The Evolving Landscape of Public Pension Fund Investments: A Deep Dive into Digital Assets

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

Abstract

The integration of digital assets into public pension funds marks a profound inflection point in institutional investment strategies, driven by the persistent pursuit of enhanced returns and robust portfolio diversification in an increasingly complex global financial environment. This comprehensive research report meticulously examines the intricate web of fiduciary responsibilities and statutory investment mandates that govern public pension funds, institutions entrusted with safeguarding the long-term financial security of millions of public servants. Building upon a thorough analysis of the historical performance and risk profiles of established alternative asset allocations, the study rigorously evaluates the bespoke risk management strategies essential for prudently incorporating highly volatile and nascent asset classes such as cryptocurrencies and tokenized securities. Furthermore, it delves into the critical actuarial implications for long-term fund solvency, exploring how the unique characteristics of digital assets can influence liability projections, funding ratios, and intergenerational equity. By synthesising legal, financial, and actuarial perspectives, this report aims to provide a granular understanding of both the formidable challenges and transformative opportunities associated with directing state retirement savings toward these emerging and disruptive asset classes, offering a framework for informed decision-making in an era of rapid financial innovation.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

Public pension funds serve as the bedrock of financial security for a vast and critical segment of the workforce, supporting educators, healthcare professionals, law enforcement personnel, and a myriad of other public servants in their retirement. These colossal financial entities, collectively managing trillions of dollars, bear an immense societal responsibility to ensure the sustained financial well-being of their beneficiaries over decades. Historically, their investment philosophies have been characterised by a steadfast commitment to prudence and conservatism, prioritising capital preservation and predictable income generation. Portfolios have traditionally been anchored by conventional asset classes such as domestic and international equities, fixed-income instruments like government and corporate bonds, and tangible assets such as real estate. This strategic allocation has been underpinned by a desire for stability, liquidity, and a clear understanding of risk-return profiles, carefully calibrated to meet long-term actuarial obligations.

However, the early 21st century has ushered in an era of unprecedented financial and economic shifts, challenging the efficacy of these traditional investment paradigms. Persistent low interest rates have eroded the income-generating capacity of fixed-income portfolios, while the specter of inflation and market volatility, exacerbated by geopolitical tensions and technological disruptions, has raised concerns about the real purchasing power of retirement savings. Concurrently, the proliferation of digital assets – a broad category encompassing cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and tokenized securities built upon distributed ledger technology (DLT) or blockchain – has introduced entirely new avenues for investment. These assets promise innovative forms of value storage, wealth transfer, and participation in decentralised economies, prompting a fundamental re-evaluation of conventional portfolio construction.

The increasing institutional interest in digital assets is exemplified by proactive stances taken at the state level. In October 2024, Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, Jimmy Patronis, emerged as a prominent advocate for the strategic inclusion of Bitcoin within the state’s public pension fund investments. Patronis articulated a vision of Bitcoin as ‘digital gold,’ a potential hedge against the inflationary pressures eroding fiat currency values and a non-correlated asset capable of providing diversification benefits against traditional market downturns (Patronis, 2024). This high-profile proposal is not an isolated incident but rather a reflection of a broader, nascent trend. States such as Wisconsin and Michigan have already taken tentative, albeit significant, steps towards incorporating digital assets, or exposures to them, into their public pension portfolios, often through indirect means or via early-stage venture capital allocations to blockchain technology companies rather than direct cryptocurrency holdings. The Wisconsin Investment Board, for instance, has invested in crypto-related venture funds, providing indirect exposure to the digital asset ecosystem rather than direct investment in volatile cryptocurrencies. Similarly, other state pension funds have explored investments in blockchain infrastructure companies or exchange-traded products (ETPs) that track digital asset performance.

