El Camino Hospital Board Monday, May 12, 2014, 5:30 P.M

Home , Assets under management, Coatue Management, Kaupthing Bank, Tiger Management

AGENDA Investment Committee El Camino Hospital Board Monday, May 12, 2014, 5:30 p.m. Conference Room A, Ground Floor 2500 Grant Road Mountain View, California

MISSION: The purpose of the Investment Committee is to develop and recommend to the El Camino Hospital Board of Directors the organization's investment policies, maintain current knowledge of the management and investment of the invested funds of the hospital and its pension plan(s), provide guidance to management in its investment management role, and provide oversight of the allocation of the investment assets.

AGENDA ITEM PRESENTED BY

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL John Zoglin, Chair 5:30 – 5:31

2. POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST John Zoglin, Chair 5:31 – 5:32 DISCLOSURES

3. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION John Zoglin, Chair 5:32 – 5:33

4. CONSENT CALENDAR: John Zoglin, Chair public Motion Any committee member may remove an item for comment 5:33 – 5:35 discussion before a motion is made. Approval: March 3, 2014 Minutes ATTACHMENT 4

5. EL CAMINO HOSPITAL FINANCIAL Matt Harris, Controller Information PERFORMANCE 5:35 – 5:45 ATTACHMENT 5

6. EXECUTIVE DASHBOARD Matt Harris, Controller Discussion ATTACHMENT 6 5:45 – 5:50

7. INVESTMENT REVIEW Antonio DiCosola, Lucas public Possible Motion a. First Quarter Performance Review Mansberger – Pavilion comment 5:50 – 6:30 b. Direct Hedge Fund Review Advisory Group, Inc. c. Additions to Hedge Fund Portfolio ATTACHMENT 7

8. GOALS AND PACING PLAN John Zoglin, Chair public Possible Motion a. 2014 Committee Goals comment 6:30 – 6:45 b. 2014/2015 Pacing Plan c. 2015 Draft Committee Goals ATTACHMENT 8

A copy of the agenda for the Regular Committee Meeting will be posted and distributed at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting. In observance of the Americans with Disabilities Act, please notify us at 650-988-7504 prior to the meeting so that we may provide the agenda in alternative formats or make disability-related modifications and accommodations.

El Camino Hospital Board Investment Committee May 12, 2014 Page 2

AGENDA ITEM PRESENTED BY 9. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION 6:45

John Zoglin, Chair 6:46 – 6:47 10. POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES

11. Health and Safety Code Section 32106(b) for a John Zoglin, Chair Discussion report involving health care facility trade secret. 6:47 – 7:04 - Committee Self-Assessment Results

12. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION John Zoglin, Chair 7:04 – 7:05

To report any required disclosures regarding permissible actions taken during Closed Session.

13. ADJOURNMENT John Zoglin, Chair 7:05 p.m.

Tentative 2014/2015 Investment Committee Meetings: . August 11, 2014 . November 10, 2014 . February 9, 2015 . May 11, 2015

Separator Page

4. IC 3-3-14 Open Minutes.docx DRAFT

Minutes of the Open Session Investment Committee Meeting Of El Camino Hospital Monday, March 3, 2014

1. Call to Order. The Open Session meeting of the Investment Committee Meeting of El Camino Hospital (the “Committee”) was called to order by Committee Chair John Zoglin at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, March 3, 2014, Conference Room A at El Camino Hospital, 2500 Grant Road, Mountain View, California.

2. Roll Call. Committee members present were John Zoglin, Nicki Boone, Ethan Cohen-Cole, Jeffrey Davis, MD, and Brooks Nelson. 3. Potential Conflict of Interests Disclosures. Committee Chair John Zoglin asked if any Committee member or anyone in the audience believes that a Committee member may have a conflict of interest on any of the items on the agenda. No conflict of interest was reported. 4. Consent Calendar. The Committee reviewed the item on the Consent Calendar. Upon motion duly made by member Brooks Nelson and motion seconded by member Nicki Boone, the November 13, 2013 open minutes were unanimously approved by five members in attendance (Zoglin, Boone, Cohen-Cole, Davis, and Nelson).

5. Agenda Item 5 – El Camino Hospital Financial Performance. Ned Borgstrom, Interim Chief Financial Officer, presented an overview of how El Camino Hospital is performing. He stated the hospital is having a very good year, running several million dollars ahead of budget at the operating margin level and almost $30M ahead of budget at the bottom line level due to good investment performance. The positive variances were mainly caused by one time Medicare cost report settlements and appeals as well as Intergovernmental Transfer payments for Medi-Cal. 6. Agenda Item 6 – Executive Dashboard. Mr. Borgstrom presented the Investment Committee Scorecard. He asked the Committee if they wanted to add a measure of volatility onto the dashboard which would show if we are getting the appropriate amount of returns for the amount of risk taken. There was a discussion on absolute return benchmarks, assumptions, assessment of volatility and risk, and the tools used to make an assessment. Also discussed was how much return has been generated relative to our portfolio benchmark and how much volatility we have suffered in the portfolio compared to the same benchmark. Pavilion Advisory Group was asked how the calculation of volatility contributes to the assessment of risk and what metrics can be provided on an ongoing basis for risk adjustment and returns. Mr. Thomas Dodd, from Pavilion Advisory Group, stated that the Sharpe ratio would be one of the starting measures. They would compare the Sharpe ratio with the actual return and actual volatility vs. the Sharpe ratio of the benchmark by creating a three year rolling graph. The Committee agreed that the Scorecard should show the Sharpe ratio to indicate risk against benchmarks, the measure of absolute risk and exposure to show what the budget numbers are,

Minutes: Investment Committee of the Board March 3, 2014 Page 2 and the forecast performance against the actuals (one year forward for the budget numbers and three years forward for the investments).

7. Agenda Item 7– Performance Review and Market Commentary. – Mr. Dodd provided an overview of investment markets during the fourth quarter of 2013 and year to date in 2014. Equity markets experienced a very strong fourth quarter, with the 10.5% return of the S&P 500 Index bringing the Index’ return to 32.4% for the year. Economic data year to date in 2014 had been somewhat weaker, but most market participants attributed the weak economic data to severe winter weather in the U.S. Lucas Mansberger, also from Pavilion Advisory Group, reviewed the performance of the El Camino Hospital pools. He indicated that both of the El Camino Hospital pools, the Surplus Cash and the Cash Balance Plan, continued to perform well on an absolute basis and relative to their respective benchmarks. The Surplus Cash and Cash Balance Plan pools outperformed their benchmarks by 50 and 30 basis points, respectively. In both plans, asset allocation aided performance during the quarter, as slight overweight allocations to domestic equities and underweight exposure to market duration fixed income aided returns. Within both plans, equity manager selection detracted from relative performance while fixed income manager selection contributed positively to performance.

Mr. Mansberger noted that most investment managers were outperforming or performing in-line with their respective benchmarks since the restructuring of the El Camino Hospital portfolios in 2012. However, he indicated that Pavilion was disappointed with the recent performance of the international equity manager Walter Scott, as the strategy significantly underperformed during 2013. Mr. Mansberger said that Walter Scott’s underperformance was largely due to emerging markets exposure within the portfolio. He indicated that while Walter Scott’s direct exposure to equities of companies domiciled in the emerging markets was relatively modest during the year, its exposure to developed markets companies whose growth prospects were dependent on emerging markets growth has been fairly significant. Mr. Mansberger said that Pavilion still retained confidence in the firm and that there were no organizational or process issues and recommended no changes at this time. The Committee discussed the emerging markets exposure of the portfolios at length and requested that Pavilion keep them apprised of Pavilion’s views on the space.

Mr. Anthony DiCosola, Pavilion Advisory Group, explained that our equity allocation target in the surplus cash portfolio is 30% of equities. Out of the 30%, ten is the target for international managers. Out of that ten, the maximum invested in emerging markets is twenty of the ten, or 2%. Mr. Borgstrom asked if, as a U.S. domiciled hospital, would it be preferable to have our investments equal the world portfolio or have it heavily weighted to the U.S. or would we prefer it the other way around. It was suggested that additional criteria be discussed at a future meeting.

$21.1 million was contributed to the Surplus Cash pool during the fourth quarter. Walton Street RE Fund VII called $1.1 million in capital during the month. There were additions to the Direct Hedge Fund Portfolio during the quarter. The Indus Japan Fund was funded on December 1st with an initial contribution of $5.0 million, while additional contributions of $1.5 million each

Minutes: Investment Committee of the Board March 3, 2014 Page 3 were made to the York Credit Opportunities Unit Trust and the Fir Tree International Value Fund.

The Cash Balance Plan received an employer contribution of $3.0 million during the quarter.

8. Agenda Item 8 – Asset Allocation Review. Mr. DiCosola reviewed the asset allocation study conducted for the Surplus Cash pool. He described the methodology for the asset allocation study, and indicated that the projected cash flow into (or out of) the Surplus Cash account as well as the non-investment financial data utilized in the projected financial ratios were provided by El Camino Hospital staff. He discussed the background for the analysis, offering detail on the rationale behind the Committee’s previous asset allocation election. He indicated that at the previous meeting the Committee had requested that Pavilion evaluate the impact of potentially adding private equity to the portfolio.

Mr. DiCosola went on to review El Camino Hospital’s current asset allocation versus the asset allocation of peer healthcare organizations and discussed the geographic and strategy allocation of the equity, fixed income and alternatives buckets of the portfolio. He said that El Camino Hospital’s overall asset allocation appeared to be somewhat more defensive than other systems’ allocations.

Mr. DiCosola then reviewed risk and return projections of the current portfolio allocation’s returns against five different alternative allocations, including two others without private equity and three with private equity. He presented an analysis that utilized El Camino Hospital projected financial data in conjunction with Pavilion’s projected portfolio returns to model investment balances and financial ratios five years into the future. The analysis indicated that in poor to very poor market environments, the portfolios that shifted five percent of the allocation to either hedge funds or private equity tended to result in the most favorable financial ratios. In general, the portfolios with an allocation to private equity had higher expected returns than those without.

The Committee discussed the asset allocation study at length, focusing on the characteristics of private equity as an asset class and the extent to which it should be utilized in the portfolio. The Committee members indicated that they would like additional clarity from the Board on risk tolerance and acceptable risks to understand if private equity was considered acceptable for the portfolio. Mr. Borgstrom will check with Tomi Ryba or Neal Cohen and request time on either the April or May Board Agenda to present a scenario analysis of results during extreme market environments, and also to present the Board with the Committee assessment, best options and recommendations as well as request strategic guidance from the Board. Additionally, the Committee asked staff to provide additional clarity on the long-term operating outlook for El Camino Hospital. They asked Pavilion to provide additional information regarding the implementation of a private equity portfolio for the next Committee meeting. The Committee elected to change the target asset allocation of the Surplus Cash pool to shift 5% from short-term fixed income to hedge funds, an action which Pavilion projected would increase the expected return of the portfolio.

Minutes: Investment Committee of the Board March 3, 2014 Page 4

9. Agenda Item 9 – Goals, Charter, and Pacing Plan. Mr. Borgstrom suggested that wording in goal number two (Review Investment Policy) on the 2015 Goals be incorporated to decide whether or not to move to private equities. Chair Zoglin asked that goal number four (Review/revise Executive Dashboard) be placed on the Pacing Plan for May. He also suggested that an educational goal for Board and committee members be included in the 2015 Goals. Chair Zoglin asked the Pavilion Advisory Group for thoughts or suggestions on goals or topics that the Committee may benefit (risk aspects, etc.). Mr. Mansberger thought that it would be fruitful to learn about what goes into ratings from the rating agencies. Chair Zoglin suggested putting a review of hospital financial performance on the Pacing Plan for each meeting. Chair Zoglin asked Committee members to review their calendars to see if there are any conflicts with future Committee meeting dates as meeting dates can be rescheduled to accommodate where possible. Mr. Borgstrom reminded members to take the time to complete the self assessment that was emailed to them. 10. Agenda Item 10 - Adjournment. There being no further business of the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 7:29 pm.

______John Zoglin Patricia A. Einarson, MD Chair, ECH Investment Committee ECH Board Secretary

Separator Page

5. Financial Performance.pdf May 5, 2014

TO: El Camino Hospital Investment Committee

FROM: Ned Borgstrom

SUBJECT: Financial Performance and Outlook

Current Performance and Near Term Outlook Attached is the financial statement package for the Board for the nine months ended March 31. As you can see, our good performance through seven months eroded somewhat during February and March – operating margin is at $52.5 million, $4.6 million ahead of budget – most of the positive variance is caused by one-time settlement of prior year Medicare cost reports and appeals, as well as Intergovernmental Transfer payments for Medi-Cal. We are expecting the next three months to perform slightly below budget as some of the unbudgeted Epic operating costs begin to kick in; April revenues were ahead of budget so we are hopeful that April’s results will be much better than February and March (we may have closed April’s books by the time you meet, but they have not been closed at the time this is written). Net income through March (including investment results) is $90million, $28 million ahead of budget because of usually good investment returns early in the year – likewise, we don’t expect that to continue for the next three months.

Cash and investments were sitting at $636 million, or 373 days of operating expense. We expect that balance to diminish only slightly by the end of the fiscal year:  The Board has just approved the purchase of land (with medical office buildings) adjacent to the Los Gatos campus for a little over $20 million – closings were in April but no withdrawals from the surplus cash fund were required.  Construction of a new data center on the Mountain View campus, which has been delayed by slow state approval processes, will likely begin soon – probably $5 million this fiscal year (and $15 million in fiscal 2015)

Longer Term Outlook The Board had a strategic planning meeting on April 23 and will have another session on May 14. No decisions have been reached but management has outlined detailed plans for the next year and less detailed plans for several more years. The plan is to a) continue to be the best acute care provider (including becoming more affordable), b) develop structures for the independent physicians, c) further develop our relationship with PAMF, d) advance our partnerships with post-acute care providers, e) advancing “value” (meaning not pure “fee-for-service” ) payment mechanisms, f) create a plan to serve the population in Los Gatos and south San Jose, and g) create a plan to meet the space needs of programs and physicians on the Mountain View campus. The 2015 capital budget will be reviewed with the Finance Committee on May 27 and is expected to be about $75-80 million (new projects approved, not necessarily all spent within fiscal 2015), including a relocation of the cancer center, detailed architectural work on a behavioral health building, and an addition to the parking garage – and including routine IT, clinical equipment, and remodeling. In addition, fiscal 2015 capitalized expenditures on the Epic system (approved in fiscal 2014) are budgeted to be $39 million.

In March, anticipating decisions similar to this, I provided the Finance Committee with a five-year plan that included capital expenditures of $670 million and a gradual deterioration of operating margin. The $670 million assumes that the Mountain View campus projects would be spent before the end of fiscal 2018 and the Los Gatos replacement would be mostly spent after 2018, although land acquisition and architectural work would happen before 2018. Despite the deteriorating margins and heavy capital expenditures, cash balances never dropped below $600 million. We will be re-working the five-year plan when more definitive plans for Mountain View and Los Gatos are decided, probably late summer or early fall.

Summary of Financial Operations

Fiscal Year 2014 – Period 9 7/1/2013 to 3/31/2014 2 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates CMI Adjusted Discharges Case mix in March was 3% below budget and discharges were 9% lower; these variances were adjusted by outpatient revenues which exceeded budget by 10%, resulting in CMI adjusted discharges which were 3% unfavorable to budget. Daily census in March was 3% lower than budget. Fiscal year to date CMI adjusted discharges are 1.2% favorable to budget.

Operating Margin March’s gross charges were $6.9 million unfavorable to budget so, excluding a $1.4 million favorable Medi-Cal supplemental cost report filing, net revenues were $2.4 million unfavorable to budget. Ignoring unbudgeted bonuses and Epic costs, expenses were $0.9 million unfavorable to budget, so run-rate hospital operations were $3.2 million unfavorable to budget and reported operating margin was $2.5 million unfavorable. Investment performance was modest - $0.9 million in March; $39.7 million YTD. Operating margin YTD is $4.6 million favorable to budget, and total net surplus YTD is $28 million favorable.

Net Days in AR Net outstanding receivables increased by $0.5 million between February and March and average daily revenue fell a little. Consequently, net days in A/R increased to 54.5 days (from 52.9 days).

3 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates (1) ECH Operating Margin

Run rate is booked operating income adjusted for material non-recurring transactions

4 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates 5 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates Summary of Financial Results $ in Thousands

6 Worked hours per adjusted patient day are running favorable to budget

(1) 7 FY2014 YTD dollar $11.3 unfavorable variance from fixed labor budget is multi-factorial

8.0

7.0 Sitter variance – $0.9mil (85%) 6.0 Social security - $0.9 mil (7%) 5.0 RN variance - Health insurance - $2.7mil (3%) $2.1 mil (7%) 4.0

3.0 RN rate budget Incentive - $3.3 mil - not in labor budget 2.0 error– $3.5 mil

1.0

- All other wages – All other benefits – (1.0) positive by $1.2 mil positive by $0.5 mil (1%) (2.0)

8 Revenue and expenses per CMI adjusted discharge are higher than budget most months

9 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates ECH Volume Statistics (1)

(1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates (2) Excludes normal newborns (MS-DRG 795) 10 El Camino Hospital Volume Trends Prior and Current Fiscal Years

11 El Camino Hospital Financial Metrics Trend (1)

Operating P EBIDA equal to Budget r o f I t _ L o s s

B A L Represents _ cash of $636 million S H E E T

12 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates APPENDIX

13 Supply Cost per CMI Adjusted Discharges (1)

YTD: 2.0% over budget YTD: -11.5% under budget Mountain View Los Gatos

14 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates (1) Mountain View LOS & CMI Trend

• Medicare: Due to DRG reimbursement, financial results usually improve with decreased LOS and increased CMI • Non-Medicare: Reimbursement varies; financial results usually improve when both LOS & CMI increase

(1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates All data excludes normal newborns (MS-DRG=795), Medicare data excludes Medicare HMOs and PPOs 15 (1) Los Gatos LOS & CMI Trend

(1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates All data excludes normal newborns (MS-DRG=795), Medicare data excludes Medicare HMOs and PPOs 16 El Camino Hospital (1) Results from Operations vs. Prior Year 9 months ending 3/31/2014

17 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates El Camino Hospital – Mountain View (1) Results from Operations vs. Prior Year 9 months ending 3/31/2014

18 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates El Camino Hospital – Los Gatos1 (1) Results from Operations vs. Prior Year 9 months ending 3/31/2014

19 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates El Camino Hospital (1) Results from Operations vs. Budget 9 months ending 3/31/2014

20 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates El Camino Hospital – Mountain View (1) Results from Operations vs. Budget 9 months ending 3/31/2014

21 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates El Camino Hospital – Los Gatos (1) Results from Operations vs. Budget 9 months ending 3/31/2014

22 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates El Camino Hospital (1) Balance Sheet ($ Thousands)

23 (1) Hospital entity only, excludes controlled affiliates Separator Page

6. Copy of Invest Comm Scorecard Draft.xlsx El Camino Hospital Investment Committee Scorecard DRAFT FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION - May 5, 2014 Annual Expectation Current Current Qtr FY YTD FY14 Year- Key Performance Indicator Status Since at last Asset Quarter Benchmark Total end Budget Inception Alloc

Investment Performance Mar 2014 Mar 2014/2012 Surplus cash balance (millions) $ 605.6 $ 578.0 Surplus cash return 1.2% 1.3% 7.8% 4.0% 7.9% 5.0%

Cash balance plan balance (millions) $ 199.9 $ 201.0 Cash balance plan return 1.1% 1.2% 12.0% 6.0% 13.4% 6.7%

403(b) plan balance (millions) $ 278.4 NA NA NA NA

Risk vs. Return Mar 2014 Mar 2014/2012 Surplus cash 3-year Sharpe ratio 2.31 2.11 0.66 3-year return 6.58 6.23 5.0% 3-year standard deviation 2.75 2.86 7.2% Cash balance 3-year Sharpe ratio 0.99 1.22 0.54 3-year return 9.14 9.00 6.7% 3-year standard deviation 9.26 7.22 10.6%

Asset Allocations Mar 2014

Surplus cash positive variances to target 4.7% < 5% NA NA NA NA

Cash balance positive variances to target 6.1% < 5% NA NA NA NA

Manager compliance Mar 2014

Surplus cash manager flags (10 mgrs x 9 measures each) 12 < 9 23 NA NA NA

Cash balance plan manager flags (12 mgrs x 9 measures each) 12 <11 23 NA NA NA

Separator Page

7a. 1Q14 El Camino Hospital PE Report.pdf Performance Review

El Camino Hospital

1st Quarter 2014

Pavilion Advisory Group Inc. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-798-3200 Fax: 312-902-1984 www.pavilioncorp.com Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary 1 2 Surplus Cash - Performance Summary 13 3 Surplus Cash - Asset Class Diversification 22 4 Cash Balance Plan - Performance Summary 29 5 Cash Balance Plan - Asset Class Diversification 38 6 Manager Evaluation 45 7 Capital Markets Review 78 8 Appendix 86 Executive Summary

1 Surplus Cash Executive Summary Dashboard As of March 31, 2014

Performance: Most Recent Quarter Asset Allocation 2.5% El Camino Hospital Total Within 2.1% Benchmark Assets Percent Target Variance Target Policy 2.0% 1.8% 1.7% 1.8% Manager ($, mil.) of Total Allocation to Target Range Range

1.5% 1.2% 1.3% Domestic Equity $123.2 20.3% 20.0% + 0.3% 17-23% Yes 1.0% 1.0% International Equity $ 59.3 9.8% 10.0% - 0.2% 8-12% Yes 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% Short-Duration Fixed $ 87.2 14.4% 10.0% + 4.4% 8-12% No 0.0% Ma rket-Duration Fixed $233.7 38.6% 40.0% - 1.4% 35-45% Yes -0.5%

-1.0% -0.8% Alternatives $102.2 16.9% 20.0% - 3.1% 17-23% No

Total (X District) $605.6 100.0%

Performance: Since Inception1 Portfolio Updates

30.0% 28.3% Manager News/Issues 26.6% El Camino Hospital • International equity manager Walter Scott notably underperformed its benchmark and peers during the 25.0% Benchmark quarter. The strategy was negatively impacted by unfavorable stock selection, particularly within the 20.0% consumer discretionary sector and European region with significant losses coming from exposure to 15.2% Adidas (-15.3%) and Inditex (-9.1%). The manager has significantly trailed its benchmark since its 15.0% 13.0% inception in the Surplus Cash Plan. Pavilion recommends maintaining exposure to the Fund as the manager is a long-term focused, quality-biased investor. 10.0% 7.9% 7.0% 6.2% 5.0% Funding News/Issues 5.0% • 1.2% The portfolio was rebalanced in January 2014 as equities were reduced to bring the asset allocation in line 0.5% 0.7% with policy targets. 0.0% -0.1% • Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VI has made three capital calls totaling $4.2 million in 2014. The -5.0% remaining unfunded amount of El Camino’s $14 million commitment is $4.2 million. • Walton Street RE Fund VII made a capital call in the amount of $2.8 million and made distribution payments of $0.2 million in March. The remaining unfunded amount of El Camino’s $14.0 million commitment is $10.3 million. • Within the Direct Hedge Fund Portfolio, five additional hedge funds were funded on April 1, 2014 with contributions totaling $26.5 million. Additionally, $1.0 million of contributions were made to both Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund and Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund.

______1 Reflects the date Pavilion’s recommended portfolio was implemented (November 1, 2012).

2 Cash Balance Plan Executive Summary Dashboard As of March 31, 2014

Performance: Most Recent Quarter Asset Allocation

2.5% El Camino Total Within 2.1% Benchmark Assets Percent Target Variance Target Policy 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% Manager ($, mil.) of Total Allocation to Target Range Range 1.6% 1.5% Domestic Equity $ 66.2 33.1% 32.0% + 1.1% 27-37% Yes 1.1% 1.2% 1.0% International Equity $ 36.0 18.0% 18.0% + 0.0% 15-21% Yes 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% Short-Duration Fixed $ 18.5 9.3% 5.0% + 4.3% 0-8% No 0.0% Ma rket-Duration Fixed $ 51.4 25.7% 25.0% + 0.7% 20-30% Yes -0.5% Alternatives $ 27.6 13.8% 20.0% - 6.2% 17-23% No -1.0% -0.8% Total $199.9 100.0%

Performance: Since Inception1 Portfolio Updates

30.0% 28.0% El Camino 26.1% Manager News/Issues • International equity manager Walter Scott notably underperformed its benchmark and peers during 25.0% Benchmark the quarter. The strategy was negatively impacted by unfavorable stock selection, particularly within the consumer discretionary sector and European region with significant losses coming from exposure to 20.0% Adidas (-15.3%) and Inditex (-9.1%). The manager has significantly trailed its benchmark since its 15.2% inception in the Cash Balance Plan. Pavilion recommends maintaining exposure to the Fund as the 15.0% 13.4% 13.3% 11.9% manager is a long-term focused, quality-biased investor. 9.9% 10.0% 8.1% Funding News/Issues • The portfolio was rebalanced in January 2014 as equities were reduced and alternatives and fixed 5.0% 2.2% income increased to bring the asset allocation in line with policy targets. 0.6% 0.7% • Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VI has made three capital calls totaling $2.5 million in 2014. 0.0% -0.1% The remaining outstanding capital of El Camino’s $8.4 million commitment is $2.6 million. • Walton Street Real Estate Fund VII has made one capital call totaling $1.7 million in 2014 and has -5.0% distributed capital totaling $0.1 million. The remaining outstanding capital of El Camino’s $8.4 million commitment is $6.2 million.

______1 Reflects the date Pavilion’s recommended portfolio was implemented (November 1, 2012).

3 Surplus Cash Executive Summary

Portfolio Update - March 2014 The Surplus Cash portfolio excluding District assets returned +1.2% for the quarter, modestly underperforming its benchmark return of +1.3%. Asset allocation differences relative to the benchmark drove underperformance. An average overweight allocation to domestic equities coupled with an underweight allocation to market duration fixed income detracted from performance. Additionally, international equity manager Walter Scott contributed to underperformance as the manager experienced poor relative and absolute performance. The strategy was negatively impacted by unfavorable stock selection, particularly within the consumer discretionary sector and European region with significant losses coming from exposure to Adidas (-15.3%) and Inditex (-9.1%). However, strong individual manager performance within the market duration fixed income and alternatives composite more than offset the negative contribution of Walter Scott. Market duration fixed income manager Dodge & Cox performed well and outpaced the Barclays Aggregate by a significant margin. Additionally, the Direct Hedge Fund composite handily outperformed the HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index for the period. For the trailing one-year period, the portfolio returned +7.4% and outpaced its benchmark by 120 basis points. Both manager selection and asset allocation differences to the benchmark benefited the portfolio over the time period. Manager selection had the larger positive impact as domestic equity and market duration fixed income manager selection combined to add the most value. An average overweight allocation to domestic equity and average underweight allocation to fixed income further aided relative results. Investment Activity The portfolio was rebalanced in January 2014 as equities were reduced and fixed income increased to bring the asset allocation in line with policy targets. During the quarter, Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VI called a total of $2.8 million of the portfolio’s $14 million capital commitment. Furthermore, in April 2014, Oaktree called an additional $1.4 million. The Walton Street Real Estate Fund VII also called capital totaling $2.8 million during the first quarter and made distribution payments of $0.2 million. On April 1, 2014, five additional hedge funds were funded with a total of $26.5 million, and additional contributions of $1.0 million were made to both Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund and Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund. Additional details about the initial funding of hedge fund managers can be found in the Summary of Investment Decisions within the Appendix. Recommendations or Action Items Pavilion does not recommend any changes to the current portfolio.

4 Cash Balance Plan Executive Summary

Portfolio Update - March 2014 The Cash Balance Plan gained 1.1% during the quarter, trailing its benchmark by 10 basis points. Underperformance was a result of asset allocation differences to the benchmark, primarily an average overweight allocation to domestic equity in lieu of fixed income. Additionally, international equity manager, Walter Scott, contributed to underperformance as the manager experienced poor relative and absolute performance. The strategy was negatively impacted by unfavorable stock selection, particularly within the consumer discretionary sector and European region with significant losses coming from exposure to Adidas (-15.3%) and Inditex (-9.1%). However, manager selection within domestic equity and alternatives offset the negative impact of Walter Scott. The most notable contributor to positive performance was the Lighthouse Diversified Fund as the manager outpaced the HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index by 250 basis points. For the trailing one-year period, the Plan returned +12.2% and outperformed its benchmark by 190 basis points. Manager selection was the key driver of relative performance gains with asset allocation differences to the benchmark adding value as well. Manager selection within domestic equities was particularly accretive as large-cap managers Sands and Barrow Hanley, as well as small-cap growth manager Cortina, performed exceptionally well relative to their respective benchmarks. An average overweight allocation to domestic equity further aided returns. Additionally, the market duration fixed income segment of the portfolio benefited benchmark-relative returns as an average underweight allocation and strong manager performance over the time period proved accretive.

Investment Activity The portfolio was rebalanced in January 2014 as equities were reduced and fixed income and alternatives increased to bring the asset allocation in line with policy targets. During the quarter, Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VI called a total of $1.7 million of the portfolio’s $8.4 million capital commitment. Furthermore, in April 2014, Oaktree called an additional $0.8 million. The Walton Street Real Estate Fund VII also called capital totaling $1.7 million during the first quarter and made distribution payments totaling $0.1 million.

Recommendations or Action Items Pavilion does not recommend any changes to the current portfolio.

5 Surplus Cash Executive Summary Manager Compliance Checklist As of March 31, 2014

Vanguard Sands Large Wellington Northern S&P 500 Cap Growth Barrow Cortina Small Small Cap Walter Scott Cross Managers Index (Touchstone) Hanley LCV Cap Growth Value Int'l (Dreyfus) (Harbor Int'l)

Organizational/Product Issues No changes to investment team ü ü ü ü ü ü Yes No organizational changes ü ü ü ü ü ü ü No accounting or regulatory concerns ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Currently in adherence to guidelines ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Characteristics meet stylistic expectations ü ü ü ü ü ü ü

Relative Performance 1, 2

Three-year return > benchmark In Line ü ü -70 bps ü ü ü Three-year ranking > peer group median ü ü ü 60th ü 81st ü Five year return > benchmark In Line ü -20 bps ü ü -220 bps ü Five year ranking > peer group median ü ü ü ü ü 89th ü

Performance Status Green Green Green Green Green Green Green

Date performance status changed

Summary Status Green Green Green Green Green Green Green

Date summary status changed

______1 Manager performance is evaluated net of investment management fees. 2 For each manager that underperformed its benchmark and/or peer group, the magnitude of underperformance and/or peer group ranking is shown.

6 Surplus Cash Executive Summary Manager Compliance Checklist As of March 31, 2014

Barrow Hanley Short Dodge & Cox MetWest Managers Fixed Fixed Fixed

Organizational/Product Issues No changes to investment team ü Ye s ü No organizational changes ü ü ü No accounting or regulatory concerns ü ü ü Currently in adherence to guidelines ü ü ü Characteristics meet stylistic expectations ü ü ü

Relative Performance 1, 2

Three-year return > benchmark -20 bps ü ü Three-year ranking > peer group median 83rd ü ü Five year return > benchmark -30 bps ü ü Five year ranking > peer group median 87th ü ü

Performance Status Green Green Green

Date performance status changed

Summary Status Green Green Green

Date summary status changed

7 Cash Balance Plan Executive Summary Manager Compliance Checklist As of March 31, 2014

Vanguard Sands Large Wellington Northern S&P 500 Cap Growth Barrow Cortina Small Small Cap Walter Scott Cross Managers Index (Touchstone) Hanley LCV Cap Growth Value Int'l (Dreyfus) (Harbor Int'l)

Relative Performance 1, 2

Three-year return > benchmark In Line ü ü -60 bps ü ü ü Three-year ranking > peer group median ü ü ü 60th ü 81st ü Five year return > benchmark In Line ü -10 bps ü ü -220 bps ü Five year ranking > peer group median ü ü ü ü ü 89th ü

Performance Status Green Green Green Green Green Green Green

Date performance status changed

Summary Status Green Green Green Green Green Green Green

Date summary status changed

8 Cash Balance Plan Executive Summary Manager Compliance Checklist As of March 31, 2014

Barrow Hanley Short Dodge & Cox MetWest Managers Fixed Fixed Fixed Lighthouse Pointer

Organizational/Product Issues No changes to investment team ü Yes ü ü ü No organizational changes ü ü ü ü ü No accounting or regulatory concerns ü ü ü ü ü Currently in adherence to guidelines ü ü ü ü ü Characteristics meet stylistic expectations ü ü ü ü ü

Relative Performance 1, 2

Three-year return > benchmark -10 bps ü ü ü ü Three-year ranking > peer group median 81st ü ü N/A N/A Five year return > benchmark -20 bps ü ü ü ü Five year ranking > peer group median 87th ü ü N/A N/A

Performance Status Green Green Green Green Green

Date performance status changed

Summary Status Green Green Green Green Green

Date summary status changed

9 Executive Summary Manager Compliance Checklist As of March 31, 2014 Recommended Manager Compliance Issue Explanation Watch Status Comments

Northern Cross Changes to Edward “Ted” Wendell, Jr., a portfolio Green At 73 years of age, Mr. Wendell’s decision to (Harbor) Investment Team manager of the Harbor International Fund, step back from his portfolio management duties will step down from his investment is not a surprise. We were told he approached responsibilities on June 30, 2014 and the other partners over the Thanksgiving holiday officially retire at the end of 2014. Mr. and expressed his desire to exit the business. Wendell is a founding partner and portfolio While Mr. Wendell’s departure is noteworthy manager of Northern Cross, LLC, which given the small size of the team and his has sub-advised the Harbor International experience and tenure at the firm, we believe Fund since 2009. the impact on the portfolio should be minimal. Pavilion recently conducted an on-site visit to The current investment team consists of Northern Cross’ offices in Boston and confirmed four portfolio managers who manage the our favorable view of the firm. In light of the Fund by consensus. Mr. Wendell is the focused, consensus approach to decision- most senior member of the team having making and the experience and tenure of the joined in 1985. As a result of the remaining portfolio managers, Pavilion departure, the investment team will go from recommends that clients maintain their four to three members. The remaining allocations to the Harbor International Fund. We portfolio managers all have more than 20 will continue to monitor the transition of Mr. years of investment experience and have Wendell’s responsibilities over the coming been working together for more than 10 months and notify clients of any additional years. developments or concerns should they arise.

Dodge & Cox Fixed Changes to Dodge & Cox announced that portfolio Green We are not concerned by Mr. Thompson’s Investment manager Robert Thompson stepped down retirement. Dodge & Cox is a very stable Team/Committee from the Fixed Income Investment Policy organization with many long-tenured investment Committee as of May 1, 2014, and will professionals, and retirements should be subsequently retire from the firm in 2015 expected from time to time. We are pleased after 23 years with the firm. In addition to that his retirement announcement was his role on the Fixed Income Investment articulated well in advance, which provides Policy Committee, Mr. Thompson is the ample time to transition duties. The Fixed primary portfolio manager for El Camino’s Income Investment Policy Committee will Core Fixed Income separate account. The decrease in size from ten to nine members, but separate account relationship role will remains well-resourced with the firm’s senior transition to Deirdre Curry, while fixed income investment professionals. Pavilion investment decisions will continue to be recommends no action at this time, although we made by the firm’s investment committees. will continue to closely monitor the situation. Mr. Thompson’s position on the Fixed Income Investment Policy Committee will not be directly replaced at this time.

10 Surplus Cash Executive Summary Market Value Reconciliation As of March 31, 2014

1st Quarter $ in Millions 2008 2009 2010 2011 20121 2013 2014

Beginning Market Value $395.6 $374.4 $313.5 $322.6 $396.7 $493.8 $596.3

Net Cash Flow ($16.3) ($91.8) ($10.5) $55.6 $67.8 $55.3 $1.8 Income n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $2.9 Realized Gain/(Loss) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $5.6 Unrealized Gain/(Loss) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ($1.0) Capital App/(Dep) ($5.0) $30.9 $19.6 $18.5 $29.3 $47.2 $7.5 End of Period Market Value $374.4 $313.5 $322.6 $396.7 $493.8 $596.3 $605.6

Return Net of Fees -1.2% 11.3% 6.4% 5.1% 6.6% 8.8% 1.2%

700

600

500 s

n 400 o i l l i M

300 , $

200

100

______1 Beginning 8/1/2012, market values represent the Surplus Cash portfolio excluding District assets, with $13.9 million of District assets shown as a cash outflow in the third quarter of 2012.

11 Cash Balance Plan Executive Summary Market Value Reconciliation As of March 31, 2014

1st Quarter $ in Millions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Beginning Market Value $104.0 $80.5 $116.1 $129.2 $130.9 $168.8 $198.3

Net Cash Flow $4.3 $11.8 ($0.8) $2.3 $14.7 $2.4 ($0.8) Income n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $0.8 Realized Gain/(Loss) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $2.9 Unrealized Gain/(Loss) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ($1.4) Capital App/(Dep) ($27.8) $23.8 $13.9 ($0.6) $23.2 $27.2 $2.3 End of Period Market Value $80.5 $116.1 $129.2 $130.9 $168.8 $198.3 $199.9

Return Net of Fees -25.9% 28.2% 11.7% -0.9% 17.0% 15.8% 1.1%

225

200

175

150 s n

o 125 i l l i M

100 , $

12 Surplus Cash - Performance Summary

13 Performance Summary Total Surplus Cash X District vs. Total Surplus Cash Benchmark* As of March 31, 2014

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.8

) 7.9 8.0 7.9 %

( 7.4 7.5 n

7.0 r 6.7 6.8 u 6.6 t

e 6.2 6.2

R 6.0 5.3 4.7 4.9

4.0

2.0 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3

0.0 Quarter Year 1 3 5 10 Since To Year Years Years Years Inception Date

Total Surplus Cash X District Total Surplus Cash Benchmark Total Surplus Cash Composite Peergroup

Year To 1 3 5 10 Since Inception Quarter Date Year Years Years Years Inception Period Total Surplus Cash X District 1.2 1.2 7.4 6.7 7.9 5.3 7.9 1y 5m Total Surplus Cash Benchmark 1.3 1.3 6.2 6.2 7.5 4.7 7.0 Total Surplus Cash Composite Peergroup 1.5 1.5 6.6 6.8 8.8 4.9 N/A Total Surplus Cash X District Rank 64 64 26 53 62 32 N/A ______* Returns prior to August 1, 2012 include District assets. All returns are net of investment management fees. * Since inception returns reflect the date Pavilion's recommended portfolio was implemented (11/1/2012).

14 Performance Summary Risk and Return Summary (Net of Fees) As of March 31, 2014

3 Years 5 Years 10.0 10.0

Total Surplus Cash X District (2.9, 7.9) 8.0 8.0 Total Surplus Cash X District (2.8, 6.7) Total Surplus Cash Benchmark (2.9, 7.5)

) 6.0 ) 6.0

% Total Surplus Cash Benchmark % ( (2.9, 6.2) ( n n

r r u u t t e e

R 4.0 R 4.0

2.0 2.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Risk (Standard Deviation %)

15 Performance Summary Total Surplus Cash X District Attribution 1 Quarter Ending March 31, 2014 Total Fund Performance Total Value Added:-0.07 %

Total Value Added -0.07 % Asset Allocation -0.13 %

Total Fund Benchmark 1.27% Manager Value Added 0.06%

Total Fund 1.20% Other 0.01%

-0.60 % 0.00% 0.60% 1.20% 1.80% -0.27 % -0.18 % -0.09 % 0.00% 0.09% 0.18%

Total Asset Allocation:-0.13 % Total Manager Value Added:0.06%

Domestic Equity Composite 1.36% -0.08 % 0.03%

International Equity Composite -0.38 % 0.00% -0.13 % ) % ( t

h Short Duration Fixed Income Composite -0.98 % -0.01 % 0.01% g i e W Market Duration Fixed Income Composite -1.49 % -0.02 % 0.08%

Total Alternatives Composite 1.49% -0.01 % 0.06%

-4.00 % -2.00 % 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% -0.12 % -0.08 % -0.04 % 0.00% -0.40 % -0.20 % 0.00% 0.20%

Average Active Weight Asset Allocation Value Added Manager Value Added

______“Other” includes the effects of all other factors on the Fund’s relative return, including rebalancing and other trading activity.

16 Performance Summary Total Surplus Cash X District Attribution 1 Year Ending March 31, 2014 Total Fund Performance Total Value Added:1.17%

Total Value Added 1.17% Asset Allocation 0.29%

Total Fund Benchmark 6.22% Manager Value Added 0.86%

Total Fund 7.39% Other 0.01%

0.00% 3.00% 6.00% 9.00% 12.00% 0.00% 0.29% 0.58% 0.87% 1.16% 1.45%

Total Asset Allocation:0.29% Total Manager Value Added:0.86%

Domestic Equity Composite 1.97% 0.23% 0.60%

International Equity Composite -0.31 % -0.03 % -0.32 % ) % ( t

h Short Duration Fixed Income Composite -0.62 % 0.02% -0.02 % g i e W Market Duration Fixed Income Composite -1.30 % 0.07% 0.48%

Total Alternatives Composite 0.26% 0.00% 0.12%

-3.00 % 0.00% 3.00% 6.00% -0.20 % 0.00% 0.20% 0.40% -1.00 % -0.50 % 0.00% 0.50% 1.00%

Average Active Weight Asset Allocation Value Added Manager Value Added

______“Other” includes the effects of all other factors on the Fund’s relative return, including rebalancing and other trading activity.

