Free Word download β’ Edit online β’ Save & share with Drive β’ Export to PDF
An Investment Policy Statement (IPS) is a formal governing document that defines how an organization's investment portfolio will be managed β recording its objectives, risk tolerance, target asset allocation, permitted and prohibited instruments, manager selection criteria, performance benchmarks, and review procedures. It functions as the primary accountability framework between a governing board or investment committee and any internal staff or external managers responsible for day-to-day portfolio decisions. Unlike a financial plan or budget, which project operating results, an IPS governs a distinct pool of invested capital β an endowment, pension reserve, operating reserve, or corporate treasury β over a multi-year investment horizon.
Without a written IPS, investment decisions default to informal judgment calls that are difficult to defend to auditors, grant-making foundations, or beneficiaries. Boards that lack a documented policy expose themselves to fiduciary liability when markets decline and stakeholders question whether the portfolio was managed prudently. Auditors of nonprofit endowments routinely cite the absence of an IPS as a material governance deficiency. Beyond compliance, an IPS enforces the discipline that protects long-term portfolios from short-term panic: when the committee has agreed in writing that a 30% equity drawdown is within acceptable bounds, it is far harder for individual members to force a poorly timed exit at the bottom of a market cycle. This template gives boards, investment committees, and finance teams a structured, ready-to-adapt foundation β cutting the drafting time from weeks to hours and ensuring no critical governance element is overlooked.
| If your situation is⦠| Use this template |
|---|---|
| Governing a nonprofit endowment with a long-term spending policy | Nonprofit Endowment Investment Policy Statement |
| Managing a corporate operating cash reserve with capital preservation goals | Corporate Treasury Investment Policy |
| Overseeing a defined-benefit pension fund with actuarial liability matching | Pension Fund Investment Policy Statement |
| Setting guidelines for a donor-advised fund or community foundation | Foundation Investment Policy Statement |
| Formalizing investment oversight for a family office or private trust | Family Office Investment Policy Statement |
| Establishing guidelines for an individual retirement account or personal portfolio | Personal Investment Policy Statement |
| Documenting ESG or responsible investing criteria alongside standard guidelines | ESG Investment Policy Statement |
Why it matters: Labels like 'moderate' or 'balanced' mean different things to different managers and committee members, providing no basis for evaluating whether the portfolio is within policy.
Fix: Express risk tolerance as at least one hard number β maximum calendar-year loss, minimum credit rating, or maximum equity allocation β that can be tested against actual portfolio data.
Why it matters: A 7% gross return target sounds reasonable in isolation, but if the spending rate is 5% and inflation is 3%, the fund will erode in real terms β a fact that only becomes visible when the two numbers are modeled together.
Fix: Calculate the required net return as: spending rate + inflation + investment expenses, then confirm the policy portfolio has historically generated that return over full market cycles.
Why it matters: Ranges of 20β80% for equities give managers unconstrained discretion and make the IPS a cosmetic document rather than a governance one β the committee cannot hold anyone accountable to a range that wide.
Fix: Limit ranges to 10β15 percentage points around the target for major asset classes and 5β8 percentage points for alternatives or less-liquid categories.
Why it matters: Without documented triggers, replacing an underperforming manager requires a subjective committee decision that can become contentious, legally exposed, or subject to personal relationships overriding fiduciary duty.
Fix: Add at least two objective termination criteria β e.g., three-year performance below benchmark by more than 150 basis points, or any material regulatory finding β so the decision process is procedurally defensible.
Why it matters: A spending rate set when the endowment was $5M may be inappropriate at $25M; a risk tolerance established before a major program expansion may no longer match actual liquidity needs.
Fix: Require in the document itself that the IPS is reviewed following any change in spending rate, investment horizon, organizational size, or governing structure β not just on the annual calendar cycle.
Why it matters: An operating reserve needs high liquidity and capital preservation; a long-term endowment can tolerate illiquidity and volatility. Governing both under one policy produces either unnecessary risk in the operating reserve or unnecessary conservatism in the endowment.
Fix: Draft a separate IPS for each distinct pool of capital, even if managed by the same committee, so that each fund's objectives, risk constraints, and permitted instruments reflect its actual purpose.
