Your Pension, Their Fees, Nobody’s Contracts: Inside CalPERS’ $179 Billion Gamble
By Jose E. Navarro | The Navarro Report
On July 1, 2026, the largest public pension fund in the United States will do something no American pension fund has ever done.
It will stop managing retirement money by the rules everyone could see — and start making bets by rules most people cannot read.
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as CalPERS, holds the retirement security of 2.3 million public employees: teachers, county workers, transit operators, school custodians. As of last summer, it managed approximately $613 billion in assets. It is also $179 billion short of what it owes those workers in future benefits — a funding gap that has persisted for over two decades, survived two market crashes, and resisted nearly every corrective measure applied to it.
The fund’s answer to that hole is to double the bet.
Under a sweeping restructuring called the Total Portfolio Approach — launching July 1, just days away — CalPERS will eliminate the fixed allocations that previously capped how much of its portfolio could be invested in any single asset class, including private equity. CEO Marcie Frost calls it an “evolution.” Critics call it the removal of the last structural guardrail standing between 2.3 million public workers and a high-risk Wall Street strategy that can’t be fully audited — because CalPERS won’t show anyone the contracts.
A Fund in the Red, Reaching for More Risk
CalPERS’ funded ratio — the percentage of assets it holds relative to what it owes — stood at 71.4% in 2023. A strong FY2025 brought it to 79%. The target is 100%. The gap: $179 billion.
To close it, CalPERS has aggressively shifted its portfolio toward private equity and private credit — asset classes that carry management fees, performance fees, and administrative costs that do not appear in the headline numbers Frost presents to the public. The fund raised its private equity target allocation to 17% and established an 8% target for its newly created private credit portfolio. (CalMatters, May 2026)
On the surface, the strategy sounds defensible. Private equity historically claims higher returns than public markets. But there are three problems with that claim, and CalPERS has acknowledged none of them plainly.
First, the fees. Frost has publicly stated that CalPERS has reduced its management fees. What she does not state: those savings are routinely consumed by “carry” fees — performance fees of roughly 20% of profits — and administrative costs buried inside Limited Partnership Agreements that the public cannot see. A former SEC attorney writing in September 2025 on the Pension Warriors platform noted that if a private equity fund manager had published the same promotional article CalPERS released about its private equity strategy — with performance claims, no risk disclosure, and no fee transparency — it would raise “significant compliance red flags under U.S. federal and state securities laws.” CalPERS is not a fund manager. But it is a fiduciary managing public money. The standard should be higher, not lower.
Second, the benchmarks. When CalPERS compares its private equity performance to a standard, it does not use the S&P 500. It uses specialized private equity indices that are harder to verify and easier to beat. Over the last five years, simple, low-cost index funds have frequently matched or outperformed CalPERS’ expensive private equity portfolio — without the fees. (CalMatters, May 2026)
Third, the valuations. Unlike publicly traded stocks, private equity assets are not priced by the market. They are priced by the managers who own them, using internal formulas that estimate value rather than reflecting what a buyer would actually pay today. Private equity valuations lag public markets by three to nine months. When the stock market falls, private equity portfolios stay artificially inflated — masking the real damage for a quarter or more.
The Contracts Nobody Gets to Read
CalPERS’ private equity investments are governed by Limited Partnership Agreements — legal contracts between the fund and the Wall Street firms managing its money. Those contracts contain the actual fee structures, the actual performance triggers, and the actual terms of the arrangement.
CalPERS will not release them.
Frost has said publicly that CalPERS values transparency and wants better data from its investment partners. The fund’s Board of Administration voted in November 2025 to adopt the Total Portfolio Approach, which CalPERS described as increasing transparency and flexibility. But the Limited Partnership Agreements remain shielded — not just from the public, but from full scrutiny by the board members who approved the strategy. (CalMatters, May 2026; Pension Warriors, Sept. 2025)
The California Legislature tried to fix this. Senate Bill 1319 — the Private Equity Sunshine Act — would have required CalPERS to disclose fee structures and public benchmarking data for its private equity portfolio. Labor coalitions and retirement associations supported it. CalPERS lobbied against it aggressively, claiming the disclosure requirement would trigger “billions of dollars in lost returns” and force “sharp employee contribution hikes.” Those claims were never substantiated. The bill died anyway. (CalMatters, May 2026)
The result: CalPERS keeps members uninformed about structural risks until major losses emerge — at which point the fund will ask those same members to pay more.
The CEO’s Bonus, the Members’ Gap
Here is what does not stay hidden: Marcie Frost’s compensation.
In September 2025, the CalPERS Board awarded Frost a FY2025 performance bonus of $766,782 — a 15% increase over the prior year. Her base salary: $619,440. Total package: approximately $1.386 million. (Pensions & Investments, Sept. 17, 2025)
This is the salary and bonus structure of a fund that is $179 billion underfunded. That is not a contradiction Frost has addressed publicly. The fund’s own press releases frame the 79% funded ratio as progress, noting it has risen from 71.4% in 2023. What they do not note is that 79% still means 2.3 million public workers are owed $179 billion more than the fund currently holds — and that if the private equity strategy fails to close that gap, the cost does not fall on Wall Street. It falls on the workers, the municipalities, and the taxpayers of California.
July 1: The Guardrail Comes Off
The Total Portfolio Approach changes the fundamental architecture of how CalPERS invests.
Under the old strategic asset allocation model, the board set fixed percentage targets for each asset class — equities, bonds, real estate, private equity. Private equity had a cap. Staff could not exceed it without explicit board approval.
Under TPA, there are no fixed asset class allocations. Every investment is evaluated solely on whether it contributes to the total portfolio’s performance, measured against a single reference benchmark of 75% equities and 25% bonds. The cap is gone. Private equity can grow as large as the investment team decides it should — as long as they argue it helps the whole portfolio.
CalPERS is the first U.S. public pension to adopt this model. No one has tested it at this scale, with this level of public liability, in this interest rate and market environment. (CalPERS Board, Nov. 2025; Chief Investment Officer, Nov. 2025)
Frost has called the TPA launch a “bold step.” The board approved it unanimously.
The 2.3 million workers whose retirement security depends on the outcome were not asked.
Who Bears the Risk
The demographics of CalPERS membership are not incidental to this story.
California’s public sector workforce is among the most diverse in the nation. Disproportionate shares of CalPERS members are Latino, Black, and working-class — the teachers’ aides, transit workers, county hospital staff, and school employees who have spent careers in public service partly because the pension was part of the deal. If CalPERS’ private equity strategy underperforms, the consequences land on contribution rates for employees and the public agencies that employ them. Cities and counties in Southern California — including those with majority-Latino populations — would face budget pressure to increase their employer contributions, reducing money available for services.
That is not a hypothetical. It is the documented mechanism of how underfunded public pensions transfer risk from investment managers to public workers and taxpayers. It happened in 2009. It will happen again if the bet fails.
The question worth asking is not whether CalPERS’ private equity strategy will work. It might. The question is why a fund managing $613 billion in public money, for the benefit of 2.3 million public workers, is allowed to make increasingly risky investments through contracts it refuses to disclose — while its CEO earns $1.386 million, its legislature-backed transparency bill is dead, and its last structural cap on risk goes away on July 1.
When the person managing your retirement refuses to show you the contract, that is not investing. That is a one-sided bet.
Jose E. Navarro is a journalist and founder of The Navarro Report, covering California accountability, fiscal policy, and the U.S.-Mexico border region. He has been published in the Times of San Diego.
Sources: