concordia university, nebraska & concordia foundation,...

Concordia University, Nebraska & Concordia Foundation, Inc.March 31, 2012

Exceeding Your Expectations

500 West Madison Street, Suite 3855 | Chicago, IL 60661 | 312.853.1000

QUARTERLY CONSIDERATIONS

GENERAL One for the Books – The S&P 500 Index’s first quarter return of 13% was its best in 14 years. Small cap and international stocks rallied with the Russell 2000 Index up 12% and

the MSCI EAFE Index jumping 11%. Bonds were relatively flat as the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index returned 0.3%.

Difficult to Time – U.S. markets rose sharply for a second straight quarter in spite of record low home prices, struggling economic growth and European concerns, reminding investors that markets typically react to future expectations rather than today’s fundamentals.

DSA Events – We remain busy keeping our clients informed! In February, we rolled out our fourth book, Nonprofit Asset Management: Effective Investment Strategies and Oversight. We are also hosting several upcoming workshops. Ask us for more information or visit www.dimeoschneider.com.

PLAN SPONSORS It’s Here – By July 1st, 401(k) service providers are required to provide fee and service disclosures to plan sponsors. An equally important date is August 30th, by which all plan

participants must receive plan and investment fee information from their plan sponsor. (Un)Realistic Distributions – When asked what percent they could spend annually from a $500,000 retirement account without running out of money, 73% of survey respondents

said above 6% annually or “don’t know.” Clearly there is a need for education efforts to focus on future retirement. Potential Relief – The pension funding deficit for 100 of the largest defined benefit plans jumped 41% in 2011. Seeking to provide relief, the Senate approved a provision

allowing contribution calculations on interest rates over a 25-year average rather than current interest rates. We’ll keep you informed as the bill progresses.

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS Tight Pockets – Most of the nation’s biggest foundations aren’t increasing their grant making in 2012, a new Chronicle of Philanthropy study finds. That’s tough news for

grant seekers since most foundations didn’t expand their giving in 2011. PE Rebound – Private equity fundraising is increasing as a result of substantial capital overhang and attractive valuations. On average, the length of time a fund was in the

market fell to the shortest length since 2008.

THE WEALTH OFFICE™ Politics as Usual – In a recent article titled, “When Markets are Hostage to Political Flux”, University of Chicago Booth School of Business Professors Pietro Veronesi and Lubos

Pastor argue political uncertainty is causing risk premiums, volatilities and correlations to rise in financial markets. With the 2012 presidential election mere months away, politically induced volatility could continue to roil markets throughout the remainder of the year.

The Gift That Keeps on Giving – Options for those looking to complete charitable gifts are increasing. For example, firms are now offering programs that allow donors to gift illiquid assets and some are providing support for collapsing a private foundation into a Donor Advised Fund. Contact The Wealth OfficeTM for creative ideas aimed at accomplishing your philanthropic objectives.

Winning With Losses – Do you currently have capital loss carry-forwards? It’s helpful from a portfolio planning perspective to understand the overall position with respect to capital loss carry-forwards. The Wealth OfficeTM is happy to work with your accounting advisors to determine the extent to which you have existing usable losses.

1


ECONOMY The Federal Reserve continues to keep interest rates on hold in the 0% to 0.25% range. The most recent statement released by the Fed following its March meeting indicated that

the FOMC sees the economy expanding moderately in coming quarters and expressed concern that rising crude oil and gasoline prices would push up inflation temporarily. The next FOMC meeting is scheduled for April 24th-25th, 2012.

U.S. GDP advanced 3.0% in the prior quarter, the strongest showing since the second quarter of 2010. Positive contributions came from private inventory investment, personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential and residential fixed investment, and exports but were partly offset by negative contributions from federal, state and local government spending. The first quarter GDP advance estimate is due out on April 27th, 2012.

The unemployment rate continued to trend down during the quarter, declining to 8.3% in January/February before falling to a three-year low of 8.2% in March. At the same time, labor force participation fell to 63.8% in March, down from the February mark of 63.9%, as 164,000 people dropped out of the workforce. The participation rate, which measures the share of working-age people in the labor force actively seeking employment, had fallen to 63.7% in January, a 30-year low.

Prices at the pump have risen and forecasters expect the national average to move well above the $4/gallon range later this spring. Gasoline prices typically go up this time of year, as refiners bring down their plants for maintenance, and inventories of winter-grade gasoline are drawn to make room for summer-grade gasoline production in May. Higher crude oil prices could also drive up gasoline prices further.

On the political front, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of the 2009 Affordable Care Act, particularly the law’s individual mandate. Many observers predict that part or even all of the controversial healthcare legislation may be invalidated. The Court is expected to render its decision in late June.

10.1

-0.2

8.5

12.4

3.3

-5.3

8.8

12.4

12.6

19.0

12.9

11.0

DJIA

Russell 2000

S&P 500

NASDAQ

Russell Mid Cap

MSCI EAFE

Broad Equity Market Index Returns Ending 3/31/12

QTR

1 Year

U.S. EQUITY MARKETS U.S. equity markets continued their climb during the quarter with the S&P 500 off to its best start since 1998. Concerns over Europe’s sovereign debt issues subsided

somewhat, economic data in the U.S. was moderately positive, and the Federal Reserve reiterated its commitment to keep interest rates low through 2014 to support economic growth. In response, investor sentiment improved the demand for risk assets such as equities, which is a departure from recent investor preference for less volatile investments such as government bonds and defensive stocks.

The S&P 500 Index rose 13% during the quarter and each economic sector advanced with the exception of utilities, which was down modestly. Better than expected U.S. economic data and continued positive results in corporate profits helped the equity markets move higher.

The technology-heavy NASDAQ Composite advanced 19% during the quarter, breaking through the 3,000 mark for the first time since the dot-com bust. The Dow Jones Industrial Average returned 9% during the quarter, lagging other major market indices due to investors’ willingness to take on more market risk at the expense of the more mature, blue-chip constituent base present in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Quarterly corporate earnings for the prior quarter (4Q’11) expanded at a rate of 8.1% for the S&P 500, which was meaningfully slower than that experienced during 4Q’10, when earnings expanded by approximately 28% year-over-year. Additionally, when analyzing the earnings split out by revenue growth vs. margin expansion, nearly all of 4Q’11’s earnings growth was revenue driven (approximately 98%) rather than resulting from expanding margins. Previous data shows the margin expansion component driving a majority of earnings growth during 2010 and the first three quarters of 2011.

Returns were quite similar across market capitalizations, while growth stocks outperformed their value counterparts. Cyclical sectors such as financials, technology and consumer discretionary outperformed the more traditionally defensive sectors such as consumer staples, healthcare and utilities.

2


U.S. EQUITY SECTORS Financials rebounded during the quarter, led by Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup, which returned 72%, 39%, and 39%, respectively. Positive sentiment in the

sector was driven by better than expected U.S. economic data as well as a Federal Reserve report that concluded that 15 of the largest 19 U.S.-based banks passed the latest round of stress tests. The stress tests were performed to determine the banks’ abilities to withstand a deep financial downturn.

Technology stocks advanced amid impressive results from Apple. The stock was up 48% for the quarter and remains well ahead of Exxon Mobil as the largest U.S. public firm as measured by market cap. Other marquee technology names such as Microsoft, IBM and Qualcomm also drove the sector higher. Recent corporate news included Microsoft purchasing $1 billion of patents from AOL, IBM announcing its acquisition of Varicent Software, and Qualcomm increasing its dividend payout amount by 16% to $0.25 per share, which equates to an annualized dividend yield of approximately 1.5%. Qualcomm also announced a $4 billion stock repurchase program, which was viewed favorably by investors.

Consumer discretionary posted solid gains, with 91% of the stocks in the S&P 500 Consumer Discretionary Sector Index generating positive returns over the quarter. Positive contributors to the sector returns included Comcast, Home Depot, Priceline.com, and Disney as the sector benefited from an improved economic outlook as it relates to consumer spending. Home Depot’s results were partly driven by modestly improving sentiment related to the U.S. housing market.

Results in the traditionally defensive sectors were mixed. The consumer staples sector was driven moderately higher by Phillip Morris, which issued stronger than expected earnings guidance. Utilities sold off slightly as investor appetite for dividend paying stocks dampened. Within healthcare, Pfizer experienced a modest share price gain on the news that Bayer AG placed a bid to acquire Pfizer’s Animal Health business, although further terms were not disclosed. UnitedHealth was another positive contributor on news the firm landed a $21 billion five-year contract for the Department of Defense to provide military health insurance coverage for its western region program.

Energy also experienced mixed results as crude prices rose a modest 4%, while natural gas prices declined 32%. Coal producer Peabody Energy sold off after investors were disappointed with the company’s guidance. Natural gas producers such as Cabot Oil & Gas declined as well, driven mostly by the significant decline in natural gas prices. Oil service names such as Halliburton and Schlumberger were little changed during the quarter.

5.59.1

22.1 21.5

2.1

-1.6

3.911.2 11.3 16.017.3 16.4

-1.8

20.2

3.514.8

-6.9 -4.0

1.8

17.5

Consumer Staples

Health Care Financials Information Technology

Telecom Utilities Energy Materials Industrials Consumer Discretionary

Market Returns by Major Sectors of S&P 500 Index, First Quarter 2012QTR 1 Year

REAL ESTATE Domestic REITs performed well but lagged International REITs, which was a departure from 2011 results. For the quarter, the NAREIT Equity REIT Index gained 11%. On

average, domestic REITs are yielding approximately 3.5%, and are approaching their peak market cap from 2006 of approximately $850 billion. Fundamentals remained strong as improvement in leasing spreads and occupancy drove cyclical REITs higher, while defensive sectors lagged modestly. Apartment REITs underperformed the broader group due to seasonal weakness and a rotation into higher beta areas.

International REITs returned 14%. Asia continued to recover from oversold levels, although the region continues to trade at a discount to net asset value. Hong Kong REITs lagged due to developer stocks, specifically Sun Hung Kai Properties, whose shares were suspended in late March following the arrest of the firm’s joint chairman. Singapore REOCs performed well as the result of improved sentiment. Overall, Europe was in-line with Global REITs, and the second round of the ECB’s Long Term Refinancing Operations (LTRO) drove performance. The UK outperformed the Eurozone as London prime assets continue to be in high demand.

U.S. EQUITY MARKETS (continued) For the quarter, the HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index increased by 5% and the HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index returned 3%. Each of the Hedge Fund

Research indices gained, with the strongest performance coming from Equity Hedge strategies. However, due to lower than usual net exposures, Equity Hedge managers underperformed their long-only counterparts overall. Eurekahedge noted that fund inflows for hedge funds were approximately $50 billion for the quarter, which brought total assets in hedge funds to approximately $1.7 trillion as of March 31, 2012.

The Alerian MLP Index advanced 2% during the quarter, bringing the one-year gains to 10%. The “risk-on” environment caused MLPs to underperform relative to equities as investors rotated away from yield-based securities in search of riskier assets. Strong earnings and distribution growth have continued to support prices, as well as a record pace of capital market activity in the space. However, mixed fundamentals led to wide dispersion between winners and losers during the quarter, even within the same subsector.

3


COMMODITIES The Dow Jones-UBS Commodity Index ended up 1% as strength early in the quarter was mostly outweighed by a weak March. Continued warmer than normal weather and

elevated production weighed heavily on natural gas prices. However, global supply disruptions and geopolitical concerns supported crude and gasoline prices. Precious metals performed well in January and February, but sold off in March following a positive report from the FOMC. Livestock underperformed as record high U.S. beef cold storage inventories and the “pink slime” headlines took their toll on prices. Agriculture was positive overall, but contained significant dispersion, including an increase in soybean prices due to drought conditions in South America, and a decrease in coffee prices due to record crop forecasts in Brazilian Arabica coffee.

0.9

-6.1

5.5 5.8

-5.2

9.0 8.5

-2.2

-16.3-26.2

-10.8-20.0

-13.6-1.2

7.0

-22.5DJ - UBS

CommodityEnergy Grains Industrial Metals Livestock Petroleum Precious Metals Softs

DJ UBS Commodity Returns, First Quarter 2012QTR 1 Year

FIXED INCOME MARKETS The yield curve ended the quarter higher as positive U.S. economic data led the market to favor risk. Despite the uptick in the economy the Fed maintained their

accommodative policy stating that further improvement is needed. As a result, the yield curve steepened with the 30-year rising 46 basis points to 3.35% versus an 8 basis point increase in the 2-year to 0.33%. Overall, Treasuries lost 1.3% with longer maturities underperforming short to intermediate issues. TIPS returned 0.9%, outperforming Treasuries as real yields decreased and breakevens rose.

Yield Curve Ending 03/31/12 Historical Yield Spreads vs 10-Year Notes Ending 03/31/12

0.07 0.331.04

2.23

3.35

0.02 0.250.83

1.892.89

3 Mo. 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 30 Year

3/31/2012 12/31/2011

0123456789

10

Agency Corporate AA Corporate BB

Investment grade corporates outperformed Treasuries, returning 2.0% as credit spreads tightened. Financials drove the outperformance, posting 5.1% versus 0.8% in industrials and -0.1% in utilities. High yield spreads continued to tighten during the quarter as the sector outperformed Treasuries. In this environment, lower credit quality CCC-rated issues outperformed BB-rated bonds. The high yield market saw robust new issuance during the quarter with a significant portion of the activity coming from European companies issuing debt in USD.

Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) generated positive returns during the quarter but lagged the other structured sectors. The market continues to monitor prepayments that may result from government programs and historically low mortgage rates. Commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) spreads continued to tighten during the quarter, making it the best performing structured sector. Spreads on asset-backed securities (ABS) also tightened as the sector generated a 0.8% return.

Municipal bonds outpaced Treasuries after generating a return of 0.6%. Within munis, taxable bonds continued to outperform as investors drove spreads tighter amongst constrained supply. Historically low rates continued to prompt new issuance with a majority of the activity coming from refunding and along the short to intermediate part of the curve. As a result, longer term bonds outperformed as they benefited from muted new supply and investors bidding up prices as they searched for yield.

4


FIXED INCOME MARKETS (continued) International bonds generated positive returns in the first quarter as Eurozone concerns faded temporarily. The sector was lifted by another tranche of LTRO from the ECB and

the close of another chapter in the Greek saga as the country restructured its debt. Most currencies appreciated against the U.S. dollar with the Japanese yen being one of the exceptions. Japan’s large weight in the indices caused hedged indices to outperform unhedged. Emerging market debt continues to see strong inflows and benefited from the risk rally in the first quarter. EM local currency bonds returned 8.3%, outperforming external debt financed in USD, as EM currencies appreciated during the quarter.

0.3

-1.3 0.0

0.6 0.8 3.5 2.0 0.9 0.64.4 4.9

8.2 8.3

-0.2

1.3

7.7 8.64.5 6.3 5.3

7.6 9.6 12.26.8 7.9 6.6

4.3 3.4 3.96.4

Barclays Aggregate

Treasuries Agencies Mortgage-Backed

Securities

Asset-Backed

Securities

CMBS Investment-Grade

Corporates

TIPS ML Muni 3-7 Yr

High Yield BB

High Yield B

High Yield CCC

Emerging Mkt Debt

Non-US$ Bonds

(unhedged)

Non-US$ Bonds

(hedged)

Fixed Income Returns by Major Sectors First Quarter 2012QTR 1 Year

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPED MARKETS International developed markets rose during the quarter, with the MSCI EAFE Index advancing 11%. Sectors such as consumer discretionary, financials and information

technology were among the top performers, while energy, healthcare and telecom underperformed. International growth stocks outperformed international value stocks with the MSCI EAFE Growth Index ending up 12% and the MSCI EAFE Value Index rising 10%. Across

market capitalizations, international small caps fared better than international large caps, with the MSCI EAFE Small Cap Index rising 15%. The U.S. dollar declined against most major currencies, especially those of emerging markets. Meanwhile, the Japanese yen weakened significantly against the U.S.

dollar, sparked by the Bank of Japan’s decision to expand its bond-buying program and set a near-term inflation goal of 1%. Following quarter end, the People’s Bank of China announced it was widening the daily trading range for the yuan to +/- 1% from the current 0.5%. The move was well received by IMF and U.S. officials and was the first time the central bank has announced a new trading band since May 2007, when it widened the band from 0.3% to 0.5%.

3.2

-5.6

3.4

9.5

0.22.5 4.2 2.3

-1.1-6.3

2.88.0

1.44.8

-0.1

6.9

Euro Japanese yen British pound Mexican peso Chinese yuan Canadian dollar Swiss franc Australian dollar

Currency Returns versus U.S. Dollar, First Quarter 2012QTR 1 YEAR

For the quarter, the MSCI Canada Index rose 7% as the Bank of Canada left interest rates on hold at 1%. Although the central bank expects the Canadian economy will likely grow faster than previously forecast in the first quarter, it sees high household spending relative to GDP as the biggest domestic risk as households add to their debt burden. In corporate news, the Obama administration rejected TransCanada’s proposal for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico due to environmental concerns.The oil-and-gas industry estimates the 1,700-mile pipeline, which would carry oil from Canadian tar sands, would create thousands of jobs.

The MSCI Europe Index gained 11%. The ECB left rates at 1%. Market sentiment improved on news that Greece had successfully secured its second tranche of funding and Eurozone finance ministers had agreed to increase the size of Europe’s bailout fund. Spain ended down 3% as unemployment soared to 23%. Germany rallied 21% despite weak economic data. Germany showed its first signs of the negative impact from the Eurozone debt crisis as GDP contracted by an annualized 1% in the prior quarter. France advanced 12% ahead of the upcoming presidential elections. Recent polls have President Nicolas Sarkozy narrowly trailing socialist candidate Francois Hollande.

5


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPED MARKETS (continued) The MSCI United Kingdom Index ended up 8% in the quarter as the Bank of England (BOE) kept interest rates on hold at 0.5%. The BOE predicts the UK economy will grow by

approximately 1% in 2012 and forecasts inflation will continue to fall in the coming months. However, the Eurozone crisis remains a big risk. In February, the United Kingdom’s AAA credit rating was put in jeopardy after ratings agency Moody’s put the credit rating on negative watch, citing uncertainty over Europe’s handling of its ongoing debt crisis.

The MSCI Japan Index rose 11%. The Bank of Japan’s quarterly Tankan survey revealed that its manufacturers’ sentiment index failed to improve in the first quarter. Japanese

manufacturers are slowly recovering from last year’s earthquake and tsunami. However, severe flooding in Thailand, where many Japanese companies have manufacturing operations, has taken a toll on production. On the political front, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda reshuffled his cabinet with the aim of securing support to double the national sales tax to 10% by 2015 to fund social/welfare spending. Japan’s outstanding public debt is more than twice the size of its economy and the highest among rich nations.

The MSCI Pacific ex-Japan Index gained 11%. Hong Kong advanced 13% amid mixed results from real estate developers. Australia rose 9% despite mostly negative

economic data as GDP growth slowed, unemployment rose and consumer confidence fell. On the political front, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who leads a minority government, survived a party leadership challenge from her predecessor and former foreign minister Kevin Rudd. Singapore soared 19% as exports gained momentum.

