Julie Shu and Cassandra Robertson of The Century Foundation wrote a comment on how pension funds can support growth and build an economy that supports workers:

Private equity firms have increasingly come under fire for actions that are making life more difficult and unaffordable, such as driving up the prices of single-family homes, closing hospitals that aren’t profitable enough, and laying off workers at companies they have purchased. New efforts by public pension funds are hoping to counter these bad practices and instead promote investments that benefit communities and workers. 

Public pension funds have the ability to drive investment in our economy to promote shared prosperity while seeking competitive risk-adjusted returns. These funds represent over $6 trillion in capital, and are the collective retirement savings of millions of teachers, firefighters, nurses, sanitation workers, and other public employees who have earned these benefits through years of service. These funds are invested across the economy, in private equity, in real estate, and in public markets. The largest asset managers in the world rely on pension fund dollars to help fill their portfolios. 

Recognizing this power, public pension funds are increasingly instituting policies to ensure that their money works for the people who contributed it, not against them. In line with the funds’ fiduciary duty to seek diversified, consistent, risk-adjusted returns for their participants, funds are thinking deeply about what prompts growth and prosperity. Some states are using their pension funds to invest in affordable housing or infrastructure, leveraging their capital to build the future workers hope to see. But one of the most powerful innovations is a new movement of public pension funds adopting workforce principles and requiring asset managers abide by them across their portfolio. Such principles—consistent with the fiduciary duty that fund managers have—promote investments that simultaneously maximize returns and worker well-being.

Private financial markets have grown rapidly over the past two decades and play an increasingly prominent role in the U.S. economy—and in the portfolios of institutional investors, including workers’ pension funds. Today, the private equity industry manages $11 trillion in assets, and companies owned by private equity employ about one out of every thirteen U.S. workers, or 11.7 million workers nationwide. Over half of the capital that private equity firms manage comes from public pension funds and other institutional investors. These large funds, such as the California and New York City public employee retirement system funds, invest the earnings of hard-working people who spent their careers in public service. The size of these pension funds is only expected to increase in the future. By requiring asset managers to adopt workforce principles across their portfolio to ensure that their workers are treated fairly and their rights are protected as a condition of receiving investments, pension funds are not only determining how their workers’ retirement savings are invested, but also ensuring that those investments create good jobs for other workers. 

Why does this matter?

Private equity firms are focused on the short-term profits from any given deal. Public pension funds also seek competitive, risk-adjusted returns—but in addition to that, as universal owners, they are also incentivized to seek sustainable, long-term economic growth as aligned with their fiduciary duty. 

The history of the private equity model has shown that while it can provide a good rate of return to investors, it also can have significant negative externalities for workers, communities, and the economy. When public companies are taken private, this can result in significant job losses and negatively impact whole communities. For example, when Toys R Us was bought by two private equity companies and eventually forced into bankruptcy in 2018, over 30,000 employees were laid off. The private equity firm Cerberus loaded up Steward Health Care with debt, running it into bankruptcy in 2024 and closing many of its hospitals. While this left many without access to care, the private equity company made over $800 million in profit. Some deals strip companies for parts, selling the land out from underneath a company’s buildings and leasing it back at exorbitant rates, as with Red Lobster. 

Purchase of a company by a private equity firm can also lead to lower employment, lower wages, and lower productivity. Overall, this can lead to greater inequality, which will subsequently impact other parts of the portfolio through reduced economic growth, and—if the acquisition were funded with public pension fund dollars—may not benefit the very people funding the investments. 

The push to make things better.

In order to promote not only better jobs for workers but also a better economic future for the country as a whole, public pension funds are increasingly requiring better treatment of workers across their investment portfolio. As long-term, fully diversified investors with commitments decades out, public pension funds recognize that a high-road approach toward workers can be an important tool to facilitate long-term positive returns (aligned with their fiduciary duty) that depend on overall GDP growth.  

