Public Equity Strategies (Emerging Managers)

ID: RFP-20-26-05

The State Universities Retirement System of Illinois (SURS) is requesting proposals from qualified investment management firms for public, Emerging Manager (AUM under $10 billion) Equity products. SURS will consider strategies focused in the sub-asset classes of Global Small Cap, Global Growth, ACWI ex-US Core, and Emerging Markets. SURS will not consider micro-cap, SMID-cap, hedged funds, or strategies that short equities. Manager of managers programs will also be considered.

Schedule

Questions & Answers

1. With regards to q.7, list all current owners of the firm and % ownership. We are a private company and as such, have not historically released individual ownership %. Is there any flexibility in this response? We are WBENC certified and can provide that information. Your guidance would be appreciated.

Yes, we would appreciate more transparency if your firm should progress through the process.

2. Currently, we are employee-owned but not minority-owned. Given these details, we are keen to understand if we qualify for the RFP?

Yes, as long as you qualify as having total firm aum below the maximum firm aum of $10 billion and have the minimum qualifications for your product as outlined in the RFP.

3. In relation to this RFP, can you please advise if there is a minimum strategy aum requirement for the Global Small Cap and Emerging Markets sub-asset classes?

Minimum strategy aum is $1 billion as outlined in the RFP.

a. We currently have the following aum for these strategies: Global Small Cap: $3.6M and Emerging Markets: $124.1M. Would they be considered for this search?

Doesn’t meet the minimum strategy aum.

b. Separately, would a carve out of ACWI ex US from a Global strategy ($556M aum) be considered for the ACWI ex-US Core search?

We will not consider any carve outs.

4. For minority-owned businesses, are there any minimum requirements for strategy AUM or for length of track record? Would SURS consider strategies with less than 1-year of live track record, if there is underlying index performance dating further back?

51% or greater minority/women owned businesses are exempt from minimum AUM or track record as outlined in the RFP.

5. Is SURS searching for actively managed or passively managed strategies?

Actively managed

6. Is there a targeted level of active risk for the strategy relative to its benchmark?

No

7. You might find that there are very few managers in this category who have both <10bn total AUM and >1bn strategy AUM. Our firm has $4bn in AUM and a few different global small cap strategies with AUM of 450mm and 150mm. Would you be willing to waive or amend the strategy minimum for the Global Small Cap category?

No

8. Would you consider a women-owned firm with more than $10bn in total AUM but less than $1bn in equities?

No, the maximum aum level is $10 billion for all firms. Only firms submitting a Manager of Managers solution are exempt.

9. Are there any exemptions to being registered with the Illinois State Board of Elections as required by 30 ILCS 500/20–160? Meaning do all firms that submit a proposal for this RFP need to be registered with the Illinois State Board of Elections? How long does the registration process typically take?

Vendors that meet the requirements in the law must be registered with the Illinois State Board of Elections before a contract is awarded. Processing times can vary but the process is fairly simple and free.
For questions, please contact the State Board of Elections directly: https://berep.elections.il.gov/ContactUs.aspx

10. Is the RFP open to participation from foreign investment managers?

Yes

11. Will SURS consider regional mandates as part of this process—for example, an Asia Pacific ex-Japan strategy as a carve-out from emerging markets?

No

12. Are there any established limits on investing outside the defined mandate—for instance, allocating a portion of the emerging markets mandate to selected developed markets?

No, but we are unlikely to select an emerging markets mandate with exposure to developed markets.

13. The RFP states that the selected mandates will fall within the Traditional Growth asset class. Does this preclude investment managers that follow a Value-oriented investment philosophy?

No

14. Appendix B requests diversity disclosures for U.S. citizens or permanent residents. As a foreign investment manager, none of our employees fall under this definition; however, we are a minority and women-owned and led organisation. Should we complete Appendix B regardless?

Yes, just put zeros as it only applies to US based offices.

15. Appendix C – Question 102 references expected minimum levels of MWDBE brokerage participation. How should this requirement be addressed in situations where such participation is not feasible for practical reasons?

Please answer this question as best you can for now.

16. Does your email system have a maximum file size limit? The ADV Part I is approximately 20 MB. Can we include a link to the ADV on the SEC’s website?

SURS IT has confirmed that a 20 MB file size is acceptable and may be submitted as an attachment. If you prefer to provide a link to the ADV on the SEC’s website in addition to the attachment, you may do so. However, please ensure that all required documents are fully accessible at the time of submission.

17. If we are submitting two products, should we complete two separate RFP responses and send them under separate emails?

No, please combine the two products into one response.

18. Under Section IV (Required Minimum Qualifications), Criteria 1 states that the strategy must have a minimum of $1 billion in assets. If the strategy exceeds $1 billion as of 2/1/2026 but was slightly below $1 billion as of 12/31/2025, would it still be eligible for submission?

No

19. The RFP identifies “ACWI ex-US Core” as a target sub-asset class. Would the Investment Committee consider a Developed Markets (EAFE) strategy for this mandate or is SURS open to considering a Developed Markets (EAFE) strategy that is paired with an index sleeve for the Emerging Markets exposure (i.e., Emerging Markets Index)?