7.1 4.3 3.1 3.210.8

12.0

-0.8

19.113.1 15.413.0 12.7 14.9 13.3 11.7

18.4

8.312.3

21.214.3

Consumer Staples Utilities Healthcare Energy Materials Industrials Telecom Consumer Discretionary

Info Technology Financials

International Equity Market Returns by Major Sectors, First Quarter 2012

MSCI EAFE MSCI EM (emerging markets)

INTERNATIONAL EMERGING MARKETS The MSCI EM Index advanced 14% during the first quarter. Healthcare, information technology and industrials were among the top performing sectors, while consumer

discretionary, materials and telecom underperformed. The MSCI EM Latin America Index rose 15%. Brazil advanced 14% as the central bank cut interest rates twice by a total of 125 basis points to 9.75%. The central bank

abruptly ended a tightening cycle last August after Latin America’s largest economy began slowing on the back of tighter monetary and fiscal conditions. Mexico gained 16% as the market found support from improving economic data in the U.S. On the political front, campaigning officially got underway on March 30th for Mexico’s upcoming July 2012 presidential elections. Early polling has Enrique Pena Nieto, the former governor of the state of Mexico, the country’s largest, the likely successor to President Felipe Calderon.

The MSCI EM Asia Index gained 13%. India rallied 20% as the Reserve Bank of India unexpectedly lowered the reserve ratio requirement twice during the quarter as

inflationary pressures ebbed. China advanced 10% despite signs of a slowing economy. China's industrial firms suffered a rare drop in profits, mainly in petrochemicals, metals and autos, putting pressure on the government to further loosen policy and support domestic demand. Meanwhile, China lowered its GDP growth forecast for 2012 to 7.5% from a long running target of 8%. South Korea and Taiwan each gained 15% on strength in information technology stocks.

The EMEA (Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa) Index advanced 16%. Within Eastern Europe, Russia rose 19% despite political unrest leading up to the March

presidential elections. Voters overwhelmingly granted Vladimir Putin a new term, setting the stage for more confrontation between the freshly emboldened leader and an opposition movement that has repeatedly rallied tens of thousands of protesters. Turkey gained 27% as several banks posted healthy profits. The small market of Egypt soared 41%, rebounding from one of the world’s worst performances in 2011. South Africa rose 11% amid a pickup in manufacturing and credit growth.

6.6 7.6 9.9 10.8 11.2 11.3 11.3 11.4 12.3 13.4 13.9 14.7 15.618.6 20.1 21.1

Canada United Kingdom

China Europe South Africa

Pacific (Ex-Japan)

Pacific Japan France EM Asia Brazil EM Latin America

Mexico Russia India Germany

Non-U.S. Equity Market Returns by Country (U.S.$), First Quarter 2012

6

QUARTERLY CONSIDERATIONS Financial Markets Performance Ending March 31, 2012

Returns for Periods Exceeding One-Year are Annualized.

U.S. Equity QTR YTD 1YR 2YR 3YR 4YR 5YR 10YR S&P 500 Composite Index 12.6 12.6 8.5 12.0 23.4 3.9 2.0 4.1 Dow Jones Industrial Average 8.8 8.8 10.1 13.3 23.5 4.8 4.2 5.0 Russell 1000 Growth 14.7 14.7 11.0 14.6 25.3 6.6 5.1 4.3 Russell 1000 Value 11.1 11.1 4.8 9.8 22.8 1.6 -0.8 4.6 Russell Mid Cap 12.9 12.9 3.3 13.3 29.1 6.3 3.0 7.9 Russell 2000 12.4 12.4 -0.2 12.1 26.9 6.3 2.1 6.4 Russell 2000 Growth 13.3 13.3 0.7 14.9 28.4 7.7 4.2 6.0 Russell 2000 Value 11.6 11.6 -1.1 9.2 25.4 4.7 0.0 6.6 NASDAQ 19.0 19.0 12.4 14.8 27.8 9.0 6.0 6.1 Russell 3000 12.9 12.9 7.2 12.2 24.3 4.3 2.2 4.7 NAREIT Equity REIT 10.8 10.8 12.8 18.1 42.3 4.8 -0.1 10.4

Fixed Income & Cash Equivalents QTR YTD 1YR 2YR 3YR 4YR 5YR 10YR Barclays Cap US Aggregate 0.3 0.3 7.7 6.4 6.8 5.9 6.2 5.8 Citigroup High Yield Market 5.2 5.2 6.7 10.4 23.3 10.7 7.7 9.0 Barclays Capital US TIPS 0.9 0.9 12.2 10.0 8.7 5.9 7.6 7.5 Merrill Lynch Muni 3-7 Years 0.6 0.6 6.8 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.1 Citigroup Hedged Non-U.S. Dollar Bond 1.3 1.3 6.4 3.4 3.4 4.0 4.4 4.6 Citigroup Unhedged Non-U.S. Dollar Bond -0.2 -0.2 3.9 6.2 6.9 3.4 6.9 8.5 JPMorgan GBI-Em Mkts Global Diversified 8.3 8.3 3.4 8.0 16.8 8.6 10.1 N/A Citigroup Treasury Bill-3 Month 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.1 1.8 Ryan Labs 3 Yr GIC 0.4 0.4 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.8 4.0

International Equity QTR YTD 1YR 2YR 3YR 4YR 5YR 10YR MSCI EAFE 11.0 11.0 -5.3 2.5 17.7 -3.2 -3.0 6.2 MSCI EAFE Value 9.9 9.9 -7.3 0.5 17.2 -4.0 -4.6 6.4 MSCI EAFE Growth 12.1 12.1 -3.4 4.4 18.1 -2.5 -1.5 5.9 MSCI EAFE Small Cap 14.9 14.9 -5.9 6.4 24.5 -0.2 -2.5 10.3 MSCI Emerging Markets 14.1 14.1 -8.5 4.2 25.4 1.2 5.0 14.5 S&P Developed World Property x U.S. 14.3 14.3 -3.2 6.9 25.2 -3.1 -6.4 10.4

Miscellaneous QTR YTD 1YR 2YR 3YR 4YR 5YR 10YR Consumer Price Index 1.6 1.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 1.8 2.2 2.5 DJ UBS Commodity Index 0.9 0.9 -16.3 3.7 9.0 -8.1 -2.8 5.5 HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index 4.9 4.9 -2.2 3.5 9.4 2.5 2.6 6.2 HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 3.4 3.4 -3.4 0.8 4.6 -1.5 -0.7 3.5 Alerian MLP 2.0 2.0 9.6 20.7 35.8 17.4 12.0 16.0

*All indices are unmanaged and investors can not invest directly into an index. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

7


The S&P 500 is based on the average performance of the 500 industrial stocks monitored by Standard & Poor’s. The Dow Jones Industrial Index is based on the average performance of the 30 blue-chip stocks monitored. Russell 1000 Growth measures the performance of the Russell 1000 companies with higher P/B ratios and higher forecasted growth values. Russell 1000 Value measures the performance of those Russell 1000 companies with lower P/B ratios and lower forecasted growth values. Russell Mid Cap measures the performance of the 800 smallest companies in the Russell 1000 Index. Russell 2000 measures the performance of the small-cap stocks. Russell 2000 Growth measures the performance of the Russell 2000 companies with higher P/B ratios and higher forecasted growth values. Russell 2000 Value measures the performance of those Russell 2000 companies with lower P/B ratios and lower forecasted growth values. The NASDAQ measures all domestic and non-U.S. based common stocks listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market. Russell 3000 is a market-cap-weighted index which consists of roughly 3,000 of the largest companies in the U.S. As such, it represents nearly 98% of the investable U.S. equity market. NAREIT Equity REITs measures equity REITs. The index contains health care REITs, but no mortgage and hybrid REITs. The Barclays Aggregate Index is an unmanaged market value-weighted performance benchmark for investment-grade fixed-rate debt issues, including government, corporate, asset-backed and mortgage-backed securities, with maturities of at least one year. Citigroup High Yield Market is a market-cap weighted index, which measures the performance of below investment grade, Cash-Pay, Zero-to-Full, Pay-in-Kind, step-coupon bonds, and Rule 144A bonds issued by corporations domiciled in the United States or Canada, with remaining maturities of at least one year. All bonds must have a maximum quality rating of BB+/Ba1 by either S&P or Moody’s and the minimum amount outstanding at entry/exit must be $100 million. Barclays Capital US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Index measures bonds with fixed rate coupon payments that adjust for inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. All bonds must be publicly traded, investment grade and have a minimum maturity of one year and a minimum amount outstanding of $250 million of face value. It currently is comprised of only US Treasury issued securities. Merrill Lynch Muni 3-7 Years measures municipal bonds with maturities between 3 and 6.99 year. Citigroup Non-$US Government Bond is a market-cap weighted index, that measures the performance in U.S. dollar terms of major non-U.S. bond markets. The index includes all investment grade fixed-rate bonds with a remaining maturity of one-year or longer. JP Morgan Government Bond Index-Emerging Market (GBI-EM) Index is a comprehensive emerging market debt index that tracks local currency bonds issued by emerging market governments; The Index is comprised of 14 countries whose weights are capped at 10% to avoid bias to more debt-laden countries. Citigroup Treasury Bill-3 Month represents the monthly return equivalents of yield averages which are not marked to market; this index is an average of the last three three-month Treasury bill issues. Ryan Labs 3 Yr GIC is an arithmetic mean of the market rates of 3 year GIC contracts. All rates are held for the full term of the contract. MSCI EAFE is a market-cap weighted index representing 22 of the developed markets outside North America. These 22 countries include 16 European countries and 6 Pacific countries. MSCI EAFE Value and MSCI EAFE Growth are free float-adjusted market cap indexes designed to measure the equity market performance of developed markets, excluding US & Canada. Five growth and three value variables are used to assign stocks to a specific style index. These include, book value to price, 12-months forward earnings to price, dividend yield, long-term forward earnings per share (EPS) growth rate, short-term forward EPS growth rate, current internal growth rate, long-term historical EPS growth trend, and long-term historical sales per share growth trend. MSCI EAFE Small Cap Index represents the small cap size segment of the MSCI EAFE Index. The small cap universe consists of the securities of those companies whose securities are not included in the large cap or mid cap segments of a particular market, which together comprise approximately 85% of each market’s free float-adjusted market cap. The small cap segment covers the 85-99% range of each market’s free float-adjusted market cap. MSCI Emerging Markets is a market-cap weighted index representing the major emerging countries in the world. S&P Developed World Property x U.S. measures the investable universe of publicly traded property companies in developed foreign countries. Consumer Price Index is the United States Headline Consumer Price Index. Dow Jones UBS Commodity Index is composed of futures contracts on 19 physical commodities. No related group of commodities (e.g., energy, precious metals, livestock, grains, etc.) may constitute more than 33% of the index. Livestock = live cattle and lean hogs. Softs = sugar, cotton and coffee. Industrial Metals = aluminum, copper, zinc and nickel. Precious Metals = gold and silver. Grains = wheat, corn, soybeans. Energy = natural gas, crude oil, unleaded gas and heating oil. Petroleum = crude oil, unleaded gas and heating oil. HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index - Fund of Funds invest with multiple managers through funds or managed accounts. The strategy designs a diversified portfolio of managers with the objective of significantly lowering the risk (volatility) of investing with an individual manager. The Fund of Funds manager has discretion in choosing which strategies to invest in for the portfolio. A manager may allocate funds to numerous managers within a single strategy, or with numerous managers in multiple strategies. The minimum investment in a Fund of Funds may be lower than an investment in an individual hedge fund or managed account. The investor has the advantage of diversification among managers and styles with significantly less capital than investing with separate managers. PLEASE NOTE: The HFRI Fund of Funds Index is not included in the HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index. The Alerian MLP Index is a composite of the 50 most prominent energy master limited partnerships and will be calculated by Standard & Poor’s using a float-adjusted, market capitalization-weighted methodology.

8

First Quarter 2012 Knowledge College

Private Equity

Institutional investors have invested in private equity for decades. The 2010 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments found that the average endowment fund allocated 16 percent of total assets to private equityi. According to a recent survey by Russell Investments, institutional investors, especially those in North America, plan to increase private equity allocations. There are several key differences between private and public equity. Private equity investments are made in privately owned companies, which are inherently less liquid than public stocks. Most private equity funds are structured as private placements so that they are exempted from 1940 Act registration. Investment in these vehicles is limited to “sophisticated investors” (institutions and wealthy individuals). The typical private equity partnership structure has two components: the general partners (GPs) are the private equity managers and the limited partners (LPs) provide the bulk of the capital. The general partner typically supplies little capital, but bears unlimited liability for the fund and is responsible for investment and administrative activities. The limited partners have liability limited to the amount of their capital commitment. The industry has evolved throughout its history, first from dominated by venture capital, then to leveraged buyouts in the 1980s, niche strategies in the 1990s, and finally to institutional businesses in the 2000s.

Private Equity Strategies

Venture capital seeds new businesses or provides capital injections in young companies in the early stages of growth. Growth capital investments are equity investments in relatively mature companies seeking to expand, restructure, enter a new market, or finance

an acquisition. Leveraged buyouts usually acquire mature companies or business units with stable cash flows and tangible assets and often use debt-heavy

financing from outside lenders. Distressed or Special Situations strategies involve investing in the equity or debt of a financially distressed company. A special situation

strategy provides rescue debt and equity financing to a company having operational or financial stress. Mezzanine Finance is subordinated debt or preferred equity representing the second most junior claim in a company’s capital structure (just

above common equity). Secondaries are investments in existing private equity companies. Publicly Traded Private Equity Firms and Funds are publicly traded companies that participate in private equity strategies.

Benchmarks for the asset class have traditionally been the Thomson Venture Economics and Cambridge Associates databases, but have also recently started to include the State Street’s Private Edge Group and the LPX Group. Due to each of these databases’ inherent data flaws, computing a public market equivalent (PME) based on public equity returns using the timing of the private equity cash flows is gaining ground as another potential benchmarking methodology.

9

Direct Private Equity versus Private Equity Fund of Funds

Institutional investors can invest in private equity directly or indirectly through a fund of funds. Direct investment requires a significant commitment, and it also requires significant expertise. Funds of funds are investment intermediaries that handle all investment and administrative activities for a fee. Some provide a diversified portfolio of managers focused on a single strategy. A private equity portfolio should be diversified by strategy, vintage year, geographic location, industry, and manager. Investors need diversification to avoid being over or underexposed to any particular strategy. Large investors can diversify by investing in multiple funds across varied strategies and vintage years. Smaller investors can’t. Therefore they need the diversification provided by the fund of funds. Funds of funds offer administrative benefits, such as only one set of subscription documents to complete, and (generally) higher quality reporting. However, with a fund of funds, the investor incurs a second layer of fees. Investors pay the fees, expenses, and carried interest of the fund of funds and indirectly bear the fees, expenses, and carried interest of the underlying funds. This added layer of fees typically includes a 0.5 to 2.0 percent management fee on committed capital plus a 0 to 20 percent incentive fee. That’s a lot of fees! The investor needs to assess value provided by the fund of funds manager and whether their fee is worth it.

Fund Structure

Most funds are structured as pooled limited partnership vehicles and usually have a fixed life of 10 or more years. Private equity funds have an investment (or ramp-up) period as well as a realization (or drawdown) period. The year that a fund is established or makes its first capital call is classified as its vintage year. Limited partners commit capital to a particular fund and are repaid through distributions based on realized profits from underlying investments. Limited partners pay annual management and performance fees. In the early years of a partnership returns are often negative, but are expected to improve over time. This is referred to as the private equity J-Curve (see exhibit). Start-up expenses lead to initial declining investment values before more positive results kick in and investment valuations have a chance to be revised upwards.

The Private-Equity J-Curve

Portfolio Suitability

There are really only three rational reasons to consider private equity investments:

1) Your portfolio has a very long time horizon and manageable liquidity requirements. 2) You think doing so will improve the risk-adjusted performance of your aggregate portfolio. 3) You believe that you have access to the required expertise.

If you can’t clear all three hurdles, it would be wise to forgo private equity and focus your resources elsewhere.

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Valu

eYear

Value CreationYears 3 - 8

Formation and InvestingYears 0 - 5

RealizationYears 8 - ???

10

Theoretically, investing in a privately held and illiquid asset should provide a risk premium over a similar asset that was publicly traded. (A rational investor would avoid the asset class if there were no increase in return expectations.) Therefore, private equity should have a higher expected return (an illiquidity premium) than public equities. However, the evidence is mixed. Several studies have shown that the average private equity investor has received lower returns, after expenses, than the public equity markets have generatedii. And when adjusted for risk, private equity does even worse in some of these studies. Therefore, merely achieving private equity asset class exposure (i.e. private equity beta) is insufficient. Before deciding to invest, your organization must have confidence that it can be significantly above average at selecting, managing, and, most importantly, accessing quality private equity managers.

Concerns & Risks

The fees are often significantly higher than traditional investments; a typical private equity fee might range from a 1 to 2 percent base-management fee with a 20 percent performance fee.

Rebalancing and maintaining a target allocation is difficult due to illiquidity and valuation changes. Smaller investors have difficulty gaining access to top-tier managers because private equity firms often limit the size of funds they manage. The best funds experience repeat investment from large institutional investors from one fund to the next, making access a concern. Information on portfolio holdings is quite limited compared with traditional asset classes. Private equity investments have blind pool risk, or an inability to preview the portfolio before committing capital. Funds report lagged information to investors, which makes it exceedingly difficult for investors to evaluate their holdings. Dispersion risk is large due to the huge spread between median returns and top-quartile returns for private equity managers. Private equity investors cannot quantify actual performance until portfolio companies are sold. Valuation estimates for private investments are flawed at best. The use of financial leverage can amplify the basic investment risk. With venture capital, early stage companies don’t have proven business models, and product launches may not be as successful as hoped.

Conclusion

Private equity’s illiquidity, complexity, and very high expense structure makes the category inappropriate for many institutional investors. However, those who decide to invest should be sophisticated long-term allocators who are able to dedicate meaningful resources to the space. Given its illiquid nature, most nonprofit investors should only make modest allocations unless the investor has tremendous foresight about future portfolio liquidity needs. And the investor must be convinced it can gain access to exceptional managers. If you would like more information about investing in private equity, ask your DiMeo Schneider & Associates, L.L.C.’s investment consultant or visit our Research & Resource Center at www.dimeoschneider.com for a copy of our comprehensive paper: Private Equity: The Role of Private Equity in Diversified Portfolios. i Source: 2010 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments. The dollar-weighted average allocation to alternative investments was 52 percent for the 850 institutions surveyed. On average, about 30 percent of the alternative investment allocation was invested in private equity, which implies a 16 percent average private equity allocation (including venture capital). The size of the alternative investments allocation was positively correlated to size. For institutions in excess of $1 billion in assets, the average allocation to alternative investments was 60 percent. For institutions between $101 and $500 million, the average allocation to alternative investments was 35 percent. For institutions under $25 million, the allocation to alternative investments was 12 percent. ii Oliver, Gottschalg, and Ludovic, Phalippou, 2006. “The performance of private equity funds.”