This is where the new principles being adopted by public pension funds for their private equity investments come in. These principles include industry standard wages, freedom of association, and other measures that support the workforce. The University Pension Plan of Ontario has identified inequality as a systemic risk, as they believe inequality can lead to instability and lower overall investment returns. Labor leaders, such as Sean McGarvey, Randi Weingarten, Gwen Mills, and Rebecca Pringle, have made a clear case that supporting good jobs encourages healthy returns and is therefore an advantageous strategy for investors. This perspective is supported by a large body of research.

First, research from MIT demonstrates that good jobs lead to better productivity and more competitive companies. Higher compensation can reduce turnover and increase productivity across industries, including airports, manufacturing, warehouses, and retail. Turnover can cost an employer between 5 percent and 95 percent of an employee’s annual salary, depending on the industry. Greater productivity is essential for economic growth, a key tool for pursuing higher returns. 

Second, strong safety standards are crucial to not only worker health but also investment return. Injuries and unsafe practices can be expensive and lead to reputational risk. Research from California shows that putting worker safety first reduces employee injuries and costs, while buttressing the bottom line. 

Third, pension funds often push for union neutrality since unionization can lead to better trained workers with lower turnover and higher productivity. Capital and infrastructure projects that use union labor have higher productivity and cost less, in part because of the higher skill level of the workforce. 

Finally, adherence to high-road labor practices can lead to better performance in public markets as well. Just Capital, a research organization, has found that the companies they rank as having positive worker practices outperformed the market overall. This is confirmed by evidence that investments in compensation lead to long-term higher market returns. Implementing strong workforce principles can therefore advance productivity and profitability for both private and public companies. 

For fully diversified, long-term investors such as public pension funds who touch all parts of the economy, higher productivity and lower inequality is a strong strategy to promote growth and protect future returns. Treating workers with dignity can help to achieve these goals.

Looking ahead.

Worker power and worker rights are not at odds with competitive risk-adjusted returns. They are self-reinforcing. As unions and pension trustees continue to advocate for workers in investment decisions, they are building a more sustainable economic foundation that benefits everyone. The choice is clear: pension funds can either perpetuate a business model that ultimately undermines their own portfolios, or they can champion an approach that recognizes workers as valuable assets whose wellbeing directly correlates with sustainable, broad-based economic growth. The latter path not only honors the legacy of the working people whose careers built these pension funds, but also helps ensure those funds remain robust for future generations of retirees. 

This comment caught my attention for many reasons.

First, as public pension funds become larger and manage more assets across public and private markets, what role do they play, if any, in growing the economy and supporting workers?

Last month, I discussed how OMERS' economic contribution to Ontario grew to $15.3 billion, delivering stability and social value for members and communities: 

A growing economic impact

The new report shows that OMERS activities contributed to:

• $15.3 billion in provincial GDP (an 11% increase from 2023 and a 28% increase from 2020).

• 135,200 jobs across Ontario, including almost 40,000 jobs in rural communities.

• Nearly $4.2 billion in combined federal and provincial tax revenue.

• In total, more than 832,000 Ontarians - the equivalent of 1 in 11 households - benefited from OMERS activities in 2025.

Impact across all regions of Ontario

OMERS contribution to economic activity is felt across every region:

• Greater Toronto Area: 71,500 jobs; $7.9B GDP contribution

• Southwestern Ontario: 25,800 jobs; $2.7B GDP

• Eastern Ontario: 16,800 jobs; $1.7B GDP

• Central Ontario: 14,900 jobs; $2.4B GDP

• Northern Ontario: 6,200 jobs; $0.6B GDP

And that's just OMERS. Imagine if we did a detailed study on the economic impact of all of the Maple 8 funds and how they contribute to the Canadian economy (if I remember correctly, it was done a few years ago).

Now, on to my second point, what is the economic impact large global pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and other large institutional investors have on the global economy?

It's huge, they provide stable, long-term capital and help public and private companies grow.

When these companies grow, they hire more people and the multiplier effect of all this activity on the global economy isn't trivial.