No

A. If an index sleeve structure is preferred, does the System have a preferred Commingled Investment Trust (CIT) for Emerging Markets beta that we should use for modeling, or should we utilize an institutional ETF like IEMG or ESGE to encompass the sustainability consideration?

N/A

B. Does SURS prefer a strictly benchmark-neutral weighting (approx. 72% EAFE / 28% EM), or is the System open to an ‘Alpha-Concentrated’ weighting (e.g., 75% or 80% EAFE) to maximize exposure to idiosyncratic developed market security selection? Additionally, does the System’s consultant, Meketa, have a preferred rebalancing frequency or ‘drift’ tolerance for these sleeves?

N/A

20. Regarding the funding of emerging managers, are there specific institutional requirements or minimum operational milestones that SURS prioritizes when considering a strategy for initial funding or seed capital?

No, but obviously emerging managers with stronger operations and history will be considered as a stronger candidate. This does not necessarily eliminate potential seeding of a new strategy.

A. What are important factors in evaluating an unfunded strategy’s performance that is a combination of back-testing and disciplined out-of-sample forward simulation? Does oversight during the out-of-sample period provided by a third-party institutional validator like Xponance, help in seeking validation for an unfunded strategy? Would it be helpful to have the third-party share evaluation data on the portfolio?

No

21. For non-U.S. equity mandates where liquidity and market impact are primary concerns (such as regional bottleneck securities), does SURS have specific expectations regarding the balance between Minority/Women-owned brokerage utilization and the manager’s internal best-execution guardrails (e.g., average daily volume participation caps)?

No, please answer the question as best as possible.

22. For the Appendix E disclosure, does SURS prioritize quantitative ESG metrics (e.g., carbon intensity or UNGC compliance scores) or qualitative engagement stories? How heavily are this sustainability factors weighed in the final ‘Product Fit’ score for emerging managers?

No, SURS does not differentiate between quantitative and qualitative engagement stories. We do not “score” these responses.

23. Preferred Investment Vehicle Does SURS have a preferred investment vehicle for this mandate (e.g., Separately Managed Account, institutional commingled fund, institutional mutual fund, or other)?

Please offer your preferred investment vehicle and/or provide options.

24. Allocation Structure and Sizing The RFP indicates that direct allocations will range from 3 to 5 managers, with dollar amounts of $50–$100 million per manager, not to exceed $250 million in total.

Does this total allocation apply across all listed sub-asset classes (Global Small Cap, Global Growth, ACWI ex-US Core, and Emerging Markets)?

This is an estimated allocation across the search. It can vary or change according to SURS needs.

25. Should respondents assume that SURS intends to allocate approximately one manager per sub-asset class, each in the $50–$100 million range?

No, this is an estimated allocation and can change depending on SURS needs and the quality of responses. We are not committed to allocating to each sub-asset class. SURS will evaluate responses and may select more than one in a sub-asset class or select none.

26. AUM Expectations for Emerging Managers The RFP notes that qualified women-, minority-, or disabled-owned businesses are exempt from the minimum product AUM requirement. Does SURS have any guidelines or limits regarding the maximum percentage of a firm’s or strategy’s AUM that a SURS allocation may represent?

No

27. Preferred Criteria The RFP states a preference for firms to have either:

a. At least two U.S. public pension fund clients, each with more than $5 billion in total plan assets, or

b. At least one public plan client with more than $15 billion in total plan assets.

Could you please clarify the relative importance of this criterion within the overall evaluation process?

No, we understand that most emerging managers may not achieve these criteria. Please just submit your best response.

28. Appendix B – SURS Diversity Disclosure requests that respondents provide diversity statistics, number of contracts, and fund expenses related to investment services, consulting services, and professional and artistic services performed by Minority-, Women-, and Persons with a Disability-owned Business Enterprises (MWDBE), as well as by non-MWDBE firms where more than 50% of services are performed by MWDBE individuals.

To ensure accurate and complete reporting, could you please clarify which categories of service providers should be included in this disclosure? For example, should respondents include:

• Custodians
• Fund administrators
• Auditors
• Legal counsel
• Compliance consultants
• Risk model and data providers
• Trading and execution platforms
• IT and software vendors
• Other professional service providers

Additionally, should this disclosure reflect only services directly related to the proposed mandate, or all firm-level service provider relationships?

Please answer to the best of your ability and we will contact you if we have further questions.

29. We have two strategies to submit, would you want two separate responses for the two strategies or combine to one response?

One response with the questions answered for both strategies.

30. We are a Chicago-based non-US equity manager. We specialize in both a Global Small Cap Strategy and an Emerging Markets Strategy, both of which have impressive track records spanning over five years. Our strategy AUM for both is under $1 billion, as we are a true emerging manager with firm AUM under $1 billion.

Our firm was founded by women in 2008 and remained woman-owned until 2020. Currently, we are employee-owned but not minority-owned. Given these details, we are keen to understand if we qualify for the RFP?

Please evaluate the qualifications and determine yourself if you qualify. No matter where the cutoff points are determined, disappointed managers will miss out at any level. Our requirement criteria are designed to create a broad and manageable emerging manager search.