11

ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION

BENCHMARK COMPOSITION

TRAILING PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

CALENDAR YEAR PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

YearsSince

InceptionInception

Date

Historical Account Composite 01/01/2004

Beginning Market Value 32,379,401 32,379,401 33,536,928 19,499,713 27,906,286 17,848,787

Net Contributions 209,627 209,627 770,635 840,056 -387,366 2,685,498

Gain/Loss 2,582,255 2,582,255 863,720 14,831,514 7,652,363 14,636,998

Ending Market Value 35,171,283 35,171,283 35,171,283 35,171,283 35,171,283 35,171,283

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

YearsSince

InceptionInception

Date

Historical Account Composite 7.95 7.95 2.31 20.79 5.01 N/A 7.10 01/01/2004

Target Asset Allocation 7.99 7.99 4.91 18.35 2.83 N/A 5.92 01/01/2004

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Historical Account Composite -1.56 18.01 31.50 -26.08 8.07 12.52 9.11 8.88 19.07 N/A

Target Asset Allocation 0.70 12.62 24.89 -29.09 7.98 14.67 7.25 11.64 25.23 N/A

Allocation Mandate Weight (%)

Dec-2010

Russell 3000 Index 40.00

Barclays Capital Aggregate 30.00

MSCI AC World ex USA 20.00

DSA Hedge Fund Index 10.00

Concordia University-Nebraska

Endowment

March 31, 2012

12

Fund &Cat Avg

Exp Ratio

Allocation

MarketValue

($)%

Performance(%)

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009

Total Plan

Historical Account Composite 35,171,283 100.0 7.9 7.9 2.3 20.8 5.0 N/A -1.6 18.0 31.5

Target Asset Allocation 8.0 8.0 4.9 18.4 2.8 N/A 0.7 12.6 24.9

TIPS

Vanguard Inflation-Protected Secs Adm 3,721,055 10.6 0.7 0.7 12.1 8.5 7.4 N/A 13.3 6.3 11.0 0.11

Barclays Capital U.S. Treasury: U.S. TIPS 0.9 0.9 12.2 8.7 7.6 7.5 13.6 6.3 11.4

IM U.S. TIPS (MF) Median 0.9 0.9 10.8 8.2 6.7 7.3 11.9 5.9 10.2 0.83

Vanguard Inflation-Protected Secs Adm Rank 65 65 10 29 24 N/A 11 29 32

Broad Domestic Fixed

Loomis Sayles Bond Instl 2,104,676 6.0 6.6 6.6 6.9 19.9 7.5 10.6 3.8 13.6 37.2 0.64

Barclays Capital Aggregate 0.3 0.3 7.7 6.8 6.2 5.8 7.8 6.5 5.9

IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (MF) Median 1.5 1.5 7.0 9.3 5.9 5.5 6.5 7.5 13.2 0.92

Loomis Sayles Bond Instl Rank 1 1 53 1 11 1 91 1 1

PIMCO Total Return Instl 689,756 2.0 2.9 2.9 6.0 9.4 8.3 7.0 4.2 8.9 13.9 0.46

Barclays Capital Aggregate 0.3 0.3 7.7 6.8 6.2 5.8 7.8 6.5 5.9

IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (MF) Median 1.5 1.5 7.0 9.3 5.9 5.5 6.5 7.5 13.2 0.92

PIMCO Total Return Instl Rank 6 6 81 50 3 4 89 25 46

High Yield Fixed

JPMorgan High Yield Select 1,754,603 5.0 5.3 5.3 4.1 20.1 7.2 8.9 2.6 14.7 48.5 0.91

Citigroup High-Yield Market 5.2 5.2 6.7 23.3 7.7 9.0 5.5 14.3 55.2

IM U.S. High Yield Bonds (MF) Median 5.0 5.0 4.5 20.0 5.9 7.5 2.7 13.6 46.3 1.21

JPMorgan High Yield Select Rank 39 39 57 49 16 10 52 30 39

International Fixed Hedged

PIMCO Foreign Bond (USD-Hedged) I 2,092,284 5.9 2.3 2.3 9.0 12.2 7.4 6.4 6.8 9.2 19.0 0.52

Citigroup Non-U.S. World Government Bond Hedged 1.3 1.3 6.4 3.4 4.4 4.6 4.1 2.5 2.4

IM International Fixed Income (MF) Median 2.0 2.0 3.1 8.1 6.1 7.0 2.8 6.4 9.0 1.08

PIMCO Foreign Bond (USD-Hedged) I Rank 40 40 1 13 24 65 7 23 11

Emerging Market Debt

PIMCO Emerging Local Bd Fd Inst 1,708,340 4.9 8.1 8.1 5.3 18.7 9.7 N/A -0.8 15.6 29.3 0.90

JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified 8.3 8.3 3.4 16.8 10.1 N/A -1.8 15.7 22.0

IM Emerging Markets Debt (MF) Median 6.9 6.9 7.8 17.0 7.7 10.7 3.5 12.8 31.2 1.26

PIMCO Emerging Local Bd Fd Inst Rank 30 30 56 32 4 N/A 59 12 64

Concordia University-NebraskaEndowment

As of March 31, 2012

13



Fund &Cat Avg

Exp Ratio

Allocation

MarketValue

($)%

Performance(%)

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009

Large Cap

Dodge & Cox Stock 1,634,464 4.6 13.3 13.3 2.6 23.9 -2.0 4.8 -4.1 13.5 31.3 0.52

Russell 1000 Value Index 11.1 11.1 4.8 22.8 -0.8 4.6 0.4 15.5 19.7

IM U.S. Large Cap Value Equity (MF) Median 12.2 12.2 3.6 20.5 -0.6 3.8 -2.2 12.9 23.4 1.25

Dodge & Cox Stock Rank 26 26 64 7 79 13 71 41 13

iShares S&P 500 Index 1,826,053 5.2 12.5 12.5 8.4 23.3 2.0 4.1 2.0 15.0 26.4 0.09

S&P 500 12.6 12.6 8.5 23.4 2.0 4.1 2.1 15.1 26.5

IM S&P 500 Index (MF) Median 12.5 12.5 8.0 22.9 1.6 3.7 1.6 14.6 26.1 0.63

iShares S&P 500 Index Rank 18 18 8 10 8 6 10 9 17

iShares Russell 1000 Growth Index 1,655,735 4.7 14.6 14.6 10.8 25.0 4.9 4.1 2.5 16.5 36.9 0.20

Russell 1000 Growth Index 14.7 14.7 11.0 25.3 5.1 4.3 2.6 16.7 37.2

IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (MF) Median 16.3 16.3 8.0 22.7 3.9 3.7 -1.7 15.3 34.8 1.33

iShares Russell 1000 Growth Index Rank 79 79 25 19 34 37 12 36 41

Mid Cap

iShares S&P MidCap 400 Index 1,068,600 3.0 13.5 13.5 1.8 28.3 4.7 7.5 -1.9 26.4 37.2 0.21

S&P MidCap 400 13.5 13.5 2.0 28.5 4.8 7.7 -1.7 26.6 37.4

IM U.S. Mid Cap Core Equity (MF) Median 13.1 13.1 0.9 25.7 2.9 6.3 -3.2 23.7 34.6 1.32

iShares S&P MidCap 400 Index Rank 35 35 35 24 17 20 30 17 31

Small Cap

DFA US Small Cap Value I 368,688 1.0 13.4 13.4 -3.6 30.4 0.1 8.2 -7.5 30.9 33.6 0.52

Russell 2000 Value Index 11.6 11.6 -1.1 25.4 0.0 6.6 -5.5 24.5 20.6

IM U.S. Small Cap Value Equity (MF) Median 12.3 12.3 -0.4 27.8 1.7 7.3 -4.8 25.4 30.2 1.53

DFA US Small Cap Value I Rank 32 32 88 20 77 30 71 9 36

Conestoga Small Cap 371,021 1.1 9.9 9.9 5.6 26.0 6.7 N/A 4.6 24.0 29.1 1.10

Russell 2000 Growth Index 13.3 13.3 0.7 28.4 4.2 6.0 -2.9 29.1 34.5

IM U.S. Small Cap Growth Equity (MF) Median 14.1 14.1 0.6 27.7 3.7 5.9 -3.4 27.7 35.7 1.55

Conestoga Small Cap Rank 97 97 13 78 8 N/A 4 77 80

International Equity

American Funds EuroPacific Gr F-1 4,263,721 12.1 12.3 12.3 -6.3 17.0 0.3 7.6 -13.6 9.4 39.1 0.85

MSCI EAFE Index 11.0 11.0 -5.3 17.7 -3.0 6.2 -11.7 8.2 32.5

IM International Large Cap Core Equity (MF) Median 11.3 11.3 -6.2 16.3 -3.6 5.1 -12.7 8.1 28.8 1.36

American Funds EuroPacific Gr F-1 Rank 21 21 53 31 5 4 66 31 11

14



Fund &Cat Avg

Exp Ratio

Allocation

MarketValue

($)%

Performance(%)

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009

Emerging Markets

Aberdeen Emerging Markets Instl Fd Instl 1,769,492 5.0 15.1 15.1 2.7 33.4 N/A N/A -11.0 27.6 76.6 1.03

MSCI Emerging Markets Index 14.1 14.1 -8.5 25.4 5.0 14.5 -18.2 19.2 79.0

IM Emerging Markets Equity (MF) Median 13.8 13.8 -9.1 23.7 2.6 13.0 -19.5 18.3 73.6 1.63

Aberdeen Emerging Markets Instl Fd Instl Rank 29 29 2 5 N/A N/A 4 7 36

Real Estate Domestic

Nuveen Real Estate Secs I 2,111,052 6.0 10.8 10.8 12.3 42.2 1.8 12.6 7.9 30.6 30.5 1.04

FTSE NAREIT Equity REIT Index 10.8 10.8 12.8 42.3 -0.1 10.4 8.3 27.9 28.0

IM Real Estate Sector (MF) Median 10.5 10.5 12.0 41.9 -0.4 10.1 8.0 27.4 28.9 1.41

Nuveen Real Estate Secs I Rank 29 29 45 45 9 2 51 11 26

Commodities

PIMCO Commodity Real Ret Strat Instl 2,703,324 7.7 3.2 3.2 -11.0 18.7 1.9 N/A -7.6 24.1 39.9 0.79

Dow Jones-UBS Commodity Index 0.9 0.9 -16.3 9.0 -2.8 5.5 -13.3 16.8 18.9

MLP

Kayne Anderson MLP Invst Co 844,401 2.4 4.3 4.3 1.9 25.2 5.9 N/A 3.0 35.4 69.9

Alerian MLP Index 2.0 2.0 9.6 35.8 12.0 16.0 13.9 35.9 76.4

ALPS Alerian MLP ETF 1.7 1.7 8.3 N/A N/A N/A 10.1 N/A N/A

Tortoise Energy Infrastructure Corp. 879,445 2.5 4.5 4.5 8.7 34.1 8.7 N/A 10.7 31.5 99.3

Alerian MLP Index 2.0 2.0 9.6 35.8 12.0 16.0 13.9 35.9 76.4

ALPS Alerian MLP ETF 1.7 1.7 8.3 N/A N/A N/A 10.1 N/A N/A

Hedge Funds

Grosvenor Inst'l Partners, L.P. 3,574,417 10.2 4.3 4.3 -1.5 6.6 0.5 4.1 -3.8 6.7 13.9

HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 3.4 3.4 -3.4 4.6 -0.7 3.5 -5.7 5.7 11.5

Cash/Equivalents

Cash & Equivalents 30,156 0.1

15

vs Benchmark3

Years

vs Benchmark5

Years

vs Peer Group3

Years

vs Peer Group5

Years

Alpha3

Years

Alpha5

Years

Consistency5

Years

ExpenseRatio

Firm/StrategyEvaluation

Status

Vanguard Inflation-Protected Secs Adm Discuss

Loomis Sayles Bond Instl Pass

PIMCO Total Return Instl Pass

JPMorgan High Yield Select Pass

PIMCO Foreign Bond (USD-Hedged) I Pass

PIMCO Emerging Local Bd Fd Inst Pass

Dodge & Cox Stock Discuss

iShares S&P 500 Index Pass

iShares Russell 1000 Growth Index Pass

iShares S&P MidCap 400 Index Pass

DFA US Small Cap Value I Pass

Conestoga Small Cap Pass

American Funds EuroPacific Gr F-1 Pass

Aberdeen Emerging Markets Instl Fd Instl

Nuveen Real Estate Secs I Pass

PIMCO Commodity Real Ret Strat Instl

Kayne Anderson MLP Invst Co

Tortoise Energy Infrastructure Corp.

Grosvenor Inst'l Partners, L.P.

Concordia University-NebraskaManager Evaluation Summary


16

Concordia University-NebraskaManager Evaluation Summary


Outperform Benchmark

Underperform Benchmark

vs Benchmark

Legend For Overall Criteria

1-50 Percentile

51-100 Percentile

vs Peer Group

50% or greater

Lower than 50%

Consistency

Lower than category average

Higher than category average

Expense Ratio

Subjective*

Subjective*

Firm/Strategy Evaluation

Discuss: Trailed 4 or more categories or recognized within Firm/Strategy Evaluation category

Status

Positive Alpha

Negative Alpha

Alpha

* Recognition within Firm/Strategy Evaluation category the result of a FLASH memo issued by DiMeo Schneider Investment Committee based on qualitative factors.

17

6

Concordia University, Nebraska & Concordia Foundation, Inc.Portfolio Engineer™

5.5%

6.0%

6.5%

7.0%

7.5%

8.0%

Expe

cted

Ret

urn

Target Allocation

3/31/2012

12/31/2011

Past Allocations

Constraint Radius = 0.45%

Cash TIPS Muni Bond

US Bond

For. Dev. Bond

HY Bond

EM Bond

LC US Equity

MC US Equity

SC US Equity

Real Estate

Int'l Equity

EM Equity

Commod. Fut.

HFs Portfolio MLPs Expected

ReturnExpected

Risk

Distance From

Target

Rebalance Required

Target 0.0% 11.0% 0.0% 8.0% 6.0% 5.0% 5.0% 14.0% 3.0% 2.0% 6.0% 12.0% 5.0% 8.0% 10.0% 5.0% 7.06% 11.58% N.A. N.A.3/31/2012 0.1% 10.6% 0.0% 7.9% 5.9% 5.0% 4.9% 14.5% 3.0% 2.1% 6.0% 12.1% 5.0% 7.7% 10.2% 4.9% 7.08% 11.63% 0.05% No

12/31/2011 0.1% 11.6% 0.0% 7.8% 4.8% 4.0% 0.0% 13.5% 2.1% 5.4% 6.3% 11.8% 8.0% 9.6% 9.6% 5.5% 7.35% 12.12% 0.61% Yes9/30/2011 2.1% 13.3% 0.0% 8.2% 5.2% 4.0% 0.0% 12.5% 1.9% 4.6% 5.5% 10.3% 7.0% 9.9% 10.2% 5.3% 6.98% 11.27% 0.33% No6/30/2011 0.0% 11.5% 0.0% 7.9% 4.7% 3.9% 0.0% 13.5% 2.2% 5.3% 6.1% 12.0% 7.8% 10.2% 9.8% 5.2% 7.33% 12.10% 0.59% Yes3/31/2011 0.1% 11.2% 0.0% 7.6% 4.6% 3.9% 0.0% 13.4% 2.2% 5.5% 5.9% 11.9% 7.6% 10.8% 9.9% 5.5% 7.35% 12.10% 0.60% Yes

12/31/2010 0.1% 11.4% 0.0% 7.7% 4.8% 3.9% 0.0% 13.1% 2.1% 5.3% 5.9% 11.9% 7.9% 10.6% 10.0% 5.4% 7.34% 12.07% 0.56% Yes9/30/2010 0.1% 10.4% 0.0% 10.3% 2.1% 7.1% 0.0% 14.8% 2.5% 4.9% 10.7% 13.5% 8.4% 10.5% 0.0% 4.9% 7.31% 13.22% 1.65% Yes6/30/2010 0.1% 11.5% 0.0% 10.9% 2.3% 7.5% 0.0% 14.6% 2.4% 4.9% 9.9% 12.7% 7.8% 10.2% 0.0% 5.2% 7.19% 12.87% 1.29% Yes3/31/2010 0.1% 7.4% 0.0% 16.9% 1.1% 4.9% 0.0% 18.0% 2.6% 5.6% 7.4% 15.5% 5.3% 9.8% 0.0% 5.1% 7.15% 12.66% 1.08% Yes

12/31/2009 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.2% 4.7% 10.6% 2.7% 26.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.25% 14.16% 2.58% Yes7.25% 14.16%7.25% 14.16%

5.0%8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 11.0% 12.0% 13.0% 14.0% 15.0%

Expected Risk (Standard Deviation)

18

March 31, 2012 December 31, 2011

December 31, 2011March 31, 2012

0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6%-0.2 %-0.4 %

Cash/Equivalents

Hedge Funds

MLP

Commodities

Real Estate International


Emerging Markets


Small Cap

Mid Cap

Large Cap


High Yield Fixed


TIPS

0.1%

-0.4 %

0.5%

-0.4 %

-0.1 %

0.2%

0.0%

-0.2 %

0.4%

0.1%

0.5%

-0.2 %

0.0%

-0.2 %

-0.4 %

0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8%-0.2 %-0.4 %-0.6 %

Cash/Equivalents

Hedge Funds

MLP

Commodities

Real Estate International


Emerging Markets


Small Cap

Mid Cap

Large Cap

Emerging Markets Debt


High Yield Fixed


TIPS

0.1%

0.2%

-0.1 %

-0.3 %

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.5%

-0.1 %

-0.1 %

0.0%

-0.1 %

-0.4 %

Market Value($)

Allocation(%)

Target(%)

TIPS 3,767,469 11.6 12.0

Broad Domestic Fixed 2,514,460 7.8 8.0

High Yield Fixed 1,281,384 4.0 4.0

International Fixed Hedged 1,563,964 4.8 5.0

Large Cap 4,383,521 13.5 13.0

Mid Cap 684,848 2.1 2.0

Small Cap 1,747,078 5.4 5.0

International Equity 3,818,392 11.8 12.0

Emerging Markets 2,583,587 8.0 8.0

Real Estate Domestic 1,048,223 3.2 3.0

Real Estate International 952,876 2.9 3.0

Commodities 3,111,887 9.6 10.0

MLP 1,785,750 5.5 5.0

Hedge Funds 3,118,720 9.6 10.0

Cash/Equivalents 17,242 0.1 0.0

Total Fund 32,379,401 100.0 100.0

Market Value($)

Allocation(%)

Target(%)

TIPS 3,721,055 10.6 11.0

Broad Domestic Fixed 2,794,432 7.9 8.0

High Yield Fixed 1,754,603 5.0 5.0

International Fixed Hedged 2,092,284 5.9 6.0

Emerging Markets Debt 1,708,340 4.9 5.0

Large Cap 5,116,252 14.5 14.0

Mid Cap 1,068,600 3.0 3.0

Small Cap 739,709 2.1 2.0

International Equity 4,263,721 12.1 12.0

Emerging Markets 1,769,492 5.0 5.0

Real Estate Domestic 2,111,052 6.0 6.0

Real Estate International - - 0.0

Commodities 2,703,324 7.7 8.0

MLP 1,723,846 4.9 5.0

Hedge Funds 3,574,417 10.2 10.0

Cash/Equivalents 30,156 0.1 0.0

Total Fund 35,171,283 100.0 100.0


Endowment

March 31, 2012

19

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

YearsSince

InceptionInception

Date

Historical Account Composite 7.95 7.95 2.31 20.79 5.01 N/A 7.44 12/31/2003

Target Asset Allocation 7.99 7.99 4.91 18.35 2.83 N/A 6.39 12/31/2003


Endowment

March 31, 2012

20

5 YEARS3 YEARS

10 YEARS7 YEARS

Historical Account Composite Target Asset Allocation

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

Risk (Standard Deviation %)


17.5

18.0

18.5

19.0

19.5

20.0

20.5

21.0

21.5

11.8 12.0 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.6


No data found.


