desk,
4849 Imhoff Place, Martinez. Reports or information relating to agenda items distributed within 72 hours
of the meeting to a majority of the Committee are also available for public inspection at the Reception
Desk. During the meeting, information and supporting materials are available in the Conference Room.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
In accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and state law, it is the policy of the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District to offer its public meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone,
including those with disabilities. If you are disabled and require special accommodations to participate,
please contact the Secretary of the District at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting at (925) 229 -7303.
Budget and Finance Committee
April 1, 2013
Page 2
1. Call Meeting to Order
2. Public Comments
3. Risk Management
*a. Review Loss Control Report and discuss outstanding claims
Staff Recommendation: Review the report, discuss outstanding
claims and provide direction if needed.
*4. Review staff presentation regarding proposed revision of administrative overhead
percentage and survey results of overhead rates charged by other agencies
(relates to Item 9.a. in Board Binder)
Staff Recommendation: Review presentation and survey results and
provide input if needed.
5. Review the financial status and budget of the Self- Insurance Fund and allocation
for the Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Operations and Maintenance (O &M) Budget, as well
as key O &M budget assumptions
Staff Recommendation: Review and provide input to staff.
*6. Review report of Schultz Collins Lawson and Chambers Investment Counsel
regarding the District's Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 45
Other Post - Employment Benefits (OPEB) PARS Trust
Staff Recommendation: Review and provide input if needed.
7. Review February 2013 Financial Statements and Investment Reports (Item 3.c.
in Board Binder)
Staff Recommendation: Review and recommend Board approval.
8. Expenditures
a. Review Expenditures (Item 3.b. in Board Binder)
Staff Recommendation: Review and recommend Board approval.
*b. Review Legal Expenditure Summary
Staff Recommendation: Review Legal Expenditure Summary.
Budget and Finance Committee
April 1, 2013
Page 3
Announcements
10. Suggestions for future agenda items
11. Adjournment
* Attachment
•��l � :13 > fie] r ► r �� _l � 17 7 > � � 1 i� 17 I � [�7 :1 � I i � i I :1 � 1: �� : I i r i I � � f I �?
Status
#
ID#
CCCSD 2012 -13 Loss Control Report
DOL Other Party
New Incident
City
Prior Fiscal Year Incident
Reserve
Ongoing Incident
Paid to Date
Litigated Matter
•��l � :13 > fie] r ► r �� _l � 17 7 > � � 1 i� 17 I � [�7 :1 � I i � i I :1 � 1: �� : I i r i I � � f I �?
Status
#
ID#
Loss
DOL Other Party
Address
City
Veh# Reserve
Reserve
Paid to Date
Paid to Date
Paid to
Type
Type
Closed
C
Closed
1
2013004
SSO
11/21/2012 Raymond Marc Salon
1310 Mt. Diablo Blvd.
Walnut Creek
$
Travelers Ins.
$
251.09
Servicemaster
Closed
2
2013007
SSO
1212/2012 Richard Carpenter
915 Mountain View Dr.
Lafayette
$
Closed
$
125.00
Claimant
Closed
3
2013008
SSO
11/5/2012 Sue Berg
1319 El Curtola Blvd.
Lafayette
$
3
$
1,428.00
A Call Away Sewers
Leland @ Bailey, Pittsburg
#233 pickup
$
2,467.79
Russo Auto Body
$
395.00
Tap Tile
Closed
4
2013009
SSO
12121012 Mildred Lowther
150 Le Espiral
Odnda
$
400.00
Closed
5
2013010
SSO
12/25/2012 Brian Fairhurst
3320 Sweet Dr.
Lafayette
$
55.00
Open
6
2013011
SSO
12/2612012 Dal Ghotera
2369 Caballo Ranchero
Alamo
$
750.00
$
62.49
Home Depot
$
6,603.32
Servicemaster
Open
7
2013012
SSO
12/30/2012 Amy Wear
Los Cerros
Walnut Creek
$
-
$
974.93
Extended Stay Hotels
Total - OF/PR
$
1,150.00
$
9,894.83
LIABILITY
INCIDENTS -
OTHER
Status
#
ID#
Loss
DOL Other Party
Address
City
Reserve
Paid to Date
Paid to
Type
Closed
1
2013003
GL
10/4/2012 Glenn Peterson
Diablo Road
Danville
$
809.94
Hertz Car Rental
$
11,595.19
San Ramon Body & Detail
$
72.00
Glenn Petersen (Doc bill)
Closed
2
2013006
GL
9/8/2012 Tannaz Heaney
MH at 212 Ludell Dr.
Uninc. CCC
$
-
$
-
Open
3
2013013
GL
10/29/2012 Howard Adler
110 Hartz Ave.
Danville
$
-
$
-
Open
4
2013014
GL
12126/2012 Lindsey Parker
23 Ranchitos Del Sol
Diablo
$
-
$
15,118.04
Roto Rooter
$
-
$
608.00
Claimant
Total - Liab.
$
-
$
28,203.17
PROPERTY INCIDENTS
Status
#
ID#
Type
DOL Other Party
Address
City
Reserve
Paid to Date
Paid to
Open
B
2012021
PD
3/29/2012 CoGen Incident
SCB
$
786,783.19
Various -refer to Cost Log
$
(381,020,84)
CCCSD - Insurance Recov,
Total - Property $ - $ 405,762.35
AUTO INCIDENTS
Status
#
ID#
Loss
DOL
Other Party
Location
Veh# Reserve
Paid to Date
Paid to
Type
Closed
C
2011022
AL
5/9/2011
Louis Pimentel
41 Lost Valley
#252 Rodder $
$
27,418.75
Travelers Ins.
Closed
1
2013001
APD
8/27/2012
Unknown
3813 Pinole Valley Rd, Pinole
#253 Chevy Truck $
$
1,040.34
Russo Auto Body
Closed
2
2013002
AL
8/15/2012
Greg Brown
Hwy 680, Concord
#262 pickup $ -
$
294.91
Greg Brown
Closed
3
2013005
APD
11/1612012 E. County Transit
Leland @ Bailey, Pittsburg
#233 pickup
$
2,467.79
Russo Auto Body
Note: Prior fiscal year closed claims have been removed from report.
Total - Auto $ - $ 28,754.00 .W
A
•
3/25/2013
Administrative Overhead
Review
Presented by: Thea Vassallo
Finance Manager
Overview of Presentation
1. Admin Overhead Components (3)
2. Calculation of Individual Components
3. 2008 Survey
4. 2013 Survey
5. Staff Recommendation
6. Examples of Changes
* Complete 2013 Survey attached as last page
2
jl/.
1
Overhead Components
• Admin Overhead
11/12 Audited Financial Statements used for
13/14 Admin Overhead Percentage (2 year lag)
= Indirect Cost as a % of Adjusted Salaries
• Employee Benefits
12/13 Benefits Budgeted (most up to date info available)
= District Benefits as a % of Budgeted Salaries
• Non -Work Hours
Value of vacation, sick leave, administrative leave,
birthday holiday, and earned overtime expressed as
= Non -Work Hours as a % of Salaries 3
Admin Overhead %
11 -12 Audited Financials
Salaries
Admin (all) 4.91M
Eng, CSO, POD 0.9M
(Directors & support staff)
Benefits (thru payroll) 4.3M
OPEB (premium + contrib PARS) 8.3M
Other Expenses 4.8M
Adjustments ($915k deprec) 1.3M
Total Adjusted Indirect Costs 24.5M
Divided by Adjusted Salaries
(ENG, CSO, POD, PS)
Total Admin Overhead %
20.9M
=117%
4
2
Employee
Benefits
%
= Weighted %)
Vacation
6%
Sick Leave
5%
(Current Year Budget is Used Since it is More Accurate)
5%
12/13
11/12
Comp Time
Change in
Budget
Budget
Variance
% of Salary
Retirement 15.3M
12.7M
2.6M
11.6%
Health Insurance 9.6M
8.5M
1.1m
5.6%
All Other 6.5M
7.5M
(1.0M)
(2.5)%
Total Benefits 31.4M
28.7M
2.7M
14.7%
Benefits moved to
Admin OH (8.7M)
(8.7M)
-
(8.3M is OPEB ARC)
Adjusted Benefits 22.7M
20.OM
2.7M
Divide by Budgeted
Salaries 26.9M
28.1 M
(1.2M)
Employee Benefit % 85%
71%
14%
5
Non -Work Hours
%
(Hire date - #ee's - #Days - Convert Hrs
= Weighted %)
Vacation
6%
Sick Leave
5%
Holidays
5%
Admin Leave & Bdays
1%
Comp Time
1%
Total %
18%
6
3
Benefit and Overhead
CCCSD Previous Survey
Benefit and Overhead Benchmark Comparison
March
February
2008
Aaency
Benefit s Overhead Non -Wor Total Comments
Oro Loma (1)
70% 58% 23% 151% For 2007-08 end 2008 -09 - Two Yaar Budget
Union San
Includes edditi.hW "cost of deprsola8ons) to bill
Oro Loma (2)
70% 156% 23% 249% developers
No
Proposed for 200e -o9 based on 2086.0] acNal. Using
CCCSD
71% 100% 19% 190% 17e %1, 2007-0e
Castro Valley Sanitary District
63% 100% 15% 178% 2006 -2007
Yes
Based on 2001 -02, 17 % dept exp Inclutled in Overhead
Delta Diablo
43% 105% 17% 165% Co.—
West County
89% 70% - 159% Non -work hours In benefit %
South Bayside System Authority
28% 15% 17% 60%
Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District
N/A N/A N/A 0% Donl heve need t0 charge overhead rain,bursemem 7
Benefit and Overhead
Benchmark
Comparison —
March
2013
Aoencv
Benefits
Admin
Overhead
Non -Work Total
..Dae
Multiple
rates?
Union San
-
-
- 234%
No
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 1 - Capital Project Charges
85%
117%
18% 220%
Yes
Castro Valley Sanitary District
65%
125%
20% 210%
No
Oro Loma (3) - External Project Rate (PROPOSED RATE)
67%
108%
22% 197%
Yes
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2 - 3 Year Average
73%
105%
18% 196%
Yes
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
43%
105%
17% 165%
No
West County Wastewater District
89%
70%
0% 159%
No
DublirvSan Ramon Services District
48%
86%
20% 153%
Yes
Oro Loma (2) - Internal Project Rate (PROPOSED RATE)
67%
27%
22% 116%
Yes
Oro Loma (1) - Benefits and non - productive time (PROPOSED RATE)
67%
0%
22% 90%
Yes
South Bayside Sewer Authority
28%
15%
17% 60%
No
Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District
N/A
60%
WA 60%
No
Central Marin Sanitation Agency
-
26%
- 26%
No
Napa Sanitation
-
-
- 0%
No 8
M
Staff Recommendation
• Use 3 year average of 196% for FY 13 -14
— Billing of outside agencies
Clean Water and HHW billings
— Calculating the Annual Environmental and
Development - Related Rates and Charges
9
Change in Admin Overhead %
Due to Change in CCCERA Assumed Rate
(Assumed rate decreased from 7.75% to 7.25 %)
12/13 12/13 CCCERA
Budget Budget 5.55%
Retirement 15.3M 16.8M 1.5M
Health Insurance 9.6M 9.6M
All Other 6.5M 6.5M
Total Benefits 31.4M 32.9M
Benefits moved to Admin OH
(8.3M is OPEB ARC) (8.7M) (8.7M)
Adjusted Benefits 22.7M 24.2M
Divide by Budgeted
Salaries 26.9M 26.9M
=Employee Benefit % 85% 90% 5% 10
5
Benefit and Overhead Benchmark Comparison - March 2013
THESE RATES DO NOT INCLUDE THE SALARY COMPONENT
DEFINITION OF OVERHEAD FOR THIS SURVEY (EMPLOYEE BENEFITS + ADMINISTRATIVE AND DIVISION OVERHEAD + NON -WORK (PRODUCTIVE) COSTS - Don't include Salary
*' Check this box if you calculate different division rates, or use different rates for capital projects compared to outside billings or for other purposes.
Use multiple lines if you use multiple rates (See Oro Loma example) and use the comments section to describe the purpose.
"Use
multiple
Agency
Benefits
Overhead
Non -Work
Total
rates?
Comments/ Effective Date of Rates
The overhead rate is mainly for outside agency work, unless there is a
contract that supersedes the District overhead rate. Labor is never
charged to capital projects. Using 171% total (without depreciation) and
Union San
-
-
-
234%
NO
234% including depreciation - for 2012 -13.
For 2013 -14; increases in pension, GASB 45 and medical
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 1-
premiums. Salaries, which are the denominator, decreased due to
Capital Project Charges (Initial Calc)
85%
117%
18%
220%
Yes
several retirements and unfilled positions. Prior year was 194 %.