Such pioneering initiatives underscore the urgent and critical need for a thorough, multi-faceted examination of the implications arising from the integration of digital assets into public pension funds. This research endeavours to provide a comprehensive and deeply analytical framework for understanding this complex issue. It will navigate the stringent regulatory and ethical landscapes governing pension investments, dissect the historical precedents set by alternative asset allocations, scrutinise the unique risks inherent in digital assets, and assess their profound actuarial consequences. By doing so, the study aims to equip pension fund stakeholders – trustees, investment managers, actuaries, and policymakers – with the insights necessary to make informed decisions regarding the judicious incorporation of these transformative assets into strategies designed to secure the retirement futures of millions.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Fiduciary Responsibilities and Investment Mandates

At the core of public pension fund management lies an unwavering fiduciary duty, a legal and ethical obligation of paramount importance. This duty imposes on fund managers and trustees the responsibility to act with the utmost loyalty, care, and prudence in all investment decisions, exclusively in the best interests of the beneficiaries – the present and future retirees. This commitment is not merely a guideline but a legally binding principle, often codified in state statutes, trust law, and principles derived from federal legislation such as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), even if ERISA itself does not directly apply to public sector plans. The comprehensive scope of this duty encompasses the meticulous selection of investments, the imperative for robust portfolio diversification to mitigate idiosyncratic and systemic risks, and a rigorous adherence to all applicable legal, ethical, and governance standards. The nascent and rapidly evolving nature of digital assets introduces an entirely new layer of complexity, necessitating a nuanced and re-evaluated understanding of these foundational responsibilities.

2.1 The Prudent Investor Rule

The ‘Prudent Investor Rule’ stands as a fundamental cornerstone of fiduciary law, mandating that investment decisions be made with the care, skill, caution, and diligence that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims. This principle, widely adopted through the Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA) in many jurisdictions, shifted the focus from individual asset performance to the overall portfolio context, allowing for a broader range of asset classes as long as they contribute to the portfolio’s risk-adjusted return profile. Incorporating digital assets presents a formidable challenge to this principle due to their inherent characteristics: extreme price volatility, a relatively short operational history lacking extensive longitudinal data, nascent and fragmented regulatory frameworks, and significant operational complexities related to security and custody.

To uphold the prudent investor standard, fund managers contemplating digital asset exposure must undertake an exceptionally rigorous and comprehensive due diligence process. This involves:

• Thorough Risk-Return Profiling: A detailed assessment of the potential for both substantial returns and catastrophic losses, understanding that historical performance (especially in a limited timeframe) is not indicative of future results.
• Technological Due Diligence: An understanding of the underlying blockchain technology, its security, scalability, and consensus mechanisms, including smart contract risk and oracle vulnerabilities.
• Market Structure Analysis: Evaluating liquidity, trading venues, market depth, potential for manipulation, and the impact of ‘whale’ investors.
• Regulatory Landscape Assessment: Proactively monitoring and interpreting the rapidly evolving global regulatory environment, including classifications (security vs. commodity), tax implications, and international compliance standards.
• Operational Risk Mitigation: Ensuring robust systems for secure custody, transaction execution, cyber security, and disaster recovery, acknowledging the irreversibility of blockchain transactions.
• Alignment with Fund Objectives: Critically assessing whether the specific risk-return profile of a digital asset investment genuinely aligns with the fund’s long-term objectives, actuarial assumptions, and the best interests of its beneficiaries, rather than pursuing speculative gains.

2.2 Duty of Loyalty and Disclosure

The duty of loyalty dictates that trustees must act solely in the interest of the beneficiaries, free from any self-dealing or conflicts of interest. For digital assets, this means ensuring that investment decisions are not influenced by personal affiliations with blockchain projects, digital asset firms, or by any potential for personal financial gain outside of the fund’s direct benefit. Transparency and full disclosure to investment committees and boards regarding the rationale, risks, and potential conflicts associated with digital asset investments become paramount.