5.1

5.4

5.7

6.0

6.3

6.6

6.9

7.2

7.5

12.8



Endowment

March 31, 2012

21

FUND INFO QUARTERLY COMMENTS - ASSET CLASS

HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE

FUND OBJECTIVE

QUARTERLY COMMENTS - FUND

TIPS gained 2.7% during the fourth quarter of 2011 as real yields declined. Declining real yields combined with stagnant nominal yields increasedthe 10-year breakeven to 2.0% from 1.7%. Core and headline inflation rates diverged in the fourth quarter as the core measure hit a cycle highwhile headline inflation eased. In spite of considerable concern in the market that the odds of a double dip recession were increasing, demand for inflation protection propelled TIPS to a 13.6% annual return.

Product Name Vanguard Infl-Prot;Adm (VAIPX)

Fund Family Vanguard Group Inc

Ticker VAIPX

Peer Group IM U.S. TIPS (MF)

Benchmark Barclays Cap US Treasury: US TIPS

Fund Inception 06/10/2005

Portfolio Manager Hollyer/Volpert

Total Assets $13,886 Million

Total Assets Date 03/31/2012

Gross Expense 0.11%

Net Expense 0.11%

Turnover 28%

Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund performed in-line with the Barclays Capital U.S. TIPS Index. During the quarter, 10-year break-evenrates widened from 1.7% to 2.0%, as inflationary concerns were fueled by signs that the U.S. economy was strengthening.The yields of 10-year TIPS and nominal Treasuries both fell, but TIPS outperformed nominal Treasuries for the quarter. The extremely low yieldsof 5- and 10-year TIPS securities can be attributed to the low yields of nominal Treasury securities, paired with moderate inflation expectations.

J. Rondini, Senior Investment Analyst, DiMeo Schneider & Associates, L.L.C. 4Q11

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Vanguard Infl-Protected Secs Adm 0.75 0.75 12.10 8.55 7.38 N/A 13.29 6.31 10.96 -2.78 11.69 0.52 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Barclays Cap US Treasury: US TIPS 0.86 0.86 12.20 8.74 7.60 7.51 13.56 6.31 11.41 -2.35 11.63 0.49 2.84 8.46 8.39 16.56

IM U.S. TIPS (MF) Median 0.88 0.88 10.80 8.18 6.74 7.25 11.94 5.86 10.24 -2.56 10.62 -0.05 2.06 7.58 7.61 16.07

Vanguard Infl-Protected Secs Adm Rank 65 65 10 29 24 N/A 11 29 32 56 7 17 N/A N/A N/A N/A

The fund seeks to provide inflation protection and income consistent with investment in inflation-indexed securities. It primarily invests in inflation-indexed bonds issued by the U.S. government. It mayinvest in bonds of any maturity, though the fund typically maintains a dollar-weighted maturity of seven to 10 years. Up to 20% of the assets may be invested in non-inflation-indexed securities, includinginvestment grade corporate debt and U.S. government and agency bonds. At a minimum, all bonds purchased will be rated “investment grade.”

Vanguard Infl-Protected Secs Adm

March 31, 2012

22

PEER GROUP ANALYSIS 3 YEAR ROLLING PEER GROUP PERCENTILE RANKING

RELATIVE PERFORMANCE TO INDEXRISK AND RETURN (04/01/07-03/31/12)


Barclays Cap US Treasury: US TIPS

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

Vanguard Infl-Protected Secs Adm 0.7 (65) 12.1 (10) 8.5 (29) 7.4 (24)

Barclays Cap US Treasury: US TIPS 0.9 (53) 12.2 (8) 8.7 (22) 7.6 (14)

5th Percentile 2.5 12.4 10.6 7.9

1st Quartile 1.5 11.6 8.6 7.4

Median 0.9 10.8 8.2 6.7

3rd Quartile 0.7 9.0 7.5 5.9

95th Percentile 0.4 4.2 6.4 1.6

Cumulative Annualized Over/Under Relative Performance

Over/Under Performance

0.0

0.2

0.4

-0.2

-0.4

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12


Barclays Cap US Treasury: US TIPS

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.40 7.41 7.42 7.43 7.44



March 31, 2012

23

PORTFOLIO CHARACTERISTICSRISK CHARACTERISTICS

SECTOR EXPOSURE (%)CREDIT QUALITY DISTRIBUTION (%)

1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 12.10 8.55 7.38 N/A

Standard Deviation 4.72 4.87 7.43 N/A

vs. Barclays Cap US Treasury: US TIPS

Tracking Error 0.52 0.48 0.65 N/A

Alpha 0.00 -0.08 -0.21 N/A

Beta 0.99 0.99 1.00 N/A

R-Squared 0.99 0.99 0.99 N/A

Consistency 50.00 47.22 48.33 N/A

vs. 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill

Sharpe Ratio 2.44 1.69 0.83 N/A

Portfolio Benchmark

Portfolio Duration 8.4 6.2

Avg. Maturity 9.4 9.3

Current Yield 1.1 1.4


March 31, 2012

24



FUND OBJECTIVE


Domestic fixed income saw positive returns across all major sectors. The yield curve ended relatively unchanged as rates continued to besupported by the Fed’s accommodative policy and implementation of “Operation Twist”. The 2-year remained at 0.25% and the 30-year fell 1 basispoint to 2.89%. The 5-year was the exception and outperformed the overall curve by declining 13 basis points to 0.83%. Overall, Treasuriesreturned 0.9% for the quarter. Investment grade corporates outperformed duration matched Treasuries, returning 1.7%, as credit spreads tightenedover the quarter. Overall, fundamentals remained strong as corporate profits and cash levels remained at historically high levels. Among investmentgrades, financial-backed issuers underperformed utility-backed and industrial-related corporates due to their disproportionate exposures tosovereign Europe debt. Mortgage-backed securities moved higher despite concerns that government programs aimed at stimulating the housingmarket will lead to increased refinancing activity and expectations for faster prepayments going forward. Commercial mortgage-backed securities(CMBS) were the best performing structured product, outperforming Treasuries by 2.2%, as spreads rallied late in the quarter. CMBS also saw animprovement in the new issuance market and stable delinquency rates. Asset-backed securities (ABS) produced positive returns, but trailed

Treasuries, as the sector saw spreads widen. Within ABS, credit cards were the largest detractor followed by auto.

Product Name Loomis Sayles:Bd;Inst (LSBDX)

Fund Family Loomis Sayles & Company LP

Ticker LSBDX

Peer Group IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (MF)

Benchmark Barclays Capital Aggregate


Portfolio Manager Team Managed



Gross Expense 0.64%

Net Expense 0.64%

Turnover 22%

A slightly longer than benchmark duration added to results as longer term bonds outperformed for the quarter.An underweight to high yields detracted from performance as they outperformed higher quality bonds.An overweight to corporates and an underweight to treasuries helped relative performance.A large underweight to MBS helped performance as it trailed the overall index return.

M. O'Neill, Analyst, DiMeo Schneider & Associates, L.L.C. 4Q11

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Loomis Sayles Bond Instl 6.59 6.59 6.88 19.93 7.47 10.57 3.76 13.58 37.19 -21.82 8.53 11.29 4.28 11.30 29.18 13.34

Barclays Capital Aggregate 0.30 0.30 7.71 6.83 6.25 5.80 7.84 6.54 5.93 5.24 6.97 4.34 2.43 4.34 4.11 10.27

IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (MF) Median 1.49 1.49 6.97 9.34 5.93 5.48 6.54 7.50 13.16 -3.60 5.28 3.95 1.83 4.04 4.37 8.56

Loomis Sayles Bond Instl Rank 1 1 53 1 11 1 91 1 1 97 2 1 2 1 1 1

This fund is managed to take full advantage of the 35% limit on below investment-grade bonds, which tends to generate a higher risk/reward profile. In addition, management is willing to take on addedinterest rate risk through obtaining longer-duration bonds in order to gain higher yields. To ease some of this interest rate risk, the fund is structured with counter cyclical elements. In doing so, it will utilize

convertible bonds, municipal bonds, preferred stocks and foreign corporate and government bonds, in addition to the domestic corporate bonds which make up the majority of the fund.

Loomis Sayles Bond Instl

March 31, 2012

25



Loomis Sayles Bond Instl Barclays Capital Aggregate

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

Loomis Sayles Bond Instl 6.6 (1) 6.9 (53) 19.9 (1) 7.5 (11)

Barclays Capital Aggregate 0.3 (91) 7.7 (23) 6.8 (85) 6.2 (37)

5th Percentile 2.9 8.8 13.6 7.9

1st Quartile 2.1 7.6 10.9 6.7

Median 1.5 7.0 9.3 5.9

3rd Quartile 0.9 6.2 7.8 4.9

95th Percentile 0.2 4.6 5.7 2.3



0.0

6.0

12.0

18.0

-6.0

-12.0

-18.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

Loomis Sayles Bond Instl Barclays Capital Aggregate

6.0

6.3

6.6

6.9

7.2

7.5

7.8

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0



March 31, 2012

26



1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 6.88 19.93 7.47 10.57

Standard Deviation 9.07 8.60 12.24 9.75

vs. Barclays Capital Aggregate

Tracking Error 9.17 8.68 11.07 8.62

Alpha 4.59 17.29 -1.65 3.30

Beta 0.35 0.39 1.57 1.28

R-Squared 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.23

Consistency 41.67 66.67 55.00 65.83


Sharpe Ratio 0.78 2.16 0.55 0.89

Portfolio Benchmark





March 31, 2012

27



FUND OBJECTIVE


The domestic yield curve ended the quarter higher as positive U.S. economic data led the market to favor risk. Despite the uptick in the economythe Fed maintained their accommodative policy stating that further improvement is needed. As a result the yield curve steepened with the 30-year rising 46 basis points to 3.35% versus an 8 basis point increase in the 2-year to 0.32%. Overall, Treasuries lost 1.3% with longer maturitiesunderperforming short to intermediate issues. Investment grade corporates outperformed Treasuries, returning 2.0% as tightening spreadsovercame the increase in rates. Financials drove the outperformance, posting 5.1% versus 0.8% in industrials and -0.1% in utilities. Structuredproducts, especially commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), also benefited from spread compression during the quarter. Mortgage-backed securities generated positive returns but lagged the other structured sectors. The market continues to monitor prepayments that may resultfrom government programs and historically low mortgage rates.

Product Name PIMCO:Tot Rtn;Inst (PTTRX)

Fund Family PIMCO

Ticker PTTRX

Peer Group IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (MF)

Benchmark Barclays Capital Aggregate


Portfolio Manager William H. Gross



Gross Expense 0.46%

Net Expense 0.46%

Turnover 430%

The Total Return Fund outperformed the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index in 1Q12 by 258 basis points after fees (2.88% vs. 0.3%), benefiting fromthe portfolios diversified positions, particularly its existing exposure to high quality spread sectors and its curve positioning.Active adjustment of both duration levels and duration composition benefitted the portfolio, with targeted key rate exposures outperforming the benchmark.The Fund's holdings in well-capitalized U.S. Financials across the credit spectrum outperformed Treasuries (and the broader corporate market),as did positions in non-Agency MBS, emerging markets and Build America Bonds.A yield curve steepening bias, particularly an underweight to the long-end of the U.S. yeld curve, added to returns as long-term rates sold off more than short and intermediate-term maturities.An overweight to U.S. and Canadian duration detracted from performance, as yields rose in these regions. Overall interest rate strategies were positive due to favorable curve positioning.PIMCO continues to anticipate additional quantitative easing, although the timing for such programs is unclear.

A. Novara, Research Analyst, DiMeo Schneider & Associates, L.L.C. 1Q12

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

PIMCO Total Return Instl 2.87 2.87 5.98 9.38 8.35 7.04 4.16 8.86 13.87 4.82 9.08 3.99 2.88 5.14 5.57 10.21

Barclays Capital Aggregate 0.30 0.30 7.71 6.83 6.25 5.80 7.84 6.54 5.93 5.24 6.97 4.34 2.43 4.34 4.11 10.27

IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (MF) Median 1.49 1.49 6.97 9.34 5.93 5.48 6.54 7.50 13.16 -3.60 5.28 3.95 1.83 4.04 4.37 8.56

PIMCO Total Return Instl Rank 6 6 81 50 3 4 89 25 46 13 1 47 4 13 28 10

PIMCO seeks current income consistent with preservation of capital. The process begins with a top-down review of the global economy and interest rates. Management looks at the most likely near termscenario with regard to interest rate volatility, yield curve shape, and credit trends. Once the larger trends are established, they focus on selecting high-quality fixed income securities through the use of

proprietary research.

PIMCO Total Return Instl

March 31, 2012

28



PIMCO Total Return Instl Barclays Capital Aggregate

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

PIMCO Total Return Instl 2.9 (6) 6.0 (81) 9.4 (50) 8.3 (3)

Barclays Capital Aggregate 0.3 (91) 7.7 (23) 6.8 (85) 6.2 (37)

5th Percentile 2.9 8.8 13.6 7.9

1st Quartile 2.1 7.6 10.9 6.7

Median 1.5 7.0 9.3 5.9

3rd Quartile 0.9 6.2 7.8 4.9

95th Percentile 0.2 4.6 5.7 2.3



0.0

2.0

4.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

PIMCO Total Return Instl Barclays Capital Aggregate

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6



March 31, 2012

29



1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 5.98 9.38 8.35 7.04


vs. Barclays Capital Aggregate

Tracking Error 4.10 2.94 2.90 2.14

Alpha 1.66 3.48 2.43 1.43

Beta 0.57 0.85 0.93 0.96

R-Squared 0.11 0.37 0.57 0.73

Consistency 50.00 75.00 71.67 65.00


Sharpe Ratio 1.39 2.43 1.56 1.22

Portfolio Benchmark





March 31, 2012

30



FUND OBJECTIVE


High yield snapped back from the third quarter, making it the best performing fixed income sector as credit spreads narrowed. It should be noted,however, that credit spreads did widen overall during 2011. Reversing a two quarter trend, lower quality issues outperformed with CCC-ratedissues returning 8.4% versus 5.6% in BB issues. Home construction led the way in the fourth quarter after being the largest detractor in theprevious quarter. Overall, sector fundamentals remain on solid footing with default rates below long term averages and well capitalized companybalance sheets.

Product Name JPMorgan:High Yield;Sel (OHYFX)

Fund Family JPMorgan Funds

Ticker OHYFX

Peer Group IM U.S. High Yield Bonds (MF)

Benchmark Citigroup High-Yield Market


Portfolio Manager Morgan/Gibson/Shanahan



Gross Expense 1.08%

Net Expense 0.91%

Turnover 45%

Security selection in the consumer cyclical, industrial and technology sectors led to the majority of the fund’s underperformance for the quarter.At the industry level, an overweight position in transportation and underweights in capital goods and technology detracted from performance.Security selection in the consumer non-cyclical and finance sectors positively impacted performance. Additionally, an overweight position inconsumer cyclical added to returns.

A. Repta, Senior Analyst, DiMeo Schneider & Associates, L.L.C. 4Q11

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

JPMorgan High Yield Select 5.28 5.28 4.13 20.15 7.19 8.90 2.65 14.67 48.45 -22.54 2.18 12.80 3.04 11.31 26.10 -1.09

Citigroup High-Yield Market 5.16 5.16 6.69 23.34 7.71 9.01 5.51 14.33 55.23 -25.91 1.83 11.85 2.07 10.80 30.62 -1.52

IM U.S. High Yield Bonds (MF) Median 5.01 5.01 4.51 19.95 5.88 7.49 2.73 13.59 46.26 -25.20 1.72 9.75 2.72 9.70 24.01 -0.54

JPMorgan High Yield Select Rank 39 39 57 49 16 10 52 30 39 29 36 6 41 18 35 57

The fund utilizes a bottom-up, fundamental, value-oriented approach to analyze the issuer's business prospectus, management, capital requirements, capital structure, enterprise value, and securitystructure and covenants. Credit analysts focusing solely on high yield have significant influence on buy/sell decisions, industry weighting, and risk profile within an industry. The analysts keep aperformance rating on each industry they follow, which determines relative weightings in the portfolio. Relative positions within each industry in terms of credit quality also result from analyst ratings.Management may shift from weaker to stronger credits and from cyclical to non-cyclical sectors if they believe the economic environment will weaken and vice versa if they believe the economy will

strengthen.

JPMorgan High Yield Select

March 31, 2012

31



JPMorgan High Yield Select Citigroup High-Yield Market

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

JPMorgan High Yield Select 5.3 (39) 4.1 (57) 20.1 (49) 7.2 (16)

Citigroup High-Yield Market 5.2 (44) 6.7 (9) 23.3 (14) 7.7 (7)

5th Percentile 7.3 7.0 25.1 7.8

1st Quartile 5.8 5.7 21.8 6.8

Median 5.0 4.5 20.0 5.9

3rd Quartile 4.1 3.3 16.5 4.7

95th Percentile 2.6 0.3 11.7 1.8



0.0

2.0

4.0

-2.0

-4.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

JPMorgan High Yield Select Citigroup High-Yield Market

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5



March 31, 2012

32



1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 4.13 20.15 7.19 8.90


vs. Citigroup High-Yield Market

Tracking Error 1.05 2.26 3.87 3.43

Alpha -2.36 -0.04 0.89 1.79

Beta 0.99 0.87 0.80 0.77

R-Squared 0.99 0.96 0.95 0.94

Consistency 33.33 50.00 50.00 52.50


Sharpe Ratio 0.48 2.05 0.55 0.78

Portfolio Benchmark

Portfolio Duration 4.3

Avg. Maturity 7.2

Current Yield 7.0


March 31, 2012

33



FUND OBJECTIVE


International bonds generated positive returns as Eurozone concerns faded temporarily. The sector was lifted by another tranche of Long TermRefinancing Operation (LTRO) from the ECB and the close of another chapter in the Greek story as the country restructured its debt. In thisenvironment, safe-haven sovereigns such as Germany underperformed. Most currencies appreciated against the U.S. dollar with the JapaneseYen, losing over 7%, being one of the exceptions. Japan’s large weight in the indices caused hedged indices to outperform unhedged. Emergingmarket debt continues to see strong inflows and benefited from the risk rally in the first quarter. EM local currency bonds returned 8.3%,outperforming external debt financed in USD, as EM currencies appreciated during the quarter. The largest currency gains were in those countriesthat struggled in 2011 and included the Hungarian Forint and Polish Zloty.

