Very sad executive office is in leadership positions
Pros
Work-life balance and benefits (let's hope I get them). I have an excellent manager now since switching to a different asset class. If you want to have a good paying job (if above IO 1 level D) that has a positive mission, CalPERS can be a good place to work if you care about wanting to make sure public employees have a retirement.
Cons
What can I say, a current board member was accused of sexual harassment and never fired. The board has made many poor political decisions that has led to the increased unfunded status that is projected to worsen over time. Leadership makes political decisions, i.e. the fund lost $9 billion in divesting from tobacco. Decisions like that are made without doing appropriate scenario analysis or impact to returns of the fund. Executive staff doesn't seem to understand basic math as allocation to the different asset classes and their expected returns never seem to enter the formula otherwise they would see they can't reach the expected rate of return. Duh. There is no openness in the decision making process and staff is often lied to by management about what is going on. Current leadership seems incapable of handling negative P.R. There is no accountability in those who are making investment decision either. CalPERS has high standards for external managers but if we rated ourselves as an investment manager, it would be laughable. Be prepared to be dismissed by the CIO and COO. They treat lower staff like they are idiots and annoyances to be rid of which is why it is not a surprise at the open committee when they discuss "talent management", it is only manager level positions they talk about. It is ridiculous for an Investment Officer I position, they expect 3- 5 years of industry experience while your manager more than likely doesn't have the demanded level of skill, education, or knowledge (my experience). The majority of asset class leadership is so toxic, good luck ever getting a promotion. The INVO department heads fight with each other about what positions will go where. So if you work in an asset class that management doesn't like or is politically hot, sorry, your promotion opportunities are swiped from you and given to another team. This is why people get stuck at IO 1 and IO 2 positions for years...and years. However, if the CIO likes you, he will allow for a whole new department for his favored person to lead even though there is no analysis on how this new asset will impact overall fund return or actual investment opportunities. Further, CalPERS loves to create committees that serve NO purpose or actually produce anything that goes into a decision. This wastes hours of professional time with pointless meetings where extra work is created for no purpose. CalPERS loves to talk about Core Values but the top leadership doesn't have the human capability of demonstrating them. I find it very sad that as a lower level employee, how much I care about providing and safeguarding retirement for public employees while executives and leadership do not care at all. I really think either the board structure needs to change in requiring a minimum level of investment knowledge or actual accountability of decision makers to have alignment of interest with fund returns.