Third, what role can global pension funds and institutional investors play in public policy?

Here is the tricky part. In the US where public pensions report to state treasurers who have their own political agenda, there is more political interference in the decision-making process.

In Canada, our large public pension funds operate at arm's length from the government, they have independent boards who focus on the best interests of members.

There is no political interference but governments still maintain power (by nominating board members) and in extraordinary circumstances, can step in if they deem it necessary (think of the purge at AIMCo).

Having said this, all of Canada's large public pension funds take responsible investing very seriously and report to their members on activities related to it.

But responsible investing isn't the primary objective; rather it's a complement to investment activities to garner better risk-adjusted returns over the long run.

There are a lot of things I agree with the comment above and some things, I do not agree with.

They paint a mostly negative view of private equity, choosing Cerberus as an example, but that old way of managing assets is dead or on its way out.

If you look at what Pete Stavros at KKR is doing, they're literally forging a new path to capitalism, sharing profits with workers if they deliver and help add value to companies they acquire.

No doubt, private equity funds have a shorter investment horizon than pension funds but the smart ones extend if they can add value to their companies and reap bigger rewards.

Do pension funds have influence on private equity funds?

Yes, they do, but I wouldn't over-emphasize it. 

KKR didn't implement its new model because public pension funds forced it to. They realized it makes great economic sense, aligning the interests of workers with their interest in adding value to companies they acquire.

But pension funds can make sure that private equity funds align with their interests as well.

For example, University Pension Plan of Ontario (UPP) states diversity is a systemic risk and they make sure all the public and private companies they invest with know their views. 

So, at some level, global pension funds and other large institutional allocators have an influence, especially with smaller private equity funds.

Lastly, a big topic these days is the impact of AI on work. I tend to agree with a Harvard study that says AI doesn't reduce work, it intensifies it. 

But pension funds investing with top venture capital funds are more privy to information on how AI will shape our economy, good and bad.

Do they have a role in supporting work, or will they invest in funds that destroy work? 

Probably a mix of both if I am truthful. 

The key thing I want to make clear here is that as pension funds get bigger and command ever more assets, policymakers will lean on them to help support the economy and if their objectives coincide, they will answer the call.

Those are just some of my reflections on pensions and public policy and how they can contribute to economic growth and and build an economy that supports workers.

Below, in this episode of Blue Skies, Erin O'Toole is joined by Jim Leech, former CEO of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and a well-respected voice on business issues, to discuss the current debate about whether governments should mandate public pension plans like the CPP to invest more in Canada. 

They also explore the development of the 'Canadian Model' for pension governance and why it has gained international acclaim. They also engage in a wider discussion of issues related to Canadian economic competitiveness and financial security for pensioners.

This discussion took place a year ago but it's well worth listening to it because Erin and Jim cover a lot.

 Sarah Rundell of Top1000Funds reports on how CalSTRS' One Fund approach navigates uncertainty:

Scott Chan is shocked the market hasn’t reacted more to the crisis emulating from the US-Israel-Iran conflict. But the CalSTRS CIO is confident its one fund approach allows it to position dynamically and ensure diversification no matter what is presented.

So warned CalSTRS’ CIO Scott Chan speaking at the $392 billion pension fund’s March investment committee meeting, explaining to trustees that many unknowns lie below that will impact global trade flows, the equity bull market, and in the shape of currents like AI and America’s burgeoning housing crisis, young people’s ability to tap into the American dream.

The impact of the conflict in Iran is also gathering force below the surface of an apparently benign market.

Chan said he “was shocked” that the market hasn’t reacted more to the crisis – notwithstanding the sharp rise in oil prices. He attributed the absence of a market reaction to enduring uncertainty of how events will play out.

“The market is pricing efficiently what it knows,” he said, adding: “Right now with the uncertainty, I don’t care who you talk to, if they tell you they know what’s going to happen, you should probably walk the other way.”