Product Name PIMCO:For Bd (DH);Inst (PFORX)

Fund Family PIMCO

Ticker PFORX

Peer Group IM International Fixed Income (MF)

Benchmark Citigroup Non-U.S. WGB Hedged


Portfolio Manager Scott A. Mather



Gross Expense 0.52%

Net Expense 0.52%

Turnover 236%

Contributions to performance include non-agency MBS & ABS, an overweight to commodity-linked currencies, and select positions in high-qualitycredits.A duration overweight to the United Kingdom was the sole detractor to performance. The focus for the portfolio will remain on global interest rate strategies via duration, curve positioning and swap positions.The fund remains positive on credits in the financial sector in both the U.S. and U.K.


CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

PIMCO Foreign Bond (USD-Hedged) I 2.26 2.26 8.96 12.16 7.43 6.39 6.77 9.19 19.04 -2.36 3.98 2.94 5.72 6.65 3.57 7.66

Citigroup Non-U.S. WGB Hedged 1.32 1.32 6.39 3.40 4.42 4.61 4.06 2.47 2.38 8.01 4.87 3.11 5.69 5.18 1.88 6.85

IM International Fixed Income (MF) Median 1.97 1.97 3.06 8.10 6.10 7.00 2.80 6.44 8.97 2.00 9.29 5.47 -8.08 10.81 17.63 19.93

PIMCO Foreign Bond (USD-Hedged) I Rank 40 40 1 13 24 65 7 23 11 81 83 82 4 80 85 77

The fund takes an all-encompassing approach toward international fixed-income investing. Top-down work begins with a 3-5 year outlook for the global economy and interest rates followed by using acountry-bond allocation model to help determine which countries have the best risk adjusted yield. The bottom-up strategy focuses on credit research, stressing fundamental and in depth analysis of all

potential holdings.

PIMCO Foreign Bond (USD-Hedged) I

March 31, 2012

34




Citigroup Non-U.S. WGB Hedged

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

PIMCO Foreign Bond (USD-Hedged) I 2.3 (40) 9.0 (1) 12.2 (13) 7.4 (24)

Citigroup Non-U.S. WGB Hedged 1.3 (61) 6.4 (15) 3.4 (100) 4.4 (90)

5th Percentile 6.2 8.5 15.3 9.9

1st Quartile 2.9 4.5 11.7 7.2

Median 2.0 3.1 8.1 6.1

3rd Quartile 0.5 1.9 6.9 4.9

95th Percentile -0.2 -1.1 4.8 4.0



0.0

3.0

6.0

9.0

-3.0

-6.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12


Citigroup Non-U.S. WGB Hedged

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5



March 31, 2012

35



1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 8.96 12.16 7.43 6.39


vs. Citigroup Non-U.S. WGB Hedged

Tracking Error 2.81 3.52 4.64 3.36

Alpha 3.85 9.30 4.69 3.11

Beta 0.78 0.79 0.62 0.71

R-Squared 0.37 0.27 0.14 0.25

Consistency 50.00 75.00 61.67 56.67


Sharpe Ratio 2.48 2.82 1.22 1.14

Portfolio Benchmark


Avg. Maturity 10.1

Current Yield 2.9


March 31, 2012

36



FUND OBJECTIVE


International bonds generated positive returns as Eurozone concerns faded temporarily. The sector was lifted by another tranche of Long TermRefinancing Operation (LTRO) from the ECB and the close of another chapter in the Greek story as the country restructured its debt. In thisenvironment, safe-haven sovereigns such as Germany underperformed. Most currencies appreciated against the U.S. dollar with the JapaneseYen, losing over 7%, being one of the exceptions. Japan’s large weight in the indices caused hedged indices to outperform unhedged. Emergingmarket debt continues to see strong inflows and benefited from the risk rally in the first quarter. EM local currency bonds returned 8.3%,outperforming external debt financed in USD, as EM currencies appreciated during the quarter. The largest currency gains were in those countriesthat struggled in 2011 and included the Hungarian Forint and Polish Zloty.

Product Name PIMCO:Em Local Bd;Inst (PELBX)

Fund Family PIMCO

Ticker PELBX

Peer Group IM Emerging Markets Debt (MF)

Benchmark JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified


Portfolio Manager Michael Gomez



Gross Expense 0.90%

Net Expense 0.90%

Turnover 24%

Positive contributors to relative to performance include overweights to local weights in Brazil and Mexico, overweights to the Mexico peso and thePhilippine peso, underweights to local rates in Hungary and Thailand, and an underweight to the Hungarian forint.Detractors to relative performance include underweights to local rates and currencies in Colombia and Russia, and an underweight to local ratesin Turkey, which outperformed.The portfolio management team plans to continue overweighting Asian currencies and some Latin American countries while underweightingemerging market European countries (with the exception of Poland).Local currency opportunities in Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa remain attractive.


CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

PIMCO Emerging Local Bd Fd Inst 8.13 8.13 5.25 18.69 9.70 N/A -0.78 15.55 29.27 -10.66 12.29 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified 8.30 8.30 3.44 16.83 10.15 N/A -1.75 15.68 21.98 -5.22 18.11 15.22 6.27 22.97 16.92 N/A

IM Emerging Markets Debt (MF) Median 6.85 6.85 7.78 16.96 7.69 10.71 3.48 12.85 31.16 -17.50 4.91 11.07 11.58 12.56 30.33 11.89

PIMCO Emerging Local Bd Fd Inst Rank 30 30 56 32 4 N/A 59 12 64 10 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

The fund takes a conservative approach toward emerging market fixed-income investing. Top-down work begins with a 3-5 year outlook for the global economy and interest rates followed by using acountry-bond allocation model to help determine which countries have the best risk adjusted yield. Country selection also takes into account fiscal and reserve positions, relationship to external trends, and

the potential for adverse technical conditions. The bottom-up strategy focuses on credit research, stressing fundamental and in depth relative value analysis of all potential holdings.

PIMCO Emerging Local Bd Fd Inst

March 31, 2012

37



PIMCO Emerging Local Bd Fd Inst JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

PIMCO Emerging Local Bd Fd Inst 8.1 (30) 5.3 (56) 18.7 (32) 9.7 (4)

JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified 8.3 (29) 3.4 (70) 16.8 (54) 10.1 (3)

5th Percentile 9.3 12.2 21.9 9.5

1st Quartile 8.6 10.5 19.7 8.7

Median 6.9 7.8 17.0 7.7

3rd Quartile 5.6 2.9 15.4 6.6

95th Percentile 4.7 -0.9 11.1 3.0



0.0

2.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12


JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified

9.6

9.7

9.8

9.9

10.0

10.1

10.2

10.3

14.2 14.4 14.6 14.8 15.0 15.2 15.4 15.6



March 31, 2012

38



1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 5.25 18.69 9.70 N/A


vs. JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified


Alpha 1.82 1.48 -0.89 N/A

Beta 0.98 1.01 1.06 N/A

R-Squared 0.99 0.98 0.98 N/A

Consistency 58.33 47.22 41.67 N/A



Portfolio Benchmark


Avg. Maturity 6.0

Current Yield 5.2


March 31, 2012

39



FUND OBJECTIVE


The Russell 1000 Value Index advanced 11% during the first quarter of 2012. The key drivers of the rally were widespread and included improvedU.S. economic data, attractive corporate earnings growth, easing concerns over the Eurozone crisis, and the extraordinary liquidity provided bymajor central banks around the world. For the quarter, large cap value stocks underperformed their large cap growth counterparts. Within the Index,information technology, financials and consumer discretionary were among the best performers. Top performing individual stocks among financialsincluded JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup. The more defensively-oriented sectors, such as utilities, telecom andhealthcare underperformed. Within healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb was a notable decliner, while Verizon Communications was a leading detractor among telecoms.

Product Name Dodge & Cox Stock (DODGX)

Fund Family Dodge & Cox

Ticker DODGX

Peer Group IM U.S. Large Cap Value Equity (MF)

Benchmark Russell 1000 Value Index





Gross Expense 0.52%

Net Expense 0.52%

Turnover 12%

Strong stock selection within the financial services sector aided first quarter performance results. Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Capital Oneand Wells Fargo performed well as a result of an improved economy and positive "stress test" results.Underweight positions in the weaker performing consumer staples and utilities sectors further benefited performance.On the negative side, the fund's significant overweight to healthcare detracted. In the short-term, a number of impending key events are creatinguncertainty for the sector. The upcoming elections will have important implications for the direction of healthcare reform. Additionally, theSupreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of healthcare reform and the individual mandate that requires all citizens to purchase healthcarecoverage.


CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Dodge & Cox Stock 13.29 13.29 2.56 23.89 -2.01 4.83 -4.08 13.49 31.27 -43.31 0.14 18.53 9.37 19.17 32.34 -10.54

Russell 1000 Value Index 11.12 11.12 4.79 22.82 -0.81 4.58 0.39 15.51 19.69 -36.85 -0.17 22.25 7.05 16.49 30.03 -15.52

IM U.S. Large Cap Value Equity (MF) Median 12.20 12.20 3.61 20.49 -0.62 3.80 -2.20 12.85 23.41 -37.02 1.62 18.14 5.55 13.06 28.59 -19.16

Dodge & Cox Stock Rank 26 26 64 7 79 13 71 41 13 92 62 45 15 2 18 4

The portfolio is built based on Dodge & Cox's fundamental research effort, a three-to-five year time horizon, and a strong price discipline. It invests in companies that appear to be temporarily undervaluedby the stock market but have a favorable outlook for long-term growth, while focusing on the underlying financial condition and prospects of individual companies, including future earnings, cash flow, anddividends. Other factors, including financial strength, economic condition, competitive advantage, and quality of the business franchise are weighed against valuation in selecting individual securities. By

prospectus, the fund can invest up to 20% of its assets in U.S. dollar-denominated foreign securities.

Dodge & Cox Stock

March 31, 2012

40



Dodge & Cox Stock Russell 1000 Value Index

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

Dodge & Cox Stock 13.3 (26) 2.6 (64) 23.9 (7) -2.0 (79)

Russell 1000 Value Index 11.1 (72) 4.8 (32) 22.8 (11) -0.8 (55)

5th Percentile 14.8 8.7 24.4 2.0

1st Quartile 13.3 5.1 21.8 0.6

Median 12.2 3.6 20.5 -0.6

3rd Quartile 11.0 1.4 19.1 -1.8

95th Percentile 8.5 -1.8 16.5 -4.1



0.0

3.0

6.0

-3.0

-6.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

Dodge & Cox Stock Russell 1000 Value Index

-2.4

-2.1

-1.8

-1.5

-1.2

-0.9

-0.6

19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0


Dodge & Cox Stock

March 31, 2012

41

RISK CHARACTERISTICS PORTFOLIO CHARACTERISTICS

SECTOR EXPOSURE (%) TOP 10 HOLDINGS

Portfolio Benchmark

Total Securities 78 656

Price/Earnings (P/E) 15.2 12.4

Price/Book (P/B) 2.5 1.8

Dividend Yield 2.7 2.7

1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 2.56 23.89 -2.01 4.83


vs. Russell 1000 Value Index

Tracking Error 3.18 4.02 5.00 4.36

Alpha -2.39 -1.54 -0.84 0.20

Beta 1.10 1.13 1.09 1.05

R-Squared 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.94

Consistency 33.33 47.22 48.33 50.00


Sharpe Ratio 0.22 1.20 -0.03 0.25

As of 12/31/2011

Hewlett-Packard Co ORD 4.1%

Wells Fargo & Co ORD 3.9%

Comcast Corp ORD 3.7%

Merck & Co Inc ORD 3.5%

Capital One Financial Corp ORD 3.5%

Sanofi SA DR 3.2%

General Electric Co ORD 3.2%

Time Warner Inc ORD 3.2%

Amgen Inc ORD 3.0%

GlaxoSmithkline PLC DR 2.9%

Dodge & Cox Stock

March 31, 2012

42



FUND OBJECTIVE


Equity markets advanced during the first quarter of 2012 as the U.S. economy continued to show signs of improvement. Investor sentiment alsoappeared to benefit from developments in Europe, as fears about contagion from the Eurozone's sovereign debt crisis were mitigated by theEuropean Central Bank's adoption of an easier monetary policy. The S&P 500 Index rose 13% during the quarter. Gains occurred in nine of the 10major sectors, with financials, information technology, and consumer discretionary outperforming the broader market. The top performing stocks inthe Index included Apple, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Utilities was the only major sector to post a first quarter loss, while telecom and energy gained only slightly. For the quarter, value stocks underperformed growth stocks. Across market capitalizations,large-, mid- and small-cap issues fared similarly.

Product Name iShares:S&P 500 Index (IVV)

Fund Family BlackRock Fund Advisors

Ticker

Peer Group IM U.S. Large Cap Core Equity (MF)

Benchmark S&P 500


Portfolio Manager O'Connor/Leung



Gross Expense 0.09%

Net Expense 0.09%

Turnover 5%

Due to the passive nature of this product, commentary not provided.

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

iShares S&P 500 Index 12.54 12.54 8.44 23.31 1.97 4.05 2.03 14.96 26.43 -36.95 5.44 15.69 4.83 10.77 28.53 -22.15

S&P 500 12.59 12.59 8.54 23.42 2.01 4.12 2.11 15.06 26.46 -37.00 5.49 15.79 4.91 10.88 28.68 -22.10

IM U.S. Large Cap Core Equity (MF) Median 12.73 12.73 6.52 21.17 1.49 3.71 -0.50 13.00 26.79 -37.03 5.76 14.02 5.28 9.69 26.18 -21.88

iShares S&P 500 Index Rank 55 55 25 20 38 38 24 20 53 49 54 30 57 37 31 54

This exchange traded fund (ETF) seeks performance corresponding to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the large cap portion of the U.S. equity market, as represented by theS&P 500 Index. Each stock in the Index is held on a market capitalization weighted basis where the size of the position in the stock is based on the size of the stock as measured by the stock price times

the number of shares outstanding. The fund attempts to replicate this index by holding all or substantially all of the stocks in the S&P 500.

iShares S&P 500 Index

March 31, 2012

43




0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

iShares S&P 500 Index 12.5 (55) 8.4 (25) 23.3 (20) 2.0 (38)

5th Percentile 15.6 11.8 25.6 4.3

1st Quartile 14.1 8.4 22.9 2.5

Median 12.7 6.5 21.2 1.5

3rd Quartile 11.2 3.5 19.4 0.3

95th Percentile 7.6 -0.3 17.1 -2.0



0.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12


1.9

2.0

2.1

17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5



March 31, 2012

44


SECTOR EXPOSURE (%)

Portfolio

TOP 10 HOLDINGS

1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 8.44 23.31 1.97 4.05


vs. S&P 500

Tracking Error 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04

Alpha -0.08 -0.05 -0.04 -0.06

Beta 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

R-Squared 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Consistency 8.33 19.44 30.00 21.67


Sharpe Ratio 0.58 1.40 0.14 0.22

Total Securities 501

Avg. Market Cap 104.48 Billion

P/E 18.7

P/B 4.0

Div. Yield 2.48%

Annual EPS 22.4

5Yr EPS 10.2

3Yr EPS Growth 13.8

As of 02/29/2012

Apple Inc ORD 4.1%

Exxon Mobil Corp ORD 3.3%

Microsoft Corp ORD 1.9%

International Business Machines Corp ORD 1.9%

Chevron Corp ORD 1.8%

General Electric Co ORD 1.6%

Procter & Gamble Co ORD 1.5%

AT&T Inc ORD 1.5%

Johnson & Johnson ORD 1.4%

Wells Fargo & Co ORD 1.3%


March 31, 2012

45



FUND OBJECTIVE


The Russell 1000 Growth Index rose 15% during the first quarter. U.S. equity markets ended the first quarter higher despite lingering Eurozonedebt concerns, worries about a slowing economy in China and rising gasoline prices fueled by tensions in the Middle East. A strong start toquarterly earnings season and some improvements in U.S. economic data also supported equity markets, as did the Fed’s announcement that itexpected to keep rates near zero through 2014. Information technology, financials and consumer discretionary stocks led the market. Within IT,Apple shares climbed 48% after reporting strong earnings and announcing a share repurchase program and the company’s first-ever dividend payment. Banks and diversified financial services providers posted strong results, benefiting from accommodative monetary policies in the U.S. andEurope. In general, defensive areas of the market lagged, with utilities providing the only negative sector return. For the quarter, large cap growthstocks outperformed their large cap value counterparts.

Product Name iShares:Russ 1000 Gr Idx (IWF)


Ticker

Peer Group IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (MF)

Benchmark Russell 1000 Growth Index


Portfolio Manager Leung/O'Connor



Gross Expense 0.20%

Net Expense 0.20%

Turnover 24%


CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

iShares Russell 1000 Growth Index 14.62 14.62 10.82 25.03 4.93 4.10 2.47 16.47 36.94 -38.48 11.63 8.86 5.08 6.09 29.46 -27.99

Russell 1000 Growth Index 14.69 14.69 11.02 25.28 5.10 4.28 2.64 16.71 37.21 -38.44 11.81 9.07 5.26 6.30 29.75 -27.88

IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (MF) Median 16.29 16.29 8.04 22.71 3.90 3.65 -1.69 15.31 34.77 -40.21 13.96 6.42 5.61 7.31 26.65 -27.41

iShares Russell 1000 Growth Index Rank 79 79 25 19 34 37 12 36 41 36 70 23 57 66 31 55

This exchange traded fund (ETF) seeks performance corresponding to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the large cap growth portion of the U.S. equity market, as representedby the Russell 1000 Growth Index. The Russell 1000 Growth Index is comprised of the stocks within the Russell 1000 Index with higher price-to-book values and higher forecasted growth values. The

Russell 1000 Index measures the performance of the 1,000 largest companies in the Russell 3000 Index.

iShares Russell 1000 Growth Index

March 31, 2012

46




0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

iShares Russell 1000 Growth Index 14.6 (79) 10.8 (25) 25.0 (19) 4.9 (34)

5th Percentile 20.6 16.5 28.8 7.0

1st Quartile 17.5 10.8 24.4 5.3

Median 16.3 8.0 22.7 3.9

3rd Quartile 14.8 5.9 20.6 2.6

95th Percentile 12.2 2.1 18.2 0.4



0.0

-0.1

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12


4.8

4.9

5.0

17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5



March 31, 2012

47


SECTOR EXPOSURE (%)

Portfolio

TOP 10 HOLDINGS

1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 10.82 25.03 4.93 4.10


vs. Russell 1000 Growth Index

Tracking Error 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04

Alpha -0.18 -0.16 -0.16 -0.17

Beta 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

R-Squared 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Consistency 0.00 5.56 11.67 7.50


Sharpe Ratio 0.70 1.46 0.29 0.22



P/E 20.5

P/B 5.8

Div. Yield 2.12%

Annual EPS 29.0

5Yr EPS 18.0

3Yr EPS Growth 17.7

As of 02/29/2012

Apple Inc ORD 7.0%

Exxon Mobil Corp ORD 4.4%

International Business Machines Corp ORD 3.4%

Microsoft Corp ORD 3.3%

Google Inc ORD 2.2%

The Coca-Cola Company ORD 1.9%

Philip Morris International Inc ORD 1.9%

Oracle Corp ORD 1.6%

Schlumberger NV ORD 1.5%

Qualcomm Inc ORD 1.5%


March 31, 2012

48



FUND OBJECTIVE


Equities maintained strong gains in the first quarter, with most indices posting double-digit returns as stronger economic data encouraged investorsand fears of a worsening European debt crisis began to abate. While the European sovereign debt situation remains fluid, the ECB’s recentrefinancing operations successfully reduced near-term funding stresses in the Eurozone region. For the first quarter, the Russell MidCap ValueIndex, the Russell MidCap Growth Index and the Russell MidCap Index advanced 11.4%, 14.5% and 12.9%, respectively. Across marketcapitalizations, small-, mid- and large-cap issues performed similarly. The more defensively-oriented sectors underperformed during the quarter.Meanwhile, sectors of a more cyclical nature performed quite strongly.

