CalPERS announced a preliminary net investment return of 11.6% for FY 2024-25, beating their 6.8% target rate of return for the second straight year, this time by 4.8%. Many Section 115 Trusts also performed well for the second year in a row, with many portfolios outpacing CalPERS returns. Funded ratios are projected to rise, with the peak in projected UAL payments coming down. Agencies who recently issued pension bonds continue to see increased volatility to both positive and negative CalPERS investment returns.
In the latest NHAlert, NHA analyzes these implications for member agencies and the importance of assessing pension cost management strategies and policies to ensure optimal approaches are considered under evolving conditions.
Questions? Contact: Mike Meyer, Vice President | Mike@NHAAdvisors.com | (415) 785-2025 x 2004
Context
On July 14, 2025, CalPERS reported a preliminary net investment return of 11.6% for the 12-month period endingJune 30, 2025, beating their 6.8% discount rate (target rate of return) for the second straight year, this time by 4.8% (CalPERS Announces Preliminary 11.6% Return for 2024-25 Fiscal Year|CalPERS). Preliminary total fund annualized returns for the five-year period ending June 30, 2025, stood at 8%; the 10-year period at 7.1%; the 20-year period at6.7%; and the 30-year period at 7.6%.
Funded Ratio Impacts
As a result, the overall estimated funded status for the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (PERF) increased to 79%.The funded status stood at 71.4% in 2023 and 75% in 2024. As NHA detailed in its 2024 NHAlert (CalPERS Beats Target in FY’24|NHA Advisors), these aggregate funded ratios are slightly skewed given over $4 billion of Pension Bonds(POBs, Lease Revenue Bonds, or other UAL Refinancing Structures) issued between 2020 and 2022.

Based on a review of a small subset (34 total) of NHA’s pension clients, 50% of whom issued Pension Bonds and 50% who did not, the average funded ratio after the 11.6% returns is projected to be 75% for non-Pension Bond issuers (most between 73-78%) and 92.5% for Pension Bond issuers (most between 90-98% depending on how much UAL was refinanced). While this data set isn’t inclusive of all agencies within CalPERS, it does include a diverse set of agencies (different size agencies, types of CalPERS plans, varying pension bond structuring strategies, etc.) to help illustrate these differences and should serve as a good proxy for other CalPERS members.
As shown below, funded ratios are projected to trend upwards by 6.0-7.5% based on the two years of strong investment returns. As shown in the orange dots, funded ratios for most non-Pension Bond issuers in this example range from 70-80%, and average 75.3%.

The Pension Bond issuers shown in the teal dots generally range from 90-98%, and average 92.5%. Notably, most of the projected funded ratios for the Pension Bond agencies in this dataset are back to being very close to the targeted funded ratio at the time the Pension Bond was issued (shown in the chart as a purple dot). Comparing Pension Bond performance across agencies is complex given the varying funding amounts, structuring strategies and timing of issuance (i.e. before, during or after CalPERS’ strong 21.3% investment return in FY 2021), but generally speaking, this analysis demonstrates that funded ratios have mostly recovered from the negative 7.5% returns in FY 2022.
What About Payment Impact on My Budget?
The reduction in UAL payments associated with the FY 2025 investment returns will be phased in over a 20-year period starting with FY 2028, with a five-year credit ramp-up: 20% of the full annual credit in FY 2028, 40% in FY 2029, 60% in FY 2030, 80% in FY 2031, and 100% in FY 2032 (and at this level for the 15 years thereafter). The FY 2025 investment returns will help “shave down the mountain peak” in UAL payments that most CalPERS members have been preparing for, and that were magnified after the negative 7.5% investment returns in FY 2022. As demonstrated in the graphic below, NHA estimates that many non-Pension Bond issuing agencies will see their UAL payments reduced by roughly 20% due to the strong investment performance by CalPERS over the last two fiscal years.
Pension Bond issuers continue to experience higher volatility to both positive and negative CalPERS returns. As shown in the graphic below, many of these agencies will experience a >50% reduction in annual UAL payments (60% on average across the 17 agencies NHA analyzed) compared to the annual UAL Payments shown in the FY 2023 actuarial reports. This only reflects the impact on UAL payments and does not include the Pension Bond debt service because the debt service is fixed through maturity. This analysis highlights the additional exposure Pension Bond agencies have to investment returns in the early years following bond issuance, and how critical it is to have adopted policies to ensure these fluctuations can be absorbed, and opportunities capitalized on.

