My unofficial assessment is that there are certain recommended changes that folks are very strongly opposed to:
- the recommendation that compliant firms provide their clients with the GIPS composite presentations for the composite(s) they're in on an annual basis. Not much support here.
- the requirement for 3-year annualized standard deviation. While many folks support having risk, there doesn't seem to be much support for the measure being standard deviation.
- the requirement to disclose, for a year, corrections to any material errors on composite presentations. This has received a lot of "push back," which is interesting since the requirement goes into effect this coming January (because of the GIPS Executive Committee's approval of the revised Error Correction Guidance Statement). If this does get rejected from GIPS 2010, will this mean that the GS gets dropped? Hopefully so.
- the requirement to disclose the percent of "proprietary assets." Some mixed views here. Some folks feel the definition is too broad (as it includes investments of senior management, as well as owners and the firm). Many others reject it entirely.
- the requirement to not provide a presentation to prospects below the firm's minimum wasn't well received, either. A few correctly pointed out that this wasn't a change from a recommendation to a requirement.
One important point to know: this ISN'T a vote; that is, I don't expect the EC to tabulate the "pros" and "cons" and decide what to do based on what was sent in. But, I believe they definitely take into consideration what has been written.