Castro Valley Sanitary District
65%
125%
20%
210%
No
Effective 2012
Oro Loma (3) - External Project Rate
Current rate is 214% as of 2012 -13 - rates in the table are proposed for
(PROPOSED RATE)
67%
108%
22%
197%
Yes
2013 -14 - 2014 -15
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2-
Proposing rolling 3 -year average rate of 196% for some outside
billings and internally when calculating permit counter related
Most Outside Billings (3 Yr Average)
73%
1 105%
18%
196%
Yes
fees and charges.
Effective for 2002 -03 based on 2001 -02 financial data. Not a top
priority to increase overhead at this time as it negatively impacts
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
43%
105%
17%
165%
No
customers.
From February 2008 Survey of other agencies; non -work component is
West County Wastewater District
89%
70%
0%
159%
No
included in the benefit %
From hand -out at January 2013 Finance Group Meeting. Overhead for
Divisions are calculated separately. Used the Engineering Division
overhead of 153 %; the highest rate is Mechanical Maintenance Full
Dublin /San Ramon Services District
48%
86%
20%
153%
Yes
Cost Recovery at 289.71% Effective for 2013
Oro Loma (2) - Internal Project Rate
Current rate is 125% as of 2012 -13 - rates in the table are proposed for
(PROPOSED RATE)
67%
27%
22%
116%
Yes
2013 -14 - 2014 -15
Oro Loma (1) - Benefits and non - productive time
Current rate is 98% as of 2012 -13 - rates in the table are proposed for
(PROPOSED RATE)
67%
0%
22%
90%
Yes
2013 -14 - 2014 -15
South Ba side Sewer Authority
28%
15%
17%
60%
No
From February 2008 Survey of other agencies
Uses a standard 60% for overhead, that is rarely used. Just salary and
Fairfield- Suisun Sewer District
N/A
60%
N/A
60%
No
benefits is charged to capital projects.
Applies overhead for certain types of contracts. The rate is either 10%
or 26 %. At a minimum, CMSA recovers all expenses incurred
including billing for staff time at the weighted /fully burdened salary rate
Central Marin Sanitation Agency
-
26%
-
26%
No
(calculated by person - does not have an overall average).
Napa San does not currently calculate overhead rates. Fees have not
been updated since 1989 and do not represent the collection of the
,Napa Sanitation
-
-
-
0%
No
cost of service.
Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District - - - - - Response not received.
Mt. View Sanitary District - - - - No Overhead is rarely billed out.
Ross Valley Sanitary District - - - - Response not received.
of
SCHULTZ COLLINS
LAWSON CHAMBERS
It*4vLs I MLN r r- 0UNSLL
(a -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
DATA SOURCES
Commentary On Fund Changes, Additions, And Removals
Summary of Excess Returns
TRUST CHANGE
HIGHMARK POTENTIAL SALE
IPS COMMENTARY
FEES
EVALUATION OF CURRENT INVESTMENTS
ACTIVELY MANAGED MUTUAL FUNDS
Risk
Relative Performance
Expense Ratios _
Consistency of Fund Management
BENCHMARK STYLE ANALYSIS
BENCHMARK STYLE ANALYSIS
Overall Effective Asset Mix
Rolling Style Benchmark
Overall Style /Seleciton
Fund /Benchmark Historical Correspondence
Monthly Excess Returns
Cumulative Excess Returns
Benchmarks Used
HARBOR CAPITAL APPRECIATION INSTL
T. ROWE PRICE GROWTH STOCK
COLUMBIA CONTRARIAN CORE Z
SENTINEL COMMON STOCK I
T. ROWE PRICE EQUITY INCOME
LOOMIS SAYLES VALUE Y
HIGHMARK GENEVA MID CAP GROWTH FIDUCIARY
TIAA -CREF MID -CAP VALUE INSTL
T. ROWE PRICE NEW HORIZONS
COLUMBIA SMALL CAP VALUE FUND II Z
NUVEEN REAL ESTATE SECS I
MFS INTERNATIONAL GROWTH I
HIGHMARK INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FID
DODGE & COX INTERNATIONAL STOCK
SCHRODER EMERGING MARKET EQUITY INV
VANGUARD SHORT -TERM INVESTMENT -GRADE ADM
HIGHMARK BOND FID
PIMCOTOTAL RETURN INSTL
PIMCO HIGH YIELD INSTL
OVERALL STYLE DISTRIBUTION OF DOMESTIC EQUITY FUNDS
Overall Distribution
Rolling Period Historical Distribution
OVERALL STYLE DISTRIBUTION OF FOREIGN EQUITY FUNDS
Overall Distribution
Rolling Period Historical Distribution
OVERALL STYLE DISTRIBUTION OF FIXED INCOME FUNDS
Overall Distribution
Rolling Period Historical Distribution
FEE ANALYSIS
1
1
1
2
6
7
9
10
1
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
36
36
37
37
37
38
38
38
39
C E % T 1 A L C O N T R A C35-1 A SA N I T A R Y C I S F R I C T
G A S B 45/0 T H
E R POST-
E tiI P , O Y M E NT B E N E F I T S T R L T
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REPORT FC. T -= ?ER
IOC
=N., N.c DECE iV'. 5 n 3 1 , 201 2
INTRODUCTION
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) maintains an Other Post - Employment Benefits (OPEB) trust
(the Trust) that meets the accounting requirements of GASB 45. The Trust is managed by HighMark Capital
Management. Central San has engaged Schultz Collins Lawson Chambers, Inc. (SCLC), a registered investment
advisor, to conduct an investment review of the Trust, and a review of HighMark Capital Management's advisory
services and fee structure. The one -time SCLC investment advisory services presented in this report include the
following:
• Review the OPEB Trust's Investment Guidelines Document (IGD), which we understand serves as the
Trust's Investment Policy Statement (IPS).
• Review the Trust's asset allocation, both as established by the IGD, and as actually implemented by
HighMark Capital Management.
• Review each fund used by HighMark Capital Management to deploy the portfolio. The review will include
the following steps:
1) Evaluate the performance of the fund relative to relevant market indices and peer group
averages.
2) Perform an attribution analysis on the fund to characterize the long -term style orientation of
the fund and to construct a hypothetical passive portfolio that replicates, as closely as
possible, the fund's historical performance results. The analysis will:
• Determine the effective asset allocation for the fund;
• Determine the extent to which the manager of the fund adds or subtracts value, relative
to a passive portfolio; and
• Permit SCLC to establish appropriate portfolio benchmarks and evaluate overall
investment performance of each portfolio.
3) Evaluate the cost structure of the fund relative to alternate approaches, including reviewing
both the explicit and implicit revenue sharing used to subsidize the cost of other plan
operations.
• Review any fund or benchmark changes made by HighMark Capital Management, and determine whether
the change added value.
• Review the HighMark Capital Management service agreement for reasonableness, scope of services, and
level of fees.
DATA SOURCES
This report is prepared using public sources for fund and index performance data, such as Morningstar, Inc. and
Ibbotson, Inc. Although Schultz Collins Lawson Chambers, Inc. (SCLC) believes these data sources to be reliable, SCLC
has not independently verified the accuracy of any data reported.
f
REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON INVESTMENT GUIDELINES DOCUMENT
An investment policy provides guidelines and procedures that direct long -term management of investor assets.
A written Investment Policy Statement (IPS) establishes a systematic approach to documenting investment
objectives, relevant constraints, and governance structures. The purpose of an IPS is to assist the investor and
portfolio manager in effectively selecting, monitoring, and evaluating investments to fulfill the objectives set forth
in the IPS.
An IPS is a highly customizable document that should be specifically tailored to investor objectives, restrictions,
preferences, and tolerances for risk. The Chartered Financial Analysts Institute (CFA), the leading global association
of investment professionals, provides IPS guidelines relating to general institutional investors.
NighMark Capital Management's has developed an Investment Guidelines Document (IGD) for the OPEB Trust,
which we understand has been adopted by Central San. The IGD serves as the Trust's IPS.
The following table presents the CFA Institute guidelines for an IPS, as well as SCLC comments about whether
the Trust IGD conforms to the CFA Institute guidelines. Significant variances from the guidelines are highlighted.
CFA IPS Guidelines
for general Institutional Investors
Does Investment Guidelines
Document (IGD) Conform to
CFA Guidelines
Comments
And
Responsibilities
1. Scope and Purpose
la. Define the investor.
Define who the investor is, be it a natural person or
No
Not explicit in IGD
legal /corporate entity.
Specify which of the investor's assets are to be
No
Not explicit in IGD
governed by the IPS.
1b. Define the structure.
Set forth key responsibilities and actors.
Yes
IGD
Identify an organizational structure for investing.
Yes
IGD
Identify a risk management structure applicable to
No
N/A
investing.
Assign responsibility for monitoring and reporting.
Yes
Portfolio manager
Document acceptance of the IPS.
Yes
Acceptance of IGD
2.
Governance
2a. Specify who is responsible for determining
Yes
Central San
investment policy, executing investment policy, and
monitoring the results of implementation of the
policy.
2b. Describe the process for reviewing and updating
Yes
Central San
the IPS.
2c. Describe the responsibility for engaging and
No
N/A
discharging external advisers.
2d. Describe the roles and responsibilities of boards
No
N/A
and staff.
a
3e. Describe other considerations relevant to
investment strategy.
State the investment philosophy. Yes IGD
Identify a proxy- voting policy. No (often omitted) N/A
Identify constraints on participation in securities No (not generally applicable to N/A
lending programs. portfolio invested in mutual
funds)
Identify special factors to be used in including or No (often omitted) N/A
excluding potential investments from the portfolio.
Does Investment Guidelines
Comments
CFA IPS Guidelines
Document (IGD) Conform to
And
for general Institutional Investors
CFA Guidelines
Responsibilities
2e. Assign responsibility for determination of asset
Yes
Portfolio manager
allocation, including inputs used and criteria for
development of input assumptions.
2f. Assign responsibility for risk management,
Yes
Portfolio manager
monitoring, and reporting.
3. Investment, Return, and Risk Objectives
3a. Describe the overall investment objective.
Yes
Maximize total return
with respect to risk
3b. State the return and risk requirements.
State the overall investment performance objective.
Yes
Target return is 6%
identify performance objectives for each asset class
No
N/A
eligible for investment.
Define a policy portfolio to serve as a basis for
No
N/A
performance and risk assessments.
3c. Define the risk tolerance of the investor.
Yes
Moderate objective
3d. Describe relevant constraints.
Yes
Define an evaluation horizon for achievement of
Yes
"Long- term ", without
performance objectives.
stating years
Identify any requirements for maintaining liquidity.
No (not generally applicable to
N/A
portfolio invested in mutual
funds)
Identify to what extent, if any, tax considerations will
No (not generally applicable to
N/A
affect investment decision making.
Central San)
Specify any policies related to leverage.
Yes
Prohibited
Identify any restrictions on investment in foreign
No (not generally applicable to
N/A
securities or investments.
portfolio invested in mutual
funds)
If relevant, specify a policy on foreign currency
No(not generally applicable to
N/A
management.
portfolio invested in mutual
funds)
3e. Describe other considerations relevant to
investment strategy.
State the investment philosophy. Yes IGD
Identify a proxy- voting policy. No (often omitted) N/A
Identify constraints on participation in securities No (not generally applicable to N/A
lending programs. portfolio invested in mutual
funds)
Identify special factors to be used in including or No (often omitted) N/A
excluding potential investments from the portfolio.
Does Investment Guidelines Comments
CFA IPS Guidelines Document (IGD) Conform to And
for general Institutional Investors CFA Guidelines Responsibilities
4. Risk Management
4a. Establish performance measurement and Yes Portfolio manager
reporting accountabilities.
4b. Specify appropriate metrics for risk measurement No N/A
and evaluation.
4c. Define a process for rebalancing portfolios to Yes IGD
target allocations.
For clarity and accountability, the CFA Institute guidelines recommend clearly stating who the investor is, be it a
person, corporation, or legal entity, and clearly stating which investor assets are to be governed by the IPS. The
Trust IGD does not explicitly spell out who the investor is, nor does it identify specifically the assets that are
governed by the IGD.
One of the primary purposes of an investment policy is to address issues relating to risk and risk management.
Although the IGD establishes that the investor has "Moderate Objective" for risk tolerance, the IGD does not define
nor list risks relevant to the investor. The IGD also fails to identify a structure for risk management.
An IPS should also determine who is responsible for engaging and discharging external investment managers,
consultants, and other vendors who are associated with the investment assets. The IGD does not explicitly state
whose responsibility it is to hire and fire external advisors, nor does it state the roles and responsibilities of the
Trust's board and staff. While it's understood that as a discretionary portfolio manager, HighMark Capital
Management is responsible for selecting and replacing funds, the IGD should state this explicitly, and should
address responsibilities for hiring and firing other external advisors.