17 Performance Summary Composite Asset Allocation & Performance As of March 31, 2014 Allocation Performance(%) Market Year Value To 1 3 5 10 Since Inception ($) % Quarter Date Year Years Years Years Inception Period Total Surplus Cash X District 605,608,410 100.0 1.2 (64) 1.2 (64) 7.4 (26) 6.7 (53) 7.9 (62) 5.3 (32) 7.9 (N/A) 1y 5m Surplus Cash Total Benchmark 1.3 (61) 1.3 (61) 6.2 (61) 6.2 (65) 7.5 (68) 4.7 (57) 7.0 (N/A) Pre-Pavilion Surplus Cash Total Benchmark 1.2 (64) 1.2 (64) 3.0 (94) 4.5 (91) 6.4 (85) 4.2 (73) 3.4 (N/A) Total Surplus Cash Composite Peer Group Median 1.5 1.5 6.6 6.8 8.8 4.9 N/A

Total Surplus Cash X District X Privates 597,273,573 98.6 1.2 (63) 1.2 (63) 7.5 (25) 6.7 (53) 7.9 (62) 5.3 (32) 8.0 (N/A) 1y 5m Surplus Cash Total Benchmark x Privates 1.3 (61) 1.3 (61) 6.2 (61) 6.2 (65) 7.5 (68) 4.7 (57) 7.0 (N/A) Total Surplus Cash Composite Peer Group Median 1.5 1.5 6.6 6.8 8.8 4.9 N/A

Total Equity Composite 182,510,156 30.1 1.0 (58) 1.0 (58) 20.6 (50) 13.5 (43) 20.4 (45) 7.6 (49) 23.4 (N/A) 1y 5m Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus 1.3 (44) 1.3 (44) 19.3 (68) 13.3 (47) 20.8 (38) 7.1 (61) 22.8 (N/A) Broad Equity Peer Group Median 1.2 1.2 20.5 13.0 20.1 7.5 N/A

Domestic Equity Composite 123,197,538 20.3 1.8 (37) 1.8 (37) 25.9 (14) 15.6 (9) 21.7 (37) 8.2 (33) 28.3 (N/A) 1y 5m Domestic Equity Benchmark - Surplus 1.7 (39) 1.7 (39) 22.9 (46) 14.9 (12) 21.8 (35) 7.6 (53) 26.6 (N/A) Domestic Equity Peer Group Median 1.5 1.5 22.5 13.0 21.1 7.7 N/A

Large Cap Equity Composite 92,325,468 15.2 2.1 (34) 2.1 (34) 25.6 (19) 15.4 (17) 21.6 (26) 8.1 (29) 27.8 (N/A) 1y 5m Large Cap Equity Benchmark 1.9 (37) 1.9 (37) 22.1 (48) 14.3 (32) 21.4 (28) 7.4 (44) 25.2 (N/A) Large-Cap Equity Peer Group Median 1.5 1.5 21.9 13.2 20.1 7.2 N/A

Small Cap Equity Composite 30,872,070 5.1 1.0 (54) 1.0 (54) 26.9 (39) N/A N/A N/A 29.4 (N/A) 1y 5m Small Cap Equity Benchmark 1.2 (50) 1.2 (50) 25.0 (54) 13.2 (53) 24.3 (56) 8.5 (48) 30.8 (N/A) Small-Cap Equity Peer Group Median 1.1 1.1 25.2 13.3 24.7 8.4 N/A

International Equity Composite 59,312,618 9.8 -0.8 (79) -0.8 (79) 9.0 (93) N/A N/A N/A 13.0 (N/A) 1y 5m MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) 0.5 (53) 0.5 (53) 12.3 (81) 4.1 (83) 15.5 (60) 7.1 (47) 15.2 (N/A) International Equity Peer Group Median 0.6 0.6 16.1 6.4 15.9 6.9 N/A

______Returns are expressed as percentages. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Peer group percentile ranks are shown in parentheses.

18 Performance Summary Composite Asset Allocation & Performance As of March 31, 2014 Allocation Performance(%) Market Year Value To 1 3 5 10 Since Inception ($) % Quarter Date Year Years Years Years Inception Period Total Fixed Income Composite 320,866,110 53.0 1.5 (36) 1.5 (36) 1.0 (22) 3.5 (14) 4.9 (36) 4.4 (8) 1.0 (N/A) 1y 5m Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus 1.2 (81) 1.2 (81) 0.2 (62) 2.9 (32) 3.9 (75) 4.0 (13) 0.2 (N/A) Total Fixed Income Peer Group Median 1.4 1.4 0.5 2.7 4.5 3.4 N/A

Short Duration Fixed Income Composite 87,212,939 14.4 0.3 (70) 0.3 (70) 0.6 (51) 2.7 (18) 4.0 (39) 3.8 (12) 0.5 (N/A) 1y 5m Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus 0.2 (77) 0.2 (77) 0.7 (46) 2.5 (21) 3.3 (49) 3.8 (14) 0.7 (N/A) Short Duration Fixed Peer Group Median 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.7 3.3 2.9 N/A

Market Duration Fixed Income Composite 233,653,171 38.6 2.1 (49) 2.1 (49) 1.1 (23) 5.4 (14) 6.9 (50) N/A 1.2 (N/A) 1y 5m Barclays Aggregate 1.8 (73) 1.8 (73) -0.1 (62) 3.7 (70) 4.8 (85) 4.5 (58) -0.1 (N/A) Market Duration Fixed Peer Group Median 2.0 2.0 0.4 4.3 6.9 4.7 N/A

Total Alternatives Composite 102,232,144 16.9 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.2 0y 11m Total Alternatives Benchmark - Surplus 0.4 0.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.1

Real Estate Composite 12,036,069 2.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.6 0y 7m NCREIF Property Index 0.0 0.0 8.2 10.7 7.3 8.4 3.4

Hedge Fund Composite 90,196,075 14.9 1.1 1.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.9 0y 11m HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 0.4 0.4 5.9 2.3 4.9 3.1 5.1

______Returns are expressed as percentages. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Peer group percentile ranks are shown in parentheses.

19 Performance Summary Manager Asset Allocation & Performance As of March 31, 2014 Allocation Performance(%) Market Year Value To 1 3 5 10 Since Inception ($) % Quarter Date Year Years Years Years Inception Period Large-Cap Equity Vanguard S&P 500 Index 45,939,110 7.6 1.8 (41) 1.8 (41) 21.8 (52) 14.6 (27) 21.2 (31) 7.4 (45) 24.7 (N/A) 1y 5m S&P 500 1.8 (41) 1.8 (41) 21.9 (51) 14.7 (26) 21.2 (31) 7.4 (45) 24.8 (N/A) Large-Cap Equity Peer Group Median 1.5 1.5 21.9 13.2 20.1 7.2 N/A

Sands Large Cap Growth (Touchstone) 22,934,998 3.8 0.6 (43) 0.6 (43) 32.7 (8) 19.8 (4) 29.9 (5) N/A 32.9 (N/A) 1y 5m Russell 1000 Growth Index 1.1 (31) 1.1 (31) 23.2 (55) 14.6 (32) 21.7 (33) 7.9 (43) 25.0 (N/A) Large-Cap Growth Peer Group Median 0.3 0.3 23.7 13.3 20.4 7.5 N/A

Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value 23,451,360 3.9 3.7 (9) 3.7 (9) 25.7 (13) 15.5 (14) 21.6 (23) 8.1 (23) 9.4 (N/A) 13y 8m Russell 1000 Value Index 3.0 (18) 3.0 (18) 21.6 (49) 14.8 (22) 21.8 (21) 7.6 (37) 6.8 (N/A) Large-Cap Value Peer Group Median 1.9 1.9 21.4 13.2 20.0 7.1 N/A

Small-Cap Equity Cortina Small Cap Growth 15,515,258 2.6 0.2 (60) 0.2 (60) 32.2 (28) 12.9 (60) 28.3 (10) N/A 30.3 (N/A) 1y 5m Russell 2000 Growth Index 0.5 (50) 0.5 (50) 27.2 (55) 13.6 (51) 25.2 (48) 8.9 (38) 32.7 (N/A) Small-Cap Growth Peer Group Median 0.5 0.5 28.2 13.6 25.0 8.4 N/A

Wellington Small Cap Value 15,356,812 2.5 1.4 (52) 1.4 (52) 21.2 (79) 14.5 (25) 25.2 (42) 11.0 (3) 28.1 (N/A) 1y 5m Russell 2000 Value Index 1.8 (42) 1.8 (42) 22.6 (67) 12.7 (61) 23.3 (67) 8.1 (63) 28.8 (N/A) Small-Cap Value Peer Group Median 1.5 1.5 24.4 13.4 24.6 8.6 N/A

International Equity Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) 29,184,395 4.8 -2.6 (99) -2.6 (99) 2.6 (100) 4.3 (81) 13.3 (89) N/A 8.4 (N/A) 1y 5m MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) 0.5 (53) 0.5 (53) 12.3 (81) 4.1 (83) 15.5 (60) 7.1 (47) 15.2 (N/A) International Equity Peer Group Median 0.6 0.6 16.1 6.4 15.9 6.9 N/A

Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) 30,128,223 5.0 1.0 (40) 1.0 (40) 15.6 (56) 6.8 (45) 18.3 (22) 9.6 (11) 18.1 (N/A) 1y 5m MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) 0.5 (53) 0.5 (53) 12.3 (81) 4.1 (83) 15.5 (60) 7.1 (47) 15.2 (N/A) International Equity Peer Group Median 0.6 0.6 16.1 6.4 15.9 6.9 N/A

______Returns are expressed as percentages. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Peer group percentile ranks are shown in parentheses.

20 Performance Summary Manager Asset Allocation & Performance As of March 31, 2014 Allocation Performance(%) Market Year Value To 1 3 5 10 Since Inception ($) % Quarter Date Year Years Years Years Inception Period Short Duration Fixed Income Barrow Hanley Short Fixed 86,877,737 14.3 0.3 (69) 0.3 (69) 0.6 (51) 1.0 (83) 1.7 (87) 2.7 (58) 5.3 (N/A) 23y Barclays 1-3yr Gov/Credit 0.2 (77) 0.2 (77) 0.7 (46) 1.2 (75) 2.0 (84) 2.8 (54) 4.7 (N/A) Short Duration Fixed Peer Group Median 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.7 3.3 2.9 N/A

Cash Composite 335,202 0.1 0.0 (1) 0.0 (1) 0.1 (1) N/A N/A N/A -0.7 (N/A) 1y 5m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.0 (1) 0.0 (1) 0.0 (9) 0.1 (15) 0.1 (17) 1.6 (35) 0.1 (N/A) Money Market Funds Peer Group Median 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 N/A

Market Duration Fixed Income Dodge & Cox Fixed 116,009,394 19.2 2.4 (24) 2.4 (24) 2.3 (10) 4.6 (32) 7.6 (36) 5.1 (25) 2.0 (N/A) 1y 5m Barclays Aggregate 1.8 (73) 1.8 (73) -0.1 (62) 3.7 (70) 4.8 (85) 4.5 (58) -0.1 (N/A) Market Duration Fixed Peer Group Median 2.0 2.0 0.4 4.3 6.9 4.7 N/A

MetWest Fixed 117,643,777 19.4 1.8 (81) 1.8 (81) 0.0 (61) 4.9 (22) 8.9 (15) 6.3 (4) 0.5 (N/A) 1y 5m Barclays Aggregate 1.8 (73) 1.8 (73) -0.1 (62) 3.7 (70) 4.8 (85) 4.5 (58) -0.1 (N/A) Market Duration Fixed Peer Group Median 2.0 2.0 0.4 4.3 6.9 4.7 N/A

Real Estate Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VI 8,334,837 1.4 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A -1.0 0y 7m NCREIF Property Index 0.0 0.0 8.2 10.7 7.3 8.4 3.4

Walton Street Real Estate Fund VII, L.P. 3,701,232 0.6 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.3 0y 5m NCREIF Property Index 0.0 0.0 8.2 10.7 7.3 8.4 1.7

Hedge Funds Hedge Fund Composite 90,196,075 14.9 1.1 1.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.9 0y 11m HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 0.4 0.4 5.9 2.3 4.9 3.1 5.1

Total Plan Total Surplus Cash X District 605,608,410 100.0 1.2 (64) 1.2 (64) 7.4 (26) 6.7 (53) 7.9 (62) 5.3 (32) 7.9 (N/A) 1y 5m Total Surplus Cash Benchmark 1.3 (61) 1.3 (61) 6.2 (61) 6.2 (65) 7.5 (68) 4.7 (57) 7.0 (N/A) Pre-Pavilion Total Surplus Cash Benchmark 1.2 (64) 1.2 (64) 3.0 (94) 4.5 (91) 6.4 (85) 4.2 (73) 3.4 (N/A) Total Surplus Cash Composite Peer Group Median 1.5 1.5 6.6 6.8 8.8 4.9 N/A

______Returns are expressed as percentages. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Peer group percentile ranks are shown in parentheses.

21 Surplus Cash - Asset Class Diversification

22 Asset Class Diversification Total Surplus Cash X District vs. Surplus Cash Target Allocation As of March 31, 2014 March 31, 2014 : $605,608,410

20.0%

Domestic Equity Composite 20.3% $123,197,538 0.3%

10.0%

International Equity Composite 9.8% $59,312,618 -0.2 %

10.0%

Short Duration Fixed Income Composite 14.4% $87,212,939 4.4%

40.0% Market Duration Fixed Income Composite 38.6% $233,653,171 -1.4 %

20.0% Total Alternatives Composite 16.9% $102,232,144 -3.1 %

-16.0 % -8.0 % 0.0% 8.0% 16.0% 24.0% 32.0% 40.0% 48.0%

Target Allocation Actual Allocation Allocation Differences ______* The Target Allocation was changed as of March 31, 2014 to reflect the allocation of the Investment Policy Statement. The underweight to alternatives is a result of unfunded capital commitments to private real estate. Performance benchmarks will change on April 1, 2014 to reflect the timing of investments.

23 Asset Class Diversification Surplus Cash Investment Program Structure As of March 31, 2014

Weighting Total Assets Percen t of Target Relative to Target Manager Asset Class/Type ($, mil.) Total Allocation1 Target Range1

Large-Cap Domestic Equity $ 92.3 15.2% 15.0% + 0.2% Vanguard S&P 500 Index Large-Cap Index $ 45.9 7.6% 7.5% + 0.1% Sands Large-Cap Growth $ 22.9 3.8% 3.8% - 0.0% Barrow Hanley Large-Cap Value $ 23.5 3.9% 3.8% + 0.1% 17-23%

Small-Cap Domestic Equity $ 30.9 5.1% 5.0% + 0.1% Cortina Small-Cap Growth $ 15.5 2.6% 2.5% + 0.1% Wellington Small-Cap Value $ 15.4 2.5% 2.5% + 0.0%

International Equity $ 59.3 9.8% 10.0% - 0.2% 8-12% Walter Scott Developed and Emerging $ 29.2 4.8% 5.0% - 0.2% Harbor Developed and Emerging $ 30.1 5.0% 5.0% - 0.0%

Short-Duration Fixed Income $ 87.2 14.4% 10.0% + 4.4% 8-12% Barrow Hanley Short Duration $ 86.9 14.3% 10.0% Cash Money Market $ 0.3 0.1% 0.0%

Market-Duration Fixed Income $233.7 38.6% 40.0% - 1.4% 35-45% Dodge & Cox Market Duration $116.0 19.2% 20.0% - 0.8% MetWest Market Duration $117.6 19.4% 20.0% - 0.6%

Alternatives $102.2 16.9% 20.0% - 3.1% 17-23% Oaktree RE Opportunities Real Es tate $ 8.3 1.4% 2.5% - 1.1% Walton Street Real Es tate $ 3.7 0.6% 2.5% - 1.9% Direct Hedge Fund Composite Hedge Fund $ 90.2 14.9% 15.0% - 0.1%

Total (X District) $605.6 100.0%

District Assets Short Duration $ 23.1

Total Surplus Cash $628.7

______*Totals may not add due to rounding. 1 The Target Allocation was changed as of March 31, 2014 to reflect the allocation of the Investment Policy Statement. The underweight to alternatives is a result of unfunded capital commitments to private real estate. Performance benchmarks will change on April 1, 2014 to reflect the timing of investments.

24 Equity Portfolio - Characteristics Surplus Cash Equity Composite vs. MSCI AC World Index As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Top Ten Equity Holdings Portfolio Benchmark Portfolio Benchmark Active Quarterly Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($M) 74,451 84,491 Weight Weight Weight Return Median Mkt. Cap ($M) 14,109 8,689 (%) (%) (%) (%) Price/Earnings ratio 18.7 16.0 Google Inc 1.3 0.9 0.4 -0.6 Price/Book ratio 2.6 2.4 Visa Inc 1.1 0.3 0.8 -2.9 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 9.3 8.6 Amazon.com Inc 0.9 0.3 0.6 -15.7 Current Yield (%) 1.9 2.6 Novo Nordisk A/S 0.8 0.3 0.6 26.4 Debt to Equity 0.8 1.2 Microsoft Corp 0.8 0.9 -0.1 10.4 Number of Stocks 807 2,441 Wells Fargo & Co 0.8 0.7 0.1 10.3 Beta (5 Years, Monthly) 0.85 1.00 Roche Holding AG 0.8 0.6 0.2 10.2 Consistency (5 Years, Monthly) 56.67 1.00 Priceline.Com Inc 0.8 0.2 0.6 2.5 Sharpe Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 1.35 1.13 JPMorgan Chase & Co 0.8 0.6 0.1 4.5 Information Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 0.25 - SAP AG Systeme Anwendungen 0.8 0.2 0.5 -5.7 Up Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 94.43 - Down Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 76.70 - % of Portfolio 8.9 5.0

Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Sector Weights (%) 60.0 13.0 Consumer Discretionary 11.7 8.6 Consumer Staples 9.7 9.3 45.0 42.6 Energy 9.7 39.3 16.2 Financials 21.5 35.3 34.6 16.1 Health Care 10.6 30.0 10.9 Industrials 10.8 15.5 21.8 Information Technology 12.7 4.7 Materials 6.1 15.0 12.6 11.5 1.7 Telecommunication Services 3.9 2.0 Utilities 3.3 2.0 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 Cash 0.0 >$59 Bil $15 Bil - $2 Bil - $0 - Cash $59 Bil $15 Bil $2 Bil 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Total Equity Composite MSCI AC World Index Total Equity Composite MSCI AC World Index

25 Equity Portfolio - Country/Region Allocation Surplus Cash Equity Composite vs. MSCI AC World Index As of March 31, 2014 Total Equity Total Equity Composite MSCI AC World Index Composite MSCI AC World Index Australia 1.4 2.9 Brazil 0.3 1.2 Hong Kong 1.9 1.7 Cayman Islands 0.0 0.0 Japan 4.5 7.3 Chile 0.0 0.2 New Zealand 0.0 0.0 Colombia 0.0 0.1 Singapore 0.6 0.6 Mexico 0.0 0.5 Pacific 8.3 12.5 Peru 0.0 0.0 Austria 0.2 0.1 Virgin Islands 0.0 0.0 Belgium 0.6 0.4 EM Latin America 0.3 2.0 Finland 0.3 0.3 China 0.7 1.3 France 4.4 3.6 India 0.0 0.7 Germany 2.3 3.5 Indonesia 0.0 0.3 Ireland 0.7 0.5 Korea 0.0 1.7 Italy 0.4 0.9 Malaysia 0.2 0.4 Netherlands 1.1 1.3 Philippines 0.0 0.1 Portugal 0.0 0.1 Taiwan 0.5 1.2 Spain 1.1 1.3 Thailand 0.0 0.2 EMU 11.1 12.0 EM Asia 1.4 6.0 Denmark 0.8 0.5 Czech Republic 0.0 0.0 Norway 0.0 0.3 Egypt 0.0 0.0 Sweden 1.3 1.2 Greece 0.1 0.1 Switzerland 4.3 3.7 Hungary 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom 6.3 7.8 Poland 0.0 0.2 Europe ex EMU 12.8 13.6 Russia 0.0 0.6 Canada 0.7 3.7 South Africa 0.0 0.8 United States 62.5 48.0 Turkey 0.0 0.2 Israel 0.6 0.2 EM Europe + Middle East + Africa 0.1 1.9 Middle East 0.6 0.2 Emerging Markets 1.8 9.8 Developed Markets 96.0 90.0 Frontier Markets 0.0 0.0 Cash 2.0 0.0 Other 0.2 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0

26 Fixed Income Portfolio - Characteristics Surplus Cash Fixed Income Composite vs. Total Fixed Income Bmk - Surplus As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Credit Quality Distribution (%)

Portfolio Benchmark 100.0 Effective Duration 3.9 4.1 Avg. Maturity 5.8 5.3 Avg. Quality A+ AA+ 75.0 73.7 Yield To Maturity (%) 2.2 1.6

50.0 48.3 Risk Characteristics - 5 Years Up Down Sharpe Information Market Market 25.0 Consistency Ratio Ratio Capture Capture 19.5 18.6 10.7 10.1 Total Fixed Income Composite 66.7 2.3 1.4 111.0 72.5 8.0 5.5 4.7 Total Fixed Income Bmk - Surplus 0.0 1.8 N/A 100.0 100.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 26.7 N/A -1.8 1.5 -1.3 A A A B B B A A B B A B

Total Fixed Income Composite Total Fixed Income Bmk - Surplus

Maturity Distribution (%) Sector Distribution (%)

100.0 80.0

75.0 60.0

48.2 57.2

50.0 40.0 37.4

32.7 28.4 25.7 23.2 25.0 20.0 17.3 17.3 16.7 12.9 11.3 11.1 8.7 4.6 5.7 5.5 6.0 5.3 3.0 4.4 2.7 2.9 3.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 0.3 0.61.8 2.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 r s s s s s Y r r r r r s S s it d S S S g s h r S Y Y Y Y Y e e d l n l s e 1 ri IP i e ie B B -U i a a th B 3 5 0 0 0 u T c r Y M A n rg ip M < < < 1 2 2 s n C e ic C O a e h o n C 1 3 < < > e g ig N m 5 0 r A E u 1 T H M

Total Fixed Income Composite Total Fixed Income Bmk - Surplus Total Fixed Income Composite Total Fixed Income Bmk - Surplus

27 Performance Summary Surplus Cash Private Real Estate Investment As of March 31, 2014 ($ in Millions)

Vintage Committed Paid-in Outstanding Market Total Net Partnership Year Fund Type Capital Capital Commitment Value1 Distributions Value IRR2 TV / PI Oaktree RE Opportunities VI 2012 Private RE $14.0 $9.4 $5.6 $8.3 $1.0 $9.3 -1.7% 1.0 Walton Street RE Fund VII 2012 Private RE $14.0 $3.7 $10.3 $3.7 $0.3 $4.0 9.1% 1.1

1 If a market value has not yet been released for a particular fund, the previous quarter’s value is adjusted according to subsequent contributions and distributions. 2 Net IRR is through the previous quarter end.

28 Cash Balance Plan - Performance Summary

29 Performance Summary Total Cash Balance Plan vs. Total Cash Balance Plan Benchmark* As of March 31, 2014

24.0

21.0

18.0

16.0 15.0 14.1 14.4 ) 13.4 % (

n 12.2

r 12.0 11.9 u 11.2 t

e 10.3 R 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0

6.6 6.2 6.1 6.0

3.0 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.3

0.0 Quarter Year 1 3 5 10 Since To Year Years Years Years Inception Date

Total Cash Balance Plan Total Cash Balance Plan Benchmark Total Cash Balance Plan Composite Peer Group

Year To 1 3 5 10 Since Inception Quarter Date Year Years Years Years Inception Period Total Cash Balance Plan 1.1 1.1 12.2 9.1 16.0 6.6 13.4 1y 5m Total Cash Balance Plan Benchmark 1.3 1.3 10.3 9.0 14.1 6.2 11.9 Total Cash Balance Plan Composite Peer Group 1.7 1.7 11.2 9.0 14.4 6.1 N/A Total Cash Balance Plan Rank 81 81 27 45 15 28 N/A ______* Returns are net of investment management fees. * Since inception returns reflect the date Pavilion's recommended portfolio was implemented (11/1/2012).

30 Performance Summary Risk and Return Summary (Net of Fees) As of March 31, 2014

3 Years 5 Years 20.0 20.0

Total Cash Balance Plan (10.9, 16.0) 16.0 16.0

Total Cash Balance Plan Benchmark

) 12.0 ) 12.0 (8.5, 14.1) % % ( Total Cash Balance Plan ( n n

r (9.3, 9.1) r u u t t e Total Cash Balance Plan Benchmark e R 8.0 R 8.0 (7.3, 9.0)

4.0 4.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Risk (Standard Deviation %)

31 Performance Summary Total Cash Balance Plan Attribution 1 Quarter Ending March 31, 2014 Total Fund Performance Total Value Added:-0.14 %

Total Value Added -0.14 % Asset Allocation -0.26 %

Total Fund Benchmark 1.25% Manager Value Added 0.04%

Total Fund 1.11% Other 0.08%

-0.80 % 0.00% 0.80% 1.60% 2.40% -0.40 % -0.20 % 0.00% 0.20% 0.40%

Total Asset Allocation:-0.26 % Total Manager Value Added:0.04%

Domestic Equity Composite 2.32% -0.09 % 0.07%

International Equity Composite -0.23 % -0.03 % -0.23 % ) % ( t

h Short Duration Fixed Income Composite 0.91% -0.07 % -0.01 % g i e W Market Duration Fixed Income Composite -0.28 % -0.08 % 0.06%

Alternatives Composite -2.73 % 0.01% 0.15%

-8.00 % -4.00 % 0.00% 4.00% 8.00% -0.18 % -0.12 % -0.06 % 0.00% 0.06% -0.60 % -0.30 % 0.00% 0.30%

Average Active Weight Asset Allocation Value Added Manager Value Added

______“Other” includes the effects of all other factors on the Fund’s relative return, including rebalancing and other trading activity.

32 Performance Summary Total Cash Balance Plan Attribution 1 Year Ending March 31, 2014 Total Fund Performance Total Value Added:1.87%

Total Value Added 1.87% Asset Allocation 0.41%

Total Fund Benchmark 10.29% Manager Value Added 1.41%

Total Fund 12.16% Other 0.05%

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.49% 0.98% 1.47% 1.96% 2.45%

Total Asset Allocation:0.41% Total Manager Value Added:1.41%

Domestic Equity Composite 3.36% 0.32% 1.10%

International Equity Composite 0.26% -0.03 % -0.61 % ) % ( t

h Short Duration Fixed Income Composite 0.17% -0.03 % -0.01 % g i e W Market Duration Fixed Income Composite -1.27 % 0.09% 0.51%

Alternatives Composite -2.52 % 0.06% 0.42%

-8.00 % -4.00 % 0.00% 4.00% 8.00% -0.20 % 0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% -1.82 % -0.91 % 0.00% 0.91% 1.82%

Average Active Weight Asset Allocation Value Added Manager Value Added

______“Other” includes the effects of all other factors on the Fund’s relative return, including rebalancing and other trading activity.

33 Performance Summary Composite Asset Allocation & Performance As of March 31, 2014 Allocation Performance(%) Market Year Value To 1 3 5 10 Since Inception ($) % Quarter Date Year Years Years Years Inception Period Total Cash Balance Plan 199,864,811 100.0 1.1 (81) 1.1 (81) 12.2 (27) 9.1 (45) 16.0 (15) 6.6 (28) 13.4 (N/A) 1y 5m Total Cash Balance Plan Benchmark 1.3 (74) 1.3 (74) 10.3 (73) 9.0 (49) 14.1 (58) 6.2 (47) 11.9 (N/A) Pre-Pavilion Total Cash Balance Plan Benchmark 2.6 (10) 2.6 (10) 12.6 (20) 10.5 (16) 15.0 (32) 6.7 (28) 15.2 (N/A) Total Cash Balance Plan Composite Peer Group Median 1.7 1.7 11.2 9.0 14.4 6.1 N/A

Total Cash Balance Plan X Private Structures 192,722,778 96.4 1.1 (57) 1.1 (57) 12.3 (33) 9.3 (47) 16.0 (14) 6.7 (30) 13.7 (N/A) 1y 5m Cash Balance Plan Total X Privates Benchmark 1.3 (46) 1.3 (46) 10.4 (77) 9.1 (52) 14.1 (59) 6.2 (49) 12.0 (N/A) Total Cash Balance Plan X Privates Peer Group Median 1.2 1.2 11.6 9.1 14.4 6.2 N/A

Total Equity Composite 102,259,595 51.2 1.0 (58) 1.0 (58) 20.0 (58) 12.9 (52) 21.9 (21) 7.1 (62) 22.8 (N/A) 1y 5m Total Equity Benchmark 1.3 (42) 1.3 (42) 18.9 (72) 13.0 (51) 20.6 (40) 7.1 (63) 22.2 (N/A) Total Equity Peer Group Median 1.2 1.2 20.5 13.0 20.0 7.5 N/A

Domestic Equity Composite 66,222,003 33.1 1.9 (33) 1.9 (33) 25.9 (14) 15.2 (10) 23.3 (15) 7.7 (48) 28.0 (N/A) 1y 5m Domestic Equity Benchmark 1.8 (37) 1.8 (37) 22.6 (49) 14.7 (15) 21.7 (38) 7.6 (55) 26.1 (N/A) Domestic Equity Peer Group Median 1.5 1.5 22.5 13.0 21.1 7.7 N/A

Large Cap Equity Composite 55,740,504 27.9 2.1 (33) 2.1 (33) 25.8 (18) 15.1 (20) 23.2 (13) 7.7 (38) 27.8 (N/A) 1y 5m Large Cap Equity Benchmark 1.9 (37) 1.9 (37) 22.1 (48) 14.3 (32) 21.4 (28) 7.4 (44) 25.2 (N/A) Large-Cap Equity Peer Group Median 1.5 1.5 21.9 13.2 20.1 7.2 N/A

Small Cap Equity Composite 10,481,499 5.2 0.9 (57) 0.9 (57) 26.6 (40) N/A N/A N/A 29.2 (N/A) 1y 5m Small Cap Equity Benchmark 1.2 (50) 1.2 (50) 25.0 (54) 13.2 (53) 24.3 (56) 8.5 (48) 30.8 (N/A) Small-Cap Equity Peer Group Median 1.1 1.1 25.2 13.3 24.7 8.4 N/A

International Equity Composite 36,037,592 18.0 -0.8 (78) -0.8 (78) 9.1 (93) N/A N/A N/A 13.3 (N/A) 1y 5m MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) 0.5 (53) 0.5 (53) 12.3 (81) 4.1 (83) 15.5 (60) 7.1 (47) 15.2 (N/A) International Equity Peer Group Median 0.6 0.6 16.1 6.4 15.9 6.9 N/A

______Returns are expressed as percentages. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Peer group percentile ranks are shown in parentheses.

34 Performance Summary Composite Asset Allocation & Performance As of March 31, 2014 Allocation Performance(%) Market Year Value To 1 3 5 10 Since Inception ($) % Quarter Date Year Years Years Years Inception Period Total Fixed Income Composite 69,966,644 35.0 1.5 (68) 1.5 (68) 1.5 (14) 4.7 (27) 8.2 (21) 5.4 (15) 1.7 (N/A) 1y 5m Total Fixed Income Benchmark 1.4 (79) 1.4 (79) 0.1 (65) 3.9 (77) 4.9 (92) 4.5 (55) 0.1 (N/A) Total Fixed Income Peer Group Median 1.6 1.6 0.5 4.3 6.7 4.6 N/A

Short Duration Fixed Income Composite 18,533,811 9.3 0.2 (87) 0.2 (87) 0.6 (55) N/A N/A N/A 0.6 (N/A) 1y 5m Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark 0.2 (77) 0.2 (77) 0.7 (46) 0.4 (100) 0.3 (100) 1.7 (98) 0.7 (N/A) Short Duration Fixed Peer Group Median 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.7 3.3 2.9 N/A

Market Duration Fixed Income Composite 51,432,833 25.7 2.1 (48) 2.1 (48) 1.9 (12) 4.9 (24) 8.4 (22) 5.5 (18) 2.2 (N/A) 1y 5m Barclays Aggregate 1.8 (73) 1.8 (73) -0.1 (62) 3.7 (70) 4.8 (85) 4.5 (58) -0.1 (N/A) Market Duration Fixed Peer Group Median 2.0 2.0 0.4 4.3 6.9 4.7 N/A

Total Alternatives Composite 27,638,572 13.8 1.6 1.6 10.2 N/A N/A N/A 9.9 1y 5m Total Alternatives Benchmark 0.3 0.3 6.7 N/A N/A N/A 8.1

Hedge Fund of Fund Composite 20,496,539 10.3 1.9 1.9 11.2 N/A N/A N/A 11.5 1y 5m HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 0.4 0.4 5.9 2.3 4.9 3.1 7.8

Real Estate Composite 7,142,033 3.6 0.0 0.0 5.7 N/A N/A N/A 4.0 1y 3m NCREIF Property Index 0.0 0.0 8.2 10.7 7.3 8.4 8.7

______Returns are expressed as percentages. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Peer group percentile ranks are shown in parentheses.

35 Performance Summary Manager Asset Allocation & Performance As of March 31, 2014 Allocation Performance(%) Market Year Value To 1 3 5 10 Since Inception ($) % Quarter Date Year Years Years Years Inception Period Large-Cap Equity Vanguard Institutional Index Fund 27,665,909 13.8 1.8 (41) 1.8 (41) 21.8 (52) 14.6 (27) 21.2 (31) 7.4 (45) 24.7 (N/A) 1y 5m S&P 500 1.8 (41) 1.8 (41) 21.9 (51) 14.7 (26) 21.2 (31) 7.4 (45) 24.8 (N/A) Large-Cap Equity Peer Group Median 1.5 1.5 21.9 13.2 20.1 7.2 N/A

Sands Large Cap Growth (Touchstone) 13,895,406 7.0 0.6 (43) 0.6 (43) 32.7 (8) 19.8 (4) 29.9 (5) N/A 32.9 (N/A) 1y 5m Russell 1000 Growth Index 1.1 (31) 1.1 (31) 23.2 (55) 14.6 (32) 21.7 (33) 7.9 (43) 25.0 (N/A) Large-Cap Growth Peer Group Median 0.3 0.3 23.7 13.3 20.4 7.5 N/A

Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value 14,179,189 7.1 3.7 (9) 3.7 (9) 26.1 (10) 15.6 (12) 21.7 (21) 8.2 (23) 28.3 (N/A) 1y 5m Russell 1000 Value Index 3.0 (18) 3.0 (18) 21.6 (49) 14.8 (22) 21.8 (21) 7.6 (37) 26.4 (N/A) Large-Cap Value Peer Group Median 1.9 1.9 21.4 13.2 20.0 7.1 N/A

Small-Cap Equity Cortina Small Cap Growth 5,305,471 2.7 0.2 (58) 0.2 (58) 32.2 (28) 13.0 (60) 28.3 (10) N/A 30.3 (N/A) 1y 5m Russell 2000 Growth Index 0.5 (50) 0.5 (50) 27.2 (55) 13.6 (51) 25.2 (48) 8.9 (38) 32.7 (N/A) Small-Cap Growth Peer Group Median 0.5 0.5 28.2 13.6 25.0 8.4 N/A

Wellington Small Cap Value 5,176,028 2.6 1.3 (55) 1.3 (55) 20.9 (81) 14.4 (28) 25.1 (43) 10.9 (3) 27.8 (N/A) 1y 5m Russell 2000 Value Index 1.8 (42) 1.8 (42) 22.6 (67) 12.7 (61) 23.3 (67) 8.1 (63) 28.8 (N/A) Small-Cap Value Peer Group Median 1.5 1.5 24.4 13.4 24.6 8.6 N/A

International Equity Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) 17,732,090 8.9 -2.6 (99) -2.6 (99) 2.6 (100) 4.3 (81) 13.3 (89) N/A 8.4 (N/A) 1y 5m MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) 0.5 (53) 0.5 (53) 12.3 (81) 4.1 (83) 15.5 (60) 7.1 (47) 15.2 (N/A) International Equity Peer Group Median 0.6 0.6 16.1 6.4 15.9 6.9 N/A

Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) 18,305,502 9.2 1.0 (40) 1.0 (40) 15.6 (56) 6.8 (45) 18.3 (22) 9.6 (11) 18.1 (N/A) 1y 5m MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) 0.5 (53) 0.5 (53) 12.3 (81) 4.1 (83) 15.5 (60) 7.1 (47) 15.2 (N/A) International Equity Peer Group Median 0.6 0.6 16.1 6.4 15.9 6.9 N/A

______Returns are expressed as percentages. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Peer group percentile ranks are shown in parentheses.

36 Performance Summary Manager Asset Allocation & Performance As of March 31, 2014 Allocation Performance(%) Market Year Value To 1 3 5 10 Since Inception ($) % Quarter Date Year Years Years Years Inception Period Short Duration Fixed Income Barrow Hanley Short Fixed 15,964,566 8.0 0.2 (87) 0.2 (87) 0.5 (61) 1.1 (81) 1.8 (87) 2.7 (57) 0.7 (N/A) 1y 5m Barclays 1-3yr Gov/Credit 0.2 (77) 0.2 (77) 0.7 (46) 1.2 (75) 2.0 (84) 2.8 (54) 0.7 (N/A) Short Duration Fixed Peer Group Median 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.7 3.3 2.9 N/A

Cash Composite 2,569,245 1.3 0.2 (1) 0.2 (1) 0.5 (1) N/A N/A N/A 0.4 (N/A) 1y 5m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.0 (1) 0.0 (1) 0.0 (9) 0.1 (15) 0.1 (17) 1.6 (35) 0.1 (N/A) Money Market Funds Peer Group Median 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 N/A

Market Duration Fixed Income Dodge & Cox Income Fund 25,779,542 12.9 2.3 (27) 2.3 (27) 2.4 (9) 4.7 (29) 7.6 (34) 5.1 (25) 7.3 (N/A) 25y 3m Barclays Aggregate 1.8 (73) 1.8 (73) -0.1 (62) 3.7 (70) 4.8 (85) 4.5 (58) 6.8 (N/A) Market Duration Fixed Peer Group Median 2.0 2.0 0.4 4.3 6.9 4.7 N/A

Met West Total Return Fund I 25,653,291 12.8 1.8 (76) 1.8 (76) 1.3 (18) 5.9 (10) 9.5 (10) 6.5 (1) 2.3 (N/A) 1y 5m Barclays Aggregate 1.8 (73) 1.8 (73) -0.1 (62) 3.7 (70) 4.8 (85) 4.5 (58) -0.1 (N/A) Market Duration Fixed Peer Group Median 2.0 2.0 0.4 4.3 6.9 4.7 N/A

Hedge Fund of Funds Lighthouse Diversified 10,750,501 5.4 2.9 2.9 11.6 5.2 8.1 5.0 11.0 1y 5m HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 0.4 0.4 5.9 2.3 4.9 3.1 7.8

Pointer Offshore LTD 9,746,038 4.9 0.8 0.8 10.9 7.5 9.7 8.8 12.6 1y 3m HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 0.4 0.4 5.9 2.3 4.9 3.1 7.5

Real Estate Oaktree RE Opportunities Fund V 4,916,719 2.5 0.0 0.0 5.5 N/A N/A N/A 4.1 1y 2m NCREIF Property Index 0.0 0.0 8.2 10.7 7.3 8.4 8.6

Walton Street Real Estate Fund VII, L.P. 2,225,314 1.1 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.9 0y 9m NCREIF Property Index 0.0 0.0 8.2 10.7 7.3 8.4 5.2

Total Plan Total Cash Balance Plan 199,864,811 100.0 1.1 (81) 1.1 (81) 12.2 (27) 9.1 (45) 16.0 (15) 6.6 (28) 13.4 (N/A) 1y 5m Total Cash Balance Plan Benchmark 1.3 (74) 1.3 (74) 10.3 (73) 9.0 (49) 14.1 (58) 6.2 (47) 11.9 (N/A) Pre-Pavilion Total Cash Balance Plan Benchmark 2.6 (10) 2.6 (10) 12.6 (20) 10.5 (16) 15.0 (32) 6.7 (28) 15.2 (N/A) Total Cash Balance Plan Peer Group Median 1.7 1.7 11.2 9.0 14.4 6.1 N/A

______Returns are expressed as percentages. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Peer group percentile ranks are shown in parentheses.

