Disclosures

Barron’s

Barron’s Top 100 RIA Firms (2022)

Ranking is for Churchill Management Group (“CMG”). The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ratings reflects a quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Rankings, but may purchase reprints of the Barron’s article. According to Barron’s: The formula Barron’s uses to rank advisors is proprietary. Participating firms are evaluated and ranked on a wide range of quantitative and qualitative data, including: assets overseen by the firm, revenue generated by the firm, level of technology spending, number of clients, size of staff, diversity across staff, and placement of a succession plan. Barron’s is a registered trademark of Dow Jones & Company, L.P. All rights reserved.

Barron’s Ranking – Top Independent Financial Advisors (2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011)

The Barron’s ranking is for Fred Fern of Churchill Management Group (“CMG”). The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects a quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Rankings, but did purchase reprints of the Barron’s article.

According to Barron’s: The formula Barron’s uses to rank advisors is proprietary. Barron’s disclosed that they typically receive 350‐450 nominations each year. The rankings are based on data provided by individual advisors and their firms. Advisor data is confirmed via regulatory databases, cross‐checks with securities firms and conversations with individual advisors. The formula Barron’s uses to rank advisors is proprietary. It has three major components: assets managed, revenue produced and quality of practice. Investment returns are not a component of the rankings because an advisor’s returns are dictated largely by the risk tolerance of clients. The quality‐of‐practice component includes an evaluation of each advisor’s regulatory record.

Barron’s Ranking – Top Advisor Rankings by State (2016)

According to Barron’s: The formula Barron’s uses to rank advisors is proprietary. In evaluating advisors, Barron’s examines regulatory records, internal company documents, and data provided by the advisors themselves. The rankings for all states are based on data provided by over 4,000 of the nation’s most productive advisors. Factors included in the rankings: assets under management, revenue produced for the firm, regulatory record, quality of practice and philanthropic work. Investment performance isn’t an explicit component because not all advisors have audited results and because performance figures often are influenced more by clients’ risk tolerance than by an advisor’s investment‐picking abilities. The quality‐of‐practice component includes an evaluation of each advisor’s regulatory record.

Barron’s Top 100 RIA Firms (2021)

Barron’s Top 100 RIA Firms (2020)

Barron’s Top 50 RIA Firms (2019)

Ranking is for Churchill Management Group (“CMG”). The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects a quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Rankings, but did purchase reprints of the Barron’s article. According to Barron’s: The formula Barron’s uses to rank advisors is proprietary. The rankings are based on data provided by individual advisors and their firms. Advisor data is confirmed via regulatory databases, cross-checks with securities firms and conversations with individual advisors. The formula Barron’s uses to rank advisors is proprietary. It has three major components: assets managed, revenue produced and quality of practice. Investment returns are not a component of the rankings because an advisor’s returns are dictated largely by the risk tolerance of clients. The quality-of-practice component includes an evaluation of each advisor’s regulatory record.

Barron’s Top 40 RIA Firms (2018)

Barron’s Hall of Fame (2019)

Ranking is for Fred Fern. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience. The rating is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Hall of Fame. According to Barron’s: The Hall of Fame is an award honoring a group of advisors who exemplify long-term success and commitment to their clients. Each member of the Hall of Fame has appeared in 10 or more of Barron’s annual Top 100 Advisor rankings.

Forbes

FORBES TOP 250 WEALTH ADVISORS FOR 2023

Ranking is for Randy Conner of Churchill Management Group (“CMG”). CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Rankings, but may purchase reprints of the Forbes article. The ranking, which was developed by Forbes’ partner Shook Research, is based on in-person and telephone due-diligence meetings and a ranking algorithm for advisors who have a minimum of seven years of experience. The ranking algorithm is based on quality of practice learned through telephone and in-person interviews, client retention, industry experience, review of compliance records, firm nominations; and quantitative criteria, including: assets under management and revenue generated for their firms. Investment performance is not a criterion because client objectives and risk tolerances vary, and advisors rarely have audited performance reports. Rankings are based on the opinions of SHOOK Research, LLC which does not receive compensation from the advisors or their firms in exchange for placement on a ranking.