The CFA Institute guidelines recommend defining performance and risk measures for assessing the actual
outcome of investment results to objective of each investment. Specifically, an IPS should establish performance
objectives for investible asset classes, define metrics used risk assessment, and determine a policy portfolio that is a
basis for performance and risk evaluation. The IGD does not do any of these.
REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON TRUST ASSET ALLOCATION
The following table tracks the Trust's asset allocation since December 31, 2011. The shaded rows are the asset classes
defined in the Investment Guidelines Document (IGD). Below each of the asset classes defined in the IGD is the permissible asset
allocation range, in parenthesis. The portfolio manager has maintained adherence to the bounds set in the IGD for each asset
class.
The asset allocation appears reasonable given our understanding of the Trust's investment objectives. The Trust is broadly
diversified, and maintains a reasonably consistent allocation quarter to quarter.
December 31,
March 31,
June 30,
September,
December 31,
Category
2011
2012
2012
2012
2012
Large Growth
9.51%
9.93%
9.77%
8.32%
8.54%
Large Blend
9.77%
9.96%
10.11%
8.84%
9.00%
Large Value -
12.61%
-- - - --
12.98%
13.24%
11.29%
11.49%
-
Large Cap Equity
31.89%
32.86%
33.12%
28.45%
29.03%
(15-45%)
Mid Cap Growth
1.94%
1.98%
2.00%
2.20%
2.26%
Mid Cap Value
2.68%
2.73%
2.79%
2.68%
2.76%
Mid Cap Equity
4.62%
4.71%
4.79%
4.87%
5.02%
(0 -10 %)
Small Growth
3.91%
3.69%
3.84%
3.88%
4.03%
Small Value
_2.19%
2.23%
2.28%
2.44%
2.52% _
Small Cap Equity
6.090/6
5.92%
6.12%
6.32%
6.55%
(0 -15 %)
Int'I Large Growth
1.72%
1.23%
1.27%
1.23%
1.25%
Int'I Large Blend
1.72%
1.70%
1.78%
1.47%
1.50%
Int'I Large Value
1.72%
1.21%
1.26%
1.20%
1.25%
Emerging Markets
3.41%
3.82%
4.06%
3.73%
3.78%
Int'I Equity
8.57%
7.95%
°
8.37 /
7.62%
7.78%
(0 -15 %)
Real Estate
1.46%
1.51%
1.53%
1.67%
1.74%
(0 -10 %)
Short Term Bonds
11.56%
10.25%
10.11%
10.20•/
10.20%
(0 -25 %)
Intermediate Term Bonds
°
31.89/0
°
30.74/
31.80 '/
33.95%
33.97%
(25 -60 %)
Long Term Bonds
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.000/0
0.00%
_ (0 -25%)
Convertible Bonds
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
a.00r° °
(0 -10 %)
High Yield Bonds
°
0.00%
0
1.47/0
°
1.48/0
°
1.97/0
o
1.99/0
(0 -10 %)
Money Market (Cash)
3.91%
4.60%
2.69%
4.95%
3.73%
(0 -20 %)
The asset allocation appears reasonable given our understanding of the Trust's investment objectives. The Trust is broadly
diversified, and maintains a reasonably consistent allocation quarter to quarter.
REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON FUNDS USED
The aggregate Trust portfolio is invested in eighteen publicly traded mutual funds, in fifteen different categories,
plus one money market fund. All nineteen mutual funds are actively managed.
COMMENTARY ON FUND PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO PEER GROUP
The funds selected for the Trust have generally been performing better than the median fund in their respective peer group
over the trailing three and five -year periods. No funds are performing below median over both the trailing three and five -year
periods. For the four funds that rank below median in either the trailing three or five -year periods, they rank closely below the
median, all above the 60th percentile. Two funds (Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl and Schroder Emerging Market Equity Inv)
rank below median over the trailing three year period, which aligns roughly with HighMark Capital Management's
management of the Trust's investments.
COMMENTARY ON FUND PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO INDEX
Ten of the actively managed funds selected for the Trust have performed similarly to, or better than, their underlying
index over the trailing three year period. Eight funds have underperformed their underlying index by 50 basis points (0.50 %) or
more over the trailing three year period. The underperforming funds include Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl, Sentinel Common
Stock I, Loomis Sayles Value Y, HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth Fiduciary, TIAA -CREF Mid -Cap Value Instl, Columbia Small Cap
Value Fund II Z, Vanguard Short-Term Investment -Grade Adm and PIMCO High Yield Instl. While it is difficult to draw statistically
significant conclusions about HighMark Capital Management's ability to select outperforming actively managed funds
from such a limited data set, the initial indications do not appear to indicate that HighMark's selections are materially better
than might be expected from random chance.
COMMENTARY ON FUND MANAGER TENURE
The funds selected for the Trust generally have experienced limited manager turnover. MFS International Growth I fund is
the only fund that exhibits limited manger consistency. The fund's manager tenure is 2.1 years, which is less than the 3 years we
recommend for fund selection and retention purposes.
j COMMENTARY ON FUND AND BENCHMARK CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND REMOVALS
One of the key responsibilities of HighMark Capital Management, the Trust's portfolio manager is to determine
which investments are appropriate for the Trust's assets. It is also the portfolio manger's responsibility to
determine if previously selected investments are still appropriate given changes in market conditions. Below we
identify the fund changes in the Trust portfolio, and comment on the potential effects of those changes.
Sentinel Common Stock I replaced Manning & Napier Equity sometime in the second quarter of 2012.
Assuming the change happened at the start of the quarter, the change would have benefited the Trust's
performance. Over the time period of April 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, Sentinel Common Stock I had returns of
2.68% whereas Manning & Napier Equity had returns of 2.46 %.
Schroder Emerging Market Equity Inv replaced RS Emerging Markets Y sometime in the fourth quarter of 2012.
Assuming the change happened at the start of the quarter, the change would have benefited the Trust
performance. Over the time period from October 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012, Schroder Emerging Market Equity
Inv had returns of 7.0% whereas RS Emerging Markets Y had returns of 1.40 %.
Lazard Emerging Markets Equity Instl was removed from the Trust sometime in the first quarter of 2012.
Assuming the removal happened at the start of the quarter, the change would have been detrimental to the Trust's
performance. Over the time period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, Lazard Emerging Markets Equity
Instl had returns of 22.36% whereas RS Emerging Markets Y, the other emerging markets fund in the Trust, had
returns of 13.47 %. If Schroder Emerging Market Equity Inv had been in the Trust during that same time period, it
would have provided returns of 21.73 %.
In the first quarter of 2012, the PIMCO High Yield Instl fund was added to the portfolio, most likely to diversify
the portfolio.
HighMark Capital Management has not made any benchmark changes to their funds, but their choice of benchmarks could
be more appropriate. For instance, they compare Harbor Capital Appreciation, a Large Growth fund, to the S &P 500 Index of
large blend stocks. We believe that a more appropriate index would be the S &P 500 Growth Index. We note that Harbor uses
the Russell 1000 Growth Index as the fund's primary benchmark, and uses the S &P 500 Index as a secondary benchmark. On
pages 12 through 14 of this report, we compare the Trust investments to indexes that are more reflective of their asset class.
SUMMARY OF EXCESS RETURNS
Calculating "excess returns" is a useful way to determine whether actively managed funds add value relative to
an indexed approach over extended time periods. We calculate and report trailing 10 year cumulative excess
returns for each fund used in the portfolio, beginning on page 17.
The trailing 10 year cumulative excess return is the value added or subtracted by trading strategies over the
fund's comparative passive benchmark, which is derived from a regression of the fund's performance on various
indexes. A large positive excess return suggests that the fund's active management is adding value over that of a
comparable indexing strategy. However, a lower value may not indicate poor management. Lower values may not
be statistically or economically significant; or, may be an artifact only of the sampling period; or, may simply reflect
the unavoidable fact that the fund is investing in an asset class that imposes high liquidity costs. Many of the funds
in the Trust have positive excess returns; four of the funds have negative excess returns, and only two of those have
negative excess returns larger than 1 %.
Looking at a 10 year period can be somewhat misleading, since a portfolio manager has the benefit of hindsight
when selecting funds, and likely selected funds with positive historical selection returns. Evaluating the excess
returns of the funds over a shorter trailing three -year period is more relevant to Central San, but the results would
be less statistically significant.
A general statement of whether a fund's active management has added or subtracted value is nonetheless
informative in evaluating the portfolio manager's ability to select actively managed funds. We can observe the
slope of each fund's cumulative excess return line over the last three years, to determine how the fund has
performed recently. A "Positive" evaluation suggests that the portfolio manager has selected a fund with a
management approach that has been beneficial; a "Negative" evaluation suggests that the portfolio manager has
selected a fund with a management approach that has been detrimental; a "Flat" evaluation suggests that the
portfolio manager has selected a fund with a management approach that has performed similar to its benchmark.
For the most part, the portfolio manager has shown modest skill in selecting actively managed funds, used over the
past three years. Three of the funds have positive trends, and only one fund has a negative trend; all the other
funds have relatively flat trends.
The following table summarizes our evaluation of the excess returns generated by each fund used within the
Trust, as of December 31, 2012:
Trailing 10 Year
Trailing 3 Year
Cumulative Excess
Cumulative Excess
Fund Name
Category
Returns
Returns Trend
Harbor Capital Appreciation Inst'I
Large Growth
-1.74%
Negative
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock
Large Growth
1.54%
Flat
Columbia Contrarian Core Z
Large Blend
8.32%
Flat
Sentinel Common Stock I
Large Blend
5.77 %1
Flat
T. Rowe Price Equity Income
Large Value
-0.61%
Flat
Loomis Sayles Value Y
Large Value
8.99%
Flat
HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth Fiduciary
Mid Cap Growth
3.56 %z
Flat
TIAA -CREF Mid -Cap Value Instl
Mid Cap Value
16.25%
Flat
T. Rowe Price New Horizons
Small Growth
22.83%
Positive
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Z
Small Value
3.88%
Flat
Nuveen Real Estate Secs I
Real Estate
18.53%
Flat
MFS International Growth I
Foreign Large Growth
11.46%
Positive
HighMark International Opportunities Fid
Foreign Large Blend
1.37 %3
Flat
Dodge & Cox International Stock
Foreign Large Value
13.71%
Flat
Schroder Emerging Market Equity Inv
Emerging Markets
4.23 %4
Flat
HighMark Diversified Money Market Fid
Money Market
N/A
N/A
Vanguard Short -Term Investment -Grade Adm
Short Term Bond
-0.68%
Flat
HighMark Bond Fid
Intermediate Term Bond
3.42%
Flat
PIMCO Total Return Instl
Intermediate Term Bond
16.94%
Positive
PIMCO High Yield Instl
High Yield Bond
-5.96°
Flat
' A shares used since I shares have brief history.
Z A shares used since Fiduciary shares have brief history.
3 M shares used since Fiduciary shares have brief history.
4 Evaluation period is since the fund's inception, April 2006, which is less than a ten year period.
REVIEW OF HIGHMARK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE AGREEMENT /DOCUMENTS
HighMark Capital Management does not appear to operate under the terms of a traditional, comprehensive
Service Agreement. Rather, the terms under which HighMark Capital Management operates seem to be dispersed
among various documents, including the "Public Agencies Post - Retirement Health Care Plan Trust Agreement ", the
"Public Agencies Post - Retirement Health Care Plan Master Plan Document ", the "Adoption Agreement to the Public
Agencies Post - Retirement Health Care Plan ", the "Mutual Fund Disclosure Statement for Business Trust (Non- ERISA)
– Discretionary Accounts" and the "Investment Strategy Selection and Disclosure Form PARS OPEB (GASB 45) ".
While there is no regulatory requirement that we are aware of that mandates the use of a comprehensive Service
Agreement, the use of multiple documents makes it more difficult to evaluate services, and potentially creates
compliance issues if the change to a service arrangement impacting one document isn't correctly tracked to other
documents —as appears to be the case in the change of trustee, as noted further below.
Section 5.1 of the Trust Agreement (page 14) provides that "If the Employer elects a discretionary approach,
the Employer shall further elect between the various investment strategies offered and the Trustee, in accordance
with Article IV, shall have absolute discretion over the investment of the Assets held in such Employer's Agency
Account." This appears to be the arrangement elected by Central San. On Section A.4.1 of the Adoption Agreement,
the box marked "a. Discretionary Investment Approach" is selected. Similarly, the "Investment Strategy Selection
and Disclosure Form" indicates that "Union Bank of California, N.A. has been or is appointed Investment Manager of
the above - referenced Plan ". Further, Central San has executed the "Discretionary Trustee Fee Schedule" attached
to the "Investment Strategy Selection and Disclosure Form ". Thus, it appears reasonably clear that Union Bank of
California, N.A., operating through its HighMark Capital Management subsidiary, is intended to serve as
discretionary Investment Manager for the Trust. However, the scope and limitations on discretion are not laid out in
the form we would normally see in a Service Agreement.