37 Cash Balance Plan - Asset Class Diversification

38 Asset Class Diversification Total Cash Balance Plan vs. Cash Balance Plan Target Allocation As of March 31, 2014 March 31, 2014 : $199,864,811

32.0%

Domestic Equity Composite 33.1% $66,222,003 1.1%

18.0%

International Equity Composite 18.0% $36,037,592 0.0%

5.0%

Short Duration Fixed Income Composite 9.3% $18,533,811 4.3%

25.0% Market Duration Fixed Income Composite 25.7% $51,432,833 0.7%

20.0% Alternatives Composite 13.8% $27,638,572 -6.2 %

-16.0 % -8.0 % 0.0% 8.0% 16.0% 24.0% 32.0% 40.0% 48.0%

39 Asset Class Diversification Cash Balance Plan Investment Program Structure As of March 31, 2014

Weighting Total Assets Percent of Target Relative to Target Manager Asset Class/Type ($, mil.) Total Allocation1 Target Range1

Large-Cap Domestic Equity $ 55.7 27.9% 27.0% + 0.9% Vanguard S&P 500 Index Large-Cap Index $ 27.7 13.8% 13.5% + 0.3% Sands Large-Cap Growth $ 13.9 7.0% 6.8% + 0.2%

Barrow Hanley Large-Cap Value $ 14.2 7.1% 6.8% + 0.3% 27-37%

Small-Cap Domestic Equity $ 10.5 5.2% 5.0% + 0.2% Cortina Small-Cap Growth $ 5.3 2.7% 2.5% + 0.2% Wellington Small-Cap Value $ 5.2 2.6% 2.5% + 0.1%

International Equity $ 36.0 18.0% 18.0% + 0.0% 15-21% Walter Scott Developed and Emerging $ 17.7 8.9% 9.0% - 0.1% Harbor Developed and Emerging $ 18.3 9.2% 9.0% + 0.2%

Short-Duration Fixed Income $ 18.5 9.3% 5.0% + 4.3% 0-8% Barrow Hanley Short Duration $ 16.0 8.0% 5.0% + 3.0% Cash Money Market $ 2.6 1.3% 0.0% + 1.3%

Market-Duration Fixed Income $ 51.4 25.7% 25.0% + 0.7% 20-30% Dodge & Cox Market Duration $ 25.8 12.9% 12.5% + 0.4% MetWest Market Duration $ 25.7 12.8% 12.5% + 0.3%

Alternatives $ 27.6 13.8% 20.0% - 6.2% 17-23% Lighthouse HFOF $ 10.8 5.4% 5.0% + 0.4% Pointer HFOF $ 9.7 4.9% 5.0% - 0.1% Oaktree RE Opportunities Real Es tate $ 4.9 2.5% 5.0% - 2.5% Walton Street Real Es tate $ 2.2 1.1% 5.0% - 3.9%

Total $199.9 100.0% ______*Totals may not add due to rounding. 1 The Target Allocation was changed as of March 31, 2014 to reflect the allocation of the Investment Policy Statement. The underweight to alternatives is a result of unfunded capital commitments to private real estate. Performance benchmarks will change to reflect the timing of investments.

40 Equity Portfolio - Characteristics Cash Balance Plan Equity Composite vs. MSCI AC World Index As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Top Ten Equity Holdings Portfolio Benchmark Portfolio Benchmark Active Quarterly Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($M) 80,120 84,491 Weight Weight Weight Return Median Mkt. Cap ($M) 14,109 8,689 (%) (%) (%) (%) Price/Earnings ratio 18.3 16.0 Google Inc 1.4 0.9 0.5 -0.6 Price/Book ratio 2.6 2.4 Visa Inc 1.2 0.3 0.9 -2.9 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 9.4 8.6 Amazon.com Inc 1.0 0.3 0.7 -15.7 Current Yield (%) 2.0 2.6 Novo Nordisk A/S 0.9 0.3 0.7 26.4 Debt to Equity 0.8 1.2 Wells Fargo & Co 0.9 0.7 0.2 10.3 Number of Stocks 807 2,441 Roche Holding AG 0.9 0.6 0.3 10.2 Beta (5 Years, Monthly) 1.00 1.00 Microsoft Corp 0.9 0.9 0.0 10.4 Consistency (5 Years, Monthly) 65.00 1.00 Priceline.Com Inc 0.8 0.2 0.7 2.5 Sharpe Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 1.28 1.13 SAP AG Systeme Anwendungen 0.8 0.2 0.6 -5.7 Information Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 0.76 - JPMorgan Chase & Co 0.8 0.6 0.2 4.5 Up Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 107.94 - Down Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 96.96 - % of Portfolio 9.5 5.0

Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Sector Weights (%) 60.0 13.1 Consumer Discretionary 11.7 9.1 Consumer Staples 9.7 Energy 9.6 45.0 42.4 42.6 9.7 16.3 37.4 Financials 21.5 35.3 15.8 Health Care 10.6 30.0 10.6 Industrials 10.8 15.1 21.8 Information Technology 12.7 Materials 4.9 15.0 6.1 10.7 1.7 Telecommunication Services 3.9 7.7 2.0 Utilities 3.3 1.9 0.3 0.0 1.9 0.0 Cash 0.0 >$59 Bil $15 Bil - $2 Bil - $0 - Cash $59 Bil $15 Bil $2 Bil 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Total Equity Composite MSCI AC World Index Total Equity Composite MSCI AC World Index

41 Equity Portfolio - Country/Region Allocation Cash Balance Plan Equity Composite vs. MSCI AC World Index As of March 31, 2014 Total Equity Total Equity Composite MSCI AC World Index Composite MSCI AC World Index Australia 1.5 2.9 Brazil 0.4 1.2 Hong Kong 2.0 1.7 Cayman Islands 0.0 0.0 Japan 4.8 7.3 Chile 0.0 0.2 New Zealand 0.0 0.0 Colombia 0.0 0.1 Singapore 0.6 0.6 Mexico 0.0 0.5 Pacific 9.0 12.5 Peru 0.0 0.0 Austria 0.2 0.1 Virgin Islands 0.0 0.0 Belgium 0.7 0.4 EM Latin America 0.4 2.0 Finland 0.4 0.3 China 0.8 1.3 France 4.8 3.6 India 0.0 0.7 Germany 2.5 3.5 Indonesia 0.0 0.3 Ireland 0.6 0.5 Korea 0.0 1.7 Italy 0.4 0.9 Malaysia 0.2 0.4 Netherlands 1.1 1.3 Philippines 0.0 0.1 Portugal 0.0 0.1 Taiwan 0.5 1.2 Spain 1.1 1.3 Thailand 0.0 0.2 EMU 11.8 12.0 EM Asia 1.5 6.0 Denmark 0.9 0.5 Czech Republic 0.0 0.0 Norway 0.0 0.3 Egypt 0.0 0.0 Sweden 1.4 1.2 Greece 0.0 0.1 Switzerland 4.7 3.7 Hungary 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom 6.7 7.8 Poland 0.0 0.2 Europe ex EMU 13.7 13.6 Russia 0.0 0.6 Canada 0.7 3.7 South Africa 0.0 0.8 United States 60.2 48.0 Turkey 0.0 0.2 Israel 0.5 0.2 EM Europe + Middle East + Africa 0.0 1.9 Middle East 0.5 0.2 Emerging Markets 1.9 9.8 Developed Markets 96.0 90.0 Frontier Markets 0.0 0.0 Cash 1.9 0.0 Other 0.2 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0

42 Fixed Income Portfolio - Characteristics Cash Balance Plan Fixed Income Composite vs. Total Fixed Income Benchmark As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Credit Quality Distribution (%)

Portfolio Benchmark 100.0 Effective Duration 3.8 4.6 Avg. Maturity 6.3 6.1 Avg. Quality A+ AA+ 75.0 73.1 Yield To Maturity (%) 2.4 1.9

52.4 50.0

Risk Characteristics - 5 Years Up Down 25.0 18.2 Sharpe Information Market Market 14.4 Consistency Ratio Ratio Capture Capture 10.9 10.7 6.6 5.3 4.1 1.3 2.9 Total Fixed Income Composite 66.7 2.5 1.2 131.0 31.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Fixed Income Benchmark 0.0 1.8 N/A 100.0 100.0 A A A B B B B d A A B B te A B w a 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 26.7 N/A -1.8 1.2 -1.0 lo R e t B o N

Total Fixed Income Composite Total Fixed Income Benchmark

Maturity Distribution (%) Sector Distribution (%)

80.0 60.0

60.0 45.0 44.0

46.4 35.2

40.0 30.0 27.7 29.1 29.0 27.9 20.9 16.5 17.8 20.0 17.6 15.0 12.2 13.9 8.1 6.1 7.1 6.9 5.6 6.8 3.8 4.0 4.4 2.0 2.2 0.0 1.5 0.9 0.4 0.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10.0 r s s s s s Y r r r r r s S s it d S S S g s h r S Y Y Y Y Y e e d l n l s e 1 ri IP i e ie B B -U i a a th B 3 5 0 0 0 u T c r Y M A n rg ip M < < < 1 2 2 s n C e ic C O a e h o n C 1 3 < < > e g ig N m 5 0 r A E u 1 T H M

Total Fixed Income Composite Total Fixed Income Benchmark Total Fixed Income Composite Total Fixed Income Benchmark

43 Performance Summary Cash Balance Plan Private Real Estate Investment As of March 31, 2014 ($ in Millions)

Vintage Committed Paid-in Outstanding Market Total Net Partnership Year Fund Type Capital Capital Commitment Value1 Distributions Value IRR2 TV / PI Oaktree RE Opportunities VI 2012 Private RE $8.4 $7.6 $3.4 $4.9 $2.8 $7.7 3.2% 1.0 Walton Street RE Fund VII 2012 Private RE $8.4 $2.2 $6.2 $2.2 $0.3 $2.6 8.3% 1.2

44 Manager Evaluation

45 Manager Evaluation Vanguard S&P 500 Index vs. S&P 500 As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Vanguard S&P 500 Index 1.8 1.8 21.8 14.6 21.2 7.4 32.3 16.0 2.1 15.0 26.6 -37.0 5.5 15.8 4.9 10.9 S&P 500 1.8 1.8 21.9 14.7 21.2 7.4 32.4 16.0 2.1 15.1 26.5 -37.0 5.5 15.8 4.9 10.9 Large-Cap Equity Peer Group Median 1.5 1.5 21.9 13.2 20.1 7.2 32.4 14.6 -1.0 14.0 27.8 -37.5 6.2 13.3 5.9 10.2 Vanguard S&P 500 Index Rank 41 41 52 27 31 45 51 36 22 38 56 45 55 32 62 44

Three Year Rolling Percentile Ranking Relative Performance 0 0.2 k

n 0.1 a 25 ) R % e ( l

i t n

r n 0.0 u e t c

50 e r e R P

n -0.1

r u t 75 e R -0.2 6/04 6/05 6/06 6/07 6/08 6/09 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 3/14 100 6/04 6/05 6/06 6/07 6/08 6/09 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 3/14 Cumulative Annualized Over/Under Relative Performance

Vanguard S&P 500 Index S&P 500 Over/Under Performance

Historical Statistics (Apr-2009 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Vanguard S&P 500 Index 21.2 15.7 20.8 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 8.1 30.0 23y 8m S&P 500 21.2 15.7 20.8 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.0 N/A 8.1 0.0 23y 8m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 15.7 -1.3 0.0 20.0 23y 8m

46 Manager Evaluation Vanguard S&P 500 Index vs. S&P 500 As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Top Ten Equity Holdings Portfolio Benchmark Portfolio Benchmark Active Quarterly Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($M) 117,990 117,990 Weight Weight Weight Return Median Mkt. Cap ($M) 16,984 16,984 (%) (%) (%) (%) Price/Earnings ratio 17.6 17.6 Apple Inc 2.9 2.9 0.0 -3.8 Price/Book ratio 2.8 2.8 Exxon Mobil Corp 2.5 2.5 0.0 -2.8 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 9.9 9.9 Google Inc 1.9 1.9 0.0 -0.6 Current Yield (%) 2.0 2.0 Microsoft Corp 1.9 1.9 0.0 10.4 Debt to Equity 0.8 0.8 Johnson & Johnson 1.7 1.7 0.0 8.0 Number of Stocks 500 500 General Electric Co 1.6 1.6 0.0 -6.8 Beta (5 Years, Monthly) 1.00 1.00 Wells Fargo & Co 1.4 1.4 0.0 10.3 Consistency (5 Years, Monthly) 33.33 1.00 JPMorgan Chase & Co 1.4 1.4 0.0 4.5 Sharpe Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 1.46 1.46 Chevron Corp 1.4 1.4 0.0 -4.0 Information Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) -0.05 - Berkshire Hathaway Inc 1.4 1.4 0.0 5.4 Up Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 100.01 - Down Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 100.05 - % of Portfolio 17.9 17.9

Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Sector Weights (%)

80.0 12.1 Consumer Discretionary 12.1 9.7 Consumer Staples 9.7 60.0 Energy 10.1 54.3 54.3 10.1 16.4 Financials 16.4 Health Care 13.4 40.0 13.4 34.3 34.3 10.7 Industrials 10.7 18.6 Information Technology 18.6 20.0 3.5 Materials 3.5 11.4 11.4 2.5 Telecommunication Services 2.5 3.1 0.0 Utilities 3.1 >$59 Bil $15 Bil - $2 Bil - $59 Bil $15 Bil 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Vanguard S&P 500 Index S&P 500 Vanguard S&P 500 Index S&P 500

47 Manager Evaluation Sands Large Cap Growth (Touchstone) vs. Russell 1000 Growth Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Sands LCG (Touchstone) 0.6 0.6 32.7 19.8 29.9 N/A 41.3 23.8 2.3 26.3 71.1 -48.5 18.7 -5.9 N/A N/A Russell 1000 Growth Index 1.1 1.1 23.2 14.6 21.7 7.9 33.5 15.3 2.6 16.7 37.2 -38.4 11.8 9.1 5.3 6.3 Large Cap Growth Peer Group Median 0.3 0.3 23.7 13.3 20.4 7.5 34.6 14.6 -0.8 15.3 33.4 -38.3 13.8 7.1 6.2 7.7 Sands LCG (Touchstone) Rank 43 43 8 4 5 N/A 13 1 21 1 1 98 24 100 N/A N/A

Three Year Rolling Percentile Ranking Risk and Return (Apr - 2009 - Mar - 2014)

0 50.0 k n a R 25 e

l 40.0

i ) t % n ( e c 50 n

r r 30.0 e u t P

e Sands LCG (Touchstone) n

R r 75 u

t 20.0 e Russell 1000 Growth Index R 100 6/04 6/05 6/06 6/07 6/08 6/09 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 3/14 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 Sands LCG (Touchstone) Russell 1000 Growth Index Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Buy and Hold Attribution

Cash 0.9 0.0 0.0 Consumer Discretionary 5.5 -0.2 -0.3 0.0 Consumer Staples -11.9 0.1 0.0 -0.5 Energy 6.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 Financials -3.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 Health Care 3.8 0.1 0.9 0.2 Industrials -12.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 Information Technology 14.8 0.1 -1.7 0.0 Materials -1.9 0.0 -0.1 -1.5 Telecommunication Services -2.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 Utilities -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -40.0 -20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Average Active Weight Allocation Stock (Total: 0.5) (Total: -1.1) Sands LCG (Touchstone)

Differences between the manager return and the attribution return are due primarily to the effects of fees and portfolio trading.

48 Manager Evaluation Sands Large Cap Growth (Touchstone) vs. Russell 1000 Growth Index As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Top Ten Equity Holdings Portfolio Benchmark Portfolio Benchmark Active Quarterly Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($M) 71,479 98,236 Weight Weight Weight Return Median Mkt. Cap ($M) 34,831 8,349 (%) (%) (%) (%) Price/Earnings ratio 36.8 19.7 Visa Inc 7.1 1.2 6.0 -2.9 Price/Book ratio 6.2 4.5 Google Inc 6.3 3.1 3.3 -0.6 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 21.2 14.1 Amazon.com Inc 5.8 1.3 4.6 -15.7 Current Yield (%) 0.4 1.6 Priceline.Com Inc 5.4 0.6 4.8 2.5 Debt to Equity 0.3 1.4 Salesforce.com Inc. 4.9 0.3 4.6 3.4 Number of Stocks 30 626 Facebook Inc 4.3 1.1 3.2 10.2 Beta (5 Years, Monthly) 1.17 1.00 Baidu Inc 4.3 0.0 4.3 -14.4 Consistency (5 Years, Monthly) 58.33 1.00 Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc 4.3 0.2 4.1 6.6 Sharpe Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 1.57 1.46 Schlumberger Ltd 3.8 1.3 2.4 8.7 Information Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 1.05 - Biogen Idec Inc 3.7 0.7 2.9 9.4 Up Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 124.42 - Down Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 105.32 - % of Portfolio 49.9 9.7

Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Sector Weights (%)

60.0 25.8 Consumer Discretionary 19.2 0.0 48.5 Consumer Staples 11.7 46.4 11.9 42.3 Energy 4.8 2.5 40.0 Financials 5.5 Health Care 18.2 30.2 12.4 0.0 Industrials 12.3 37.5 21.2 Information Technology 27.2 20.0 2.7 Materials 4.6 10.0 0.0 Telecommunication Services 2.2 Utilities 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 Cash 0.0 >$59 Bil $15 Bil - $2 Bil - $0 - Cash $59 Bil $15 Bil $2 Bil 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Sands Large Cap Growth (Touchstone) Sands Large Cap Growth (Touchstone)

Russell 1000 Growth Index Russell 1000 Growth Index

49 Manager Evaluation Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value vs. Russell 1000 Value Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value 3.7 3.7 25.7 15.5 21.6 8.1 34.7 15.3 2.3 10.8 23.7 -35.3 1.9 14.6 10.0 20.5 Russell 1000 Value Index 3.0 3.0 21.6 14.8 21.8 7.6 32.5 17.5 0.4 15.5 19.7 -36.8 -0.2 22.2 7.1 16.5 Large Cap Value Peer Group Median 1.9 1.9 21.4 13.2 20.0 7.1 31.7 15.0 -1.5 13.5 25.4 -37.3 2.9 16.6 6.1 12.5 Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value Rank 9 9 13 14 23 23 27 47 19 85 62 28 58 71 15 1

Three Year Rolling Percentile Ranking Risk and Return (Apr - 2009 - Mar - 2014)

0 22.0 k n a R 25 e l

i ) t 21.8 % n ( e c 50 n

r r Russell 1000 Value Index e u t P e n

R r 75 21.6

u Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value t e R 100 6/04 6/05 6/06 6/07 6/08 6/09 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 3/14 21.4 16.2 16.4 16.6 16.8 17.0 17.2 Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value Russell 1000 Value Index Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Buy and Hold Attribution

Cash 4.7 -0.1 0.0 Consumer Discretionary -2.9 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Consumer Staples -2.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 Energy -2.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 Financials -2.7 0.0 -0.6 0.1 Health Care 10.0 0.5 0.2 -0.6 Industrials 1.6 0.0 0.5 0.7 Information Technology -1.5 0.0 0.4 0.4 Materials -2.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 Telecommunication Services 2.7 0.0 -0.3 0.0 Utilities -4.9 -0.3 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -1.2 -0.6 0.0 0.6 1.2 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Average Active Weight Allocation Stock (Total: 0.2) (Total: 0.3) Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value

Differences between the manager return and the attribution return are due primarily to the effects of fees and portfolio trading.

50 Manager Evaluation Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value vs. Russell 1000 Value Index As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Top Ten Equity Holdings Portfolio Benchmark Portfolio Benchmark Active Quarterly Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($M) 110,364 112,687 Weight Weight Weight Return Median Mkt. Cap ($M) 67,776 6,640 (%) (%) (%) (%) Price/Earnings ratio 14.8 16.2 Unitedhealth Group Inc 3.7 0.9 2.8 9.3 Price/Book ratio 2.0 2.0 Wells Fargo & Co 3.6 2.5 1.1 10.3 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 10.0 6.2 American Express Co 3.5 0.0 3.5 -0.5 Current Yield (%) 2.8 2.2 Medtronic Inc 3.3 0.7 2.7 7.2 Debt to Equity 1.4 1.0 JPMorgan Chase & Co 3.2 2.4 0.8 4.5 Number of Stocks 43 664 BP PLC 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.1 Beta (5 Years, Monthly) 0.97 1.00 Pfizer Inc 3.1 2.3 0.9 5.8 Consistency (5 Years, Monthly) 43.33 1.00 Raytheon Co. 3.0 0.3 2.7 9.6 Sharpe Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 1.42 1.42 Microsoft Corp 2.9 0.0 2.9 10.4 Information Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) -0.03 - State Street Corp 2.9 0.3 2.5 -4.9 Up Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 96.36 - Down Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 91.06 - % of Portfolio 32.3 9.4

Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Sector Weights (%) 80.0 3.5 Consumer Discretionary 6.4 4.1 Consumer Staples 5.8 60.9 13.0 60.0 Energy 14.5 26.5 Financials 29.1 47.8 24.9 Health Care 13.5 40.0 11.7 Industrials 10.2 33.0 31.3 8.7 Information Technology 9.0 0.0 20.6 Materials 20.0 2.9 4.8 Telecommunication Services 2.5 0.9 4.0 Utilities 6.1 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 Cash 0.0 >$59 Bil $15 Bil - $2 Bil - $0 - Cash $59 Bil $15 Bil $2 Bil 0.0 8.0 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value Russell 1000 Value Index Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value Russell 1000 Value Index

51 Manager Evaluation Cortina Small Cap Growth vs. Russell 2000 Growth Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Cortina Small Cap Growth 0.2 0.2 32.2 12.9 28.3 N/A 49.2 6.5 2.2 36.1 50.8 -45.4 11.5 11.4 5.0 N/A Russell 2000 Growth Index 0.5 0.5 27.2 13.6 25.2 8.9 43.3 14.6 -2.9 29.1 34.5 -38.5 7.0 13.3 4.2 14.3 Small Cap Growth Peer Group Median 0.5 0.5 28.2 13.6 25.0 8.4 44.7 12.7 -2.7 27.7 34.5 -40.6 9.9 9.9 5.8 11.3 Cortina Small Cap Growth Rank 60 60 28 60 10 N/A 22 92 15 5 9 82 39 42 59 N/A

Three Year Rolling Percentile Ranking Risk and Return (Apr - 2009 - Mar - 2014)

0 36.0 k n a R 25 e

l 32.0

i ) t % n ( e c 50 n

r r 28.0 e u t P Cortina Small Cap Growth e n

R r 75 u t 24.0 Russell 2000 Growth Index e R 100 6/04 6/05 6/06 6/07 6/08 6/09 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 3/14 20.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 Cortina Small Cap Growth Russell 2000 Growth Index Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Buy and Hold Attribution

Cash 3.6 0.0 0.0 Consumer Discretionary -7.9 0.4 0.8 0.0 Consumer Staples -3.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Energy 3.6 0.1 0.4 0.0 Financials 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.5 Health Care 9.0 0.3 -0.6 0.6 Industrials -6.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 Information Technology 2.7 0.0 -1.5 -0.2 Materials -5.1 0.0 0.0 -1.5 Telecommunication Services 2.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 Utilities -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 -15.0 0.0 15.0 30.0 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Average Active Weight Allocation Stock (Total: 0.8) (Total: -0.3) Cortina Small Cap Growth

Differences between the manager return and the attribution return are due primarily to the effects of fees and portfolio trading.

52 Manager Evaluation Cortina Small Cap Growth vs. Russell 2000 Growth Index As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Top Ten Equity Holdings Portfolio Benchmark Portfolio Benchmark Active Quarterly Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($M) 858 2,108 Weight Weight Weight Return Median Mkt. Cap ($M) 640 883 (%) (%) (%) (%) Price/Earnings ratio 43.6 24.8 Spectranetics Corp(The) 2.0 0.1 1.8 21.2 Price/Book ratio 3.5 4.0 AtriCure Inc 1.8 0.1 1.8 0.7 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 6.6 14.9 inContact Inc 1.7 0.1 1.6 22.9 Current Yield (%) 0.1 0.6 STAAR Surgical Company 1.6 0.1 1.5 16.1 Debt to Equity 0.3 0.9 HeartWare International Inc 1.4 0.2 1.3 -0.1 Number of Stocks 109 1,156 Inphi Corp 1.4 0.0 1.4 24.7 Beta (5 Years, Monthly) 1.04 1.00 Boulder Brands Inc 1.4 0.1 1.3 11.1 Consistency (5 Years, Monthly) 55.00 1.00 InterXion Holding NV 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.6 Sharpe Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 1.31 1.27 Webmd Health Corp 1.3 0.1 1.2 4.8 Information Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 0.45 - Vocera Communications Inc 1.3 0.0 1.3 4.6 Up Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 105.41 - Down Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 96.27 - % of Portfolio 15.3 0.8

Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Sector Weights (%) 150.0 11.8 Consumer Discretionary 15.8 2.4 Consumer Staples 4.9 7.7 Energy 3.8 100.0 Financials 8.0 91.7 7.3 26.9 Health Care 21.7 9.8 Industrials 15.7 28.3 54.6 Information Technology 24.7 45.4 50.0 0.0 Materials 5.1 2.9 Telecommunication Services 0.9 0.0 Utilities 0.1 6.2 2.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 Cash 0.0 $2 Bil - $0 - Cash $15 Bil $2 Bil 0.0 8.0 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 Cortina Small Cap Growth Russell 2000 Growth Index Cortina Small Cap Growth Russell 2000 Growth Index

53 Manager Evaluation Wellington Small Cap Value vs. Russell 2000 Value Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Wellington Small Cap Value 1.4 1.4 21.2 14.5 25.2 11.0 33.7 15.6 1.2 26.4 31.2 -26.5 -3.0 19.9 10.4 20.8 Russell 2000 Value Index 1.8 1.8 22.6 12.7 23.3 8.1 34.5 18.1 -5.5 24.5 20.6 -28.9 -9.8 23.5 4.7 22.2 Small Cap Value Peer Group Median 1.5 1.5 24.4 13.4 24.6 8.6 37.0 16.2 -3.5 25.9 29.7 -35.9 -4.5 15.9 6.7 19.8 Wellington Small Cap Value Rank 52 52 79 25 42 3 72 55 9 44 44 10 40 20 16 40

Three Year Rolling Percentile Ranking Risk and Return (Apr - 2009 - Mar - 2014)

0 30.0 k n a R 25 e l

i ) t 27.0 % n ( e c 50 n

r r e u t P

e Wellington Small Cap Value n

R r 75 24.0 u t e

R Russell 2000 Value Index 100 6/04 6/05 6/06 6/07 6/08 6/09 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 3/14 21.0 17.6 18.0 18.4 18.8 19.2 19.6 20.0 20.4 Wellington Small Cap Value Russell 2000 Value Index Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Buy and Hold Attribution

Cash 7.3 -0.1 0.0 Consumer Discretionary 1.8 0.0 0.3 -0.1 Consumer Staples -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 Energy -1.7 -0.1 -0.5 0.0 Financials -19.1 0.0 -0.2 -0.6 Health Care 5.9 0.0 0.5 -0.2 Industrials 4.4 -0.1 -0.5 0.5 Information Technology 2.6 0.0 0.3 -0.6 Materials 1.8 0.0 -0.1 0.3 Telecommunication Services -0.6 0.0 0.0 -0.1 Utilities -2.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.2 -40.0 -20.0 0.0 20.0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 -1.2 -0.6 0.0 0.6 1.2 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Average Active Weight Allocation Stock (Total: -0.4) (Total: -0.3) Wellington Small Cap Value

Differences between the manager return and the attribution return are due primarily to the effects of fees and portfolio trading.

54 Manager Evaluation Wellington Small Cap Value vs. Russell 2000 Value Index As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Top Ten Equity Holdings Portfolio Benchmark Portfolio Benchmark Active Quarterly Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($M) 1,736 1,688 Weight Weight Weight Return Median Mkt. Cap ($M) 1,529 633 (%) (%) (%) (%) Price/Earnings ratio 19.8 18.5 Belden Inc 3.5 0.0 3.5 -1.1 Price/Book ratio 2.0 1.7 Helen of Troy Ltd 3.0 0.3 2.7 40.2 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 7.5 7.5 Mueller Industries Inc. 2.4 0.0 2.4 -4.6 Current Yield (%) 1.5 2.0 Charles River Laboratories International Inc 2.3 0.0 2.3 13.8 Debt to Equity 0.7 0.9 G&K Services Inc 2.2 0.1 2.1 -1.3 Number of Stocks 76 1,374 GATX Corp. 2.2 0.0 2.2 30.8 Beta (5 Years, Monthly) 0.89 1.00 AmSurg Corp 2.1 0.1 2.0 2.5 Consistency (5 Years, Monthly) 51.67 1.00 United Stationers Inc 2.0 0.2 1.8 -10.2 Sharpe Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 1.40 1.21 Webster Financial Corp 1.9 0.3 1.6 0.1 Information Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 0.32 - Scorpio Tankers Inc 1.9 0.2 1.7 -14.8 Up Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 94.35 - Down Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 78.88 - % of Portfolio 23.5 1.3

Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Sector Weights (%) 100.0 11.6 Consumer Discretionary 10.2 3.2 Consumer Staples 2.5 5.6 75.0 Energy 7.5 66.6 20.9 Financials 39.8 57.5 11.9 Health Care 4.8 50.0 18.1 Industrials 13.2 37.8 13.8 33.4 Information Technology 10.6 Materials 6.8 25.0 4.6 0.0 Telecommunication Services 0.5 3.3 4.7 Utilities 6.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 Cash 0.0 $2 Bil - $0 - Cash $15 Bil $2 Bil 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Wellington Small Cap Value Russell 2000 Value Index Wellington Small Cap Value Russell 2000 Value Index

55 Manager Evaluation Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) vs. MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) -2.6 -2.6 2.6 4.3 13.3 N/A 9.0 21.0 -9.9 14.0 34.9 -31.6 8.5 N/A N/A N/A MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) 0.5 0.5 12.3 4.1 15.5 7.1 15.3 16.8 -13.7 11.2 41.4 -45.5 16.7 26.7 16.6 20.9 International Equity Peer Group Median 0.6 0.6 16.1 6.4 15.9 6.9 20.8 18.4 -13.7 11.6 33.5 -44.4 11.9 25.2 15.0 18.5 Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) Rank 99 99 100 81 89 N/A 100 25 19 34 45 1 76 N/A N/A N/A

Three Year Rolling Percentile Ranking Risk and Return (Apr - 2009 - Mar - 2014)

0 21.0 k n a R 25 e

l 18.0

i ) t % n ( e c 50 n

r r 15.0 e u MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) t P e n

R r 75 u

t 12.0 Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) e R 100 6/04 6/05 6/06 6/07 6/08 6/09 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 3/14 9.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Buy and Hold Attribution

Cash 2.7 0.0 0.0 Consumer Discretionary 6.0 -0.1 -1.4 0.0 Consumer Staples 7.0 0.0 -0.2 -1.5 Energy 3.7 0.0 -0.7 -0.2 Financials -12.8 0.1 -0.8 -0.7 Health Care 4.9 0.3 0.4 -0.7 Industrials -5.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 Information Technology -1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Materials -2.5 0.0 -0.2 0.0 Telecommunication Services -4.1 0.2 -0.1 -0.2 Utilities 2.0 0.1 -0.6 0.0 -0.4 -30.0 -15.0 0.0 15.0 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 -2.4 -1.6 -0.8 0.0 0.8 1.6 Average Active Weight Allocation Stock (Total: 0.6) (Total: -3.6) Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus)

Differences between the manager return and the attribution return are due primarily to the effects of fees and portfolio trading.

56 Manager Evaluation Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) vs. MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) 1 Quarter Ending March 31, 2014 Total Attribution

Cash 0.0 EM Asia 0.2 EM Europe + Middle East + Africa 0.1 EM Latin America -0.1 EMU -1.7 Europe ex EMU -0.6 Frontier Markets 0.0 Middle East -0.1 North America -0.1 Other 0.0 Pacific -0.8

-2.7 -2.4 -2.1 -1.8 -1.5 -1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Performance Attribution

Cash 2.7 0.0 0.0 EM Asia -8.7 0.0 0.2 EM Europe + Middle East + Africa -3.7 0.1 0.0 EM Latin America -2.6 0.0 -0.1 EMU -5.5 -0.1 -1.5 Europe ex EMU 8.2 0.1 -0.6 Frontier Markets 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle East -0.3 -0.1 0.0 North America -5.1 -0.1 0.0 Other 0.3 0.0 0.0 Pacific 14.7 -0.5 -0.3

-20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 -2.4 -1.8 -1.2 -0.6 0.0 0.6 1.2

Average Active Weight Allocation Stock (Total: -0.6) (Total: -2.4)

57 Manager Evaluation Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) vs. MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Top Ten Equity Holdings Portfolio Benchmark Portfolio Benchmark Active Quarterly Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($M) 59,505 57,884 Weight Weight Weight Return Median Mkt. Cap ($M) 32,622 7,072 (%) (%) (%) (%) Price/Earnings ratio 17.2 14.4 Novo Nordisk A/S 2.6 0.5 2.1 26.4 Price/Book ratio 2.5 2.0 Smith & Nephew PLC 2.3 0.1 2.3 6.3 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 4.1 6.5 Hennes & Mauritz Ab, Stockholm 2.3 0.2 2.0 -7.7 Current Yield (%) 2.8 3.1 Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co 2.3 0.5 1.7 14.8 Debt to Equity 0.5 1.2 Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC 2.3 0.3 2.0 4.2 Number of Stocks 57 1,832 Inpex Corp 2.3 0.1 2.2 2.1 Beta (5 Years, Monthly) 0.79 1.00 Fanuc Corp 2.2 0.2 2.1 -3.1 Consistency (5 Years, Monthly) 46.67 1.00 Woolworths Ltd 2.2 0.2 2.0 11.3 Sharpe Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 0.89 0.87 Industria De Diseno Textil Inditex SA 2.2 0.2 2.0 -9.1 Information Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) -0.44 - Roche Holding AG 2.2 1.2 1.1 10.2 Up Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 80.66 - Down Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 77.23 - % of Portfolio 22.8 3.4

Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Sector Weights (%) 80.0 15.5 Consumer Discretionary 10.8 16.8 Consumer Staples 9.9 12.3 60.0 Energy 9.1 53.2 13.2 Financials 26.6 14.0 Health Care 8.2 40.0 37.3 Industrials 7.1 33.9 11.2 31.5 5.6 28.2 Information Technology 6.8 Materials 6.1 20.0 8.7 1.6 12.8 Telecommunication Services 5.2 5.2 Utilities 3.5 2.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.4 0.0 Cash 0.0 >$59 Bil $15 Bil - $2 Bil - $0 - Cash $59 Bil $15 Bil $2 Bil 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 30.0 36.0 Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) MSCI AC World ex USA (Net)

58 Manager Evaluation Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) vs. MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) - Country/Region Allocation As of March 31, 2014 Walter Scott Int'l MSCI AC World ex Walter Scott Int'l MSCI AC World ex (Dreyfus) USA (Net) (Dreyfus) USA (Net) Australia 8.8 5.7 Brazil 0.0 2.3 Hong Kong 10.0 3.3 Cayman Islands 0.0 0.0 Japan 18.5 14.2 Chile 0.0 0.3 New Zealand 0.0 0.1 Colombia 0.0 0.2 Singapore 2.0 1.1 Mexico 0.0 1.1 Pacific 39.3 24.3 Peru 0.0 0.1 Austria 0.0 0.2 Virgin Islands 0.0 0.0 Belgium 1.4 0.9 EM Latin America 0.0 4.0 Finland 2.1 0.7 China 1.2 2.6 France 7.7 7.1 India 0.0 1.4 Germany 4.1 6.8 Indonesia 0.0 0.5 Ireland 0.0 0.2 Korea 0.0 3.2 Italy 0.0 1.8 Malaysia 0.0 0.8 Netherlands 0.0 2.2 Philippines 0.0 0.2 Portugal 0.0 0.1 Taiwan 2.3 2.4 Spain 2.2 2.5 Thailand 0.0 0.5 EMU 17.6 22.5 EM Asia 3.5 11.7 Denmark 2.6 1.0 Czech Republic 0.0 0.1 Norway 0.0 0.6 Egypt 0.0 0.0 Sweden 2.3 2.4 Greece 0.0 0.1 Switzerland 10.4 6.7 Hungary 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom 19.2 15.2 Poland 0.0 0.4 Europe ex EMU 34.5 25.9 Russia 0.0 1.1 Canada 2.1 7.3 South Africa 0.0 1.6 United States 0.0 0.0 Turkey 0.0 0.3 Israel 0.0 0.4 EM Europe + Middle East + Africa 0.0 3.6 Middle East 0.0 0.4 Emerging Markets 3.5 19.3 Developed Markets 93.6 80.4 Frontier Markets 0.0 0.0 Cash 2.4 0.0 Other 0.5 0.2 Total 100.0 100.0

59 Manager Evaluation Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) vs. MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) 1.0 1.0 15.6 6.8 18.3 9.6 16.8 20.9 -11.1 12.0 38.6 -42.7 21.8 32.7 20.8 18.0 MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) 0.5 0.5 12.3 4.1 15.5 7.1 15.3 16.8 -13.7 11.2 41.4 -45.5 16.7 26.7 16.6 20.9 International Equity Peer Group Median 0.6 0.6 16.1 6.4 15.9 6.9 20.8 18.4 -13.7 11.6 33.5 -44.4 11.9 25.2 15.0 18.5 Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) Rank 40 40 56 45 22 11 79 26 26 48 33 35 8 6 15 55

Three Year Rolling Percentile Ranking Risk and Return (Apr - 2009 - Mar - 2014)

0 24.0 k n a R 25 e l

i ) t 20.0 % n ( e c 50 n

r r e u t P Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) e n

R r 75 16.0 u t

e MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) R 100 6/04 6/05 6/06 6/07 6/08 6/09 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 3/14 12.0 20.0 20.4 20.8 21.2 21.6 22.0 22.4 Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Buy and Hold Attribution

Cash 2.7 0.0 0.0 Consumer Discretionary 1.5 0.0 -0.2 0.0 Consumer Staples 4.5 0.0 0.0 -0.2 Energy -4.3 0.0 -0.3 0.0 Financials -3.6 0.0 0.9 -0.3 Health Care 1.8 0.1 0.4 0.9 Industrials 6.8 0.0 0.3 0.5 Information Technology -3.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Materials 2.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 Telecommunication Services -5.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 Utilities -3.3 -0.2 0.0 0.2 -0.2 -16.0 -8.0 0.0 8.0 16.0 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 -0.8 0.0 0.8 1.6 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Average Active Weight Allocation Stock (Total: 0.1) (Total: 1.3) Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor)

Differences between the manager return and the attribution return are due primarily to the effects of fees and portfolio trading.

