← All portfolios

CalPERS

CalPERS Total Fund policy portfolio (strategic asset allocation 2021, with the 2025 move to a 75/25 Reference Portfolio)

CalPERS Board of Administration and Investment Office (California Public Employees' Retirement System) · Current published policy mix: November 2021 asset-liability review (effective 1 July 2022), revised mid-cycle in fiscal 2023-24; Reference Portfolio approved 17 November 2025 (implementation targeted for July 2026)

Live account on this site. This portfolio is also tracked here with a virtual $100,000 since 21.10.2026. Live account on this site →

Where it stands today

Data through 2026-09. Updated every month.

Since January+7.4 %
Last 12 months+9.3 %
Last 5 years, per year+5.7 %
Now below the peak−2.9 %
Place by 12 months35 / 60

Our calculation, 1926-07 – 2026-09

Per year9.3 %
Real (after inflation)6.1 %
Volatility13.5 %
Worst drop−68.1 %
Worst year−31.0 % (1931)
Best year57.6 %
Worst 12 months−48.6 %
Positive years78 %

37 % of this history is calculated with stand-ins for asset classes that did not exist yet (see “How we model it” and the page about data). Without stand-ins the history starts in 1993.

Growth of $10,000

$4,147$35,740$308,016$2,654,584$22,878,060$197,170,5081930194019501960197019801990200020102020
CalPERS: $74,858,572S&P 500: $196,488,890

Where it came from

CalPERS is the pension system for California public employees and the largest public pension fund in the United States. Its main fund (PERF, Public Employees' Retirement Fund) was valued at about 556 billion dollars on 30 June 2025 according to CalPERS trust-level material, and news coverage in November 2025 quoted about 590 billion dollars. Unlike a model portfolio built by an author, the 'CalPERS portfolio' is a policy decision of a board: every few years the board runs an asset-liability management (ALM) cycle with the actuary, chooses capital market assumptions, an actuarial discount rate and a strategic asset allocation (SAA) that is expected to deliver that discount rate at an acceptable risk of loss.

Before the 2021 cycle, the policy targets in force were (CalPERS trust-level report, March 2022): public equity 50 percent, private equity 8, income (fixed income) 28, real assets 13, with liquidity at about 1 percent and a financing range from minus 6 to plus 3 percent. In the same period CalPERS grouped assets into broad factor-like buckets (growth, income, inflation, liquidity) in its own reporting.

In November 2021 the board completed the ALM review and approved a new SAA. CalPERS reports in its 2022 annual investment report that it kept the discount rate at 6.8 percent (the rate had fallen from 7 percent in July 2021 after strong returns triggered an automatic cut under the Funding Risk Mitigation Policy), added 5 percent leverage for diversification, and accepted an expected volatility of about 12.1 percent. The resulting policy mix, shown in a March 2024 CalPERS staff paper, was: public equity 42 percent (plus or minus 7), private equity 13 (plus or minus 5), fixed income 30 (plus or minus 6), private debt 5 (plus or minus 5), real assets 15 (plus or minus 5) and a leverage of minus 5 percent. CalPERS describes the idea as more liquidity and a more defensive stance in public markets, offset by more private-market exposure.

During fiscal 2023-24 the board carried out a mid-cycle review and, following a staff proposal that relaxed the cap on private equity used in 2021, approved a second mix: public equity 37, private equity 17, fixed income 28, private debt 8, real assets 15, leverage minus 5 (the same documents say total private assets would rise from 33 to 40 percent of the fund and total equity exposure move from 55 to 54 percent). Because private markets cannot be bought quickly, the board set interim targets that move step by step. A CalPERS fact sheet for 2024-25 lists the interim policy weights effective 1 July 2025 as: global equity 40.4, fixed income 29.1, private equity 15.0, real assets 15.0, private debt 3.5 and total fund financing minus 3.0 percent.

On 17 November 2025 the board voted to abandon the strategic asset allocation as its governance tool and adopt a Total Portfolio Approach. Instead of target weights for asset classes with ranges, the board now sets a single Reference Portfolio and an active risk limit. The Reference Portfolio is 75 percent global equity (cap-weighted) and 25 percent US Treasuries (maturity of one year and longer), up from an 'approximately 72/28' starting point. The active-risk limit is 400 basis points of tracking error (the current portfolio runs at about 230, and the expected operating range is 250 to 350). The discount rate stayed at 6.8 percent. CalPERS says the 75/25 reference portfolio balances its long-run risk tolerance with the board's expressed tolerance for more risk when conviction is high. Implementation is targeted for July 2026 and the Chair requested a governance review within two years of implementation. The details of the proposal come from the board paper and the Wilshire attachment; the vote date and fund size come from press coverage and the CalPERS news release.

