# Police & Fire Pension Board Meeting - December 10, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · December 10, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6642 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6642?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-12-10 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: February 4, 2026 - **Length**: 22,773 words - **Speakers**: Mayor > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington Fire and Police Pension Board held a meeting presided over by Mayor Gorton. The board worked through 6 agenda items during the session, all of which were approved, reflecting a productive and largely uncontested meeting. Business addressed included widow's annuities for Sharon Bacon and Johnny McClure, December disbursements, disability applications, a medical evaluation for Robert Mott, approval for Kobe Reek, and the November 2026 board meeting schedule. A total of 7 votes were taken over the course of the meeting, and no public comments were heard. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the Board meeting on 2025-12-10: - Mayor Gorton - Commissioner Hensley - Chief Wells - Mr. Puckett - Lieutenant Abel No members were absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took action on seven items during the December 10, 2025 meeting. All votes were conducted by voice vote. - **Widow's Annuities – Sharon Bacon and Johnny McClure** [timestamp: 0:07]: The Board voted to approve widow's annuities for Sharon Bacon and Johnny McClure. The motion was made by Rock and seconded by Tommy. The motion passed unanimously. - **November 2026 Board Meeting Date Change** [timestamp: 0:08]: The Board voted to move the November 2026 board meeting to November 18th. The motion passed with one nay vote recorded. No mover or seconder was identified in the record. - **Approval of December Disbursements** [timestamp: 0:09]: The Board voted to approve disbursements for December. The motion was made by a Commissioner and seconded by the Chief. The motion passed unanimously. - **Ronnie Batson – Disability Conversion** [timestamp: 0:09]: The Board voted to convert Ronnie Batson's service retirement to a total and permanent occupational disability. The motion passed unanimously. No mover or seconder was identified in the record. - **Christopher Rosen – Disability Conversion** [timestamp: 0:10]: The Board voted to convert Christopher Rosen's service retirement to a total and permanent occupational disability. The motion passed unanimously. No mover or seconder was identified in the record. - **Robert Mott – Third Doctor Evaluation** [timestamp: 0:10]: The Board voted to send Robert Mott to a third doctor for evaluation. The motion passed unanimously. No mover or seconder was identified in the record. - **Kobe Reek – Rate Approval** [timestamp: 0:11]: The Board voted to approve and set the appropriate rate for Kobe Reek. The motion passed unanimously. No mover or seconder was identified in the record. No roll call votes were taken during this meeting; all decisions were reached by voice vote. Where individual vote counts are not reflected above, the record indicates a voice vote outcome only. ## Contested Items - **November 2026 Board Meeting Date**: The Board voted on whether to move the November 2026 meeting to November 18th rather than the originally scheduled November 11th. The vote was not unanimous, with one member casting a nay vote. The dissenting member's objection was that November 18th falls in the middle of deer season. Despite the opposition, the motion carried with the majority in favor of the November 18th date. ## Widow's Annuities for Sharon Bacon and Johnny McClure [timestamp: 07:19] The Board took up the first agenda item, a resolution concerning widow's annuities for Sharon Bacon and Johnny McClure. Key speakers on this item were Rock and Tommy. The Board considered and approved the widow's annuities for both Sharon Bacon and Johnny McClure. The resolution was approved. ## November 2026 Board Meeting Schedule [timestamp: 08:23] The board took up agenda item number 2, a discussion regarding the scheduling of the November 2026 board meeting. The item was brought forward due to a conflict with Veterans Day, which falls during the board's regular November meeting slot. The board considered two alternative dates for the rescheduled meeting: - **November 4, 2026** - **November 18, 2026** After discussion, the board selected **November 18, 2026** as the new date for the meeting. The item was approved. No key speakers were individually identified in the record for this agenda item. ## Disbursements for December [timestamp: 09:25] The Board took up Item Number 3, the Disbursements for December, as listed on the agenda. The item was presented for the Board's review and approval. Key speakers on this item included the Commissioner and the Chief. The disbursements were reviewed as presented, with no specific concerns or debate noted in the available record. The Board approved the December disbursements. ## Disability applications [timestamp: 09:59] The board discussed and approved applications to convert existing service retirements to total and permanent occupational disability status for two individuals: **Ronnie Batson** and **Christopher Rosen**. - Both applications involved converting previously granted service retirements to total and permanent occupational disabilities. - The board approved both applications. No additional detail on key speakers, debate, or concerns raised is available from the meeting record. ## Medical evaluation for Robert Mott [timestamp: 10:59] The board considered a resolution regarding a medical evaluation for Robert Mott. The board approved a decision to send Robert Mott to a third doctor for evaluation. No key speakers were identified in the available record for this agenda item, and no additional details regarding the specific concerns, debate, or presentations that preceded the vote were captured in the source data. The resolution was approved. ## Approval for Kobe Reek [timestamp: 11:29] The board took up the matter of approval and rate-setting for Kobe Reek. The available record indicates that the board moved to approve the item and set the appropriate rate for Kobe Reek. No specific speakers, presentations, debate points, or concerns are documented in the available data for this agenda item. The board approved the resolution. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of widow's annuities for Sharon Bacon and Johnny McClure - **Motion** — passed (0-1): Move November 2026 board meeting to November 18th - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of disbursements for December - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Convert Ronnie Batson's service retirement to a total and permanent occupational disability - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Convert Christopher Rosen's service retirement to a total and permanent occupational disability - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Send Robert Mott to a third doctor for evaluation - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve and set the appropriate rate for Kobe Reek --- ## Full transcript Toes out front, open and close your arms. Think about waking up your back muscles. Right now we're just working on raising up that body temperature. And just tap it. So as we're warming up, let's just think about that perceived exertion scale from 1 to 10. 1, 2 and 3, we're warming up right now. Raising that body temperature, and that's how you should feel. 4, 5, 6, starting to work. Flex your feet. That's when we really get going. 7, pretty intense. Couldn't hold forever. 8 and 9, way too hard. I want you to back off. So just kind of be mindful of that as we move through class. You can activate more legs here now by starting and getting a little more up and down. Oh yeah. Feels good. Wake up those arms, the biceps, the legs, the feet. We will be teaching this interval style today, so we'll be sitting and standing. Take it back to a big march. Picking up the feet again, pumping the arms, pumping the legs. Nice and simple. Now while you're at home, make sure your surroundings are clear. No trip hazards. Step touch. Right there, nice side to side. Oh yeah. You got it, big steps, side to side. Unsure of your balance, feel free to stay right here. Or give me a little hamstring curl. And all that is, is just your little foot to your hiney. Right there. If you can't get it there, maybe you need to go get something to eat, like a milkshake. Put some junk in the trunk. Or actually it might be range of motion issues with your knees. That's okay too. You can stay right here or add a little squat in the middle. Are you breathing? You should start to be about a three now on that perceived exertion scale. Switching directions on you. Knees up. Now be mindful of the balance. Feel free to always hold on to that chair. Nothing is ever worth a fall. You are balancing, you are shifting your weight here. Engage your tummy and your core. And you got it. Oh yeah. Knee issues, you might choose to stay right here. Or go ahead and give me a few kicks out. Just like that. Loosening up the back of the legs and the hamstrings. A little lean back. Come on, let's do a few more. Oh yeah. Feeling good now. Four more. Three. Take it back to the knees up please. Right there. Oh yeah. Nice big knees up. Give me a nice big march right here. Come on. Oh yeah. Backing up a little bit closer to my chair. Four knees. Nice big march. Do that again. Four knees. This is part A. Big march. Give me a little kick back. It's just a kick back. Squeezing those glutes. Give me a little push with the arms. Push it out. Okay, nothing fancy. Nice march. Yeah. A little bit more. Pull the tummy tight. Shoulders back and down. So we're just going to work that back kick. Four kicks back. I don't care what leg goes. It doesn't matter. And a little march. When we put it together, I don't care which leg goes first. Kick back four. Little march. Four knees. So I'm going to teach it first in place. Big march. Maybe at home you don't have room to move. Kick back four. Or maybe you just want to stay close to the chair. Big march. Let's do that again. Four knees. March it. Kick it back. Yeah. March it. You can do it in place one time. Watch me. Four knees up. Little march. Kick it back. Come on, big kick. You got it. March it. Now move it if you would like to. Or stay here. Nice little march. Put it in the memory bank for later. Kick back. March it. You can do a little jump rope. Knees up. March jump rope. Yeah. Take it back. March jump rope. One more time. Four knees up. March. Come on, circle those arms. Take it back. March it. Easy march. Easy. Give me some shoulder shrugs right here. Take a breath. Should be sweating a little bit. Yeah. Going back to that tippy, tippy top. Just tap your toes nice and easy. If your heart rate got up a little bit, I'm bringing it down on purpose. Yeah. Come on, reach out there like you're going to smash a little spider. If I see one, I'm out of here. Yeah. A little bit more right there. Go back to the little heels and flex. Super easy, right? One is widow's annuities for Sharon Bacon and Johnny McClure. I need a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Thank you, Rock. Thank you, Tommy. Any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Item number two, we were looking at the 2026 schedule for the board meetings and November 11th actually lands on Veterans Day, which is the city is closed. So we need a motion to either move it to a week early or a week late. So 11-4 or 11-18. It's the pleasure of the board. Okay. Mayor, has everybody had a chance to check their calendars? In order to get the financials in a timely manner, I'd prefer that we actually have the meeting on the 18th, if at all possible, for everyone. Okay. I actually can't be here on the 4th anyway. I'm sorry. Oh, on the 4th. Okay, good. On the 4th. Could everyone, if you haven't checked your calendar, can you? Is the 18th okay? I mean, I know it's a year out, but. The 18th is fine with me. The 4th, my gas bill is due, so. That is a complication. Okay. Very good. Well, do I hear a motion to? I move that we set the November 2026 meeting to the 18th instead of the 11th. Is there a second? Second. All right. Thank you. Second. All right. Now, is there any further discussion? Yes, right in the middle of deer season. I'm so sorry. Right in the middle. Now, I would ask, which is more important, police and fire pension? Deer. Well, we'll see how the vote turns out. Any other comments? All those in favor of switching the date to November 18th, 2026, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? We have one nay vote. Thank you very much. That passes. Item number three is disbursements for December. They're listed on your agenda. I need a motion to approve. Do I hear a motion? I move. Thank you. Second. Commissioner and Chief, thank you. Are there any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. Next on the agenda are disabilities. We have Ronnie Batson, Division of Police. Application to convert an existing service retirement to a total and permanent occupational disability. I need a motion, please. Is there a motion? Motion to accept the application and send it to the appropriate physician. Second. Thank you. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Next on the agenda is Christopher Rosen, Division of Police. Application to convert an existing service retirement to a total and permanent occupational disability. I need a motion to send to appropriate doctors. Do I hear a motion? So moved. Thank you. Second. Thank you. Any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Next on the agenda is Robert Mott, Division of Fire. Medical reports are completed and distributed. I need a motion, please. Do I hear a motion? I make a motion to send him to a third doctor for evaluation. Is there a second? Second. All right. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Next is Kobe Reek, Division of Fire. Medical reports are completed and distributed. Do I hear a motion? I make a motion to approve and set the appropriate rate. I'll second. All right. Thank you very much. Discussion? Questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Next on the agenda are tributes. We have Horst Bacon, Division of Police. Passed away on November 8, 2025. Also, Jerry McClure, Division of Fire. Passed away on November 22, 2025. All right. Thank you. Before we go on with our tributes, do I have anyone who has any comments? Chief Wells. Thank you, Mayor. First, regarding Firefighter Jerry McClure, I wanted to pass on our condolences to his family as well as the family of Horst Bacon. Firefighter McClure served the division from May of 1964 until January of 1993. He left riding the ladder truck out of Station 11 on Harrodsburg Road, I believe. And I had an opportunity to speak with his widow, Johnny, just before he passed away. And one of the things that she remarked on was how extremely proud he always was to be a member of the division that even many, many years into retirement, he continued to wear his Lexington Fire Department hat with pride and really loved being a member of this organization. And also, we have Firefighter Colby Reich, who is leaving us on a disability. And I know this is not how he anticipated his career to end. But I want to thank him for his service and all of the wonderful things that he's brought to our division. He's definitely served with honor. So thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Mr. Puckett. Horace Bacon was a sergeant. I never worked under him, but I worked beside him for years. One of the most jolliful guys, always kept everybody happy, was a great leader, just an absolute fine gentleman. And he will be missed. Jerry McClure, I knew Jerry a little bit, but his brother is a police officer that's retired, Terry McClure. So, you know, he's part of our family, and we will miss him. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. I would like to take just a brief second to mention Luis Stepter, our recently retired safety officer. Over 30 years of service to the community, I know the mayor had a chance to meet with him a couple weeks ago and some of the command staff, but I would like to mention him as, while he's not technically part of our pension system, he's certainly part of the family. Thank you, Luis. Thank you. I love that you did that. I actually received a beautiful letter from him after that day, and he certainly served us a long time. It was a rather emotional time for him. Thank you. Anyone else? I will add my voice to the chief and to Mr. Puckett. It always is a bit of a mixed emotional time when we lose those who've served fire and police and also with Colby through his retirement. I think we cannot say enough about the importance of the service of folks in police and fire. It's reflected in the wonderful, safe community we have, and people love our police and fire. So I add my voice to those tributes and thank these folks. I thank their families and appreciate all of them. So with that, we'll move right on to the subcommittees, I believe. Now, Mr. Puckett, do you have anything for us? No, I have nothing, and luckily we have no complaints in the legislative subcommittee. I just got some information, and we may be having a meeting sometime shortly, I think. Okay. And that is for both the continuation of benefits in the legislative subcommittees. Very good. And then, Lieutenant Abel, is there anything for the organizational subcommittee? Mayor, we will get to see the fruits of our labor in our past meeting today here just momentarily. So that's what I have to report. Stay tuned. Okay, very good. Thank you. Well, that brings us to our calendar report, and we have a lot to do today. And you're going to have to speed through all your reports here. But, John, I'll welcome you to the podium, and we have Jim O'Connor here as well. And so we're in your hands now. Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Hope all is well with you. I'm finding a little bit of a bug here, so I apologize if my voice is a little bit timid. As you look, this is the fruition of the asset liability and structure work that we did earlier this year. And in summary, the approach that we're taking is to have 50% of the international equities invest in a core manager, a KD, which is a legacy manager, and then allocating 25% of that bucket to a growth manager and a value manager. So then the question comes up, what's the difference between growth and value? Depending on who you talk to, you're going to have varying definitions, but I'm going to go with how the indices are structured. And suffice to say, growth securities or growth stocks are those that have an expected return that exceeds that of the market. So when you look at that, you see a greater weighting to AI stocks, information technology. Value stocks, on the other hand, are stocks that are cheap. They've had some disruption that's affected their price, so they're on sale. And now it's a question, do you buy when they're on sale, and are you a patient investor? So longer holding periods for the value managers. Growth managers, again, they're paying up for the darlings of the market, and the idea here is that as long as they keep exceeding the market multiples, you're going to benefit handsomely. Reversion of the mean is a very strong principle. So the idea here is that when the price starts to decline and go more towards the average multiple, you're going to see your growth managers exit those securities. So when you think of the two, you think of growth, darlings of the market, more expensive, and again, the idea here is that they want to get out. So you've got quicker, shorter holding periods, quicker exits, and in value, just the opposite. So when we think of the value index, more financials, more consumer durables. When you're looking at the growth indices, AI, information technology, biotech, et cetera. So that kind of sets, and at the end of the day, you have a combination. Certainly growth has been driving the market for an extended period of time, and that value has had its day, and that portion, a good diversified portfolio, is the only free lunch. So we like that structure of, and a core manager holds a blend of both growth and value stocks. So I'll take a pause there, see if anybody's got any questions. All right, are there questions for Mr.? John? Yeah. Going back through history, which has done better, growth or value? If you look at long history, you would say value. If you looked at the last 20 years, you would say growth. Yeah, that's what I thought. Yeah. Other questions? All right. Okay, so what are we doing here today? We've conducted a search. We've met with the subcommittee, and again, at Callen, we have a database that many of the institutional managers in the market subscribe to and provide data. It's free to provide it. It gives us a view to the market to see what opportunities there are. So managers have every incentive because the transmission of data is inexpensive, and they get to be on a platform for potentially winning a mandate. When we went through this search, we looked at the non-U.S. equity growth in value, and we looked at about north of 300 products for each of those strategies, and we went through a winnowing process. And we arrived at four candidates, two growth, two value, that are going to be interviewed today. So our expectation is that we're going to come away with one value manager, one growth manager. The four managers we're going to meet with today on the value side, Brandis, they're out of La Jolla, California, and DFA, and they're out of Austin. And then we're going to hear from the non-U.S. equity growth, Chautauqua, and MFS. So I guess I would encourage you, this is your time. If you have a question, you can reserve the question at the end or stop them. We've allocated 20 minutes for the presentation, 10 minutes for Q&A. So however they get to that 30 minutes is immaterial. And if it's top of mind, if you had the opportunity to look at some of the materials that were provided at our last meeting or certainly the subcommittee, we've poured through these in detail. And you had a question about something, please feel free to ask. They're in a great position to answer those questions. After they've made their presentations, both the value and the growth presentations, Jim O'Connor, my colleague, is going to do the recap. So he's going to come in and say, okay, let's make a determination in what is the driver of the selection. Is there something that appealed to you more for one firm versus the other? Is it downside protection? Is it upside participation? Is it the size of the firm gives you comfort? So we have various size firms here. We've got, in terms of the growth value spectrum, different gradations of that. So again, I would encourage you, we're going to look at the performance numbers as well and the combinations. But I would encourage you to use your time, ask any questions that you might have, and then at the end we're going to do the recap. Okay, let me ask just a couple procedural things. You said 20 minutes for presentation, 10 for Q&A. Would it be the pleasure of the board to follow that? And then if we don't have questions, that can shift a little. And I ask my question because do you want to see them stop at a 20-minute presentation? That way we can kind of stay on time. And if so, then someone will need to watch the time for us. We have a little timer here, but I don't know if, Tanya, you know how to do that. We can use the timer. So at 20 minutes, if you want us to raise our hands. Yes, that would be great. If a question has come up in the interim, we'll raise our hand once, and then for 30 minutes we'll raise it again. I mean, I think we want questions from the board and answers, but I think if everybody has the 20 minutes for their presentation, it makes it flow a little better. And then my other question is you said that Jim O'Connor would do the recap. When do you do that? Do you do it after the two values and then after the two growths, or do you do it after everything? Are we lumping it all together, or are we going to – what's your – We can do it after, and that way address the value search first and then the growth search. So do two recaps? One recap. Is that what you're saying? One recap at the end. Okay. Does that suit everybody? So we make the decisions after everything? Correct. Okay. Any other procedural questions that come to mind for you all? All right. Sounds good. Madam Chair, we are completely flexible. If you think it would be easier for the board to do a recap after the value presentations and then another one after the growth, we could certainly do that as well. What's your pleasure? It might. Okay, so two recaps. Certainly. It might be more clear. Well, it would be fresher in our minds. That's great. Pardon me? It would be fresher in our minds. Yes. Okay, so Mr. O'Connor, if you could do one after the value presentations and then one after the growth. Fantastic. Okay. So our first group is going to be Brandis. They're out of La Jolla. A value manager and Grant Duncan and Jeffrey Germain will be presenting for that firm. Okay. And it's 925. Here we go. Thank you. Thank you. That was money. It was money. No, it was. This is lacking about 26 million. But if you look at it, we went from a million fifty to a million forty-two. But now the 26 million. Good morning, gentlemen. Good morning. Good morning. How are you? I'm well. Welcome. Just for your information, before you introduce yourselves and start your presentation, you'll have 20 minutes for your presentation and then we'll have a Q&A period. Okay? I'll keep Jeff on a tight leash. Sure. So we're okay. Well, thank you for having us in. We're pretty ruthless here. Well, he's ready. I'm not. So just all the hard questions. Okay. Welcome. All the hard questions go to Jeff. Thank you. My name is Grant Duncan. I've been with Brandis for over 25 years. I'm pleased to be joined by Jeff Germain. So Jeff's the one you want to talk to. He's been a longstanding member of the team that manages the Brandis International Equity Portfolio, as well as serving as a partner of the firm. And so let's see if I can get it right. There we go. So what we thought we would do in our short time with you is just to give you a brief overview of kind of who we are as a firm, kind of some key beliefs that we have. Also touch base on kind of what our place in a portfolio tends to look like. And then Jeff's going to do the heavy lifting of, within a short period of time, kind of talk you through what do we mean as price discipline and fundamental value, what that means to us and how we do our work. And so real quick for me. So I'll give you just a few highlights of the firm. So Callan has covered us. It's been decades. So I'm sure you have some pretty good background on Brandis and on the strategy. But just a few highlights. Last year was a cool year for us. It was our 50th anniversary. And so it's pretty cool to go back and look at how much you have changed through time, but also just how much our markets have changed. If you kind of think about going through the decades of what investing was like in non-U.S. markets in the 70s compared to today. The style, when we say price discipline, fundamental value, that's really just a long way of saying it's a business owner perspective. So Jeff, he'll describe this for you in a bit, but the resources, kind of what we think our edge is as a firm is we just spend a lot of time fundamentally understanding these companies that we invest in and then demand a discount to that fair price of that business. Right about $40 billion, a little about $42 billion today in terms of assets. Maybe the last one I'll touch on is 100% employee owned. We think people tend to make this business a little harder than it is, maybe a little more complicated than it is. But it is a hard business. It's hard to be good at. And it's hard to endure for a long time. And we think if you have somebody owning you outside your firm for your cash flow, kind of getting it in the way between us and the client, we think it gets even more complicated. And so Jeff is an example. He is one of 31 partners that are 100% owners of Brandys. And just a few kind of key tenets within the firm. And hopefully you hear this first one with any value manager. But it's such a touchstone within Brandys. It's that price matters to your future returns. And so the markets can be quite manic depressive. They can misprice companies longer than you would like. But at the end of the day, what we've seen through our 50 years, it's like gravity. And so we're going to spend a ton, again, a ton of time understanding these companies. And then we're going to demand a discount to those businesses based upon that quality of that business. And so some we're happy at 15%, 20%. Some we demand 50%. And, again, that's all with that idea of the price you're paying, that discount. That's where your excess returns come from. And so to do that, all these other things support it. You need to be long-term in your point of view and your work. We think it's critical that you work within a team, different perspectives, looking at different issues. So let's pivot really quick, and then I'll be done, is looking at just kind of where we fit within portfolios. And so if you look at the top left, this is really just a simple Morningstar holdings-based analysis. We're the light green dots there. And, really, this is just looking at the underlying holdings of the Brandys International portfolio. And what you see if you plot on the left your value, you plot on the right your growth. And so what I did here is I plotted our international strategy. You see that consistently on the left as a value manager. I put Acadian in one of your managers, and they plot very much as a core manager in this center. And then, if you look, however you might complement us, hopefully, would be with the AQUI-XUS growth. And you see that plot to the right. So you can see we have a definitive place to play within portfolios. And then on the bottom right, that's really just a technical way of saying the excess return correlation. Does our excess returns come at the same time or at different times of things that you held within the portfolio? And you can see I plotted us to Acadian as well as to the growth index. And you can see with a negative number, it's quite diversified in terms of kind of how our portfolio behaves during what you would expect Acadian or a growth manager to behave. And then the last one for me, there's a lot of math here, but I think it's an interesting, important point. I also think that it sets expectations of how we behave. So what this is is we have taken our monthly returns, our excess returns, and we plotted them in basically two buckets. We plotted in a bucket when markets are rewarding value investing, and we plotted it when markets are rewarding growth investing. So on the very left, that dark green bar, that's how our portfolio has behaved when value investing works within the marketplace or value outperforms. So you can see that we have significant outperformance to our value peers. As you would expect, you can see the outperformance compared to growth peers. That very next set of three bars shows the exact opposite. And again, kind of setting that expectation, when growth investing is very much in favor, you can see we would underperform in that environment, our peers would underperform, and that's where your growth manager is kind of picking up the ball and the weight within overall returns. And then to the right, this just dives a little bit deeper. This gets into the flavor of a value manager. This is looking at our returns in up markets when value works, in down markets when value works. And you can see Jeff and the team, they've done a nice job in value up markets, but especially in down markets. You can see that in the dark green. You can see that in that center column that's just down markets. This team, in general, what you see is they tend to behave well in volatile down markets. So with that, I'll pass it over to Jeff. Great. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. So this slide is going to go through how Brandon's approach is investing as a price-disciplined fundamental value investor. And as Grant highlighted at the very top, we do think investing and beating the market is hard, but what we're trying to do is very simple and straightforward, and that is to buy businesses below what they're worth. While we're doing that and looking at the universe, we're trying to avoid those businesses that are too well-priced in the market, so they're overvalued. And more importantly for a value investor, we're looking and try really hard to avoid what are called value traps. And those are businesses that look like they're undervalued, but they're actually cheap for a reason. And that's essentially what our whole group, the investment team, as well as the analysts that support the investment team, are doing every day. And we think we can do that in this market that is in the long-term efficient because in the short-term or medium-term, it's not efficient. It gets too emotional. It irrationally makes decisions. It avoids and ignores certain parts of the market and therefore gives an opportunity for mispriced assets. And so the market's not efficient in the short-term. And secondly, we are able to bring what we consider to be a differentiated perspective to the landscape. And we do that really a combination of two things that drive that differentiated perspective. Number one is our experience. So Grant mentioned at the top we've been investing in international markets for over 50 years. I'm going to introduce you to the entire team, and you'll notice the very long tenure. So we've been looking at these markets, understand the risks, the opportunities for a long, long time. We match that or marry that experience with expertise. We're structured in a way in which our analysts are responsible for certain industries in a sector team. And that means that they are an expert in every business that operates in that sector. So when you marry experience and expertise, what that equals or we think it equals is really good judgment. And it's that judgment operating in an inefficient market that we think we can actually get really good investments that are priced at discount to their fair value. What we like to do when businesses get into the portfolio, we want to add them when there's more upside than there is downside. And that's the introduction to our price-disciplined investment style is we're not buying businesses at their fair value. We demand a discount. And that's really key in how we manage risk. And that discount ebbs and flows depending on the quality of the business. And so these are three buckets of type of companies that you would expect to see in your portfolio, in Brandis' international equity portfolio. And essentially it goes the tops, the higher quality businesses, primary companies, very good notes, good growth dynamics, high returns. Secondary companies are average businesses. They're good. They have good staying power, good balance sheets. Typically become inexpensive or ignored by the market if there's a cyclical element that they're dealing with or a company-specific issue. And then thirdly, lower quality businesses, kind of bargain issues, think commodity companies, special situations. Companies that just aren't as good as secondary or primary companies. So we can invest all across the spectrum, but we demand different levels of discount depending on what category the company falls into. So your primary companies, you don't need a very large discount because those will compound over time and they're very high quality. Secondary companies, you're looking at an average discount between 25% to 33% over a cycle. And then bargain issues, you do demand a much higher discount because there's upside, but you want to be really careful when you buy it. So these are essentially the opportunity set that our investment teams work with. Now when you look at what's the complexion of your portfolio look like with these three buckets, well, I can tell you over time the vast majority of our holdings, say about 60%, are secondary companies. So they're your average company that's going through a short-term issue. That's where we find a lot of our opportunities. And then depending on the market environment, that gives us more opportunity sometimes to hire quality or sometimes the bargain issue gets very discounted where it makes no sense to have some allocation there. So I call it kind of the edges of the portfolio will ebb and flow between kind of primary and bargain issue. In today's market and really post-COVID, post-2021 more specifically, we've been finding more opportunity in primary companies. And at the very end of this presentation, I'm going to show you a slide that looks at the valuation metrics and other fundamentals of our portfolio, and you can kind of see that a little bit. Still very deep, has a lot of value characteristics, but there's some good quality characteristics. And that's what the market's giving us today. Prior to COVID, there was less primary and more bargain issue. And it was that post-COVID sort of rally and the value becoming a more important determiner of returns and those bargain issues that really allowed our performance out of the gates of COVID to perform well. We do think this is differentiated in that we do invest along this spectrum. And there are other value managers that just focus on bargain issues, very focused on just high-level valuation metrics. And there's also quality value managers that only invest in the primary companies. And we think that misses the point that the discount to fair value does ebb and flow across this spectrum of businesses. So as Grant mentioned at the top as well, everything we do is team-based. And the investment professionals that manage this portfolio, there's five of us, I'm one of the five. We do think that the minds, the diversity of perspective, the expertise of culture together make better decisions than one person. We do have different temperaments, but they're temperaments that kind of blend together well, and so we work well together. And that's who's managing this portfolio on your behalf, on behalf of our clients. So my expertise is in commodities, so it's kind of economics 101 businesses where supply and demand are the main driver of economics. Amelia Morris is the longest-tenured investment professional on the team. She's covered a variety of sectors in her career. Most recently, she's the head of our consumer products team with some focus on retail. Shingo Omura is Japanese and head of our health care team. Luis Sauerbron is Brazilian. He's on our industrials team, also covers some utilities. And then Brent Woods is the president of our general partnership, was our prior CEO and our prior CIO. And that's the five individuals that make up this portfolio management team. We are supported by 26 analysts. And I said before, we're structured from an industry perspective and sector teams, and you can see that sector industry coverage on this slide. And as I mentioned before, too, we've been doing this a long time. So the average tenure is quite long, and I think that's really, really important for investing, not just knowledge of your sector, but pattern recognition. And it's something you can't really teach somebody. It's something you can just learn over time by being a practitioner. This is a snapshot of areas where we have a lot of allocation. So think of that as higher conviction in businesses that kind of bubble up to these sector weights. That's on your left-hand side. And the areas of the market where we have less conviction. So do not look as attracted to us on the right-hand side. We tend to be contrarian. I like to call it intelligently contrarian. So when the market's really excited about certain areas of the market or companies, we tend not to be there. They tend to be bid up in price because they're too expensive. But that means they're ignoring other areas. And that's where we like to have our opportunities set and where you'll see our investments kind of flow to. An example here would be consumer staples. A big part of that allocation is alcoholic beverage companies, where the market seems to think young individuals are no longer going to drink ever. And we think there may be a little bit of truth to that, but it's a little bit overblown. And there's a lot of other cyclical aspects that are impacting those businesses. And by the way, they have very high brand recognition, and I would consider them to be high-quality businesses. So we're seeing a lot of opportunity there. France sticks out. So everyone's aware France is going through a lot of geopolitical issues, more on the political front. But this is not investment in the French economy or in the French political system. These are global businesses where France itself is not very material to the business. It's global in nature, competitively, globally. It just happens to be domiciled in France. And so the opportunity there is the market is just ignoring French companies regardless of where they operate. And you can see a very high allocation to that area. On the right-hand side, I would just highlight financials, and I would just call out banks as being the big driver of that low allocation. If you rolled the clock back a couple years, three years ago, we had a much higher allocation. But financials, as interest rates have come up, financial earnings power has done really well. And those stocks have performed very, very well. And it's been one of the big drivers of our performance to date over the last three years. As those appreciated in value, we found other opportunities in our opportunity set to invest in that looked like a better risk-reward. I think the market's gotten a little ahead of itself in some of the banks, and there's really not an appropriate level of skepticism with, you know, maybe a macro incident in Europe or Japan or something not going exactly right. As we know, banks are very sensitive to the economy. They're black boxish, and they're levered. And so we don't feel like there's a good risk-reward at current prices in large parts of that market. This is our performance pattern over since inception of the portfolio. We are very proud of this performance, having, you know, outperformed the broad benchmark as well as the value part of our benchmark. And this is really the residual of the repeatable fundamental price discipline value approach that we follow, and it's our system. It's not one individual. It's not one team. It's the whole structure put together that's able to produce what we consider to be strong performance over time. Here's a snapshot of the slide that I was speaking about previously. You have our fundamental metrics on the left-hand side, and then you have the broad benchmark in the middle and the value part of the benchmark on the right. From a valuation perspective, the first, say, four metrics there are clearly below the broad benchmark, and so we believe it's a very value-oriented portfolio. It's a value-oriented portfolio with a pretty good dividend yield. That's better than both benchmarks at 4%. And the other aspect of this is the quality aspect, and one is the balance sheets are good in our portfolio and the growth, which you don't see a lot. I've been doing this for a long time. I haven't seen our growth, projected growth, be higher than the broad benchmark in a while, and the reason why is, one, there's a cyclical element to some of the businesses that we own, and secondly, it's that higher-quality sort of business that's kind of crept in the portfolio and given the opportunity that the market's given us, and you can see it in that metric. And with that, I'm going to pass it back to Grant. Great. Well, thank you very much. I think John helped me out with a tap on the shoulder. I think we're good with time, and really kind of hope we just kind of briefly explain just kind of who we are as a firm, kind of where we might fit within a portfolio, and as Jeff talked about, you know, just what is that approach that has led to those returns. And so just from a very practical point of view, there are different vehicle options. The one that seems to make the most sense is a collective investment trust that we're the manager of. Based upon your relationship with Calend, you would have access to the lowest-cost share class, and so that would have an all-in fee right at 47 basis points. And so with that, I'd be happy to take any questions. All right. Thank you so much, and we have about 10 minutes allocated for questions. So what kind of questions do our board members have? They're all thinking. All right. Commissioner Hensley. On slide number nine, you gave us some examples of what I assume to be some of your more successful opportunities. Can you give us an example of one that didn't quite hit the mark for you, and then how long that took for you all to recognize that and what you may have done to make adjustments? That's a great question. So these are businesses that not all have done well so far, so to put that perspective, too. So I'll point out on the bargain issues, Griffles has been a longer-than-anticipated holding and has gone through a number of issues that we did not anticipate. So when that happens, so if something doesn't work, you reevaluate what's gone wrong and how has it changed our fundamental view, and you recast what you think the business is worth. And then the decision at that point is, okay, we've recast it. We've brought the intrinsic value or the fair value down. Is the market still overly worried about it, and there's still an opportunity? And with Griffles, the answer was yes. We thought two things. One, the valuation did come down. The price was well below that, but we thought there was scope for the valuation to re-rate if things did get better. And I can go into a lot of detail, but that one hasn't worked out yet, so we're still hopeful on that one. I would say one that does stick out is called Telecom Italia, which is a long-term holding of ours that did not work out. The business deteriorated a number of different ways, and I think we were a little bit late to recognize it. The confusing part for us is that this is a telecom communications provider, mostly wireless in Italy, which is a very difficult market, and pricing is very difficult. But they also invested in a company called Tim, which is based in Brazil. And so when we looked at it, some of the parts always made sense. In other words, you didn't have to pay very much for the Italian business because Tim was the majority of the value. We didn't anticipate kind of aggressive destruction of value by management in the board, and so I think that's one that did not work out for us. At the time we sold it, it had gone down to a lower allocation, and so that's another point I want to bring up is that when you think that a business all of a sudden has derated and is riskier than it had been before, the other risk control we have is not putting as much capital in it, even if it's still trading below fair value, and we did that with Telecom Italia. All right, thank you. What other questions do you have? Yes, Mr. Puckett. Yearly, what's your turnover? So our typical holding period is three to five years, and so our turnover is around 20%, 25%. So it's a low turnover portfolio in general, yeah. Other questions? Your fees are what, .47? Yes. Is that the best we can do? That is, in a vehicle like that, it is. Okay. Doesn't hurt to ask. I would ask for that. What other questions do you have? I'll throw one in here if I might. On your slide 12 where you talked about your various sectors, I was just curious about what global brands in France you are invested in. Just some examples. Pernod Ricard, which is the distillery business. We own that business. We own Sanofi, which is a pharmaceutical business. We own Carrefour, which is more of a France-specific business that is in groceries. And we own Richemont, which is the Cartier business. And then we own Total. And so it's really spread out amongst a lot of different sectors. And then on the other side, the underweights, tell me a little bit about Canada. Yes, so Canada is dominated by banks and commodities. Okay. And the commodities sector has kind of gone to a higher cost level, so it's not nearly as competitive as it is. And the things are very highly valued from a multiples perspective. And so where we've been finding value is, well, one, we did own uranium at some point, which was a very underappreciated commodity. We've now sold out of that. So that holding is mainly a small software business called Open Text in Canada. And then we also own some fertilizer businesses in Canada. Okay, thank you. All right, any other questions? No? All right, I don't see any more. So thank you so much. We appreciate you very much and appreciate your presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. They laugh at me, but I've got it down before. Oh, I like the laid back. Yes, ma'am. I got it on. Well, that's over here. When the heck did you ever operate a police radio? Did you leave the mic hot all the time there, too? No, no, I didn't talk very much. Who is this that we're looking at? I really like these. I really like those guys right there. Let's give the other guys a chance. I just like them. Welcome. I'm your chair, Mayor Gorton. And the way we're doing this is you'll have 20 minutes to introduce yourselves and give a presentation. I called you John Callen. Oh, brother, John Jackson. He'll be the timekeeper. And then we'll have a question and answer period afterwards. So welcome. Thank you very much, Mrs. Chair. Appreciate