Key Takeaways
- • Pennsylvania's Public School Employees' Retirement System (PSERS) faces a $41 billion funding shortfall as of December 31, 2025, with the $85.3 billion fund falling significantly short of its obligations to 500,000 members and beneficiaries.
- • Private equity was the primary culprit in underperformance: PSERS' $10.1 billion private equity allocation returned only 2.59% against a 10.06% target, reducing overall fund returns by 0.59 percentage points—more than any other asset class.
- • Private equity missed PSERS' benchmarks across all measured time horizons (one-, three-, five-, 10-, and 15-year periods), making it the only asset class among eight to consistently underperform established targets.
- • Pennsylvania taxpayers will bear the cost of the shortfall through increased state contributions to maintain benefit promises, placing officials in a difficult position between boosting funding or reallocating capital to higher-performing investments.
- • PSERS Chief Investment Officer Ben Cotton attributed underperformance partly to benchmark methodology, citing differences in the fund's private equity strategy mix and fund vintage composition compared to its benchmark index.
Summary
Pennsylvania's largest public pension fund is grappling with a substantial $41 billion funding gap that underscores mounting challenges in the private equity allocation strategy pursued by many institutional investors. As of December 31, 2025, the Public School Employees' Retirement System held $85.3 billion in assets, positioning it among the nation's largest public pension funds. Yet the fund's unfunded liability signals deeper structural problems in how it has deployed capital, particularly within alternative investments.
The root cause centers on private equity performance. PSERS allocated $10.1 billion to private equity with an expected return target of 10.06%, but the asset class delivered only 2.59% in annual returns. This dramatic shortfall reduced the fund's overall return by 0.59 percentage points—a larger drag than any of its seven other asset classes. More troubling, an investigation by The Center Square found that private equity was the only asset class to miss PSERS' established benchmarks consistently across one-, three-, five-, 10-, and 15-year measurement periods, indicating a systemic performance problem rather than a temporary market dislocation.
The funding gap carries real fiscal consequences. Pennsylvania taxpayers will ultimately absorb much of the cost as the state increases contributions to honor pension obligations to 500,000 members and their beneficiaries. Leonard Gilroy, senior managing director of the pension integrity project at the Reason Foundation, characterized the situation as a bind for state officials. "For most state pensions, they're not getting outsized returns; they're taking on a bunch of risk; and they pay fees to limited partners at private equity firms," Gilroy said. "That puts state officials in the position of either needing to invest more taxpayer funds or find better investments."
PSERS officials declined an interview but offered limited explanation through Chief Investment Officer Ben Cotton, who stated in an email that the benchmark does not precisely match the fund's private equity portfolio due to differences in investment strategy mix and the vintage composition of older and newer funds held within the allocation. This defense highlights an ongoing debate among pension managers about whether benchmarks accurately capture private equity performance or whether alternative methodologies better reflect actual fund experience and risk exposure.
The root cause centers on private equity performance. PSERS allocated $10.1 billion to private equity with an expected return target of 10.06%, but the asset class delivered only 2.59% in annual returns. This dramatic shortfall reduced the fund's overall return by 0.59 percentage points—a larger drag than any of its seven other asset classes. More troubling, an investigation by The Center Square found that private equity was the only asset class to miss PSERS' established benchmarks consistently across one-, three-, five-, 10-, and 15-year measurement periods, indicating a systemic performance problem rather than a temporary market dislocation.
The funding gap carries real fiscal consequences. Pennsylvania taxpayers will ultimately absorb much of the cost as the state increases contributions to honor pension obligations to 500,000 members and their beneficiaries. Leonard Gilroy, senior managing director of the pension integrity project at the Reason Foundation, characterized the situation as a bind for state officials. "For most state pensions, they're not getting outsized returns; they're taking on a bunch of risk; and they pay fees to limited partners at private equity firms," Gilroy said. "That puts state officials in the position of either needing to invest more taxpayer funds or find better investments."
PSERS officials declined an interview but offered limited explanation through Chief Investment Officer Ben Cotton, who stated in an email that the benchmark does not precisely match the fund's private equity portfolio due to differences in investment strategy mix and the vintage composition of older and newer funds held within the allocation. This defense highlights an ongoing debate among pension managers about whether benchmarks accurately capture private equity performance or whether alternative methodologies better reflect actual fund experience and risk exposure.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.