How Did Section 115 Trusts Perform?
Not surprisingly, Section 115 Trust providers performed well for the second straight year. The chart below depicts estimated ranges of investment returns for Section 115 Trust portfolios based on various equity/fixed income allocations. Even most conservative portfolios (> 80% fixed income) reported investment returns above 7.0%,while more aggressive portfolios (< 20% fixed income) reported investment returns up to 14.0%. The chart below summarizes estimated FY 2025 investment performance (based on information received from three different Section 115 Trust providers) based on portfolio risk tolerance. NHA recommends that agencies with a Section 115 Trust re-visit their cost management strategies at least annually to ensure that deposit/withdrawal strategies are optimized given the ever-changing UAL landscape, future uncertainty, and individual financial goals and constraints.

On the Horizon — Actuarial Reports and ALM Study
New Actuarial Reports — The June 30, 2024 actuarial reports have been released and can be downloaded from the MyCalPERS portal. This will be the first year that both Classic and PEPRA plans will be included under one report for all pooled-plan members. These reports will reflect the benefit of the 9.5% investment returns from FY 2024 and other factors that reconcile actual plan experience vs. actuarial assumptions during FY 2024. The impact of the FY 2025 investment returns of 11.6% and other plan experience results from this past fiscal year will be included in the June 30, 2025 actuarial reports that will be released in the summer of 2026. CSMFO is hosting a webinar on September 4, 2025 to discuss all the changes that can be found in the latest actuarial reports. For more information and to sign up, please visit: CSMFO Webinar – Interpreting and Communicating the New CalPERS Actuarial Valuation Reports – September 4, 2025.
2025 Asset Liability Management Study — The Asset Liability Management(ALM) process is an integrated review of CalPERS assets and liabilities to inform
decisions designed to help achieve a sound and sustainable fund. The goal of the ALM process is to balance the expected cost of future pension payments with the expected future investment returns. During the process, the CalPERS board reviews its overall risks, taking into consideration the long-term sustainability of the system. This formal process runs on a four-year cycle and includes a review of CalPERS’ investment portfolios and retirement plan liabilities.
While it is probable that some changes will be made to demographic and economic factors, NHA is keenly focused on potential changes to the Discount Rate, as changes to that rate often impact members in a significant way. To give the reader a sense of potential impact, a reduction in the discount rate from 6.8% to 6.5% (as a hypothetical example) would increase the annual Normal Cost by roughly 7% for many agencies according to the CalPERS Outlook Tool projections, with annual UAL payments projected to rise by over 10% for most agencies, and even higher for Pension Bond issuers who are at higher funded ratios and exposed to increased volatility. It should be noted that the payment impacts associated with assumptions changes stemming from the ALM study would be reflected in the FY 2025 actuarial reports, with cost impacts starting in FY 2028. Amortization bases layered in for a discount rate reduction would not be “ramped-up” like those from investment gains/losses but rather phased in immediately and amortized over 20 years with level payments based on CalPERS’ current policy.
While we hope that recent strong investment performance encourages CalPERS to maintain the discount rate at current levels, NHA often recommends analyzing potential downside scenarios as part of any long-term financial and risk mitigation planning. We encourage all members to follow this ALM process closely and use the following link (Asset Liability Management (ALM)|CalPERS) to stay abreast of the latest news. The Board meetings in September and November are highly anticipated and may provide direction as to where new assumptions are likely to be heading.
Once the results of the ALM study are finalized in November, CalPERS anticipates having their free Outlook projection tool updated as early as December 2025 which will be very helpful for members beginning their FY 2027 budget process and refining their long-term financial forecasts.
Parting Notes on Strategically Managing Pension Costs
NHA’s Pension Group has been advising agencies on pension cost management strategies for over 10 years. In our opinion, educating stakeholders to translate the complex world of CalPERS is a critical first step. From that position, cost management strategies can be analyzed to develop an approach and policy that works within each agency’s budgetary constraints and long-term financial sustainability objectives. NHA has learned that there is no“one size fits all” approach to dealing with volatile pension costs. All agencies face competing priorities, whether its deferred capital, staffing needs, liquidity concerns, economic development investment, or climate adaptation, just as examples. A policy and plan that adapts to these competing needs, while also ensuring that pension cost volatility can be moderated over the long term can be helpful when developing both near-term budgets and long-term financial plans.

For more information on potential approaches to manage pension liabilities, please feel free to contact the NHA Advisors team at Pension@NHAadvisors.com or Mike Meyer at Mike@NHAadvisors.com.
Regulatory Disclosures
NHA Advisors is a registered municipal advisor.
Legal Events and Disciplinary History
NHA Advisors does not have any legal events and disciplinary history on its Form MA and Form MA-I, which includes information about any criminal actions, regulatory actions, investigations, terminations, judgments, liens, civil judicial actions, customer complaints, arbitrations and civil litigation. The Client may electronically access NHA Advisors’ most recent Form MA and each most recent Form MA-I filed with the Commission at the following website: www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html
There have been no material changes to a legal or disciplinary event disclosure on any Form MA or Form MA-I filed with the SEC.
Conflicts of Interest and Other Matters Requiring Disclosures
As of the date of publication, there are no actual or potential material conflicts of interest, other than those potential conflicts noted below, that NHA Advisors is aware of that might impair its ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty. If NHA Advisors becomes aware of any material potential conflict of interest that arises after this disclosure, NHA Advisors will disclose the detailed information in writing to the Client in a timely manner.
Pursuant to MSRB Rule G-42, on Duties of Non-Solicitor Municipal Advisors, Municipal Advisors are required to make certain written disclosures to clients which include, amongst other things, Conflicts of Interest and any Legal or Disciplinary events of NHA Advisors and its associated persons.
The following are potential conflicts of interest to be considered.
- NHA Advisors represents that in connection with the issuance of municipal securities, NHA Advisors may receive compensation from the Client for services rendered, which compensation is contingent upon the successful closing of a transaction and/or is based on the size of a transaction. Consistent with the requirements of MSRB Rule G-42, NHA Advisors hereby discloses that such contingent and/or transactional compensation may present a potential conflict of interest regarding NHA Advisors’ ability to provide unbiased advice to enter into such transaction. The contingent fee arrangement creates an incentive for NHA Advisors to recommend unnecessary financings or financings that are disadvantageous to the Client, or to advise the Client to increase the size of the issue. This potential conflict of interest will not impair NHA Advisors’ ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty to the Client.
- NHA Advisors’ fees under a potential agreement may be based on hourly fees of NHA Advisors’ personnel, with the aggregate amount equaling the number of hours worked by such personnel times an agreed-upon hourly billing rate. This form of compensation presents a potential conflict of interest because it could create an incentive for NHA Advisors to recommend alternatives that would result in more hours worked. This conflict of interest will not impair NHA Advisors’ ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty to the Client.
- NHA Advisors’ fees under a potential agreement may be a fixed amount established at the outset of a potential agreement. The amount is usually based upon an analysis by the Client and NHA Advisors of, among other things, the expected duration and complexity of the transaction and the scope of services to be performed by NHA Advisors. This form of compensation presents a potential conflict of interest because, if the transaction requires more work than originally contemplated, NHA Advisors may suffer a loss. Thus, NHA Advisors may recommend less time-consuming alternatives, or fail to do a thorough analysis of alternatives. This conflict of interest will not impair NHA Advisors’ ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty to the Client.
- The fee paid to NHA Advisors increases the cost of investment to the Client. The increased cost occurs from compensating NHA Advisors for municipal advisory services provided.
- NHA Advisors serves a wide variety of other clients that may, from time to time, have interests that could have a direct or indirect impact on the interests of another NHA Advisors client. For example, NHA Advisors serves as municipal advisor to other municipal advisory clients and, in such cases, owes a regulatory duty to such other clients just as it does to the Client. These other clients may, from time to time and depending on the specific circumstances, have competing interests. In acting in the interests of its various clients, NHA Advisors could potentially face a conflict of interest arising from these competing client interests. NHA Advisors fulfills its regulatory duty and mitigates such conflicts through dealing honestly and with the utmost good faith with the Client.
- Gerald Craig Hill, the Managing Principal of NHA Advisors is currently serving as an outside director for the HdL Companies based in Diamond Bar, CA. HdL Companies is a software and professional services consulting company providing revenue data and collections information to local governments, potentially including NHA Advisors’ clients. HdL Companies have affiliates including, but not limited to, HdL Coren & Cone. From time to time, NHA Advisors utilizes the services of HdL Coren & Cone for its clients. NHA Advisors is mindful of this conflict of interest and fulfills its regulatory duty and mitigates such conflicts through dealing honestly and with the utmost good faith when this situation arises.
- NHA Advisors does not have any affiliate that provides any advice, service, or product to or on behalf of the Client that is directly or indirectly related to the municipal advisory activities to be performed by NHA Advisors.
- NHA Advisors has not made any payments directly or indirectly to obtain or retain NHA Advisors’ municipal advisory business.
- NHA Advisors has not received any payments from third parties to enlist NHA Advisors’ recommendation to the Client of its services, any municipal securities transaction, or any municipal finance product.
- NHA Advisors has not engaged in any fee-splitting arrangements involving NHA Advisors and any provider of investments or services to the Client.
- NHA Advisors does not have any legal or disciplinary event that is material to the Client’s evaluation of the municipal advisory or the integrity of its management or advisory personnel.
- NHA Advisors does not act as principal in any of the transaction(s) related to a potential agreement.