In the first few weeks of the conflict, CalSTRS strategy has involved rebalancing from its slight overweight to growth assets, ensuring “ample” liquidity and staying mindful of emerging opportunities. For example, the energy crisis potentially opens the door to investment opportunities in markets that are net importers of oil through the Strait of Hormuz like India, Japan, China and South Korea, where sharp falls in the KOSPI represented a potential buying opportunity.

Away from geopolitics, Chan noted other currents building like trends in fiscal policy intervention and the formation of new trade alliances that are rewriting supply chains and redirecting how capital flows. As governments grapple to manage huge deficits, he flagged the risk and opportunity in interest rate volatility and the importance of diversification, discipline and staying dynamic.

Reflecting on market impacts closer to home, Stephen McCourt, managing principle and co-CEO, Meketa, argued that new Fed chair Keven Warsh won’t necessarily push for lower rates. “If Trump’s interest is to get the Fed to lower interest rates irrespective of data, Warsh is an unusual selection.” Coupled with inflationary concerns, he said it explains why markets have priced in fewer rate cuts for 2026.

Chan said the CalSTRS’ One Fund approach, its version of a total portfolio approach, will support the investor’s demand to dynamically allocate and diversify to maximise returns in the current complex environment. It allows the team to invest tactically to position the portfolio to benefit from volatility and has required putting in place cultural and organisational structures, notably a total fund team that maps a common language of risk, and how portfolio risk is shifting.

Recent strategies include increasing capital to asset backed private credit that is less cyclical, more stable and adds diversification with a similar return to other forms of private credit. Elsewhere, strategies include rebalancing the portfolio and pursuing opportunities when the markets are discounted.

CalSTRS generated an unofficial 13 per cent return over the last calendar year, well above the 7 per cent actuarial goal, with the value of the portfolio increasing by $42.5 billion, net of fees, contributions and benefits.

The global equity portfolio rose 22.8 per cent, led by strong non-U.S. equity market performance and interest rates fell, driving strong performance in fixed income markets.

The $58.8 billion private equity portfolio yielded a positive return over the past six months and outperformed the Custom State Street Index, which is used to evaluate performance against other institutional investors.  Staff have increased co-investments, which now represent 24.6 per cent of the private equity allocation and continue to work toward the goal of 33 per cent co-investments. 

Clearly, CalSTRS is doing well, and here CIO Scott Chan explains how their One fund approach dynamically allocates and diversifies to maximize returns in the current complex environment. 

[...] It allows the team to invest tactically to position the portfolio to benefit from volatility and has required putting in place cultural and organisational structures, notably a total fund team that maps a common language of risk, and how portfolio risk is shifting.

Recent strategies include increasing capital to asset backed private credit that is less cyclical, more stable and adds diversification with a similar return to other forms of private credit. Elsewhere, strategies include rebalancing the portfolio and pursuing opportunities when the markets are discounted.

Whatever they are doing, it's working, CalSTRS delivered a gain of 13% over the last calendar year, outperforming its large Canadian peers (but underperforming Norway's giant sovereign wealth fund which gained 15.1% in 2025).

Again, it's all about asset allocation and CalSTRS is more exposed to liquid public markets (similar to Norway's Fund) but also has a sizable private equity/ private markets portfolio which seems to be performing relatively well. 

Again, outperfoming its required rate of return (7%) by 600 basis points last calendar year is nothing to sneeze at, but keep in mind, their fiscal year ends at June 30 , so these are not official returns.

No doubt, their One Fund approach is proving very useful in this environment and they managed to diversify globally properly to take advantage of opportunities.

So, kudos to CalSTRS, Scott Chan, and his investment and risk teams, they're executing nicely in a difficult environment.

Moreover, for the 11th time, CalSTRS has been named one of the Best Places to Work in Money Management by Pensions & Investments magazine:

This 14th annual survey and recognition program is dedicated to identifying and honoring the top employers in the money management industry.

“As their employees attest, the companies named to this year’s Best Places to Work list demonstrate a commitment to building and maintaining a strong workplace culture,’’ Pensions & Investments Editor-in-Chief Julie Tatge said. “In doing so, they’re helping their employees, clients and businesses succeed.’’ 