FORBES BEST-IN-STATE WEALTH ADVISORS 2023

Ranking is for Randy Conner of Churchill Management Group (“CMG”). CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Rankings, but may purchase reprints of the Forbes article. The rankings were developed by SHOOK Research, and are based on an algorithm of qualitative criteria, mostly gained through telephone and in-person due diligence interviews, and quantitative data. Those advisors that are considered have a minimum of seven years experience, and the algorithm weighs factors like revenue trends, assets under management, compliance records, industry experience and those that encompass best practices in their practices and approach to working with clients. Portfolio performance is not a criterion due to varying client objectives and lack of audited data. Neither Forbes or SHOOK receive a fee in exchange for rankings. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects a quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. The 2021 ranking is for CA – Los Angeles (High Net Worth). Previous years were for CA-Los Angeles.

FORBES TOP 100 RIA FIRMS FOR 2022

Ranking is for Churchill Management Group (“CMG”). CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Rankings, but may purchase reprints of the Forbes article. The ranking, which was developed by Forbes’ partner Shook Research, is based on in-person and telephone due-diligence meetings and a ranking algorithm for advisors who have a minimum of seven years of experience. The ranking algorithm is based on quality of practice learned through telephone and in-person interviews, client retention, industry experience, review of compliance records, firm nominations; and quantitative criteria, including: assets under management and revenue generated for their firms. Investment performance is not a criterion because client objectives and risk tolerances vary, and advisors rarely have audited performance reports. Rankings are based on the opinions of SHOOK Research, LLC which does not receive compensation from the advisors or their firms in exchange for placement on a ranking.

FORBES TOP 250 WEALTH ADVISORS FOR 2022

FORBES BEST-IN-STATE WEALTH ADVISORS 2022

Ranking is for Randy Conner of Churchill Management Group (“CMG”). CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Rankings, but may purchase reprints of the Forbes article. The rankings were developed by SHOOK Research, and are based on an algorithm of qualitative criteria, mostly gained through telephone and in-person due diligence interviews, and quantitative data. Those advisors that are considered have a minimum of seven years experience, and the algorithm weighs factors like revenue trends, assets under management, compliance records, industry experience and those that encompass best practices in their practices and approach to working with clients. Portfolio performance is not a criterion due to varying client objectives and lack of audited data. Neither Forbes or SHOOK receive a fee in exchange for rankings. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects a quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. The 2021 ranking is for CA – Los Angeles (High Net Worth). Previous years were for CA-Los Angeles.

*FORBES TOP 250 WEALTH ADVISORS FOR 2021 & FORBES BEST IN STATE WEALTH ADVISORS 2021
Management Group (“CMG”). CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Rankings, but may purchase reprints of the Forbes article. The ranking, which was developed by Forbes’ partner Shook Research, is based on in-person and telephone due-diligence meetings and a ranking algorithm for advisors who have a minimum of seven years of experience. The ranking algorithm is based on quality of practice learned through telephone and in-person interviews, client retention, industry experience, review of compliance records, firm nominations; and quantitative criteria, including: assets under management and revenue generated for their firms. Investment performance is not a criterion because client objectives and risk tolerances vary, and advisors rarely have audited performance reports. Rankings are based on the opinions of SHOOK Research, LLC which does not receive compensation from the advisors or their firms in exchange for placement on a ranking.

FORBES BEST-IN-STATE WEALTH ADVISORS 2021

Ranking is for Randy Conner of Churchill Management Group (“CMG”). CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Rankings, but may purchase reprints of the Forbes article. The rankings were developed by SHOOK Research, and are based on an algorithm of qualitative criteria, mostly gained through telephone and in-person due diligence interviews, and quantitative data. Those advisors that are considered have a minimum of seven years experience, and the algorithm weighs factors like revenue trends, assets under management, compliance records, industry experience and those that encompass best practices in their practices and approach to working with clients. Portfolio performance is not a criterion due to varying client objectives and lack of audited data. Neither Forbes or SHOOK receive a fee in exchange for rankings. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects a quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. The 2021 ranking is for CA – Los Angeles (High Net Worth). Previous years were for CA-Los Angeles.

Forbes Top 250 Wealth Advisors for 2020 & Forbes Best In State Wealth Advisors for 2020

Ranking is for Randy Conner of Churchill Management Group (“CMG”). CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Rankings, but may purchase reprints of the Forbes article. The rankings were developed by SHOOK Research, and are based on an algorithm of qualitative criteria, mostly gained through telephone and in-person due diligence interviews, and quantitative data. Those advisors that are considered have a minimum of seven years experience, and the algorithm weighs factors like revenue trends, assets under management, compliance records, industry experience and those that encompass best practices in their practices and approach to working with clients. Portfolio performance is not a criterion due to varying client objectives and lack of audited data. Neither Forbes or SHOOK receive a fee in exchange for rankings. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects a quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance.

Forbes Top 250 Wealth Advisors for 2019 & Forbes Best In State Wealth Advisors for 2020

Ranking is for Randy Conner of Churchill Management Group (“CMG”). CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Rankings, but may purchase reprints of the Forbes article. The rankings were developed by SHOOK Research, and are based on an algorithm of qualitative criteria, mostly gained through telephone and in-person due diligence interviews, and quantitative data. Those advisors that are considered have a minimum of seven years experience, and the algorithm weighs factors like revenue trends, assets under management, compliance records, industry experience and those that encompass best practices in their practices and approach to working with clients. Portfolio performance is not a criterion due to varying client objectives and lack of audited data. Neither Forbes or SHOOK receive a fee in exchange for rankings. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects a quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance.

Forbes Top 250 Wealth Advisors for 2018 & Forbes Best In State Wealth Advisors for for 2018

Rankings are for Randy Conner of Churchill Management Group (“CMG”). CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Rankings, but may purchase reprints of the Forbes articles. The rankings, which were developed by Forbes’ partner Shook Research, are each based on in-person and telephone due-diligence meetings and a ranking algorithm for advisors who have a minimum of seven years of experience. The ranking algorithms are based on quality of practice learned through telephone and in-person interviews, client retention, industry experience, review of compliance records, firm nominations; and quantitative criteria, including: assets under management and revenue generated for their firms. Investment performance is not a criterion because client objectives and risk tolerances vary, and advisors rarely have audited performance reports. Rankings are based on the opinions of SHOOK Research, LLC which does not receive compensation from the advisors or their firms in exchange for placement on a ranking. The State Ranking is limited to advisors in the State of California.

Forbes Top 250 Wealth Advisors for 2017 & Forbes Best In State Wealth Advisors for for 2018

Forbes – Top 250 Wealth Advisors for 2017

The Forbes ranking is for Randy Connor of Churchill Management Group (“CMG”). The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects a quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the Rankings, but may purchase reprints of the Forbes article.

According to Forbes: The ranking, which was developed by Forbes’ partner Shook Research, is based on in‐person and telephone due‐diligence meetings and a ranking algorithm for advisors who have a minimum of seven years of experience. The ranking algorithm is based on quality of practice learned through telephone and in‐person interviews, client retention, industry experience, review of compliance records, firm nominations; and quantitative criteria, including: assets under management and revenue generated for their firms. Investment performance is not a criterion because client objectives and risk tolerances vary, and advisors rarely have audited performance reports. Rankings are based on the opinions of SHOOK Research, LLC which does not receive compensation from the advisors or their firms in exchange for placement on a ranking.