60 Manager Evaluation Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) vs. MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) 1 Quarter Ending March 31, 2014 Total Attribution

Cash 0.0 EM Asia 0.1 EM Europe + Middle East + Africa 0.1 EM Latin America 0.2 EMU 0.1 Europe ex EMU 0.4 Frontier Markets 0.0 Middle East -0.1 North America -0.2 Other 0.0 Pacific 0.7

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Performance Attribution

Cash 2.7 0.0 0.0 EM Asia -7.0 0.0 0.1 EM Europe + Middle East + Africa -3.7 0.1 0.0 EM Latin America -2.1 0.0 0.2 EMU 19.4 0.5 -0.3 Europe ex EMU 8.3 0.1 0.4 Frontier Markets 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle East -0.3 -0.1 0.0 North America -3.9 0.0 -0.2 Other -0.2 0.0 0.0 Pacific -13.1 0.4 0.2

-30.0 -15.0 0.0 15.0 30.0 45.0 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9

Average Active Weight Allocation Stock (Total: 0.9) (Total: 0.4)

61 Manager Evaluation Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) vs. MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Top Ten Equity Holdings Portfolio Benchmark Portfolio Benchmark Active Quarterly Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($M) 71,831 57,884 Weight Weight Weight Return Median Mkt. Cap ($M) 35,480 7,072 (%) (%) (%) (%) Price/Earnings ratio 15.5 14.4 Schneider Electric SA 2.9 0.3 2.7 1.5 Price/Book ratio 2.1 2.0 Roche Holding AG 2.8 1.2 1.7 10.2 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 5.3 6.5 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA Bbva 2.8 0.4 2.4 -0.7 Current Yield (%) 2.3 3.1 Axa, Paris 2.6 0.3 2.4 -6.7 Debt to Equity 1.0 1.2 Novo Nordisk A/S 2.6 0.5 2.1 26.4 Number of Stocks 74 1,832 Rolls Royce Holdings PLC 2.6 0.2 2.4 -15.2 Beta (5 Years, Monthly) 1.06 1.00 SAP AG Systeme Anwendungen 2.5 0.4 2.1 -5.7 Consistency (5 Years, Monthly) 53.33 1.00 Lloyds Banking Group PLC 2.4 0.3 2.0 -4.7 Sharpe Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 0.94 0.87 Diageo PLC 2.3 0.4 1.9 -3.0 Information Ratio (5 Years, Monthly) 0.70 - Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV 2.3 0.5 1.9 -1.5 Up Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 109.25 - Down Market Capture (5 Years, Monthly) 102.47 - % of Portfolio 25.8 4.4

Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Sector Weights (%) 60.0 10.9 Consumer Discretionary 10.8 15.0 Consumer Staples 9.9 45.2 44.7 3.1 45.0 Energy 9.1 22.7 37.3 Financials 26.6 33.9 10.4 Health Care 8.2 30.0 28.2 19.3 Industrials 11.2 3.3 Information Technology 6.8 Materials 11.9 15.0 8.7 0.0 Telecommunication Services 5.2 6.7 0.0 3.4 Utilities 3.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.4 0.0 Cash 0.0 >$59 Bil $15 Bil - $2 Bil - $0 - Cash $59 Bil $15 Bil $2 Bil 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 30.0 36.0 Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) MSCI AC World ex USA (Net)

62 Manager Evaluation Northern Cross (Harbor Int'l) vs. MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) - Country/Region Allocation As of March 31, 2014 Harbor International MSCI AC World ex Harbor International MSCI AC World ex Fund USA Fund USA Australia 0.0 5.7 Brazil 2.0 2.3 Hong Kong 1.6 3.3 Cayman Islands 0.0 0.0 Japan 9.1 14.2 Chile 0.0 0.3 New Zealand 0.0 0.1 Colombia 0.0 0.2 Singapore 1.4 1.1 Mexico 0.0 1.1 Pacific 12.1 24.3 Peru 0.0 0.1 Austria 1.2 0.2 Virgin Islands 0.0 0.0 Belgium 2.3 0.9 EM Latin America 2.0 4.0 Finland 0.0 0.7 China 0.0 2.6 France 17.2 7.1 India 0.0 1.4 Germany 10.1 6.8 Indonesia 0.0 0.5 Ireland 1.6 0.2 Korea 0.0 3.2 Italy 2.2 1.8 Malaysia 1.1 0.8 Netherlands 2.8 2.2 Philippines 0.0 0.2 Portugal 0.0 0.1 Taiwan 0.8 2.4 Spain 4.3 2.5 Thailand 0.0 0.5 EMU 41.5 22.5 EM Asia 1.9 11.7 Denmark 2.6 1.0 Czech Republic 0.0 0.1 Norway 0.0 0.6 Egypt 0.0 0.0 Sweden 5.7 2.4 Greece 0.0 0.1 Switzerland 15.1 6.7 Hungary 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom 12.7 15.2 Poland 0.0 0.4 Europe ex EMU 36.1 25.9 Russia 0.0 1.1 Canada 1.3 7.3 South Africa 0.0 1.6 United States 1.7 0.0 Turkey 0.0 0.3 Israel 0.0 0.4 EM Europe + Middle East + Africa 0.0 3.6 Middle East 0.0 0.4 Emerging Markets 3.9 19.3 Developed Markets 92.7 80.4 Frontier Markets 0.0 0.0 Cash 3.4 0.0 Other 0.0 0.2 Total 100.0 100.0

63 Manager Evaluation Barrow Hanley Short Fixed vs. Barclays 1-3yr Gov/Credit As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Barrow Hanley Short Fixed 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.7 2.7 0.4 1.0 1.5 2.4 4.0 4.9 6.8 4.3 1.8 2.2 Barclays 1-3yr Gov/Credit 0.2 0.2 0.7 1.2 2.0 2.8 0.6 1.3 1.6 2.8 3.8 5.0 6.8 4.3 1.8 1.3 Short Duration Short Duration Peer Group Median 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.7 3.3 2.9 0.3 2.7 1.4 3.4 6.7 -0.1 5.4 4.2 1.6 1.8 Barrow Hanley Short Fixed Rank 69 69 51 83 87 58 46 86 46 83 76 26 12 44 33 25

Three Year Rolling Percentile Ranking Risk and Return (Apr-2009 - Mar-2014) 0 2.4 k n

a 25

R 2.1 e l

i ) t % n ( e Barclays 1-3yr Gov/Credit c 50 n

r r

e 1.8 u t P e n

R r Barrow Hanley Short Fixed u t 75 e

R 1.5

100 6/04 6/05 6/06 6/07 6/08 6/09 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 3/14 1.2 0.8 0.9 Barrow Hanley Short Fixed Barclays 1-3yr Gov/Credit Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Apr-2009 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Barrow Hanley Short Fixed 1.7 0.9 1.6 -0.1 1.0 1.9 0.2 -1.3 0.2 25.0 23y Barclays 1-3yr Gov/Credit 2.0 0.9 1.8 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.0 N/A 0.1 0.0 23y 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.9 -2.1 0.0 10.0 23y

64 Manager Evaluation Barrow Hanley Short Fixed vs. Barclays 1-3yr Gov/Credit As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Credit Quality Distribution (%) Portfolio Benchmark 100.0 Effective Duration 1.8 2.0 Avg. Maturity 1.8 2.0 76.4 Avg. Quality A+ AA+ 75.0 Yield To Maturity (%) 0.7 0.6

50.0

37.0

25.6 25.0 21.9 15.5 9.8 6.3 7.5 0.0 A A A B A A B A B

Barrow Hanley Short Fixed Barclays 1-3yr Gov/Credit

Maturity Distribution (%) Sector Distribution (%) 150.0 150.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

74.7 73.7 65.1

50.0 50.0

20.6 13.5 15.0 7.8 10.0 11.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 s s it S S g h r r e e d n s e rs rs ri i e B -U i a th Y u c r A n rg 1 Y Y s n C e C O 3 5 a e o < e g N m < < r A E 1 3 T

Barrow Hanley Short Fixed Barclays 1-3yr Gov/Credit Barrow Hanley Short Fixed Barclays 1-3yr Gov/Credit

65 Manager Evaluation Dodge & Cox Fixed Income vs. Barclays Aggregate As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Dodge & Cox Fixed Income 2.4 2.4 2.3 4.6 7.6 5.1 0.3 8.1 4.8 7.2 16.1 -0.3 4.7 5.3 2.0 3.6 Barclays Aggregate 1.8 1.8 -0.1 3.7 4.8 4.5 -2.0 4.2 7.8 6.5 5.9 5.2 7.0 4.3 2.4 4.3 Market Duration Peer Group Median 2.0 2.0 0.4 4.3 6.9 4.7 -1.8 7.0 6.7 7.5 12.5 -1.7 5.7 4.2 2.1 4.3 Dodge & Cox Fixed Income Rank 24 24 10 32 36 25 8 31 89 62 25 44 69 13 65 78

Three Year Rolling Percentile Ranking Risk and Return (Apr-2009 - Mar-2014) 0 12.0 k n

a 25

R 9.0 e l

i ) t % n ( e Dodge & Cox Fixed Income c 50 n

r r

e 6.0 u t P e n

R r

u Barclays Aggregate t 75 e

R 3.0

100 6/04 6/05 6/06 6/07 6/08 6/09 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 3/14 0.0 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 Dodge & Cox Fixed Income Barclays Aggregate Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Apr-2009 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Dodge & Cox Fixed Income 7.6 3.9 7.4 4.4 0.7 1.9 3.5 0.8 0.9 80.0 25y 3m Barclays Aggregate 4.8 3.1 4.7 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.0 N/A 1.2 0.0 25y 3m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 3.1 -1.5 0.0 20.0 25y 3m

66 Manager Evaluation Dodge & Cox Fixed vs. Barclays Aggregate As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Credit Quality Distribution (%) Portfolio Benchmark 100.0 Effective Duration 4.6 5.7 Yield To Maturity (%) 2.7 2.4

Avg. Maturity 7.5 7.7 75.0 71.8 Avg. Quality A+ AA+

50.0 49.4

28.4 25.0

11.2 11.3 12.0 7.5 4.9 1.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 A A A B B B A A B B A B

Dodge & Cox Fixed Barclays Aggregate

Maturity Distribution (%) Sector Distribution (%) 60.0 60.0

45.0 40.9 40.6 40.0 35.6 36.4 31.9 30.0 29.2 25.0 25.8 19.5 20.0 19.1

10.9 11.7 15.0 9.6 10.0 6.9 5.3 7.7 6.9 3.8 4.7 5.7 1.8 1.7 2.3 2.9 1.7 0.0 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 r s s s s s Y r r r r r s s it d S S S g s h S Y Y Y Y Y e e d l n l s 1 ri i e ie B B -U i a a B 3 5 0 0 0 u c r Y M A n rg ip M < < < 1 2 2 s n C e ic C a e h o n C 1 3 < < > e g ig N m 5 0 r A E u 1 T H M

Dodge & Cox Fixed Barclays Aggregate Dodge & Cox Fixed Barclays Aggregate

67 Manager Evaluation MetWest Fixed vs. Barclays Aggregate As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 MetWest Fixed 1.8 1.8 0.0 4.9 8.9 6.3 -1.5 11.0 5.5 11.7 17.3 -1.3 6.5 7.2 3.3 5.4 Barclays Aggregate 1.8 1.8 -0.1 3.7 4.8 4.5 -2.0 4.2 7.8 6.5 5.9 5.2 7.0 4.3 2.4 4.3 Market Duration Peer Group Median 2.0 2.0 0.4 4.3 6.9 4.7 -1.8 7.0 6.7 7.5 12.5 -1.7 5.7 4.2 2.1 4.3 MetWest Fixed Rank 81 81 61 22 15 4 40 4 80 4 19 48 27 1 1 19

Three Year Rolling Percentile Ranking Risk and Return (Apr-2009 - Mar-2014) 0 15.0 k n

a 25 R e l

) 10.0 t % n ( e c 50 n

r MetWest Fixed r e u t P e n

R r u t 75 5.0 e

R Barclays Aggregate

100 6/04 6/05 6/06 6/07 6/08 6/09 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 3/14 0.0 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 MetWest Fixed Barclays Aggregate Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Apr-2009 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date MetWest Fixed 8.9 4.4 8.6 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.1 1.3 0.9 70.0 17y Barclays Aggregate 4.8 3.1 4.7 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.0 N/A 1.2 0.0 17y 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 3.1 -1.5 0.0 20.0 17y

68 Manager Evaluation MetWest Fixed vs. Barclays Aggregate As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Credit Quality Distribution (%) Portfolio Benchmark 100.0 Effective Duration 4.7 5.7 Yield To Maturity (%) 2.7 2.4

Avg. Maturity 7.2 7.7 75.0 71.8 Avg. Quality AA+ AA+ 64.0

50.0

25.0 14.8 12.0 9.4 11.3 4.9 6.6 5.3 0.0 0.0 A A A B B A A B B A B

MetWest Fixed Barclays Aggregate

Maturity Distribution (%) Sector Distribution (%) 75.0 60.0

45.0 50.0 48.7 35.6 34.2 40.6 30.0 29.2

25.0 25.0 17.7 19.1 18.5 19.5 15.9 15.6 15.0 9.6 8.3 8.8 6.9 7.6 4.7 5.3 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.3 2.3 3.0 2.3 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 r s s s s s Y r r r r r s S s it d S S S g s h r S Y Y Y Y Y e e d l n l s e 1 ri IP i e ie B B -U i a a th B 3 5 0 0 0 u T c r Y M A n rg ip M < < < 1 2 2 s n C e ic C O a e h o n C 1 3 < < > e g ig N m 5 0 r A E u 1 T H M

MetWest Fixed Barclays Aggregate MetWest Fixed Barclays Aggregate

69 Manager Evaluation Lighthouse Diversified vs. HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Lighthouse Diversified 2.9 2.9 11.6 5.2 8.1 5.0 11.4 6.4 -1.2 6.0 18.0 -22.6 10.4 12.5 8.4 6.4 HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 0.4 0.4 5.9 2.3 4.9 3.1 9.0 4.8 -5.7 5.7 11.5 -21.4 10.3 10.4 7.5 6.9

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Apr-2009 - Mar-2014) 12.0 12.0

) 6.0 % 9.0 ( n

) r u % Lighthouse Diversified t ( e

0.0 n

r R 6.0 u e t

v e i t R

c HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index A -6.0 3.0

-12.0 12/96 6/98 12/99 6/01 12/02 6/04 12/05 6/07 12/08 6/10 12/11 3/14 0.0 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Apr-2009 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Lighthouse Diversified 8.1 5.1 7.9 3.3 1.0 1.5 1.8 1.7 2.0 75.0 17y 8m HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 4.9 5.0 4.8 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 N/A 2.8 0.0 17y 8m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 5.0 -1.0 0.0 25.0 17y 8m

70 Manager Evaluation Lighthouse Diversified As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Region Allocation Portfolio Net Exposure % 28.9 Leverage 1.8 Manager Count 34 Asia 11.0% # Managers Funded 1 # Managers Redeemed 0 Europe 17.0%

Latin America 1.0% United States 71.0%

Asset Breakdown

Cash 0.8% Credit Relative Value Arbitrage 18.4% 20.6%

Fixed Income 10.9%

Market Neutral Equity 14.3% Global Trading 5.3%

Long/Short 29.7%

71 Manager Evaluation Pointer Offshore LTD vs. HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Pointer Offshore LTD 0.8 0.8 10.9 7.5 9.7 8.8 15.1 7.0 4.3 11.2 14.8 -16.5 30.4 11.1 10.5 8.6 HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 0.4 0.4 5.9 2.3 4.9 3.1 9.0 4.8 -5.7 5.7 11.5 -21.4 10.3 10.4 7.5 6.9

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Apr-2009 - Mar-2014) 16.0 20.0

) 15.0 8.0 % ( n

) r u % t

( 10.0 e

0.0 n

r Pointer Offshore LTD R u e t

v e i

t 5.0 R c HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index A -8.0 0.0

-16.0 9/90 9/92 9/94 9/96 9/98 9/00 9/02 9/04 9/06 9/08 9/10 9/12 3/14 -5.0 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Apr-2009 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Pointer Offshore LTD 9.7 5.8 9.5 5.1 0.9 1.6 3.5 1.3 2.6 85.0 23y 9m HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 4.9 5.0 4.8 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 N/A 2.8 0.0 23y 9m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 5.0 -1.0 0.0 25.0 23y 9m

72 Manager Evaluation Pointer Offshore LTD As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Region Allocation Portfolio Net Exposure % 53.0 Asia Other Gross Exposure % 157.0 10.8% 13.8% Gross Long % 105.0 Gross Short % 52.0 Europe 13.1% Leverage 1.6 Manager Count 27 # Managers Funded 0 # Managers Redeemed 0

North America 62.3%

Strategy Allocation

Asia, 3.3% Special Situations, 5.8% Cash, 0.2% Healthcare, 5.6% Commodity Related, 1.4%

Distressed/Credit, 21.4%

Domestic, 3.8%

Financials, 3.4%

Global, 55.1%

73 Manager Evaluation Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VI As of December 31, 2013*

Administrative Facts Historical Investment Profile

Commencement of Operations 9/20/2012 Net Invested Capital Final Closing Date 9/20/2013 Investment Category # of Investments Total ($) % of Total Investment Period End Date 9/20/2016 Commercial 22 463.4 45.5% 1 Fund Closing Date 9/20/2022 Non-US 10 236.1 23.2% Fund Type Closed-end Residential 15 172.2 16.9% Total Committed Capital $2,677 FDIC/Bank Portfolios 9 97 9.5% % Drawn2 70% Corporate 1 50 4.9% % Distributed 0% Total 57 1018.7 100% GP and Affiliates % of the Fund 3.0%

Top Ten Holdings Geographic Exposure Market Asset Type Investment Category % Value Wells Fargo Master Lease Portfolio Equity Commercial $77.0 7.4% 5.4% Lenexa CW Portfolio Equity Commercial $75.9 7.3% 7.1% Multi-Regional STORE Platform Equity Corporate $54.4 5.2% 6.6% 39.0% Mountain Bacchus Equity Non-US $49.6 4.8% Pacific Maxis Equity Non-US $38.8 3.7% Non-US Chase Residential NPL Pool Loan Residential $37.3 3.6% 23.2% Southeast Berlin Development Portfolio Debt Non-US $34.4 3.3% Northlake Equity Commercial $34.0 3.3% West North Central El Ad IDB Las Vegas Debt Commercial $27.3 2.6% 8.3% 10.4% Other Winnersh Equity Non-US $26.5 2.5%

Total $455.2 43.7%

______* Characteristics as of March 31, 2014 were unavailable at time of report production. 1 Fund Closing Date is subject to two possible one-year add-ons after September 20, 2022. 2 The percent drawn figure is as of April 22, 2014.

74 Manager Evaluation Walton Street Real Estate Fund VII As of March 31, 2014

Administrative Facts Historical Inve stment Profile

Committed Commencement of Operations 5/2/2013 Invested Capital Equity Final Closing Date 12/31/2013 Investment Period End Date 11/2/2017 Investment Category # of Investments Total ($) % of Total Total ($) Fund Closing Date 1 11/2/2023 Office 8 213.8 52.8% 263.6 Fund Type Closed-end Residential 9 87.7 21.7% 117.1 Total Committed Capital $1,278 Hotel 2 35.4 8.7% 35.4 % Drawn 26.1% NPLs 1 25.9 6.4% 23.4 % Distributed 0% Retail 1 34.9 8.6% 59.3 GP and Affiliates % of the Fund 7.7% Parking Garage 1 7.2 1.8% 7.198 Total 22 404.9 100% 506.0

Top Ten Holdings Geographic Exposure2

Investment Invested % of Investment Category Date Equity Total

237 Park Avenue Oct-13 Office $78.0 46.8%

Grocery Anchored Retail Portfolio Dec-13 Retail $34.9 20.9% 15.0% 20.2% Milestone Business Park Dec-13 Office $33.6 20.1%

Torrey Ridge Science Center Aug-12 Office $29.9 17.9% West Continental Towers May-13 Office $27.3 16.4% 12.5% Midwest NPL Platform Various NPLs $25.9 15.5% South Fairmont Ghiradelli Square Nov-12 Residential Lots $22.2 13.3% East San Mateo Plaza Oct-13 Office $20.5 12.3% 30.7% Various, U.S. Thomblade Portfolio Nov-13 Residential Lots $19.0 11.4% Mirasol at Celebration Aug-13 Residential Lots $17.3 10.4% 21.7% Total $308.6 184.9%

______1 Fund Closing Date is subject to two possible one-year add-ons after November 2, 2023. 2 Reflects only those holdings with invested equity.

75 Manager Evaluation District - Barrow Hanley vs. Barclays Govt 1-3 As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 District - Barrow Hanley 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.9 1.7 2.7 0.3 0.9 1.5 2.4 4.0 4.9 6.8 4.3 1.8 2.2 Barclays Govt 1-3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.6 0.4 0.5 1.6 2.4 1.4 6.7 7.1 4.1 1.7 1.1 Short Duration Fixed Peer Group Median 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.7 3.3 2.9 0.3 2.7 1.4 3.4 6.7 -0.1 5.4 4.2 1.6 1.8 District - Barrow Hanley Rank 93 93 72 86 88 60 54 87 46 83 76 26 12 44 33 25

Three Year Rolling Percentile Ranking Risk and Return (Apr-2009 - Mar-2014) 0 2.5 k n

a 25

R 2.0 e l

i ) t % n ( e c 50 n

r r District - Barrow Hanley

e 1.5 u t P e n

R r u t 75 e Barclays Govt 1-3

R 1.0

100 6/04 6/05 6/06 6/07 6/08 6/09 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 3/14 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 District - Barrow Hanley Barclays Govt 1-3 Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Apr-2009 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date District - Barrow Hanley 1.7 0.9 1.6 0.5 0.9 1.9 0.6 0.8 0.1 55.0 23y Barclays Govt 1-3 1.2 0.7 1.1 0.0 1.0 1.6 0.0 N/A 0.1 0.0 23y 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.7 -1.6 0.0 15.0 23y

76 Manager Evaluation District - Barrow Hanley vs. Barclays Govt 1-3 As of March 31, 2014 Portfolio Characteristics Credit Quality Distribution (%) Portfolio Benchmark 150.0 Effective Duration 1.8 1.9 Avg. Maturity 1.9 2.0 Avg. Quality AA+ AAA Yield To Maturity (%) 0.5 0.5 100.0 97.3 83.0

50.0

10.7 6.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 A A A A A A

District - Barrow Hanley Barclays Govt 1-3

Maturity Distribution (%) Sector Distribution (%) 150.0 150.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 89.4 84.3 74.4

50.0 50.0

17.0 13.7 10.6 5.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 s s it S S h r s s ie ie d B B s Y r r r c e a Y Y u n r M A C 1 s e C < 3 5 a g < < re A 1 3 T

District - Barrow Hanley Barclays Govt 1-3 District - Barrow Hanley Barclays Govt 1-3

77 Capital Markets Review

78 Capital Markets Review Economy Housing Permits Weather and Russian Aggression Drive Markets 600 • Intense weather patterns affected the U.S. economy to a greater extent than seen in many New England Midwest years. The Federal Reserve tied weather extremes to nearly every major data point in 500 South West their outlook for first quarter growth, setting expectations lower for GDP segments not

s 400 tied to energy. d n a

s 300

u • The western half of the U.S. was hit with a withering drought, which challenged farmers o h

T 200 to find alternative irrigation sources. Cities imposed strict limits on residential water usage, and the country braced for higher fruit prices emanating from under-producing 100 California farms. Ranchers struggled to find adequate grasslands for livestock, even as Source: Bloomberg herds were thinned over the past several years. Beef prices hit a multi-year high as a 0 8 9 0 1 2 3 8 9 0 1 2 3 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 result. The eastern U.S. struggled through a winter that offered heavy snowstorms and 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 ------l l l l l l r r r r r r r v v v v v v u u u u u u a a a a a a a

o o o o o o bitter cold with ruthless repetitiveness. Consumers sheltered in their homes more often J J J J J J M M M M M M M N N N N N N than usual, turning malls and auto showrooms into ghost towns for days at a time. Retail Manufacturing PMI sales were hurt during the quarter, but as the temperature warms, consumers are likely to 58 release their pent-up shopping desires. 56 U.S. 54 • Housing construction has remained relatively level over the past year, with volatility 52 increasing in the southern U.S. The South depends on northern transplants to bolster 50 housing construction. As recent graduates faced a tough job market, their usual home 48 buying pattern shifted causing more to rent or live with parents. Older homebuyers rely China 46 on younger buyers moving up in home size in order to sell their own homes, and as the Eurozone 44 pattern has been disrupted, homebuilders have faced weaker demand. Growth > 50 42 Contraction < 50 Source: Bloomberg/Markit/HSBC 40 • Emerging markets faced continued headwinds from slogging commodity prices, 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 excepting energy. China’s manufacturing sector contracted as domestic demand and 1 1 1 ------l l l r r r y y y n n n v v v p p p u u u a a a a a a a a a e o e o e o

J J J exports weakened. A tepid Eurozone and struggling emerging economies contributed to J J J M M M S N S N S N M M M China’s export weakness. Foreign Currencies 6 • The Fed taper pressured foreign currencies as central banks struggled to either match 4 U.S. dollar movements by tightening or standing pat and dealing with rising inflation. 2

D Turkey’s central bank chose to raise interest rates, against the wishes of the Turkish S 0 U leadership, which was afraid of a public backlash. As the Federal Reserve stimulus had s -2 v

t to wind down at some point, countries whose currencies are tied to the U.S. dollar knew n -4 e

c that they would need to follow suit or face economic headwinds. r -6 e P -8 • Russia’s invasion of Crimea sparked worldwide condemnation. Sanctions imposed by -10 Source: Bloomberg the U.S. and its allies sent the Russian stock market tumbling while the ruble shed over -12 12/31/2013 1/31/2014 2/28/2014 3/31/2014 10% of its value for a short time. The Russian economy is likely to enter a recession as trade suffers. Europe worried about natural gas supplies, fearing that Putin could stop Canada Mexico Turkey China exports in retaliation of the sanctions. S. Korea Brazil Russia

79 Capital Markets Review Equities 1st Quarter 2014 Sector Returns First Quarter Equity Roller Coaster Ride Ends With Modest Utilities 9.5% Gains Health Care 5.7% • The global equity markets experienced a fair amount of day-to-day volatility caused by Materials 3.0% macroeconomic and geopolitical concerns that included Janet Yellen’s testimony on potential Financials 2.8% interest rate increases and Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula. Early in the quarter, Info Tech 2.2% risk aversion grew, equity markets tumbled, emerging market currencies sold off, and Russell 3000 2.0% economic data out of China and the U.S. was relatively weak. The markets, however, turned Financials 1.5% bullish in the latter half of the quarter as emerging market currencies stabilized, the outlook for Cons. Staples 0.6% military intervention in Ukraine waned, and weak U.S. data was attributed to brutal winter Industrials 0.5% weather. The rally helped the S&P 500 Index gain 1.8% during the quarter. Internationally, Telecom 0.4% developed markets outperformed emerging markets for the sixth straight quarter as the MSCI Cons. Disc. -2.1% EAFE Index advanced 0.7% while the MSCI EM Index returned -0.4%. -4.0% -1.0% 2.0% 5.0% 8.0% 11.0% Developed vs. Emerging Markets: 3 Year Relative Performance • During the first quarter, value companies significantly outperformed growth companies. From Rolling 3 Year Annualized Relative Returns a capitalization perspective, large-cap companies outperformed small-cap companies, however 30% the strongest returns came from the mid-cap segment. Sector performance was mixed. Within

e 20% the Russell 3000 Index, defensive sectors were the top performers, including utilities (+9.5%) c

n Developed Markets Outperformed and health care (+5.7%). The utilities sector’s high dividends attracted investors in today’s

a 10% low interest rate environment. Consumer discretionary (-2.1%) was the only sector to register m

r 0%

o a loss during the period, as harsh winter weather kept consumers home. f

r -10% e

P -20% • The MSCI EAFE Index advanced 0.7% during the first quarter. The European region (+2.1%) e

v -30% Emerging Markets Outperformed

i and, in particular, the Nordic countries (+4.7%) and EMU (+2.8%), performed best as t

a -40% investors cheered slow but stable economic growth and reduced austerity measures. Signs of l e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 economic improvement aided markets in peripheral countries Italy (+14.6%), Ireland R 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (+14.0%), and Portugal (+9.7%). The Pacific region (-2.5%) was weighed down by Japan (- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5.6%), as investor sentiment towards aggressive fiscal stimulus faded. Russell 3000 Price/Earnings Ratio Source: Pyramis Global Advisors 35 • Emerging market equities experienced pronounced volatility and fell in the first quarter. The MSCI EM Index returned -0.4%. A strong rally in the latter half of the quarter almost offset 30 losses experienced in January when developing countries’ currencies faced selling pressure. Despite currencies stabilizing later in the quarter, slowing Chinese economic growth and 25 political uncertainty in Russia and Ukraine weighed on performance across the developing world. China (-5.9%), Korea (-2.2%), and Russia (-14.5%) were major detractors among 20 developing countries while Indonesia (+21.2%), India (+8.2%), and Thailand (+7.4%) were notable contributors. 15 • Over the past two years, price-to-earnings ratios have risen on improving fundamentals and 10 investor confidence. U.S. equity valuations are now near their long-term averages. Non-U.S. Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar equity valuations, however, remain below long-term averages, with emerging market 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 valuations appearing least expensive.

Source: Russell Indices valuation data

80 Capital Markets Review Fixed Income Bond Bears Snooze in Q1 Duration-adjusted Excess Returns to Treasuries (bps) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1Q14 • Long-term U.S. Treasury yields declined amid soft economic data and ongoing stress in Aggregate -206 -710 746 171 -114 226 93 16 select emerging markets. The yield curve flattened during the quarter as short term yields rose marginally while ten and thirty year rates declined 31 and 40 basis points (bps), Agency -56 -110 288 77 -25 166 1 30 respectively. Bond markets continued to fixate on every comment released by the Federal MBS -177 -232 495 225 -106 91 98 -24 Reserve. Short-term rates increased in March after the Fed implied it may begin raising ABS -634 -2223 2496 169 52 246 24 19 rates sooner than investors anticipated, only to fall after Janet Yellen said rates might rise CMBS -435 -3274 2960 1501 47 841 97 65 six months after tapering ends. Nevertheless, all major fixed income benchmarks produced Credit -464 -1786 1990 192 -322 693 226 75 positive total returns during the quarter, as longer duration assets benefited from declining High Yield -777 -3832 5955 974 -240 1394 923 199 long-term rates while continued yield appetite supported credit-related sectors. The Emerging -457 -2842 3797 508 -537 1503 -32 127 Barclays Aggregate Index returned +1.8% in Q1, while other top performing market

Best Period Second Best Period Worst Period Second Worst Period Source: Barclays segments included long government/credit (+6.6%), municipals (+3.3%), and high yield (+3.0%). US Treasury Yield Curve Change by Maturity 1.2% • Investment grade credit spreads narrowed from 111 bps to 103 bps during the quarter and 1.0% the sector generated duration-adjusted excess returns to Treasuries of 75 bps. Spreads 0.8% 1Q14 grinded tighter amid healthy corporate fundamentals, low default rates, accommodative d l

e 1 Year Ending 1Q14 global central bank policy, and investors’ ongoing appetite for yield. Investment grade i 0.6% Y credit spreads, as represented by the Barclays U.S. Credit Index, are currently well-below n i 0.4%

e the ten year average and at the tightest level since the third quarter of 2007. Approximately g 0.2% n $300 billion of new investment grade corporate bond issuance came to market during the a

h 0.0%

C quarter, and many deals were three-to-four times oversubscribed, indicating continued -0.2% insatiable demand for credit. Below investment grade credit sectors also benefited, as high -0.4% yield corporates and bank loans generated total returns of +3.0% and +1.1%, respectively. -0.6% • The Agency MBS sector produced a total return of +1.6% during the quarter but lagged duration-adjusted Treasuries by 24 bps as spreads widened and a variety of technical forces Maturity (Years) Source: US Dept of The Treasury impacted the mortgage market. Since the end of 2013, the Fed has reduced its monthly Trailing 10-Year Investment Grade Credit Spreads mortgage purchase amount from $40 billion to $25 billion per month, the latter of which 600 accounts for approximately 70% to 80% of gross new issuance. Supply also pulled back as rising mortgage rates, coupled with severe winter weather, contributed to decreased new

) 500 S purchase applications and refinancing activity during the quarter. Supported by more A

O Barclays US Credit favorable supply/demand dynamics, CMBS and ABS spreads tightened 19 and 6 bps, (

d 400 a 10-Year Average respectively, leading to positive duration-adjusted excess returns to Treasuries. Non- e r

p Agency MBS produced positive returns during the quarter, as the sector continued to S 300 d

e generate interest given attractive loss-adjusted yields, appreciating home values, and a lack t s

u of new issue supply. j 200 d A - n

o 100 • Non-U.S. developed government bonds advanced during the quarter, returning +2.4% in i t

p local currency terms and +3.2% in U.S. dollar terms. Emerging markets were shaky to start O 0 the year as fears of QE reduction and heightened political tensions in the Ukraine, Turkey, and Venezuela led to a broad sell-off in January. However, most emerging markets

Date Source: Barclays recovered in February and March, leading to quarterly returns of +3.7% in hard currency bonds and +1.9% in local currency emerging debt.

81 Capital Markets Review Hedge Funds Hedge Funds Navigate Choppy Markets Returns as of March 31, 2014 • Hedge funds generated positive returns during the first quarter’s choppy market environment, with the HFR Hedge Fund Composite Index up 1.1%. The MSCI All-Country World Index suffered a First large sell-off in January (-4.0%) fueled by renewed concerns about slowing economic growth and Style Quarter 2013 political turmoil in many emerging market countries. Hedge funds largely protected capital during the downturn, with the Hedge Fund Composite Index losing only 50 basis points during the month. Convertible Arbitrage 2.1% 8.0% A sharp reversal in investor perspectives led to solid hedge fund gains in February (+1.9%), albeit not Distressed Securities 2.7% 14.1% enough to keep pace with global equities (+4.9%). March, however, proved to be more challenging Equity Hedge 1.3% 14.3% for hedge funds to navigate, as a late month correction among long equity holdings that had Equity Market Neutral 1.5% 6.4% previously outperformed hurt returns. Nonetheless, all strategies other than Global Macro remain in Ev ent Driven 1.8% 12.5% the black for the year. Global Macro -0.5% -0.5% • Global equity markets experienced big swings over the five trading days from March 20 to March 27, Merger Arbitrage 0.7% 4.7% and long/short equity managers struggled during this period. According to Goldman Sachs, the Hedge Fund Composite 1.1% 9.1% weekly return of its “GS VIP” Index, which is comprised of the 50 stocks that most frequently appear Fund of Funds 0.4% 9.0% among the top ten hedge fund holdings, had one of its worst weeks since 2001. The only periods MSCI A ll-Country World Index 1.2% 23.4% where the Index performed worse were the market retreats in 2002, 2008’s market meltdown, and the 2011 debt ceiling debacle. Despite headwinds in March, the HFR Equity Hedge Index finished the BC Aggregate Bond Index 1.8% -2.0% quarter up 1.3%, slightly ahead of the MSCI All-Country World Index. Source: Hedge Fund Research, Inc. • In a continuation of 2013’s trend, distressed hedge fund strategies were the top performers during the quarter (+2.7%). Many distressed hedge fund managers, particularly those that historically focused on U.S. investments, are building out European-focused distressed debt teams as interest in the 2,000 heavily discounted bonds of bankrupt European companies has grown steadily. The rising number of

s distressed assets being put up for sale by banks and other financial institutions in Europe has

d Launched

n 1,500 provided hedge fund managers with increased opportunities. u F

e • Global macro strategies continued to struggle during the first quarter. Managers that take long and g

d 1,000

e short positions in futures contracts accounted for the majority of the HFR Global Macro Index’s H

f decline. Highly levered exposure to equity markets hurt performance in January when the equity

o 500 markets sold off, while long exposure to bonds, metals and energy negatively contributed during r e March. On an annualized basis, the trailing three-year return of the Global Macro Index was a b

m 0 disappointing -4.6%. u N

e • The hedge fund industry has achieved near-record level assets under management. According to data

t -500 a compiled from eVestment, total hedge fund industry assets climbed 10% in 2013 to $2.86 trillion,

m Liquidated i

t modestly below the all-time high of $2.94 trillion reached in June 2008. s -1,000 E • Despite total hedge fund capital back up to near-record levels, new hedge fund launches during 2013 -1,500 fell to their lowest level in three years according to the latest HFR Market Microstructure Industry 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Report. In addition, fund liquidations increased to their highest level since 2009. Also notable was 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 the very wide performance dispersion between top and bottom decile managers across many hedge Source: Hedge Fund Research/ fund strategies during 2013. The top decile of all HFR Index constituents reported a gain of 41.6% The Wall Street Journal compared with a decline of 18.9% for the bottom decile. Wide dispersion of manager returns continued through the first quarter.

82 Capital Markets Review Real Assets Private Real Estate Returns Steady; Commodities Shrug Off Geopolitical Tensions Returns as of December 31, 2013 NCREIF 3 Mon. 1 Yr. 3 Yrs. 5 Yrs. 10 Yrs. • With interest rates and inflation holding steady at historically low levels, 2013 was the NCREIF 2.5% 11.0% 11.9% 5.7% 8.6% fourth consecutive year of double digit gains for private real estate (and sixteenth Apartments 2.5% 10.4% 12.3% 6.7% 8.4% consecutive quarter of positive gains). The NCREIF Property Index (“NPI”) returned Industrials 2.9% 12.3% 12.5% 5.1% 8.1% 2.5% in the fourth quarter and 11.0% for the year, lagging the broader equity market but Office 2.3% 9.9% 11.0% 4.3% 8.2% surpassing the bond market. Appreciation and income each achieved returns over 5% for Retail 2.7% 12.9% 12.7% 7.5% 10.1% the year with capital appreciation driven mostly from cap rate compression as net Hotel 2.3% 7.7% 9.2% 2.5% 6.9% operating income was flat on average. Industrial and retail properties outperformed other East 2.3% 9.3% 10.8% 5.3% 8.7% property types for the year. Within retail, sector returns continue to be bolstered by Midwest 2.1% 10.6% 10.9% 5.4% 7.2% regional and super regional malls while the warehouse subsector has led industrial South 2.8% 12.5% 12.1% 6.2% 8.5% properties. West 2.7% 11.8% 13.2% 5.8% 9.2% • Despite achieving strong and steady performance over the last four years, the private real Annual Closed-End Private Real Estate Fundraising estate market still has yet to achieve the same level of fundraising experienced pre-2008. 400 According to Preqin, during 2013 only $76 billion in capital was raised among 162 360 No. of Closed Funds funds, however, this was an improvement over 2012. 350 321 303 300 Aggregate Capital Raised ($, bil.) • In a reversal from 2013, domestic REITs generated an 8.8% return in the first quarter 250 224 compared to 1.8% for the S&P 500 due to solid quarterly earnings reports and a 190 195 200 185 continued low interest rate environment. International REITs were challenged (-1.2%) 162 141 by several factors including emerging markets growth concerns, particularly China, and 150 131 104 Ukraine geopolitical headlines. Investors remain wary on the outlook for REITs with a 100 64 67 76 backdrop of rising interest rates despite strong fundamentals. The real estate market 52 47 continues to witness little new construction, which has led to declining vacancy rates and 50 rent increases, in turn, improving earnings growth and rising dividends. 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 • Commodity markets bounced back during the first quarter of 2014 with a return of 7.0%, Year of Final Close Source: Preqin Real Estate Online which was well ahead of both equity and bond markets. Harsh weather throughout much DJ-UBS Commodity Index Components of the nation, fears of shortages due to geopolitical tensions in Ukraine, and declining Total Return Ending March 31, 2014 stockpiles of agricultural goods were all driving factors for the quarterly gain.

Allocation Segment 3 Months 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years • Softs were the best-performing sector in the Index, up 21.4%, and were driven by coffee 30.6% Energy 4.2% 2.3% -7.9% -2.8% (+58.2%) due to drought conditions in Brazil. Livestock and grains each were up over 14.6% Petroleum 0.5% 2.2% -1.3% 8.7% 16% during the quarter. In particular, concerns over potential embargos or military 15.0% Industrial Metals -4.6% -10.5% -14.4% 4.7% action drove up the prices of wheat and corn as Russia and Ukraine are large producers. 15.1% Precious Metals 5.4% -22.8% -8.6% 6.9% Additionally, Kansas, which accounts for approximately 20% of total U.S. wheat 24.6% Grains 16.1% 0.2% -1.2% 6.0% production, suffered extreme drought conditions further elevating prices. Industrial 5.7% Livestock 16.4% 20.0% -0.4% 1.2% metals were the worst-performing sector, down 4.6%. Weak manufacturing data from 9.0% Softs 21.4% 4.2% -14.7% 9.1% China, a stronger dollar, and some signs of a strengthening U.S. economy exerted 100.0% Total Market 7.0% -2.1% -7.4% 4.2% downward pressure on the metals subsectors. Source: Ibbotson

83 Capital Markets Review Private Equity Investment Horizon Pooled IRR as of 9/30/13 Strongest Quarter for Venture-Backed IPOs Since 2000 Fund Type 3 Months 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years 20 Years • Private equity performance data in the ThomsonOne database has yet to be updated for the Early Stage Venture 3.0% 4.7% 3.7% 0.6% 2.3% 21.1% fourth quarter of 2013. During 3Q13, buyout funds modestly outperformed public equity Balanced Venture 4.0% 6.2% 4.9% 2.1% 6.3% 10.0% markets, producing a pooled IRR of 5.4% versus 5.2% for the S&P 500. Venture capital Later Stage Venture 6.0% 18.5% 9.3% 6.4% 8.3% 13.6% funds lagged the S&P 500, producing a pooled IRR of 4.1%. Mega buyout and late stage All Venture 4.1% 8.2% 5.2% 2.3% 5.0% 14.8% Small Buyouts 0.2% 16.1% 5.9% 3.0% 11.2% 12.3% venture capital funds were the strongest performers for the quarter while small buyout was Medium Buyouts 2.0% 13.5% 9.6% 5.4% 9.9% 11.9% the worst performing fund segment. Buyout funds exceeded the return of public markets Large Buyouts 4.8% 17.1% 10.2% 6.3% 12.6% 10.3% over the trailing one-year period while venture capital funds trailed the S&P 500 by a large Mega Buyouts 6.8% 24.1% 13.7% 9.5% 9.2% 9.2% margin. However, there was a considerable performance disparity between early and late All Buyouts 5.4% 20.4% 11.5% 7.3% 10.9% 10.6% stage funds for the one-year period, as those segments produced pooled IRRs of 4.7% and Mezzanine 2.8% 13.9% 7.0% 4.6% 7.0% 7.6% 18.5%, respectively. Distressed/Turnaround 3.5% 15.8% 10.5% 10.3% 10.2% 10.2% All Private Equity 4.9% 17.4% 10.2% 6.7% 9.6% 11.2% • In total, private equity funds raised nearly $84 billion during 1Q14, 9% less than the prior S&P 500 5.2% 19.0% 16.2% 10.6% 8.0% 8.1% quarter but 20% more than the same period last year. After a flurry of activity in the second Source: Thomson Reuters ThomsonOne database, April 2014. Note: Data is continuously updated and is therefore subject to change. half of 2013, buyout funds had their lowest quarterly fundraising total since 3Q12, raising Global Fundraising approximately $33 billion. Conversely, venture capital funds experienced a substantial $120 improvement during 1Q14, raising more than $13 billion, an 89% increase from the prior quarter and nearly double the amount raised in the same period last year. U.S. venture firms, $100 which dominate the venture capital space, raised $9.4 billion during 1Q14, their highest $80 quarterly total in more than six years. s n o i l l $60 i B , • During 1Q14, buyout firms announced the fewest number of deals in a quarter in four years. $ $40 According to Preqin, 688 buyout-backed deals were announced during the first quarter, $20 down from 769 deals in the prior quarter and 733 deals in the same period last year. However, the aggregate value of buyout-backed deals increased by 31% during the quarter $0 as the average deal size significantly increased.

VC Buyout RealAssets Secondary Funds Distressed/SS Source: Thomson Reuters ThomsonOne database, April 2014. • Buyout-backed exit activity declined in 1Q14 relative to the prior quarter but remained Venture-Backed IPO Activity strong relative to historical averages. According to Preqin, there were 310 buyout-backed 40 20000 exits with an aggregate exit value of $87 billion in 1Q14, compared to 395 exits worth $94 35 billion in the prior quarter and 324 exits worth $52 billion in the same period last year. Since

A the beginning of 2006, there has been an average of 266 exits worth $58 billion per quarter.

30 15000 g g . s V l 25 a a l e • The first quarter of 2014 saw continued strength for the venture-backed IPO market led by u e D

20 10000 f ( the biotechnology sector. According to Thomson Reuters and the National Venture Capital o $

, # 15 M Association, there were 36 venture-backed IPOs in 1Q14, the highest quarterly total since i l l i 10 5000 o n 2000 and the fourth consecutive quarter with more than 20 venture-backed IPOs. Biotech s 5 ) companies represented 19 of the 36 IPOs that occurred during 1Q14. Venture-backed M&A 0 0 activity increased modestly during 1Q14, as 105 venture-backed M&A deals were completed versus 92 deals in the prior quarter and 86 deals in the same period last year. The

Venture-Backed IPOs # Venture-Backed IPOs $ Value average deal size for venture-backed M&A deals reached $259 million in 1Q14, the highest average since 2004. Source: Thomson Reuters & National Venture Capital Association, April 2014.

84 Capital Markets Review Index Returns As of March 31, 2014 (Percentage Return) Year To 1 2 3 5 7 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years Years Years Domestic Equity Indices Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 2.0 2.0 22.8 18.6 14.6 22.1 6.9 8.1 S&P 500 1.8 1.8 21.9 17.8 14.7 21.2 6.3 7.4 Russell 1000 Index 2.0 2.0 22.4 18.4 14.7 21.7 6.6 7.8 Russell 1000 Growth Index 1.1 1.1 23.2 16.5 14.6 21.7 8.2 7.9 Russell 1000 Value Index 3.0 3.0 21.6 20.2 14.8 21.8 4.8 7.6 Russell Midcap Index 3.5 3.5 23.5 20.4 14.4 25.6 7.7 10.1 Russell Midcap Growth Index 2.0 2.0 24.2 18.4 13.5 24.7 8.2 9.5 Russell Midcap Value Index 5.2 5.2 23.0 22.2 15.2 26.4 6.8 10.2 Russell 2000 Index 1.1 1.1 24.9 20.5 13.2 24.3 7.1 8.5 Russell 2000 Growth Index 0.5 0.5 27.2 20.7 13.6 25.2 8.6 8.9 Russell 2000 Value Index 1.8 1.8 22.6 20.3 12.7 23.3 5.4 8.1 International Equity Indices MSCI EAFE 0.7 0.7 17.6 14.4 7.2 16.0 1.3 6.5 MSCI EAFE Growth Index 0.1 0.1 14.9 13.1 7.2 15.9 2.2 6.6 MSCI EAFE Value Index 1.2 1.2 20.2 15.5 7.2 16.1 0.3 6.4 MSCI EAFE Small Cap 3.4 3.4 23.3 18.2 9.4 21.7 2.8 8.6 MSCI AC World Index 1.1 1.1 16.6 13.5 8.6 17.8 3.5 7.0 MSCI AC World ex US 0.5 0.5 12.3 10.3 4.1 15.5 1.7 7.1 MSCI Emerging Markets Index -0.4 -0.4 -1.1 0.6 -2.5 14.8 3.7 10.5 Fixed Income Indices Barclays Aggregate 1.8 1.8 -0.1 1.8 3.7 4.8 5.0 4.5 Barcap Intermediate U.S. Government/Credit 1.0 1.0 -0.1 1.7 3.1 4.2 4.5 3.9 Barclays U.S. Long Government/Credit 6.6 6.6 -0.9 3.9 9.0 9.1 7.5 6.5 Barclays US Corp: High Yield 3.0 3.0 7.5 10.3 9.0 18.2 8.7 8.7 BofA Merrill Lynch 3 Month US T-Bill 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 1.7 Barclays U.S. Treasury: U.S. TIPS 1.9 1.9 -6.5 -0.6 3.5 4.9 5.2 4.5 Citigroup Non-U.S. World Government Bond 3.2 3.2 2.4 0.1 1.4 4.1 4.9 4.3 JPM EMBI Global Diversified (external currency) 3.7 3.7 0.6 5.2 7.1 11.7 7.4 8.2 JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified (local currency) 1.9 1.9 -7.1 0.0 1.1 9.8 7.1 9.3 Real Asset Indices Dow Jones - UBS Commodity 7.0 7.0 -2.1 -2.6 -7.4 4.2 -2.7 0.4 Dow Jones Wilshire REIT 10.1 10.1 4.4 9.1 10.5 29.2 2.0 8.2

______Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.

85 Appendix

86 Appendix Surplus Cash Summary of Investment Decisions

Date Decision

July 2011 El Camino retained Stratford Advisory Group, Inc. (Stratford) as investment consultant for its Surplus Cash Plan.

May 2012 Stratford and El Camino management and Investment Committee recommended and the Board approved the following asset allocation:

Asset Class Target Allocation Range Domestic Equity 20% 17% to 23% International Equity 10% 8% to 12% Alternatives 20% 17% to 23% Broad Fixed Income 40% 35% to 45% Short Fixed Income 10% 8% to 12% Total Fund 100% ---

September 2012 Stratford changed its name to Pavilion Advisory Group, Inc. (Pavilion).

Pavilion recommended, the Investment Committee reviewed, and management approved the following investment lineup:

Manager Asset Class Target Allocation Vanguard S&P 500 Index Domestic Equity 7.5% Sands Large Cap Growth (Touchstone) Domestic Equity 3.75% Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value Domestic Equity 3.75% Cortina Small Cap Growth Domestic Equity 2.5% Wellington Small Cap Value Domestic Equity 2.5% Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) International Equity 5.0% Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) International Equity 5.0% Barrow Hanley Short Fixed Short Fixed Income 30%* Dodge & Cox Fixed Broad Fixed Income 20.0% MetWest Fixed Broad Fixed Income 20.0% Total 100.0%

*20% of the allocation is an interim election until the alternatives portfolio construction methodology is determined.

October 2012 Management hired Citigroup to transition assets from Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value to Wellington Small Cap Value and Cortina Small Cap Growth. Barrow Hanley Intermediate Duration Fixed Income and the Wells Capital Montgomery Fund were fully redeemed.

87 Appendix Surplus Cash Summary of Investment Decisions

Date Decision

October 2012 The Citigroup equity transition was completed.

The following managers were funded:

Manager Amount Funded (millions) Vanguard S&P 500 Index $37.3 Sands Large Cap Growth (Touchstone) $17.1 Cortina Small Cap Growth $11.4 Wellington Small Cap Value $11.4 Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) $22.8 Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) $23.0 Dodge & Cox Fixed $90.4 MetWest Fixed $91.1

November 2012 The following additional contributions were funded:

Manager Amount Funded (millions) Vanguard S&P 500 Index $3.0 Dodge & Cox Fixed $5.0 MetWest Fixed $5.0 Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) $1.0 Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) $1.0 Barrow Hanley Short Duration Fixed $5.0

December 2012 The following additional contributions were funded:

Manager Amount Funded (millions) MetWest Fixed $2.8 Barrow Hanley Short Duration Fixed $5.1

88 Appendix Surplus Cash Summary of Investment Decisions

Date Decision

January 2013 The following additional contributions were funded:

Manager Amount Funded (millions) Sands Large Cap Growth (Touchstone) $1.0 Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value $1.0 Cortina Small Cap Growth $1.3 Dodge & Cox Fixed $5.5 MetWest Fixed $2.4

February 2013 The Investment Committee recommended El Camino retain Pavilion for direct hedge fund advisory services.

The following additional contribution was funded:

Manager Amount Funded (millions) Wellingt on Small Cap Value $1.2

March 2013 The following additional contribution was funded:

Manager Amount Funded (millions) MetWest Fixed $1.6

May 2013 Eight hedge funds ($5 million each) were funded on May 1, 2013 for a total of $40 million.

July 2013 The remaining t wo hedge fund strategies ($5 million each) were funded on July 1, 2013 and August 1, 2013, respectively. The Direct Hedge Fund portfolio became fully invested.

September 2013 $14.0 million was committed to the Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VI and $6.6 million was called in September. $14.0 million was committed to the Walton Street Real Estate Fund VII.

October 2013 The following additional contributions were funded:

Manager Amount Funded (millions) MetWest Fixed $7.6 Dodge & Cox Fixed $5.5 Barrow Hanley Short Term Fixed - Non-District $3.0

89 Appendix Surplus Cash Summary of Investment Decisions

Date Decision

November 2013 $1.1 million of the capital committed to the Walton Street Real Estate Fund VII was called in November.

December 2013 The Indus Japan Fund was funded with an initial contribution of $5.0 million. An additional contribution of $1.5 million was made to the York Credit Opportunities Unit Trust. An additional contribution of $1.5 million was made to the Fir Tree International Value Fund. An additional contribution of $3.5 million was made to Barrow Hanley Short Term Fixed - District.

January 2014 The portfolio was rebalanced back towards target allocation with $16.0 million transferred out of domestic equity and into a combination of international equity ($2.5 million) and short term fixed income ($13.5 million).

$1.4 million of the capital committed to the Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VI was called in January.

February 2014 $2.5 million was transferred from the Wellington Small Cap Value Fund to the Cash Account.

March 2014 $1.4 million of the capital committed to the Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VI was called in March. $2.8 million of the capital committed to the Walton Street Real Estate Fund VII was called in March. A distribution payment of $0.2 million was made by the Walton Street Real Estate Fund VII in March.

April 2014 $1.4 million of the capital committed to the Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VI was called in April.

The following hedge funds were funded on April 1, 2014: Manager Amount Funded (millions) Marathon Special Opportunity Fund $5.5 Bloom Tree Offshore Fund $4.5 Tiger EyeFund $4.5 Moore Macro Managers Fund $6.0 Pine River Fund $6.0

Additional contributions of $1.0 million were made to both Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund and Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund.

90 Appendix Cash Balance Plan Summary of Investment Decisions

Date Decision

July 2011 El Camino retained Stratford Advisory Group, Inc. (Stratford) as investment consultant for its Cash Balance Plan.

May 2012 Stratford and El Camino management and Investment Committee recommended and the Board approved the following asset allocation:

Asset Class Target Allocation Range Domestic Equity 32% 27% to 37% International Equity 18% 15% to 21% Alternatives 20% 17% to 23% Broad Fixed Income 25% 20% to 30% Short Fixed Income 5% 0% to 8% Total Fund 100% ---

September 2012 Stratford changed its name to Pavilion Advisory Group, Inc. (Pavilion).

$5.6 million and $7.0 million employer contributions for Plan Year 2012 were made on September 13th and 14th, 2012, respectively.

Pavilion recommended, the Investment Committee reviewed, and management approved the following investment lineup:

Manager Asset Class Target Allocation Vanguard S&P 500 Index Domestic Equity 13.5% Sands Large Cap Growth (Touchstone) Domestic Equity 6.75% Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value Domestic Equity 6.75% Cortina Small Cap Growth Domestic Equity 2.5% Wellington Small Cap Value Domestic Equity 2.5% Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) International Equity 9.0% Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) International Equity 9.0% Barrow Hanley Short Fixed Short Fixed Income 5.0% Dodge & Cox Fixed Broad Fixed Income 12.5% MetWest Fixed Broad Fixed Income 12.5% Pointer* Hedge Fund of Funds 5.0% Lighthouse Diversified Hedge Fund of Funds 5.0% Oaktree Real Estate* Real Estate 5.0% Walton Street* Real Estate 5.0% Total 100.0%

*Barrow Hanley Short Fixed will be utilized as the interim holding for alternatives holdings that have not yet funded.

91 Appendix Cash Balance Plan Summary of Investment Decisions

Date Decision

October 2012 A $2.7 million employer contribution for Plan Year 2012 was made on October 12, 2012.

Management hired Citigroup to transition assets from Dodge & Cox Large Cap Value to Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value and Cortina Small Cap Growth.

The Citigroup equity transition was completed.

The following managers were funded:

Manager Amount Funded (millions) Vanguard S&P 500 Index $22.7 Sands Large Cap Growth (Touchstone) $11.3 Barrow Hanley Large Cap Value $11.3 Cortina Small Cap Growth $4.2 Wellington Small Cap Value $4.2 Walter Scott Int'l (Dreyfus) $15.1 Northern Cross Int'l (Harbor) $15.1 Barrow Hanley Short Fixed $19.4 MetWest Fixed $21.0 Lighthouse Diversified $8.4

December 2012 The following commitments were made:

Manager Amount Committed (millions) Oaktree Real Estate Opps Fund VI $8.4 Walton Street Real Estate Fund VII $8.4

January 2013 The following managers were funded:

Manager Amount Funded (millions) Pointer $8.4 Oaktree Real Estate Opps Fund VI $5.9

92 Appendix Cash Balance Plan Summary of Investment Decisions

Date Decision

January 2013 A $2.7 million employer contribution for Plan Year 2012 was made on January 14, 2013.

April 2013 A $3.0 million employer contribution for Plan Year 2012 was made on April 12, 2013 to the following managers:

Manager Amount Contributed (millions) Dodge & Cox Fixed $1.5 MetWest Fixed $1.5

June 2013 Walton Street Real Estate was funded with an initial contribution of $0.8 million

July 2013 A $3.0 million employer contribution and $4.3 million transfer from the cash account was made to the Barrow Hanley Short-Term Fixed Fund.

October 2013 A $3.0 million employer contribution was made to Dodge & Cox ($1.5 million) and MetWest ($1.5 million).

January 2014 The portfolio was rebalanced, reducing equity exp osure and distributing p roceeds to fixed income and hedge fund of funds managers.

$0.8 million of the capital committed to the Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VI was called in M arch.

February 2014 $0.8 million was transferred from the Wellingt on Small Cap Value Fund to the Cash Account.

March 2014 Distribution payments of $0.1 million were made by the Walton Street Real Estate Fund VII. $1.7 million of the capital committed to the Walton Street Real Estate Fund VII was called in M arch. $0.8 million of the capital committed to the Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VI was called in M arch.

April 2014 $0.8 million of the capital committed to the Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VI was called in April.

93 Appendix Benchmark Descriptions As of March 31, 2014

Surplus Cash

Surplus Cash Total Benchmark Beginning August 2013, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consists of 30% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus, 40% Barclays Capital Aggregate, 20% Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus, and 10% Total Alternatives Benchmark - Surplus. During July 2013, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consists of 30% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus, 40% Barclays Capital Aggregate, 21% Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus, and 9% Total Alternatives Benchmark - Surplus. From May 2013 to June 2013, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consists of 30% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus, 40% Barclays Capital Aggregate, 22% Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus, and 8% HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index. From November 2012 to April 2013, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consists of 30% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus and 70% Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus. From January 2007 to October 2012, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consisted of 15% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus and 85% Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus. From August 2000 to December 2006, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consisted of 2% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus and 98% Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus. From April 1991 to July 2000, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consisted of 100% Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus.

Surplus Cash Total Benchmark X Privates Beginning August 2013, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consists of 30% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus, 40% Barclays Capital Aggregate, 20% Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus, and 10% Total Alternatives Benchmark - Surplus. During July 2013, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consists of 30% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus, 40% Barclays Capital Aggregate, 21% Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus, and 9% Total Alternatives Benchmark - Surplus. From May 2013 to June 2013, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consists of 30% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus, 40% Barclays Capital Aggregate, 22% Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus, and 8% HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index. From November 2012 to April 2013, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consists of 30% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus and 70% Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus. From January 2007 to October 2012, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consisted of 15% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus and 85% Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus. From August 2000 to December 2006, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consisted of 2% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus and 98% Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus. From April 1991 to July 2000, the Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consisted of 100% Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus.

Pre-Pavilion Surplus Cash Total Benchmark Beginning January 2007, the Pre-Pavilion Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consists of 15% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus and 85% Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus. From August 2000 to December 2006, the Pre-Pavilion Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consisted of 2% Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus and 98% Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus. From April 1991 to July 2000, the Pre-Pavilion Surplus Cash Total Benchmark consisted of 100% Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus.

Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus Beginning November 2012, the Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus consists of 50% Large Cap Equity Benchmark, 16.67% Small Cap Equity Benchmark, and 33.33% MSCI AC World ex USA (Net). From April 1991 to October 2012, the Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus consisted of 100% Large Cap Equity Benchmark.

Domestic Equity Benchmark - Surplus Beginning November 2012, the Domestic Equity Benchmark - Surplus consists of 75% Large Cap Equity Benchmark and 25% Small Cap Equity Benchmark. From April 1991 to October 2012, the Domestic Equity Benchmark - Surplus consisted of 100% Large Cap Equity Benchmark.

Large Cap Equity Benchmark Beginning November 2012, the Large Cap Equity Benchmark consists of 25% Russell 1000 Value Index, 25% Russell 1000 Growth Index, and 50% S&P 500 Index. From April 1991 to October 2012, the Large Cap Equity Benchmark consisted of 100% Russell 1000 Value Index.

94 Appendix Benchmark Descriptions As of March 31, 2014

Small Cap Equity Benchmark Beginning November 2012, the Small Cap Equity Benchmark consists of 50% Russell 2000 Growth Index and 50% Russell 2000 Value Index.

Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus Beginning November 2012, the Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus consists of 57.14% Barclays Capital Aggregate and 42.86% Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus. From January 2007 to October 2012, the Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus consisted of 40% Barclays Capital Aggregate and 60% Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus. From April 1991 to December 2006, the Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus consisted of 100% Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus.

Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus Beginning in November 2012, the Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus consists of 100% Barclays Capital 1-3 Year Gov’t/Credit. From January 2007 to October 2012, the Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus consisted of 66.67% Barclays Capital Intermediate Aggregate and 33.33% Barclays Capital Gov’t 1-3 Year. From May 2001 to December 2006, the Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus consisted of 84.69% Barclays Capital Intermediate Aggregate and 15.31% Barclays Capital Gov’t 1-3 Year. From April 1991 to April 2001, the Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus consisted of 100% Barclays Capital Gov’t 1-3 Year.

Total Alternatives Benchmark - Surplus Beginning May 2013, the Total Alternatives Benchmark - Surplus consists of 100% HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index.

95 Appendix Benchmark Descriptions As of March 31, 2014

Cash Balance Plan

Cash Balance Plan Total Benchmark Beginning January 2013, the Cash Balance Plan Total Benchmark consists of 50% Total Equity Benchmark, 35% Total Fixed Income Benchmark, and 15% Alternatives Benchmark. From November 2012 to December 2012, the Cash Balance Plan Total Benchmark consisted of 50% Total Equity Benchmark, 45% Total Fixed Income Benchmark, and 5% Alternatives Benchmark. From October 1990 to October 2012, the Cash Balance Plan Total Benchmark consisted of 60% Russell 1000 Value Index and 40% Barclays Capital Aggregate.

Cash Balance Plan Total X Privates Benchmark Beginning January 2013, the Cash Balance Plan Total Benchmark consists of 52.63% Total Equity Benchmark, 36.84% Total Fixed Income Benchmark, and 10.53% Alternatives Benchmark. From November 2012 to December 2012, the Cash Balance Plan Total Benchmark consisted of 50% Total Equity Benchmark, 45% Total Fixed Income Benchmark, and 5% Alternatives Benchmark. From October 1990 to October 2012

Pre-Pavilion Cash Balance Plan Total Benchmark Beginning October 1990, the Cash Balance Plan Total Benchmark consists of 60% Russell 1000 Value Index and 40% Barclays Capital Aggregate.

Total Equity Benchmark Beginning November 2012, the Total Equity Benchmark consists of 54% Large Cap Equity Benchmark, 10% Small Cap Equity Benchmark, and 36% MSCI AC World ex USA (Net). From October 1990 to October 2012, the Total Equity Benchmark consisted of 100% Large Cap Equity Benchmark.

Domestic Equity Benchmark Beginning November 2012, the Domestic Equity Benchmark consists of 84.38% Large Cap Equity Benchmark and 15.62% Small Cap Equity Benchmark. From October 1990 to October 2012, the Domestic Equity Benchmark consisted of 100% Large Cap Equity Benchmark.

Large Cap Equity Benchmark Beginning November 2012, the Large Cap Equity Benchmark consists of 25% Russell 1000 Value Index, 25% Russell 1000 Growth Index, and 50% S&P 500 Index. From October 1990 to October 2012, the Large Cap Equity Benchmark consisted of 100% Russell 1000 Value Index.

Small Cap Equity Benchmark Beginning November 2012, the Small Cap Equity Benchmark consists of 50% Russell 2000 Growth Index and 50% Russell 2000 Value Index.

Total Fixed Income Benchmark Beginning January 2013, the Total Fixed Income Benchmark consists of 71.43% Barclays Capital Aggregate and 28.57% Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark. From November 2012 to December 2012, the Total Fixed Income Benchmark consists of 55.56% Barclays Capital Aggregate and 44.44% Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark. From October 1990 to October 2012, the Total Fixed Income Benchmark consisted of 100% Barclays Aggregate.

Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark Beginning November 2012, the Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark consists of 100% Barclays Capital 1-3 Year Gov’t/Credit. From October 1990 to October 2012, the Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark consisted of 100% 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bills.

96 Appendix Benchmark Descriptions As of March 31, 2014

Total Alternatives Benchmark Beginning January 2013, the Alternatives Benchmark consists of 66.67% HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index and 33.33% NCREIF Property Index. From November 2012 to December 2012, the Alternatives Benchmark consisted of 100% HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index.

97 Appendix Surplus Cash Calendar Year Composite Performance As of March 31, 2014 Performance(%) 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Total Surplus Cash X District 8.8 (40) 6.6 (62) 5.1 (49) 6.4 (72) 11.3 (56) -1.2 (30) 6.3 (49) 6.0 (1) 1.5 (67) 3.8 (1) Total Surplus Cash Benchmark 7.5 (71) 6.0 (71) 5.2 (48) 7.3 (61) 7.7 (78) -2.0 (35) 6.0 (58) 4.8 (16) 2.1 (22) 3.6 (1) Pre-Pavilion Total Surplus Cash Benchmark 3.0 (94) 5.5 (79) 5.2 (48) 7.3 (61) 7.7 (78) -2.0 (35) 6.0 (58) 4.8 (16) 2.1 (22) 3.6 (1) Total Surplus Cash Composite Peer Group Median 8.4 7.4 5.0 7.9 12.1 -5.4 6.3 4.4 1.7 1.9

Total Surplus Cash X District X Privates 8.9 (39) 6.6 (62) 5.1 (49) 6.4 (72) 11.3 (56) -1.2 (30) 6.3 (49) 6.0 (1) 1.5 (67) 3.8 (1) Surplus Cash Total Benchmark x Privates 7.5 (71) 6.0 (71) 5.2 (48) 7.3 (61) 7.7 (78) -2.0 (35) 6.0 (58) 4.8 (16) 2.1 (22) 3.6 (1) Total Surplus Cash Composite Peer Group Median 8.4 7.4 5.0 7.9 12.1 -5.4 6.3 4.4 1.7 1.9

Total Equity Composite 28.8 (58) 17.7 (50) 2.3 (24) 10.8 (87) 23.7 (72) -35.3 (34) 1.9 (79) 14.6 (44) 10.0 (20) 20.5 (1) Total Equity Benchmark - Surplus 27.7 (70) 19.0 (37) 0.4 (40) 15.5 (38) 19.7 (86) -36.8 (49) -0.2 (87) 22.2 (2) 7.1 (44) 16.5 (9) Total Equity Peer Group Median 29.3 17.6 -0.5 14.5 28.3 -37.0 6.7 13.8 6.5 10.8

Domestic Equity Composite 36.7 (20) 16.3 (28) 2.3 (12) 10.8 (94) 23.7 (85) -35.3 (22) 1.9 (81) 14.6 (34) 10.0 (14) 20.5 (2) Domestic Equity Benchmark - Surplus 34.3 (43) 17.8 (13) 0.4 (26) 15.5 (72) 19.7 (93) -36.8 (37) -0.2 (89) 22.2 (2) 7.1 (40) 16.5 (9) Domestic Equity Peer Group Median 33.6 14.6 -1.7 16.9 29.6 -38.1 5.9 13.0 6.4 11.8

Large Cap Equity Composite 35.1 (30) 16.5 (29) 2.3 (21) 10.8 (85) 23.7 (70) -35.3 (30) 1.9 (77) 14.6 (40) 10.0 (17) 20.5 (1) Large Cap Equity Benchmark 32.7 (48) 17.1 (24) 0.4 (35) 15.5 (33) 19.7 (84) -36.8 (44) -0.2 (86) 22.2 (1) 7.1 (38) 16.5 (8) Large-Cap Equity Peer Group Median 32.4 14.6 -1.0 14.0 27.8 -37.5 6.2 13.3 5.9 10.2

Small Cap Equity Composite 41.2 (41) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small Cap Equity Benchmark 38.9 (51) 16.3 (37) -4.2 (58) 26.8 (47) 27.5 (70) -33.8 (30) -1.7 (59) 18.4 (21) 4.4 (69) 18.3 (40) Small-Cap Equity Peer Group Median 39.0 14.6 -3.4 26.4 31.8 -38.2 0.3 13.5 6.3 16.3

International Equity Composite 13.0 (92) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MSCI AC World ex USA (Net) 15.3 (84) 16.8 (69) -13.7 (51) 11.2 (53) 41.4 (23) -45.5 (59) 16.7 (25) 26.7 (37) 16.6 (37) 20.9 (30) International Equity Peer Group Median 20.8 18.4 -13.7 11.6 33.5 -44.4 11.9 25.2 15.0 18.5

______Returns are expressed as percentages. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Peer group percentile ranks are shown in parentheses.

98 Appendix Surplus Cash Calendar Year Composite Performance As of March 31, 2014 Performance(%) 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Total Fixed Income Composite -0.3 (20) 4.4 (52) 5.5 (5) 5.8 (24) 7.6 (68) 4.1 (15) 6.8 (9) 5.6 (1) 1.7 (38) 3.5 (1) Total Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus -0.9 (52) 3.2 (89) 5.8 (3) 5.5 (30) 5.2 (90) 5.4 (9) 7.0 (8) 4.5 (22) 2.0 (22) 3.3 (1) Total Fixed Income Peer Group Median -0.9 4.4 3.5 5.1 9.0 -1.0 5.2 4.2 1.6 1.8

Short Duration Fixed Income Composite 0.5 (46) 3.5 (25) 4.3 (2) 4.8 (10) 5.3 (62) 4.5 (27) 6.8 (10) 5.6 (1) 1.7 (38) 3.5 (1) Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark - Surplus 0.6 (30) 2.5 (53) 4.5 (1) 4.9 (10) 4.8 (67) 5.5 (19) 7.0 (7) 4.5 (22) 2.0 (22) 3.3 (1) Short Duration Fixed Peer Group Median 0.3 2.7 1.4 3.4 6.7 -0.1 5.4 4.2 1.6 1.8

Market Duration Fixed Income Composite -0.6 (17) 6.9 (52) 8.8 (1) 8.1 (36) 12.6 (50) 2.5 (30) 6.9 (18) N/A N/A N/A Barclays Aggregate -2.0 (63) 4.2 (90) 7.8 (11) 6.5 (76) 5.9 (93) 5.2 (11) 7.0 (17) 4.3 (38) 2.4 (29) 4.3 (51) Market Duration Fixed Peer Group Median -1.8 7.0 6.7 7.5 12.5 -1.7 5.7 4.2 2.1 4.3

Alternatives Composite N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Alternatives Benchmark -Surplus 9.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Real Estate Composite N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NCREIF Property Index 11.0 10.5 14.3 13.1 -16.8 -6.5 15.8 16.6 20.1 14.5

Hedge Fund Composite N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 9.0 4.8 -5.7 5.7 11.5 -21.4 10.3 10.4 7.5 6.9

______Returns are expressed as percentages. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Peer group percentile ranks are shown in parentheses.

99 Appendix Cash Balance Plan Calendar Year Composite Performance As of March 31, 2014 Performance(%) 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Total Cash Balance Plan 15.8 (39) 17.0 (8) -0.9 (88) 11.7 (48) 28.2 (10) -25.9 (71) 2.4 (74) 12.6 (40) 6.0 (27) 12.2 (12) Total Cash Balance Plan Benchmark 13.8 (79) 12.7 (54) 3.7 (26) 12.4 (33) 14.8 (90) -22.0 (37) 2.8 (70) 14.8 (10) 5.3 (39) 11.5 (17) Pre-Pavilion Total Cash Balance Plan Benchmark 17.7 (11) 12.2 (63) 3.7 (26) 12.4 (33) 14.8 (90) -22.0 (37) 2.8 (70) 14.8 (10) 5.3 (39) 11.5 (17) Total Cash Balance Plan Peer Group Median 15.3 12.9 2.0 11.6 20.6 -23.4 4.1 12.0 4.8 9.6

Total Cash Balance Plan X Private Structures 16.2 (49) 17.0 (8) -0.9 (88) 11.7 (48) 28.2 (10) -25.9 (71) 2.4 (74) 12.6 (40) 6.0 (27) 12.2 (12) Cash Balance Plan Total X Privates Benchmark 14.0 (85) 12.7 (54) 3.7 (26) 12.4 (33) 14.8 (90) -22.0 (37) 2.8 (70) 14.8 (10) 5.3 (39) 11.5 (17) Total Cash Balance Plan X Privates Peer Group Median 16.1 12.9 2.0 11.6 20.6 -23.4 4.1 12.0 4.8 9.6

Total Equity Composite 27.7 (67) 23.3 (9) -3.9 (78) 14.2 (54) 33.0 (30) -43.0 (87) 0.3 (86) 19.5 (14) 9.7 (22) 21.1 (1) Total Equity Benchmark 26.9 (74) 18.9 (40) 0.4 (40) 15.5 (38) 19.7 (86) -36.8 (49) -0.2 (87) 22.2 (2) 7.1 (44) 16.5 (9) Total Equity Peer Group Median 29.1 17.9 -0.5 14.5 28.3 -37.0 6.7 13.8 6.5 10.8

Domestic Equity Composite 36.3 (23) 21.5 (4) -3.9 (76) 14.2 (85) 33.0 (30) -43.0 (89) 0.3 (88) 19.5 (7) 9.7 (15) 21.1 (1) Domestic Equity Benchmark 33.7 (49) 17.5 (14) 0.4 (26) 15.5 (72) 19.7 (93) -36.8 (37) -0.2 (89) 22.2 (2) 7.1 (40) 16.5 (9) Domestic Equity Peer Group Median 33.6 14.6 -1.7 16.9 29.6 -38.1 5.9 13.0 6.4 11.8

Large Cap Equity Composite 35.4 (27) 21.8 (3) -3.9 (75) 14.2 (48) 33.0 (28) -43.0 (86) 0.3 (84) 19.5 (12) 9.7 (18) 21.1 (1) Large Cap Equity Benchmark 32.7 (48) 17.1 (24) 0.4 (35) 15.5 (33) 19.7 (84) -36.8 (44) -0.2 (86) 22.2 (1) 7.1 (38) 16.5 (8) Large-Cap Equity Peer Group Median 32.4 14.6 -1.0 14.0 27.8 -37.5 6.2 13.3 5.9 10.2

Small Cap Equity Composite 41.1 (42) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small Cap Equity Benchmark 38.9 (51) 16.3 (37) -4.2 (58) 26.8 (47) 27.5 (70) -33.8 (30) -1.7 (59) 18.4 (21) 4.4 (69) 18.3 (40) Small-Cap Equity Peer Group Median 39.0 14.6 -3.4 26.4 31.8 -38.2 0.3 13.5 6.3 16.3

______Returns are expressed as percentages. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Peer group percentile ranks are shown in parentheses.

100 Appendix Cash Balance Plan Calendar Year Composite Performance As of March 31, 2014 Performance(%) 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Total Fixed Income Composite 0.6 (7) 7.0 (43) 6.4 (60) 7.8 (44) 17.6 (18) -0.3 (44) 4.9 (66) 5.4 (11) 2.3 (43) 4.5 (44) Total Fixed Income Benchmark -1.3 (56) 4.3 (94) 7.8 (11) 6.5 (76) 5.9 (93) 5.2 (11) 7.0 (17) 4.3 (38) 2.4 (29) 4.3 (51) Total Fixed Income Peer Group Median -1.2 6.7 6.7 7.5 12.5 -1.7 5.7 4.2 2.1 4.3

Short Duration Fixed Income Composite 0.6 (35) 0.2 (95) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Short Duration Fixed Income Benchmark 0.6 (30) 0.2 (95) 0.1 (100) 0.1 (100) 0.2 (100) 2.1 (41) 4.9 (59) 4.8 (13) 2.9 (2) 1.1 (84) Short Duration Fixed Peer Group Median 0.3 2.7 1.4 3.4 6.7 -0.1 5.4 4.2 1.6 1.8

Market Duration Fixed Income Composite 0.6 (4) 8.0 (32) 5.4 (82) 7.8 (44) 17.6 (18) -0.3 (44) 4.9 (66) 5.4 (11) 2.3 (43) 4.5 (44) Barclays Aggregate -2.0 (63) 4.2 (90) 7.8 (11) 6.5 (76) 5.9 (93) 5.2 (11) 7.0 (17) 4.3 (38) 2.4 (29) 4.3 (51) Market Duration Fixed Peer Group Median -1.8 7.0 6.7 7.5 12.5 -1.7 5.7 4.2 2.1 4.3

Total Alternatives Composite 11.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Alternatives Benchmark 9.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Hedge Fund of Fund Composite 13.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 9.0 4.8 -5.7 5.7 11.5 -21.4 10.3 10.4 7.5 6.9

Real Estate Composite 5.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NCREIF Property Index 11.0 10.5 14.3 13.1 -16.8 -6.5 15.8 16.6 20.1 14.5

______Returns are expressed as percentages. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Peer group percentile ranks are shown in parentheses.

101 Separator Page

7b. 1Q14 El Camino Hospital Direct Hedge Fund Report.pdf Surplus Cash Hedge Fund Portfolio

El Camino Hospital

1st Quarter 2014

Pavilion Advisory Group Inc. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-798-3200 Fax: 312-902-1984 www.pavilioncorp.com Hedge Fund Portfolio Executive Summary Portfolio Update - First Quarter 2014 The Hedge Fund Portfolio returned +1.1% during the first quarter, outperforming the HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index by 70 basis points. Since its initial funding the Portfolio has returned +6.9% compared to +5.0% for its benchmark, led by outperformance from the Portfolio's credit and relative value managers. El Camino's credit managers drove results in the first quarter as the segment outperformed its benchmark by +4.0%. The managers benefited from several corporate restructurings which generated strong results. Additionally, York (+7.1%) and Davidson Kempner (+6.1%) both continued to receive cash distributions from the ongoing liquidation of their Lehman Brothers holdings.

The Fund’s relative value managers were up +0.7% despite mixed results between the managers. Carlson (+2.5%) was a standout performer within the strategy as the manager saw positive results from all seven of its underlying investment strategies; led by the manager's equity relative value and equity long/short books. Fir Tree (-0.6%) dampened results as the manager's value equity investments lost -2.2% during the quarter. The manager was hurt by a short investment in Keurig Green Mountain as well as long positions in an offshore drilling contractor and a molecular diagnostic company.

The Portfolio's other segments detracted from results. El Camino's equity hedge fund managers (-0.2%) lagged the HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index by 150 basis points during the first quarter. Indus (-6.5%) was the largest individual detractor as market participants took profits and rotated out of Japanese stocks while they wait to digest the impact of the April 1st consumption tax hike. Additionally, trading volume in Japanese securities saw a significant reduction as large global macro traders and trend followers reduced exposure to the country, which had a negative impact on stocks. As a result of the lower volume and increased volatility, Indus reduced gross exposure from 164% at the end of 2013 to 139% at the end of March and net exposure from 63% to 53% over the same time period. Indus will continue to run lower levels of exposure until the manager has more confidently assessed the impact of the consumption tax hike and whether or not the Bank of Japan is likely to take additional easing measures in the coming quarters. Macro managers (-1.7%) also underperformed during the quarter. Brevan Howard (-1.5%) was hurt by macro and emerging markets trading during the quarter. Transtrend's underperformance can be attributed to the equities markets' quick reversal in January. The manager was down -4.1% during January but managed to return +1.3% in February and +1.0% in March, which was a very tough month for most other hedge fund styles.

Investment Activity On April 1, 2014 El Camino funded five new managers including two long/short equity funds (Bloom Tree Offshore Fund, Ltd. - $4.5 million and Tiger Eye Fund, Ltd. - $4.5 million), one credit fund (Marathon Special Opportunities Fund, Ltd. - $5.5 million), one macro fund (Moore Macro Managers, Ltd. - $6.0 million) and one relative value fund (Pine River Fund, Ltd. - $6.0 million). In addition to the new funds, El Camino added $1.0 million each to Brevan Howard and Transtrend to rebalance the Hedge Fund Portfolio back to its target weights.

Recommendations or Action Items No recommendations at this time.

1 Asset Allocation & Performance El Camino Hedge Fund Portfolio As of March 31, 2014 Allocation Performance(%) Market Value 1 3 5 Since Inception ($) % Quarter Year Years Years Invested Period Hedge Fund Composite 90,196,075 100.0 1.1 N/A N/A N/A 6.9 0y 11m HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 0.4 5.9 2.3 4.9 5.1

Credit HF Composite 18,824,755 20.9 6.6 N/A N/A N/A 17.0 0y 11m HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index 2.8 12.3 7.0 12.9 10.8

Equity HF Composite 35,495,471 39.4 -0.2 N/A N/A N/A 8.2 0y 11m HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 1.2 10.2 3.6 9.4 9.8

Macro HF Composite 17,464,909 19.4 -1.7 N/A N/A N/A -5.4 0y 11m HFRI Macro (Total) Index -0.5 -2.2 -1.6 1.5 -2.8

Relative Value HF Composite 18,410,940 20.4 0.7 N/A N/A N/A 8.7 0y 11m HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index 1.4 6.0 4.3 9.4 4.4

2 Performance Summary Hedge Fund Composite Risk and Return Summary (Net of Fees) 3 Years Ending March 31, 2014

16.0

14.0

12.0

El Camino Credit HF Composite

10.0

El Camino Equity HF Composite

) El Camino Relative Value HF Composite 8.0 % ( Hedge Fund Composite n

r HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index u t e 6.0 R

HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index

4.0 HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index

HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 2.0

El Camino Macro HF Composite 0.0

HFRI Macro (Total) Index

-2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Risk (Standard Deviation %)

After May 1, 2013, results are actual El Camino Hedge Fund Portfolio returns.

3 Performance Summary Hedge Fund Composite Risk and Return Summary (Net of Fees) 5 Years Ending March 31, 2014

18.0 El Camino Credit HF Composite

16.0

14.0 HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index El Camino Relative Value HF Composite 12.0 El Camino Equity HF Composite Hedge Fund Composite

10.0

) HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index %

( HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index n

r 8.0 u t e R 6.0 HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index

4.0

El Camino Macro HF Composite 2.0

HFRI Macro (Total) Index

0.0

-2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Risk (Standard Deviation %)

4 Risk and Return Hedge Fund Managers Risk Return (Net of Fees) 3 Years Ending March 31, 2014

20.0

17.0

Capeview 2x

14.0

Indus Japan Fund Ltd.

11.0 Davidson Kempner Fir Tree York ESG ) % ( Passport 1x n

r 8.0

u HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index

t Capeview 1x e

R Carlson

5.0 HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index Luxor HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index

Brevan Howard 2.0

-1.0 HFRI Macro (Total) Index HFRI Macro: Systematic Diversified Index

Robeco Transtrend -4.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 Risk (Standard Deviation %)

After May 1, 2013, results are actual El Camino Hedge Fund Portfolio returns.

5 Risk and Return Hedge Fund Managers Risk Return (Net of Fees) 5 Years Ending March 31, 2014

20.0

Davidson Kempner Capeview 2x

17.0 York

Fir Tree

14.0 HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index

Indus Japan Fund Ltd. Luxor 11.0 HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index Carlson ESG HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index ) % ( Capeview 1x n

r 8.0 u t e R

5.0

Brevan Howard

2.0 HFRI Macro (Total) Index HFRI Macro: Systematic Diversified Index

Robeco Transtrend -1.0

-4.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 Risk (Standard Deviation %)

After May 1, 2013, results are actual El Camino Hedge Fund Portfolio returns.

6 El Camino Hedge Fund Portfolio Risk Statistics

As of March 31, 2014 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Standard Maximum Best Worst Sharpe Sortino Return Deviation Drawdown Quarter Quarter Ratio Ratio Total Portfolio Hedge Fund Composite 10.6 4.9 -6.3 9.2 -4.6 2.1 2.3 HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 4.9 4.2 -7.7 5.3 -5.0 1.1 1.1

Equity Long/Short El Camino Equity HF Composite 10.8 4.8 -3.1 9.1 -2.7 2.2 3.2 HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 9.4 8.3 -13.2 12.4 -10.9 1.1 1.1

Credit El Camino Credit HF Composite 17.7 8.2 -12.4 18.3 -10.4 2.0 5.4 HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index 12.9 5.7 -8.7 10.8 -7.8 2.1 1.9

Macro El Camino Macro HF Composite 1.6 6.7 -7.4 7.8 -5.4 0.3 0.3 HFRI Macro (Total) Index 1.5 4.7 -8.0 6.8 -3.1 0.3 0.4

Relative Value El Camino Relative Value HF Composite 12.5 6.1 -8.7 10.0 -7.4 1.9 1.8 HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index 9.4 4.0 -4.6 8.0 -3.0 2.3 2.8

After May 1, 2013, results are actual El Camino Hedge Fund Portfolio returns.