Enter the legal name of the organization, the specific fund or account the IPS governs, and the current approximate asset value. Confirm whether oversight sits with a full board, a delegated investment committee, or both.
π‘ If the organization has multiple pools of capital with different purposes β endowment, operating reserve, pension β draft a separate IPS for each. Combining them blurs objectives and creates conflicting constraints.
Express the primary goal as a specific net return target linked to the spending rate and inflation assumption. For example: 'earn CPI plus 4.5% net of fees over rolling 5-year periods to support a 4% annual distribution.'
π‘ Work backward from the spending policy β calculate what gross return the portfolio must achieve to fund distributions and maintain real purchasing power, then test whether that target is consistent with the chosen asset allocation.
Translate risk tolerance from a qualitative statement into at least one measurable constraint β maximum acceptable calendar-year drawdown, minimum credit quality for fixed income, or maximum portfolio standard deviation.
π‘ Run a simple historical stress test: would the proposed asset allocation have met the drawdown constraint during 2008β2009 and March 2020? If not, either tighten the allocation or revise the constraint.
Enter target percentages and acceptable minimum/maximum ranges for each asset class. Ensure all targets sum to 100% and that the ranges are narrow enough to provide real governance β a 10-percentage-point band is typically the maximum useful range for major asset classes.
π‘ Validate the proposed allocation against a mean-variance or historical return analysis to confirm it is internally consistent with the return objective and risk constraints already documented.
Enumerate every asset class and instrument type the portfolio may hold, then separately list anything explicitly prohibited. Include any ESG or mission-alignment exclusions that apply to the organization.
π‘ Review the list with legal counsel if the organization has charitable status or ERISA obligations β certain instruments may be restricted by law regardless of what the IPS permits.
Specify the minimum track record, AUM, fee ceiling, and compliance record required of any external manager. Add clear termination triggers β e.g., underperformance versus benchmark for four consecutive quarters, or a material compliance finding.
π‘ Including termination triggers makes future manager changes procedurally straightforward and protects the committee from accusations of arbitrary or politically motivated decisions.
Select a specific, publicly available index for each asset class in the portfolio and a blended total-portfolio benchmark. Document the benchmark weights in the same section as the asset allocation targets.
π‘ Use the same index that passive alternatives in that asset class would track β this gives the committee a meaningful test of whether active management is adding value net of fees.
Specify both a calendar review date (quarterly is standard) and a drift threshold that triggers off-cycle rebalancing. Add the annual full IPS review date and the approval process for any amendments.
π‘ Automate the quarterly review reminder in the investment committee's calendar β an unreviewed IPS is a governance liability, not just an administrative oversight.
An Investment Policy Statement is a formal governing document that defines how an organization's investment portfolio will be managed. It records the fund's objectives, risk tolerance, permitted asset classes, target asset allocation, manager selection criteria, performance benchmarks, and review procedures. It serves as the primary accountability tool between the organization's governing body and any internal or external investment managers it employs.
Any organization that holds and manages investment assets on behalf of others should have one β including nonprofits with endowments, pension fund trustees, community foundations, corporate treasuries, university finance offices, and family offices. Auditors, grant-making foundations, and regulatory bodies frequently request an IPS as evidence of prudent investment governance. Individual investors also benefit from a personal IPS to maintain discipline during market volatility.
For ERISA-governed retirement plans in the United States, an IPS is considered a best practice strongly implied by fiduciary duty, though not explicitly mandated by the statute. For nonprofit endowments governed by the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA), a written investment policy is effectively required to demonstrate the prudence standard. Many grant-making foundations require grantees to produce an IPS as a condition of multi-year grants.
An investment strategy is a tactical approach to selecting securities or allocating capital β it describes what to buy and when. An IPS is the governing policy framework within which any strategy must operate β it defines the objectives, constraints, and oversight process regardless of which specific strategy is employed. The IPS does not change frequently; strategies within it may be adjusted by managers on an ongoing basis.
At minimum, once per year as part of the investment committee's annual cycle. It should also be reviewed immediately following any material change in the organization's financial condition, spending rate, investment horizon, or governance structure. An IPS that has not been updated in more than two years is likely out of alignment with current circumstances and represents a fiduciary governance gap.