Morningstar

Morningstar 5-Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (1Q23)

© 2023 Morningstar. All Rights Reserved. The information provided by Morningstar and contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar and/or its content providers; (2) may not be copied or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

The Morningstar Rating™ for funds, or “star rating”, is calculated for managed products (including mutual funds, variable annuity and variable life subaccounts, exchange-traded funds, closed-end funds, and separate accounts) with at least a three-year history. Exchange-traded funds and open-ended mutual funds are considered a single population for comparative purposes. It is calculated based on a Morningstar Risk-Adjusted Return measure that accounts for variation in a managed product’s monthly excess performance, placing more emphasis on downward variations and rewarding consistent performance. The Morningstar Rating does not include any adjustment for sales loads. The top 10% of products in each product category receive 5 stars, the next 22.5% receive 4 stars, the next 35% receive 3 stars, the next 22.5% receive 2 stars, and the bottom 10% receive 1 star. The Overall Morningstar Rating for a managed product is derived from a weighted average of the performance figures associated with its three-, five-, and 10-year (if applicable) Morningstar Rating metrics. The weights are: 100% three-year rating for 36-59 months of total returns, 60% five-year rating/40% three-year rating for 60-119 months of total returns, and 50% 10-year rating/30% five-year rating/20% three-year rating for 120 or more months of total returns. While the 10-year overall star rating formula seems to give the most weight to the 10- year period, the most recent three-year period actually has the greatest impact because it is included in all three rating periods.

ETF Sector Rotation was rated against 643 Large Blend funds. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the rating, but does pay to utilize the Morningstar logo and rating information. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects an analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance.

The overall Morningstar Rating is based on risk-adjusted gross returns, derived from a weighted average of the three-, five-, and 10-year (if applicable) Morningstar metrics. The performance data quoted represents past performance and does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate thus an investor’s separate account may be worth more or less than its original value. Actual performance of individual client accounts may vary.

The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the Morningstar Ranking and is not affiliated with Morningstar.

Morningstar 5-Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (4Q22)

© 2022 Morningstar. All Rights Reserved. The information provided by Morningstar and contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar and/or its content providers; (2) may not be copied or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

ETF Sector Rotation was rated against 626 Large Blend funds. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the rating, but does pay to utilize the Morningstar logo and rating information. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects an analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance.

Morningstar 5-Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (3Q22)

ETF Sector Rotation was rated against the following numbers of Large Blend funds over the following time periods: 618 funds in the last three years, 575 funds in the last five years, and 425 funds in the last ten years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the rating, but does pay to utilize the Morningstar logo and rating information. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects an analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance.

Morningstar 5-Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (2Q22)

ETF Sector Rotation was rated against the following numbers of Large Blend funds over the following time periods: 598 funds in the last three years, 558 funds in the last five years, and 413 funds in the last ten years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the rating, but does pay to utilize the Morningstar logo and rating information. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects an analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance.

Morningstar 5-Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (1Q22)

ETF Sector Rotation was rated against the following numbers of Large Blend funds over the following time periods: 509 funds in the last three years, 565 funds in the last five years, and 413 funds in the last ten years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the rating, but does pay to utilize the Morningstar logo and rating information. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects an analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance.

Morningstar 5-Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (4Q21)

© 2021 Morningstar. All Rights Reserved. The information provided by Morningstar and contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar and/or its content providers; (2) may not be copied or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

ETF Sector Rotation was rated against the following numbers of Large Blend funds over the following time periods: 616 funds in the last three years, 563 funds in the last five years, and 415 funds in the last ten years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the rating, but does pay to utilize the Morningstar logo and rating information. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects an analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance.

Morningstar 5-Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (3Q21)

ETF Sector Rotation was rated against the following numbers of Large Blend funds over the following time periods: 617 funds in the last three years, 552 funds in the last five years, and 403 funds in the last ten years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the rating, but does pay to utilize the Morningstar logo and rating information. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects an analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance.

Morningstar 5-Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (2Q21)

ETF Sector Rotation was rated against the following numbers of Large Blend funds over the following time periods: 611 funds in the last three years, 547 funds in the last five years, and 397 funds in the last ten years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the rating, but does pay to utilize the Morningstar logo and rating information. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects an analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance.

Morningstar 5-Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (1Q21)

ETF Sector Rotation was rated against the following numbers of Large Blend funds over the following time periods: 582 funds in the last three years, 510 funds in the last five years, and 386 funds in the last ten years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the rating, but does pay to utilize the Morningstar logo and rating information. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects an analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance.

Morningstar 5-Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (4Q20)

© 2020 Morningstar. All Rights Reserved. The information provided by Morningstar and contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar and/or its content providers; (2) may not be copied or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

ETF Sector Rotation was rated against the following numbers of Large Blend funds over the following time periods: 586 funds in the last three years, 516 funds in the last five years, and 384 funds in the last ten years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the rating, but does pay to utilize the Morningstar logo and rating information. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects an analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance.

Morningstar 5-Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (3Q20)

ETF Sector Rotation was rated against the following numbers of Large Blend funds over the following time periods: 570 funds in the last three years, 492 funds in the last five years, and 372 funds in the last ten years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the rating, but does pay to utilize the Morningstar logo and rating information. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects an analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance.

Morningstar 5-Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (2Q20)

ETF Sector Rotation was rated against the following numbers of Large Blend funds over the following time periods: 577 funds in the last three years, 506 funds in the last five years, and 377 funds in the last ten years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the rating, but does pay to utilize the Morningstar logo and rating information. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects an analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance.

Morningstar 5 Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (1Q20)

ETF Sector Rotation was rated against the following numbers of Large Blend funds over the following time periods: 555 funds in the last three years, 486 funds in the last five years, and 363 funds in the last ten years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the rating, but does pay to utilize the Morningstar logo and rating information. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects an analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance.

Morningstar 5 Star Ranking – ETF Sector Rotation (3Q18)

Rating is based on risk-adjusted gross returns, derived from a weighted average of the three-, five-, and 10-year (if applicable) Morningstar metrics. The performance data quoted represents past performance and does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate thus an investor’s separate account may be worth more or less than its original value. Actual performance of individual client accounts may vary. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the Morningstar Ranking and is not affiliated with Morningstar.

Morningstar 5 Star Ranking – Premier Wealth Tactical Core (2Q18)

Morningstar 5 Star Ranking – Premier Wealth Tactical Core (1Q18)

Morningstar Managed Portfolio Landscape

4Q17: Based upon Morningstar’s 4th Quarter 2017 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 5-Year Return (it ranked 9th for its 3-Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 1,180 strategies from 182 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $123 billion through December 2017.

3Q17: Based upon Morningstar’s 3rd Quarter 2017 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 5-Year Return (it was not ranked for its 3-Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 1,093 strategies from 179 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $115 billion through September 2017.

2Q17: Based upon Morningstar’s 2nd Quarter 2017 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 5‐Year Return (it was not ranked for its 3‐Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 1,023 strategies from 178 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $107 billion through June 2017.

1Q17: Based upon Morningstar’s 1st Quarter 2017 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 5-Year Return (it was not ranked for its 3-Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 950 strategies from 169 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $99.7 billion through March 2017. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the Morningstar Ranking and is not affiliated with Morningstar.

4Q16: Based upon Morningstar’s 4th Quarter 2016 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 5-Year Return (it was not ranked for its 3-Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 881 strategies from 162 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $84.8 billion through December 2016. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the Morningstar Ranking and is not affiliated with Morningstar.

3Q16: Based upon Morningstar’s 3rd Quarter 2016 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 5-Year Return (it ranked 10th for its 3-Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 838 strategies from 157 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $87.6 billion through September 2016. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the Morningstar Ranking and is not affiliated with Morningstar.