7 Asset Allocation ($) As of March 31, 2014 Total Fund ($) % Hedge Funds Cash 2,583 0.0 Fir Tree International Value Fund (Non-US), L.P. 7,026,621 7.8 ESG Cross Border Equity Offshore Fund, Ltd. 5,282,988 5.9 Luxor Capital Partners Offshore, Ltd. 5,602,786 6.2 Capeview Azri 2X Fund USD B - U 2,838,321 3.1 Capeview Azri Fund USD A – UV 2,661,547 3.0 Double Black Diamond, Ltd. Series E 5,383,539 6.0 Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund LLC 5,686,121 6.3 Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. Class A1 2,588,857 2.9 Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. Class B1 2,680,012 3.0 York Credit Opportunities Unit Trust 7,404,941 8.2 DK Distressed Opportunities International, Ltd. 5,919,814 6.6 Indus Japan Fund Ltd. 4,840,960 5.4 Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund Limited 5,773,451 6.4 Bloom Tree Offshore Fund Ltd. 4,500,000 5.0 Marathon Special Opportunity Fund Ltd. 5,500,000 6.1 Moore Macro Managers Fund 6,000,000 6.7 Pine River Fund Ltd. 6,000,000 6.7 Tiger Eye Fund, Ltd. 4,500,000 5.0 Hedge Fund Composite 90,189,958 100.0

8 Pro Forma Performance Summary

As of March 31, 2014 Year To 1 3 5 Since Inception Quarter Date Year Years Years Invested 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Period Total Portfolio Hedge Fund Composite 1.1 1.1 9.0 7.1 10.6 6.9 14.0 9.9 -0.9 11.4 19.7 -10.0 0y 11m HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 0.4 0.4 5.9 2.3 4.9 5.1 9.0 4.8 -5.7 5.7 11.5 -21.4

Equity Long/Short El Camino Equity HF Composite -0.2 -0.2 10.2 8.6 10.8 8.2 20.6 7.7 0.0 11.3 16.8 -12.7 0y 11m HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 1.2 1.2 10.2 3.6 9.4 9.8 14.3 7.4 -8.4 10.5 24.6 -26.7

ESG Cross Border Equity Offshore Fund, Ltd. -0.3 -0.3 5.0 9.3 9.5 5.7 13.4 6.7 9.3 11.0 7.9 -21.2 0y 11m

Luxor Capital Partners Offshore, Ltd. 2.2 2.2 11.8 4.3 11.1 12.1 16.1 1.7 -3.2 4.6 43.9 -29.0 0y 11m

Capeview Azri Fund 1.2 1.2 7.7 6.8 8.1 6.5 11.4 5.8 1.3 12.8 8.7 10.5 0y 9m

Capeview Azri 2X Fund 2.3 2.3 16.3 14.7 17.4 13.5 24.4 12.7 4.3 26.9 18.0 21.8 0y 9m

Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. 0.8 0.8 13.2 8.0 N/A 3.6 19.8 12.1 -7.2 N/A N/A N/A 0y 8m

Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. 2x 1.8 1.8 28.7 15.9 N/A 7.2 43.4 24.4 -14.5 N/A N/A N/A 0y 8m

Indus Japan Fund Ltd. -6.5 -6.5 18.1 12.0 11.5 1.5 45.0 8.1 -1.6 8.1 8.6 -9.1 0y 5m

Credit El Camino Credit HF Composite 6.6 6.6 19.8 10.6 17.7 17.0 18.6 16.2 -2.1 10.8 42.6 -18.7 0y 11m HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index 2.8 2.8 12.3 7.0 12.9 10.8 14.0 10.1 -1.8 12.1 28.1 -25.2

DK Distressed Opportunities International, Ltd. 6.1 6.1 22.1 10.3 18.0 18.4 21.7 13.5 -2.4 10.2 46.2 -22.8 0y 11m

York Credit Opportunities Unit Trust 7.1 7.1 17.5 10.9 17.4 15.7 15.6 18.9 -1.8 11.4 38.8 -14.6 0y 11m

______Returns are expressed as percentages. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. Peer group percentile ranks are shown in parenthesis. After May 1, 2013, results are actual El Camino Hedge Fund Portfolio returns. Returns for Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. 2x prior to January 2013 represent Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd., returns for CapeView Azri 2x Fund prior to October 2010 represent CapeView Azri Fund, and returns for Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund, LLC prior to April 2008 represent Transtrend Diversified Trend Program Enhanced Risk (USD) Fund.

9 Pro Forma Performance Summary

As of March 31, 2014 Year To 1 3 5 Since Inception Quarter Date Year Years Years Invested 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Period Macro El Camino Macro HF Composite -1.7 -1.7 -2.8 -0.2 1.6 -5.4 0.7 3.4 -2.9 10.4 0.6 12.0 0y 11m

Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund Limited -1.5 -1.5 -2.8 3.1 4.3 -4.4 0.8 5.3 6.0 2.3 17.4 N/A 0y 11m HFRI Macro (Total) Index -0.5 -0.5 -2.2 -1.6 1.5 -2.8 -0.4 -0.1 -4.2 8.1 4.3 4.8

Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund LLC -1.9 -1.9 -2.8 -3.6 -1.3 -6.3 0.6 1.2 -11.3 18.6 -14.1 25.3 0y 11m HFRI Macro: Systematic Diversified Index -1.6 -1.6 -3.7 -2.4 0.4 -5.8 -0.9 -2.5 -3.5 9.8 -1.7 18.1

Relative Value El Camino Relative Value HF Composite 0.7 0.7 9.6 8.3 12.5 8.7 12.7 14.3 0.2 13.1 24.9 -16.0 0y 11m HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index 1.4 1.4 6.0 4.3 9.4 4.4 7.9 8.2 -2.4 13.2 24.7 -20.3

Double Black Diamond, Ltd. Series E 2.5 2.5 8.7 5.4 9.3 7.7 8.1 11.6 -2.2 9.5 28.3 -13.4 0y 11m

Fir Tree International Value Fund (Non-US), L.P. -0.6 -0.6 10.8 11.2 15.8 9.9 17.2 16.9 2.4 16.7 21.1 -19.4 0y 11m

10 Hedge Fund Manager Performance

11 Manager Evaluation ESG Cross Border Equity Offshore Fund, Ltd. vs. HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 ESG Cross Border Equity Offshore Fund, Ltd. -0.3 -0.3 5.0 9.3 9.5 10.3 13.4 6.7 9.3 11.0 7.9 -21.2 21.0 14.8 35.1 31.4 HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 1.2 1.2 10.2 3.6 9.4 5.0 14.3 7.4 -8.4 10.5 24.6 -26.7 10.5 11.7 10.6 7.7 MSCI Emerging Markets Index -0.4 -0.4 -1.1 -2.5 14.8 10.5 -2.3 18.6 -18.2 19.2 79.0 -53.2 39.8 32.6 34.5 26.0

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Jan-2004 - Mar-2014) 30.0 24.0

20.0

) 18.0 % ( n

) r 10.0 u % t

( 12.0 e n

R ESG Cross Border Equity Offshore Fund, Ltd. u e t

0.0 v e i

t 6.0 R c

A HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index -10.0 0.0

-20.0 3/04 3/05 3/06 3/07 3/08 3/09 3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 -6.0 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.0 9.1 9.2 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Jan-2004 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date ESG Cross Border Equity Offshore Fund, Ltd. 11.6 8.9 9.8 9.0 0.5 1.1 8.9 0.7 5.1 56.1 10y 3m HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 5.2 8.6 3.9 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 N/A 6.1 0.0 10y 3m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 1.6 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 N/A 8.7 -0.5 0.0 37.4 10y 3m

12 Manager Evaluation Luxor Capital Partners Offshore, Ltd. vs. HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Luxor Capital Partners Offshore, Ltd. 2.2 2.2 11.8 4.3 11.1 10.8 16.1 1.7 -3.2 4.6 43.9 -29.0 79.3 -1.4 6.9 28.9 HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 1.2 1.2 10.2 3.6 9.4 5.0 14.3 7.4 -8.4 10.5 24.6 -26.7 10.5 11.7 10.6 7.7 DJ Credit Suisse Event Driven Index 2.9 2.9 13.4 5.1 10.2 7.7 15.5 10.6 -9.1 12.6 20.4 -17.7 13.2 15.7 8.9 14.5

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Apr-2002 - Mar-2014) 45.0 24.0

30.0 )

% 16.0 ( n

) r 15.0 u %

t Luxor Capital Partners Offshore, Ltd. ( e n

r R 8.0 u e t

0.0 v e i t R

c HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index A -15.0 0.0

-30.0 6/02 6/03 6/04 6/05 6/06 6/07 6/08 6/09 6/10 6/11 6/12 3/14 -8.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Apr-2002 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Luxor Capital Partners Offshore, Ltd. 13.4 12.4 11.9 9.3 0.8 1.0 10.7 0.7 7.6 56.9 12y HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 5.6 8.4 4.2 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 N/A 5.8 0.0 12y 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 1.5 0.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 N/A 8.4 -0.5 0.0 37.5 12y

13 Manager Evaluation Capeview Azri Fund vs. HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Capeview Azri Fund 1.2 1.2 7.7 6.8 8.1 N/A 11.4 5.8 1.3 12.8 8.7 10.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 1.2 1.2 10.2 3.6 9.4 5.0 14.3 7.4 -8.4 10.5 24.6 -26.7 10.5 11.7 10.6 7.7 MSCI Europe Index 2.2 2.2 25.2 9.0 18.2 8.0 26.0 19.9 -10.5 4.5 36.8 -46.1 14.4 34.4 9.9 21.4

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Nov-2007 - Mar-2014) 30.0 18.0

20.0

) 12.0 % ( n

) r 10.0 Capeview Azri Fund u % t

( 6.0 e n

r R u e t

0.0 v e i

t 0.0

R HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index c A -10.0 -6.0

-20.0 3/08 12/08 9/09 6/10 3/11 12/11 9/12 6/13 3/14 -12.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Nov-2007 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Capeview Azri Fund 8.9 3.5 8.1 8.7 0.1 2.3 9.7 0.6 1.1 48.1 6y 5m HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 1.8 9.9 1.8 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 N/A 7.4 0.0 6y 5m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 N/A 10.0 -0.2 0.0 40.3 6y 5m

14 Manager Evaluation Capeview Azri 2X Fund vs. HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Capeview Azri 2X Fund 2.3 2.3 16.3 14.7 17.4 N/A 24.4 12.7 4.3 26.9 18.0 21.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 1.2 1.2 10.2 3.6 9.4 5.0 14.3 7.4 -8.4 10.5 24.6 -26.7 10.5 11.7 10.6 7.7 MSCI Europe Index 2.2 2.2 25.2 9.0 18.2 8.0 26.0 19.9 -10.5 4.5 36.8 -46.1 14.4 34.4 9.9 21.4

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Jul-2010 - Mar-2014) 15.0 32.0

10.0

) 24.0 % ( n

) r 5.0 u % t

( 16.0 e

n Capeview Azri 2X Fund

r R u e t

0.0 v e i

t 8.0 R c

A HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index -5.0 0.0

-10.0 9/10 3/11 9/11 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 -8.0 5.6 6.0 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.8 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Jul-2010 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Capeview Azri 2X Fund 16.2 6.5 15.3 13.9 0.3 2.4 8.0 1.1 2.4 64.4 3y 9m HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 6.9 7.8 6.9 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.0 N/A 5.1 0.0 3y 9m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 7.8 -0.9 0.0 35.6 3y 9m

Prior to October 2010, returns respresent CapeView Azri Fund, Ltd. multiplied by 2.

15 Manager Evaluation Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. vs. HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. 0.8 0.8 13.2 8.0 N/A N/A 19.8 12.1 -7.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 1.2 1.2 10.2 3.6 9.4 5.0 14.3 7.4 -8.4 10.5 24.6 -26.7 10.5 11.7 10.6 7.7 MSCI AC World Index 1.2 1.2 17.2 9.1 18.4 7.5 23.4 16.8 -6.9 13.2 35.4 -41.8 12.2 21.5 11.4 15.8

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Jun-2010 - Mar-2014) 9.0 16.0

6.0 )

% 12.0 ( n

) r 3.0 u % t (

e Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. n

r R 8.0 u e t

0.0 v e i t R c

A HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index -3.0 4.0

-6.0 9/10 3/11 9/11 3/12 9/12 3/13 9/13 3/14 0.0 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Jun-2010 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. 9.9 8.2 9.7 6.9 0.5 1.2 8.3 0.4 4.7 47.8 3y 10m HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 6.2 7.8 6.3 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.0 N/A 5.1 0.0 3y 10m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 7.8 -0.8 0.0 37.0 3y 10m

16 Manager Evaluation Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. 2x vs. HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. 2x 1.8 1.8 28.7 15.9 N/A N/A 43.4 24.4 -14.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 1.2 1.2 10.2 3.6 9.4 5.0 14.3 7.4 -8.4 10.5 24.6 -26.7 10.5 11.7 10.6 7.7 MSCI AC World Index 1.2 1.2 17.2 9.1 18.4 7.5 23.4 16.8 -6.9 13.2 35.4 -41.8 12.2 21.5 11.4 15.8

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Jan-2013 - Mar-2014) 20.0 80.0

15.0

) 60.0 % ( n

) r 10.0 u % t

( 40.0 e n

r R

u Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. 2x e t

5.0 v e i

t 20.0 R c A 0.0 HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 0.0

-5.0 3/13 6/13 9/13 12/13 3/14 -20.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Jan-2013 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. 2x 35.3 10.5 31.1 34.8 0.1 3.0 11.5 1.7 3.0 66.7 1y 3m HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 12.3 5.0 11.7 0.0 1.0 2.4 0.0 N/A 1.9 0.0 1y 3m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 5.0 -2.4 0.0 26.7 1y 3m

Prior to January 2013, returns represent Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. multiplied by 2.

17 Manager Evaluation Indus Japan Fund Ltd. vs. HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Indus Japan Fund Ltd. -6.5 -6.5 18.1 12.0 11.5 7.3 45.0 8.1 -1.6 8.1 8.6 -9.1 -6.5 3.8 30.8 14.1 HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 1.2 1.2 10.2 3.6 9.4 5.0 14.3 7.4 -8.4 10.5 24.6 -26.7 10.5 11.7 10.6 7.7 MSCI Japan Index -5.5 -5.5 7.8 5.6 10.5 2.3 27.3 8.4 -14.2 15.6 6.4 -29.1 -4.1 6.3 25.6 15.9

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Dec-2000 - Mar-2014) 24.0 12.0

16.0 )

% 9.0 ( n

) r 8.0

u Indus Japan Fund Ltd. % t ( e n

r R 6.0 u e t

0.0 v e i t R HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index c A -8.0 3.0

-16.0 3/01 6/02 9/03 12/04 3/06 6/07 9/08 12/09 3/11 6/12 3/14 0.0 6.6 7.2 7.8 8.4 9.0 9.6 10.2 10.8 11.4 12.0 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Dec-2000 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Indus Japan Fund Ltd. 8.2 10.3 6.7 5.1 0.6 0.6 9.4 0.3 6.0 52.5 13y 4m HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index 5.4 8.3 3.8 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 N/A 5.7 0.0 13y 4m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 1.8 0.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 N/A 8.3 -0.5 0.0 38.1 13y 4m

18 Manager Evaluation DK Distressed Opportunities International, Ltd. vs. HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 DK Distressed Opportunities International, Ltd. 6.1 6.1 22.1 10.3 18.0 N/A 21.7 13.5 -2.4 10.2 46.2 -22.8 6.0 29.1 N/A N/A HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index 2.8 2.8 12.3 7.0 12.9 7.4 14.0 10.1 -1.8 12.1 28.1 -25.2 5.1 15.9 8.3 18.9 Barclays Global High Yield Index 3.0 3.0 9.0 9.3 18.7 9.4 7.3 19.6 3.1 14.8 59.4 -26.9 3.2 13.7 3.6 13.2

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Apr-2005 - Mar-2014) 18.0 20.0

12.0 )

% 15.0 ( n

) r 6.0 u % t ( e n

r DK Distressed Opportunities International, Ltd. R 10.0 u e t

0.0 v e i t R c A -6.0 5.0 HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index

-12.0 6/05 3/06 12/06 9/07 6/08 3/09 12/09 9/10 6/11 3/12 12/12 3/14 0.0 4.5 5.4 6.3 7.2 8.1 9.0 9.9 10.8 11.7 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Apr-2005 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date DK Distressed Opportunities International, Ltd. 11.8 10.0 10.1 3.9 1.2 1.0 6.0 0.9 5.7 60.2 9y HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index 6.5 6.7 5.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 N/A 4.8 0.0 9y 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 1.6 0.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 N/A 6.8 -0.7 0.0 32.4 9y

19 Manager Evaluation York Credit Opportunities Unit Trust vs. HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 York Credit Opportunities Unit Trust 7.1 7.1 17.5 10.9 17.4 14.8 15.6 18.9 -1.8 11.4 38.8 -14.6 25.8 19.0 8.5 38.6 HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index 2.8 2.8 12.3 7.0 12.9 7.4 14.0 10.1 -1.8 12.1 28.1 -25.2 5.1 15.9 8.3 18.9 Barclays Global High Yield Index 3.0 3.0 9.0 9.3 18.7 9.4 7.3 19.6 3.1 14.8 59.4 -26.9 3.2 13.7 3.6 13.2

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Feb-2001 - Mar-2014) 24.0 32.0

16.0

) 24.0 % ( n

) r 8.0 u % t ( 16.0 York Credit Opportunities Unit Trust e n

r R u e t

0.0 v e i

t 8.0 R HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index c A -8.0 0.0

-16.0 6/01 9/02 12/03 3/05 6/06 9/07 12/08 3/10 6/11 9/12 3/14 -8.0 5.6 6.4 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Feb-2001 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date York Credit Opportunities Unit Trust 17.6 8.8 15.0 6.8 1.1 1.7 5.4 1.4 4.4 67.7 13y 2m HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index 9.3 6.2 7.4 0.0 1.0 1.2 0.0 N/A 4.0 0.0 13y 2m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 1.7 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 N/A 6.3 -1.2 0.0 29.1 13y 2m

20 Manager Evaluation Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund Limited vs. HFRI Macro (Total) Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund Limited -1.5 -1.5 -2.8 3.1 4.3 N/A 0.8 5.3 6.0 2.3 17.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A HFRI Macro (Total) Index -0.5 -0.5 -2.2 -1.6 1.5 3.8 -0.4 -0.1 -4.2 8.1 4.3 4.8 11.1 8.2 6.8 4.6 DJ Credit Suisse Global Macro Index -0.6 -0.6 1.5 4.7 7.3 7.8 4.3 4.6 6.4 13.5 11.5 -4.6 17.4 13.5 9.2 8.5

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Mar-2008 - Mar-2014) 15.0 9.0

10.0 )

% 6.0 ( n

) r 5.0 u % t ( e

n Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund Limited

r R 3.0 u e t

0.0 v e i t R c A -5.0 0.0 HFRI Macro (Total) Index

-10.0 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 6/12 12/12 6/13 3/14 -3.0 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Mar-2008 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund Limited 4.2 4.7 4.0 3.8 0.5 0.8 4.9 0.6 2.8 60.3 6y 1m HFRI Macro (Total) Index 1.0 4.6 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 N/A 2.9 0.0 6y 1m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 N/A 4.7 -0.2 0.0 56.2 6y 1m

21 Manager Evaluation Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund LLC vs. HFRI Macro: Systematic Diversified Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund LLC -1.9 -1.9 -2.8 -3.6 -1.3 7.9 0.6 1.2 -11.3 18.6 -14.1 25.3 27.9 16.3 12.1 22.8 HFRI Macro: Systematic Diversified Index -1.6 -1.6 -3.7 -2.4 0.4 6.1 -0.9 -2.5 -3.5 9.8 -1.7 18.1 10.3 16.8 14.4 6.4 DJ Credit Suisse Managed Futures Index -4.3 -4.3 -10.0 -4.3 -1.3 2.0 -2.6 -2.9 -4.2 12.2 -6.6 18.3 6.0 8.1 -0.1 6.0

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Apr-2008 - Mar-2014) 12.0 3.0

) 2.4 6.0 % ( n

) r u % t

( 1.8 e

0.0 n Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund LLC

r R u e t

v e i

t 1.2 R

c HFRI Macro: Systematic Diversified Index A -6.0 0.6

-12.0 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 6/12 12/12 6/13 3/14 0.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Apr-2008 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund LLC 1.8 12.4 2.3 0.6 1.4 0.2 7.7 0.1 8.2 50.0 6y HFRI Macro: Systematic Diversified Index 1.2 7.4 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 N/A 4.7 0.0 6y 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 N/A 7.4 -0.2 0.0 52.8 6y

Prior to April 2008, returns represent Transtrend Diversified Trend Program Enhanced Risk (USD) Fund.

22 Manager Evaluation Double Black Diamond, Ltd. Series E vs. HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Double Black Diamond, Ltd. Series E 2.5 2.5 8.7 5.4 9.3 8.3 8.1 11.6 -2.2 9.5 28.3 -13.4 15.7 20.9 5.1 4.7 HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index 1.4 1.4 6.0 4.3 9.4 4.9 7.9 8.2 -2.4 13.2 24.7 -20.3 1.8 9.0 5.7 8.2 DJ Credit Suisse Multi-Strategy Index 2.0 2.0 10.0 7.0 10.9 6.6 11.2 8.1 4.2 9.3 24.6 -23.6 10.1 14.5 7.5 7.5

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Apr-1998 - Mar-2014) 18.0 15.0

12.0 ) % ( n

) 10.0 r 6.0 u % t (

e Double Black Diamond, Ltd. Series E n

r R u e t

0.0 v e i t R c 5.0 A HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index -6.0

-12.0 6/98 12/99 6/01 12/02 6/04 12/05 6/07 12/08 6/10 12/11 3/14 0.0 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Apr-1998 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Double Black Diamond, Ltd. Series E 9.5 5.4 6.9 5.3 0.7 1.3 4.3 0.9 3.3 56.3 16y HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index 5.5 4.6 3.1 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 N/A 3.3 0.0 16y 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 2.4 0.6 0.0 2.5 0.0 N/A 4.8 -0.6 0.0 34.9 16y

23 Manager Evaluation Fir Tree International Value Fund (Non-US), L.P. vs. HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index As of March 31, 2014

Historical Performance Year To 1 3 5 10 Quarter Date Year Years Years Years 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Fir Tree International Value Fund (Non-US), L.P. -0.6 -0.6 10.8 11.2 15.8 9.9 17.2 16.9 2.4 16.7 21.1 -19.4 19.4 14.6 5.7 11.7 HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index 1.4 1.4 6.0 4.3 9.4 4.9 7.9 8.2 -2.4 13.2 24.7 -20.3 1.8 9.0 5.7 8.2 DJ Credit Suisse Multi-Strategy Index 2.0 2.0 10.0 7.0 10.9 6.6 11.2 8.1 4.2 9.3 24.6 -23.6 10.1 14.5 7.5 7.5

Comparative Performance and Rolling Return Risk and Return (Jan-1994 - Mar-2014) 45.0 20.0

30.0 )

% 15.0 ( n

) r 15.0 u % t (

e Fir Tree International Value Fund (Non-US), L.P. n

r R 10.0 u e t

0.0 v e i t R c A -15.0 5.0 HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index

-30.0 3/94 12/95 9/97 6/99 3/01 12/02 9/04 6/06 3/08 12/09 9/11 3/14 0.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Rolling 3 Years Active Return Quarterly Active Return Risk (Standard Deviation %)

Historical Statistics (Jan-1994 - Mar-2014) Standard Excess Sharpe Tracking Information Downside Inception Return Deviation Return Alpha Beta Ratio Error Ratio Risk Consistency Date Fir Tree International Value Fund (Non-US), L.P. 12.4 12.6 9.7 4.0 1.3 0.8 11.4 0.5 7.7 58.0 20y 3m HFRI RV: Multi-Strategy Index 6.8 4.3 3.8 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.0 N/A 3.0 0.0 20y 3m 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 2.9 0.7 0.0 3.0 0.0 N/A 4.3 -0.9 0.0 32.1 20y 3m

24 Hedge Fund Manager Portfolio Characteristics

25 Manager Evaluation ESG Cross Border Equity Offshore Fund, Ltd. As of March 31, 2014

Portfolio Characteristics Industry Exposure Firm Assets $5.2 billion Longs Shorts Gross Net Fund Assets $3.7 billion Basic M aterials 2.0% -3.2% 5.2% -1.2% Business Services 7.3% -3.5% 10.8% 3.8% Gross Exp osure 188.8% Consumer 38.1% -5.3% 43.4% 32.8% Net Exp osure 22.6% Financials 14.2% -4.6% 18.8% 9.6% Long Exposure 105.7% Gaming and Leisure 6.0% -0.2% 6.2% 5.8% Short Exposure -83.1% Healthcare 1.9% -0.8% 2.7% 1.1% Performance Attribution by Industry - Q1 Industrial 2.9% -7.4% 10.3% -4.5% Gross Attribution Real Estate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Retail 12.6% -7.6% 20.2% 5.0% Basic M aterials 0.5% TMT 20.8% -14.9% 35.7% 5.9% Business Services -0.5% Index 0.0% -35.7% 35.7% -35.7% Consumer 0.1% Financials -0.5% Gaming and Leisure 0.1% Healthcare -0.2% Industrial 0.4% Real Estate 0.0% Retail 1.5% TMT -0.3% Index 0.0%

Regional Exposure Longs Shorts Gross Net Global 21.0% -33.5% 55.5% -12.5% Latam 3.2% -2.1% 5.3% 1.1% EM EA 4.8% -4.1% 8.9% 0.7% Asia 44.2% -28.3% 72.5% 15.9% Pan EM 32.4% -15.1% 47.5% 17.3%

26 Manager Evaluation Luxor Capital Partners Offshore, Ltd. As of March 31, 2014

Portfolio Characteristics Industry Exposure Firm Assets $6.2 billion Longs Shorts Gross Net Fund Assets $3.0 billion Financial Services 41.6% -3.7% 45.3% 37.9% Media 24.4% -3.7% 28.1% 20.7% Gross Exp osure 305.7% Internet 15.3% -5.7% 21.0% 9.6% Net Exp osure -9.5% Real Estate/REITS 14.0% -5.1% 19.1% 8.9% Long Exposure 148.1% Utilities 6.2% 0.0% 6.2% 6.2% Short Exposure -157.6% Consumer Products 6.9% -1.5% 8.4% 5.4% Performance Attribution by Strategy - Q1 Oil and Gas Services 4.9% -0.1% 5.0% 4.8% Gross Attribution Retail 5.8% -1.9% 7.7% 3.9% Software and Technology 4.0% -1.1% 5.1% 2.9% Equity 1.2% Lodging and Gaming 2.4% -0.8% 3.2% 1.6% Transportation 2.4% -1.1% 3.5% 1.3% Credit Exploration and Production 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% Bank Debt and Loans 0.1% Engineering and Construction 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% Investment Grade -0.1% 0.0% 0.0% High Yield -0.4% Mortgage Backed Securities 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% -1.2% Convertible Bonds 0.4% Insurance 1.7% -0.7% Mortgage Backed Securities 0.0% Chemicals 0.0% -1.4% 1.4% -1.4% Commodity 0.1% -1.9% 2.0% -1.8% Other 0.0% Basic M aterials 0.0% -2.4% 2.4% -2.4% Commodity and FX Hedges -0.1% Industrial 2.5% -5.2% 7.7% -2.7% Mining 1.7% -5.3% 7.0% -3.6% Regional Exposure Communications 5.1% -8.8% 13.9% -3.7% Longs Shorts Gross Net Health and BioTech 1.4% -11.5% 12.9% -10.1% North America 109.0% -61.4% 171.4% 47.6% Sovereign 0.5% -15.3% 15.8% -14.8% Europe 30.2% -52.3% 82.5% -22.1% Index 7.5% -80.1% 87.6% -72.6% Asia 8.8% -41.9% 50.7% -33.1% South America 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other 0.1% -1.9% 2.0% -1.8%

27 Manager Evaluation CapeView Azri Fund, Ltd. As of March 31, 2014

Portfolio Characteristics Industry Exposure Firm Assets $1.3 billion Longs Shorts Gross Net Fund Assets $0.9 billion Basic M aterials 6.1% -10.6% 16.7% -4.5% Commodity 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Gross Exp osure 164.6% Communications 14.9% -2.7% 17.6% 12.2% Net Exp osure 23.2% Consumer, Cyclical 30.0% -7.8% 37.8% 22.2% Long Exposure 93.9% Consumer, Non-cyclical 5.1% -16.6% 21.7% -11.5% Short Exposure -70.7% Currency 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Diversified 1.2% -1.1% 2.3% 0.1% Energy 2.9% -3.1% 6.0% -0.2% Financial 10.4% -7.5% 17.9% 2.9% Government 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Regional Exposure Index 6.4% -9.5% 15.9% -3.1% Longs Shorts Gross Net Industrial 15.7% -10.0% 25.7% 5.7% UK 37.8% -27.4% 66.2% 10.4% Technology 1.1% -1.8% 2.9% -0.7% 0.0% 0.0% Continental Europe 52.8% -39.3% 92.1% 13.5% Utilities 0.0% 0.0% Europe (Index) 3.3% -4.0% 7.3% -0.7% Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

28 Manager Evaluation Passport Long Short Fund, Ltd. As of March 31, 2014

Portfolio Characteristics Industry Exposure Firm Assets $3.5 billion Longs Shorts Gross Net Fund Assets $1.2 billion Internet / Technology 17.0% -11.0% 28.0% 6.0% Basic M aterials 9.0% -4.0% 13.0% 5.0% Gross Exp osure 140.0% Consumer 21.0% -11.0% 32.0% 10.0% Net Exp osure 14.0% Energy 9.0% -5.0% 14.0% 4.0% Long Exposure 77.0% Diversified 0.0% -26.0% 26.0% -26.0% Short Exposure -63.0% Industrials 3.0% -1.0% 4.0% 2.0% Performance Attribution by Industry - Q1 Healthcare 0.0% -3.0% 3.0% -3.0% Gross Attribution Utilities 3.0% 0.0% 3.0% 3.0% MENA 7.0% 0.0% 7.0% 7.0% Internet / Technology -1.6% Financial 8.0% -2.0% 10.0% 6.0% Basic M aterials 1.2% Consumer 2.5% Energy -0.4% Diversified -0.5% Industrials -0.2% Healthcare 0.0% Utilities 0.5% MENA 0.8% Financials -0.7%

Regional Exposure Longs Shorts Gross Net US 63.0% -54.0% 118.0% 9.0% EM 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% MENA 7.0% 0.0% 7.0% 7.0% Europe 3.0% -3.0% 6.0% 0.0% Asia 4.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% Canada 0.0% -6.0% 6.0% -6.0%

29 Manager Evaluation Indus Japan Fund, Ltd. As of March 31, 2014

Portfolio Characteristics Industry Exposure Firm Assets $6.1 billion Longs Shorts Gross Net Fund Assets $1.2 billion Technology 16.9% -4.9% 21.8% 12.0% Cyclicals 23.7% -9.9% 33.6% 13.8% Gross Exp osure 139.0% Real Estate & Construction 12.0% 0.0% 12.0% 12.0% Net Exp osure 53.0% Autos & Auto Parts 10.8% 0.0% 10.8% 10.8% Long Exposure 96.0% Banks 9.3% -0.6% 9.9% 8.7% Short Exposure -43.0% Finance 8.0% 0.0% 8.0% 8.0% Telecoms/M edia 4.0% -1.0% 5.0% 3.0% Pharmaceuticals/Healthcare 1.4% -0.5% 1.9% 0.9% Utilities 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% Transportation 0.4% -1.5% 1.9% -1.1% Regional Exposure Consumer 6.4% -9.1% 15.5% -2.7% Longs Shorts Gross Net Energy 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Japan 89.3% -41.3% 131.6% 48.0% Diversified 2.2% -15.6% 17.8% -13.4% North America 5.2% 0.0% 5.2% 5.2% Hong Kong/China 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 1.3% India 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% Europe 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% Taiwan 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Korea 0.0% -1.7% 1.7% -1.7%

30 Manager Evaluation DK Distressed Opportunities International, Ltd. As of March 31, 2014

Portfolio Characteristics Top Positions Firm Assets $23.1 billion Top Longs Top Shorts Fund Assets $1.3 billion Lehman Brother 9.5% US Real Estate #2 -1.0% Gross Exp osure 90.7% MGM Studios 5.9% European Utility #1 -0.4% Net Exp osure 86.7% Greece - GGB 3.3% US Energy #2 -0.2% Long Exposure 88.7% Short Exposure -2.0% Icelandic Banks- Glitnir 3.1% Litigation Play #1 -0.2% IDB Development Corp. 2.9% US Energy #3 -0.1%

Top 5 Total 24.7% Top 5 Total -1.9%

Number of Longs 142 Number of Shorts 10

Regional Exposure Asse t Class Exposure Longs Shorts Gross Net Longs Shorts Gross Net North America 57.6% -1.3% 59.9% 56.3% Common Stock 19.1% -0.3% 19.4% 18.8% Europe 22.1% -0.5% 22.6% 21.6% Corporate Bonds 45.3% -1.8% 47.1% 43.5% Other 9.0% -0.2% 9.2% 8.8% Bank Debt 15.4% 0.0% 15.4% 15.4% Trade Claims 8.9% 0.0% 8.9% 8.9% Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

31 Manager Evaluation York Credit Opportunities Unit Trust As of March 31, 2014

Portfolio Characteristics Top Positions Firm Assets $21.7 billion Top Longs Top Shorts Fund Assets $3.5 billion Lehman Brothers 8.4% Consumer Disc - CDS -0.9% Gross Exp osure 120.4% Edison Mission Energy 6.0% Financials-CDS -0.7% Net Exp osure 86.4% American Airlines 3.4% Utilities - CDS -0.7% Long Exposure 103.4% Short Exposure -17.0% WR Grace 3.4% Energy-CDS -0.7% Kaupthing Bank 2.7% Info Tech - CDS -0.4%

Top 5 Total 23.9% Top 5 Total -3.4%

Number of Longs 91 Number of Shorts 15

Regional Exposure Strategy Exposure Longs Shorts Gross Net Longs Shorts Gross Net North America 46.7% -8.2% 55.9% 38.5% Public Equity 27.6% -3.7% 31.3% 23.9% Europe 47.1% -8.0% 55.1% 39.1% Options & Futures 1.2% -1.3% 2.5% -0.1% Asia 5.6% -0.5% 6.1% 5.1% Bank Debt 16.6% 0.0% 16.6% 16.6% Other -4.0% -0.3% -3.7% -4.3% Bonds 43.2% -0.6% 43.8% 42.6% CDS 2.4% -11.4% 13.8% -9.0% Asset Banked 2.2% 0.0% 2.2% 2.2% Non-Public Equity 10.3% 0.0% 10.3% 10.3%

32 Manager Evaluation Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund Limited As of March 31, 2014

Portfolio Characteristics Underlying Fund Allocation Firm Assets $37.3 billion % NAV Q4 % NAV Q1 Fund Assets $4.5 billion Master Fund 48.8% 47.0% VaR Credit Catalyst Master Fund 15.0% 16.3% Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund 0.27% Emerging Markets Strategies Master Fund 8.4% 0.2% Master Fund 0.37% Sy stematic Trading Master Fund 9.2% 6.7% Credit Catalyst Master Fund 0.34% Commodities Strategies Master Fund 5.6% 5.9% Emerging Markets Strategies Master Fund 0.01% Asia M aster Fund 3.5% 5.0% Sy stematic Trading Master Fund 0.78% Emerging Markets Local Fixed Income Leveraged M aster Fund 3.1% 2.9% Commodities Strategies Master Fund 1.96% Direct Investment Portfolio 6.5% 16.1% Asia M aster Fund 0.34% Emerging Markets Local Fixed Income Leveraged Master Fund 1.27% Direct Investment Portfolio 1.24%

Regional Exposure Strategy Exposure FX 27.0% Asia Europe 25.0% 29.0% Vega Equity 13.0% 8.0%

Oceania 3.0%

Commodity 17.0%

Multi- Americas Region Interest Credit 24.0% Africa 18.0% Rates 9.0% 1.0% 26.0%

33 Manager Evaluation Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund LLC As of March 31, 2014

Portfolio Characteristics VaR by Strategy Firm Assets $6.3 billion VaR Fund Assets $754.7 million Commodities 2.0% Currencies 1.6% Margin/ Net Assets 21.6% Interest Rates 1.2% VaR 5.9% Equity Related 1.1%

Regional Exposure Strategy Exposure Europe Commodity 20.9% 33.4%

Asia Americas 7.0% 44.6%

Equity 19.1%

Currencies 26.6% Currencies 26.6%

Other Interest 0.9% Rates 20.9%

34 Manager Evaluation Double Black Diamond, Ltd. Series E As of March 31, 2014

Portfolio Characteristics Performance Attribution by Strategy - Q1 Firm Assets $8.4 billion Gross Attribution Fund Assets $3.2 billion Equity Relative Value 1.3% Equity Long/Short 0.8% Gross Exp osure 373.2% Credit Relative Value 0.6% Net Exp osure 20.0% Credit Directional 0.5% Long Exposure 196.6% Event-Driven 0.4% Short Exposure -176.6% Volatility 0.1% Strategic Investments 0.1% Trading 0.1%

Regional Exposure Strategy Exposure Longs Shorts Gross Net Longs Shorts Gross Net North America 147.0% -125.8% 273.8% 21.2% Equity Relative Value 64.5% -64.8% 129.3% -0.3% Europe 46.2% -41.0% 87.2% 5.2% Equity Long/Short 27.7% -23.9% 51.6% 3.8% Asia 1.8% -1.5% 3.3% 0.3% Credit Relative Value 35.3% -37.4% 72.7% -2.1% Other 1.8% -8.3% 10.1% -6.5% Credit Directional 10.2% -2.4% 12.6% 7.8% Event-Driven 28.7% -15.9% 44.6% 12.8% Volatility 5.2% -5.1% 10.3% 0.1% Strategic Investments 5.5% -0.6% 6.1% 4.9% Trading 19.4% -26.4% 45.8% -7.0%

35 Manager Evaluation Fir Tree International Value Fund (Non-US), L.P. As of March 31, 2014

Portfolio Characteristics Performance Attribution by Strategy - Q1 Firm Assets $12.7 billion Gross Attribution Fund Assets $8.8 billion Value Equities -2.2% Sp ecial Situations 1.8% Gross Exp osure 246.6% Long-Term Arbitrage -0.1% Net Exp osure 22.2% Yielding Securities 0.2% Long Exposure 134.4% Corporate Credit 0.4% Short Exposure -112.2% Capital Structure Arbitrage 0.4% Structured/M ortgage Credit 0.5% Portfolio Hedges -0.6% Credit Shorts -0.3%

Regional Exposure Strategy Exposure Longs Shorts Gross Net Longs Shorts Gross Net North America 97.7% -62.9% 161.6% 34.8% Value Equities 25.7% -9.2% 34.9% 16.5% Europe/UK 16.5% -15.1% 31.6% 1.4% Sp ecial Situations 46.5% -21.4% 67.9% 25.1% Asia 7.6% -28.3% 35.9% -20.7% Long-Term Arbitrage 19.2% -14.0% 33.2% 5.2% Latin America 12.6% -4.4% 17.0% 8.2% Yielding Securities 8.1% -5.1% 13.2% 3.0% Other 0.0% -1.5% 1.5% -1.5% Corporate Credit 9.2% -0.7% 9.9% 8.5% Capital Structure Arbitrage 10.6% -5.9% 16.5% 4.7% Structured / Mortgage Credit 7.2% -2.5% 9.7% 4.7% Portfolio Hedges 8.0% -33.4% 41.4% -25.4% Credit Shorts 0.0% -20.0% 20.0% -20.0%

36 Statistical Definitions Risk Statistics As of March 31, 2014 Statistics Definition Alpha - A measure of the difference between a portfolio's actual returns and its expected performance, given its level of risk as measured by beta. It is a measure of the portfolio's historical performance not explained by movements of the market, or a portfolio's non-systematic return. Best Quarter - The best of rolling 3 months(or 1 quarter) cumulative return. Beta - A measure of the sensitivity of a portfolio to the movements in the market. It is a measure of a portfolio's non-diversifiable or systematic risk. Consistency - The percentage of quarters that a product achieved a rate of return higher than that of its benchmark. The higher the consistency figure, the more value a manager has contributed to the product’s performance. Downside Risk - A measure similar to standard deviation, but focuses only on the negative movements of the return series. It is calculated by taking the standard deviation of the negative quarterly set of returns. The higher the factor, the riskier the product. Excess Return - Arithmetic difference between the managers return and the risk-free return over a specified time period. Information Ratio - Measured by dividing the active rate of return by the tracking error. The higher the Information Ratio, the more value-added contribution by the manager. Maximum Drawdown - The drawdown is defined as the percent retrenchment from a fund's peak value to the fund's valley value. It is in effect from the time the fund's retrenchment begins until a new fund high is reached. The maximum drawdown encompasses both the period from the fund's peak to the fund's valley (length), and the time from the fund's valley to a new fund high (recovery). It measures the largest percentage drawdown that has occurred in any fund's data record. Return - Compounded rate of return for the period. Sharpe Ratio - Represents the excess rate of return over the risk free return divided by the standard deviation of the excess return. The result is the absolute rate of return per unit of risk. The higher the value, the better the product’s historical risk-adjusted performance. Sortino Ratio - A ratio developed by Frank A. Sortino to differentiate between good and bad volatility in the Sharpe ratio. This differentiation of upwards and downwards volatility allows the calculation to provide a risk-adjusted measure of a security or fund's performance without penalizing it for upward price changes. Standard Deviation - A statistical measure of the range of a portfolio's performance, the variability of a return around its average return over a specified time period. Tracking Error - A measure of the standard deviation of a portfolio's performance relative to the performance of an appropriate market benchmark. Worst Quarter - The worst of rolling 3 months(or 1 quarter) cumulative return.

37 Separator Page

7c. El Camino Portfolio Additions_March 2014.pdf Pavilion Advisory GroupTM El Camino- Direct Hedge Fund Portfolio

Portfolio Recommendations: Allocation of new capital

In this document we outline our proposal for the addition of $28.5 million to the El Camino direct hedge fund portfolio. This is an increase of about 50% on the current $60 million portfolio size. The portfolio is currently allocated to 11 managers and we propose adding five new managers as described below. The primary reasons for increasing the manager pool are twofold: 1) since funding the initial program in mid-2013, four of the existing managers have soft closed to new investments 2) as the direct hedge fund program becomes a larger part of the overall portfolio, we consider it prudent to further diversify the hedge fund portfolio.

In addition to the five new managers, we propose topping up two of the existing Macro managers so as to bring the portfolio strategy allocations back to the targets we established when the portfolio was initially funded i.e. 40% to Equities and 20% each to Credit, Macro and Relative Value.

A snapshot of the portfolio as of February 28, 2014 is shown on page 2 and a snapshot of the newly proposed portfolio is shown on page 3. A summary of the changes proposed are shown in the table below. Details on each of the new managers are enclosed separately.

