Marquette: Murfreesboro portfolio at about $82.2M; consultant urges modest allocation and reporting tweaks
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Marquette representative Tim reported the portfolio at about $82.2 million and recommended increasing infrastructure and private-credit allocations, adding a third private-equity manager with a $3 million commitment, and adding a second reporting benchmark tied to Exhibit A rather than rewriting policy text. The board discussed but deferred formal vote until a revised policy is circulated.
Marquette investment consultant Tim told the Murfreesboro board on Feb. 23 that the portfolio stood at about $82.2 million as of January and reviewed market drivers that have shifted returns from large-cap technology toward small-cap, value and international stocks.
“We're up to about $82,000,000, so that's a good sign,” Tim said, adding that 2025 had been a strong year for most asset classes but that January showed a rotation in performance. He described renewed volatility tied to tariff talk and an industry-wide reassessment of where artificial intelligence will help or hurt corporate profitability.
Tim outlined three near-term portfolio actions: increase allocations to infrastructure and private credit (managers have committed the positions but not yet called capital), add a third private-equity manager with a $3 million allocation, and consider splitting the existing Parametric exposure to include a more credit- or fixed-income-oriented hedge sleeve to reduce equity beta. He noted that some alternative managers will call capital over time, which will gradually shift the portfolio mix.
On policy language, Tim flagged an update to Exhibit A to reflect asset-allocation changes made in August — private equity (including private debt) rising to 12.5% and infrastructure to 7.5% — and reiterated the investment policy’s 20% hard limit on all international exposure across asset classes. He proposed adding a second, custom reporting benchmark aligned with the updated Exhibit A for periodic performance reporting rather than repeatedly changing the policy text.
Board members pressed for clarity on section 4.1(c) (benchmark language) and discussed whether the policy should be retitled or rephrased to avoid implying the long-term target is a prescriptive constraint. “We could do a 60/40, but then we could also do a second one specific to your allocation,” Tim said in explaining the reporting approach. One member asked to reference section 5.2 from section 4.1(c) so Exhibit A can be updated in reports without requiring a policy rewrite.
Several trustees emphasized conservative risk targets. “As a conservative group… I want to make sure we're not taking on more risk than we need to,” one member said, urging that the committee continue to monitor manager-level risk and asset allocation against the board’s 7.5% target return assumption.
The board did not vote on policy changes at the meeting. Members agreed to have staff and counsel draft the revised Exhibit A and any benchmark/reporting language and circulate the proposal for review; the revised policy and exhibit are expected to return to the board at its next meeting prior to the May 15 budget submission deadline.