2Q16: Based upon Morningstar’s 2nd Quarter 2016 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 5‐Year Return (it ranked 14th for its 3‐Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 787 strategies from 151 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $84 billion through June 2016. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the Morningstar Ranking and is not affiliated with Morningstar.

1Q16: Based upon Morningstar’s 1st Quarter 2016 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 5‐Year Return (it ranked 11th for its 3‐Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 770 strategies from 156 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $76 billion through March 2016. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the Morningstar Ranking and is not affiliated with Morningstar.

4Q15: Based upon Morningstar’s 4th Quarter 2015 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 3‐Year Return (it ranked 3rd for its 5‐Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 755 strategies from 154 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $73 billion through December 2015. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the Morningstar Ranking and is not affiliated with Morningstar.

3Q15: Based upon Morningstar’s 3rd Quarter 2015 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 5‐Year Return (it ranked 4th for its 3‐Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 737 strategies from 148 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $75 billion through September 2015. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the Morningstar Ranking and is not affiliated with Morningstar.

2Q15: Based upon Morningstar’s 2nd Quarter 2015 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 5‐Year Return (it ranked 6th for its 3‐Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 770 strategies from 153 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $80 billion through June 2015. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the Morningstar Ranking and is not affiliated with Morningstar.

1Q15: Based upon Morningstar’s 1st Quarter 2015 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 5‐Year Return (it ranked 6th for its 3‐Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 700 strategies from 151 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $86 billion through March 2015. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the Morningstar Ranking and is not affiliated with Morningstar.

4Q14: Based upon Morningstar’s 1st Quarter 2015 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 5‐Year Return (it ranked 6th for its 3‐Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 699 strategies from 146 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $91 billion through December 2014. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the Morningstar Ranking and is not affiliated with Morningstar.

3Q14: Based upon Morningstar’s 1st Quarter 2015 ETF Managed Portfolios Landscape for its 5‐Year Return (it ranked 3rd for its 3‐Year Return). Morningstar is tracking 677 strategies from 143 firms with total assets (AUM and AUA) of $96 billion through September 2014. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the Morningstar Ranking and is not affiliated with Morningstar.

PSN

PSN – Manager of the Decade 4Q22 – ETF Sector Rotation Strategy

The PSN universes were created using the information collected through the PSN investment manager questionnaire and use only gross of fee returns. Products must have an R-Squared of 0.80 or greater relative to the style benchmark for the latest ten year period. Moreover, products must have returns greater than the style benchmark for the latest ten year period and also standard deviation less than the style benchmark for the latest ten year period. At this point, the top ten performers for the latest 10 year period become the PSN Top Guns Manager of the Decade. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the PSN Top Gun Manager of the Decade rankings and is not affiliated with PSN.

PSN – Manager of the Decade 4Q21 – ETF Sector Rotation Strategy

PSN – Manager of the Decade 4Q20 – ETF Sector Rotation Strategy

4Q18 – ETF Sector Rotation

Using a proprietary blend of its clients’ top priority performance screens PSN Top Guns ranks products in six propriety star categories in over 50 universes. The PSN 6 Star Category reflects the top ten returns for the latest five year period. The ratings are based on peer groups created using the information collected through the PSN investment manager questionnaire and uses only gross of fee returns. PSN Top Guns investment managers must claim that they are GIPs compliant. Products must have an R-Squared of 0.80 or greater relative to the style benchmark for the recent five year period. Moreover, products must have returns greater than the style benchmark for the three latest three-year rolling periods. The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the ranking reflects composite performance of multiple clients. The ranking is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay to participate in the PSN Top Gun rankings and is not affiliated with PSN.

2Q18 – ETF Sector Rotation

1Q18 – ETF Sector Rotation

Churchill does not solicit or encourage third parties to post anything on the Firm’s behalf, including endorsements, and the Firm is not responsible for any third party comments.