The "Mutual Fund Disclosure Statement" indicates that "...no investment advisory fee is charged to your
account for any Bank managed account assets invested in the Funds." This arrangement is typical when a portfolio
manager, such as HighMark Capital Management, considers the use of proprietary mutual funds —to pay HighMark
for both portfolio advisory and fund management services on the same assets would appear to be an inappropriate
form of "double dipping" that incents HighMark to use its own funds. While we note that HighMark funds are used
in the Trust portfolio, they do not appear to be used excessively. However, as noted in the fee evaluation section,
the HighMark funds generally have higher relative expense ratios than the non - proprietary mutual funds used in the
portfolio.
CHANGE OF TRUSTEE
In February 2012, US Bancorp subsidiary, US Bank National Association entered into a definitive agreement to
purchase the institutional trust and custody division of Union Bank. We understand that this sale subsequently
closed, and that Union Bank's former trust operations are now owned and operated by US Bancorp. We further
understand that the sale to US Bancorp did not include HighMark Capital Management, Union Bank's investment
management subsidiary.
However, the document forms we received and reviewed do not appear to reflect the change in trustee from
Union Bank to US Bancorp. Perhaps more importantly, the document forms do not appear to ep rmit discretionary
investment management to be provided by an entity that is unrelated to the trustee. The Trust Agreement indicates
that "the Trustee ... shall have absolute discretion over the investment of the Assets held in such Employer's Agency
Account." While it's possible that US Bancorp has in turn delegated its discretionary authority to HighMark Capital
Management, we did not receive or review any documentation indicating such delegation.
We recommend that Central San should restate the Trust Agreement to reflect the new arrangement with US
Bancorp. We further recommend that Central San should learn more about any contractual arrangements for
discretionary investment management authority that might have been executed between US Bancorp and
HighMark Capital Management, to confirm that HighMark continues to be properly authorized to manage Trust
assets, following the sale of the institutional trust and custody division of Union Bank to US Bancorp.
POSSIBLE FUTURE ASSET SALES BY UNION BANK
In addition to the February 2012 sale of its institutional trust and custody division to US Bancorp, Union Bank
has recently sold other institutional service groups. In November 2007, signed a definitive agreement to sell its
retirement recordkeeping business to Prudential Retirement, a subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc. Given the
ongoing contraction of Union Bank's institutional service groups, it's possible that other operations might be sold,
potentially including Union Bank's investment management subsidiary, HighMark Capital Management.
FEES
The fee analysis is intended to assure that the Trust pays reasonable fees, given the types of investments used
and services provided.
The elements evaluated in this fee analysis include:
• Underlying fund expense ratio, which reflects the total annual operating expenses of the fund,
including investment management and administration, expressed as a percentage of assets, as
reported in the fund's prospectus.
• Total fund fee, which is an estimate of the annual cost of holding the fund in dollar terms, based on
the balanced held in the fund on December 31, 2012.
• Expense ratio rank in category, which reflects how each investment option's expense compares to
other mutual fund options in the same investment category. The lower the number, the lower the
fund's relative cost. For example, an expense ratio rank in category of "1" would be the lowest cost
percentile of all funds in the category.
• PARS fee.
• HighMark investment management fee.
• Trust fees, which we understand our waived, since
Since the Trust is an institutional investor, we expect the Trust to select funds offering institutional pricing. This
means that each fund's expense rank in category should be lower than 50 (first or second quartile costs), and
preferably, lower than 25 (first quartile costs). Only the HighMark Diversified Money Market Fid fund ranks in the
bottom half of funds in its category, based on expenses. Six other funds rank in the second quartile of their
respective categories. Of those six, three are HighMark funds. The costs of investing in the HighMark funds are
somewhat offset by the fact that HighMark waives its investment management fees on assets held in HighMark
funds. The total amount of assets held in HighMark funds is $6,420,624; the remaining $19,914,796 held in non -
HighMark funds is subject to High Mark's investment management fee, estimated to be $47,372.
The Trust's weighted expense ranks in the top quartile, consistent with our low cost expectations. Total Trust
expense attributable to the underlying funds is estimated to be $176,089, or 0.67% of the Trust's $26,335,420
worth of total assets.
With underlying fund expense estimated to be $176, 089, HighMark investment management fee estimated to
be $47,372, and the PARS fee estimated to be $52,000, the estimated overall cost of the Trust is $275,464 per
annum, which results in an overall fee of 1.05% of the Trust's $26,335,420 asset base. The cumulative cost
structure for PARS operational services, HighMark Capital Management advisory services, and the cost of the
underlying funds is higher than we would expect to see for a portfolio of similar size. We recommend that Central
San consider potential ways to reduce the cost of operating the Trust.
Our fee analytics begin on page 39.
R.A: CD \Tn;, COSTA SA.v TAR" DIST,ICT GASB 45 /0THER POST- EtvsL,1Yv',iENT BENEFITS TRUST
P=P )R - �,R T = PERI'~ C EN -)IN-3 D =CF., ; FR I _ 2 G 1 2
SCLC generally employs a set of specific criteria to evaluate mutual funds offered through plans. These criteria
typically include minimum performance thresholds and other objective characteristics. We suggest applying these
criteria for both the initial selection of funds, and for the ongoing evaluation of funds. We also suggest using
different criteria for actively managed, indexed, and target date mutual funds. Our recommended selection and
monitoring criteria for actively managed funds include the following:
ACTIVELY MANAGED MUTUAL FUNDS
RISK
We suggest that a fund's Standard Deviation (i.e., its statistical measure of risk) should not be more than 25%
higher than the average three -year standard deviation for funds in the same category.
RELATIVE PERFORMANCE
We suggest that that the performance of each mutual fund (i.e., the three year total rate of return) should be in
the top half of funds in a similar investment category (percentile rank between 1 and 50.
EXPENSE RATIOS
We suggest that each actively managed fund have an expense ratio that is no greater than the average expense
ratio of the relevant category.
CONSISTENCY OF FUND MANAGEMENT
We suggest that each actively managed fund should demonstrate manager consistency by having average
manager tenure of at least three years.
TABLE 5. MUTUAL FUND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW
12
Percentile
Percentile
3 Year
Percentile
Prospectus
12
Month
Rank in
3 Year
Rank in
Standard
5 Year
Rank in
Turnover
Manager
Expense
Fund Name
Return
Category
Return
Category
Deviation
Return
Category
Ratio
Tenure
Ratio (Net)
Large Growth
Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl
15.69
43
9.11
52
17.27
2.99
17
41
22.8
0.67
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock
18.92
14
11.25
17
18.03
2.64
22
30
5.3
0.70
Morningstar Large Growth Average
15.34
-
9.30
-
17.35
1.12
-
74
6.1
1.28
S &P 500 Growth Index
14.61
-
11.33
15.08
3.39
-
-
-
-
Large Blend
Columbia Contrarian Core Z
18.67
30
10.96
14
16.74
3.91
5
62
7.9
0.95
Sentinel Common Stock 1
14.92
56
10.36
26
15.47
2.43
15
8
10.6
0.78
Morningstar Large Blend Average
14.96
-
9.05
-
16.08
0.68
-
71
5.9
1.18
S &P 500 Index
16.00
-
10.87
-
15.30
1.66
-
-
-
Large Value
T. Rowe Price Equity Income
17.25
21
10.26
28
15.68
1.58
29
15
27.3
0.68
Loomis Sayles Value
19.70
4
9.20
50
16.94
0.85
44
25
10.2
0.73
Morningstar Large Value Average
14.57
-
9.03
15.74
0.32
-
77
6.0
1.21
5 &P 500 Value Index
17.68
-
10.47
-
15.98
-0.15
-
-
-
-
Mid Cap Growth
HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth Fiduciary
9.97
85
13.64
16
16.86
4.87
16
17
8.9
1.13
Morningstar Mid -Cap Growth Average
14.07
-
11.08
-
18.47
1.74
-
91
6 1
1.39
S &P MidCap 400 Growth Index
17.27
-
14.90
-
18.25
5.95
-
-
-
Mid Cap Value
TIAA -CREF Mid -Cap Value Instl
16.60
47
11.40
38
16.97
2.45
59
33
9.5
0.46
Morningstar Mid -Cap Value Average
16.60
-
10.77
-
17.79
2.88
-
74
6.6
1.33
5 &P MidCap 400 Value Index
18.53
-
12.40
-
18.35
4.34
-
-
-
-
Small Growth
T. Rowe Price New Horizons
16.20
23
18.61
1
18.29
8.00
1
44
2.9
0.81
Morningstar Small Growth Average
13.15
-
11.74
-
20.37
2.55
-
92
6.6
1.50
5 &P SmallCap 600 Growth Index
14.56
-
14.96
-
18.47
5.51
-
-
-
-
Small Value
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Z
14.57
60
12.00
37
21.21
3.14
73
41
10.4
1.06
Morningstar Small Value Average
16.00
-
11.04
-
19.77
4.20
-
72
6.3
1.45
5 &P SmallCap 600 Value Index
18.21
-
13.29
-
20.24
4.72
TABLE 5. MUTUAL FUND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
I i ---- ---;I- -1-J. a V.- Duernnfan Oro -t-
Fund Name
Real Estate
Nuveen Real Estate Secs I
Morningstar E Real Estate Average
Dl US Select REIT Index
Foreign Large Growth
MFS International Growth I
Morningstar Foreign Large Growth Average
MSCI EAFE Growth Index
Foreign Large Blend
HighMark International Opportunities Fid
Morningstar Foreign Large Blend Average
MSCI EAFE Index
Foreign Large Value
Dodge & Cox International Stock
Morningstar Foreign Large Value Average
MSCI EAFE Value Index
Emerging Markets
Schroder Emerging Market Equity Inv
Morningstar Diversified Emerging Mkts Average
MSCI EM Index
Return
Category
Return
Category
Deviation
Return
Category
Ratio
Tenure
Ratio INet)
18.34
22
18.60
10
18.06
7.26
12
21
7.7
1.04
17.60
-
17.29
-
17.64
4.86
-
77
7.0
1.39
17.12
-
17.94
-
18.61
5.08
-
-
-
-
19.71
30
7.24
33
18.73
0.45
9
39
2.1
1.12
17.70
-
5.77
-
19.46
-2.26
-
56
5.8
1.43
16.86
-
4.85
19.12
-3.09
-
-
-
-
20.87
17
4.50
35
20.46
- 3.97
58
102
6.4
1.27
18.29
-
3.89
19.70
-3.60
-
75
5.2
1.40
17.32
-
3.56
19.65
-3.69
-
-
-
-
21.03
12
4.96
19
21.00
-1.89
11
16
8.3
0.64
16.21
-
3.04
-
19.79
-4.24
-
52
5.0
1.39
17.69
2.19
-
20.56
-4.34
-
-
-
-
21.73
20
4.79
54
21.91
-0.03
20
47
6.9
1.25
18.15
-
4.26
-
21.43
-2.16
-
80
3.4
1.66
18.22
-
4.66
-
21.80
-0.92
-
-
-
TABLE 6. TARGET DATE FUND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW
Fund Name
Money Market Taxable
High Mark Diversified Money Market Fid
Morningstar US Money Market Taxable Average
USTREAS T -Bill Cnst Mat Rate 3 Mon Index
Short Term Bond
Vanguard Short -Term Investment -Grade Adm
Morningstar Category: Short -Term Bond Average
Barclays Credit 1 -5 Yr Index
Intermediate Term Bond
HighMark Bond Fid
PIMCOTotal Return Instl
Morningstar Intermediate -Term Bond Average
Barclays US Agg Bond Index
High Yield Bond
PIMCO High Yield Instl
Morningstar High Yield Bond Average
Credit Suisse HY Index
Return
Category
Return
Category
Deviation
Return
Category
Ratio
Tenure
Ratio (Net)
0.02
27
0.06
14
0.02
0.72
8
-
14.3
0.57
0.03
-
0.03
-
-
0.46
-
-
-
-
0.08
-
0.10
-
0.03
0.51
-
-
-
-
4.63
29
3.98
23
1.55
4.12
26
47
4.8
0.11
3.67
-
3.21
-
1.49
3.30
-
134
7.0
0.85
5.51
-
4.66
-
1.98
5.17
-
-
-
-
6.88
49
7.05
45
2.39
6.67
35
44
13.2
0.72
10.36
12
7.75
26
3.25
8.34
7
584
25.8
0.46
7.01
-
6.96
-
2.75
6.08
-
234
6.1
0.92
4.21
-
6.19
-
2.42
5.95
-
-
-
_
14.55
53
10.82
41
7.20
8.39
43
50
3.1
0.55
14.67
-
10.49
-
7.18
8.02
-
79
5.7
1.15
14.71
-
11.45
-
6.45
9.53
-
-
-
This section of the report provides information about each of the funds in a number of areas including:
BENCHMARK STYLE ANALYSIS
Developed by Nobel Laureate William Sharpe in 1990, Benchmark Style Analysis seeks to match the returns of a
mutual fund to a mix of benchmark asset classes that best fits its behavior. This is done with the assumption that an
historical analysis of return volatility facilitates prediction of future fund behavior and manager performance.
