Key Takeaways
- • Private equity funds underperformed the S&P 500 significantly over recent periods, returning less than an 18.3% annualized return over three years and 12% over five years, compared to broad market index performance that exceeded PE returns during this window.
- • Despite short-term underperformance, Cambridge Associates' private equity index delivered 12.8% annualized returns over 25 years (ending 2025) versus 10% for the S&P 500, demonstrating that long-term PE performance remains competitive despite recent weakness.
- • Private equity maintains access restrictions to accredited investors only—requiring net worth exceeding $1 million (excluding primary residence) or annual income above $200,000—while charging substantially higher fees than low-cost index funds, yet these barriers have not guaranteed superior recent returns.
- • Private assets offer potential diversification benefits and access to pre-IPO investment opportunities unavailable in public markets, but liquidity constraints and fee structures remain material drawbacks that investors must weigh against public market alternatives.
- • The recent underperformance challenges the traditional PE value proposition of exclusivity and premium fee structures, prompting institutional investors to reassess whether restricted-access investments justify their cost differential compared to transparent, liquid index strategies.
Summary
Private equity funds have failed to deliver the premium returns historically expected from exclusive, fee-heavy investment vehicles, with recent performance trailing significantly behind the S&P 500. Over a three-year period, the S&P 500 generated 18.3% annualized returns, while over five years it produced 12% annually—returns that substantially exceeded typical private equity fund performance during these periods. This underperformance is particularly striking given private equity's positioning as a superior alternative asset class justified by restricted access, higher fees, and claimed access to unique investment opportunities.
Access to private equity remains tightly gatekept through accredited investor requirements, mandating net worth exceeding $1 million (excluding primary residence) or annual individual income surpassing $200,000. This exclusivity framework, combined with substantially higher fee structures than low-cost index alternatives, has historically been justified by managers through claims of alpha generation and differentiated return potential. Yet recent years have exposed this thesis to significant challenge, as investors could have achieved substantially stronger returns by simply deploying capital into low-cost S&P 500 index funds rather than paying premium fees for restricted private equity access.
However, the longer-term track record provides meaningful context to recent underperformance. According to Cambridge Associates' private equity index, the asset class delivered 12.8% annualized returns over the 25-year period ending in 2025, outperforming the S&P 500's 10% annualized return during the same span. This historical perspective suggests that cyclical underperformance does not negate PE's long-term positioning, though it raises questions about fund-selection risk and fee efficiency in the current market environment.
Private equity still offers structural advantages unavailable in public markets. As Jon Baranko, chief investment officer at Allspring, noted to CNBC, private assets provide exposure to companies years before public market debuts, enabling investors to participate in earlier-stage value creation. Managers can employ leverage to finance acquisitions and benefit from younger business development trajectories. Additionally, private investment performance drivers may diverge from public equities and bonds, potentially enhancing portfolio diversification. However, these benefits are substantially offset by liquidity constraints—shares in public companies and ETFs offer ready exit mechanisms unavailable in most private equity partnerships—and higher fee burdens that compress net-of-fees returns for limited partners.
The present performance gap underscores a critical reassessment among institutional and family office investors regarding fee-return tradeoffs in alternative assets. While private equity retains legitimate positioning as a long-term, diversifying asset class, the recent underperformance relative to liquid, transparent, and significantly cheaper index alternatives has diminished the traditional justification for exclusive access and premium pricing structures.
Access to private equity remains tightly gatekept through accredited investor requirements, mandating net worth exceeding $1 million (excluding primary residence) or annual individual income surpassing $200,000. This exclusivity framework, combined with substantially higher fee structures than low-cost index alternatives, has historically been justified by managers through claims of alpha generation and differentiated return potential. Yet recent years have exposed this thesis to significant challenge, as investors could have achieved substantially stronger returns by simply deploying capital into low-cost S&P 500 index funds rather than paying premium fees for restricted private equity access.
However, the longer-term track record provides meaningful context to recent underperformance. According to Cambridge Associates' private equity index, the asset class delivered 12.8% annualized returns over the 25-year period ending in 2025, outperforming the S&P 500's 10% annualized return during the same span. This historical perspective suggests that cyclical underperformance does not negate PE's long-term positioning, though it raises questions about fund-selection risk and fee efficiency in the current market environment.
Private equity still offers structural advantages unavailable in public markets. As Jon Baranko, chief investment officer at Allspring, noted to CNBC, private assets provide exposure to companies years before public market debuts, enabling investors to participate in earlier-stage value creation. Managers can employ leverage to finance acquisitions and benefit from younger business development trajectories. Additionally, private investment performance drivers may diverge from public equities and bonds, potentially enhancing portfolio diversification. However, these benefits are substantially offset by liquidity constraints—shares in public companies and ETFs offer ready exit mechanisms unavailable in most private equity partnerships—and higher fee burdens that compress net-of-fees returns for limited partners.
The present performance gap underscores a critical reassessment among institutional and family office investors regarding fee-return tradeoffs in alternative assets. While private equity retains legitimate positioning as a long-term, diversifying asset class, the recent underperformance relative to liquid, transparent, and significantly cheaper index alternatives has diminished the traditional justification for exclusive access and premium pricing structures.
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.