us being here today. Can you all understand me? You might pull that mic up or push the button and raise the whole thing. Very nice. How nifty is that? Love that. Thank you for having us. First off, my name is Christian Jaeger, and I'm a regional director at Dimensional and will be responsible for the relationship should you choose Dimensional as your fund that you will move forward to. And then I have Brendan McAndrews, who's a senior portfolio manager at Dimensional, who's been managing portfolios for over 11 years now, and he will go over the World Ex-U.S. Value Portfolio while I give you just a five-minute brief overview of Dimensional. So before I start, Dimensional has been around since 1981, and the way we basically started is we put academia, financial academia, into practice, and we're actually the first ones in 1981 to start it with what we called at that time a small-cap fund. It was called 90-10 fund because it invested in the 10 percent of smallest stocks. Nobody before us did that. A lot of people were saying it's impossible because of trading costs. But if it didn't work out, I wouldn't be standing here. And that fund today is still around. It's now called our micro-cap fund and has been around for, next year, 45 years. We now have $915 billion in assets under management. And many of you might not have heard of Dimensional because we don't do any advertising, we don't do any marketing. But one thing I would encourage you to do so is we actually have a film out on YouTube, believe it or not, that has now over 25 million views, and it's called Tune Out the Noise. So if you want to learn more about Dimensional from that perspective, just go to YouTube, type in Tune Out the Noise, and you will find that movie out there that talks a little bit about the history of Dimensional and how we got started. But one of the things that I mentioned earlier is the academic research. We try to put that research in practice, and when we see things that will help grow portfolios, provide good performance, we put those things into practice. We have done so since 1981, and whenever there is things that we feel like improve portfolios, we add to those. The last was in 2013, where we added profitability into our portfolios. That doesn't mean that we don't look at other things, like you might hear from other folks, momentum or other factors. We look at every of those factors, but in terms of long-term performance, we feel like the value that we're focused on today, the size, company size, and high profitability, leads to outperformance in the long run. And you see here some of those Nobel laureates that are still on our board and are insightful in giving us advice on how we construct our portfolios. But the most important point as well is you look at the people. I think the people always make a difference. I've been with Dimensional now for three and a half years, but the five years prior, Dimensional was a client of mine. And over those five years, I got to know a lot of people. I really enjoyed working with the people. Also loved the investment approach. I call it common sense investing, and Brendan will walk through that. And got to like the people, got to like the leadership. Luckily, they felt the same way about me and hired me, so that's why I'm now with Dimensional. But I think the people are important in the decision-making process, especially when you look at the World Exchequer's value portfolios with Russia, where we made a decision before even indexed to get out of Russia because we saw some political unrest there. This just shows how we have the 915 billion investors, but I don't think it's that important for today's conversation. But I think this is important here. What you see here is the track record of Dimensional funds over a long period versus their respective benchmarks. So over 20 years, 83% of our funds have outperformed their respective benchmarks. I think that's important for the constituents that are investing in the pension or will receive the pension, that you could be with an investment manager that shows that over a long term, the funds have outperformed. Interesting enough as well, you see here on the right, 100% of the funds survived. Now, if you compare that to the industry, only 13% of the funds have outperformed their respective benchmark over a long period of time, and only 45% of the funds survived. So I think that's an important point to make, and I'll highlight that with the next slide. That actually shows Dimensional's performance versus their respective benchmarks. And if you see the World Ex-U.S. Value Portfolio here on row number four, and it's a good point in time for us, I have to admit that, but it shows that it has outperformed their respective benchmark over any time period. So at this point in time, if your constituents would have been invested in this particular fund, they would have outperformed at any time period. But the most important part for us, as we say, we tune out the noise. You look at the right side, after 10 years, and you only see green here. And that has always been our goal to provide long-term value for our clients while making daily tweaks in a portfolio to fight for every basis point for our clients. And I think with that, I will turn it over to Brendan, and you can just do that. Welcome. Thank you. Okay. How's that for sound? All right. Thanks for having us. I always appreciate a chance to work with first responder pensions. My grandfather was a career NYPD patrolman who died very shortly after his retirement. And the NYPD pension helped take care of my grandmother for several decades afterwards. So I understand the purpose of this fund, and I certainly appreciate the responsibilities that you all have. As far as what this fund is trying to do, it's pretty simple. What we are trying to do is capture the cheapest names in every market that we invest in around the world. And by cheapest names, I mean the names that are, and I'll go to this diagram to explain it, the cheapest names about the bottom third on a price-to-book ratio in each market. So all we're doing here is we're comparing the market capitalization of each name versus the book value. And we are simply looking to buy the cheapest third of names in both developed and emerging markets. Amongst those names, because of that longstanding research that we have that Christian just described, we are tending to buy or overemphasize the names that are a little bit smaller. So we still have the largest names of the large cap value names around the world in this portfolio. Shell, Total Energies, HSBC, Alibaba, these would be the biggest names in your portfolio, but they would be a little bit smaller than if we didn't have this slight tilt towards some of these smaller names. And what we are trying to do here is spread our bets as widely as possible around the world so that you are getting that deep value premium in your investment outside of the United States. If anybody has any questions, by the way, please feel free to interrupt me. I've seen the Supreme Court, I've seen more people get interrupted at the dais than this, so happy to discuss anything you'd like. I know we have time for questions. What that leaves you is a portfolio with about 5,700 names and a net expense ratio of under 40 4-0 basis points. As far as how it compares to an index is we have that 5,700 names, which is more than the index, and the salient factor, the thing that is going to determine the relative performance of this fund the vast majority of the time is going to be that deeper allocation to value that I just mentioned. And you can see that in that aggregate price-to-book figure, the second from the right in this table, where we have an aggregate price-to-book of about 1.2, and the MSCI All-Country World XUSIMI Value Index has an aggregate price-to-book of almost 1.4. Those numbers are going to shift as the market moves along, but this portfolio will be lower than the index forever. Why? Because we are keeping that deeper cut to value than the index is. The index is basically looking at a 50-50 cut, whereas we are looking at, again, that deepest third around the world. Moving on, I will start with regions, which is just the difference between developed and emerging countries, and then our country allocations. It is important to note here that we are not making country bets. Our idea here is that the market is a pretty good place to start, so we are taking the weight of all the names that we are including, and we are basically putting out a proportional weight to each country, and then to developed and emerging from there. So Japan, China, UK, Canada, Taiwan, these are your biggest country weights. We do reserve the right, as Christian said, if we think something very anomalous is happening, to move our assets, your future investment, out of countries as we see fit. This is not an index fund. You still get the people that Christian mentioned making decisions, especially if they are in extremist situations. When you look at sectors, you can see that we tend to be heavier right now in financials, in materials, consumer discretionary, and energy. That can shift and ebb and flow as different sectors become cheaper in these relative markets. So these are not fixed. All these weightings, all these scalings that I'm talking about, essentially get recalculated on a day-over-day basis. Why? Because we think prices provide a lot of good information, and we are trying to implement that information upon our portfolio on a day-over-day investment, while keeping turnover very, very low. Okay, performance. This is the end of the quarter. We have some updated performance number here. Would the board prefer to see end of quarter or most recent? Any preference? No? All right. Well, because it's better, I'm certainly going to show you October. If I had end of November, I'd show you that, too, because year-to-date performance has been pretty good. You can see that year-to-date, through Halloween, the portfolio was up 32.84%. That's about 1% over the value index. And you can see that sustained superior performance since inception in 2010 for this portfolio. This is not because the portfolio managers are particularly bright. This is because we are very good at maintaining that focus on that value, that deep focus on those cheap names around the world, and that value premium has been demonstrated and has been realized for our investors, both in recent years and then in those annualized numbers up and to the right. I should mention that these numbers are net of fees when you look here, and everything out past one year is annualized. You can see when you compare it to that AQUI-XUS value index on the calendar year bar charts on the bottom that this portfolio does tend to move in the same direction as the broader value universe offshore. We just tend to outperform a little bit when value has very good years. And 2025 thus far has been a very good year. This portfolio is now up over, I think, 36% year-to-date. So it's been a good six weeks since this snapshot at the end of the month. Okay. I think I will yield my time to the Board and to the Chair for any questions that I can answer. Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation, and we'll open it up to questions. Who has the first one? Well, I might start it out then. Oh, okay. Mr. Puckett. Yes, sir. I believe it's 38 basis points is the net expense ratio. Turnover in this, it depends year over year, but usually it's somewhere in between 15% to 25%. But that does depend upon, again, for instance, if a name moves from deep value to growth, then we'll start slowly rotating out of it. So usually you'll see higher turnover when a large sector either becomes deep value or exits that deep value buy range, and we will buy and sell when that occurs. We do not have a targeted turnover budget year over year that we are trying to match or be restricted. We're letting the market make that decision for us. Other questions? I have one. Yes, ma'am. On your slide 16, I'm interested in knowing a little bit. I'm working on going backwards on this guy. Oh, here we go. Oh, I'm sorry. Bring it up here. This is your top ten country allocations. Yes. I'm interested in particularly your top two, Japan and China, what sorts of investments you have in Japan and then again in China. Sure. The largest single investment I believe that we have in Japan right now is Toyota. I own two of them, so I kind of appreciate it. And then it's a wide variety of both their financials and some of their industrial names as well. And then in China, Alibaba is currently the largest investment that we have there, along with some other financials and some other consumer discretionary names. Okay. None of these investments, I will note, are over, as far as individual names, are over 1.5%. The only name that exceeds 1.5% in this portfolio right now is Shell, the Dutch-British oil company, and that's about 2.4%. So it's a very diversified fund. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? One last. Sir, your feed of 0.38, is that negotiable at all? Any movement? Well, I have the salesman next to you, so he might give you a more polite answer than I would. Okay. In all seriousness, we evaluate our funds every year, actually, and I think that especially for the amount of exposure that you're getting for small cap and in the emerging markets, this is a very competitive product. And he's coming right up. Just one of the things, that's why we always show on the slides the performance net of fees, and there's other factors that play into one of the things is securities lending. We give that to our clients. So people look at that, and the revenue we generate, we give back to our clients. So it's not something that you see in our securities lending revenue. Those might be, especially on an international portfolio, six, seven basis points different. So now your total cost of ownership is actually less than what you see because we give some of those things straight back to our clients. I will also note that the fees for this fund have come down in prior years. But it would be done, since this is a pooled asset vehicle, it would be done for every investor in the fund, not just one. Other questions? I'm curious. Back on your top ten countries, what sort of investments do you have in France? They're right in the sort of the lower middle of your list. Yes. The largest name that we have there, again, what we're trying to do is buy, and I'll go back to my charts here because I think this is just the clearest way to see it, is on a relative basis we are buying the cheapest and the most value-oriented 30% or so in each one of those developed countries. The largest one in France right now is Total Energies, a large energy company that they have. And then it's a bunch of other smaller industrial and energy and consumer discretionary names that they have there. But, again, it tends to be, for the vast majority of these countries, a large collection of much smaller, below 1% individual investments. This is sort of a little bit different question, and I want to know if you see it as relevant in the future, given that you have your top two are Japan and China, and Korea is not on your list. Do you have anything in South Korea? We do. Okay. It falls just below. Further down? It's probably around the – it's definitely in the top 15. It's somewhere right below Australia here. So with the global concern about decreasing population and not enough babies to replace people, Japan and Korea are the leaders, and China is not far behind in replacing our population. Do you see that in 20 years or so as having any influence on investing? Absolutely. We think those sort of macro trends get brought into prices every day. As I mentioned, we think that affects, at the end of the day, what these stocks are valued at, which is the market's aggregate opinion on the future expected cash flows that people can grab from these individual stocks. So if they're going to have decreased population, then there could be some of that built into the discount rate that's applied to some of these names. So how would that – so India and the Latin American countries are growing their population. That's the only place in the world. How does that influence what you might do there, or do you invest in India and the Latin American countries? We do. India is a top ten name there. I believe it's eighth there, just above Germany. Okay. What sort of investments do you have there? Reliance Industries, which is a large industrial kind of conglomerate, is your largest investment there. And then, again, it's kind of the broad