It is important to note that style analysis does not attempt to find the exact investment holdings of a mutual
fund. A prospectus or shareholder report can tell you a fund's objective or its current holdings. However, a
shareholder report cannot explain the past behavior of the fund. A fund's stated objective does not guarantee that
it will behave in that fashion. Through a multi- regression return analysis, benchmark style analysis discerns the mix
of asset classes that is most similar to the fund's actual behavior. In other words, a fund may call itself a "growth
fund" but behave like a value fund and, therefore, should be considered as a value component of an asset mix.
For example, a domestic equity mutual fund investing in stocks that derive a majority of their revenue from
sales abroad will clearly be influenced by factors in foreign economies. If the foreign economies go into recession,
the fund will be affected. In this way, the fund, although domestic, responds to factors in foreign economies with a
manner similar to an international equity fund. This is essential information in mapping the fund into an asset mix
derived from basic asset classes.
We use Benchmark Style Analysis to determine each fund's Overall Effective Asset Mix and Rolling Style
Benchmark. We also use the analysis to determine the extent to which the various domestic equity funds cover the
range of potential equity investment styles, and how consistent each fund's style orientation has been over time.
!OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
The Overall Effective Asset Mix reflects the static mix of asset classes that best explains the fund's performance
across the entire period under evaluation. It reflects how the fund would have performed if the fund's manager had
made no market timing or security selection decisions.
i ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
The Rolling Style Benchmark is a type of moving average, reflecting monthly changes in the fund's Effective
Asset Mix. The color plot for the graphic is calculated as follows:
1) A constrained regression analysis of the first 36 months of fund returns defines the initial
benchmark portfolio. This initial benchmark is represented by the color distribution at the far left
of the graphic.
2) The color distribution for every other point on the graph represents the results of a similar
regression analysis using an updated (by one month) set of 36 monthly data points. The final color
distribution represents the results of the regression analysis for the 36 months of data ending
December 31, 2012.
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
The portion of a fund's overall returns that can be explained by the historical return of its corresponding
benchmark, derived from the overall effective asset mix, versus the portion that cannot.
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
The historical correspondence is a measure of how much of a fund's performance can be explained by the
performance of its corresponding benchmark over rolling 36 month periods. If a fund matches its benchmark
perfectly over a given 36 month period, the historical correspondence value is 100 %. If a fund's returns bear no
relationship to those of its benchmark, the historical correspondence value is 0 %. Investors owning index funds, for
example, should expect historical correspondence close to 100 %.
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
The month -to -month returns difference between the fund and its comparative benchmark. Positive excess
return signifies that the fund has earned a return greater than its benchmark for the given month. Negative excess
return signifies that the fund's return has lagged the benchmark.
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
The amount (per $1.00 of initial investment) added or subtracted by trading strategies over the fund's
comparative benchmark in the time period. Investors like to see values in excess of $1.00. However, a lower value
may not indicate poor management. Lower values may not be statistically or economically significant; or, may be
an artifact only of the sampling period; or, may simply reflect the unavoidable fact that the fund is investing in an
asset class that imposes high liquidity costs.
BENCHMARKS USED
The Benchmark Style Analysis compares funds against a series of individual asset class benchmarks to
determine which benchmark or combination of benchmarks best explains performance of the fund. We maintain
three sets of benchmarks, one set for Fixed - Income funds one set for Domestic Equity funds and one set for
International Equity funds. The benchmark sets include the following asset classess:
Fixed Income
US Short Corp Bonds
US Short Gov't Bonds
US Intermediate Corp Bonds
US Intermediate Gov't Bonds
US Long Corp Bonds
US Long Gov't Bonds
US Corp High Yield Bonds
Thirty Day Treasuries
Global Bonds
Domestic Equity
US Large Growth Stocks
US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Size Growth Stocks
US Mid Size Value Stocks
US Small Growth Stocks
US Small Value Stocks
MSCI EAFE Stocks
Thirty Day Treasuries
US Long Bonds
US Intermediate Bonds
Real Estate Stocks
International Equity
Large Europe Growth Stocks
Large Europe Value Stocks
Large Pacific Growth Stocks
Large Pacific Value Stocks
Emerging Market Stocks
Small Europe Stocks
Small Pacific Stocks
Thirty Day Treasuries
Aggregate US Bonds
Total US Stocks
S Asset classes are represented by the following indexes: US Large Growth Stocks = S &P /Citigroup 500 Growth; US Large Value
Stocks = S &P /Citigroup 500 Value; US Mid Size Growth Stocks = S &P /Citigroup MidCap 400 Growth; US Mid Size Value Stocks =
S &P /Citigroup MidCap 400 Value; US Small Growth Stocks = S &P /Citigroup Small Cap 600 Growth; US Small Value Stocks =
S &P /Citigroup Small Cap 600 Growth; US Long Bonds = Ibbotson US Long Gov't Bond Index; US Intermediate Bonds = Ibbotson
US Intermediate Gov't; Real Estate Stocks = NAREIT Equity Index; Large Europe Growth Stocks = MSCI Europe Growth Index;
Large Europe Value Stocks = MSCI Europe Value Index; Large Pacific Growth Stocks = MSCI Pacific Growth Index; Large Pacific
Value Stocks = MSCI Pacific Value Index; Emerging Market Stocks = MSCI Emerging Markets (Free) Index; Small Europe Stocks =
MSCI Europe Small Cap (Cap Appr) Index; Small Pacific Stocks = MSCI Pacific Small Cap (Cap Appr) Index; Aggregate US Bonds =
Barclays Aggregate Bond Index; Total US Stocks = Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index; US Short Corp Bonds = Barclays Capital
Credit 1 -5 Year Index; US Short Gov't Bonds = Barclays Capital Government 1 -5 Year Index; US Intermediate Corp Bonds =
Barclays Capital Intermediate Credit Index; US Intermediate Gov't Bonds = Barclays Capital Intermediate Government Index; US
Long Corp Bonds = Barclays Capital Long Credit Index; US Long Gov't Bonds = Barclays Capital Long Credit Index; US Corp High
Yield Bonds = Barclays Capital Corporate High Yield Index; Global Bonds = Citi World Government Bond Index.
HARBOR CAPITAL APPRECIATION INSTL
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl : Overall
US Intermediate Bonds 0 00
US Long Bonds 1 000
Thirty Day Treasuries 000
MSCI EAFE Stocks 0 00
US Small Cap Value Stocks 000
US Small Cap Growth Stocks 000
I
US Mid Cap Value Stocks 0 00
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks � 0.31
US Large Value Stocks 0.00
i
US Large Growth Stocks 0.69
000 010 020 030 040 050 x060 070 060 090 100
Style ( 92 22%
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
StyloI8election
Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl : Overall
to :ection ( 7 78 %)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dee 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
120%
10 C%
80%
60%
40 %—
2C %-
00%
20%
40%
-60 %-
-8 0% -
-10 0%
-12C%
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl - Estimated Weights
Weights
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
US Large Growth Stocks _ US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Cap Growth Stacks US Mid Cap Value Stocks
US Small Cap Growth Stocks US Small Cap Value Stocks
MSCI EAFE Stocks Thirty Day Treasuries
US Long Bonds US Intermediate Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl - Estimated Weights
Weights
100 % —
Jan Dec Dec Dec Leo Uec Uec Uec
2006 2006 2007 20 08 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arhh., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
15
y
09
Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004
o Harbor Capital Appr
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
aciation Instl
T. ROWE PRICE GROWTH STOCK
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock : Overall
US Intermediate Bonds 0 00
US Lang Bonds 0.00
Thirty Day Treasuries 000
MSCI EAFE Stacks 0 04
US Small Cap Value Stocks 0 00
US Small Cap Growth Stocks 0 00
US Mid Cap Value Stocks 0 00
US Mid Cap Growth Stacks — 030
US Large Value Stocks 0 00
US Large Growth Stocks
067
000 010 020 030 040 050 T060 070 080 0.90 100
Style ( 95.97 %
OVERALL STYLE /SLECTION
Style /Selection
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock : Overall
3elechon ( 4 03 %)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arhh., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
12.0% —
10 0 %-
80%
60%
40%
20% --
00% 1
-20 %-
A 0%
-6 0 %—
-8 0%
-10 0%
-12.0% .,, t,.. �, I. �., , ,�,
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
T Rowe Price Growth Stock
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for T. Rowe Price Growth Stock - Estimated Weights
Weights
uec uec uec Uec Uec Uec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
.US Large Growth Stocks US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks US Mid Cap Value Stocks
US Small Cap Growth Stocks , US Small Cap Value Stocks
MSCI EAFE Stocks Thirty Day Treasuries
US Long Bonds US Intermediate Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for T. Rowe Price Growth Stock - Estimated Weights
Weights
100% -
95%
90%
85%
80 %
75%
70%
65%
60%
55 %-
50%
45 %
40%
35 %
30%
25%
20 %-
15%
10%
5%
0 %-
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 20122
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
15
i
1
1
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
-- T Rowe Price Growth Stock
COLUMBIA CONTRARIAN CORE Z
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
Columbia Contrarian Core Z : Overall
US Intermediate Bonds 0 00
US Long Bonds 0.00
Thirty Day Treasuries 0.00
MSCI EAFE Stocks i 0 OS
US Small Cap Value Stocks 0,00
US Small Cap Grovrth Stocks 0.00
US Mid Cap Value Stocks 000
US Mid Cap Grovrth Stocks - 0 12
US Large Value Stocks 0 33
US Large Growth Stocks r 0.50
0 00 0 10 0.20 0 30 TO 40 050 060 0 70 080 0 90 1 00
Style ( 96 33
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
Style /Selection
Columbia Contrarian Core Z : Overall
Selection ( 3 67 %)
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for Columbia Contrarian Core Z - Estimated Weights
Weights
100%
90%
1
80%
70%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
US Large Grovrth Stocks US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Cap Goth Stocks US Mid Cap Value Stacks
US Small Cap Gr vdh Stocks US Small Cap Value Stocks
MSCI EAFE Stocks Thirty Day Treasuries
US Long Bonds US Intermediate Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for Columbia Contrarian Core Z - Estimated Weights
Weights
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
15 I
i 03
1
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Columbia Contrarian Core 2
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
120%—
10 0 %—
60%
4.0%
20%
0.0%
I l—wril-I
fQQ
ow
2 0 % -I
-20%-
-40%
-6.0
-8.0%
- 10.0 % -
-12 0%
Jan Dec
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
=Columbia Contrarian Core Z
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for Columbia Contrarian Core Z - Estimated Weights
Weights
100%
90%
1
80%
70%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
US Large Grovrth Stocks US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Cap Goth Stocks US Mid Cap Value Stacks
US Small Cap Gr vdh Stocks US Small Cap Value Stocks
MSCI EAFE Stocks Thirty Day Treasuries
US Long Bonds US Intermediate Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for Columbia Contrarian Core Z - Estimated Weights
Weights
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
15 I
i 03
1
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Columbia Contrarian Core 2
SENTINEL COMMON STOCK I
(A shares used since I shares have brief history)
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
Sentinel Common Stock A: Overall Style
US Intermediate Bonds 090
US Long Bonds 0.00
Thirty Day Treasuries 0.04
MSCI EAFE Stocks 0 12
US Small Cap Value Stocks 000
US Small Cap Grovrth Stocks 0.00
US Mid Cap Value Stocks LLL 001
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks 0 01
US Large Value Stocks
039
US Large Growth Stocks 0 43
0 00 0 10 0.20 0 30 040 0 50 060 0 70 0 80 0.90 1.00
Style 196 71%
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
Stylelselection
Sentinel Common Stock A: Overall Style
Selection ( 3 29%)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using
Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
12 0 %-
100%
80 %-
60%
4 0 %-
20%
00%
-20%
40%
.6 0%
-8 0 %—
-100%—
-12 0%
an Dec Dec Dec Dec
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003 2004 2005 2006
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Sentinel Common Stock A
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for Sentinel Common Stock A - Estimated Weights
W eig his
100%
50% AWN W-P
70%
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 201:
Time
US Large Growth Stocks US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks US Mid Cap Value Stocks
US Smali Cap Grov4h Stocks ' US Small Cap Value Stocks
MSCI EAFE Stocks Thirty Day Treasuries
US Lang Bands US Intermediate Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for Sentinel Common Stock A - Estimated Weights
Weights
100% -
ue, uec uec Uec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
policy - Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arhh., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USDI
2 —
15
1
0.9
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Sentinel Common Stack A
T. ROWE PRICE EQUITY INCOME
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
T. Rowe Price Equity Income : Overall
US Intermediate Bonds 0.00
US Long Bonds 0 02
Thirty Day Treasuries L0.00
MSCI EAFE Stocks 002
US Small Cap Value Stacks 003
US Small Cap Growth Stocks 0.00
