in addition, they questioned the firm's relationship with calpers, and the sizing of cartica with fers portfolio. staff feels that cartica is a great solution for us, a great fit, and we weren't successful in getting you guys to see the same thing was a failure on our part. so today, we want to address the board's concerns, and time permitting, we want to go through an example of a security, one of their top positions. following the meeting, we did have andrew write a separate report which is included in the material where he assesses cartica's e.s.g. practices in both the way they've managed their firm and the way they've managed their assets. what we'll do is a little bit more of a visual presentation as opposed to what we historically do in a memo driven way. but before we get into this, i want to remind the board of a couple of attributes we got into in our april meeting. first, we look for managers that have a differentiated, innovative, investment process that we think is sustainable over time. we look for managers that have strong business platforms marked by long-term instituti

the salary chart is required by calpers to be made publicly available on ocii website. approval to correct five classification salaries benchmarked to city and county of san francisco with current incumbent employees on our salary chart. second, changes of the scope of duty for work of two classifycations, human resources manager and add principle analyst. on the chart you can see the salaries between a and b. while we were presenting for the cost of living increases for staff, we came across abnormalities of five classification salaries not comparable with the city and county of san francisco. because of this we sought adistance and he found the same findings that we found. because we have incumbents in these five we wanted to keep them the same. for these five classifications the proposessed salary charts are listed as line a and b. line a for employees that were hired before june 30, 2018 and line b will indicate for employees hired after july 1, 2018. we net with local 1021 and 1041 and explained how this will not hurt those in this classification. [ reading] the ne

calpers reported $351 billion in assets, up three percentage points from the previous fiscal year andy double-digit returns and the public and private equity markets. >>> let's kick things off with bill martin. >>> he is bringing you a bear right now? >> who knows. >> it's on its way. i can't believe you did that. >> i was just trying to share my experience because it's - - >> he will take care of you. >>> it's fun to stand in line like a party down there. three hours my kid would not sit still for 30 minutes. i don't know how they are doing it. >>> that's why it paid dividends. by lunch at the place next door. good for the mall. >>> as we look outside we've got another nice day. we're between weather systems, low to the north high in the south and right in here. you see the clouds and low clouds and fog, a little bit. you see the fog. some high clouds right in here are starting to work their way up into the region. we're getting ready for high clouds maybe tonight probably again tomorrow today was partly cloudy partly sunny the general idea is more of the same which is slightly coole

here because we're going to go on and talk a little bit about their gross assets under managers, calpers, and i want to first address questions on their performance. >> commissioner driscoll. >> captain driscoll: i'm going to go to page 22 and page 23. you had a couple months of performance were added from what we saw two months ago, correct? because you can see the inform 4.2 for the four months that would show sort of an uptick in the chart on the right on page 23. the point, though, i want to focus on -- [inaudible] >> absolutely. >> captain driscoll: which maybe that's why you added it this way. we figured it out last time it's not as compelling as a case looking at their since inception numbers, particularly since it was with $200 million. if their goal is to have 47% ownership in a -- 4 to 7% ownership in a company with $200 million, they weren't going to get very far, but which is the better indicator of who they are? going back to 22, you've highlighted the three and five-year numbers. not a particularly compelling case. certain places in the footnotes indicate net numbers -- num