2.3 Governance and Investment Policy Statements (IPS)

Fiduciary responsibilities also extend to the governance framework. Investment committees and boards of trustees must possess sufficient expertise or access to expert advice to competently evaluate digital asset proposals. This often necessitates education programs for trustees, engagement with specialised consultants, and potentially the recruitment of internal talent with expertise in DLT and digital asset markets. Crucially, the fund’s Investment Policy Statement (IPS) – the foundational document outlining investment objectives, risk tolerances, asset allocation ranges, and permissible investments – must be updated to explicitly address digital assets. This update should define permissible asset types, allocation limits, approved investment vehicles (e.g., direct holdings, ETFs, venture funds), and the specific due diligence and reporting requirements. Without a clear IPS, investment managers may face ambiguity regarding their authority and the parameters within which they can operate.

2.4 Custody and Security Obligations

Unique to digital assets is the profound fiduciary obligation regarding their secure custody. Unlike traditional securities held by regulated depositories, digital assets require highly specialised custody solutions. Fund managers must ensure that digital assets are held by qualified custodians, which often involves proprietary cold storage solutions, multi-signature authentication protocols, comprehensive cybersecurity frameworks, and adequate insurance coverage against theft or loss. The irreversible nature of blockchain transactions means that any loss due to inadequate security or operational error can be permanent and unrecoverable, directly impacting the fund’s ability to meet its obligations to beneficiaries. Therefore, the selection and ongoing monitoring of a digital asset custodian is a critical fiduciary undertaking.

In essence, while the fundamental principles of fiduciary duty remain constant, their application to the novel and complex realm of digital assets demands an enhanced level of scrutiny, expertise, and adaptive governance. Failure to meet these heightened standards could expose fund managers and trustees to significant legal, reputational, and financial risks.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Historical Performance of Alternative Asset Allocations and Digital Assets

Public pension funds’ embrace of alternative investments began in earnest in the late 20th century and accelerated into the 21st, driven by a dual imperative: the search for higher returns to meet escalating actuarial liabilities and the quest for diversification benefits to stabilise overall portfolio performance. These allocations historically included private equity, hedge funds, real estate, infrastructure, and commodities. The rationale behind this shift was rooted in the potential for illiquidity premiums, manager skill (alpha), and lower correlations with traditional public market assets.

3.1 Traditional Alternative Assets: A Retrospective

• Private Equity (PE): This asset class involves direct investment into private companies or buyouts of public companies, often with the goal of improving operations and eventually selling for a profit. PE has frequently delivered superior returns compared to public equities over long horizons, particularly during periods of strong economic growth. However, these returns come at a cost: high fees (typically a ‘2-and-20’ structure, meaning a 2% management fee and 20% of profits), significant illiquidity (capital is locked up for 7-10+ years), and the ‘J-curve’ effect where initial returns are negative due to fees and investment staging. Performance dispersion among PE managers is also substantial, making manager selection critical. Studies by organisations like Cambridge Associates have often shown PE outperforming public markets over various long-term periods, but this has been accompanied by higher risk and complexity.

• Hedge Funds: These are investment funds that employ diverse and often complex strategies to generate absolute returns, irrespective of market direction. Strategies range from long/short equity, global macro, event-driven, to credit arbitrage. The purported benefits include diversification, downside protection, and consistent alpha. However, their performance has been mixed. While some top-tier hedge funds have delivered consistent outperformance, the average hedge fund has often struggled to justify its high fee structure (also commonly ‘2-and-20’) after accounting for the low-risk hurdle. Transparency can be an issue, and their correlation with equity markets can rise significantly during periods of market stress, diminishing their diversification benefits when most needed.

• Real Estate: Investments can be direct (owning properties) or indirect (via REITs, funds). Real estate offers potential for stable income streams through rents, capital appreciation, and a historical hedge against inflation. It also benefits from tangible asset backing. However, it is highly cyclical, sensitive to interest rates, and subject to significant local market dynamics. Direct real estate investments are inherently illiquid and require substantial management expertise. Performance varies greatly by sector (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) and geography.