US Mid Cap Value Stocks 000
US Mid Cap Growth Stacks 0.00
US Large Value Stocks 0.78
US Large Growth Stocks - 0.14
000 010 0.20 0.30 0.40 050 060 070 080 090 100
Style ( 98 1
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
8tylelSelection
T. Rowe Price Equity Income: Overall
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
( 1 89 %)
Return Values
120%—
10.0 %—
8 0 %-
60%
4.0%
00%
-2 0% T
-40%
-60%
-8.0%
-100%—
-12.0%
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
M T. Rowe Price Equity Income
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for T. Rowe Price Equity Income - Estimated Weights
Weights
100%
70%
60%
40%
2011 2006 2007 2008 2009
Time
.US Large Growth Stocks US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks US Mid Cap Value Stocks
US Small Cap Growth Stocks US Small Cap Value Stocks
MSCI EAFE Stocks Thirty Day Treasuries
_ US Long Bonds US Intermediate Bonds
:c
2010 2011 2012
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for T. Rowe Price Equity Income - Estimated Weights
Weights
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Uec Uec Uec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
15 i
a
•
1
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
T Rowe Price Equity Income
LOOMIS SAYLES VALUE Y
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
Loomis Bayles Value Y : Overall Style
US Intermediate Bonds, 0 04
US Long Bonds 000
Thirty Day Treasuries 0.00
MSCI EAFE Stocks 0 0 12
US Small Cap Value Stocks 0,02
US Small Cap Growth Stocks 1 0.00
I
US Mid Cap Value Stocks 005
US Mrd Cap Grovnh Stocks' 002
US Large Value Stocks
0.63
US Large Growth Stocks - .12
0 00 T O 10 0 20 0 30 ' 0.40 0 50 0 60 0 70T 0 80 0 90 1 00
Style ( 97.51 %
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
Style/Selection
Loomis Bayles Value Y : Overall Style
( 249%)
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for Loomis Bayles Value Y - Estimated Weights
Weights
jan uec uec uec uec Uec Uec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
US Large Grovrth Stocks P <. US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Cap Grovdh Stocks US Mid Cap Value Stocks
US Small Cap Growth Stocks US Small Cap Value Stacks
MSCIEAFEStacks Thirty Day Treasuries
US Long Bonds US Intermediate Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
R- Squared Graph for Loomis Sayles Value Y - Estimated Weights
Weights
100% r
Jan uec uec Uec Dec Uec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arhh., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USDI
2
1.5
I
1 04
1
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Loomis Bayles Value Y
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
12 1
10 0 %-
80%—
60%
4,0%
2.0%
00 %J 04
q011 04 AIIIIII,
21
•
-40%
-60%
-8 0%
-10 0 %—
-120%
.r —i^r-
Jan Dec
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003
2004 2005 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Loomis Bayles Value Y
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for Loomis Bayles Value Y - Estimated Weights
Weights
jan uec uec uec uec Uec Uec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
US Large Grovrth Stocks P <. US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Cap Grovdh Stocks US Mid Cap Value Stocks
US Small Cap Growth Stocks US Small Cap Value Stacks
MSCIEAFEStacks Thirty Day Treasuries
US Long Bonds US Intermediate Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
R- Squared Graph for Loomis Sayles Value Y - Estimated Weights
Weights
100% r
Jan uec uec Uec Dec Uec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arhh., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USDI
2
1.5
I
1 04
1
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Loomis Bayles Value Y
HIGHMARK GENEVA MID CAP GROWTH FIDUCIARY
(A shares used since Fiduciary shares have brief history)
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth A : Overall
US Intermediate Bonds 000
US Long Bonds 0.00
Thirty Day Treasuries ■ 0.10
MSCI EAFE Stocks 000
US Small Cap Value Stacks 0.00
US Small Cap Growth Stocks 0.20
US Mid Cap Value Stocks 0.00
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks 0.60
US Large Value Stocks 0.00
I
US Large Growth Stocks. 0 10
000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070 080 090 100
Style ( 93
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
StylelSelection
HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth A : Overall
selection 16 36 %)
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth A - Estimated Weights
Weights
100 %
90%
80%
70% A
0% mmopEmmmpmm*
Jan Dec
2006 2006
MUS Large Growth Stocks
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks
US Small Cap Growth Stocks
MSCI EAFE Stocks
US Long Bonds
Dec Dec Dec
2007 2006 2009
Time
US Large Value Stacks
US Mid Cap Value Stocks
US Small Cap Value Stocks
Thirty Day Treasuries
US Intermediate Bonds
Dec
2010
9M
Dec
2012
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth A - Estimated Weights
Weights
100%—,
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Uec Uec Lac
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 - Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2 —
is
04
1
0 9 I
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 Dec 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Dec 2011 2012
Time
HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth A
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
12.0 % -
10 0%
60 %-
60%
40 %-
20%
00%
-20%
-4.0%
-6.0%
-8 0 %—
- 10.0 % -
-12 0 %— F-- ^-
Jan Dec
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth A
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth A - Estimated Weights
Weights
100 %
90%
80%
70% A
0% mmopEmmmpmm*
Jan Dec
2006 2006
MUS Large Growth Stocks
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks
US Small Cap Growth Stocks
MSCI EAFE Stocks
US Long Bonds
Dec Dec Dec
2007 2006 2009
Time
US Large Value Stacks
US Mid Cap Value Stocks
US Small Cap Value Stocks
Thirty Day Treasuries
US Intermediate Bonds
Dec
2010
9M
Dec
2012
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth A - Estimated Weights
Weights
100%—,
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Uec Uec Lac
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 - Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2 —
is
04
1
0 9 I
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 Dec 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Dec 2011 2012
Time
HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth A
TIAA -CREF MID -CAP VALUE INSTIL
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
US Mid Cap GrovAh Stocks 0.18
US Large Value Stocks w 022
US Large Grovnh Stocks 0 02
0.00 0.10 020 0.30 040 050 060 0 70 0 80 090 100
Style ( 97
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
StylelSelection
TIAA -CREF Mid -Cap Value Instl : Overall
( 2 34 %)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
120%
100%
80%
60 %—
4 0 %—
20 %—
0 0%
-2.0%
-4 0 %—
-60 %-
-8 0 %-
-10 0%
-12.0% -I �I___..,, -,; •, ,.I, -I - , �,. , - ,,
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
TIAA -CREF Mid-Cap Value Instl
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for TIAA -CREF Mid -Cap Value Instl - Estimated Weights
Weights
100%
90%
80 %-
70%
60 %-
50%
40 % -,
30%
20%
Jan � Dec Dec -j' T c 1
Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
.US Large Growth Stocks US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Cap Grovrth Stocks US Mid Cap Value Stocks
US Small Cap Growth Stocks , US Small Cap Value Stocks
M.1 EAFE Stocks Thirty Day Treasuries
US Long Bonds US Intermediate Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for TIAA -CREF Mid -Cap Value Instl - Estimated Weights
Weights
100% ,
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
15
1
1
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
--TIAA -CREF Mid -Cap Value Instl
TIAA -CREF Mid-Cap Value Instl: Overall
US Intermediate Bonds
0 00
US Long Bonds
0.00
Thirty Day Treasuries
0.00
MSCI EAFE Stocks
010
US Small Cap Value Stocks
0.00
US Small Cap Growth Stocks
0.00
US Mid Cap Value Stocks
„
US Mid Cap GrovAh Stocks 0.18
US Large Value Stocks w 022
US Large Grovnh Stocks 0 02
0.00 0.10 020 0.30 040 050 060 0 70 0 80 090 100
Style ( 97
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
StylelSelection
TIAA -CREF Mid -Cap Value Instl : Overall
( 2 34 %)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
120%
100%
80%
60 %—
4 0 %—
20 %—
0 0%
-2.0%
-4 0 %—
-60 %-
-8 0 %-
-10 0%
-12.0% -I �I___..,, -,; •, ,.I, -I - , �,. , - ,,
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
TIAA -CREF Mid-Cap Value Instl
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for TIAA -CREF Mid -Cap Value Instl - Estimated Weights
Weights
100%
90%
80 %-
70%
60 %-
50%
40 % -,
30%
20%
Jan � Dec Dec -j' T c 1
Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
.US Large Growth Stocks US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Cap Grovrth Stocks US Mid Cap Value Stocks
US Small Cap Growth Stocks , US Small Cap Value Stocks
M.1 EAFE Stocks Thirty Day Treasuries
US Long Bonds US Intermediate Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for TIAA -CREF Mid -Cap Value Instl - Estimated Weights
Weights
100% ,
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
15
1
1
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
--TIAA -CREF Mid -Cap Value Instl
T. ROWE PRICE NEW HORIZONS
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
T. Rowe Price New Horizons : Overall
US Intermediate Bonds 0.00
US Long Bonds • 0.00
Thirty Day Treasuries 000
MSCI EAFE Stocks 0.00
US Small Cap Value Stacks 0 09
US Small Cap Growth Stocks 0 36
US Mid Cap Value Stocks 0 01
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks 049
US Large Value Stocks 0 03
US Large Growth Stocks 0.02
� -- T'__
0.00 - - 0 10 0 20 0.30 0 40 050 060 0 70� 0.80 0 90 1 00
Style ( 95
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
Style /Selection
T. Rowe Price New Horizons: Overall
Selection (4 44 %)
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for T. Rowe Price New Horizons . Estimated Weights
Weights
t 00%
90%
30%
20%
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan Dec Dec
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
12.0 % -
Time
100%-
US Large Value Stocks
8.0%-
US Mid Cap Value Stocks
60%
US Small Cap Value Stocks
40%
Thirty Day Treasuries
20%
US Intermediate Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL
0.0 %-
RSquared Graph for T. Rowe Price New Horizons - Estimated Weights
Weights
100 % -,
-2 0%
90%
-0.0%
85%
-60%
80%
-80%
75%
-100%
70 %-
. 12.0 % -- �.--- T—
„- ,-- R*— .— ^--.,-
Jan Dec
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
�T Rowe Price New Horizons
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for T. Rowe Price New Horizons . Estimated Weights
Weights
t 00%
90%
30%
20%
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 - Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
15
1
1
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
—T Rowe Price New Horizons
Jan Dec Dec
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
.US Large Growth Stocks
US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks
US Mid Cap Value Stocks
US Small Cap Growth Stocks
US Small Cap Value Stocks
MSCI EAFE Stocks
Thirty Day Treasuries
US Long Bonds
US Intermediate Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL
CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for T. Rowe Price New Horizons - Estimated Weights
Weights
100 % -,
95% 1
90%
85%
80%
75%
70 %-
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Jan Dec Dec
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007
2006 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 - Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
15
1
1
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
—T Rowe Price New Horizons
COLUMBIA SMALL CAP VALUE FUND II Z
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Z: Overall
US Intermediate Bontls 0 00
US Lang Bonds 0 00
Thirty Day Treasuries 000
MSCI EAFE Stocks 0 00
US Small Cap Value Stocks 0 50
US Small Cap Growth Stocks 0 16
US Mid Cap Value Stocks 0.23
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks 0 03
US Large Value Stocks
0.07
US Large Grovdh Stocks 0.00
Style ( 97 13
000 0 10 0 20 030 0 40 0 50 060 0 70 080 090 1.00
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
Style/Selection
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Z: Overall
Selection ( 2 87 %)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using
Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
12 -0 %—
10 0 %—
80 %-
60%
40%
20%
00%
-20%—
-40%
-60%
-8 0%
- 10.0 % -
-120%
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003 2004 2005 2006
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
-Columbia Small Cap Value Fund 11 2
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Z . Estimated Weights
Weights
100%
90%
u J an Dec
2006 2006
.US Large Growth Stocks
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks
US Small Cap Growth Stacks
MSCI EAFE Stocks
US Long Bonds
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Cap Value Stacks
US Small Cap Value Stocks
Thirty Day Treasuries
US Intermediate Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for Columbia Small Cap Value Fund 11 Z - Estimated Weights
Weights
100% -
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60 %-
55%
50%
45%
40 %
35%
30%
25%
20 %
15%
10%
5%
0%
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201:
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
1.5
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund 11 Z
NUVEEN REAL ESTATE SECS I
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
Nuveen Real Estate Sees I : Overall
US Real Estate 0.93
US Intermediate Bonds 0.00
US Long Sends 0,00
Thirty Day Treasuries 003
MSCI EAFE Stocks 0.00
US SmallCap Value Stocks 0 00
US Small Cap Growth Stocks 0 01
US Mid Cap Value Stacks 0 00
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks 001
US Large Value Stocks 0.00
US Large Growth Stocks 0.02
—T_ —_ _
000 010 020 0.30 040 050 060 070 080 090 100
Style ( 99
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
Style /Selection
Nuveen Real Estate Secs I : Overall
Selection ( 0 56 %)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
12.0 % —
10 0%—
8.0%
60%
40%
20 %—
0.0 % � �`ti + �&� 'err
-2.0 %— • ■ — • •
-4.0%
-6 0 %-
-8 0 %-
- 10 0 %-
- 120 %.I ��. ,-
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Nuveen Real Estate Secs I
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for Nuveen Real Estate Secs I - Estimated Weights
Weights
100 % -
90%
80% ,
70 %-
60% -.