The purpose of the Churchill Management Group LinkedIn page, Facebook page and Twitter account (the “Churchill Social Media Accounts”) is to provide information about Churchill Management Group. The information that appears on the Churchill Social Media Accounts should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to sell securities or provide investment advisory or consulting services over the internet. Services will only be provided upon execution of a written agreement with Churchill Management Group. Churchill Management Group will not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses or expenses arising in connection with the use or reliance on any information portrayed on any of the Churchill Social Media Accounts. If you are a Churchill Management Group client and have questions or concerns that are specific to your account(s), please contact Churchill Management Group directly. Churchill Management Group monitors the Churchill Social Media Accounts and removes unauthorized content or endorsements that may be deemed to be testimonial in nature. Any deletion of comments or content should not be understood to be an approval, endorsement, or adoption of any comments and content that is not deleted. More information about Churchill Management Group can be found at www.churchillmanagement.com.

Information presented on the Churchill Social Media Accounts is believed to be factual and up-to-date, but Churchill Management Group does not guarantee its accuracy and the information presented should not be regarded as a complete analysis of the subjects discussed. All expressions of opinion reflect the judgment of the authors as of the date of publication and are subject to change. Churchill Management Group may post links to other websites on its Churchill Social Media Accounts. Churchill Management Group does not control or monitor these sites, nor does it assume responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the information located there. Churchill Management Group does not necessarily endorse or recommend any commercial product or service described at any linked websites.

Churchill Management Group is not affiliated with LinkedIn, Facebook or Twitter and recommends that each user reads and understands the privacy policies and terms of service of those social media platforms and understands how such user’s information can be displayed and used throughout LinkedIn, Facebook or Twitter as well as other third-party sites that may be linked to such social media platforms.

Specific disclosures relating to content that has appeared on the Churchill Social Media Accounts from time to time are described below.

Linked In Page Disclosures:

The purpose of this page is to provide information about Churchill Management Group. The information provided on this page should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to sell securities or provide investment advisory or consulting services over the internet. Services will only be provided upon execution of a written agreement with Churchill Management Group. Churchill Management Group will not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses or expenses arising in connection with the use or reliance on any information contained herein. If you are a Churchill Management Group client and have questions or concerns that are specific to your account(s), please contact Churchill Management Group directly. Churchill Management Group does not accept endorsements on this page. More information about Churchill Management Group can be found at www.churchillmanagement.com.

Information presented on this page is believed to be factual and up-to-date, but Churchill Management Group does not guarantee its accuracy and the information presented should not be regarded as a complete analysis of the subjects discussed. All expressions of opinion reflect the judgment of the authors as of the date of publication and are subject to change. Churchill Management Group may post links to other websites on this page. Churchill Management Group does not control or monitor these sites, nor does it assume responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the information located there. Churchill Management Group does not necessarily endorse or recommend any commercial product or service described at any linked websites.

Linked In Post Disclosure:

This report is meant to inform the reader of our current market opinion, which we, as professional money managers, use in our decision-making. It should be noted that stock market and bond market data are subject to varying interpretations and any one interpretation will not necessarily guarantee investment success. The information obtained from the sources specified herein and used as basis for our current market opinion is believed reliable, but we do not guarantee the accuracy of such information.

Linked In Post From 2/3/16:

Newer accounts may be even less invested as we were waiting to build up their percentage invested until they had some profits. Of course, additional factors such as whether we have full discretion, account opening date and specific client restrictions could impact the percentage invested further.

Wealth Management.com

Wealth Management Ranking Disclosure (2015)

WealthManagement.com‘s “Top100 RIAs of 2015” ranking was assembled using data from Meridian-IQ (in which Penton Media has a stake). Advisory firms are ranked by total assets under management.To land on the list, firms had to have a focus on financial and retirement planning for individual and high-net-worth Clients. Institutional Clients do not make up a substantial portion of their businesses. Finally, none of these firms are owned by a bank, broker/dealer or investment company. The rating may not be representative of any one client’s experience because the rating reflects a quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors that may include only a sample of the experience of CMG’s Clients. The rating is not indicative of future performance. CMG did not pay a fee to participate in the ranking.