Product Name iShares:S&P MC 400 Idx (IJH)


Ticker

Peer Group IM U.S. Mid Cap Core Equity (MF)

Benchmark S&P MidCap 400


Portfolio Manager O'Connor/Leung



Gross Expense 0.21%

Net Expense 0.21%

Turnover 14%


CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

iShares S&P MidCap 400 Index 13.45 13.45 1.83 28.31 4.65 7.55 -1.89 26.38 37.21 -36.19 7.80 10.13 12.48 16.29 35.36 -14.70

S&P MidCap 400 13.50 13.50 1.98 28.55 4.78 7.70 -1.73 26.64 37.38 -36.23 7.98 10.32 12.55 16.50 35.64 -14.51

IM U.S. Mid Cap Core Equity (MF) Median 13.14 13.14 0.89 25.72 2.85 6.30 -3.19 23.69 34.60 -38.73 6.63 12.27 10.29 15.78 34.55 -15.73

iShares S&P MidCap 400 Index Rank 35 35 35 24 17 20 30 17 31 23 37 67 25 41 41 35

The iShares S&P Midcap 400 Fund seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of the S&P Midcap 400 index. The fund invests at least 90% of assets in the

securities of the underlying index. It uses a replication strategy in order to track the S&P Midcap 400 index, which measures the performance of the mid-capitalization sector of the US equity market.

iShares S&P MidCap 400 Index

March 31, 2012

49




0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

iShares S&P MidCap 400 Index 13.5 (35) 1.8 (35) 28.3 (24) 4.7 (17)

5th Percentile 16.4 7.2 32.3 6.0

1st Quartile 14.0 2.7 28.2 4.2

Median 13.1 0.9 25.7 2.9

3rd Quartile 11.5 -1.6 22.9 1.1

95th Percentile 8.4 -6.5 19.5 -1.2



0.0

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12


4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

21.0 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0



March 31, 2012

50


SECTOR EXPOSURE (%)

Portfolio

TOP 10 HOLDINGS

1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 1.83 28.31 4.65 7.55


vs. S&P MidCap 400

Tracking Error 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.07

Alpha -0.15 -0.16 -0.12 -0.13

Beta 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

R-Squared 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Consistency 8.33 2.78 15.00 10.00


Sharpe Ratio 0.19 1.36 0.26 0.39



P/E 24.6

P/B 3.5

Div. Yield 2.27%

Annual EPS 24.0

5Yr EPS 7.7

3Yr EPS Growth 11.2

As of 02/29/2012

Monster Beverage Corp ORD 0.7%

Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc ORD 0.7%

Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc ORD 0.7%

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc ORD 0.7%

Kansas City Southern ORD 0.7%

Ametek Inc ORD 0.7%

Macerich Co 0.6%

Cimarex Energy Co ORD 0.6%

Church & Dwight Co Inc ORD 0.6%

HollyFrontier Corp ORD 0.6%


March 31, 2012

51



FUND OBJECTIVE


The Russell 2000 Value Index advanced nearly 12% during the first quarter of 2012. Stocks delivered one of the best first quarter performances inover a decade, extending the rally that began in late 2011 and lifting most major indexes to new 12-month highs. Investor sentiment improved asthe U.S. economy looked stronger and the Eurozone debt crisis receded. Small cap stocks performed similarly to large cap stocks for the quarter,but large caps outperformed for the trailing one year. The more defensively-oriented sectors were among the worst performing areas during thequarter, while sectors such as consumer discretionary, information technology and materials outperformed. Performing particularly poorly wereutilities, which declined 2%.

Product Name DFA US Small Cap Val;I (DFSVX)

Fund Family Dimensional Fund Advisors LP

Ticker DFSVX

Peer Group IM U.S. Small Cap Value Equity (MF)

Benchmark Russell 2000 Value Index





Gross Expense 0.52%

Net Expense 0.52%

Turnover 14%

An underweight to utilities added the most to performance during the first quarter.Stock selection within consumer discretionary and materials further aided performance, while stock selection within healthcare detracted the mostfrom results.An overweight to energy detracted from returns however, positive stock selection within the sector mitigated the majority of the underperformance.

A. Repta, Senior Analyst, DiMeo Schneider & Associates, LLC. 1Q12

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

DFA US Small Cap Value I 13.39 13.39 -3.65 30.44 0.07 8.24 -7.55 30.90 33.62 -36.79 -10.75 21.55 7.79 25.39 59.40 -9.27

Russell 2000 Value Index 11.59 11.59 -1.07 25.36 0.01 6.59 -5.50 24.50 20.58 -28.92 -9.78 23.48 4.71 22.25 46.03 -11.43

IM U.S. Small Cap Value Equity (MF) Median 12.34 12.34 -0.40 27.77 1.74 7.26 -4.76 25.40 30.18 -32.42 -5.92 16.55 6.28 20.42 42.04 -11.81

DFA US Small Cap Value I Rank 32 32 88 20 77 30 71 9 36 71 80 10 34 12 10 37

The process selects stocks from the bottom deciles of NYSE issues, but include only the “value” subset. Stocks are ranked by book-to-market ratio, and stocks falling in the top three deciles (30%) arepurchased for the fund. Book value is reconstructed for each eligible issue based on management’s interpretation of how accounting charges affect “real” book value. This product will not own REITs,

ADRs or foreign stocks, recently issued IPOs, companies with less than 3 years of history, or OTC companies with fewer than 4 market makers.

DFA US Small Cap Value I

March 31, 2012

52



DFA US Small Cap Value I Russell 2000 Value Index

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

DFA US Small Cap Value I 13.4 (32) -3.6 (88) 30.4 (20) 0.1 (77)

Russell 2000 Value Index 11.6 (65) -1.1 (57) 25.4 (75) 0.0 (78)

5th Percentile 16.4 4.7 36.6 5.1

1st Quartile 14.0 1.9 29.7 2.9

Median 12.3 -0.4 27.8 1.7

3rd Quartile 10.7 -2.6 25.3 0.2

95th Percentile 7.2 -7.7 21.2 -2.1



0.0

3.0

6.0

-3.0

-6.0

-9.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

DFA US Small Cap Value I Russell 2000 Value Index

0.0

24.0 24.5 25.0 25.5 26.0 26.5 27.0 27.5 28.0



March 31, 2012

53



Portfolio Benchmark

Total Securities 1,391 1,355




1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return -3.65 30.44 0.07 8.24


vs. Russell 2000 Value Index

Tracking Error 3.82 4.23 4.51 4.09

Alpha -2.12 1.02 0.45 1.21

Beta 1.12 1.15 1.10 1.10

R-Squared 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98

Consistency 41.67 63.89 55.00 60.00


Sharpe Ratio -0.03 1.16 0.10 0.38

As of 10/31/2011

Dillard's Inc ORD 1.3%

LifePoint Hospitals Inc ORD 1.1%

Westlake Chemical Corp ORD 1.0%

GATX Corp ORD 0.9%

Esterline Technologies Corp ORD 0.9%

Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc ORD 0.9%

Bristow Group Inc ORD 0.8%

BlackRock Liquidity TempCash Portfolio;Inst 0.8%

Rent-A-Center Inc ORD 0.8%

CNO Financial Group Inc ORD 0.8%


March 31, 2012

54



FUND OBJECTIVE


U.S. small cap growth stocks rallied sharply during the final quarter of 2011 on the back of improved economic data. Meanwhile, many companieseither met or exceeded consensus earnings expectations. Relief over signs of incremental progress in resolving Europe’s sovereign debt problemsalso boosted investor confidence. However, volatility soared amid wild swings in sentiment based on news headlines. In this environment, theRussell 2000 Growth Index advanced 15%. Defensive sectors such as healthcare, utilities and consumer staples were the worst performing sectorsin the Index, while sectors such as industrials, energy and materials outperformed. During the quarter, smaller cap stocks outperformed larger capstocks.

Product Name Conestoga Small Cap (CCASX)

Fund Family Conestoga Capital Advisors LLC

Ticker CCASX

Peer Group IM U.S. Small Cap Growth Equity (MF)

Benchmark Russell 2000 Growth Index


Portfolio Manager Mitchell/Martindale

Total Assets $248 Million


Gross Expense 1.27%

Net Expense 1.10%

Turnover 18%

The fund underperformed its benchmark during the fourth quarter, which resulted from poor stock selection and was slightly offset by positivesector allocation decisions.The fund’s overweight to Industrials and underweight to the Consumer sectors contributed to performance.Stock selection in Energy, Industrials, and Information Technology lagged the benchmark.The fund’s 3.9% cash position also detracted from performance.


CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Conestoga Small Cap 9.90 9.90 5.64 25.95 6.69 N/A 4.55 23.99 29.09 -27.68 6.43 9.18 4.39 18.81 33.68 N/A

Russell 2000 Growth Index 13.28 13.28 0.68 28.36 4.15 6.00 -2.91 29.09 34.47 -38.54 7.05 13.35 4.15 14.31 48.54 -30.26

IM U.S. Small Cap Growth Equity (MF) Median 14.06 14.06 0.63 27.74 3.68 5.87 -3.36 27.72 35.73 -41.90 8.63 10.38 5.48 11.85 43.83 -27.66

Conestoga Small Cap Rank 97 97 13 78 8 N/A 4 77 80 1 60 59 65 11 88 N/A

The investment style focuses on high quality small cap companies with long term sustainable growth in the 15 – 20% range. Ideas are generated approximately equally across three sources – quantitativescreening; regional, boutique brokers; and company contacts through industry conferences, trade shows or other research. Fundamental research is focused on strong earnings and ROE growth, a low

debt to capitalization rate, strong balance sheet, and a solid management team. The portfolio is fairly concentrated at 45 – 50 stocks with turnover around 30%.

Conestoga Small Cap

March 31, 2012

55



Conestoga Small Cap Russell 2000 Growth Index

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

Conestoga Small Cap 9.9 (97) 5.6 (13) 26.0 (78) 6.7 (8)

Russell 2000 Growth Index 13.3 (68) 0.7 (50) 28.4 (45) 4.2 (42)

5th Percentile 18.9 8.0 33.6 7.2

1st Quartile 15.5 3.5 30.9 5.2

Median 14.1 0.6 27.7 3.7

3rd Quartile 12.5 -1.7 26.2 2.1

95th Percentile 10.4 -7.2 21.1 -0.5



0.0

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0

-3.0

-6.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

Conestoga Small Cap Russell 2000 Growth Index

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0


Conestoga Small Cap

March 31, 2012

56



Portfolio Benchmark

Total Securities 49 1,147




1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 5.64 25.95 6.69 N/A


vs. Russell 2000 Growth Index


Alpha 4.76 2.23 2.83 N/A

Beta 0.80 0.83 0.82 N/A

R-Squared 0.92 0.94 0.94 N/A

Consistency 50.00 41.67 50.00 N/A



As of 02/29/2012

Sun Hydraulics Corp ORD 4.1%

CoStar Group Inc ORD 4.1%

Bottomline Technologies DE Inc ORD 3.8%

Raven Industries Inc ORD 3.5%

Tyler Technologies Inc ORD 3.3%

Advisory Board Co ORD 3.2%

Sourcefire Inc ORD 3.0%

HealthStream Inc ORD 2.7%

ACI Worldwide Inc ORD 2.6%

NVE Corp ORD 2.6%

Conestoga Small Cap

March 31, 2012

57



FUND OBJECTIVE


International markets posted mostly positive results during the first quarter, with the MSCI EAFE rising 11%. Financials and other cyclical areas ledthe market, while defensive sectors declined. Stocks rose sharply as Eurozone leaders agreed to sweeping changes in an effort to resolve thesovereign debt crisis. The United Kingdom ended up 8% as the Bank of England kept interest rates on hold at 0.5%. The European Central Bankalso left interest rates unchanged at a record low of 1%. Among the largest European markets, Italy, France and Germany gained 9%, 12% and21%, respectively, while Spain declined 3%. Within the Pacific region, Japan advanced 11%. Australia and New Zealand gained 9% and 17%,respectively. Meanwhile, Hong Kong rose 13%. Canada rose 7% as the Bank of Canada left interest rates on hold at 1% at its most recent meetingin early March.

Product Name American Funds EuPc;F-1 (AEGFX)

Fund Family American Funds

Ticker AEGFX

Peer Group IM International Large Cap Core Equity (MF)

Benchmark MSCI EAFE Index





Gross Expense 0.85%

Net Expense 0.85%

Turnover 31%Positioning within the consumer discretionary and information technology sectors contributed to first quarter performance results. Meanwhile, thefund's underweight to financials detracted.Within consumer discretionary, investments in several auto stocks contributed significantly. Tata Motors soared nearly 60% as investorsappeared to recognize the accretive value of its Jaguar and Land Rover Brands.Among the fund's IT names, companies in the semiconductor space continued to benefit from a strong cycle in smart phones and memory chips.While the fund's underweight to the financial services sector was a detractor, several holdings performed quite strongly. Investments in the UK,particularly the large financials, were notable contributors.From a country perspective, the fund's much smaller-than-index exposure in Japan was more than offset by strong stock selection. The emphasison export-oriented companies, particularly the auto companies, was supportive to returns.


CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

American Funds EuroPacific Gr F-1 12.26 12.26 -6.26 17.05 0.28 7.60 -13.60 9.38 39.10 -40.55 18.94 21.84 21.05 19.63 32.84 -13.65

MSCI EAFE Index 10.98 10.98 -5.31 17.68 -3.04 6.16 -11.73 8.21 32.46 -43.06 11.63 26.86 14.02 20.70 39.17 -15.66

IM International Large Cap Core Equity (MF) Median 11.29 11.29 -6.16 16.32 -3.61 5.09 -12.66 8.07 28.84 -43.38 11.51 25.00 13.52 17.18 32.35 -16.48

American Funds EuroPacific Gr F-1 Rank 21 21 53 31 5 4 66 31 11 16 6 88 5 22 47 26

The fund is sub-advised by Capital Research and Management Company. Using a common pool of industry analysts for research, eight portfolio counselors construct independent portfolios using their individual styles from growth to value. The fund tends to focus on blue chip multinational companies while allowing each portfolio sleeve to invest up to 25% in emerging markets. The resulting portfolio

holds over 400 securities with relatively low turnover.

American Funds EuroPacific Gr F-1

March 31, 2012

58




MSCI EAFE Index

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

American Funds EuroPacific Gr F-1 12.3 (21) -6.3 (53) 17.0 (31) 0.3 (5)

MSCI EAFE Index 11.0 (63) -5.3 (31) 17.7 (23) -3.0 (41)

5th Percentile 13.2 -0.7 20.9 0.0

1st Quartile 12.1 -4.8 17.4 -2.2

Median 11.3 -6.2 16.3 -3.6

3rd Quartile 10.6 -7.4 15.1 -4.8

95th Percentile 8.3 -9.7 12.3 -7.1



0.0

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0

-3.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12


MSCI EAFE Index

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

21.8 22.0 22.2 22.4 22.6 22.8 23.0



March 31, 2012

59


SECTOR EXPOSURE (%)REGION WEIGHTS (%)

Portfolio Benchmark





1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return -6.26 17.05 0.28 7.60


vs. MSCI EAFE Index

Tracking Error 3.55 4.33 4.56 3.92

Alpha -0.77 0.04 3.19 1.67

Beta 1.02 0.97 0.95 0.94

R-Squared 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96

Consistency 50.00 52.78 60.00 55.83


Sharpe Ratio -0.21 0.87 0.07 0.40


March 31, 2012

60



FUND OBJECTIVE


International small cap equities ended the fourth quarter of 2011 marginally lower. Market volatility remained heightened and correlations amongstocks remained at historically high levels as investors responded to troubling issues and uncertainty arising from a lack of details on theEurozone’s plan to contain its debt crisis and ambiguities surrounding the outcome of U.S. fiscal policy negotiations. For the quarter, Europeanstocks performed similarly to those in the Pacific ex-Japan region. Japan’s stock market was among the laggards in the developed markets, ledlower by weakness in the financials and consumer discretionary sectors. Within the emerging markets, performance of individual countries waswidely dispersed. Across market capitalizations, smaller-cap international stocks underperformed larger-cap international stocks.

Product Name DFA Intl Sm Cap Val;I (DISVX)

Fund Family Dimensional Fund Advisors LP

Ticker DISVX

Peer Group IM International SMID Cap Value Equity (MF)

Benchmark MSCI EAFE Small Cap Value





Gross Expense 0.70%

Net Expense 0.70%

Turnover 19%

The portfolio’s allocation to Canada, which the benchmark excludes, had a positive impact.The portfolio’s baskets of deep value and value-oriented stocks outperformed those of the benchmark.The fund also benefited from the excellent performance of its basket of materials stocks.

A. Maccioli, Analyst, DiMeo Schneider & Associates, LLC. 4Q11

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

DFA Intl Small Cap Value I 16.72 16.72 -8.76 22.27 -2.66 12.74 -17.46 18.10 39.51 -41.68 2.95 28.39 23.23 34.80 66.48 5.79

MSCI EAFE Small Cap Value 16.17 16.17 -7.18 24.33 -2.52 11.87 -17.26 19.33 50.03 -45.55 1.01 28.22 20.99 35.31 60.14 2.14

IM International SMID Cap Value Equity (MF) Median 15.33 15.33 -8.27 28.06 -0.98 N/A -18.29 21.07 60.67 -46.25 6.52 27.43 21.06 28.95 52.24 -3.31

DFA Intl Small Cap Value I Rank 21 21 59 81 91 N/A 36 80 64 16 67 17 1 1 1 1

DFA's quantitative approach begins with the countries in the MSCI World ex U.S. Index and focuses on securities possessing a high book value in relation to their market value. This sort excludes firms withnegative or zero book values and accounts for additional factors such as price-to-cash-flow or price-to-earnings ratios to assess value. They then take the bottom 10 – 15% of each of these countries byfloat adjusted market cap with a floor of $50 million and apply over 30 screens to narrow down the portfolio holdings. These exclusionary screens include trading issues such as liquidity, float and trading

history; pricing issues such as bankruptcy, merger target or foreign restrictions; or momentum. Some portfolio restrictions are applied such as a 25% limit on industries and 5% security limits.

DFA Intl Small Cap Value I

March 31, 2012

61



DFA Intl Small Cap Value I MSCI EAFE Small Cap Value

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

DFA Intl Small Cap Value I 16.7 (20) -8.8 (59) 22.3 (80) -2.7 (90)

MSCI EAFE Small Cap Value 16.2 (34) -7.2 (22) 24.3 (76) -2.5 (89)

5th Percentile 19.7 -2.3 32.1 -0.3

1st Quartile 16.4 -7.9 29.5 -0.7

Median 15.3 -8.3 28.1 -1.0

3rd Quartile 11.9 -10.3 24.5 -1.7

95th Percentile 5.7 -10.8 17.0 -3.7



0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

DFA Intl Small Cap Value I MSCI EAFE Small Cap Value

-2.7

-2.6

-2.5



March 31, 2012

62



Portfolio Benchmark

Total Securities 2,207

Price/Earnings (P/E) 18.5

Price/Book (P/B) 0.9

Dividend Yield 3.5

1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return -8.76 22.27 -2.66 12.74


vs. MSCI EAFE Small Cap Value

Tracking Error 3.94 3.97 3.79 3.33

Alpha -1.14 -1.72 -0.16 0.96

Beta 1.05 1.01 0.99 0.99

R-Squared 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.97

Consistency 33.33 44.44 50.00 53.33


Sharpe Ratio -0.31 0.97 -0.03 0.61


March 31, 2012

63



FUND OBJECTIVE


Emerging markets equities recovered from steep losses in the third quarter. Stocks rose sharply in October, before sliding in November andDecember as market confidence wavered over Europe’s ability to address the debt crisis. This was the first year since 2008 during which emergingmarkets underperformed developed ones. Within Asia, India plunged 14% amid political gridlock, consensus market expectations for weaker corporate earnings growth, and persistently high inflation. Among the other large Asian markets, South Korea and China advanced 6% and 8%,respectively. Taiwan ended marginally lower. Within Latin America, Brazil rallied 9%. Though higher oil prices benefited the market, the biggestgains came from locally oriented businesses such as financial and consumer companies. Among EMEA countries, South Africa ended up 7%. Inthe Middle East, Turkey fell 16%, while Egypt declined 12%. Within Eastern Europe, Poland declined 6%, while the Czech Republic and Hungaryeach fell 2%. Meanwhile, Russia advanced 6%.

Product Name Aberdeen:Em Mkt Inst;I (ABEMX)

Fund Family Aberdeen Asset Management Inc

Ticker ABEMX

Peer Group IM Emerging Markets Equity (MF)

Benchmark MSCI Emerging Markets Index





Gross Expense 1.03%

Net Expense 1.03%

Turnover 2%

Strong stock selection aided fourth quarter results. Demand for smartphones boosted shares of Samsung Electronics. Semiconductor stocks alsorallied, led by Taiwan Semiconductor. Energy giant Petrobras was also a major contributor to fourth quarter results.Meanwhile, materials companies lagged the broader markets. Shares of Brazilian iron ore producer Vale ended lower on concerns about saggingdemand in China.During the quarter management added to the fund’s position in Brazilian tobacco company Souza Cruz.


CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Aberdeen Emerging Markets Instl 15.11 15.11 2.67 33.40 N/A N/A -11.05 27.58 76.55 -40.36 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

MSCI Emerging Markets Index 14.14 14.14 -8.52 25.42 4.97 14.47 -18.17 19.20 79.02 -53.18 39.78 32.59 34.54 25.95 56.28 -6.00

IM Emerging Markets Equity (MF) Median 13.77 13.77 -9.09 23.72 2.64 13.03 -19.53 18.33 73.65 -54.86 36.44 32.20 32.14 24.11 54.51 -5.63

Aberdeen Emerging Markets Instl Rank 29 29 2 5 N/A N/A 4 7 36 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

The fund seeks to invest in high quality companies when they are trading at a discounted price. High quality companies are defined as those with recurring revenue growth, a quality management team, a“core” business, and strong balance sheet. Fundamental research is conducted by Aberdeen's global team to understand the growth prospects of the firm and the quality of the financials. The valuationmetrics used are determined by the type of company and its economic sector. Within risk controls, portfolios are constructed on a bottom-up basis using a very long-term outlook that has led to a low turnover rate, but can also produce higher tracking error. The portfolio will typically hold 50 - 70 securities. Expense cap of 0.95% expires on 11/23/11. Expenses after 11/23 will reflect actual fees capped at 1.10% through 2/27/13 (reviewed annually thereafter). Actual fees were 1.05% for the year ending 10/31/10.

Aberdeen Emerging Markets Instl

March 31, 2012

64



Aberdeen Emerging Markets Instl MSCI Emerging Markets Index

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

Aberdeen Emerging Markets Instl 15.1 (29) 2.7 (2) 33.4 (5) N/A

MSCI Emerging Markets Index 14.1 (42) -8.5 (45) 25.4 (30) 5.0 (17)

5th Percentile 19.2 0.2 33.3 6.6

1st Quartile 15.5 -5.9 26.6 4.4

Median 13.8 -9.1 23.7 2.6

3rd Quartile 12.2 -13.1 21.6 1.0

95th Percentile 9.7 -20.5 18.3 -4.5



0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

-4.0

-8.0

9/07 3/08 9/08 3/09 9/09 3/10 9/10 3/11 9/11 3/12


MSCI Emerging Markets Index

4.8

4.9

5.0

5.1

28.0 28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0



March 31, 2012

65



Portfolio Benchmark





1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 2.67 33.40 N/A N/A

Standard Deviation 21.58 22.79 N/A N/A

vs. MSCI Emerging Markets Index

Tracking Error 6.60 5.39 N/A N/A

Alpha 9.64 8.75 N/A N/A

Beta 0.80 0.90 N/A N/A

R-Squared 0.97 0.96 N/A N/A

Consistency 66.67 58.33 N/A N/A


Sharpe Ratio 0.23 1.39 N/A N/A


March 31, 2012

66

FUND INFO



FUND OBJECTIVE

QUARTERLY COMMENTS - ASSET CLASS

Domestic REITS outperformed the broader equity market in the fourth quarter thanks to limited exposure to regulatory and global systemic risks,plus rising asset values and improved fundamentals. Each REIT category finished positive for the quarter and only two sectors producedmeaningfully negative results during 2011. Top performing sectors for the year were self storage (+35%), regional malls (+22%) and manufacturedhomes (+20%). Hotels (-14%) and industrial (-5%) were the weakest performing sectors for the year. For the quarter, self storage was a topperformer largely due to their shorter lease duration, strong demand and pricing power. Hotels recouped a sizeable portion of their declines in thequarter, but continue to be driven by macro headlines. Regional malls outperformed during the quarter due to strong tenants and an up-tick inconsumer sentiment. Performance in the healthcare sector was in-line during the quarter and has broadly recovered from reimbursement relatedunderperformance earlier in the year. Macroeconomic difficulties and weakening employment prospects weighed on the office sector.

Product Name Nuveen Real Est;I (FARCX)

Fund Family Nuveen Fund Advisors Inc

Ticker FARCX

Peer Group IM Real Estate Sector (MF)

Benchmark FTSE NAREIT Equity REIT Index


Portfolio Manager Rosenberg/Wenker/Sedlak



Gross Expense 1.04%

Net Expense 1.04%

Turnover 103%

The portfolio benefited from individual stock selection and diversification across all property sectors.The portfolio’s best-performing sectors were Community Centers, Offices and Apartments. The portfolio’s holdings in the Health Care REITsector also did well.Contributions came from a combination of overweight positions in core holdings, underweight positions in weaker stocks and outperformance bysome lower quality, higher leveraged companies with exposure to improving parts of the commercial real estate cycle.The portfolio’s worst-performing areas were Infrastructure, Net Lease and Regional Malls. The Infrastructure sector, an out of index sector,underperformed due to the declines of an owner/operator.

T. Leedy, Senior Alternative Investment Analyst, DiMeo Schneider & Associates, L.L.C. 4Q11

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Nuveen Real Estate Secs I 10.75 10.75 12.30 42.25 1.79 12.56 7.89 30.57 30.53 -34.80 -15.19 39.47 15.29 32.49 37.58 7.36

FTSE NAREIT Equity REIT Index 10.79 10.79 12.82 42.34 -0.06 10.45 8.29 27.94 28.01 -37.74 -15.70 35.03 12.17 31.56 37.08 3.81

IM Real Estate Sector (MF) Median 10.46 10.46 12.01 41.89 -0.44 10.14 7.98 27.43 28.91 -38.91 -17.18 34.71 12.60 32.35 36.10 4.20

Nuveen Real Estate Secs I Rank 29 29 45 45 9 2 51 11 26 10 16 1 17 46 30 14

The fund is managed on a relative basis with a focus on individual stock selection rather than economic or market cycles. The ultimate goal is to select securities that have positive growth aspects at areasonable price. A research-driven team approach utilizes front end quantitative screens with qualitative assessments, sub-sector analysis, and economic research. The outcome is a diversified portfoliofrom both a sector and geographic basis, which holds securities with the best risk/reward for their given industry. Effective December 31, 2010 the First American Real Estate Securities fund was renamed

to Nuveen Real Estate Securities. Also effective December 31, 2010, the fund is closed to new investment.

Nuveen Real Estate Secs I

March 31, 2012

67



Nuveen Real Estate Secs I FTSE NAREIT Equity REIT Index

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

CurrentQuarter

1Year

3Years

5Years

Nuveen Real Estate Secs I 10.8 (29) 12.3 (45) 42.2 (45) 1.8 (9)

FTSE NAREIT Equity REIT Index 10.8 (28) 12.8 (35) 42.3 (42) -0.1 (39)

5th Percentile 12.2 15.4 47.6 3.0

1st Quartile 10.8 13.3 43.4 0.4

Median 10.5 12.0 41.9 -0.4

3rd Quartile 10.1 10.4 39.4 -1.2

95th Percentile 7.4 6.5 36.2 -4.1



0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

-1.0

-2.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12


FTSE NAREIT Equity REIT Index

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

30.9 31.2 31.5 31.8 32.1 32.4 32.7 33.0 33.3 33.6



March 31, 2012

68

RISK CHARACTERISTICS REGION DISTRIBUTION

SECTOR EXPOSURE (%)


0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

East

Wes

t

South

Mid

wes

t

Oth

er

19.2

23.9

40.3

16.6

0.0

33.3

21.2

27.2

13.8

4.5

1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 12.30 42.25 1.79 12.56


vs. FTSE NAREIT Equity REIT Index

Tracking Error 0.80 2.01 2.43 2.29

Alpha -0.29 1.69 1.55 2.29

Beta 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95

R-Squared 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99

Consistency 58.33 55.56 58.33 63.33


Sharpe Ratio 0.64 1.56 0.18 0.54


0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

20.0

24.0

Oth

er

Diver

sifie

d

Offi

ce

Reg

iona

l Mall

Apartm

ent

Indu

stria

l

Hea

lth C

are

Hot

el

Shopp

ing

Cen

ter

Self-S

tora

ge

8.2

5.5

12.3

16.0

17.5

4.8

14.8

6.6

8.2

6.0

10.7

0.9

20.5

16.217.4

4.5

7.6

6.0

9.2

7.0


March 31, 2012

69

FUND INFO



FUND OBJECTIVE

QUARTERLY COMMENTS - ASSET CLASS

International REITs were flat for the fourth quarter and lagged their domestic counterparts during 2011. Results were highly correlated with thestrength of each economy and the countries overall sovereign health. Canada was the top performing region for the year due to currency strength.Greece, Italy and Spain were impacted by sovereign debt issues and declined 39% or more for the year. The United Kingdom held up relativelywell amid low vacancy rates, which caused prime assets in London’s West End to perform strongly for much of the year. Within Asia-Pacific, New Zealand topped results, while Singapore was the worst performer for the year. China also lagged in 2011, but was the strongest global performer for the fourth quarter. China developers were the primary reason for yearly underperformance. Within the emerging markets, Brazil and Mexicowere hurt by currency movements as the Mexican peso and the Brazilian real fell sharply against the U.S. dollar in 2011.

Product Name Cohen&Steers Itl Rlty;I (IRFIX)

Fund Family Cohen & Steers Capital Management Inc

Ticker IRFIX

Peer Group IM International Real Estate (MF)

Benchmark S&P Developed Ex-U.S. Property


Portfolio Manager Rovers/Sullivan

Total Assets $820 Million


Gross Expense 1.27%

Net Expense 1.27%

Turnover 106%The fund marginally trailed its benchmark during the year thanks to strong outperformance in the fourth quarter. The fund also ranked favorablywhen compared to its actively managed peers for the last year.Top contributors were an overweight to Japan, favorable stock selection within Singapore and an overweight to the Philippines.Stock selection was the primary detractor from quarterly results. China, United Kingdom and Netherlands were the largest detractors.The fund is currently overweight Asia Pacific (ex. Japan), Emerging Markets (Brazil) and the Retail sector. Top underweights include Europe andOffice REITs.


CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Cohen & Steers Int'l Realty I 11.31 11.31 -7.26 20.33 -7.51 N/A -16.83 13.95 35.96 -47.26 -4.32 44.45 N/A N/A N/A N/A

S&P Developed Ex-U.S. Property 14.33 14.33 -3.19 25.16 -6.36 10.43 -14.71 18.09 42.76 -51.79 -1.55 43.90 17.28 40.97 45.76 1.72

The fund’s team consists of almost 30 globally based investment professionals coordinated by the CIO, Joseph Harvey. Portfolio construction is done primarily on a bottom up basis using the regionalanalysts' fundamental research. Net asset value and cash flow estimates are created for each company and the firm’s proprietary international valuation model then uses these inputs (price to NAV first andcash flow growth second) to determine optimal security weights. Sector and geographic weightings are driven primarily by their outlook for each national economy and an assessment of which property

types will perform best in that environment, considering the supply/demand conditions.

Cohen & Steers Int'l Realty I

March 31, 2012

70

RELATIVE PERFORMANCE TO INDEXRISK AND RETURN (04/01/07-03/31/12)RISK CHARACTERISTICS

REGION DISTRIBUTION SECTOR EXPOSURE (%)

1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return -7.26 20.33 -7.51 N/A


vs. S&P Developed Ex-U.S. Property


Alpha -3.78 -4.74 -1.33 N/A

Beta 1.05 1.05 0.97 N/A

R-Squared 0.96 0.96 0.95 N/A

Consistency 33.33 36.11 40.00 N/A


Sharpe Ratio -0.20 0.89 -0.21 N/A

Cohen & Steers Int'l Realty I S&P Developed Ex-U.S. Property

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

Offi

ce

Indu

stria

l

Apartm

ent

Ret

ail

Hot

el

Oth

er

Cas

h

36.2

7.1

14.1

36.3

1.5

4.7

0.0

30.8

4.3

18.2

36.6

2.53.8 3.8

Cohen & Steers Int'l Realty I S&P Developed Ex-U.S. Property

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Nor

th A

mer

ica

South

Am

erica

Europ

eAsi

a

Oth

er

10.1

0.0

27.6

62.1

0.2

7.1

2.6

24.1

62.4

3.8

Cohen & Steers Int'l Realty I

March 31, 2012

71



FUND OBJECTIVE


Commodities posted a marginal gain in the fourth quarter thanks to a reversion to fundamental factors primarily determining prices. The asset classdeclined 13% during 2011. Industrial metals declined significantly for the year on fears about slowing Chinese economic growth and the Eurozonedebt crisis. For the quarter, grains posted strong results. Supply-demand dynamics caused sugar to lag, but tightening markets for corn and wheatled to strong gains. Inventory surpluses are expected to limit the sectors gains in 2012. Energy advanced 2% for the quarter, but was the secondworst performer for the year (-16%). Natural gas declined significantly due to warmer weather creating elevated inventories. Crude oil, driven by Brent crude, was the top performing quarterly sub-sector within energy, producing solid gains against a backdrop of rising tension and concernsover supply disruptions in the Middle East. Gold’s safe haven reputation and fiat currency status led to its outperformance for the majority of theyear. Investor liquidations and a stronger U.S. dollar curbed demand for the metal during the quarter.

Product Name PIMCO:Comm RR Str;Inst (PCRIX)

Fund Family PIMCO

Ticker PCRIX

Peer Group IM Commodities General (MF)

Benchmark Dow Jones-UBS Commodity Index


Portfolio Manager Mihir Worah



Gross Expense 0.89%

Net Expense 0.79%

Turnover 198%During the fourth quarter, the fund outperformed its benchmark by 189 bps after fees. TIPS collateral meaningfully outperformed T-Bills for thequarter and full year. The Barclays Capital U.S. TIPS Index returned 2.7% during the quarter and 13.6% percent for all of 2011.Exposure to non-U.S. developed interest rates helped results, particularly the U.K. and Canada, as investors searched for bonds of nations withstronger balance sheets. Currency positions that benefited from depreciation of the euro also added to returns.Exposure to non-Agency mortgages weighed on results, as diminished liquidity put downward pressure on prices.Commodity Alpha strategies contributed to performance. Specifically, Wheat substitution strategies (long MATIF and Kansas City wheat versusshort Chicago wheat) and roll implementation via 3-month forward contracts.Due to uncertainty surrounding policy and economic outcomes, the team plans to continue to position the portfolio defensively whileoverweighting duration.


CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

PIMCO Commodity Real Ret Strat Instl 3.19 3.19 -10.98 18.66 1.93 N/A -7.56 24.13 39.91 -43.33 23.80 -3.04 20.50 16.36 29.82 N/A

Dow Jones-UBS Commodity Index 0.89 0.89 -16.28 9.05 -2.78 5.49 -13.32 16.83 18.91 -35.65 16.23 2.07 21.36 9.15 23.93 25.91

The fund combines a position in commodity-linked derivative instruments, primarily swaps through an offshore subsidiary, with an actively managed portfolio principally consisting of Treasury Inflation

Protected Securities (TIPS). The derivatives only require the fund to hold around 15% of its assets as collateral. The commodity-linked derivatives capture the return potential and diversification benefits of

the commodity futures market, while PIMCO's active fixed income management seeks to outperform T-Bills, net of fees. The strategy has the added advantage of benefiting concurrently from the inflation

hedging properties of both commodity futures and TIPS (Double Real).