50%
40% -
30 %-
20%
10 %—
u^% ~
Jan Dec Dec
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
US Large Growth Stocks
US Large Value Stocks
US Mid Cap Growth Stocks
US Mid Cap Value Stocks
US Small Cap Growth Stocks
US Small Cap Value Stocks
MSCI EAFE Stocks
Thirty Day Treasuries
US Long Bands
US Intermediate Bonds
US Real Estate
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for Nuveen Real Estate Secs I - Estimated Weights
Weights
100% -
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60 %
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30 %-
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201:
Time
pelicy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
to
1
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Nuveen Real Estate Secs I
MFS INTERNATIONAL GROWTH I
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
MFS International Growth I : Overall
Aggregate US Bonds 000
30 Day T -Bd1 0.00
Total US Stu cki=
018
Emerging Markets Stock 0 14
Small Pacific Stock' 0.01
Small Europe Stock 0.00
Large Pacific Value Stock 0.00
Large Pacific Growth Stack 0 17
Large Europe Value Stock i 0 03
Large Europe Growth Stock ■ 047
0 00 0 10 020 0.30 040 0.50 060 0 70 0 80 0 90 1 00
Style ( 98
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
StylefSelection
MFS International Growth I : Overall
(200 %)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Ardh., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
120%_
100%—
83%
60%
4 0%
20 % —_ ,. L
00%
_20%_ ■
-4.0
-60%-
_80%_
-to 0 %-
-12.0% -. „ Dec „ c � , �, .I. T. �
Jan c Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
MFS International Growth I
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for MFS International Growth I - Estimated Weights
Weights
1”
uec uec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 01
20 2011 2012
Time
Large Europe Growth Stock Large Europe Value Stock
Large Pacific Growth Stock Large Pacific Value Stock
Small Europe Stack Small Pacific Stock
Emerging Markets Stock Total US Stock
i 30 Day T -Bill Aggregate US Bands
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for MFS International Growth I - Estimated Weights
W elg hts
uec uec Uec Usc
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
-Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2 —
IFS
1
09 002 003 2004 Disc'
05 2006 007 008 2009 2010 2011 0
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2012
Time
MFS International Growth I
HIGHMARK INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FID
(M shares used since Fiduciary shares have brief history)
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
HighMark International Opportunities M : Overall
Aggregate US Bonds I 0.00
30 Day T -Bill I 0.00
Total US Stock o oo
Emerging Markets Stock ® 0 1
Small Pacific Stock, 0.04
Small Europe Stock 0.00
Large Pacific Value Stock 000
Large Pacific Growth Stock _ 0.22
Large Europe Value Stock. 018
Large Europe Growth Stock 040
i I
0 00 0 10 0.20 0.30 0.40 050 060 0 70 080 0 90 1 00
Style ( 97 56%
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
StylaISolection
HighMark International Opportunities M : Overall
elecben ( 2 14 %)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dee 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
120%-
10 0%
80%
60%
40 %-
2 0 %-
00%
-2 0%
-4 0%
-60%-
.8 0%
- 10.0 % -
-12-0% �,
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
HighMark International Opponundies M
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for HighMark International Opportunities M - Estimated Weights
Weights
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Large Europe Growth Stock ` Large Europe Value Stack
Large Pacific Growth Stock Large Pacific Value Stock
Small Europe Stock Small Pacific Stack
Emerging Markets Stock Total US Stock
30 Day T -Bill Aggregate US Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for HighMark International Opportunities M - Estimated Weights
Weights
100%
Jan Dec Dec Dec Uec Dec Uec Uec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2 -
iW
1
of
1
-r)-r, -rte.
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
— HighMark International Opportunities M
DODGE & COX INTERNATIONAL STOCK
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
Dodge & Cox International Stock : Overall
Aggregate US Bonds 0 00
30 Day T -Bill 0.00
Total US Stock 0 12
Emerging Markets Stock 0 16
Small Pacific Stock 0.00
Small Europe Stock 011
Large Pacific Value Stack 0 10
Large Pacific Growth Stock 0 07
Large Europe Value Stock �, - - 0 44
Large Europe Grovnh Stock 0 00
000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070 080 090 100
Style ( 96
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
Style /Selection
Dodge & Cox International Stock : Overall
Selection 13 83 %)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for Dodge & Cox International Stock - Estimated Weights
W eig has
30% -
20%
Jane Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2001 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Large Europe Growth Stock Large Europe Value Stock
Large Pacific Grovith Stock Large Pacific Value Stock
Small Europa Stack ' Small Pacific Stock
Emerging Markets Stock Total US Stock
30 Day T -Bill Aggregate US Bands
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for Dodge & Cox International Stock - Estimated Weights
Weights
100% -
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
15
to
1 Aor
09 1 .1T
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec D Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Dodge & Cox International Stock
Jan 2003 - Dec 2012 Using
Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
120%
100% -
80%
60%
40%
2.0 %—
k
00% ' I
Lb 101APA .41,04k"o
-2 0 %-
-4 0%
-60%—
-8 0 %—
-10 0 %-
-120%
,I
Jan Dec
Dec Dec Dec
Dec Dec Dec Dec
Dec Dec
2003 2003
2004 2005 2006
2007 2008 2009 2010
2011 2012
Time
Dodge & Cox International
Stock
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for Dodge & Cox International Stock - Estimated Weights
W eig has
30% -
20%
Jane Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2001 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Large Europe Growth Stock Large Europe Value Stock
Large Pacific Grovith Stock Large Pacific Value Stock
Small Europa Stack ' Small Pacific Stock
Emerging Markets Stock Total US Stock
30 Day T -Bill Aggregate US Bands
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for Dodge & Cox International Stock - Estimated Weights
Weights
100% -
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
15
to
1 Aor
09 1 .1T
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec D Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Dodge & Cox International Stock
SCHRODER EMERGING MARKET EQUITY INV
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
Schroder Emerging Market Equity Inv : Overall
Aggregate US Bonds 0 00
30 Day T -Bill 0.00
Total US Stock 002
Emerging Markets Stock 0 92
Small Pacific Stock 0.00
Small Europe Stock 000
Large Pacific Value Stack 1 0 00
Large Pacific Growth Stock 0 00
Large Europe Value Stcck 0.01
Large Europe Growth Stocko 0 04
000 0 10 0.20 x0,30 040 0.50 060 0.70 080 0 90 1 CO
Style 198 15
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
StylelSelection
Schroder Emerging Market Equity Inv : Overall
( 1 85 %)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Apr 2006 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
120%—
10 0 %—
80%
60%
4 0%
20%-
00% IN ARM 11111111A Rpm 141L, IN a 0, F-111fte
-20 %~ jr r
-40%
-6 0%
_80%_
-10 0 %,
Apr Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec
2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012
Time
Schroder Emerging Market Eqmty Inv
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for Schroder Emerging Market Equity Inv - Estimated Weights
We g hts
Apr Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec
2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012
Time
Large Europe Growth Stock Large Europe Value Stock
arg
Le Pacific Growth Stack Large Pacific Value Stock
Small Europe Stock Small Pacific Stock
Emerging Markets Stock Total US Stock
1'Rg 30 Day T -BIII Aggregate US Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for Schroder Emerging Market Equity Inv - Estimated Weights
Weights
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50 %
45%
40%
35%
30 %-
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Apr Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec
2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 201:
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Apr 2006 -Dee 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
a
15
J.
1
0.9
Mar Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec
2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012
Time
Schroder Emerging Market Equity Inv
VANGUARD SHORT -TERM INVESTMENT -GRADE ADM
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for Vanguard Short -Term Investment -Grade Adm - Estimated Weights
Vanguard Short -Term Investment -Grade Adm : Overall We ghts
Global Bonds 000 100%
-
90%
US 30 Day Treasuries — 0.30
80%
US Corp High Yield Bonds
007 70%
US Long Gov't Bonds 0,00 60%
50%
US Long Corp Bonds 0 00 40%
US Intermediate Gov't Bonds 30%
0 00
20%
US Intermediate Corp Bonds 0 00
10%
US Short Gov't Bonds 0.00 0 %-
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Time
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
US Short Corp Bands 064
-- _ — — — US Short Corp Bonds US Shon Gov't Bonds
IS Intermediate Corp Bands US Intermediale Gov't Bonds
0.00 0 10 0 20 0.30 040 0 SO 060 070 0.60 0 90 1 OD US Lang Corp Bonds . US Long Gov't Bands
US Corp High Yield Bands US 30 Day Treasuries
r. v, Global Bonds
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
Style/Selection RSquored Graph for Vanguard Short -Term Investment -Grade Adm - Estimated Weights
Vanguard Short -Term Investment -Grade Adm : Overall Weights
Style ( 90
election (9 35 %)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 - Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
40%
35 %_30%
2.5%
20%
15%
10%
05%
-0.5%
-1 0%
-1.5%
-2.0
-25%—
-3.0%
-3 5%
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 20G3 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Vanguard Snort-Term Investment -Grade Adm
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
r policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arhh., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
1
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec pec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Vanguard Short -Term Investment -Grade Adm
HIGHMARK BOND FID
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
HighMark Bond Fid : Overall Style
Global Bonds 0 00
US 30 Day Treasuries. 0 06
US Carp High Yield Bonds ® 0 04
US Lang Gov't Bonds
0 04
US Lang Corp Bonds 0.04
US Intermediate GOVt Bonds 0 24
US Intermediate Corp Bonds
0.37
US Short Godt Bonds
0 12
US Short Corp Bonds ■ 010
0.00 010 020 0.30 040, 050T 060 070 0,80 090 100
Style (
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
StylelSelection
HighMark Bond Fid : Overall Style
Selection ( 4 31 %)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arhh., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
HighMark Bond Fid
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for HighMark Bond Fid - Estimated Weights
Weights
100%
90%
80%
7C%
60%
So %- ..
ji -
30 %_
20%
10%
0%
Jan Dec Dec
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
US Short Corp Bonds
US Short Gov't Bonds
US Intermediate Carp Bands
US Intermediate Gov't Bonds
US Long Corp Bonds
US Lang Gov't Bonds
US Corp High Yield Bontls
. US 30 Day Treasuries
Global Bands
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for HighMark Bond Fid - Estimated Weights
VVe:ghts
100 %_r
Jan Dec Dec Uec Lac Uee Uec Uec
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dee 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
Dec ec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec D Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
— HighMark Bond Fid
PIMCO TOTAL RETURN INSTL
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
PIMCO Total Return Instl : Overall Style
Global Bonds
0.07
US 30 Day Treasuries 0.00
US Carp High Yield Bonds' 003
US Long Gov't Bonds
0 00
US Long Corp Bonds
0.00
US Intermediate Gov't Bonds
0.19
US Intermediate Corp Bands 0.55
US Short Govt Bonds
0 16
US Short Corp Bonds
0.00
0 00 0.10 020 0.30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0.70 0 80 0 90 1 00
Style ( 85.95
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
StylelSelection
PIMCO Total Return Instl : Overall Style
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
mms
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
40%—
3 5%
30%
25%-1
20%
1.5 %-
10%
0.5%
00% L gigolo"
05%
0%
IT
-1.5%
-2 0%
-25%—
-3 0%
-35 %-
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
PIMCO Total Return Instl
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for PIMCO Total Return Instl - Estimated Weights
Weights
umo uec uec uec uec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
.US Short Corp Bonds , .. US Shot Gov't Bonds
US Intermediate Corp Bonds US Intermediate Gov't Bonds
US Long Corp Bonds . US Long Gov't Bonds
US Corp Hlgh Yield Bonds US 30 Day Treasuries
Global Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for PIMCO Total Return Instl - Estimated Weights
Weights
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
Policy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Atith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
fb1
1
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
— PIMCO Total Return Instl
PIMCO HIGH YIELD INSTL
OVERALL EFFECTIVE ASSET MIX
PIMCO High Yield Insti : Overall Style
Global Bands F, 0 03
US 30 Day Treasuries 000
US Corp High Yield Bonds 081
US Long Godt Bonds 0.00
US Long Corp Bonds 0.04
US Intermediate Gott Bonds 0.00
US Intermediate Corp Bands - 0 12
US Short Gov't Bonds 0.00
US Short Corp Bonds 0 00
0 00 0 10 0 20 0 30 040 050 060 0 70 080 0.90 1 00
Style 195 6
OVERALL STYLE /SELECTION
StylelSelection
PIMCO High Yield Insti : Overall Style
Selection ( 4 32 %)
MONTHLY EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arhh., Estimated, Overall
Return Values
40%—
35 %a
30 %-
25%-]
20%
10%
05% m
00%
I-
-05%
-1 0 %-
-15%
-2.0%
-2.5 %-
-3 0%
-3.5 %j
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
PIMCO High Yield Instil
ROLLING STYLE BENCHMARK
Area Graph for PIMCO High Yield Insti - Estimated Weights
Weights
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Lac Uec Uec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
US Short Carp Bonds l- US Shod Gov't Bonds
US Intermediate Carp Bonds US Intermediate Gov't Bonds
US Lang Corp Bonds . US Long Gov't Bands
`US Corp High Yield Bonds US 30 Day Treasuries
.£ Global Bonds
FUND /BENCHMARK HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE
RSquared Graph for PIMCO High Yield Instl - Estimated Weights
Weights
1 n.9%
Jan Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time
�Poiicy Selection
CUMULATIVE EXCESS RETURNS
Jan 2003 -Dec 2012 Using Arith., Estimated, Overall
Index Values (USD)