What is in it

Public equity (global equity)42%Policy portfolio approved November 2021, range plus or minus 7 points. Earlier policy 50 percent; mid-cycle revision 37; interim target for 1 July 2025: 40.4. Since 1 July 2026 CalPERS measures the total fund against a single 75/25 Reference Portfolio instead of these asset-class targets (see history notes).
Private equity13%Range plus or minus 5. Earlier policy 8 percent; revision 17 percent; interim 15.0.
Fixed income30%Range plus or minus 6. Earlier policy 28 percent ('income'); revision 28; interim 29.1.
Private debt5%Range plus or minus 5. Revision 8 percent; interim 3.5.
Real assets (real estate, infrastructure, forestland)15%Range plus or minus 5. Earlier policy 13 percent; same 15 in revision; interim 15.0.
Leverage / total fund financing-5%Borrowing used mainly to hold more lower-risk assets; revision also minus 5; interim minus 3.0. Weights above plus leverage sum to 100 percent.

Source of the shares: CalPERS, Agenda Item 6a Attachment 2: Capital market assumptions and SAA (Exhibit 1: current and recommended policy portfolio allocations), March 2024 — www.calpers.ca.gov. Exhibit 1 lists the current policy (42/13/30/5/15 and minus 5 leverage, ranges included) and the recommended Candidate Portfolio A (37/17/28/8/15, minus 5). The same paper says the current policy was approved in November 2021. The pre-2022 weights (50/8/28/13) are from the CalPERS trust-level update as of 31 March 2022; the interim 2025 weights are from the CalPERS 2024-25 Facts at a Glance. The interim targets for 1 July 2025 (40.4 / 15.0 / 29.1 / 3.5 / 15.0 and minus 3.0 financing) were checked against the CalPERS Facts at a Glance 2024-25 table. The newer Reference Portfolio comes from the November 2025 board agenda item 5a (staff slides and the Wilshire letter) and the CalPERS news release.

How we model it

US bond market (aggregate)28.6%
US large companies (S&P 500)24%
Real estate (REITs)14.2%
US small companies12.4%
Developed markets outside the US11%
Emerging markets5%
Corporate bonds4.8%

APPROXIMATION of the November 2021 policy with the minus 5 percent leverage ignored: the other five weights sum to 105 percent, so each was divided by 1.05 to sum to 1. Public equity (42/105 = 0.40) is split 60/27/12 into us_large / intl_dev / em as a rough global cap-weight proxy (our assumption, not a CalPERS number). Private equity (13/105) is replaced by us_small, a common but imperfect public proxy (private equity is illiquid, leveraged and valued with a lag). Fixed income (30/105) is replaced by bond_agg; private debt (5/105) by bond_corp; real assets (15/105, which include real estate, infrastructure and forest) by reit only, since we have no infrastructure series. Leverage, liquidity and CalPERS's use of non-cap-weighted equity are not captured. This mapping is the November 2021 policy and is the right basis for 2022 to mid-2026. From 1 July 2026 the board benchmark is the 75/25 Reference Portfolio: cap-weighted global equities plus US Treasuries of one-year maturity and longer. The specific indexes were still to be proposed by the consultant when the board voted. With the same regional split as above (60/28/12) the reference portfolio would map to about us_large 0.45, intl_dev 0.21, em 0.09 and bond_mid 0.25. That is our proxy, not a CalPERS asset-class mix, and the real fund will deviate from it within an active risk limit of 400 basis points (private equity, private debt, real assets, credit and leverage are held as active positions).

For a euro investor

The same portfolio bought with euros, without currency hedging: monthly returns converted at the end-of-month rate (German mark before 1999), inflation of the euro area. History in euros from 1953-10 to 2026-09.

Per year in euros8.7 %
After euro inflation5.8 %
Worst drop in euros−49.3 %
Worst year in euros−26.7 % (1973)
Safe withdrawal, 30 years, dollars4.02 % (1968-12)
Safe withdrawal, 30 years, euros2.95 % (1968-12)

The largest first-year withdrawal, then growing with inflation, that lasted 30 years from every monthly start. Test withdrawals for this portfolio →

How to build it with European funds

Examples of UCITS funds sold in the EU for each part of the portfolio. They track similar markets, not exactly the indices of our calculation.

