One pension's IRR does not equal another's IRR

The record

CalPERS, California's public employee pension, publishes its own Private Equity Program Fund Performance Review, stating that, as retrieved on 16 September 2026, 'as of December 31, 2025, the since inception Net IRR is 11.6% and the Net Multiple is 1.5x' across its active partnership investments, with a fund-by-fund table naming each partnership's vintage year, capital committed, cash in and out, net IRR and investment multiple. CalSTRS, California's teacher pension, publishes its own separate Private Equity Portfolio Performance page, stating a since-inception return of 13.16% 'as of June 30, 2025.'

What the sources establish

Both documents are unusual in venture reporting: fund-level return data most limited partners see only in private reports, here published for anyone to read. Both also warn against reading their own numbers too literally. CalSTRS' own page states that 'the CalSTRS IRR calculation method may differ from the methods used by the General Partner or other Limited Partners,' listing cash-flow timing, the accounting treatment of carried interest, and management and other fees as sources of divergence. CalPERS' own table marks young funds 'N/M,' not meaningful, rather than giving them a number at all; both pensions point to the same underlying cause, the 'J-curve,' which CalSTRS describes as making 'the IRR calculated for a partnership in the first three years of its life... relatively meaningless' because fees and early losses are recorded before gains are realized.

Scope and revision

CalPERS' own table 'doesn't include any exited partnership investments,' covering active commitments only, and reflects a reporting lag: general partners have, by CalPERS' own description, 120 days to report financial data, so figures run roughly two quarters behind the stated date. CalSTRS' figure is a single portfolio-wide since-inception number rather than a fund-by-fund table in the page cited here. Neither pension's IRR is calculated the same way as the other's, by CalSTRS' own admission, so 11.6% and 13.16% describe two pensions' two different private-equity portfolios under two different methodologies, not one comparable market rate.

The decision in front of you

Editorially: a fund manager or LP-facing founder citing a pension's disclosed IRR to describe 'venture returns' should name the specific pension, the specific date, and note that the same fund could show a different IRR on another LP's books, exactly as CalSTRS' own disclaimer states, and should treat any fund closed in the last three years as unresolved, per the J-curve explanation both pensions give for their own 'N/M' or early-year figures.

• Is the cited IRR a single fund's figure, or a portfolio-wide since-inception figure across many funds and vintages?
• Is the fund young enough that its IRR falls in the J-curve period both pensions describe as not meaningful?
• Does the source disclose its own calculation method, and does it warn that other LPs may calculate differently?

Public pensions give the venture market a rare, genuinely public window into fund-level returns, and both pensions cited here use that visibility to warn readers, in their own words, against comparing one LP's IRR to another's.