swath of the industrial and the financial companies. We think that many of those companies are getting some of that future growth is implied in their prices. Similarly, and we've certainly seen this in places like Japan, in places like continental Europe, which also has a very negative demographic outlook, we have seen some of those names traditionally trade at a pretty severe discount to what their balance sheet would imply. And we think that some of those demographic trends may be inherent in that. But, again, that does not preclude us from buying there. It just makes some of those names cheap. This is why, when we are buying these names, we are taking that aggregate market capitalization of each country as basically saying this is what the market is valuing that total country, for instance, France, as we discussed earlier, or Korea's market capitalization, the worth of its entire stock market. We think that some of these macro trends are very much implied in there. And that's where we are kind of starting with to shape the size of our investment there. Okay. And then finally on this topic, what sort of investments do you have in Germany? Germany? Mr. Yeager here? Well, I thought perhaps, but I didn't want to assume. So, Will Kuhlman, what sorts of investments do you have there? Germany is interesting right now because we have had large names such as Deutsche Bank and Tyson Group be some of the largest investments in the portfolio. But right now, it is not amongst those top five, top ten names. It is a smattering of much smaller names. We have had names, for instance, like Rheinmetall, which is a German, usually an industrial player. It's still classified as industrial, but it has been jumping with both feet in some of the remilitarization of Germany and Europe as a whole. That used to be one of the largest holdings of this fund. But as it moved, as the price moved, as valuation moved from value to growth, we exited out of that position after some time. So now we basically have a smattering of positions that are all worth less than one percent as far as for the total weight of the fund. All right. Thank you. Any further questions? Commissioner Hensley? One thing I just want to mention about this portfolio, you're getting a value portfolio, and one of the things with dimension, you always get transparency. So you will never have a growth stock in that portfolio. What we say we're going to do, we're actually going to do. I think that's been part of our success as well. And I was thinking business, if you do what you say you're going to do, you're going to be successful, and that's what we're doing with these portfolios. So you won't have any deviation from the value mandate that actually you're looking to invest in. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hensley? You've listed that you have about 5,700 different companies in your portfolio. It sounds like that's largely comprised of a number of very small investments. What are the kind of top larger and what percentage do they comprise of that portfolio? Have they moved a lot? I know that you're really focused on that high value. I hesitate to say the cheapest. I know it is the cheapest. Cheapest is fine. Yeah. I use the term cheapest. So as far as the larger single names that are in the fund? I would be looking at ones that maybe are – do you have ones that are 5% of them? No. Shell, they're at 2.4% is the largest name. And then we have Total Energies, the French company that we mentioned earlier. That's about 1.5%. HSBC, which is a conglomerate of a financial institution, that's also at about 1%. Then there's a couple other names that are right in between 1% and call it 90 basis points. And then it goes down there into this kind of long tail, as you mentioned, of many of those names. And the reason that we invest in so many of these names is because we don't think we can pick which one of those names is going to have some of that value premium. So each one of those names is a way to get to that value premium. We are not trying to pick each one of those names individually. We think that's very, very difficult, if not impossible, to do. So what we do is we have this broad swath of names that we are trading very gradually every day. Casting a broad net. Exactly. Got it. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any further questions? All right. Thank you very much. Dankeschön. And we appreciate your presentation very much. Thank you for the time. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Merry Christmas. Happy Holidays. And if anyone needs a two-minute break, this might be a good time to quickly do that. I'll tell you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Have a great day. Oh, well, you need to live there a while. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, we've got two down, two to go. Obviously, we heard from the value managers. Wanted to just give a brief overview of at least what I heard and then turn it over to the board to get their thoughts, feedback as well. So, let's talk about the similarities between the two managers, right? I think that list is much shorter than it is, than the differences between the two. So, some of the obvious similarities, right? Non-U.S. equity portfolio with a focus on value. That is a similarity. They're both based here in the United States. San Diego, Brandis. DFA is in Austin. And both have competitive fees. Both rank below the median in Callen's kind of peer group in terms of fees. So, those are really some of the key similarities. I think maybe we could talk a little bit about how they're different and their approaches, in particular, about how they invest. And I think maybe the big key difference that I just wanted to highlight is this idea of fundamental investing versus quantitative investing. Brandis is a fundamental investor, right? So, they are going to have their research team do the homework on all of the names within their portfolio. And what I mean by that is they are looking at financial statements, looking at balance sheets, meeting with teams, meeting with managers, management of corporations, building a thesis to invest in those companies. And they do that across the spectrum. You heard that, right? So, they're looking at names that are what they think are relatively cheap to very cheap. So, they're going to cast a wide net, but they're going to be very focused and concentrated, if you will, on a number of names. I think it's 70 names in the portfolio. On the flip side, you have DFA, and they're a quantitative manager. And what that means is they are building a model that is rules-based, and it's going to be consistent in the way that they invest. And what I mean by that is they are going to look at factors. I think he mentioned the two key factors are in looking at profitability, which is something that Brandis does, of course, but they focus highly on profitability of the name, as well as they believe that smaller cap or mid-cap names tend to outperform larger cap names over the long term. So, that portfolio is always going to have a little bit of a tilt, a little bit of a smaller tilt to names that are a little bit smaller in market cap in the mid- and small-cap space. And, again, they're trying to hit singles and doubles, right? They are invested in 5,700 names across the globe. So, little tiny pieces that they believe, again, will give exposure to your portfolio across the globe and keep the tracking error, at least relative to the benchmark, a little bit closer than, say, maybe a fundamental manager. So, that's a little bit on fundamental versus quantitative. I thought that was the biggest differentiator. Certainly, the size of assets under management is quite a bit different. The size of the firms are a little bit different. Performance, I don't want to say is necessarily a wash. It's certainly a key consideration. But if you kind of look over the long term, performance is pretty similar. I think Brandis actually outperforms them over the 10-year period. But, again, it's really the approaches, the comfort level with how they go about looking at the market and investing is really what I think the crux of the conversation kind of leads to. The last thing I'd just say, it was kind of interesting to hear what some of the key underweights in Brandis' portfolio, like Canada, financials, and emerging markets were actually key overweights in the DFA portfolio. So, you're standing here like, wait a second, I thought you're value managers. You should be doing kind of the same thing. In their minds, in their analysis, in this specific period of time, they tend to diverge. in terms of their thought around that. So I know that makes it a little bit challenging, but I think that the key focus is here again is that fundamental versus quantitative, more concentrated portfolio versus maybe a more diversified portfolio. So I'll pause there and see if there are any kind of questions or feedback from that. Okay. Does anybody have, and I did ask, I'm sorry, just one second, I did ask Mr. Barbary from law, if when we make this decision, we could go into executive closed session so that you all can speak your mind. And he thinks that's okay. Yeah, sure. If you wanted to, you could go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810 subsection one, subsection N, a meeting to select a successful bidder. So if that's what you all wanted to do, you would make a motion to that effect. At the time, if that suits you and Dave, we can go back to the closed session area. You could just go to the caucus room or kick everybody out and turn it off. So, yeah. Okay. All right. Okay. So now Chief Wells, you had a question for Jim. Thank you, Mayor. And this question is not necessarily relative to either company specifically, but just in the philosophy of investing, the quantitative versus the fundamental investing. Would it be a stretch or would it be accurate to say that companies that rely more on quantitative methods might be in some circumstances slower to react to market fluctuations or is that a little bit of a reach? That's a great question. Less dynamic. I don't know if it's a slower reaction or a faster reaction, but certainly less dynamic than say a fundamental manager, meaning that the model that is built for most quantitative strategies takes the emotion out of investing, if you will. And so they're not just going to tweak their model if they think that, you know, they do tweak their model, but it's not like on a quarterly or yearly basis necessarily. Their model is pretty consistent. So it's going to continue to focus on those few factors. So it may not be as dynamic to react to what is going on in the market as opposed to a fundamental manager maybe is a little bit more dynamic, a little bit quicker to act. But then that also takes into account, you have to make sure that they're right, right? And that a change in the market will trigger an opportunity to purchase maybe something that is more deeply valued and can have a better upside than say a quantitative strategy that's, you know, certainly specifically focused on just a few factors. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. You're welcome. I'll add to that also. What other questions? Yes, Lieutenant. And I think it plays off of Chief Wells. If I recall, and you may be about to go through this, I don't know if you've got more to the presentation here, but if I recall, the Sharpe ratios and stuff were very similar between the two when we looked at this in the subcommittee in terms of big loss, big gain, but it would seem to me that the fundamental, I think this is kind of where you're going, Chief, is when they win, they win big, they could win or they lose big. I think there's some thought process in that versus casting a lot of stones in the quantitative model. Does that sound? Yeah. If we're looking at the risk-adjusted measures, and this is over a five-year period between Brandis and DFA, ending June 30th when we produced the reports, these figures don't change drastically, so I think this is very relevant. If you're looking at the Sharpe ratios, they're actually right on top of each other, both very strong at .82 and .83, respectively, ranking the top quartile of peers. So I would conclude with they're both very strong risk-adjusted figures. I think maybe one thing to point out here is that standard deviation of Brandis being a little bit higher versus DFA, and that gets into that tracking error, right? So a little bit tighter to the benchmark, going to hit more singles than doubles, whereas a Brandis, again, may be able to have a little bit more risk in the portfolio. Standard deviation is just a measure of risk within the portfolio, so it's going to have a little bit more deviations from the mean, if you will. But blending those into a portfolio, that gets mitigated a little bit when you're pairing it with a growth and a value manager, along with Acadian. So on a stand-alone basis, I think it's important to evaluate, but also at the total portfolio level, it gets mitigated just a little bit. Thank you for sharing. All right. Other questions? None? Okay. Mr. Barbary, I would think that we can go into one closed session after everything, or do you think we should go now? It would probably be – well, it's up to you all. It may be cleaner to just do one. To just do one? Yeah. Yeah. Well, Mr. Puckett, did you have a question? Well, I was going to make the motion to go into closed session. Okay. Well, it's up to you all. We can do two or one. So if – I personally would like to get this over with, and then – Would like to go ahead and do it. Okay. You know. Make the motion. Okay. I move we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61810, subsection 1, in order to discuss selection of a contract award. All right. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Vance. All right. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. We will go into closed session, and we will go through this door and to the back. That's the easiest. And we'll be back. All right. Thank you all very much. Is there a motion to come back into open session? Mr. Buck. Mayor, I move that we go back into open session. Is there a second? Second. All right. Lieutenant Abel. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. We are in open session. And we are ready for our next section, which is the non-U.S. equity growth. Let's see. I guess they went out to get them. Not present. Move on. Did Jim go back out to get them, John? Yes. All right. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. I'm the chair of this board, Mayor Gorton, and we're happy to have you here. If you'll introduce yourself, and you will have 20 minutes, if you need it, for your presentation, and then we'll have a Q&A after that. Wonderful. Linda, thank you for the welcome. It's a pleasure to be here this morning. My name is David Lubchenco. I'm a partner and investment team member with Chautauqua Capital Management. We're a part of Robert W. Baird and Company. And it's a treat to be here. On behalf of my partners, we're grateful for the opportunity to tell you our story. One of our longstanding and most rewarding relationships is with the Oklahoma firefighters. And it would be an honor to work with another organization that serves the people that give so much of their lives to your community here in Lexington in the fire and police profession. I take it this is how I toggle forward on the? Yes. If you need the mic up, you can either raise the whole podium with the little button on the right. I'm quite challenged, as you can see. So I wanted to start by telling you here at Chautauqua, we set out to create a differentiated investment community and a firm that's really focused on providing better outcomes to our clients through a focus specifically on international and global growth equities. We have found that the best relationships that we have are ones where we are paired with great international value managers to complement what we do on the growth side, just like Callen has done for you all here in this search today. Today you will have heard from four outstanding asset management groups, all with great track records, all of whom could do a great job for your plan. And so therefore, I want to spend a little bit of time today talking about what we feel matters most in successful client relationships. And at the top of that list is cultural alignment between your group and ours, a real focus on customer service, and last but not least, a focus on investing in an investment discipline and process that is understandable and repeatable. So today I'm going to share a little bit about Baird and Chautauqua, talk about our edge as a long-term investment manager, and then I want to talk about our investment process and then open up for questions. So to start, I'd like to start and tell you a little bit about what we call the Baird difference, and I think it's important for me to point out we are 100% Baird. We were bought by Baird 10 years ago. We just simply retained the Chautauqua name, wanted it to be a challenge to pronounce, I guess. But as I think about our missions, I think they are squarely aligned. Your mission simply is to ensure financial security for your members, and our mission is right there with you. We want to provide great client outcomes, great client service, and we want to be a best place to work for our associates. As you'll see here, I think the big difference for Baird, we are employee-owned, 85 to 90% of our employees have ownership in Baird. Baird stock is not given to employees. You have to buy it with your own money, and so as a result, I think people here act and think like owners, and they think about clients first, and we adhere to these core set of beliefs that you'll find in front of you on this page, all of which are important. I think as you think about Baird and the culture that we have, not only is it a client-first mentality, but it also is a great place to work. It's fine to hear me talk about it, but these accolades at the bottom of the screen I think are meant to show you that Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For, we've been on that list 24 years in a row, so I think that constitutes a trend, and P&I just came out with their list this week, which is we've been on that for 14 years in a row. I think as you think about Baird, it is a very strong balance sheet. We've had 180 consecutive quarters of profits, and at the end of the day, this all creates great continuity and ample resources for us to take care of our clients over the long haul. As you think about Chautauqua, as I mentioned, we're in Boulder, Colorado. We were formed in 2009, and these are two strategies that were very successful and bread-incubated at Trust Company of the West off of a very successful concentrated U.S. equity strategy. As I mentioned, Baird bought us in 2016. At that moment, we had about $300 million in assets under management. Today we have $3 billion of Baird's almost $200 billion in assets under management, and we're growing. I want to share three client examples with all of you that I think are relevant to today. Number one, 12 years ago, UBS hired us in a multi-managed international fund. It's called the UBS Pace International Fund. We're the growth manager alongside a great value and a great core manager. If you look at those returns over time, the risk-adjusted returns are fantastic, and I think it shows what can really be done if you pair growth and value together. As I mentioned, 13 years ago, we were hired by Oklahoma firefighters. They gave us $50 million when we were $100 million in size, and it's, again, been one of our longest-standing, really wonderful relationship. They're like family to us. This year, we added police next to Oklahoma firefighters, and today that represents $400 million in our assets today. The last one that I think is relevant, we have a fire and police group in Texas on Monday who will be funding our CIT, which is the same team, same philosophy, same product. It's just obviously a commingled vehicle for ERISA plans like yours. With that, we're able to offer our CIT at Founders Pricing to Lexington, and we'll talk about that at the end. At the end of the day, I just want you to really focus on this idea that we are focused exclusively on a 40-stock global portfolio and a 30-stock international portfolio every day when we come in to work. At the bottom, I put we're aligned with our clients who always come first. We all have significant investments in these strategies, as I hope you would expect. It means we're not going to take a risk with your money that we're not comfortable taking with our own. We also have a self-imposed limit on growth. At $3 billion, we have a ways to go, but at $20 to $25 billion, we would most likely close to new investors. Our goal is not to be the biggest, but the best, and in concentrated strategies, we think that's important. So bottom line, we build our company with a client-first mentality made stronger by joining Baird 10 years ago. Our goal is very simple. We want to outperform our benchmarks over a normalized investment cycle, and what you see here are dots representing five-year rolling returns calculated monthly since 2009 when our strategy was founded, and I think you'll see here there's been a pretty consistent pattern above that line, 98%, 99% of the time versus the core or growth benchmark. We've beaten that index, and I think that consistency over time through very different markets over the past 16 years is what our customers have been able to expect, and we'd love to do that for Lexington as well. So maybe I can take a brief moment and tell you what we think is our difference and our edge in this very competitive world of investing, and I think to understand our edge, you have to understand the wrinkle in the universe that we're trying to exploit, and that would be called time arbitrage. We're not the first manager to try and exploit time arbitrage, certainly, but we think that these four Ps allow us to be better long-term investors, and we'll talk about time arbitrage in a second. But as you think about these four Ps, I'd love to start with team culture and our people, because again, I think culture sits right next to long-term performance with organizations, and our team is very collaborative. You have a group of experienced investors who collaborate. We attack ideas from every angle so we can be assured to get a complete picture of an investment before we make a purchase, but I want to talk about diversity, and maybe not in the way that you think. Our partners all have degrees from top business schools. They've been in the business for 20-plus years. There's nothing diverse about that, but I think it is diversity of imagination and perspectives, and as a growth manager, I am so grateful that I have Haiqing Li on my team, who has two medical degrees from Harvard, Stanford MBA. She's from China. She is in biotech her whole career. She can, when we ask that important question, what can this company look like five years from now, she can see over the horizon and has great imagination about what that growth company can become. That's important. Nate Velarde, my other partner, who graduated from University of Chicago, so that should tell you he thinks differently about efficient markets, his first inclination is to say, what can go wrong? And I think that's important because as a growth investor, we're trying to maximize our opportunity, but we're also trying to protect against some of the nuances of risk in an investment. Being in Boulder, Colorado, our place, is really important to us. My partner, Nate Velarde, before coming to Chautauqua in 2019, was with PIMCO in London, and he said, David, I thought this was going to be the best thing for my investment career, helping build their global equity program, and he said, after three years, every week, you're in a financial center, you have six, seven, eight, nine meetings with companies coming through, and all these investors are asking great nuanced questions, but they're all short-term. And he said, all that happened to me was my investment time horizon shrunk. He said, I didn't get what I was missing. And so being in Boulder, outside the noise, is important to us, because I think to build differentiated performance, you have to have differentiated portfolios, and that helps us, I think, in a place like Boulder, Colorado. Anyway, we've talked about Baird, you can't be long-term unless your parents are long-term, and Baird is in spades, and our approach, which we're going to talk about, is long-term in nature. Here's our team, our squad, and if I were to leave you with a couple of thoughts here, these are a group of generalists with specialized skills. It's not a training ground by any stretch of the imagination. We all have a long history with our process, and importantly, with each other. As I mentioned, our portfolio started at Trust Company of the West. You'll notice on here, Nate Velarde and Haiqing Li both started at Trust Company of the West 25 years ago, and so they've been indoctrinated in the Chautauqua way, through TCW originally, and they've made every mistake with each other. So we're able to really attack ideas, not the person, as we try and get to the right decision when we make investments for our clients. It is a collaborative partnership. We all own performance, and I can't understate the importance of that. Every one of our companies, as a growth company, will go through a challenging time, and when it does, there's no finger-pointing, because we all own them. And so we go back, get back to brass tacks, and we either buy it, re-underwrite it at a lower price, or we sell it. And I think that creates better outcomes for our clients. My last comment, this team is right-sized. We only look after 40 names between our two portfolios, and our turnover is quite low, at 10 to 15%. So if you think one, two, three new names a year, this is the team and the size we want. We might add another analyst over time, but generally speaking, this is where we want to be. If we have a director of research on our page, something has gone wrong. So let's talk about our investment philosophy. I'd like to dive here. I think an investment philosophy should answer two questions. The first is, why do you believe what you believe? And then, how do you go about achieving your results? So the why up top is straightforward. We believe markets are emotional and short-term oriented. You just have to turn on CNBC, and you'll see that every day. And as a result, we think securities of what we call advantaged, wealth-generating businesses are oftentimes mispriced, because most investors don't fully appreciate that company's ability to continue to grow their revenues or grow their profits over time. So we think the best way to achieve or to exploit this phenomenon is to find those businesses and invest with a long time horizon. That's time arbitrage. So how do we do this? Well, we see companies that benefit from these three bullet points below. And I just say, we think that it's the nature of the companies themselves that drive long-term returns. And these companies all benefit from durable long-term trends. They possess what we call competitive advantages that enable them to capture the lion's share of the profits created by those trends. And importantly, they can be purchased at reasonable valuations. We are growth managers, but not at any cost. And you need to get that valuation component right for long-term returns. And I think if you follow through here, you can see why our portfolios are concentrated. Companies that meet all three of these are hard to find. And why we have low turnover. Because once you find them, you want to invest in them and let the magic of compounding work for you. So we oftentimes get the question, how can a team of five in Boulder, Colorado, find ideas around the world? And it's a decent question, but I think it's a lot easier to find what you're looking for when you know exactly what you're looking for. And our idea generation is supported or sourced in two ways, but it has to be supported by both. On one hand, we look for long-term trends, as you'll see on the left-hand side. We don't want companies that are just riding a trend. We want to find the bottleneck company that's the bottleneck to enable that trend. ASML is a great example of a company in the Netherlands. They get our chips to the leading edge of three nanometers. Without them, AI, compute, the cell phones we all carry, they don't exist. There's only one company in the world that can get us to the leading edge like they can. We also screen for historic success on the right, for companies that show success and profitability and revenue growth, and then we want to back in to see if they're supported by a trend. If they are supported in both, we take it through this four-step process. And step one, quite frankly, is where we validate the durability of a company's competitive advantage and growth drivers. What are their people, product, process, and presence advantage? Once we've determined that, we move to step two, which is a quality step, and we think that you can win in this business by not losing. That's as simple as I can put this. Financial resilience is one of the traits that we look for. I'll just mention this briefly. One of the best traits of a financially resilient company is a company that generates profits. And so I'll use 2022 as an example. We fared better than most growth managers that year, frankly, because we didn't have any unprofitable tech companies, which was the most hurt cohort that year. So this quality step is one way that we try and mitigate risk in the portfolio. We then do a geographic footprint where we match the revenues of our companies by where they are derived around the world. And really, the purpose of that is to ensure that we're not taking an outsized risk in political, macroeconomic, or currency events. And then lastly, we say valuation for last. It's the hardest, and it's the most time intensive. And we basically don't want valuation to get in the way of an otherwise great growth idea. We want to ensure we're not paying above the odds, is the way I think about it, given our assessment of a company's long-term performance going forward. Again, starting points matter. And I guess the part that's not listed on here, in order for a name to get into the portfolio, it has to take the place of our least best use of capital. So that 30th name. And that tension, I think, is an important component of it. I want to talk about risk management. It's so important in a 30-stock portfolio. And at the top, you'll see how we believe we can mitigate risk the best. Sort of a Buffettism, but understand the companies you own in the portfolio. That's your first line of defense. And with 30 names, there's generalists all covering them. We think we can do a really good job of that. We talked about quality. We talked a little bit about valuation. I want to touch on what we call our RVR process, because it's a bit unique. But we do think about sector diversification and geographic diversification as well. On a sell side, there's one good reason for a sell, two bad reasons for a sell, frankly. The good reason is where we take advantage of a better opportunity. And of course, we'll sell if investment thesis is impaired or operational performance doesn't meet expectations. I'd like to just briefly talk about the RVR. And I think if I were to kind of frame the discussion, our long-term strategic objective is to have the 30 best companies in our portfolio at all times. But in the moment, in the short term, our challenge is weighting those companies appropriately so that we can balance risk and reward. So how does this work? Well, this is an awful description. It's actually 30 pages. It's colorful. But to give you an idea, we have our companies on the left-hand side, and then we force rank our holdings based on revenue valuation and return on invested capital. These are all proxies for the three things we care about most, growth, attractive price, and I would say competitive advantage from that profitability metric. So I don't want you to think that we are quants by any stretch of the imagination. But rather, I think the real value here is we will compare this RVR to our actual portfolio. And one of the things I think it does really well for us as a stock picker, you have confirmation bias. You can fall in love with your names. And I'll use 2021 as an example. That company, ASML, I spoke about, had really strong returns. So as the stock price goes up, its valuation score on the RVR makes it drop in the rankings. So it's always at the bottom third in the rankings, but it's a top-five position in our portfolio. We discuss it. Is it warranted? We actually cut the position three times that year in a rising stock price. Didn't look very smart in the moment, but in 22, I think we were paid real dividends for that. And I think it's process over price action is what I'm trying to articulate here. We are quickly, we have a couple more minutes, but I know you have a couple minutes' worth of things you'd like to finish with. Well, thank you. Actually, I'm just going to turn to two last pages. And I would like to wrap up by returning to our goal. Our goal, as I said, is to outperform the index over a normalized investment cycle. And this page here on the top, you can see this graph will show you the excess net return to the benchmark, which is the x-axis. Anything above that line is excess return, that's annualized. And I would point to the gray box because that shows you the benchmark of the AQUI-XUS growth. And you can see a nice job there. But I actually think what's more important is if one were to put $10 million into the fund when it was started in 2009, it grew to $36.8 million in the growth benchmark and $56.9 in the strategy. And that $20.1 million is what we live for. That's why we're here. That's what accrued to our clients. And that's what accrued to the shareholders above and beyond the index return. So with that, I would just like to close. We, as I mentioned, funded our CIT recently. And as partners, we decided that we would offer founders pricing to the first 500 million and investors in the CIT. Our founders in Texas who are funding it are putting in $95 million. So that's where it's gotten started. So we'd love to offer founders pricing to you all here in Lexington as well. So with that, I will see if there are any questions. And again, thank you for the opportunity to share our story with you all. All right. Thank you very much. And I'm sure there are questions. Board members, what questions do you have? Mr. Puckett? Yes, sir. You always know I have questions. So you keep, what, 40 different stocks or so forth, right? Correct? Correct. Okay. Do you have a limit as to how many of that particular stock that you will keep? Absolutely. So we actually have 40 stocks at Chautauqua in our global portfolio that invests in U.S. and non-U.S. In the international portfolio we're talking about today, we actually maintain a 30 stock limit. So those are the 30 non-U.S. We have a 10% limit that we can own in any one stock. However, we rarely go above 6% or 7%. So that's more a limit that we put out there. But I think in practice, we typically limit it to about 7%. Okay. So you're pretty diversified. Correct. Okay. And my last question, and you already beat me to it, was the fee, so you're already giving us a discount. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Beat me to it. Thank you for the question. All right. Thank you. Are you sure that's going to be your last question? No. All right. What other questions do board members have? Commissioner Hensley. Can you tell us about potentially one of your investments that was unsuccessful, how long it took you all to recognize that, and then what changes you made? Yeah. So this is a really important part of our learning process. There's a company called AMS. I don't have my phone on me, so it didn't ring. But your iPhone today, to open it, you would use facial recognition. And they were the company that had all the technology that allowed for facial recognition. And so the cool thing about this company was the application, the TAM, the Total Addressable Market for that type of an application goes well beyond your cell phone. Think about airports and different—I mean, you all are in this business. And so from our standpoint, there was a strong, promising demand curve for this company, but Apple was their primary supplier. They eventually bought a company called Osram, and that was a company that did something totally different. They were still in sensors, but it was for cars and automobiles. And that investment created a bit of a backlog. They had some expenses associated with that. Long story short, the investment was not a success for our shareholders, and we eventually sold the name. But in thinking about this—and this is probably eight years ago—what we determined was that it was really important to have a one-page synopsis on your investment thesis for every single company that we own. We sort of had it, but we wanted to memorialize it for each one of our companies because if a company, like in this example, goes off and buys a secondary opportunity set, that requires us to revisit the thesis and say, is this additive? Is it along the lines of what they're good at? And is it something that we agree with? And do we want to invest along those lines? So we've done that ever since, and I think from our standpoint, we have two traits here that are really important at Chautauqua for investors. One is humility. Frankly, this is a humbling business, and it's the idea that you humbly respect your partners, and partnership is the second one. And relying on our partners that they will have the answers, but nobody individually has them all on their own. So I think that process step has been very additive post that experience with that particular company. Anybody you're evaluating right now? Oh, yeah. Eight years ago is a long time. Sure. So, you know, there was another company called Tall Investments. Tall does after-school tutoring in China, and it's a wonderful security stock. It had been in the seven years that we owned it, but back in 2021, Chairman Xi basically said that they were no longer able to provide their services over the weekends, and you can imagine that's when a lot of their profits were accrued. It was about 40 to 50 percent of their profit pool. And so that was the moment we decisively sold Tall, and I don't know that, actually, that was a pretty good sale in retrospect, given where it is today, but it's another example of how we're trying to stay on top of all things to ensure that the forward profit pool is going to be captured by the companies that we own. Thank you. Sure. All right. Other questions? Board members? What's your turnover? I think you said it, but it went through. I probably spoke too fast. I'm sorry. So, it's about 15 percent annualized, roughly, and there are three names that we have owned since the start of our firm in 2009, Taiwan Semi, ASML, and Novo Nordisk, just anecdotally. Other questions? Can you talk a little bit about, I see in your appendix you have your representative secular trends. Can you talk a little bit about, particularly in Asia, what big investments you have, Japan, China, South Korea? Yep. So, Japan is an interesting, well, the country discussion for us gets complicated, and I'll share why. Okay. And it kind of gets to step three in our investment process, where we link where revenues are derived for our certain companies, because we think that where the revenues are being derived is infinitely more important than the address on the business card. So we own, for example, a company called Suzuki, which is a Japanese company, and we don't own it because it's in Japanese. We don't even own it, really, for Suzuki. We own it because they are the owner of Maruti, which is the largest seller of automobiles in India. And these are automobiles that are made for the Indian consumer. I don't want you to think Ferrari. It's lower end, they're safe, they're good, they're affordable, and they have a market share lead of 4X over the number two in terms of dealerships and presence, and now they've gotten into SUVs, et cetera. So as we think about, broadly, that question around geography, I just wanted to make the point that we link it to where those revenues are being derived. In terms of secular trends as it relates to broader Asia, I think as you look at this list, aging demographics or the rising middle class, digital finance and e-commerce, I mean, these are all secular trends that are benefiting great companies in that part of the world. I think of C-Limited, which is in Indonesia. They're in e-commerce, they have banking, they also have the most popular video game in the world, Free Fire, and that's an example of a company that's able to take advantage of some of the secular trends around rising middle class demographics and the adoption of e-commerce. I could go on, but I wouldn't be respectful of time. I understand. And how does your military-friendly employer play out? What does that look like? Our military-friendly? I have this on the very beginning. Do you have preferences in hiring, or do you have very many veterans in your company? That's Baird broadly. So Baird has over 4,000 employees, and that's throughout the United States and also overseas. And so these accolades were achieved by Baird, which Chautauqua is a part of Baird, and that is one of the elements that we think about when we think about the workplace, as well as women and other accolades that you see down below. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to ask a question I've asked of some of the others, which is about the – you mentioned the rising middle class. I'm interested in your perspective and how it relates to your investments as to the population, the decreasing replacement population around the world, except that you mentioned India, where they don't have that issue with our non-replacement of people. How does that affect your thinking about investment? Well, frankly, I think it should affect everybody's thinking about having a global perspective on where opportunities can be found. You pointed to India as an opportunity set in terms of a growing population. I would point to two investments in our portfolio, FANUC and KAONS. We're going back to Japan. But these are in robotics, and as you think about the outsourcing of labor or needing to meet a thinner labor force, certainly you're going to find use cases, as we already are, for the use of the products from a FANUC or a KAONS in terms of robotics in the factories. I think you're even seeing that at Amazon and other companies here, which we own in our global fund, not in the international fund that we're talking about, because that's a U.S. company. So from our perspective, there are companies that will be able to meet that challenge and benefit from that challenge, and we just want to own the best in that space. Okay, thank you. Other final questions, anybody? All right. Thank you very much. I may massacre this, Mr. Lubchenco. That's beautiful. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. We appreciate your presentation very much. Thank you. Thank you for your time. We'd be honored to work with you all. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Take care. Thank you. Safe travels. Hello. How are you? I'm your chair, Mayor Gorton, and we welcome you here today. The way we're doing this is you'll have 20 minutes for a presentation, and then we'll have some Q&A time. Wonderful. All right? Thank you. Great. Well, we'll go ahead and get started. Thank you all for the opportunity to present this morning, and thank you for the opportunity to visit your city and your county. Pete and I were lucky enough last night to go to the U.K. men's basketball game, so we'll take a little bit of credit for the 36-point win against North Carolina Central, but my name is Henry Willits. I'm a member of the Institutional Sales Team at MFS, and this is Pete Lonctow. Pete is a member of the International Growth Team, and we understand you all have done a lot of work to get to this point, and you know our strategy and our firm quite well, so in the interest of time, I'm going to skip the introduction to our organization, and I'll turn things over to Pete, and Pete will introduce the Portfolio Management Team. He'll talk about their style of investing and how that style behaves in different market environments, but understanding we've got some time at the end for questions, happy to take any questions about the firm then, but with that, thank you again, and I'll turn things over to Pete. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Yeah, great to be here, and thank you for the opportunity to present our international growth strategy. I will, as Henry mentioned, I'll start by introducing the Portfolio Management Team and then talk a little bit about the investment philosophy that guides their decision making. We'll touch on current positioning and finish up with performance, and along the way I'll try to sprinkle in lots of examples of companies owned in the portfolio to hopefully bring the process to life for everybody. Working with the Portfolio Management Team, Matt Barrett and Kevin Duan are the Portfolio Managers on this. Matt is located in our London office, Kevin is in our Singapore office, and the two of them work very closely. They make all the decisions jointly, despite the time zone differences. These guys actually spend a fair amount of time working together each day. They try to arrange their working hours so that they've got a good amount of overlap each day. They also do travel a fair amount together to meet with company managements in their offices. Of course, all the decisions they make are done with a lot of input from our big team of research analysts, and I'll cover off on the analyst team in a moment. Brett, Greg, and myself, we are all Boston-based, and we handle most of the client-facing aspects of this so that Matt and Kevin can stay focused on managing the portfolio. I'll just share on a personal note, one thing Kevin and Matt always talk about is that they are always very aware in their decision-making of who they're managing the money for, whether it's teachers or firefighters or police or people saving for retirement or college educations. That really stays top of mind for them at all times in their decision-making. I think it leads to a very conservative approach to investing, which we'll see. I'll just add, from my perspective, my father was a volunteer firefighter for about 15 years after he retired from his corporate job. I have a 20-year-old nephew in Cary, North Carolina, who is an aspiring firefighter. He's currently working with the volunteer fire department down there, going through some of the training, trying to get ready for his formal application. If we were fortunate enough to be selected to work with you, that whole concept of keeping in mind who we're managing money for would be even just that much more real to me in this case. Moving on to the investment philosophy that guides Matt and Kevin's decision-making, we show some of the key tenets of that here. It starts with investing with a very long-term horizon. We think that so much of the rest of the market is way too short-term focused. We know if we can do deep research on companies, work out what is the true intrinsic value of a business, and stay anchored to that despite all the volatility in stock prices, that can allow us to buy really high-quality companies when they may have traded off because the market is overly concerned with shorter-term issues. Hand-in-hand with that long-term horizon is the focus on very high-quality companies. To us, that would be companies with very durable business models, companies with really strong moats, great competitive advantages, things like very strong intellectual property, or world-class brands. In terms of the type of growth we're after, this certainly isn't aggressive growth or momentum growth. This really is a conservative approach to growth investing. We know that companies that have really obvious, very high near-term growth prospects, those get recognized by the market very quickly. We think those types of businesses tend to get overvalued. The flip side of that is we believe that the market tends to undervalue the long-term prospects of companies that can grow at slightly above average rates, but the key is if they can do that in good environments as well as in more difficult market environments. Throughout all that, we do maintain a very strong valuation discipline. I think that's probably one of the areas where Matt and Kevin in their decision-making are probably much more valuation-focused than most other growth investors. Just as you think about the type of companies, this philosophy leads us to think of some names that have been 10-plus year holdings for us. Taiwan Semiconductor, they manufacture pretty much all the chips that NVIDIA designs and very critical in all leading technologies. Louis Vuitton, which you think of the strength of the brands for Louis Vuitton, it's the world's premier luxury goods companies, they've built up the strength of those brands across decades and decades to the point where it allows them massive pricing power and they're able to charge thousands of dollars for the cachet of a French-made Louis Vuitton handbag. Those are the types of businesses that this philosophy leads us to. In terms of expectations of how this approach works in different market environments, this chart is based on our performance since we started managing this in 2001. It's organized based on the quarterly performance of our benchmark. That