MDP US Equity Search 2017 Q&A Please note that an amended RFP was posted a week after the original, eliminating a minimum for assets under management. Given that Illinois SURS has a different AUM definition for Emerging Managers (vs states like California), may a pro-forma portfolio based on the criteria within the RFP be submitted for consideration, in addition to our funded composite which is based on firms AUM under $2 Billion. Yes Section V.3. Question 5. Please explain the reference to required in providing “experience passive management”. We are exclusively an active manager. This is a mistake in the RFP. It should read active instead of passive. The Minimum Qualifications in Appendix A do not include the first two of the list of Minimum Qualifications on page 4 of the package (Section III: Scope, Qualifications and Information Requested). Should we amend Appendix A and respond to those two items for the submission or use Appendix A as it stands? The dates on the two forms also do not match; in the Appendix the notice date is 12/31/16 and on page 4 it is 3/31/17 please clarify. – Please use Appendix A as it stands. The two additional minimum qualifications concerning conflicts of interest and most favored nation clauses should be added to the Letter of Transmittal. An amended RFP has been posted to our website that revises the date to 6/30/17. You ask for a minimum firm asset level of $50 million. Is there a product minimum? If not, are you willing to be the lead institutional investor in a strategy? In the amended RFP posted to our website, the minimum asset level has been removed. Yes, we are willing to be the lead institutional investor in a strategy. We are an asset manager based in California and have not applied for the Illinois certification. We do meet the requirements as defined by the Illinois Business Enterprise for Minorities, Females, and Persons with Disabilities Act. Can we still apply if we show proof of minority ownership?
MDP US Equity Search 2017 Q&A Please note that an amended RFP was posted a week after the original, eliminating a minimum for assets under management. Given that Illinois SURS has a different AUM definition for Emerging Managers (vs states like California), may a pro-forma portfolio based on the criteria within the RFP be submitted for consideration, in addition to our funded composite which is based on firms AUM under $2 Billion. Yes Section V.3. Question 5. Please explain the reference to required “experience in providing passive management”. We are exclusively an active manager. This is a mistake in the RFP. It should read active instead of passive. The Minimum Qualifications in Appendix A do not include the first two of the list of Minimum Qualifications on page 4 of the package (Section III: Scope, Qualifications and Information Requested). Should we amend Appendix A and respond to those two items for the submission or use Appendix A as it stands? The dates on the two forms also do not match; in the Appendix the notice date is 12/31/16 and on page 4 it is 3/31/17 – please clarify. Please use Appendix A as it stands. The two additional minimum qualifications concerning conflicts of interest and most favored nation clauses should be added to the Letter of Transmittal. An amended RFP has been posted to our website that revises the date to 6/30/17. You ask for a minimum firm asset level of $50 million. Is there a product minimum? If not, are you willing to be the lead institutional investor in a strategy? In the amended RFP posted to our website, the minimum asset level has been removed. Yes, we are willing to be the lead institutional investor in a strategy. We are an asset manager based in California and have not applied for the Illinois certification. We do meet the requirements as defined by the Illinois Business Enterprise for Minorities, Females, and Persons with Disabilities Act. Can we still apply if we show proof of minority ownership?