Washington's pension board names every venture fund it holds

The record

The Washington State Investment Board (WSIB) publishes a quarterly Private Equity Portfolio performance report that lists, fund by fund, every partnership in its private equity book as of 31 March 2026: investment date, capital committed, paid-in capital, unfunded commitment, current market value, capital distributed, total value multiple and net internal rate of return since inception. The venture capital section names dozens of partnerships, including Menlo Ventures across seventeen numbered funds, New Enterprise Associates 10 and 12, U.S. Venture Partners V through VIII, Oak Investment Partners and General Catalyst Group XII and XIII. WSIB's own reports page has posted this schedule every quarter for years alongside its annual reports.

What the sources establish

The report states its own methodology: 'The IRRs contained in this report are calculated by Hamilton Lane for WSIB based on information provided by the general partner,' and 'such IRR calculations have not been confirmed by the general partners.' It names the J-curve effect, explaining that fees and start-up costs drawn down early depress early book value, so 'private equity funds in the early years show low or negative returns' before rising once realizations begin. This named-fund, dated disclosure is WSIB's own practice; the report does not claim other pension funds format disclosures the same way, and several funds in this pack show they do not.

Scope and revision

WSIB states plainly that 'there is a quarter lag in this performance reporting information due to the time allowed and necessary to compile and corroborate the financial data,' and that reported IRRs 'are interim estimates and may not be indicative of the ultimate performance of partnership investments.' The report defines its own columns: paid-in capital is cash-in for investments and fees, distributions are cash-out. It warns that comparing interim fund returns across partnerships of different ages 'is not always clear-cut and meaningful,' a caution that applies with force to a venture book spanning funds opened in the 1980s alongside ones opened in the 2020s.

The decision in front of you

A founder, LP or analyst using this schedule can look up a named fund's committed capital, distributions and interim IRR rather than relying on a market-wide venture estimate, which is the point of publishing it at fund level. Reading a young fund's negative or low interim IRR as a verdict on that manager, rather than as an artifact of the J-curve WSIB itself describes, would misuse the disclosure meant to inform that judgment. This is editorial: the schedule is a records disclosure, not a performance guarantee, and WSIB's own notes say so.

• How many years has the fund operated, and does its interim IRR fall inside the period the report calls not yet meaningful?
• Was this IRR calculated by WSIB's consultant or reported by the general partner, and could the two differ?
• Does the fund's vintage year help explain its position relative to peers committed in a different part of the cycle?

Granular, fund-level disclosure is WSIB's own choice, going well beyond what many peer funds publish; it still carries the same interim-return caveats every private equity report in this pack repeats in its own words.