The Best Places to Work award winners are chosen based on workplace policies, practices, philosophy, systems and demographics, as well as an employee survey.

“We’re honored to receive this award, which is a testament to our team’s commitment to protect the more than 1 million California public educators and beneficiaries who rely on us to help secure their future,” CalSTRS Chief Executive Officer Cassandra Lichnock said. “The award affirms that our greatest asset is our innovative, inclusive and passionate workforce.”

"This is an acknowledgement of the amazing teamwork and passion of our investments team and our colleagues across the organization,” CalSTRS Chief Investment Officer Scott Chan said. “I'm so grateful to the team for embracing our organization's mission and continuing to strive for innovation and collaboration.”

The 2025 Best Places to Work in Money Management award winners are posted online.

Good for them, this is a well-deserved acknowledgement.

Below, in this episode of How I Invest, a conversation with Scott Chan, Chief Investment Officer of CalSTRS, to explore how he oversees a staggering $350 billion in assets (March 2025). 

Scott shares insights on CalSTRS’ collaborative investment model, their approach to private and public markets, and why they aim to be the "global partner of choice." He also discusses the importance of structural alpha, liquidity management, and identifying long-term supply-demand imbalances.

Great discussion, listen carefully to his insights and approach. 

Mary McDougall and Alexandra Heal of the Financial Times report Canadian pension funds count cost of private equity slump:

A number of Canada’s biggest investors lost money on their private equity holdings last year as a downturn in the buyout sector continued to weigh on returns at some of the world’s largest retirement funds.

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, which manages C$279bn ($206bn) of assets, and the C$145bn Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System reported returns of minus 5.3 per cent and minus 2.5 per cent respectively for their private equity portfolios in 2025. For OTPP, it was the worst performance for this asset class since 2008 and for Omers since 2020.

La Caisse, Quebec’s C$517bn state pension fund, also reported weak private equity results. The group said its PE portfolio returned 2.3 per cent last year, well below the 12.6 per cent gain in its benchmark index, half of which is made up of listed stocks.

The Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan, which published results this week alongside OTPP, reported private equity returns of 3.6 per cent in 2025. Its broader private markets portfolio returned 2.1 per cent, compared with 11.7 per cent for its listed holdings.

“Those are pretty dismal numbers, in private equity returns should be at 15 per cent minimum,” said one Canadian pension investor.

Rising interest rates since 2022 have weighed on private equity investment, with higher borrowing costs hitting dealmaking, returns and exit options.

Canada’s pension system is a major private equity investor with more than 20 per cent of public sector pension money allocated to the asset class, according to think-tank New Financial.

Dale Burgess, executive managing director of equities at OTPP, said private equity investors had been “navigating increased cost of capital, more constrained exit markets and greater operating complexity, creating a drag on returns”.

OTPP’s PE portfolio dropped in value from C$60.4bn to C$50.8bn last year, partly driven by full or partial sales of its investments in insurance brokerage BroadStreet Partners, Indian hospital chain Sahyadri Hospitals and Canadian retirement home provider Amica Senior Lifestyles.

To address the challenges, OTPP said it had made a “strategic shift” towards investing in areas where it believes it has a competitive edge, particularly the financial, services and technology sectors.

Omers said its C$25.6bn private equity portfolio had a net investment loss of C$700mn last year, with challenges in its industrial holdings and “weak performance across our earlier-stage growth and venture portfolios”. In recent months Omers has announced sales in its private equity portfolio including California-based care manager Paradigm and Toronto-based home care business CBI Health.

La Caisse blamed its disappointing private equity results on “slow earnings growth for portfolio companies and lower multiples in the technology and healthcare sectors”.

Overall returns across the pension companies were boosted by buoyant stock markets last year. OTPP’s total portfolio net return was 6.7 per cent, compared with 6 per cent for Omers and 9.3 per cent for La Caisse.