2
ME
1
0.9 nr—T* 1 I
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Dec 2011 2012
Time
PIMCO High Yield Insti
wi= YMEn
r .C- . -- C - _ E
3 Z'.
OVERALL STYLE DISTRIBUTION OF DOMESTIC EQUITY FUNDS
OVERALL DISTRIBUTION
Overall Style
Jan 2003 - Dec 2012
1100%__ - - - --
90% Columbia Contrarian Core Z
80% T. Rowe Price Equity Income V
70% - ♦ Sentinel Common Stock A
60% Loomis Sayles Value Y T. Rowe Price Growth Stock+ n
50% Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl o
40% @
30% -- __ .J
20%_ - z
10% TIAA -CREF Mid -Cap Value Instl
0%
-10% i
-20% - HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth A
- 30 %- -.
-40 %- — -- - -- -fi - � - m
-50% T. Rowe Price New Horizons E
-60%
-70% - Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II Z v
-80%
-90%
-100% -, -- -- -
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
< - -- Value Growth - - ->
ROLLING PERIOD HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION
Rolling Style
Jan 2003 - Dec 2012
110% - -
90% --------------------- {- - - - --- - -- - - / - --
50%
m
30%
10%
-10%
-30%
-50 %-
E
v
-90%
- 110%
-110% -90% 70% -50% -30% -10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 110%
< - -- Value Growth - - ->
■ Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl - T. Rowe Price Growth Stock
Columbia Contrarian Core Z Sentinel Common Stock A
T. Rowe Price Equity Income ♦ Loomis Sayles Value Y
C� HighMark Geneva Mid Cap Growth A Z TIAA -CREF Mid -Cap Value Instl
X T. Rowe Price New Horizons ♦ Columbia Small Cap Value Fund 11 Z
;V ✓.STRICT G A 5 9 45 /0THF Po;r ' M =L0y _ -,i T s ?R: - ST
R, .,, Foy T 1 c- c 1 2012
OVERALL STYLE DISTRIBUTION OF FOREIGN EQUITY FUNDS
OVERALL DISTRIBUTION
Overall Style
Jan 2003 - Dec 2012
100 % - --- - - -- MFS International Growth I
90%
80%
70%
130-/0-- V i HighMark International Opportunities M n
50% Dodge & Cox International Stock
40%--
30% 20%—
10%
0% Schroder Emerging Market Equity Inv
-10%
-20 %-
-30%— _
-40 %-
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%
m
CU
J
N
Y
rn
om
a�
E
W
E
- o i
--
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
< - -- Value Growth - - ->
`ROLLING PERIOD HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION
Rolling Style
Jan 2003 - Dec 2012
110%
♦ WV 1i► ■
70% dE
o . : IF 5 0 /o A cu
: m
30% Cn
-10%
`m
E
-30%- W
-50 %— -- - - - I <4
-70 %— v
-90%
- -- -- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- -- - --
-110% i I I I I
-110% -90% -70% -50% -30% -10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 110%
< - -- Value Growth - - ->
■ MFS International Growth I HighMark International Opportunities M
Dodge & Cox International Stock Schroder Emerging Market Equity Inv
OVERALL STYLE DISTRIBUTION OF FIXED INCOME FUNDS
OVERALL DISTRIBUTION
Overall Style
Jan 2003 - Dec 2012
100 % - - -� - - - -
90
80%
70%
60 %-
'
E
50% -
`N
40 %-
~
30 %-
m
o
20 %-
J
10% l
- I
0% - - -- -+ - -- -- - -- - -
-10%
i
-
-20%
-30 %-
E
PIMCO High Yield Instl
40 %-
�
-50%
V_
HighMark Bond Fid
-60%
70% PIMCO Total Return Instl
-80%
v
-90%
Vanguard Short-Term Investment -Grade Adm
-100 % — T - - -- - F_- -i-
r --i--
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
< - -- Government Corporate - - ->
ROLLING PERIOD HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION
Rolling Style
Jan 2003 - Dec 2012
110% -- - - — - -
90%
7no/
A
E
50% FW-
- 7
30% 0
10% r>
-10%
-30 %- E
�p O
-70%
Y
-90% v
a
-110% - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
� -
-110% -90% -70% -50% -30% -10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 110%
< - -- Government Corporate - - ->
® Vanguard Short-Term Investment -Grade Adri HighMark Bond Fid
PIMCO Total Return Instl PIMCO High Yield Instl
� � i`Mf�"a����Y����= `r - �;.. ��,3`2.rF9:�� n,T•' . y, -
The following tables break down the fees for the Trust
As of: 12/31/2012
Expense Color Code
FIRST 01 ARTILE E\PE N.SFS
SI(7l\DWARIII.E f-AP/ \.S /,S
THIRD Q1 ARTILE
S
%
S
LARGE G'RORTH FUNDS
1.28
Harbor CapimlAppreciatiunlnstl
$1,123,309
0.67
$7,526
7
0.30
T. Rowe Price Growth StoeA
$1,124,599
0.70
$7,872
8
0.34
LARGF, BLEND FUNDS
1.18
Columbia Contrarian Core!
$1,186,095
0.9s
$11,268
35
1.58
Sentinel Common Slot k 1
$1,183,599
0.78
$9,232
23
1.03
LARGE IALUE FUNDS
1.21
T. Rowe Price Eynio Income
$1,513,057
0.68
$10,289
11
0.63
LoondsS'grles I'alue Y
$1,513,410
0.73
$11,048
14
0.80
51ID -CAP GROIITH FUNDS
1.39
High.1lark Genera Slid Cup Growth Fiduciary
$594,065
1.13
$6,713
36
0.81
.111D -CAP IALUE FUNDS
1.33
TIA1 -C'REF Slid -C'ap I aloe Intl
$727,026
0.46
$3,344
2
0.06
SSL4LL GROi 711 FUNDS
1.50
T. Rowe Price .New Horizons
$663,060
0.81
$5,371
4
0.10
SMALL IALUEFUNDS
1.45
Columbia Small Cap I Glue Fund H Z
$1,061,369
1.06
$11,251
19
0.77
REAL, EST4TE Ft'.%DS•
1.38
Nureen Real Estate Secs I
$457,764
1.04
$4,761
27
0.47
FOREIGN LARGE GROUT11 fT .N'DS
1.42
.VIES International Growth 1
$328,754
1.12
$3,682
29
0.36
FOREIGN IARGE BLEND FUNDS
1.40
Fligh.11nrk International Opportunities Fid
$395,186
1.27
$5,019
44
0.66
FOREIGN IARGE IALUE FUNDS
1.39
Dodge & Cox International Stork
$328,006
0.64
$2,099
5
0.06
ESIERGLNG 5L4RKET.S FUNDS
1.65
Schroder Emerging Alurket Equio Inv
$996,057
1.25
$12,451
19
0.72
.VONEY :S1.4RtiET FUNDS
0.58
High.Vark Dirersiitied .honer Varket Fid
$982,142
0.57
$5,598
57
2.13
.SHORT TERN BOND FUNDS
0.85
Eanguard Short -Term Investment- Grade Adm
$2,686,205
0.11
$2,955
2
0.20
iNTEPUIEDI.ATE TERN BOND FUNDS
0.93
I /ighSlark Bond Fid
$4,449,231
0.72
$32,034
37
6.25
PIAIC'O Total Return Intl
$4,497,212
0.46
$20,687
11
1.88
HIGH YIELD BOND FUNDS
1.15
PINC0 High Yield Insil
$525,274
0.55
$2,889
3
0.06
Plan Totals $26,335,420 0.67-/.-T-$176,089
N/A
18.57
Expense Color Code
FIRST 01 ARTILE E\PE N.SFS
SI(7l\DWARIII.E f-AP/ \.S /,S
THIRD Q1 ARTILE
For Trust Assets From:
Annual Rate:
Amount
$0 - $10,000,000
0.25%
$25,000
$10,000,001 - $15,000,000
0.20%
$10,000
$15,000,001 - $50,000,000
0.15%
$17,003
$50,000,001 and above
0.10%
$0
Total PARS Fee
0.35%
$52,003
Breakdown of Assets:
0.25%
Amount
Total Trust Assets
0.67%
$26,335,420
Amount in HighMark Funds
0.20%
$6,420,624
Amount subject to HighMark Fee:
0.18%
$19,914,796
Grand Total of Fees
1.05%
$275,464
For Amount Subject to HighMark Fee From:
Annual Rate:
Amount
$0 - $5,000,000
0.35%
$17,500
$5,000,001- $10,000,000
0.25%
$12,500
$10,000,001 - $15,000,000
0.20%
$10,000
$15,000,000 - $50,000,000
0.15%
$7,372
$50,000,000 and above
0.10%
$0
Total HighMark Investment Management Fee
$47,372
Fee Breakdown % of Trust Assets Amount
Fund Level Fees
0.67%
$176,089
PARS Fee
0.20%
$52,003
HighMark Investment Management Fee
0.18%
$47,372
Grand Total of Fees
1.05%
$275,464
Legal Expenditure Summary
SELF INSURANCE FUND
RUNNING EXPENSE
Check#
Check $
Vendor Name
Account #'
Account$
CL#
Case # - Case Title
1
103106
$13,671.62
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver
003-0000-992.14-21
$774.56
Gregory Village Partners v Chevron
8230PQ.08-98
$201.88
General Improvements
003-0000-992.14-21
$12,830.62
Schaffer, Ryan v Gregory Village Partners
003-0000-991.14-21
$66.44
Pimentel, Louis v CCCSD
001-0140-400.08-03
$340.31
ADM - Purchasing, Constr. Contract, Retainer Sery
1[��l
031101
$155.17
Jarvis Fay Doporto & Gibson,
003-0000-993.14-21
$155.17
Chevron Property Tax Refund
001-0200-420.08-03
$6,673.88
ES - Legal Work Auth., Retainer Sery
RUNNING EXPENSE
PROJECTS
Lj2q',. . t
'Check
jo
Vendor Name,
Acibq unt;#
Projects
IM
E, D ition
3
194225
$23,406.73
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver
001-0100-400.08-02
$5,835.26
ADM - Board Activity - Board Meetings, Retainer Sery
8230PQ.08-98
$201.88
General Improvements
001-0100-400.08-03
$2,147.63
ADM - General
001-0120-400.08-03
$6,707.36
ADM - H.R. issues, Labor Negotiations
001-0140-400.08-03
$340.31
ADM - Purchasing, Constr. Contract, Retainer Sery
001-0150-400.08-03
$138.43
ADM - Risk Management, Retainer Sery
001-0200-420.08-03
$6,673.88
ES - Legal Work Auth., Retainer Sery
001-0200-490.08-03
$638.09
ES - Source Control
001-0200-690.08-03
$115.87
ES - HHW Facility
001-0200-750.08-03
$533.03
ES - Reclaimed Water
001-0300-410.08-03
$138.43
CSO - Admin, Retainer Services
001-0400-410.08-03
$138.43
POD - Misc, Retainer Services
PROJECTS
Lj2q',. . t
'Check
"'Vb6doFN-at*
Account# Accoq Ot $
CL#
Projects
4 35200
$1,616.07
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver
8230PQ.08-97
$1,414.19
Collection System Projects
8230PQ.08-98
$201.88
General Improvements
Per 7/16/12 B&F Committee - was decided to only include legal expenditures
Page 1 of 1 Printed: 3/25/2013