PartShareExample funds (ISIN)
US bond market (aggregate) (closest match)28.6%iShares Core Global Aggregate Bond UCITS ETF EUR Hedged (Acc) IE00BDBRDM35
iShares Core Global Aggregate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) IE00B3F81409
US large companies (S&P 500)24%iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) IE00B5BMR087
Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (USD) Distributing IE00B3XXRP09
Real estate (REITs)14.2%iShares US Property Yield UCITS ETF IE00B1FZSF77
iShares Developed Markets Property Yield UCITS ETF IE00B1FZS350
US small companies12.4%SPDR Russell 2000 U.S. Small Cap UCITS ETF IE00BJ38QD84
iShares MSCI USA Small Cap ESG Enhanced CTB UCITS ETF USD (Acc) IE00B3VWM098
Developed markets outside the US (closest match)11%iShares Core MSCI Europe UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) IE00B4K48X80
iShares Core MSCI Japan IMI UCITS ETF IE00B4L5YX21
Emerging markets5%iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) IE00BKM4GZ66
Corporate bonds4.8%iShares USD Corporate Bond UCITS ETF (Dist) IE0032895942

These are examples, not recommendations. Check the fund's key information document, costs and taxes with your broker before buying. Names and ISINs checked on justETF on 4 November 2026; Udak receives nothing from these funds.

The idea

A public pension fund needs returns at least equal to its actuarial discount rate (6.8 percent) while keeping the chance of deep losses and employer contribution swings acceptable. CalPERS argues that spreading across public equity, private equity, credit and real assets and using some leverage to hold more safe bonds improves diversification versus a plain stock-bond portfolio. The 2024 staff paper reports that adding new asset classes and then leverage to a simple liquid portfolio reduces estimated drawdown risk step by step, starting from a simple portfolio with a drawdown risk of about minus 37 percent. In 2025 the argument shifts: staff say most of the portfolio can be approximated by a simple stock-bond mix and a single benchmark, and that judging each investment by its contribution to the whole fund adds value (staff target of 50 to 60 basis points of value from the new approach was reported by trade press).

How people buy it

Implemented by CalPERS's internal and external managers across public equity (cap-weighted and factor-weighted mandates), fixed income, private equity, private debt and real assets. There is no retail product. CalPERS's own 2024-25 fact sheet lists asset values: global equity 225.7, fixed income 187.1, private equity 102.9, real assets 74.5, short-term 22.5, private debt 22.0 billion dollars. A private investor can only copy the shape with listed funds: global equity, aggregate bonds, REITs and a small credit sleeve.

Rebalancing as published

Before 2025: policy weights with ranges (equity plus or minus 7, private equity plus or minus 5, fixed income plus or minus 6, real assets plus or minus 5) and periodic ALM reviews with mid-cycle checks (full reviews in November 2021 and 2025, mid-cycle check in 2023-24; the cycle length is our reading of those dates, not a quoted rule). From the Total Portfolio Approach: no asset-class ranges; the fund must stay within a 400 basis point active-risk limit relative to the 75/25 Reference Portfolio, with 250 to 350 basis points expected in normal operation. ALM reviews continue.