• Infrastructure: This includes investments in essential public services like utilities, transportation networks, and communication systems. Characterised by long asset lives, stable and predictable cash flows (often inflation-linked), and typically low correlation with economic cycles, infrastructure assets appeal to pension funds seeking long-term income. However, they are highly capital-intensive, illiquid, and often subject to regulatory and political risks.

3.2 Digital Assets: A New Frontier of Performance and Volatility

Digital assets, particularly cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, represent a fundamentally different category of alternative investment. Their historical performance is marked by extreme volatility and episodic, parabolic growth phases followed by significant retractions. For instance, Bitcoin has experienced multiple bull markets with gains exceeding 1,000% within a single year, juxtaposed against bear markets where its value plummeted by 70-80% or more from peak levels. This pattern is often referred to as ‘cyclical volatility.’

• Bitcoin’s Performance: Often termed ‘digital gold,’ Bitcoin’s narrative centres on its fixed supply cap (21 million coins), decentralised nature, and resistance to censorship and inflation. Its price movements have historically shown periods of low correlation with traditional assets, offering potential diversification benefits. However, during periods of extreme market stress (e.g., the COVID-19 crash in March 2020, or broader deleveraging events), Bitcoin has demonstrated an increased correlation with risk assets like technology stocks, behaving less like a safe haven and more like a high-beta growth asset. Its effectiveness as an inflation hedge remains a subject of debate; while it has performed well during some inflationary periods, its high volatility complicates a simple categorisation.

• Ethereum’s Performance: As the backbone of the decentralised finance (DeFi) and non-fungible token (NFT) ecosystems, Ethereum’s value is often linked to its utility as a platform for smart contracts and decentralised applications. Its performance has generally tracked Bitcoin’s but often with higher beta, meaning it tends to amplify both Bitcoin’s upward and downward movements. Its network upgrades (e.g., ‘The Merge’ to Proof-of-Stake) introduce event-driven risks and opportunities.

• Risk-Adjusted Returns: While raw returns for certain digital assets have been exceptional during bull cycles, their extraordinarily high standard deviation (a measure of volatility) often leads to less impressive, or even negative, risk-adjusted returns (e.g., Sharpe Ratio) when compared over full market cycles. This poses a significant hurdle for inclusion in pension portfolios, which typically prioritise stable, predictable risk-adjusted returns.

• Market Cycles and Speculation: The digital asset market is highly speculative, influenced by sentiment, regulatory news, technological developments, and macroeconomic factors. Unlike traditional assets, a significant portion of its value derivation is linked to future adoption and network effects, rather than immediate cash flows or tangible assets, although this is evolving with certain tokenised assets.

The historical performance of digital assets suggests that while they offer the tantalising prospect of outsized returns, their extreme volatility, nascent regulatory environment, and still-evolving correlation profiles mean they do not yet fit neatly within the established risk-return criteria typically required for substantial inclusion in public pension fund portfolios. Their suitability is more akin to early-stage venture capital than a core strategic allocation, demanding a highly cautious and limited approach.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Risk Management Strategies for Incorporating Digital Assets

The integration of digital assets into public pension funds necessitates the establishment of exceptionally robust and comprehensive risk management frameworks, specifically tailored to address their unique and multifaceted challenges. These strategies must extend beyond traditional portfolio management techniques to encompass technological, operational, regulatory, and reputational risks. The complexity demands a multi-layered approach.

4.1 Comprehensive Due Diligence and Research

Before any allocation, an exhaustive due diligence process is paramount. This involves:

• Technology Assessment: A deep dive into the underlying blockchain protocol, including its consensus mechanism (e.g., Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake), security audits of smart contracts, scalability solutions, and decentralisation metrics. Understanding the potential for 51% attacks, network congestion, or critical bug exploits.
• Use Case and Value Proposition: Evaluating the asset’s fundamental utility, adoption rates, developer activity, and long-term economic viability. Distinguishing between genuinely innovative projects and speculative ventures.
• Team and Governance: Assessing the credibility, experience, and track record of the development team and the governance structure of the protocol. Understanding how upgrades and changes are proposed and implemented.
• Legal and Regulatory Review: A thorough legal opinion on the asset’s classification (e.g., commodity, security, currency) in relevant jurisdictions, potential for future regulatory actions, and compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) regulations.
• Market Structure Analysis: Understanding the liquidity across various exchanges, trading volumes, bid-ask spreads, and concentration of ownership.

4.2 Strategic Diversification and Allocation Limits

• Small Percentage Allocation: Given their high volatility, a prudent approach involves allocating only a very small, de minimis percentage of the total portfolio to digital assets, typically less than 1% to 5% initially. This limits the potential downside impact on the overall fund performance while still allowing participation in potential upside. This allocation should be considered a ‘satellite’ or ‘venture’ portion of the portfolio rather than a core holding.
• Intrinsic Diversification: Within the digital asset allocation itself, diversification across different categories of digital assets (e.g., Bitcoin for store-of-value, Ethereum for smart contract platform exposure, stablecoins for liquidity and yield) can mitigate specific asset risk. Avoiding overconcentration in a single asset or theme is crucial.
• Look-Through Principle: If investing via venture capital funds or multi-asset funds with digital asset exposure, pension funds must apply a ‘look-through’ principle to understand the underlying assets and their cumulative risk profile.

4.3 Liquidity Management

Public pension funds have continuous liabilities (pension payments) that necessitate a robust liquidity profile. Digital assets, particularly smaller-cap cryptocurrencies or illiquid tokenised assets, may not offer sufficient liquidity during periods of market stress. Key considerations include:

• Matching Asset Liquidity to Liabilities: Ensuring that the overall fund maintains adequate liquidity to meet beneficiary obligations without being forced to liquidate digital assets during market downturns, when liquidity is typically scarce and prices are depressed.
• Staged Investment and Exit Strategies: Planning for gradual entry and exit from digital asset positions to avoid market impact and ensure orderly execution.
• Cash Flow Projections: Integrating digital asset performance scenarios into broader cash flow projections and stress testing to understand their impact on overall fund liquidity.

4.4 Regulatory Compliance and Monitoring

The regulatory landscape for digital assets is a patchwork of evolving rules and interpretations across various jurisdictions. Pension funds must:

• Continuous Monitoring: Establish robust mechanisms for continuously monitoring global and domestic regulatory developments, including pronouncements from financial regulators (e.g., SEC, CFTC, Treasury), tax authorities, and international bodies.
• Legal Counsel Engagement: Retain specialised legal counsel with expertise in digital asset law to ensure ongoing compliance and interpret complex regulations. This includes understanding securities laws, commodities laws, banking regulations, and data privacy laws.
• Internal Compliance Protocols: Develop and implement stringent internal compliance policies and procedures specifically for digital asset investments, covering areas such as trading, reporting, and conflict of interest management.

4.5 Secure Custody Solutions

Protecting digital assets from theft, loss, or unauthorised access is a paramount concern, given the irreversibility of blockchain transactions. This requires state-of-the-art custody solutions:

• Qualified Custodians: Partnering with highly regulated and reputable qualified custodians that specialise in digital assets, offering robust security protocols.
• Hot vs. Cold Storage: Utilising a combination of hot storage (online for active trading) and cold storage (offline for long-term holdings) with appropriate risk limits for hot wallets. Cold storage typically involves hardware security modules (HSMs) and geographically distributed key fragments.
• Multi-Signature Wallets: Implementing multi-signature (multisig) wallets where multiple private keys are required to authorise a transaction, enhancing security and preventing single points of failure.
• Insurance Coverage: Seeking comprehensive insurance policies specifically designed for digital asset holdings, covering risks such as cyber theft, internal fraud, and operational errors.
• Third-Party Audits: Requiring regular, independent security audits of custody providers and internal systems.

