Fitch Warns US Pensions Exposed to Private Credit
James Langton of Investment Executive reports that according to Fitch, US pension giants are exposed to risky assets:
U.S. defined benefit (DB) pension plans are increasingly exposed to private credit and other risky alternative assets that could lead to funding troubles that ultimately strain government finances too, says Fitch Ratings.
In a report issued Monday, the rating agency said that in the wake of the global financial crisis, sponsors of public DB pensions took a variety of steps to improve the their plans’ solvency, such as increasing contribution rates, reducing benefits to new employees and adopting more conservative actuarial assumptions.
Even so, these plans generally remain underfunded and they’re also increasingly exposed to market risks. As other post-crisis trends, including higher allocations to alternative investments and steady demographic weakening “could amplify the effects of a market shock,” Fitch said.
The report noted that U.S. public pensions’ portfolio allocations to alternative assets had doubled since 2008 to 34% in 2024.
“Allocations to increasingly complex categories of alternatives can include leverage or variable rate strategies that expose investors, including pensions, to greater losses,” it warned.
In particular, private credit represents a “rapidly growing share of alternative investments, driven by [the sector’s] strong performance relative to traditional fixed income,” the report said — with many public pension funds increasing their exposure to private credit in an effort to drive higher returns.
For instance, California’s pension giant, CalPERS, recently raised its target allocation for private credit to 8%, up from 5%, “as part of a shift to 40% alternatives,” it noted.
Fitch also warned that the resilience of many of these alternative asset categories have not yet been tested in a downturn.
“The illiquidity of many alternative investments could also force plans with tighter cash flows to sell marketable assets at a loss to meet benefit or other obligations, such as capital calls,” it said.
As a result, negative market shocks could result in plans raising contribution requirements, it noted.
Additionally, Fitch said many plans’ demographics are weakening too — the ratio of active workers to retirees is declining, which “could exacerbate the effects of a market shock on pension contributions,” as the payout of benefits increasingly outpaces inflows from plan contributions.
Ultimately, this could add stress to government finances and their credit ratings.
“A major pension asset drawdown would depress portfolio values, raise unfunded liabilities, and lead to higher employer contributions, the report said. “This would take place just as governments would likely be grappling with economic and budgetary fallout from a downturn.”
While most governments should have the capacity to increase pension contributions, those with weaker balance sheets “could be most vulnerable due to budgetary pressure from increased pension contribution demands,” Fitch said.
On Monday, Douglas Offerman and Sarah Repucci of Fitch issued a report, US Public Pension Market Bubble Exposure Remains High:
Fitch Ratings-New York-03 November 2025: Robust market valuations in recent years have supported funding progress for U.S. state and local defined benefit pension plans. However, public pensions remain underfunded and fundamentally exposed to market volatility. A market shock could increase the burden of state and local pension liabilities and drive contributions higher, says Fitch Ratings. Governments with weaker liability metrics and high carrying cost burdens could be most vulnerable to rating pressure.
Post-global financial crisis, plan sponsors took various policy actions such as reducing benefits to new employees, using more conservative actuarial assumptions and discount rates, and increasing contributions. This helped stabilize plans and support funding improvement. But other trends, including higher allocations to alternative investments and steady demographic weakening, could amplify the effects of a market shock.
According to the Public Plan Database, alternative investments outside of traditional equity, fixed income and cash were 34% of pension portfolios in fiscal 2024, double the fiscal 2008 level. Allocations to increasingly complex categories of alternatives can include leverage or variable rate strategies that expose investors, including pensions, to greater losses. Many of these alternatives have not yet been tested in a downturn. The illiquidity of many alternative investments could also force plans with tighter cash flows to sell marketable assets at a loss to meet benefit or other obligations, such as capital calls.
Private credit makes up a rapidly growing share of alternative investments, driven by strong performance relative to traditional fixed income. Many public pensions are raising their private credit exposure to drive returns and help address still-substantial liabilities. CalPERS, the gigantic California system covering most state and local workers, recently raised its allocation target to 8% from 5%, as part of a shift to 40% alternatives. Other pensions have pulled back due to unease about the sector’s rapid growth amid macroeconomic and credit quality concerns.
Many plans’ demographic trends continue to weaken, which could exacerbate the effects of a market shock on pension contributions. The median ratio of active employees to retirees in state plans dropped to 1.2x in fiscal 2024 from 1.7x in fiscal 2010, putting more pressure on plans to generate asset growth. Increasingly lopsided demographics play out in plan cash flows, with benefit outflows rising faster than contribution inflows. After a downturn, participating governments would be subject to bigger contribution increases to restore market losses. Risk-sharing with members through hybrid structures, variable benefits, shared contributions or other features has become more common since the GFC. But it remains far from universal, leaving governments principally responsible for absorbing plan losses.
A major pension asset drawdown would depress portfolio values, raise unfunded liabilities, and lead to higher employer contributions. This would take place just as governments would likely be grappling with economic and budgetary fallout from a downturn. Fitch believes most governments have sufficient flexibility to increase pension contributions, aided by built‑in lags such as asset smoothing that phase in losses over time. However, those with weaker liability metrics and higher carrying costs relative to total spending (e.g., exceeding 20%) could be most vulnerable due to budgetary pressure from increased pension contribution demands.
This report is timely and necessary because over the last three years, there has been a tsunami of capital flowing into private credit.
And while most of the large state funds invest in sponsor-backed lending, there has increasingly been an influx on capital into non sponsor-backed lending.
Worse still, payment-in-kind debt has taken off and with it, risks have grown.
The underwriting standards vary from the larger/ more established private credit funds compared to the novice funds taking bigger risks to squeeze out bigger returns.
And Fitch is right, whether established or novice, the asset class has not been battle tested yet in a severe recession, separating the wheat from the chaff.
Yes, a few private credit funds were around in 2008 and survived, most haven't.
How this all plays out over the next five years is of the utmost interest because we will see which pension funds are most exposed to riskier segments of private credit.
Already cracks are forming but it's still too soon to jump to conclusions.
Nonetheless, Fitch is right to shine a light on this segment of the alternatives market and to point out which state pension plans are more exposed to a severe downturn.
What does this mean for Canada's large pension funds? They're also exposed to alternatives including private credit but the approach is different and risk management tighter.
Still, if a crisis unfolds, everyone around the world will be exposed.
Let's hope one doesn't happen anytime soon.
Below, Sitara Sundar, Head of Alternative Investment Strategy at JPMorgan Private Bank, says while she doesn't believe the growth in private credit markets poses a systemic risk, pockets of idiosyncratic risk will bubble up. She speaks to Bloomberg's Matt Miller and Dani Burger on 'Open Interest.'
Keep in mind, US banks' private credit exposure is roughly $300 billion, so bankers don't want to sound the alarm.










Recent comments