A spending policy defines how much of an endowment or fund's value can be distributed each year β commonly set at 4β5% of a 12-quarter rolling average market value. The spending policy directly drives the return objective in the IPS: the portfolio must earn enough to fund distributions, cover investment expenses, and preserve the real value of the principal over time. The two policies should always be modeled together to confirm their combined assumptions are internally consistent.
Yes. A well-structured template covers the core governance requirements applicable to most nonprofits β objectives, asset allocation, manager criteria, benchmarks, and review procedures. Engage a financial advisor or investment consultant to validate the asset allocation targets and benchmark selections against the organization's specific spending rate and liability profile. For endowments over $10M or those subject to specific regulatory requirements, a consultant review is worth the cost.
Most endowment IPS documents permit domestic and international equities, investment-grade and high-yield fixed income, real estate investment trusts, inflation-linked bonds, and cash equivalents. Larger endowments may also include alternative asset classes such as private equity, hedge funds, and infrastructure. Speculative instruments β leveraged derivatives, single-commodity futures, and cryptocurrencies β are typically prohibited unless the governing board explicitly approves them as part of a formal alternatives program.
Detailed enough to provide real governance constraints, but not so granular that routine tactical decisions require a full committee vote. Best practice is to specify a target percentage and an acceptable range for each major asset class β typically six to ten categories. Ranges of 8β12 percentage points around the target allow managers normal operational flexibility while giving the committee a clear trigger for review when the portfolio drifts materially.
A financial plan projects revenues, expenses, and cash flow for a business over a defined operating period. An Investment Policy Statement governs how a pool of investment assets is managed β it does not project business operations. Organizations need both: a financial plan to manage the business, and an IPS to govern the investment of any surplus, reserve, or endowment capital.
A strategic plan defines an organization's goals, initiatives, and resource allocation over a 3β5 year horizon. An IPS is a narrower governance document focused exclusively on investment portfolio management. The two documents connect when the strategic plan identifies capital needs that the investment policy must fund through a spending policy.
A budget allocates expected revenues and expenses for an operating period β typically one fiscal year. An IPS governs the long-term management of a separate pool of invested capital and a multi-year return objective. The spending distribution from an endowment governed by an IPS may appear as a revenue line in the annual budget, linking the two documents.
A board resolution is a formal record of a specific decision taken by a governing board β such as approving an IPS or appointing an investment manager. An IPS is the substantive policy document itself. Best practice is to adopt the IPS by board resolution and store the two documents together so the chain of governance authority is clear.
Endowment spending policies, UPMIFA prudence standard compliance, and mission-alignment exclusions are central governance concerns unique to charitable organizations.
University endowments balance long investment horizons and diversified alternative allocations with annual payout obligations to fund scholarships, research, and operations.
Registered investment advisers are required to document client investment policy in writing; pension fund trustees operate under ERISA fiduciary standards that make a formal IPS effectively mandatory.
Hospital and health system foundations maintain investment reserves to fund capital projects and operational contingencies, requiring IPS governance that balances capital preservation with long-term growth.
| Path | Best for | Cost | Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use the template | Nonprofits and small organizations with investment portfolios under $5M needing a formal governance document | Free | 3β6 hours to complete |
| Template + professional review | Organizations with $5Mβ$50M in assets, pension trustees, or those subject to UPMIFA or ERISA requirements | $500β$2,500 for an investment consultant or fiduciary advisor review | 1β2 weeks |
| Custom drafted | Large endowments over $50M, multi-asset-class alternatives programs, or organizations with complex regulatory obligations | $3,000β$10,000 for a full investment policy advisory engagement | 4β8 weeks |
This document is one of 3,000+ business & legal templates included in Business in a Box.
Access over 3,000+ business and legal templates for any business task, project or initiative.
Customize your ready-made business document template and save it in the cloud.
Share your files and folders with your team. Create a space of seamless collaboration.
"Fantastic value! I'm not sure how I'd do without it. It's worth its weight in gold and paid back for itself many times."
"I have been using Business in a Box for years. It has been the most useful source of templates I have encountered. I recommend it to anyone."
"It has been a life saver so many times I have lost count. Business in a Box has saved me so much time and as you know, time is money."
Stop downloading documents. Start operating with clarity. Business in a Box gives you the Business Operating System used by over 250,000 companies worldwide to structure, run, and grow their business.
Start freeΒ Β·Β No credit card required