Variants

Criticism

Through the eras

EraDatesTotalPer yearWorst dropS&P 500
Roaring Twenties boom1926-07 – 1929-08+88.2 %+22.1 %−4.5 %+153.7 %
Wall Street crash and Great Contraction1929-09 – 1932-07−60.1 %−27.0 %−68.1 %−78.2 %
New Deal recovery1932-08 – 1937-02+207.2 %+27.7 %−26.1 %+268.7 %
Recession within the Depression1937-03 – 1938-03−38.4 %−36.1 %−39.0 %−49.5 %
Rearmament and World War II1938-04 – 1945-09+171.0 %+14.2 %−17.1 %+205.8 %
Postwar expansion1945-10 – 1965-12+689.5 %+10.7 %−18.4 %+1212.9 %
Golden age of the 1950s1950-01 – 1959-12+262.4 %+13.7 %−10.7 %+438.8 %
Go-go years and nifty-fifty1966-01 – 1968-12+37.5 %+11.2 %−11.5 %+34.0 %
The Great Inflation (stagflation)1969-01 – 1982-07+128.3 %+6.3 %−30.4 %+84.6 %
1973-74 oil shock and bear market1973-01 – 1974-12−27.1 %−14.6 %−30.3 %−41.7 %
Second oil shock and the Volcker disinflation1979-01 – 1982-08+56.2 %+12.9 %−11.1 %+59.2 %
Great bull market in stocks and bonds1982-08 – 1999-12+1011.6 %+14.8 %−19.6 %+2060.4 %
Black Monday1987-08 – 1987-12−14.3 %—−19.6 %−21.8 %
Savings-and-loan crisis and 1990 recession1990-07 – 1991-03+6.0 %—−11.8 %+7.4 %
1994 bond market massacre1994-02 – 1994-12−3.3 %—−4.7 %−3.2 %
Asian and Russian financial crises1997-07 – 1998-10+6.6 %+4.9 %−12.3 %+22.4 %
Dot-com bubble and crash2000-03 – 2002-10−6.7 %−2.6 %−11.6 %−37.2 %
Recovery and housing boom2002-11 – 2007-09+104.7 %+15.7 %−4.8 %+97.0 %
Global financial crisis2007-10 – 2009-03−33.4 %−23.7 %−38.3 %−44.7 %
The decade after the crisis2009-04 – 2019-12+232.8 %+11.8 %−12.4 %+411.2 %
Fourth-quarter 2018 sell-off2018-09 – 2018-12−9.3 %—−9.3 %−14.4 %
Covid crash and stimulus boom2020-02 – 2021-12+30.1 %+14.7 %−15.1 %+53.6 %
Inflation shock and rate hikes2022-01 – 2022-12−17.6 %−17.6 %−21.9 %−19.9 %

Calendar years

-31%58%1927: +22.9%1928: +25.9%1929: -9.3%1930: -21.4%19301931: -31.0%1932: -2.3%1933: +57.6%1934: +3.4%1935: +33.5%1936: +27.0%1937: -24.7%1938: +21.3%1939: +1.0%1940: -3.0%19401941: -6.7%1942: +15.4%1943: +26.0%1944: +20.8%1945: +32.1%1946: -4.2%1947: +2.6%1948: +1.8%1949: +14.2%1950: +24.9%19501951: +12.6%1952: +9.7%1953: +0.7%1954: +39.1%1955: +16.4%1956: +3.9%1957: -6.9%1958: +36.2%1959: +9.3%1960: +2.7%19601961: +19.1%1962: -4.4%1963: +15.7%1964: +12.4%1965: +13.7%1966: -4.2%1967: +24.6%1968: +15.1%1969: -11.6%1970: +6.6%19701971: +14.8%1972: +9.3%1973: -13.2%1974: -16.0%1975: +27.3%1976: +28.7%1977: +4.6%1978: +7.0%1979: +20.3%1980: +20.6%19801981: +2.1%1982: +28.6%1983: +18.6%1984: +9.3%1985: +29.7%1986: +17.5%1987: -0.5%1988: +14.6%1989: +20.8%1990: -4.9%19901991: +27.4%1992: +7.9%1993: +19.1%1994: -0.2%1995: +21.8%1996: +14.6%1997: +16.0%1998: +6.7%1999: +15.5%2000: +1.9%20002001: +1.3%2002: -5.4%2003: +29.0%2004: +14.9%2005: +8.3%2006: +16.6%2007: +4.2%2008: -23.5%2009: +24.1%2010: +16.4%20102011: +0.9%2012: +13.4%2013: +16.1%2014: +9.0%2015: -0.7%2016: +9.1%2017: +14.6%2018: -5.4%2019: +20.8%2020: +12.6%20202021: +15.3%2022: -17.6%2023: +14.6%2024: +9.2%2025: +13.3%

Any N-year period

Any N-year periodWorst10 % worse thanMedian10 % better thanBest
1 y (1192)−48.6 %−7.0 %+11.0 %+27.1 %+127.9 %
3 y (1168)−29.6 %−0.2 %+10.2 %+17.9 %+37.5 %
5 y (1144)−12.4 %+3.2 %+9.5 %+15.8 %+29.3 %
10 y (1084)−0.5 %+5.8 %+9.6 %+14.1 %+17.2 %
15 y (1024)+2.9 %+6.8 %+9.6 %+13.7 %+16.5 %
20 y (964)+4.3 %+7.4 %+9.9 %+13.0 %+14.7 %
30 y (844)+7.6 %+8.4 %+10.3 %+11.5 %+13.3 %

How it behaved in history

Published results (by others)

What we could not verify

Sources

Open in the builder

Put this card on your site →

Calculated on historical data. Past results do not predict the future. Models before the 1990s use stand-ins for classes that had no index yet; fees, taxes and fund costs are not included. This is mathematics, not an investment recommendation.