A quick note on the paltry returns in PE portfolios of some of Canada's Maple 8 funds (from the ones that reported thus far).

Last week, I spoke with OTPP's former CEO Jim Leech and asked him point-blank: "What's going on with OTPP's PE portfolio?"

Jim was in good spirits. He had just come back from skiing with his grandchildren in British Columbia and told me: "I don't know. All I can tell you is there is a lot more competition nowadays compared to when I was heading up Teachers' Private Capital." 

From my vantage point, covering all these pension plans/ funds, clearly 2025 wasn't a great year in Private Equity, and it wasn't a particularly great year in private markets.

Jim Leech is right, the game has changed significantly, there's way too much competition in private equity and that has spread to infrastructure, real estate and private credit.

Alternatives used to be a niche market, now there’s not much "nichiness" going on. Everyone is doing the same thing, the big giants keep raising bigger funds, and everyone is waiting for some serious financial crisis (aka dislocation in the markets) to put a lot of dry powder to work.

All I know is there is reason to be concerned, the Maple 8 funds shifted billions collectively into private markets over the last 20 years and that game seems stale these days.

Private Equity remains an important asset class but there are a lot of discussions taking place at these large shops.

If you underperform your benchmark over one year or even three years, it's a tough pill to swallow but you'll survive. 

If you underperform your benchmark in PE for 5 years, you're in deep trouble.

I'm not sure the situation is that dire, but it's definitely not the best of times for private markets, especially private equity and real estate.

Things might be slowly changing for the better -- I think they are -- but investors are anxious and worried.

Don't forget, in Canada, the whole "raison d'etre" of shifting into private markets was to manage more internally and add value without paying excessive fees.

If you can't deliver there, your whole "value add" proposition is in trouble.

Still, I don't want to take one or two bad years and extrapolate. I think there's a lot of generalizing going on in private equity/ private credit and I want to be very careful because the level of pessimism is a bit absurd in my opinion.

Private equity stocks are finally popping this week, too soon to tell whether they're turning the corner and headed back up for good but I'm paying attention.

All this to say, no doubt, private equity is in a slump but it's not dying and going away, that's just plain silly.

Does the industry need a good shakeout? You bet, it's already underway.

The dispersion of returns of top PE funds and top private credit funds with bottom ones has grown considerably over the last few years. 

Only the best will survive and that's the way it should be.  

Below, private equity returned fewer profits to investors for a fourth straight year as the industry sat on $3.8 trillion of unsold assets and struggled to raise money for new funds. Bloomberg's Allison McNeely reports (watch this clip here as I cannot embed it below).

Also, Orlando Bravo, founder and managing partner of Thoma Bravo, sits down with CNBC's Leslie Picker to discuss the impacts of artificial intelligence on the software sector.

Third, KKR Co-CEO, Scott Nuttall discusses the firm’s evolution into a diversified global investment platform and its dealmaking priorities with Bloomberg’s Dani Burger at Bloomberg Invest 2026 in New York.

Fourth, Ares Management Corporation Co-Founder & CEO, Michael Arougheti, discusses the private credit cycle, firm growth and the push to expand access beyond traditional institutional investors. He spoke with Bloomberg’s Dani Burger at Bloomberg Invest 2026 in New York.

Lastly, Apollo Global Management Inc. Chief Executive Officer Marc Rowan warned that a shakeout is coming for private credit firms as the industry faces a wave of concerns about rising defaults on loans to software companies.

For weeks, private credit executives have faced questions from investors over whether the $1.8 trillion industry can withstand sustained pressure if the software sector is upended by artificial intelligence in the coming years. Rowan’s comments came as business development companies have been hit by redemptions in recent weeks amid those broader investor concerns.

“This will be a shakeout — I don’t think it is going to be short term,” Rowan said in an interview with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait at Bloomberg Invest in New York. “It was foreseeable. It was predictable. And all you can do is have been a good underwriter, a good risk manager, have done a small number of stupid things.”