March 31, 2012

72


RISK CHARACTERISTICS STRATEGY ALLOCATION (index)



0.0

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0

-3.0

-6.0

-9.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12


Dow Jones-UBS Commodity Index

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0


0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

-20.0

Gov

't

Cor

pora

te

Mor

tgag

e

Prefe

rred

Mun

icip

al

Cas

h/Oth

er

84.1

12.96.9

0.1 0.3

-4.2

1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return -10.98 18.66 1.93 N/A


vs. Dow Jones-UBS Commodity Index


Alpha 9.53 8.23 6.23 N/A

Beta 1.15 1.09 1.18 N/A

R-Squared 0.99 0.97 0.94 N/A

Consistency 58.33 69.44 63.33 N/A


Sharpe Ratio -0.41 0.97 0.17 N/A


March 31, 2012

73



FUND OBJECTIVE


After bottoming in early October, MLPs rose 16% for the quarter to finish the year close to an all time high. Strength can be attributed to notable crude oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) fundamentals, attractive yields and successful capital raises and strategy execution. Healthy flows andincreased interest from institutional investors continued throughout 2011. Capital markets activity was very strong with 76 equity offerings totalingapproximately $21 billion, and 46 debt issuances totaling approximately $20 billion. The gathering and processing sector outperformed for thequarter and year on strong NGL prices and continued demand for growing liquids-rich opportunities. The propane sub-sector experienced asubstantial decline as seasonally warm weather and above-average prices reduced demand and pressured margins. Demand for additional crudeinfrastructure in emerging shale plays led to refined products/crude pipelines returning double digits for the quarter and full year. Drop downsecurities produced strong gains during 2011, while MLPs with exposure to natural gas pipelines and storage trailed.

Assets under Management (12/31/11)$3,810 Million

Inception Date9/28/04

Management Fee (12/31/11)2.4%

Management Fee is obtained from the most recentannual report. It represents the management fee asa percentage of average net assets which reflects

the fund's deferred tax liability.

The fund’s price return of 11.2% underperformed its NAV return of 17.8% and the benchmark return of 16.3%. The fund’s premium to NAVdecreased during the quarter to 5.7% from 12.1%.Propane continued to underperform within the benchmark; the fund’s underweight contributed to performance. However, overweights to coal andshipping detracted from performance.Positive stock selection in Kinder Morgan Management LLC was accretive during the quarter but was not able to offset an overweight to theunderperforming MarkWest Energy Partners LP.The fund increased the size of its unsecured revolving credit facility by $25 million to increase the total available credit to $175 million; the maturitydate remains June 11, 2013.Quarterly fund distributions were once again increased during the quarter as underlying MLP distribution growth continues to expand.

B. Bartelt, Research Analyst, DiMeo Schneider & Associates, L.L.C. 4Q11

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Kayne Anderson MLP Invst Co 4.32 4.32 1.95 25.23 5.92 N/A 3.05 35.35 69.91 -38.07 -5.66 44.97 3.05 N/A N/A N/A

Alerian MLP Index 1.97 1.97 9.55 35.77 11.96 16.02 13.88 35.85 76.41 -36.80 12.42 27.62 5.22 15.92 41.60 0.24

ALPS Alerian MLP ETF 1.71 1.71 8.31 N/A N/A N/A 10.09 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Kayne Anderson MLP Investment Co. is a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company whose investment objective is to obtain a high after-tax total return by investing the vast majority of it's total assets in energy related MLPs and other Midstream Energy Companies. MLPs are publicly traded limited partnerships. Energy-related MLPs own domestic infrastructure assets that are used in thegathering, processing, transportation, storage, refining and distribution of energy-related commodities. Kayne Anderson differentiates itself through an extensive network of relationships with major energycompanies and an investment team with over 134 years of combined energy experience. The fund may also invest in private or restricted investment opportunities not available to retail investors along with

debt securities of MLPs and other Midstream Energy Companies.


March 31, 2012

74


RISK CHARACTERISTICS STRATEGY ALLOCATION



0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12

Kayne Anderson MLP Invst Co Alerian MLP Index

ALPS Alerian MLP ETF

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0



0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

Upstream MLPs

Shipping MLPs

Propane MLPs

MLP Affiliates

Midstream MLPs

General Partners

Coal MLPs & Other

2.0%

4.0%

3.0%

8.0%

70.0%

8.0%

5.0%

1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 1.95 25.23 5.92 N/A


vs. Alerian MLP Index


Alpha -2.78 13.22 0.04 N/A

Beta 0.56 0.36 0.77 N/A

R-Squared 0.35 0.11 0.29 N/A

Consistency 58.33 50.00 48.33 N/A




March 31, 2012

75



FUND OBJECTIVE


After bottoming in early October, MLPs rose 16% for the quarter to finish the year close to an all time high. Strength can be attributed to notable crude oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) fundamentals, attractive yields and successful capital raises and strategy execution. Healthy flows andincreased interest from institutional investors continued throughout 2011. Capital markets activity was very strong with 76 equity offerings totalingapproximately $21 billion, and 46 debt issuances totaling approximately $20 billion. The gathering and processing sector outperformed for thequarter and year on strong NGL prices and continued demand for growing liquids-rich opportunities. The propane sub-sector experienced asubstantial decline as seasonally warm weather and above-average prices reduced demand and pressured margins. Demand for additional crudeinfrastructure in emerging shale plays led to refined products/crude pipelines returning double digits for the quarter and full year. Drop downsecurities produced strong gains during 2011, while MLPs with exposure to natural gas pipelines and storage trailed.

Assets under Management (1/31/12)$1,690 Million

Inception Date3/2/04

Management Fee (03/11)

1.54%

Management Fee is obtained from the most recentannual report. It represents the management fee asa percentage of average net assets which reflects

the fund's deferred tax liability.

The fund’s price return of 19.5% outperformed its NAV return of 16.8% and the benchmark return of 16.3%. The fund’s premium to NAV increasedduring the quarter to 12.4% from 9.7%.Coal and propane continued to underperform within the benchmark; the fund’s underweight exposure contributed to the outperformance. Anoverweight to natural gas pipelines also aided performance.Positive stock selection in Kinder Morgan Management LLC was accretive during the quarter but was not able to offset overweights to theunderperforming securities of El Paso Pipeline Partners LP and Buckeye Partners LP.Quarterly fund distributions were once again increased during the quarter as underlying MLP distribution growth continues to expand.

B. Bartelt, Research Analyst, DiMeo Schneider & Associates, L.L.C. 4Q11

CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Tortoise Energy Infrastructure Corp. 4.51 4.51 8.66 34.10 8.68 N/A 10.74 31.50 99.26 -44.46 1.67 37.53 4.53 N/A N/A N/A

Alerian MLP Index 1.97 1.97 9.55 35.77 11.96 16.02 13.88 35.85 76.41 -36.80 12.42 27.62 5.22 15.92 41.60 0.24

ALPS Alerian MLP ETF 1.71 1.71 8.31 N/A N/A N/A 10.09 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Tortoise Energy Infrastructure Corp. is a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company. The fund seeks to provide investors with an efficient vehicle to invest in publicly traded energyinfrastructure MLPs while providing a high level of total return with an emphasis on current distributions. The fund may additionally invest in private or restricted investment opportunities not available to retail

investors along with debt securities of MLPs and other Midstream Energy Companies.


March 31, 2012

76





0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12Tortoise Energy Infrastructure Corp.

Alerian MLP Index

ALPS Alerian MLP ETF

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0



0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Propane

Petroleum Transportation

Natural Gas Pipelines

Gathering & Processing

1.6%

39.3%

44.1%

15.0%

1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return 8.66 34.10 8.68 N/A


vs. Alerian MLP Index


Alpha -1.25 3.24 -2.20 N/A

Beta 1.12 0.87 1.05 N/A

R-Squared 0.73 0.61 0.66 N/A

Consistency 58.33 55.56 53.33 N/A




March 31, 2012

77



FUND OBJECTIVE


In 2011, hedge funds and fund of hedge funds on average lost 5%, according to an estimate by Hedge Fund Research Inc. (HFR). Many hedge fundstrategies struggled in 2011, resulting in the industry having its second worst year on record, after 2008. It was only the third annual decline for theHFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index since its inception, and the first time it fell while the S&P 500 Index was positive. According to HFR, therewas mixed performance among the five major strategy groupings for the quarter. Gains from fixed income, equity and event driven strategies were offset by losses in emerging markets, tactical trading and short-oriented strategies. According to Eurekahedge, larger funds fared better than their smaller counterparts during 2011, but there was a meaningful degree of return dispersion. Within tactical trading, systematic short-term tradingunderperformed, while performance varied in CTAs. Equity hedge strategies were positive in the quarter, but lagged long-only index returns.Exposure to energy and financials weighed on results while technology helped. Hedge funds generally ended the year positioned conservatively dueto concerns about the European sovereign crisis and the U.S. economy.

Assets under Management$5.7 Billion

Inception Date01/00

Minimum Investment$5,000,000 (Negotiable at Manager Discretion)

Management FeeAnnual fees: First $25 m = 1.25%, Next $25 m = 1.00%,Next $50 m = 0.80%, Over $100 m = 0.60%;Fee is subject to a 0.75% min

Performance FeeN/A

ContributionsQuarterly

Withdrawals

Quarterly with 70 days notice

Equity strategies were generally positive for the quarter, credit strategies were mixed and tail risk protection was negative amid improved investor sentiment.Within U.S. equities, cyclical and financial companies were generally accretive to performance, while information technology exposure generallydetracted. Short selling managers also detracted from results.Performance was negative within the opportunistic bucket. Commodity relative value outperformed but Global Macro and Tail Risk declined amidthe equity market rebound and falling volatility.Credit-focused funds produced mixed results during the quarter. Lower rated debt generally outperformed higher rated debt. Structured creditcontinued to lag due to limited liquidity and transactions.Going forward, the team plans to underweight long-biased equity funds while adding funds that are less correlated and less dependent on globalGDP growth.


CurrentQuarter

YTD1

Year3

Years5

Years10

Years2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Grosvenor Inst'l Partners, L.P. 4.29 4.29 -1.54 6.62 0.54 4.10 -3.80 6.66 13.95 -20.89 10.69 9.40 6.80 6.92 11.16 2.27

HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index 3.36 3.36 -3.41 4.59 -0.71 3.49 -5.73 5.70 11.47 -21.37 10.25 10.39 7.49 6.86 11.61 1.02

Grosvenor Institutional Partners (“GIP”) is a globally diversified, multi-strategy, multi-manager portfolio that allocates its assets to hedge fund managers that specialize in a wide range of alternativeinvestment strategies. GIP has two primary investment objectives: to provide its investors with a superior long-term, risk-adjusted rate of return and to preserve capital. GIP is eligible to U.S. tax-exemptinvestors, benefit plans and IRAs who are “qualified purchasers” under Section 3(C)7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. An entity generally must have a “net investment” portfolio of at least $25million to qualify; the beneficiary of an IRA generally must have a “net investment” portfolio of at least $5 million in order for the IRA to qualify. The Fund is structured to avoid generating UBTI for U.S. tax-exempt investors and will allocate to approximately 60 managers.


March 31, 2012

78





0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

6/07 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 3/12


HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index

-0.9

-0.6

-0.3

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8



0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Relative Value

Other

Event Driven

Equity Hedge

41.1%

13.3%

14.6%

31.0%

1Year

3Years

5Years

10Years

Return -1.54 6.62 0.54 4.10


vs. HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index

Tracking Error 1.58 1.74 1.83 1.61

Alpha 1.85 2.59 1.19 1.04

Beta 0.97 0.86 0.91 0.87

R-Squared 0.91 0.86 0.93 0.92

Consistency 66.67 63.89 60.00 55.83


Sharpe Ratio -0.28 1.46 -0.07 0.46


March 31, 2012

79

DEFINITION OF KEY STATISTICS Returns

Time-weighted average annual returns for the time periods indicated. Time weighted returns seek to eliminate the impact of external cash flows on the rate of return calculations. All returns are annualized if the period for which they are calculated exceeds one year.

Universe Comparison The universe compares the fund's returns to a group of other investment portfolios with similar investment strategies. The returns for the fund, the index and the universe percentiles are displayed. A percentile ranking of 1 is the best, while a percentile ranking of 100 is the worst. For example, a ranking of 50 indicates the fund outperformed half of the universe. A ranking of 25 indicates the fund was in the top 25% of the universe, outperforming 75%.

Returns In Up/Down Markets This measures how the fund performed in both up and down markets. The methodology is to segregate the performance for each time period into the quarters in which the market, as defined by the index, was positive and negative. Quarters with negative index returns are treated as down markets, and quarters with positive index returns are treated as up markets. Thus, in a 3 year or 12 quarter period, there might be 4 down quarters and 8 up quarters. A simple arithmetic average of returns is calculated for the fund and the index based on the up quarters. A simple arithmetic average of returns is calculated for the fund and the index based on the down quarters. The up market capture ratio is the ratio of the fund's return in up markets to the index. The down market capture ratio is the ratio of the fund's return in down markets to the index. Ideally, the fund would have a greater up market capture ratio than down market capture ratio.

Standard Deviation Standard deviation is a statistical measure of the range of performance within which the total returns of a fund fall. When a fund has a high standard deviation, the range of performance is very wide, meaning there is a greater volatility. Approximately 68% of the time, the total return of any given fund will differ from the average total return by no more than plus or minus the standard deviation figure. Ninety-five percent of the time, a fund’s total return will be within a range of plus or minus two times the standard deviation from the average total return. If the quarterly or monthly returns are all the same the standard deviation will be zero. The more they vary from one another, the higher the standard deviation. Standard deviation can be misleading as a risk indicator for funds with high total returns because large positive deviations will increase the standard deviation without a corresponding increase in the risk of the fund. While positive volatility is welcome, negative is not.

R-Squared This reflects the percentage of a fund’s movements that are explained by movements in its benchmark index. An R-squared of 100 means that all movements of a fund are completely explained by movements in the index.

Conversely, a low R-squared indicates very few of the fund’s movements are explained by movements in the benchmark index. R-squared can also be used to ascertain the significance of a particular beta. Generally, a higher R-squared will indicate a more reliable beta figure. If the R-squared is lower, then the beta is less relevant to the fund’s performance. A measure of diversification, R-squared indicates the extent to which fluctuations in portfolio returns are explained by market. An R-squared = 0.70 implies that 70% of the fluctuation in a portfolio's return is explained by the fluctuation in the market. In this instance, overweighting or underweighting of industry groups or individual securities is responsible for 30% of the fund's movement.

Beta This is a measure of a fund’s market risk. The beta of the market is 1.00. Accordingly, a fund with a 1.10 beta is expected to perform 10% better than the market in up markets and 10% worse that the market in down

markets. It is important to note, however, a low fund beta does not imply the fund has a low level of volatility; rather, a low beta means only that the fund’s market-related risk is low. Because beta analyzes the market risk of a fund by showing how responsive the fund is to the market, its usefulness depends on the degree to which the markets determine the fund's total risk (indicated by R-squared ).

Alpha The Alpha is the nonsystematic return, or the return that can’t be attributed to the market. It can be thought of as how the manager performed if the market’s return was zero. A positive alpha implies the manager added value to the return of the portfolio over that of the market. A negative alpha implies the manager did not contribute any value over the performance of the market.

Sharpe Ratio The Sharpe ratio is the excess return per unit of total risk as measured by standard deviation. Higher numbers are better, indicating more return for the level of risk experienced. The ratio is a fund's return minus the risk-free

rate of return (30-day T-Bill rate) divided by the fund’s standard deviation. The higher the Sharpe ratio, the more reward you are receiving per unit of total risk. This measure can be used to rank the performance of mutual funds or other portfolios.

Tracking Error Tracking error measures the volatility of the difference in annual returns between the manager and the index. This value is calculated by measuring the standard deviation of the difference between the manager and index returns. For example, a tracking error of +/- 5 would mean there is about a 68% chance (1 standard deviation event) that the manager's returns will fall within +/- 5% of the benchmark's annual return.

Information Ratio The information ratio is a measure of the consistency of excess return. This value is determined by taking the annualized excess return over a benchmark (style benchmark by default) and dividing it by the standard deviation of excess return.

Consistency Consistency shows the percent of the periods the fund has beaten the index and the percent of the periods the index has beat the fund. A high average for the fund (e.g. over 50) is desirable, indicating the fund has beaten the index frequently.

80

VALUATION POLICY

DiMeo Schneider does not engage an independent third party pricing service to value securities. Our reports are generated using the security prices provided by custodians used by our clients. Our pricing hierarchy is to first use valuations provided by the custodian that holds assets for the greatest number of clients. If a client holds a security not reported by this custodian, the valuation is generated from the next most prominent custodian, and so forth. Each custodian uses pricing services from outside vendors, where the vendors may generate nominally different prices. Therefore, this report can reflect minor valuation differences from those contained in a custodian’s report. REPORTING POLICY This report is intended for the exclusive use of clients of DiMeo Schneider & Associates, L.L.C. Content and format is privileged and confidential. Any dissemination or distribution of this report is strictly prohibited. The information contained in this report has been obtained from trade and statistical services and other sources which are deemed but not guaranteed to be accurate. Any opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment at this date and are subject to change. OTHER Rule 204-3 under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 requires that we make an annual offer to clients to send them, without charge, a written disclosure statement meeting the requirements of such rule. We will be glad to send a copy of such a statement to you upon your written request. Please advise us of any changes in your objectives or circumstances.

81

Privacy Policy and Practices of DiMeo Schneider & Associates, L.L.C.

DiMeo Schneider & Associates values the trust our clients place in us and we are committed to the responsible management, use and protection of our clients’ personal information. Federal law requires that we tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. We ask that you take a moment to review our privacy policy. Why We Obtain Information DiMeo Schneider & Associates gathers information to help us serve your financial needs, provide customer service, and fulfill legal and regulatory requirements. Any collection of personal information is used to support our normal business operations and to service our relationship with you. What Information We Collect The type of nonpublic personal information we collect and share depends on the product or service you have with us. This information can include your:

Social Security Number; Income; Account balances; and Payment history.

How We Collect Information Some of the nonpublic personal and financial information DiMeo Schneider & Associates collects comes from you. Other sources may include:

Information on applications and related forms, such as name, address, Social Security Number, assets and income; Information regarding your transactions with us, such as purchases, sales and account balances; Information from your employer, association, or benefit plan sponsor, such as name, address, Social Security Number, assets, and income.

How We Share Your Information DiMeo Schneider & Associates does not disclose nonpublic personal information about you to anyone, except as permitted or required by law. In the course of servicing your account, DiMeo Schneider & Associates may share information collected about you with other service providers such as mutual fund companies, broker/dealers, insurance companies, banks and investment firms to provide account maintenance and to effect transactions. We may also disclose your information to other organizations such as government agencies and law enforcement officials (for example, for tax reporting or under court order), or to other organizations and individuals with your consent (for example, to your attorney or tax professional). DiMeo Schneider & Associates does not disclose your nonpublic personal information, except as provided above. How Often DiMeo Schneider & Associates Notifies Clients DiMeo Schneider & Associates must notify you about our sharing practices when you open an account and each year while you are a customer. Protecting Your Information DiMeo Schneider & Associates maintains physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards to protect your nonpublic personal information to ensure that we are complying with our own policy, industry practices, and federal or state regulations. If you ever become an inactive client, we will continue to adhere to the privacy policies and practices described in this notice. Contacting DiMeo Schneider & Associates We welcome your questions regarding our privacy policy. Please feel free to contact Scott Blim via telephone at (312) 853-1000, via email at [email protected], or via regular mail at 500 West Madison, Suite 3855, Chicago, Il 60661.

DiMeo Schneider & Associates, L.L.C. reserves the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time, without notice, and will notify clients of any modifications on an annual basis.

82

concordia university, nebraska & concordia foundation,...

Documents