Fund Name Strategy Recommended Comment Allocation ($ )

Bloom Tree Offshore Fund Equity 4,500,000 New fund

Tiger Eye Fund Equity 4,500,000 New fund

Marathon Special Opportunity Fund Credit 5,500,000 New fund

Pine River Fund Relative Value 6,000,000 New fund

Moore Macro Managers Fund Macro 6,000,000 New fund

Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund Macro 1,000,000 Addition to existing fund

Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund Macro 1,000,000 Addition to existing fund

Pavilion Advisory Group™ is a registered trademark of Pavilion Financial Corporation used under license by Pavilion Advisory Group Ltd. in Canada and by Pavilion Advisory Group Inc. in the United States. © 2013 Pavilion Advisory Group Inc. all rights reserved.

1 El Camino- Current Direct Hedge Fund Portfolio as of 2/28/2014

Fund Name Management Company Strategy Sub-Strategy Weight (%) Investment ($ USD) Luxor Capital Partners Offshore, Ltd. Luxor Capital Group Equity Event Driven 8.9% $ 5,498,553 CapeView Azri Fund, Ltd. CapeView Capital Equity European Equity L/S 4.4% $ 2,689,603 CapeView Azri 2x Fund, Ltd. CapeView Capital Equity European Equity L/S 4.7% $ 2,901,387 Passport Long/Short Offshore Fund, Ltd. Class A Passport Capital Equity US Equity L/S 4.3% $ 2,627,809 Passport Long/Short Offshore Fund, Ltd. Class B Passport Capital Equity US Equity L/S 4.5% $ 2,761,854 ESG Cross Border Equity Offshore Fund, Ltd. Emerging Sovereign Group Equity EM Equity L/S 8.7% $ 5,339,669 Indus Japan Fund, Ltd Indus Capital Equity Japan Equity L/S 7.9% $ 4,867,739 43.2% $ 26,686,614 DK Distressed Opportunities International, Ltd. Davidson Kempner Credit Distressed Credit 9.5% $ 5,870,948 York Credit Opportunities Unit Trust York Capital Credit Multi-Strategy 11.9% $ 7,351,347 21.4% $ 13,222,295 Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund Ltd. Brevan Howard Asset Management Macro Discretionary Macro 7.8% $ 4,790,837 Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund LLC Transtrend Macro Systematic Macro 7.5% $ 4,642,978 15.3% $ 9,433,815 Double Black Diamond, Ltd. Carlson Capital Relative Value Multi-Strategy 8.7% $ 5,375,359 Fir Tree International Value Fund (Non-US), L.P. Fir Tree Partners Relative Value Multi-Strategy 11.4% $ 7,006,262 20.1% $ 12,381,621 Cash 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ -

Number of funds = 13 Total 100% $ 61,724,345

2 El Camino- Direct Hedge Fund Portfolio

Fund Name Management Company Strategy Sub-Strategy Weight (%) Investment ($ USD) Luxor Capital Partners Offshore, Ltd. Luxor Capital Group Equity Event Driven 6.1% $ 5,498,553 CapeView Azri Fund, Ltd. CapeView Capital Equity European Equity L/S 3.0% $ 2,689,603 CapeView Azri 2x Fund, Ltd. CapeView Capital Equity European Equity L/S 3.2% $ 2,901,387 Passport Long/Short Offshore Fund, Ltd. Class A Passport Capital Equity US Equity L/S 2.9% $ 2,627,809 Passport Long/Short Offshore Fund, Ltd. Class B Passport Capital Equity US Equity L/S 3.1% $ 2,761,854 ESG Cross Border Equity Offshore Fund, Ltd. Emerging Sovereign Group Equity EM Equity L/S 5.9% $ 5,339,669 Indus Japan Fund, Ltd Indus Capital Equity Japan Equity L/S 5.4% $ 4,867,739 Bloom Tree Offshore Fund, Ltd. Bloom Tree Partners Equity Global Equity L/S 5.0% $ 4,500,000 Tiger Eye Fund, Ltd. Tiger Eye Capital Equity US Equity L/S 5.0% $ 4,500,000 39.6% $ 35,686,614 DK Distressed Opportunities International, Ltd. Davidson Kempner Credit Distressed Credit 6.5% $ 5,870,948 York Credit Opportunities Unit Trust York Capital Credit Multi-Strategy 8.1% $ 7,351,347 Marathon Special Opportunities Fund, Ltd. Marathon Asset Management Credit Multi-Strategy 6.1% $ 5,500,000 20.8% $ 18,722,295 Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Fund Ltd. Brevan Howard Asset Management Macro Discretionary Macro 6.4% $ 5,790,837 Robeco Transtrend Diversified Fund LLC Transtrend Macro Systematic Macro 6.3% $ 5,642,978 Moore Macro Managers Fund, Ltd. Moore Capital Macro Discretionary Macro 6.7% $ 6,000,000 19.3% $ 17,433,815 Double Black Diamond, Ltd. Carlson Capital Relative Value Multi-Strategy 6.0% $ 5,375,359 Fir Tree International Value Fund (Non-US), L.P. Fir Tree Partners Relative Value Multi-Strategy 7.8% $ 7,006,262 Pine River Fund, Ltd. Pine River Capital Management Relative Value Multi-Strategy 6.7% $ 6,000,000 20.4% $ 18,381,621 Cash 0.0% 0.0% $ -

Number of funds = 18 Total 100% $ 90,224,345

3 Long/Short Equity Hedge Fund Manager Bloom Tree Partners LLC

Firm Name: Bloom Tree Partners LLC Fund Name: Bloom Tree Offshore Fund, Ltd. Inception Date: May 2008 Investment Note Update: March 2014

Executive Summary Bloom Tree is a long / short equity manager with a strong focus on absolute returns and volatility control. The Fund is managed by Alok Agrawal. Mr. Agrawal has a highly distinguished academic record and had a strong record of achievement in the technology industry before transitioning into the investment world. Working in the venture capital space, he was involved in some of the initial rounds of funding for Skype, one of the most successful venture investments ever. He was recruited into Julian Robertson’s Tiger Management LLC as an analyst in 2005. He quickly progressed to be a Co-Portfolio Manager and impressed Mr. Robertson to the point that he was seeded with his own fund, Bloom Tree Offshore Fund, in 2008. The Fund was initially seeded with $25 million, with a further $10 million added in 2011 and another $5 million in November 2013. Including accumulated profits, Tiger’s own investment in the Fund has increased to over $51 million. Bloom Tree’s assets under management were $882 million as of March 1, 2014. Mr. Agrawal is the sole Portfolio Manager and is supported by a team of three senior analysts, two junior analysts and two research associates.

Bloom Tree utilizes bottom-up research to develop views on companies, sectors and the broader macroeconomic environment. The Fund invests across all market capitalizations and, on the long side, the attributions demonstrate strong alpha generation across the market cap spectrum. On the short side, much of the alpha has been generated within the small cap universe. Geographically, the Fund can invest on a global basis; however, in practice, approximately two thirds of the exposure is to North American companies.

Gross exposure oscillates between 100% and 250%, with an average of 155% since inception in 2008. Net exposure is maintained low, with a range of 0% to 30% and an average of +9% since commencement of operations. The portfolio typically holds 25 to 30 long positions and the average position size hovers between 4% and 8%. The short side is more diversified and typically contains an average of 30 to 35 positions with a lower, 2-5% average size. Gross sector exposure is capped at 25%, while net sector exposure is capped at 15%. Bloom Tree stands out in terms of alpha generation: of the total 111.3% gross return, 108.8% is attributable to alpha and only 2.5% to beta returns. Correlation and beta to the S&P market are close to zero. Positives Negatives

 Solid track record of 10.8% annualized net returns since  The Fund has a relatively short track record (since 2008); inception (2008) and a Sharpe ratio of 1.0 however, Mr. Agrawal has effectively been managing  Strong downside control, low correlation and very high money since 2005, one of the most difficult investing alpha generation environments in living memory. In further mitigation, an  As with most Tiger funds, transparency is first class with examination of the Fund’s performance attributions excellent access to the PM and portfolio metrics demonstrated real skill, both in stock selection and portfolio construction  The Fund is reasonably liquid: no lock up and redemptions can be made quarterly with 45 days’ written notice  Subscription capacity is limited: the Manager has currently soft-closed the Fund, but will accept limited subscriptions from Pavilion clients by arrangement Recommendation

 Approved for all clients.  Continue to monitor.

4 Bloom Tree Partners, LLC

Key Professionals and Team Structure

Alok Agrawal is the sole Portfolio Manager at Bloom Tree. He is supported by three senior analysts, all of which have 10+ year of investment experience, two junior analysts and two research associates on the investment team. Mr. Agrawal is the key decision maker for the Fund and is also responsible for risk management. Bloom Tree recently hired a Head Trader to segregate trade execution from other functions. Bloom Tree’s back office is led by Nitin Wadke, CFO, who has 17 years of experience working with hedge funds. He is supported by Yitz Berger, controller, who has nine years of accounting and hedge fund back office experience, most recently with Avenue and Marathon.

Alok Agrawal — Bloom Tree Founder and Portfolio Manager, 2008 to present — Tiger Management LLC, Analyst and Co-PM, 2005 to 2008 — Bessemer Ventures Partners, Associate, 2002 to 2005 — Oracle Corporation, Development Manager, 1996 to 2000 — Harvard Business School, MBA, 2002 — University of California, Berkeley, MSc, 1996 — Indian Institute of Technology, Bachelor of Technology in Computer Science, 1994

David Cohen — Bloom Tree Partners, Senior Analyst, 2010 to present — Metalmark Capital, Associate, 2006 to 2008 — Tri-Artisan Capital Partners, Analyst, 2004 to 2006 — First Equity Group, Analyst, 2002 to 2004 — University of Pennsylvania, MBA, 2010 — University of Pennsylvania, BSE, 2002

Kyle Sable — Bloom Tree Partners, Senior Analyst, 2012 to present — Matrix Capital Management, Principal, 2009 to 2012 — Highbridge Capital Management, Analyst, 2008 — Bain Capital Partners, Associate, 2005 to 2007 — Harvard Business School, MBA, 2009 — University of Michigan, BA, 2003

5 Bloom Tree Partners, LLC

Investment Process

Bloom Tree utilizes bottom-up research to develop views on companies, sectors and the broader macroeconomic environment. Bloom Tree primarily targets companies undergoing fundamental changes to their earnings power and that have short-term catalyst. Investments are made with a relatively long time horizon in order to take maximum advantage of any mispricing. On the long side, Bloom Tree focuses on high-quality businesses with high Return On Investment Capital (ROIC) and management teams that have a demonstrated ability to allocate capital efficiently. The focus is on finding undervalued securities that offer sufficient margin of safety through extensive fundamental research.

Some long situations in which Bloom Tree invests include the following:

1. Spin-offs and IPOs: Companies in their early stages of independent existence are often under-researched and misunderstood, offering an opportunity for outsized returns. 2. Global business models: Business models that have worked in one part of the world but are early in other parts of the world. 3. Restructuring situations: Companies in good industries with poor operating performance, but with credible new management in place that can turn the business around. 4. Overreaction to short-term challenges: Liquidity driven sell-offs or sell-offs due to one-off events unlikely to have an impact on the franchise value of a business.

One the short side, Bloom Tree focuses on businesses with deteriorating fundamentals, “concept” stocks where there is a misperception about the market opportunity and the company’s competitive position, and companies that use aggressive accounting practices to boost earnings.

Some short situations in which Bloom Tree invests include the following:

1. Business with declining earnings power due to structural issues: Companies with poor balance sheets and declining earnings resulting from a shrinking market and/or change in competitive landscape due to emergence of new players and substitutes. 2. Concept stocks: Companies where there is a misperception about the size of the market opportunity. 3. Aggressive accounting and fraud: Companies with fraudulent or misleading business practices and/or aggressive accounting.

The focus is on absolute returns and net exposure is generally kept in a low 0 – 30% net range. Overall gross exposure is maintained below 250%. The long book will typically hold 20-25 core holdings with a medium to long term holding period. The short book may be more diversified to manage risk with 25-35 positions, with typically shorter holding period. Most short positions will be absolute shorts as opposed to paired or market hedge trades. Long positions are typically held from 18-24 months, while the investment horizon for short positions is 12-18 months.

Mr. Agrawal works with the analysts to produce investment ideas for the Fund. The Portfolio Manager is ultimately responsible for all purchases and sales in the portfolio and the only individual authorized to execute trades for the fund. The long and short positions are weighted according to Bloom Tree’s perception of overall market direction and risk / reward characteristics of each individual position. The level of net exposure in the portfolio at any given time is mainly a function of Bloom Tree’s ability to identify attractive investments either long or short.

Bloom Tree provides detailed exposure, attribution, and risk reports on a monthly basis. The firm composes a detailed quarterly letter for investors.

6 Bloom Tree Partners, LLC

Operational Due Diligence Highlights

Back office structure: The business team, led by CFO Nitin Wadke, comprises Yitz Berger (Controller) and Daniel Millen (Director of Business Development / Investor Relations).

Trading Infrastructure: The firm has not installed an order management or portfolio accounting system. Bloom Tree is contemplating the addition of well-known software Eze OMS as order management system or Enfusion Integrata portfolio management software (which has a built in trade blotter and general ledger capabilities).

Service providers: Internal operational resources are complemented by administration services provided by SS&C Technologies (SS&C GlobeOp), based in Skillman (NJ), Windsor (CT) and Curaçao. Rothstein Kass, a mid-tier audit firm recognized for its specialization in hedge funds, is appointed as auditor, with fieldwork performed by its Roseland (NJ) office and signoff by the Cayman Islands location.

Internal capital: Alok has approximately $9 million invested pari passu alongside external investors in the fund. This amount represents 90% of his overall net worth. It is expected that Alok will reinvest accumulated profits back in the fund going forward.

Cash Management Policy: Both Nitin and Alok need to sign on all third party asset / cash transfers authorizations. To provide added flexibility, the firm agreed to add the Controller as third authorized signatory should the CFO be out of the office. Assets are “ring fenced” and can only be moved from the prime brokerage accounts to the JPM Chase bank account in the fund’s name, the latter which is under the control of the fund administrator.

Compliance resources: Bloom Tree’s CFO also acts as Chief Compliance Officer. The firm has engaged Constellation Investment Consulting to assist with ongoing compliance matters, including an annual review of firm procedures, periodic testing of certain procedures, and periodic employee training. The firm is registered with the SEC since April 9, 2013 and expects a first regulatory examination in the next year or so. To help prepare for the examination, the firm plans to have Constellation perform a mock audit in 2014, after completion of the year-end audit in April.

Key person risk: Although the investment research team appears to be deep, there is inherent key person risk with Alok as Portfolio Manager and founder. In mitigation, the offering documentation contains a key person provision which would allow investors to redeem with a penalty or lock up in the event where Alok would die, be incapacitated or no longer involved in the management of the fund.

Fees and Terms

Annual Management Fee: Sub-Class 4: 1.5% (declines linearly to 1% between $500m to $1bn AUM) Sub-Class 5: 1.5% Incentive Fee: Sub-Class 4: 15.0% (collected at end of 2 year lock-up period over a LIBOR hurdle) Sub-Class 5: 20.0% Minimum Investment: $1,000,000 Subscriptions: Monthly Redemptions: Sub-Class 4: 2-year (rolling) with 45 days’ written notice Sub-Class 5: Quarterly with 45 days’ written notice Lock-up period: Sub-Class 4: 2-year hard lock-up Sub-Class 5: None Entry/Exit Fees: None

7 Bloom Tree Partners, LLC

Advisory Fee: None High water mark: Yes Auditor: Rothstein & Kass Prime Broker(s): Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Legal: Seward & Kissel (Onshore); Ogier (Offshore)

Risk and Return History

See attached sheet.

8 Bloom Tree Offshore Fund, Ltd. Long/Short Equity Hedge Fund

Product Bloom HFN Long/Short HFN Hedge Fund MSCI S&P Name Tree Equity Index Aggregate Index WorldND 500 2013 13.0 16.4 9.5 26.7 32.4 2012 13.7 7.9 6.6 15.8 16.0 2011 23.7 6.7 5.0 5.5 2.1 2010 5.8 10.1 10.6 11.8 15.1 2009 9.1 21.8 19.4 30.0 26.5 2008 20.5 15.7 40.7 37.0

Annualized Bloom HFN Long/Short HFN Hedge Fund MSCI S&P Returns Tree Equity Index Aggregate Index WorldND 500 1 Year 13.0 16.4 9.5 26.7 32.4 2 Years 13.3 12.1 8.1 21.1 23.9 3 Years 16.7 5.4 3.5 11.5 16.2 5 Years 12.9 9.5 7.9 15.0 17.9 10 Years 6.7 6.2 7.0 7.4 Since 10.8 4.6 4.0 4.0 7.6 Inception

Statistical Bloom HFN Long/Short HFN Hedge Fund MSCI S&P Analysis Tree Equity Index Aggregate Index WorldND 500 Cumulative 78.4 29.3 25.0 24.7 51.4 Return Best Period 8.6 5.5 5.1 11.2 10.9 Worst 9.5 7.0 6.0 19.0 16.8 Period Positive 43.0 44.0 43.0 40.0 45.0 Periods Negative 25.0 24.0 25.0 28.0 23.0 Periods

Returns Bloom Tree Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year 2013 3.90 0.40 1.90 4.00 2.60 0.70 1.50 1.40 1.50 2.80 1.00 2.40 12.96 2012 0.50 3.50 0.80 1.00 3.10 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.60 1.70 1.10 0.50 13.71 2011 3.40 0.90 3.90 4.80 3.90 1.00 5.50 3.40 1.10 8.60 2.20 0.30 23.72 2010 4.20 2.60 0.50 2.20 1.20 3.40 5.90 1.80 1.10 1.20 2.20 1.20 5.82 2009 8.50 2.20 0.40 9.50 3.50 2.90 1.70 1.80 1.90 3.50 0.20 1.10 9.13 2008 0.70 0.50 1.00 2.10 6.00 2.30 3.80 0.70 2.78

(C) COPYRIGHT Pavilion Advisory Group LTD., 2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS REPORT MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION. 9 Bloom Tree Offshore Fund, Ltd. Equity L/S Hedge Fund

Risk Bloom HFN Long/Short HFN Hedge Fund MSCI S&P Comparison to Bloom HFN Long/Short HFN Hedge Fund MSCI S&P Tree Equity Index Aggregate Index WorldND 500 Benchmark Tree Equity Index Aggregate Index WorldND 500 Standard Deviation 10.5 8.5 6.7 19.7 18.0 Alpha 10.5 0.0 0.4 4.6 0.2 Sharpe Ratio 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.4 Beta 0.2 1.0 0.8 2.2 1.9 Sortino Ratio 1.7 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.6 Correlation 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 Max Drawdown 9.9 21.4 17.3 50.0 46.4 RSquared 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 Max Drawdown 2.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 Tracking Error 12.6 0.0 2.2 12.3 11.2 Length Information Ratio 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 Max Drawdown 9.0 13.0 10.0 47.0 24.0 Up Market 43.4 100.0 75.5 223.2 222.5 Recovery Period Capture Gain/Loss Ratio 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 Down Market 48.9 100.0 75.4 210.4 187.8 Skewness 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Capture Kurtosis 1.8 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 VaR @ 95% 7.8 5.2 4.5 12.7 10.2

(C) COPYRIGHT Pavilion Advisory Group LTD., 2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS REPORT MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION. 10 Long/Short Equity Hedge Fund Manager Tiger Eye Capital LLC

Firm Name: Tiger Eye Capital LLC Fund Name: Tiger Eye Fund, Ltd. Inception Date: April 2009 Investment Note Update: March 2014

SUMMARY Tiger Eye is a value‐orientated long / short equity manager. The firm follows an investment process which combines deep, bottom‐up company analysis with fundamental sector and supply / demand research. The Fund is managed by Benjamin Gambill. Prior to founding Tiger Eye in 2009, Mr. Gambill spent five years at Trafelet Delta Funds where he was a Partner, Head of Research and Assistant Portfolio Manager. Whilst at Trafelet, he was credited with some of the funds’ best investment ideas. During his tenure, Mr. Gambill held the roles of sector head of the natural resources, industrial, and financial sectors. He was responsible for up to $1.5 billion in fund capital. Background checks, which included interviews with individuals who worked directly with him during that period, consistently describe him as a “highly competent stock picker who did not make careless mistakes”. He is also described as thoughtful, calm and clear thinking under pressure. Additionally, the founder of Trafelet spoke very highly of Mr. Gambill and was saddened to see him leave. Mr. Gambill departed Trafelet at the end of 2008 to start Tiger Eye. The Fund was seeded by Julian Robertson’s Tiger Management LLC in 2009 with an initial $25m. An additional s$5m wa added on November 1, 2013. Including accumulated profits, Tiger’s capital held in the Fund is now valued at over $49 million. As of March 1, 2014, Tiger Eye managed approximately $1.2 billion. Mr. Gambill is supported by a team of three senior analysts and a research associate.

On the long side, Tiger Eye seeks to identify companies having positive structural catalysts. Tiger Eye is unique in that the team puts a heavy emphasis on assessing the quality of corporate management and on understanding management’s incentive packages. The firm has performed detailed analysis on corporate compensation packages: to date, their research has shown that management teams having their compensation heavily tilted towards equity value creation, rather than cash, perform far better. Tiger Eye pays particular attention to a management team’s track record of value creation and prudent capital allocation. Furthermore, according to their research, this ratio is also useful on the short side: management teams’ compensated from a high cash component and low equity participation frequently underperform.

The Fund’s portfolio generally contains 30‐50 long positions and 30‐50 short positions. The Fund’s gross and net exposures range between 100‐175% and 20‐50%, respectively. Long positions with the highest conviction generally comprise 4‐9% of the portfolio, while highest conviction short positions generally average 1.5‐3%. Geographic exposure is to developed, liquid markets, with emphasis on geographic exposure of revenues. Historically, nearly all positive returns have been generated within North America. Any sector exposure is limited to less than 20% of net exposure.

Positives Negatives  Strong performance: 17.2% annualized net returns since  The Fund has a short track record (commenced operations inception (2009) and a Sharpe ratio of 2.2 in 2009). In mitigation, Mr. Gambill successfully ran a  Good downside control, as well as low correlation with substantial (up to $1.5 billion) pool of capital during his stock markets and high alpha generation previous five years at Trafelet. Additionally, an examination  As with most other Tiger “cubs,” investor transparency is of the Fund’s performance attributions demonstrated real first rate, with excellent access to the PM and portfolio skill, both from in stock selection and portfolio construction. metrics  Subscription capacity is limited: the Manager has currently  Liquidity terms are reasonable: One‐year soft lock up, with soft‐closed the Fund, but will accept limited subscriptions quarterly redemptions subject to a 60 days’ notice from Pavilion clients by arrangement  Manager allows all Pavilion clients in lower fee share class

11 Tiger Eye Capital, LLC

Recommendation

 Approved for all clients.  Continue to monitor.

Key Professionals and Team Structure:

Benjamin Gambill is the founder and sole Portfolio Manager at Tiger Eye. He is supported by three sector focused analysts and one research associate. Mr. Gambill is the key decision maker for the Fund and is also responsible for risk management. Tiger Eye’s back office is led by John Raniolo, CFO/CCO. He is supported by Dennis Moody, assistant controller, who was an assistant controller at a long/short equity firm prior to joining Tiger Eye.

Benjamin Gambill — Tiger Eye Capital, Managing Partner &Portfolio Manager, 2009 to present — Trafelet Delta Funds, Partner, Head of Research and Assistant Portfolio Manager, 2003 to 2008 — Banc of America Securities, Analyst, Natural Resources, Investment Banking, 2002 to 2003 — Robertson Stephens, Analyst, Healthcare, Investment Banking, 2001 to 2002 — University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, B.S. and B.A., 2001

James Aldige — Tiger Eye Capital, Investment Analyst, 2009 to present — Merrill Lynch, Investment Banking Analyst and Associate, 2004 to 2008 — Harvard Business School, MBA, 2010 — Oxford University, M.Phil. Economic History, 2005 — University of Virginia, BA, 2003

David Hobbs — Tiger Eye Capital, Investment Analyst, 2009 to present — Centerbridge Partners, Associate, 2008 to 2009 — Blackstone Group (Real Estate), Analyst, 2006 to 2008 — University of Virginia, BS, 2006

Samir Amrute — Tiger Eye Capital, Investment Analyst, 2013 to present — Coatue Management, Analyst, 2008 to 20013 — Silver Point Capital, Analyst, 2006 to 2008 — University of Pennsylvania, BS, 2006

12 Tiger Eye Capital, LLC

Investment Process

Tiger Eye is a global long / short equity fund manager that combines fundamental bottom‐up company analysis with in‐depth sector research. Tiger Eye’s investment process seeks to identify the highest potential return opportunities across sectors and geographies. It combines in‐house company analysis with fundamental sector supply/demand research to identify opportunities that meet its investment criteria. Tiger Eye maintains financial models for portfolio companies and continuously reassesses positions based on risk/reward determined by ongoing fundamental analysis. Sector and geographic risks are monitored, and external risks are addressed upfront through hedging. Tiger Eye also uses a “Portfolio in Waiting” system that makes use of past research and highlights ideas not currently in the portfolio as they approach attractive entry points.

The Fund’s long holdings are typically companies with structurally advantaged assets that generate high or significantly improving long‐ term returns on capital, and have attractive competitive positioning within their respective sectors. These companies usually have management teams who have demonstrated significant value creation for shareholders over time, and who remain motivated to further share price appreciation.

Some long situations in which Tiger Eye invests include:

1. Restructuring situations 2. Hidden assets 3. Management changes 4. Positive or significantly improving sector supply/demand fundamentals 5. Strong free cash flow management 6. Low costs relative to peers 7. Barriers to entry 8. Overreaction to short‐term challenges 9. Spin‐offs and IPOs 10. Global business models

On the short side, the manager’s holdings are in businesses with deteriorating fundamentals that require external funding to grow and management teams who are agnostic to long‐term share price appreciation, as usually exhibited by a high mix of cash compensation as opposed to stock (the firm compares ratios of outright ownership to cash compensation for top individuals). Tiger Eye seeks to short businesses facing permanent value impairment as a result of competitive forces, product obsolescence, or weak supply/demand outlooks. The firm does not short solely based on valuation.

Some short situations in which the Fund invests include:

1. Declining ROIC businesses 2. Management changes 3. Departure from core expertise 4. Business with declining earnings power due to structural issues 5. Constant capital issuers 6. Concept stocks 7. Uneconomic growth; 8. Negative sector supply/demand fundamentals 9. Unrealistic Wall Street financial expectations 10. Aggressive accounting and fraud

A detailed checklist has been developed based on specific investment criteria and return thresholds. New positions must meet a minimum return threshold of 50% return over two years (long positions) and 20% return over one year (short positions). Mr. Gambill

13 Tiger Eye Capital, LLC

works with the investment analyst to produce investment ideas for the Fund. The Portfolio Manager is ultimately responsible for all purchases and sales in the portfolio; he is the only individual authorized to execute trades for the fund.

In order to preserve capital throughout market cycles, the firm has adopted a number of risk management procedures at the position and portfolio level. At the position level, Tiger Eye adjusts position sizes based on upside / downside analysis and through on‐going regular meetings / calls with management, and facility visits. The firm will mandatorily review all positions losing 10% relative to eth sector index and market, and generally reduces positions following a 20% loss relative to the sector index and market. Tiger Eye immediately exits a stock if the investment thesis changes. At the portfolio level, the firm constantly monitors gross and net exposures, sector / geographical exposure, beta adjusted exposure, correlation with market, currency / hedging exposure, adherence to position size limits, and the fund’s liquidity profile.

Tiger Eye provides investors with monthly statements, a monthly attribution and exposure report, quarterly letters, and annual financial statements. Weekly estimates are available upon request.

Operational Due Diligence Highlights

Back office structure: Tiger Eye’s business team is led by John Raniolo, Chief Financial Officer, and Justin Fredericks (Director of Business Development).

Trading Infrastructure: The firm has not installed an order management or portfolio accounting system and currently maintains the trade blotter using Excel spreadsheets. With the increase in assets under management and the impending addition of a second prime broker (Morgan Stanley), Tiger Eye is contemplating the addition of Eze OMS order management software of Enfusion Integrata portfolio management software, which has a built‐in trade blotter and general ledger capabilities, as an effort to institutionalize the firm.

Service providers: Internal operational resources are complemented by administration services provided by SS&C Technologies (SS&C GlobeOp), based in Skillman (NJ), Windsor (CT) and Curaçao. Rothstein Kass, a mid‐tier audit firm recognized for its specialization in hedge funds, is appointed as auditor, with fieldwork performed by its Roseland (NJ) office and signoff by the Cayman Islands location.

Technology Infrastructure: Hardware and software were provided by Tiger at inception and IT support is outsourced to well‐known firm Eze Castle Integration (ECI), with six ECI employees onsite dedicated to Tiger and Tiger funds engaging in an outsourced relationship with the provider.

Compliance: Tiger Eye’s, CFO John Raniolo, also acts as Chief Compliance Officer. The firm has engaged Constellation Investment Consulting to assist with ongoing compliance matters, including an annual review of firm procedures, periodic testing of certain procedures, and periodic employee training. The firm is registered with the SEC since April 1, 2013 and expects a first regulatory examination in the next year or so. To help prepare for the examination, Tiger Eye plans to have Constellation perform a mock audit in early 2014, after completion of the year‐end audit. The firm has installed Global Relay communications archiving software to help retrieving emails and other electronic communications for regulatory purposes.

Valuation: Valuation risk is low. Pricing procedures are performed by external fund administrator SS&C on a daily basis using pricing inputs from Bloomberg or IDC for over 80% of the long book and 100% of the short book.

Internal capital: Ben Gambill and other employees now account for 2% of firm‐wide capital, or approximately $17 million (including amounts held by the GP at the master fund level). Internal capital is invested on a pari passu basis with external investors.

Key person risk: There is inherent key person risk with Ben Gambill as sole Portfolio Manager and founder. In mitigation, the offering documentation contains a key person provision which would allow investors to redeem with a penalty or lock up in the event where Ben would die, be incapacitated or no longer involved in the management of the fund.

14 Tiger Eye Capital, LLC

Fees and Terms

Annual Management Fee: Sub‐Class One: 2.0% of assets Sub‐Class Two: 1.5% of assets Incentive Fee: 20.0% Minimum Investment: Sub‐Class One: $1,000,000 Sub‐Class Two: $10,000,000 (the minimum has been waived for all Pavilion clients) Subscriptions: Monthly Redemptions: Quarterly with 60 days’ written notice Lock‐up Period: One‐tyear sof lock with 4% redemption fee Entry/Exit Fees: None Advisory Fee: None High Water Mark: Yes – modified: 10% incentive fee until 200% recovery of loss Auditor: Rothstein & Kass Prime Broker: Goldman Sachs & Co. Legal Counsel: Seward & Kissel (Onshore), Ogier (Offshore)

Risk and Return History

See attached sheet.

15 Tiger Eye Fund, Ltd. Long/Short Equity Hedge Fund

Product Tiger HFN Long/Short HFN Hedge Fund MSCI S&P Name Eye Equity Index Aggregate Index WorldND 500 2013 37.7 16.4 9.5 26.7 32.4 2012 17.7 7.9 6.6 15.8 16.0 2011 5.6 6.7 5.0 5.5 2.1 2010 10.1 10.1 10.6 11.8 15.1 2009 21.8 19.4 30.0 26.5 2008 20.5 15.7 40.7 37.0

Annualized Tiger HFN Long/Short HFN Hedge Fund MSCI S&P Returns Eye Equity Index Aggregate Index WorldND 500 1 Year 37.7 16.4 9.5 26.7 32.4 2 Years 27.3 12.1 8.1 21.1 23.9 3 Years 19.6 5.4 3.5 11.5 16.2 5 Years 9.5 7.9 15.0 17.9 10 Years 6.7 6.2 7.0 7.4 Since 17.2 10.0 8.3 19.0 21.9 Inception

Statistical Tiger HFN Long/Short HFN Hedge Fund MSCI S&P Analysis Eye Equity Index Aggregate Index WorldND 500 Cumulative 112.6 57.1 46.3 128.6 156.4 Return Best Period 6.4 5.5 5.1 11.2 10.9 Worst 3.6 4.4 3.4 9.6 8.0 Period Positive 38.0 41.0 40.0 37.0 41.0 Periods Negative 19.0 16.0 17.0 20.0 16.0 Periods

Returns Tiger Eye Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year 2013 3.92 3.60 2.70 2.70 4.05 1.84 3.50 1.27 6.40 3.20 2.00 3.72 37.68 2012 0.03 4.09 1.59 2.90 1.67 1.21 1.16 3.57 0.66 2.38 0.13 0.78 17.72 2011 0.80 3.53 2.53 3.41 1.59 0.27 0.50 2.66 1.09 0.68 0.36 0.66 5.58 2010 2.09 1.37 4.06 1.64 3.62 1.36 0.25 0.47 3.54 2.26 4.27 2.90 10.07 2009 0.50 2.10 0.13 0.39 1.30 2.70 0.05 0.47 6.09 12.89

(C) COPYRIGHT Pavilion Advisory Group LTD., 2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS REPORT MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION. 16 Tiger Eye Fund, Ltd. Long/Short Equity Hedge Fund

Risk Tiger HFN Long/Short HFN Hedge Fund MSCI S&P Comparison to Tiger HFN Long/Short HFN Hedge Fund MSCI S&P Eye Equity Index Aggregate Index WorldND 500 Benchmark Eye Equity Index Aggregate Index WorldND 500 Standard Deviation 7.6 7.3 5.6 15.9 14.1 Alpha 10.9 0.0 0.8 1.4 3.7 Sharpe Ratio 2.2 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.5 Beta 0.6 1.0 0.8 2.1 1.8 Sortino Ratio 5.9 2.4 2.8 2.1 2.9 Correlation 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 Max Drawdown 6.1 10.9 8.3 19.6 16.3 RSquared 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 Max Drawdown 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Tracking Error 6.9 0.0 2.2 9.4 8.0 Length Information Ratio 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.5 Max Drawdown 4.0 16.0 16.0 15.0 5.0 Up Market 124.2 100.0 76.1 220.9 222.5 Recovery Period Capture Gain/Loss Ratio 2.4 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.1 Down Market 51.0 100.0 70.2 196.1 168.9 Skewness 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 Capture Kurtosis 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.1 VaR @ 95% 3.1 4.0 3.1 8.5 6.3

Marathon Asset Management, LP

Firm Name: Marathon Asset Management, LP Fund Name: Marathon Special Opportunities Fund, Ltd. Inception Date: April 1999 Updated as of: March 2014

Executive Summary

The fund is credit-oriented and focuses on stressed and distressed securities, mispriced capital structures, corporate credit, structured credit, and corporate events. The Fund is run by Louis Hanover (CIO and lead portfolio manager) who is supported by a team of specialist and sector analysts. Mr. Hanover develops a top-down, macro view and the team identifies investment ideas surrounding these views and conducts bottoms up analysis on securities. The analysts present the investment ideas to the management team outlining the risk/reward potential of an investment based on the company’s balance sheet, financial statements, industry and competitive analysis, as well as its current and future market share projections. The analyst proposes the sizing and works with a trader to determine the entry and exit strategy for the security. Ultimately, Mr. Hanover is responsible for all investments made into the Fund and must approve both the position size and trading strategy before the investment can get into the Fund. The Fund typically has 25-30 core positions around which Marathon actively trades. These core positions typically are complemented by smaller satellite positions. Long positions typically are held between three and 12 months and the majority of the portfolio is concentrated in more liquid securities. The Fund historically has used minimal leverage and anticipates that this will continue to be the case. Marathon has built a significant presence in Europe where a strong pipeline of opportunities is expected over the next few years. Louis Hanover himself has recently re-located to London to lead this effort.

Marathon has over $10.5 billion in assets under management, $1.2 billion of which is invested in the Special Opportunities Fund.

Positives Negatives

 Deep and experienced team who have worked together for  Annual or biennial liquidity many years  Institutional quality back office  Strong organizational stability  Excellent risk adjusted returns since the inception (15.6% net and a 1.2 Sharpe)

Recommendation

 Approved for all clients  Continue to monitor

18 Marathon Asset Management, LP

Key Professionals and Team Structure:

Marathon has 133 employees and is managed by a 12-member Executive Committee, comprising the Firm’s six partners and other senior business leaders. Members part of the Executive Committee average 23 years of industry experience and 12 years at the Firm. Mr. Hanover is the Chief Investment Officer of the Firm and leads the investment team in managing the Special Opportunities Fund. He is supported by nine senior members of the portfolio management team, all of which have a strategy specialization. The senior portfolio management team utilizes a team of 43 corporate/global credit investment professionals and 22 structured and real estate related credit investment professionals. The teams are divided up by geography, sector and company specific research. The Fund is monitored by a risk management team led by Jamie Raboy, Chief Risk Officer, and John Duddy, Managing Director within the risk management team. The investment team is supported by a 56 member back office led by Andrew Rabinowitz, Chief Operating Officer, Chirstine Chartouni, Chief Compliance Officer, and Scot Pasquale, Chief Financial Officer. Bruce Richards - Marathon Asset Management, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Managing Partner, 1998 to present - Smith Barney, Managing Director, 1988 to 1998 - Donaldson, Lufkin, & Jenrette, Head of Trading, 1987 to 1988 - Shearson Lehman Hutton, Trader, 1984 to 1987 - Paine Webber, Trader, 1982 to 1984 - Tulane University, BA, 1982 Louis Hanover - Marathon Asset Management, Chief Investment Officer and Co-Managing Partner, 1998 to present - Smith Barney, Managing Director, 1994 to 1998 - Merrill Lynch, Director, 1993 to 1994 - Nomura, Trader, 1990 to 1993 - First Chicago Capital Markets, Trader, 1986 to 1989 - University of Chicago, MBA, 1989 - University of Chicago, BA, 1986 Andrew Rabinowitz, CPA - Marathon Asset Management, Chief Operating Officer and Partner, 2001 to Present - Schulte Roth & Zabel, Lawyer, 2000 to 2001 - Ernst & Young, Manager, 1993 to 2000 - Fordham University, J.D., 1993 - Pace University, BBA, 1990 Richard Ronzetti - Marathon Asset Management, Global Head of Investment Analysis and Partner, 2001 to Present - Agnelli Group, Senior Investment Analyst, 1995 to 2001 - Paine Webber and Smith Barney, Managing Director, 1990 to 1995 - Morgan Stanley, Investment Banker, 1986 to 1990 - Drexel Burnham Lambert, Investment Banker, 1982 to 1983 - Harvard University, J.D., 1986 - Harvard University, BA, 1982

19 Marathon Asset Management, LP

Investment Process:

The Fund’s investment strategy is based on a rigorous approach to credit analysis and keen understanding of the markets, allowing Marathon to opportunistically invest the Fund’s assets across global credit markets. The Fund seeks to invest in distressed and special situations by identifying asymmetrical risk-return situations where Marathon’s investment management team believes that the return potential from a particular investment is greater than the underlying potential risk of that investment. The Fund targets absolute, unlevered returns and has historically utilized relatively low levels of financial leverage in pursuing its investment strategy. Marathon intends to implement the Fund’s investment strategy through a focus on the following targets for opportunistic investing, with expected returns being driven by individual credit selection and appropriate risk management. - Stressed and Distressed Situations. Marathon will target investments in stressed and deeply distressed companies going through a restructuring process. Marathon’s investment team seeks to identify the portion of the capital structure with the greatest asymmetry of potential reward relative to its fundamental view of the risk of the investment and in the context of the most likely outcome of the restructuring process. Marathon often takes an active role in a restructuring process when appropriate, such as leading creditor’s committees, to advocate an outcome consistent with its investment view. - Dislocated and Mispriced Capital Structures. Marathon looks to invest in dislocated or mispriced capital structures where there is no pending or ongoing credit event, but the price of a particular capital instrument does not reflect the manager’s view of the underlying risk of the investment. These investments may involve outright long-positions in individual loans or securities or investments in multiple parts of a single capital structure that the manager believes will diverge or converge from their current trading levels. - Corporate Credit-Related Event Investments. Marathon seeks to identify corporate credit-related events, such as corporate liability management activities or deleveraging and improving corporate credit profiles that are not reflected in a security or loans trading levels. These types of events could include activities such as new equity capital raises, discounted debt retirements, maturity extension risks or companies experiencing fundamental earnings improvements. - Structured Credit. Marathon invests a portion of the Fund in ABS, RMBS, CMBS, CLOs and CDOs as opportunities arise in stressed, distressed, and mispriced securities across the universe of highly-complex structured credit securities. - Situational Short Investments. Marathon will look to take advantage of situational short opportunities in credit where it believes a particular investment is over-valued and a catalyst exists that will result in the correction of the value of that investment. Situational short investments could include a variety of shareholder friendly activities, such as re-leveraging activities, share buybacks and dividend recapitalizations, or could be the result of ratings downgrades, sovereign credit disruptions or changing fundamentals. - Situational or Strategic Long Investments. Marathon will seek out and evaluate select strategic long investments in credit, such as bank portfolio sales, at what it believes are highly opportunistic prices when a seller of such assets are motivated by non- economic factors and where it believes that these investments provide an attractive risk-reward opportunity. - Portfolio Hedging Investments. The Fund’s investment strategy also includes short positions in single names or indices that allow for profit in the event of a market or industry event for portfolio hedging purposes. Marathon will opportunistically utilize single name and index shorts to hedge various market risks, such as movements in interest rates or broad market deterioration, and isolate alpha creation from the Fund’s investments.