first group of bars is when the benchmark has returned negative 5% or worse. These are the most difficult environments and you can see the frequency with which we've outperformed the benchmark in those difficult environments and that plus 1.42, that is the average excess return that we've delivered for clients in those difficult market environments. I think that's a really good proof statement of the very high quality nature of the companies that we own because when there is more fear and uncertainty in the markets, investors tend to gravitate towards the safety of those really high quality companies, the ones with the healthy balance sheets, the really durable business models, the proven management teams. Those are the types of companies we own in this portfolio at all times, not just in difficult times. As you move to that next group of bars, that's just a more normal market when the index is between negative 5% and positive 5% in a quarter. You can see on average we've delivered 38 basis points of outperformance for clients. Then that one market environment that is more challenging given our approach is just when the market's up sharply in a short amount of time. On average, we've given back nine basis points of relative performance. The leadership in those types of environments, it tends to be the more cyclical or the more speculative companies. Based on our philosophy, we tend to be pretty underweight those types of businesses. Hopefully this just serves to set expectations of how this strategy might perform across different market environments. This page really shows the scope of our research platform. Starting with the research analysts who are an incredibly important input to this investment process. You can see the numbers and the locations of the analysts. We've got them organized into eight global sector teams. We've got a healthcare team and an industrials team and so on. Each of these teams has analysts in these different offices. They're covering the companies that are local to them. Once a week, each of those sector teams meets and the portfolio managers attend those meetings as well. That's where the analysts are updating the broader team on any important developments to the companies that they follow. Probably more importantly, that's also where we have a lot of really rich discussion about how any changes in the macro environment are impacting all these companies. Whether it's tariffs or supply chain issues or inflation or trade wars, we on a weekly basis are bringing together these analysts from across the globe and talking through how these changes are impacting all these companies. It's through those discussions that Matt and Kevin get a really good understanding of which companies are best positioned to outperform given what's going on in the overall environment. Maybe just one example from recent periods of how that actually works in the portfolio. We have long liked the IT services companies. In the US context, that would be a name like Accenture. For us in a non-US context, it'd be some of the Indian names like Tata Consultancy Services, which we owned in the portfolio. At one of the sector team meetings, we were focused on those IT services companies. Our Tokyo-based analyst was making the point that corporate Japan had really under-invested in their corporate technology for a number of years and now was in a position where they really had to spend to play catch-up to start moving a lot of their data to the cloud and start implementing AI. We hadn't owned the Japanese IT services names at that point, but the analyst made a very compelling case that their growth prospects were now better than their global peers and the valuations also happened to be cheaper. Based on that discussion, we sold out of Tata in India and bought into two of those names in Japan, Nomura Research Institute as well as Oracle Japan. It's just an example of how bringing together all these global perspectives and doing comparisons of similar business models around the globe can really benefit from the global presence of research analysts in these eight different offices. And then just in terms of an overview on the investment process, we think it is a very transparent and straightforward investment approach. It starts with idea generation. There were relying very heavily on our big team of research analysts for that. You can see at the bottom of that first column, our analysts cover over 1,000 non-U.S. companies and assign them a rating of a buy, a hold, or a sell. At the next step of the process, the portfolio managers, Matt and Kevin, work very closely with the analysts on those buy-rated stocks that they might be interested in owning for this portfolio. They're applying their buy criteria, which we show in that third column. We're looking for that above-average growth, companies that can generate very strong returns on invested capital. We really like to invest in companies that can generate a lot of free cash flow on their own so that they're not overly dependent on the banks or the credit markets to finance their operations. That leads us to a portfolio of about 85 holdings. We think that's the right number to provide a really well-diversified portfolio and also has the benefit, once you get up to a number like that, it certainly reduces the volatility in terms of the return pattern when your portfolio is well-diversified across that many holdings. Moving into the portfolio positioning, we show it here on a sector basis. The first thing I'd point out is as you look up and down the bar chart, most of those sector weights are within plus or minus 5% of the benchmark. That's not a hard and fast rule, but it is just sort of a soft guideline we keep in mind because we don't want to get too overexposed to any sector or factor or country. That's because we do want the stock selection to drive relative performance. We think it's really tough to get those top-down calls right by just, say, loading up on one or two sectors or countries. Materials is a bit over that 5% level currently. There's a couple areas of exposure there that we have been very favorable on, most notably the industrial gas companies. That would be names like Air Liquide and Lindy. They, relative to most other materials businesses, actually do have a good amount of pricing power. They've got really good exposure to a wide variety of industrial catbacks because the gases they sell, they're used in such a wide range of applications, used in hospitals and refining fuel, probably used in the oxygen tanks that are used by firefighters. The other area of exposure there, we do own a couple of gold mining companies. Those have been particularly strong on a year-to-date basis as the underlying price of gold seems to reach new all-time highs just about every week these days. Moving on to where we're positioned on a region and country basis. We show it here both by domicile, so that's just where the company happens to be headquartered, but also by revenue. We actually think that where the revenue is coming from is much more important. It does yield some interesting differences. If you look at that Europe X UK line in the table at the bottom, about 38% of our holdings are actually headquartered in Europe, but on a revenue basis, only 13.6% of the revenue is coming from there. That's just by virtue of owning names like Louis Vuitton and Nestle and SAP, companies that are headquartered in Europe, but are selling their products all over the world, and they really aren't overly dependent on their home countries for their revenue generation. That emerging markets line at the bottom of that table is in some ways the inverse of that where we've got 21% of the portfolio invested in companies in emerging markets, but 33, almost 34% of the revenue of all the companies owned in the fund is coming from the emerging markets. We do think, on a long-term view, that the emerging markets middle-class consumer is going to continue to be one of the bright spots in terms of global growth as we look out over the next decade. Then just moving on to performance, and I'm sure you're familiar with these numbers. Certainly over the long-term periods, a good amount of value add that we've delivered. On a near-term basis, you can see we're lagging on a year-to-date basis. What we've observed this year is that, partially because of tariffs and the weakness of the U.S. dollar this year, the market leadership has really been in a lot of the more domestically oriented companies, things like utilities and telecoms and banks. These are parts of the market that we tend to be underexposed to. We gravitate much more towards the global multinationals. It's also been a period of very low-quality stocks that have been in leadership. Of course, our high-quality bias has not been rewarded in that type of environment. I'll just finish up on this page, which just shows our performance over different rolling time periods. In the bottom right, the rolling one-year basis, we've outperformed the benchmark 70% of the time. Probably this year, we're in one of those periods of underperformance. I think the key is that our portfolio managers, they don't change up what they're doing to go chase what happens to be working in the market. Currently, we stay anchored to our approach, that focus on high-quality, reasonably valued growth companies. You can see how over longer time periods for clients who've been with us for three years, or certainly five years or more, the percent of outperforming periods gets up to 100%. It's definitely a very proven approach. We just know that when we stay disciplined and anchored to that approach, even through some of the short-term periods of underperformance, that has definitely led to good outcomes for our clients over the long-term. I'll close there, but I'm happy to take any questions. All right. Thank you very much. We'll ask the board members then if you have some questions. Mr. Puckett, you look ready. Yes. What is your turnover? The turnover has been running around 15 to 20%. We've got it in the back of the book, so 14% over the last year, so consistent with a very long-term approach to investing. Other questions? I'll ask a question that I've asked some previous folks. With the rapidly declining birth rate around the world, except for India and Latin America, what do you see in 20 years related to this in terms of investments, or how do you think about that? Yes. You know, this definitely has led to aging demographics, and there are a number of holdings in the portfolio that are really a play on that. For example, AIA is a life insurance company. They operate out of Hong Kong, but they've got top three market share positions across eight different countries in the Pacific Rim. In a lot of those countries, they don't have something comparable to our Social Security system, so it is really incumbent on the individuals to provide for their retirement. The life insurance products have been a key part of that. That and then healthcare has been a long-term overweight for this portfolio, and there we own many companies that should do well with aging demographics. Sinova is, I think, a good example. They're the leading maker of hearing aids, and it's a Swiss company. We bought it a couple years ago. It had traded off due to some near-term concerns, but management there has pointed out that 20% of the global population has some hearing issues. Of those, only 15% have done anything about it, so there's tremendous scope to grow the market there, and that would be another name that's just a kind of a direct beneficiary of those aging demographics. Do you own any companies in India that are headquartered in India or in any of the Latin American countries? We do. We've got probably about 3% of the portfolio in India, probably about 5% in Latin America. Latin America and Brazil in particular has been an area of recent focus. We added four new names in Latin America earlier this year, and particularly in Brazil where that's been a really tough place to invest over the last several years. Inflation's very high there. That means interest rates are really high, but they are scheduled to have an election next year, and any of the likely successors to LULA is viewed as much more market-friendly and much more pragmatic. We think that's one of the places in Latin America where you can have a pretty high degree of certainty that over the next several years, the macro environment is likely to get better. Against that backdrop, our analyst based in Sao Paulo identified several attractive companies, particularly in financial services, that should have pretty good leverage to an improving economy there. Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions? Mr. Puckett. Thought I saw more. Yes. Of those products, do you all have a limit as to how much of any holding that you have? We would go up to 8% in an individual company. That's the guideline. You can see on the screen there, our top holdings, Taiwan Semi's at 6.1%, and that's about as high as we've gone. We've never bumped up against that 8% limit. And my last question. What are your fees? If you wanted us, what would our fees be? Yeah. Do you want to speak to that? Because there's different vehicle options. Yeah. So, after conversations with the folks at Cal, we understand that there's interest in our collective investment trust, which the CIT Class 3 has a $50 million minimum, and the fee for that is about 62 basis points. Sixty-two basis points. Sixty-two. Yes. Is that negotiable? Yes. Is it? I believe so. Other questions? All right. I don't see any, so thank you very much. I urge you to come back for another Kentucky Wildcat basketball game someday. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a great rest of your day. Appreciate it. Yes. Okay, now I'll welcome Mr. Jim O'Connor back to give us a recap of these two companies. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Sorry, let me just pull up my notes here. Okay, so growth managers, we heard from two, Baird, Chautauqua was the first one, MFS was the second. Different than the value managers, certainly, right? Different styles, different approaches. Both of which, I guess what we can kind of talk about for a second here is really their business models. So let's start with some of the obvious. Chautauqua is owned by Baird. Baird is a large asset manager based in Milwaukee. They are a subsidiary of Baird, and so there's three partners at Chautauqua that own the firm. So it is employee owned. I think David did a good job of kind of hammering that home. They think like owners. They think long term, and certainly they have to buy in, right, that shares are not granted to them. On the flip side, MFS, while based, they're U.S. headquartered in Boston, they are majority owned by Sun Life Financial, which is a Canadian based financial services firm. So they own insurance companies, they offer insurance, asset management. So 70% of the firm is owned by Sun Life, and the remaining 30% is owned by employees. So different sized firms, Baird about 11 billion in AUM, while you have MFS, which is much larger at, I believe, apologies, north of 600 billion in assets under management. So certainly some differences at the organization level. I think the team approach is pretty similar. We've got a 3PM team for Chautauqua, two lead PMs on MFS. Chautauqua pulls from a little bit smaller analyst pool, whereas MFS kind of taps into their large organization, large resources. I think a couple things to point out, both are fundamental managers. So again, digging into the financials, the team, their meeting with teams. You heard from MFS, their portfolio managers are on the road visiting with firms, looking for new ideas to be added to the portfolio. Same can be said for Baird as well. They're trotting the globe meeting with firms as well, trying to find good ideas to get into the portfolio. I think a couple of the differences that I'd just like to point out. So Chautauqua slash Baird, much more concentrated portfolio. So what does that mean? They own 30 names, which is what we would consider concentrated. So they've mentioned that they capped the largest holding to be within the portfolio at about 10%. They have not tripped that. I think right now they're running at about 7 or 8%. So there are risk controls and risk management top of mind, but smaller analyst pool, very focused portfolio that, again, I think they invest in their highest conviction names. MFS, on the other hand, 85 holdings, so a little bit more diversified. They have risk controls as well, plus or minus 5% of the benchmark. They have a cap at 8% with one single name.