Operational Due Diligence Highlights

Business Leadership: Andrew Rabinowitz acts as the firm’s COO, oversees the firm’s infrastructure, and is responsible for setting global policies and procedures. Andrew joined Marathon in 2001 from Schulte, Roth & Zabel, a well-known New York law firm catering to hedge funds. Andrew appears competent, knowledgeable and inspires investor confidence. He is assisted by approximately 60 professionals responsible for accounting, operations, legal, compliance, and technology functions.

Service providers: Marathon utilizes well-known providers for the fund, including Citco Fund Services (with a NJ-based accounting team) as fund administrator, and Ernst & Young as auditor.

20 Marathon Asset Management, LP

Systems: Marathon uses a suite of custom built applications tailored specifically to its needs, dubbed Marathon Portfolio Management (MPM). MPM is a portfolio and risk management which interfaces with various third-party trading and clearing software, the prime brokers and Citco’s Æxeo accounting platform where the Fund’s official books and records are maintained.

Fund expenses: Marathon historically imposed a 50 bps cap on certain expenses charged to the Fund in relation to internal operational, accounting, administrative and research costs of certain employees of Marathon. In early 2013, the cap was lowered to 25 bps and is based on the year-end net asset value of the Master Fund (excluding management and incentive fees). Any of these expense types exceeding the threshold will be reimbursed by Marathon. The majority of expenses relates to professional, legal and deal structuring fees which can increase quite rapidly: this is not unusual for a credit hedge fund such as Marathon.

Compliance: Christine Chartouni, Chief Compliance Officer, is the main compliance resource and reports to Andrew Rabinowitz, the COO. Marathon is registered with the SEC, UK FCA and recently registered with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) as a licensed fund management company.

Valuation: For the purpose of the month-end final calculation, Citco has been given the responsibility to value the portfolio as independently as possible, subject to verification and challenge by Marathon. Citco compares its internally generated / gathered marks to Marathon’s values using various basis point sensitivity thresholds at the position, asset type and overall fund level. For the valuation of private assets (which largely relate to side pockets), Marathon has enlisted third party valuation specialist Houlihan Lokey, as well as advisors Deloitte and KPMG, to provide price ranges for certain private equity, real estate and private placements at least on a semi-annual basis. These asset types are inherently illiquid and cannot be priced by Citco using its independent sources. The valuation providers send the price packages directly to Citco. Marathon makes its own calculations internally.

Technology: The internal IT team is comprised of Kay Stack, MD of IT, and one employee. Additionally, the firm utilizes external consultant Richard Fleischman and Associates (RFA), an IT support and disaster recovery solutions provider used by several hedge funds.

Fees and Terms:

Annual Management Fee: Class E4: 2.0% Class E5: 2.0% Class E6: 1.5% Incentive Fee: 20.0% Minimum Investment: $1,000,000 Subscriptions: Monthly Redemptions: Class E4: Annual (on anniversary of investment), 90 days’ notice Class E5: Quarterly with 1/8th distributions each quarter, 90 days’ notice Class E6: Rolling 24 months, 90 days’ notice Lock-up period: None Entry/Exit Fees: None Advisory Fee: None High water mark: Yes Auditor: Ernst & Young Prime Broker(s): Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, JP Morgan, Citigroup Legal: Seward & Kissel (US); Ogier (Cayman)

21 Marathon Asset Management, LP

Risk and Return History See attached sheet.

22 Marathon Special Opportunities Fund Credit Hedge Fund

Product Marathon HFN HFN Event HFN Hedge Fund Barclays Global Name SO Distressed Driven Index Aggregate Index High Yield Index 2013 19.8 15.3 14.9 9.5 7.3 2012 16.5 14.7 8.9 6.6 19.6 2011 4.8 1.6 3.9 5.0 3.1 2010 9.1 15.6 11.8 10.6 14.8 2009 43.8 29.7 30.3 19.4 59.4 2008 30.1 27.1 20.5 15.7 26.9

Annualized Marathon HFN HFN Event HFN Hedge Fund Barclays Returns SO Distressed Driven Index Aggregate Index Global High Index Yield 1 Year 19.8 15.3 14.9 9.5 7.3 2 Years 18.1 15.0 11.9 8.1 13.3 3 Years 9.9 9.2 6.3 3.5 9.8 5 Years 15.8 14.3 11.9 7.9 19.4 10 Years 9.7 8.2 7.5 6.2 9.3 Since 15.6 10.4 8.8 9.2 9.1 Inception Statistical Marathon HFN HFN Event HFN Hedge Fund Barclays Analysis SO Distressed Driven Index Aggregate Index Global High Index Yield Cumulative 736.7 325.2 245.5 264.0 259.1 Return Best 15.5 5.6 5.2 6.3 10.9 Period Worst 11.3 11.2 6.3 6.0 18.6 Period Positive 138.0 129.0 126.0 124.0 120.0 Periods Negative 36.0 47.0 50.0 52.0 56.0 Periods Returns Marathon SO Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year 2013 3.95 0.75 1.82 1.58 3.07 1.62 0.54 0.61 0.89 2.39 2.51 1.79 19.76 2012 3.30 1.23 1.32 0.71 0.00 0.04 0.72 1.33 1.98 2.64 0.46 1.70 16.51 2011 2.84 1.10 0.03 0.62 0.83 1.63 0.99 3.48 2.44 1.01 2.71 0.15 4.80 2010 3.48 0.51 2.19 2.49 2.74 1.44 1.34 1.14 2.10 1.57 0.89 0.70 9.10 2009 1.36 0.12 4.14 0.09 8.29 3.21 4.52 5.58 7.24 4.94 2.91 3.41 43.82 2008 0.10 0.07 0.24 0.75 0.05 0.57 0.15 1.20 7.92 5.47 7.21 11.33 30.10 2007 1.27 1.09 1.18 2.54 1.15 0.01 2.44 1.67 1.13 0.26 0.50 0.03 4.02 2006 1.77 0.42 1.60 1.04 1.55 0.86 0.67 0.10 0.49 0.24 1.43 2.37 13.26 2005 1.38 1.93 0.81 0.73 1.28 1.28 0.74 1.15 0.78 1.33 1.04 0.80 14.08 2004 4.00 3.96 1.68 0.67 0.54 1.13 0.85 1.07 1.35 3.48 4.00 2.96 28.81 2003 4.94 1.73 1.82 5.93 1.66 1.85 1.99 1.50 2.36 3.08 1.31 1.53 33.95 2002 2.31 0.09 3.36 4.17 1.79 0.56 1.08 1.21 0.66 0.31 4.73 1.71 20.17

(C) COPYRIGHT Pavilion Advisory Group LTD., 2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS REPORT MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION. 23 Marathon Special Opportunities Fund Credit Hedge Fund

Risk Marathon HFN HFN Event HFN Hedge Fund Barclays Global Comparison to Marathon HFN HFN Event HFN Hedge Fund Barclays Global SO Distressed Driven Index Aggregate Index High Yield Benchmark SO Distressed Driven Index Aggregate Index High Yield Index Index Standard Deviation 10.3 6.9 6.1 5.9 10.5 Alpha 6.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 2.1 Sharpe Ratio 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.7 Beta 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.3 Sortino Ratio 2.5 1.8 1.7 2.1 0.9 Correlation 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 Max Drawdown 34.2 29.9 22.0 17.7 33.4 RSquared 0.4 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 Max Drawdown 21.0 17.0 14.0 16.0 6.0 Tracking Error 8.2 3.0 0.0 2.6 7.0 Length Information 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 Max Drawdown 10.0 13.0 12.0 13.0 9.0 Ratio Recovery Period Up Market 141.3 107.5 100.0 92.7 113.3 Gain/Loss Ratio 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.0 Capture Skewness 0.5 1.7 0.9 0.4 1.5 Down Market 78.5 90.8 100.0 76.5 124.2 Capture Kurtosis 6.4 7.7 1.9 2.3 9.9 VaR @ 95% 6.5 4.5 3.3 3.7 7.6

Moore Capital Management, LP

Firm Name: Moore Capital Management, LP Fund Name: Moore Macro Managers Fund, Ltd. Inception Date: January 1993 Updated as of: March 2014

Executive Summary Moore Capital Management was founded in 1989 by Louis Bacon as a macro hedge fund. Moore currently employs 386 individuals, including 155 investment professionals, in three offices around the world. The Firm is headquartered in New York and has offices in London and Hong Kong. Moore currently manages over $12.7 billion in assets. The Firm’s flagship funds, Moore Global Investments Ltd. and Remington Investment Strategies, are run by Louis Bacon and have over $7 billion in assets under management. The strategy we are recommending, Moore Macro Managers, currently has $5.4 billion. The Moore Macro Managers Fund has been running since 1993. The fund is a multi-trader, multi-strategy macro. The track record is solid with a CAGR of 13.9% (net) since inception with low downside risk, and a Sharpe of 1.3. The fund has been up over 10% (net) for over 70% of the years since inception. The investment style is 100% directional macro. There are no quantitative strategies, no illiquid investments and no complicated derivative strategies. The philosophy is identical to the flagship fund which is to cut losses quickly and scale into winners. The firm employs a strict multi-trader capital allocation process akin to a bank proprietary trading desk.

The Fund trades both long and short across global markets, including foreign exchange, government and corporate debt securities, interest rate instruments, equity securities, stock indices, precious metals, base metals and industrial commodities. The Fund will make use of spots, forwards, futures, options and swap markets, as well as in hybrid securities and other derivative instruments. The Moore Macro Managers Fund has historically run with 1x - 4x gross leverage and historically has held more than 1,000 positions.

Positives Negatives

Moore is one of the most reputable macro firms in the High fees: 3.0% management fee and 25.0% performance hedge fund industry fee. This is mitigated by the delivery of very attractive net Provides exposure to multiple asset classes, regions and returns since inception trading styles Louis Bacon is not one of the portfolio managers in the Strong downside protection. The Fund has had only one Macro Fund down year (2011) which was down 2.6% The underlying investments are actively traded are highly liquid

Recommendation

Approved for all clients Continue to monitor

25 Moore Capital Management, LP

Key Professionals and Team Structure Investment Team Moore has 155 investment professionals at the firm, including 50 Portfolio Managers. The Macro Managers Fund is managed by 13 Portfolio Managers; all of whom have different trading styles and/or strategy or geographic focuses. The Fund is overseen by the Investment Allocation Committee, which is made up of Senior Management and is chaired by Louis Bacon. This committee is responsible for allocating capital to each Portfolio Manager. The Portfolio Managers are supported by a team of 50 research professionals and 13 risk management professionals. The risk management group monitors the each Portfolio Manager’s trading mandate and risk levels. Additionally, it performs stress tests and factor analysis on the portfolios.

Moore’s back office consists of 130 operations and technology employees, 90 business administration staff and 8 people in business development. The approximately 80 operations and finance employees support the firm’s President and Director, Elaine Crocker, and CFO, Anthony Deluca. The Manager also has a COO, Scott Lawin. This subset of the back office is responsible for daily valuations, P&L analysis, financial reporting, trade confirmation & validation and accounting.

Louis Moore Bacon ² Moore Capital Management, Founder and CEO, 1989 to present ² Shearson Lehman Brothers, Senior Vice President, 1983 to 1989 ² Walter N. Frank and Company, Financial and Currency Trader, 1981 to 1983 ² Columbia Business School, MBA, 1981 ² Middlebury College, BA, 1979

Marc Cheval ² Moore Capital Management, Portfolio Manager, 1997 to present ² Barclays Capital, Vice President, 1997 to 1997 ² Goldman Sachs, Vice President, 1989 to 1997 ² London School of Economics and Political Science, BA, 1989

Steve Chasan ² Moore Capital Management, Portfolio Manager, 2004 to present ² Millennium Partners, Portfolio Manager, 1999 to 2004 ² Relative Value International Advisors, Portfolio Manager, 1998 to 1999 ² JP Morgan, Co-Head of International Relative Value Group, 1994 to 1998 ² Columbia University, M. Phil Degree, 1993 ² Duquesne University, MA, 1990 ² Boston University, BA, 1987

Mohsen Fahmi ² Moore Capital Management, Senior Portfolio Manager, 2003 to present ² Tokai Bank Europe, Co-Head of Bond and Currency Trading , 1998 to 2003 ² Solomon Brothers, Vice President, 1995 to 1997 ² Goldman Sachs, Proprietary Trader, 1993 to 1995 ² JP Morgan, Proprietary Trader, 1990 to 1993 ² World Bank, Chief Investment Officer, 1983 to 1990 ² Stanford University, MBA, 1983

26 Moore Capital Management, LP

Investment Process Summary The Moore Macro Managers Fund (“Macro Manager Fund”) is a collection of 13 underlying portfolio managers trading capital that is allocated to them through an Investment Allocation Committee. The Investment Allocation Committee consists of Senior Management and is chaired by Louis Bacon.

Each portfolio manager has an area of expertise that they invest in. These areas of expertise consist of: emerging markets (5 PMs), merger arbitrage (1 PM), global opportunistic (5 PMs), relative value (1 PM), and credit/event driven (1PM). Portfolio managers are tasked with constructing their individual portfolio that reflects the firm’s market views given absolute and relative valuations. Each portfolio manager leverages Moore’s deep research team which consists of economists and research analysts to generate macroeconomic themes. It is then the responsibility of the portfolio manager, usually working with Mr. Bacon, to develop an investment idea of how to take advantage of the theme. Once an investment idea has been established, the portfolio manager, working with the Risk Management Group, determines what type of vehicle is best for the trading strategy.

Each portfolio manager is responsible for investing their portfolio within customized pre-agreed trading and risk guidelines assigned to them by the Investment Allocation Committee and Risk Management Group. The Risk Management Group consists of 18 individuals and is tasked with limiting the down-side risks of the underlying portfolios. At the aggregate fund level this group monitors numerous factors, including:

1) Overall risk levels 2) Concentration risks 3) Counterparty risks 4) Correlation risks and stress testing

Louis Bacon also works with the Risk Management Group on a day-to-day basis to monitor the fund and can implement fund level hedges and/or enhance certain positions in the portfolio.

The Investment Allocation Committee meets monthly to review the current capital allocations to the portfolio managers and approves increases or decreases in capital. Allocation decisions are based on the macro-economic environment and market opportunities. The Investment Allocation Committee has full transparency into the individual and aggregate position level detail. Trader turnover can be high and the average team/trader lasts 5-7 years at the firm. There have been approximately 140 traders over the life of the firm. Traders come and go but it is the process that survives and delivers the results. Traders that last tend to be able to adapt to new markets and re-invent themselves. Moore typically hires only senior traders who have successfully run big books. When they start, traders are typically given a significant pool of capital, typically around $250 million. They are normally given an initial period of two years to prove themselves. If a portfolio manager has a drawdown of more than 5% of his or her historical average an automatic trigger is sent to the Risk Management Group. The Risk Management Group and portfolio manager will thoroughly evaluate the portfolio manager’s entire portfolio to determine what happened and if a decrease in capital is required. If a drawdown of more than 10% of the portfolio manager’s historical average occurs the portfolio manager’s risk levels are capped and a reduction in the portfolio manager’s capital allocation can be made. If a PM has a drawdown of 15% or more the PM’s portfolio is taken over by the Investment Allocation Committee and wound down in a careful manner as to not lose additional capital. The Investment Allocation Committee then must make the decision if and when to allow the portfolio manager to continue trading. Typically however traders are let go because they not generating returns, not because they hit their stop out levels.

If traders do well, their capital allocation can go up significantly to several hundred million dollars and the rewards will be strong. Traders are paid on the profits generated by their book; however, Moore bears the netting risk, not the fund’s investors.

27 Moore Capital Management, LP

Operational Due Diligence Highlights Back Office Structure: Moore’s back office consists of 130 operations and technology employees (finance, treasury, operations and IT), 90 business administration staff (human resources, facilities, corporate services, tax and corporate accounting, legal and compliance, and administration), as well as 8 in business development. The “CFO Organization” is independent of the front office teams and comprises 80 operations and finance employees and is headed by President and Director, Mildred Crocker, and CFO, Anthony Deluca. The Manager also has a COO, Scott Lawin. This group is responsible for daily valuations, P&L analysis, financial reporting, trade confirmation & validation and accounting.

Service Providers: Citco Fund Services (Bahamas) Limited has been appointed as administrator to the Fund and provides administrative, monthly independent verification of valuation and existence, accounting and share registrar. Ernst & Young LLP is appointed as auditor, with fieldwork performed from the auditor’s New York office.

Valuation: Moore’s internal Daily Valuations Group is composed of 13 professionals under the direction of the Chief Financial Officer. The group is responsible for controlling and monitoring the daily P&L prediction processes. The daily process is generated to support Moore’s Senior Management and Portfolio Managers in trading and risk management decisions.

High fee structure: The 3% management fee is above the industry average and Moore crystallizes the 25% performance fee on a quarterly basis: this enable the Manager to crystallize the performance fee four times per year rather than at year-end only.

Technology: Moore has an information technology staff of 50 professionals. Moore has an extensive array of both vendor and proprietary software applications and databases developed and maintained at its headquarters in New York and in London. These systems permit documentation, trade capture, clearance, settlement, accounting and backup documentation for all trades.

Fees and Terms:

Annual Management Fee: 3.0% Incentive Fee: 25.0% Minimum Investment: $2,000,000 Subscriptions: Monthly Redemptions: Quarterly, with 60 days notice Lock-up period: None Entry/Exit Fees: None Gate: None High water mark: Yes Auditor: Ernst & Young, LLP Prime Broker(s): Morgan Stanley, Goldman, Sachs, Credit Suisse, UBS Legal: Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (US); Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, and Graham, Thompson & Co. (Offshore)

Risk and Return History

See attached sheet.

28 Moore Macro Managers Fund, Ltd. Macro Hedge Fund

Product Moore HFN Hedge Fund HFN Barclays Global MSCI Name MM Aggregate Index Macro Aggregate Unhedged World Index ND 2013 13.3 9.5 1.3 2.6 26.7 2012 8.9 6.6 3.1 4.3 15.8 2011 2.6 5.0 3.1 5.6 5.5 2010 11.6 10.6 8.5 5.5 11.8 2009 17.1 19.4 10.2 6.9 30.0 2008 0.4 15.7 1.7 4.8 40.7

Annualized Moore HFN Hedge Fund HFN Barclays Global MSCI Returns MM Aggregate Index Macro Aggregate Unhedged World Index ND 1 Year 13.3 9.5 1.3 2.6 26.7 2 Years 11.1 8.1 2.2 0.8 21.1 3 Years 6.3 3.5 0.4 2.4 11.5 5 Years 9.5 7.9 3.9 3.9 15.0 10 Years 9.6 6.2 5.1 4.5 7.0 Since 13.9 11.7 10.4 5.7 7.1 Inception Statistical Moore HFN Hedge Fund HFN Barclays Global MSCI Analysis MM Aggregate Index Macro Aggregate Unhedged World Index ND Cumulative 1323.7 862.6 660.1 209.9 307.9 Return Best 15.2 6.3 7.3 6.2 11.2 Period Worst 14.5 6.0 3.3 3.8 19.0 Period Positive 180.0 179.0 164.0 150.0 150.0 Periods Negative 64.0 66.0 81.0 95.0 95.0 Periods Returns Moore MM Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year 2013 3.77 0.14 1.18 1.78 4.06 0.24 0.01 0.56 0.38 0.35 2.21 0.91 13.34 2012 0.27 1.81 0.91 1.08 0.69 0.77 0.06 0.58 1.21 1.22 1.74 3.18 8.92 2011 0.31 0.03 0.06 0.03 1.22 1.22 0.75 2.06 2.33 0.67 0.00 0.76 2.58 2010 0.12 0.07 1.41 1.83 0.44 0.35 0.69 1.27 1.59 1.13 3.14 0.53 11.56 2009 1.18 2.99 3.28 0.02 2.07 1.73 1.26 0.66 2.02 0.46 0.44 0.18 17.07 2008 3.25 5.83 2.50 0.12 1.17 0.62 1.19 0.28 3.00 1.38 0.06 2.11 0.45 2007 0.07 2.34 0.95 2.81 1.41 1.02 1.67 4.43 3.48 3.65 0.84 0.08 14.36 2006 3.32 1.64 0.35 2.14 7.92 0.71 0.07 0.60 0.24 1.71 3.37 2.95 6.23 2005 0.59 2.38 2.15 0.55 0.26 1.74 1.78 0.10 5.16 1.27 2.06 4.70 15.55 2004 0.47 0.67 0.63 1.12 0.30 0.35 0.27 0.47 1.12 2.44 4.25 2.65 12.51 2003 1.98 1.35 0.05 2.26 3.74 0.94 1.64 0.79 2.08 0.23 0.50 2.65 15.87 2002 0.07 0.96 0.51 1.23 0.92 0.29 0.94 0.45 1.93 0.50 1.25 2.85 7.26

Risk Moore HFN Hedge Fund HFN Barclays Global MSCI Comparison to Moore HFN Hedge Fund HFN Barclays Global MSCI MM Aggregate Index Macro Aggregate Unhedged World Benchmark MM Aggregate Index Macro Aggregate Unhedged World Index ND Index ND Standard Deviation 8.4 6.0 6.1 5.5 15.3 Alpha 6.9 3.6 0.0 3.8 3.7 Sharpe Ratio 1.3 1.5 1.2 0.5 0.3 Beta 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.2 1.2 Sortino Ratio 2.4 2.7 2.9 0.8 0.4 Correlation 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.5 Max Drawdown 14.5 17.7 7.9 10.1 54.0 RSquared 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.2 Max Drawdown 1.0 16.0 12.0 7.0 16.0 Tracking Error 7.6 4.0 0.0 7.3 13.6 Length Information 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.2 Max Drawdown 6.0 13.0 6.0 9.0 53.0 Ratio Recovery Period Up Market 94.8 99.8 100.0 42.7 124.1 Gain/Loss Ratio 1.6 1.5 2.0 1.4 0.9 Capture Skewness 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.8 Down Market 9.9 66.1 100.0 14.7 251.7 Capture Kurtosis 13.1 1.9 1.6 0.6 1.6 VaR @ 95% 6.8 3.3 2.6 3.0 9.8

(C) COPYRIGHT Pavilion Advisory Group LTD., 2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS REPORT MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION. 30 Relative Value Hedge Fund Manager Pine River Capital Management, LP

Firm Name: Pine River Capital Management, LP Fund Name: Pine River Fund, Ltd. Inception Date: June 2002 Updated as of: March 2014

Executive Summary Pine River was founded by Brian Taylor in 2002 with $5m and now has firm wide assets of $14.3bn. The investment team has grown to 146 individuals. The Pine River Fund is Multi-Strategy Relative Value in style and aims to be market neutral. The Fund is overseen by two portfolio managers, Aaron Yeary and James Clark who both sit on the Investment Committee. They are responsible for dynamically allocating capital to the other portfolio teams and sub-teams. Capital is allocated tactically based on market capacity and opportunity. The strategy PM’s and their teams are responsible for investing the capital. They focus on a broad spectrum of relative value strategies including capital structure arbitrage, convertible bond arbitrage, fixed income relative value, equity relative value, event driven strategies, and structured credit relative value. There is broad collaboration across the teams which creates a better product overall. The fund also has an allocation to a systematic tail hedging program. The firm has a strong Risk Management function which ensures that the security, trade, and portfolio-level guidelines are in compliance by measuring strategy size, risk concentration, volatility, correlations, and macro shocks. The Chief Risk Officer has unilateral and immediate authority to reduce or remove any unwanted risks in the portfolio. Leverage varies across the different strategies and Pine River is focused on managing this prudently. For example the highest levered fixed income arbitrage strategy is contained within a segregated fund so as to limit the risk of any contagion.

The Fund has had a strong track record dating back to its inception in 2002. The manager has been able to generate an 11.6% annualized return with a Sharpe ratio of 1.0.

The Pine River Fund has approximately $3.7 billion in assets under management with 92% of its assets from institutional investors. The Fund usually consists of over 900 positions with an average holding period of four months.

Positives Negatives

 Long track record of success indentifying market  The Fund has seen significant asset growth since 2009 when opportunities and mispriced securities. the Fund was up over 90%.  Seasoned investment team with experience over many  An investor can only get 25% of their capital out each market cycles quarter.  Strong relative value, market neutral philosophy  High quality operational infrastructure  No lock up

Recommendation

 Approved for all clients.  Continue to monitor.

31 Pine River Capital Management, LP

Key Professionals and Team Structure Pine River has 437 employees, including 146 investment professionals. Aaron Yeary and James Clark manage the Pine River Fund and are supported by 22 portfolio managers and 83 investment analysts across eight investment strategies. The strategies are allocated capital by the two lead Portfolio Managers of the Fund, Mr. Yeary and Mr. Clark, the Chief Investment Officer, Brian Taylor, and the Chief Risk Officer, Paul Richardson. The senior investment professionals at the firm have an average of over 26 years of experience. The Fund is monitored by the risk management team which has 11 employees.

The back office is lead by Jeff Stolt, CFO, and Tim O’Brien, CCO and General Counsel. The back office has 204 employees. The Firm also has a robust information technology team which is lead by David Kelly, Chief Technology Officer, who oversees 81 employees.

Brian Taylor — Pine River, Founding Partner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer, 2002 to present — EBF & Associates, Partner, 1988 to 2002 — University of Chicago, MBA, 1988 — Millikin University, BS, 1986

Jeff Stolt — Pine River, Partner and Chief Financial Officer, 2002 to present — EBF & Associates, Controller, 1989 to 2002 — Cargill, Accountant, 1986 to 1989 — Minnesota State University, BS, 1986

Aaron Yeary — Pine River, Partner and Head of US Relative Value Trading, 2002 to present — EBF & Associates, Analyst, 1998 to 2002 — University of Chicago, BA, 1998

Steve Kuhn — Pine River, Partner and Head of Fixed Income Trading, 2008 to present — Goldman Sachs, Vice President and Portfolio Manager, 2002 to 2007 — Citadel Investment Group, Trader, 1999 to 2002 — Cargill, Trader, 1991 to 1998 — Harvard University, BA, 1991

Colin Teichholtz — Pine River, Partner and Senior Portfolio Manager, 2011 to present — Morgan Stanley, Managing Director, 2003 to 2011 — Caxton Associates, Portfolio Manager, 2003 — Goldman Sachs, Portfolio Manager, 1992 to 2003 — Harvard University, BA, 1992

32 Pine River Capital Management, LP

Investment Process Pine River invests and trades in global markets, primarily employing relative value strategies that seek to be profitable regardless of whether broader market indices rise or fall. The Firm’s strategies include the use of market judgment and/or mathematical/statistical techniques to identify perceived mis-pricings of securities where the price movements are significantly correlated, and to capture the value inherent in those mis-pricings by trading long and short positions.

Analysts and traders use screens and deal flow from brokers to determine opportunities in the market place. The traders evaluate price, structure, liquidity, hedge availability, credit risk, volatility risk and mark-to-market risk to determine if a position is a candidate for inclusion into the Fund. If they deem it a candidate the trader then presents the idea to the portfolio managers for approval. Positions are then established by working limit orders over time.

The Fund invests in asset classes or pursues investment strategies that Pine River believes are consistent with the relative value orientation of the Fund and offer attractive risk-based returns. This will include the following strategies, among others:

– Capital Structure Arbitrage: Investing and trading in different classes of securities in a company’s capital structure, either directly or via derivative instruments. In its capital structure strategies, the manager uses market judgment and/or mathematical or statistical techniques in an attempt to identify sets of long and short positions intended to capture market anomalies.

– Fixed Income Arbitrage: Investing and trading in mortgage-backed securities and other fixed income securities to capture mis- pricings and distortions among such securities. This strategy utilizes a wide variety of instruments, including securities that are based on fixed-rate mortgages, adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only mortgages and mortgages with varying maturity dates, collateralized mortgage obligations, interest-only securities, “TBAs” (mortgage-backed securities to be delivered by a U.S. government-sponsored mortgage entity at a future date), mortgage REITs (real estate investment trusts that hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities), securities representing the rights to certain portions of the principal and/or interest payments from a pool of mortgages, asset-backed securities, and municipal bond securities.

– Convertible Securities Arbitrage: Engaging in convertible securities arbitrage and related investment strategies. In its convertible securities arbitrage strategies, the manager uses its market judgment and/or mathematical/statistical techniques to identify perceived mis-pricings of securities, the price movements of which are significantly correlated, and to capture the value inherent in those mis- pricings by trading long and short positions in those securities.

– Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs): Investing and trading in the securities of “blank check” public companies, i.e., companies formed for the purpose of identifying and consummating a merger, acquisition or other business transaction with one or more operating businesses or assets.

– Distressed Credits: Investing and trading in companies that are under financial stress and that are engaged in or may become engaged in a bankruptcy or restructuring proceeding. The Fund may take positions in any part of these companies’ capital structures depending on the attendant risk/reward characteristics.

– Value Situations: Investing and trading in public securities that the manager perceives to be undervalued by the market. These mis- pricings may occur for a variety of reasons but historically the Investment Manager has found them to occur most commonly in companies with smaller market capitalization where little or no public research exists.

– Tail Hedge Strategies: Investing and trading in highly liquid indices, securities, derivatives and other positions that are negatively correlated to the equity and credit markets in the U.S., with the objective of providing investors with a hedge against the “tail risks” inherently embedded in many other investment strategies. “Tail risks” are catastrophic risks to an investment portfolio caused by major disruptions to financial markets. Tail risks may arise from, among other things, (i) changes in regulatory or government policy; (ii) economic crises; (iii) fraud that is systemic or is perceived to be potentially systemic; or (iv) disruptions in a particular industry, such as banking or real estate. The Tail Hedge strategy seeks to build a portfolio of hedges that will partially mitigate the impact of such tail

33 Pine River Capital Management, LP

risk events. The object of this strategy is not to generate consistent profits but rather to provide protection against “tail event” risk. Because this strategy is inherently contrarian, it can be expected to suffer losses during periods of stability or generally improving equity and credit markets.

From time to time, the Fund may also take outright directional market positions when such positions are thought to be complementary to or are reasonably viewed as hedges to the core strategy. These trades frequently result from opportunities identified in the course of implementing the Pine River’s core strategies, as a result of which the manager may identify certain securities which it believes to be materially over- or underpriced. In certain cases, Pine River may determine that an outright directional (long or short) position in such securities may have a better risk-reward profile than a hedged position.

The Fund seeks diversified investment opportunities across a broad range of markets, issuers, securities, industries, credit ratings and geographic segments. The Fund may make significant allocations of capital to developing markets outside the United States, or to thinly traded market segments.

The manager closely monitors the risk profile of the Fund’s positions. The Fund’s overall portfolio is regularly evaluated in an effort to assess systemic, portfolio-level and position-specific risks and to avoid over-concentrations in any particular security or sector. Overall Fund risk is mitigated by diversification; however, the Fund is not required to apply any formal diversification policies.

Pine River has a risk management committee and has implemented a risk management policy designed to formalize risk management controls and to establish appropriate independence for its risk management function. The hedging of risks is fundamental to Pine River’s strategy, particularly in view of the leverage that may be employed. These risks are further mitigated by maintaining a portfolio which is highly diversified among instruments, strategies and markets.

Operational Due Diligence Highlights

Back office resources: Jeff Stolt is Pine River’s CFO. He is a seasoned professional in the investment industry and his overall approach to the operations function inspired considerable confidence. The rest of the back office is well resourced, with adequate staffing across several functional areas. The overall depth and quality of the team is above average, which provides comfort.

Service providers: SS&C GlobeOp provides fund administration services to the Pine River. Pine River sub-funds are administered by either SS&C GlobeOp or Butterfield Fulcrum. We view as positive the appointment of two fund administration firms.

Compliance: Tim O’Brien serves as Pine River’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”). Pine River has appointed compliance liaisons in all non-headquarter offices and established a compliance committee of Tim O’Brien (Chair), Brian Taylor (CEO), Jeff Stolt (CFO), and Natalie Abbott (Senior Counsel), which meets at least quarterly or more frequently as needed. Pine River has engaged external consultant ACA Compliance Group to assist with compliance for the firm’s U.S.-based operations, including specific issues as requested by the manager and narrow-scope mock audits, as and when requested. The firm also has access to external compliance consultants Complyport Compliance Consultants (“Complyport”) in the UK and ComplianceAsia in Hong Kong to provide regulatory consulting services with respect to these jurisdictions. Complyport and ComplianceAsia have been engaged to perform more comprehensive services than ACA, including quarterly office reviews of the Manager’s London office by Complyport.

Portfolio accounting system: Pine River maintains a proprietary front-to-back office system called Everest. In 2013, Pine River committed to implementing the robust Advent Geneva portfolio accounting system, with expectations to go live in mid-2014. Additionally, Pine River disclosed that initiatives to adopt the Eze OMS order management system firm-wide (it is currently used for certain strategies / instruments only) and the Geneva install will largely replace the current functions fulfilled by Everest going forward.

Valuation: The majority of the portfolio is priced using a broker quote process (over 60% of NAV), which inherently introduces valuation risk given the subjectivity of the process. However, as the Manager applies a consistent pricing methodology and the Administrator can price the entirety of the portfolio independently, we have no particular concerns over the pricing of the portfolio.

34 Pine River Capital Management, LP

Fees and Terms

Annual Management Fee: 1.5% Incentive Fee: 20.0% Minimum Investment: $1,000,000 Subscriptions: Monthly Redemptions: 25% quarterly with 45 days notice Lock-up period: None Entry/Exit Fees: None Advisory Fee: None High water mark: Yes Auditor: Ernst & Young Prime Broker(s): BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Legal: Maples & Calder (Cayman Islands)

Risk and Return History

See attached sheet.

35 Pine River Fund, Ltd. Relative Value Hedge Fund

Product Pine HFN Multi HFN Relative Value HFN Hedge Fund Name River Strategy Index Aggregate Index Aggregate Index 2013 9.5 9.6 8.0 9.5 2012 21.7 5.0 7.1 6.6 2011 5.7 4.6 1.7 5.0 2010 13.9 7.9 9.5 10.6 2009 91.0 15.4 20.2 19.4 2008 26.7 16.1 13.5 15.7

Annualized Pine HFN Multi HFN Relative Value HFN Hedge Fund Returns River Strategy Index Aggregate Index Aggregate Index 1 Year 9.5 9.6 8.0 9.5 2 Years 15.4 7.3 7.5 8.1 3 Years 12.1 3.2 4.4 3.5 5 Years 25.1 6.5 8.4 7.9 10 Years 12.6 5.5 5.7 6.2 Since 11.6 6.5 6.2 7.3 Inception

Statistical Pine HFN Multi HFN Relative Value HFN Hedge Fund Analysis River Strategy Index Aggregate Index Aggregate Index Cumulative 255.9 107.5 101.3 125.5 Return Best Period 11.6 3.9 3.8 5.1 Worst 11.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 Period Positive 99.0 96.0 106.0 96.0 Periods Negative 40.0 43.0 33.0 43.0 Periods

Returns Pine River Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year 2013 4.58 0.82 0.88 0.57 1.84 1.93 0.32 1.51 0.39 0.40 0.42 1.06 9.48 2012 2.53 2.65 0.40 0.51 0.67 1.95 2.40 1.80 2.26 1.94 0.08 2.64 21.68 2011 3.88 2.62 0.45 0.71 0.52 1.06 0.83 1.04 0.71 2.73 0.31 0.14 5.71 2010 1.45 0.20 1.21 3.11 0.70 0.19 1.71 2.03 1.24 1.67 0.37 1.42 13.87 2009 9.22 2.77 4.05 7.66 11.57 6.46 9.36 6.91 5.53 4.24 0.23 0.33 91.01 2008 1.91 1.70 9.33 3.39 8.24 1.77 10.30 0.05 8.38 11.21 1.99 0.90 26.72 2007 2.86 0.90 0.31 3.08 2.94 1.67 1.45 0.04 1.94 4.81 1.82 1.03 21.60 2006 5.35 1.86 1.98 2.21 0.71 0.40 0.31 1.96 3.24 0.96 4.13 3.12 25.21 2005 2.06 0.85 1.24 1.95 1.88 0.72 0.46 0.44 2.45 1.66 3.60 4.22 5.45 2004 0.11 1.19 1.67 1.29 0.98 5.14 0.67 0.75 3.43 1.16 0.68 0.12 9.44

Risk Pine HFN Multi HFN Relative Value HFN Hedge Fund Comparison to Pine HFN Multi HFN Relative Value HFN Hedge Fund River Strategy Index Aggregate Index Aggregate Index Benchmark River Strategy Index Aggregate Index Aggregate Index Standard Deviation 10.6 5.1 4.1 5.8 Alpha 4.4 0.0 1.2 0.1 Sharpe Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 Beta 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.1 Sortino Ratio 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 Correlation 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 Max Drawdown 29.2 18.6 14.9 17.7 RSquared 0.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 Max Drawdown 6.0 16.0 13.0 16.0 Tracking Error 8.9 0.0 1.7 1.5 Length Information Ratio 0.6 0.2 0.5 Max Drawdown 6.0 20.0 11.0 13.0 Up Market 118.7 100.0 80.2 113.0 Recovery Period Capture Gain/Loss Ratio 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 Down Market 37.5 100.0 62.5 111.7 Skewness 0.5 1.1 1.9 0.9 Capture Kurtosis 4.9 3.1 8.6 2.2 VaR @ 95% 8.9 3.3 2.8 3.9

Goals and Pacing Plan.pdf May 5, 2014

TO: El Camino Hospital Investment Committee

FROM: Ned Borgstrom, on behalf of John Zoglin

SUBJECT: Committee Goals and Pacing Plan

Attached are a number of items:  Committee goals for 2014 – note that the Board has not had time for a discussion on risk, so you have been unable to complete the goal to review the investment policy. The Board is tentatively proposing to have that discussion on August 13, which would be two days after your next scheduled meeting. It has worked well for some other committees to have committee members present for the Board discussion; are you willing to have two separate meeting commitments that week?  Committee goals for 2015 – revised to incorporate your March discussion. The Governance Committee has not yet met to approve these goals.  Pacing plan for 2014-15 – Legal counsel has reviewed the fiduciary issues around the 403(b) plan, but unfortunately the issues are more complicated and may require a change in plan documents and trustee agreement – so we are once again deferring final resolution of that issue.

INVESTMENT COMMITTEE Goals FY 2014 (Status Update May 5, 2014) Purpose

The purpose of the Investment Committee is to develop and recommend to El Camino Hospital Board of Director the investment policies governing the Hospital’s assets, maintain current knowledge of the management and investment of the invested funds of the Hospital, and provide oversight of the allocation of the investment assets.

Staff: Ned Borgstrom, Interim CFO

The CFO shall serve as the primary staff support to the Committee and is responsible for drafting the Committee meeting agenda for the Committee Chair’s consideration. Additional members of the hospital staff may participate in the Committee meetings upon the recommendation of the CFO and subsequent approval from the Committee Chair. The CEO is an ex-officio member of this Committee.

Goals May Update Metrics (Timeframe applies to when the Board approves the recommended action from the Committee, if applicable) 1. Review performance of consultant . Review occurs every quarter; no . Investment Committee to review selection recommendations of managers and changes in money managers of money managers; recommendations are asset allocations recommended; see #2 for asset made to CFO allocation 2. Review Investment Policy . Asset allocations reviewed in March; . To be completed by December 2013 policy decision delayed until Board can have discussion on risk 3. Review Investment Committee Charter . Will be done at March meeting . To be completed by June 2014

4. Produce Executive Dashboard . Draft was reviewed in November and . To be completed by June 2014 March; revised again for May

Separator Page

8b. FY2014_15_Investment_Pacing Plan.docx

INVESTMENT COMMITTEE FY2014 PACING PLAN (5 MAY 2014 DRAFT)

FY2014: Q4 APRIL MAY 12, 2014 Meeting JUNE n/a . Review hospital financial performance n/a . Determine Committee’s role with respect to 403(b) . Finalize executive dashboard . Review investment performance . Review manager selection as needed . Review self-assessment results . Review performance of investment advisor FY2015: Q1 JULY AUGUST 11, 2014 Meeting SEPTEMBER n/a . Review hospital financial performance n/a . Update investment policy in light of March asset allocation discussion and Board’s risk tolerance . Review investment performance . Review manager selection as needed FY2015: Q2 OCTOBER NOVEMBER 10, 2014 Meeting DECEMBER . Review hospital financial performance . Review investment performance . Review manager selection as needed FY2015: Q3 JANUARY FEBRUARY 9, 2015 Meeting MARCH n/a . Review hospital financial performance . Review investment performance . Review manager selection as needed . Set goals for next Fiscal Year . Review committee charter . Members complete online assessment . Propose FY2015 meeting1 dates

FY2015: Q4 APRIL MAY 11, 2015 Meeting JUNE n/a . Review investment performance n/a . Review manager selection as needed . Review performance of investment advisor . Review self-assessment results IC_20130806

Separator Page

8c. Invest Comm Goals Draft FY2015.docx

INVESTMENT COMMITTEE Goals FY 2015 (Draft 5 May 2015) Purpose

Staff: Iftikhar Hussain, CFO

Goals Timeline by Fiscal Year Metrics (Timeframe applies to when the Board approves the recommended action from the Committee, if applicable) 1. Review performance of consultant . Each quarter . Investment Committee to review selection recommendations of managers and of money managers; recommendations are asset allocations made to CFO 2. Review investment policy, in light of . Revisit asset allocation – Aug 2014 . To be completed by June 2015 FY14 asset allocation study and . Finalize investment policy – Nov 2014 Board’s discussion on risk

3. Educate Board and Committee on . Target May meeting . To be completed by June 2015 hospital capital structures (debt and investments) 4. Review/revise Executive Dashboard . Each quarter . To be completed by June 2015