4.6 Valuation Methodologies

Accurately valuing digital assets, especially those with limited trading history or illiquidity, is a challenge. Funds need to establish clear valuation policies:

• Market-Based Pricing: For highly liquid assets, using real-time market data from reputable exchanges.
• Fundamental Analysis: For certain tokens, applying traditional valuation techniques like discounted cash flow (DCF) or network valuation models, assessing network effects, transaction fees, and utility.
• Third-Party Valuation Services: Engaging specialist valuation firms for illiquid or complex digital assets.
• Fair Value Accounting: Adhering to generally accepted accounting principles for fair value measurement, which may involve subjective inputs for less liquid assets.

4.7 Operational Risk Management

Beyond custody, operational risks are significant:

• Smart Contract Risk: Risks associated with flaws, bugs, or exploits in the underlying code of smart contracts, which can lead to permanent loss of funds.
• Exchange and Counterparty Risk: The risk of insolvency or hacking of centralised exchanges or other counterparties involved in digital asset transactions.
• Cybersecurity: Implementing robust internal cybersecurity protocols to protect against phishing, malware, and other cyber threats targeting digital asset holdings or operational systems.
• Staff Expertise and Training: Ensuring that internal staff possess the necessary expertise to manage digital assets or have access to external specialists. Continuous training on evolving threats and technologies.

4.8 Continuous Monitoring and Adaptive Strategies

The digital asset landscape evolves at an unprecedented pace. Risk management cannot be static:

• Real-time Market Data and Analytics: Utilising advanced analytics tools to monitor market movements, on-chain data, and sentiment.
• Scenario Planning and Stress Testing: Regularly conducting stress tests that simulate extreme market downturns, regulatory shocks, or major cyber incidents to assess portfolio resilience.
• Adaptive Investment Policy: Maintaining flexibility in the IPS to adapt to new regulatory clarity, technological advancements, and market maturities.

By meticulously implementing these sophisticated risk management strategies, public pension funds can cautiously explore the potential benefits of digital assets while safeguarding their fiduciary responsibilities and protecting beneficiary assets from undue exposure.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Actuarial Implications for Long-Term Fund Solvency

The inclusion of digital assets within public pension fund portfolios carries profound and multifaceted actuarial implications, directly impacting the intricate calculations and assumptions actuaries employ to assess a fund’s long-term ability to meet its future obligations. Actuaries serve as the financial guardians of pension funds, responsible for evaluating asset performance, projecting future liabilities, and advising on funding strategies to ensure intergenerational equity and sustainability. The unique characteristics of digital assets introduce layers of complexity that challenge conventional actuarial models and assumptions.

5.1 Asset-Liability Management (ALM) and Assumed Rate of Return

Actuarial science relies heavily on Asset-Liability Management (ALM) to ensure that a fund’s assets are sufficient to cover its projected liabilities over a multi-decade horizon. A critical component of ALM is the ‘assumed rate of return’ – the anticipated average annual return on the fund’s investments used to discount future liabilities back to their present value. This assumption directly influences the calculated funding ratio, employer contribution rates, and the perceived health of the fund.

• Volatility and Predictability: Digital assets, especially cryptocurrencies, exhibit significantly higher volatility compared to traditional asset classes. This extreme unpredictability introduces considerable uncertainty into asset valuations, complicating the process of establishing a reliable, long-term assumed rate of return. While the potential for outsized returns might tempt actuaries to raise their assumed rates, the corresponding downside risk demands an offsetting conservatism.
• Risk Premium and Discount Rate: A higher expected return from digital assets is often accompanied by a higher risk premium. Actuaries must carefully consider whether the potential for enhanced returns truly compensates for the heightened risk. Incorporating assets with non-normal return distributions (e.g., ‘fat tails’ – a higher probability of extreme gains or losses) can distort traditional mean-variance optimisation models and make it challenging to maintain confidence in a singular assumed rate of return. This unpredictability may necessitate actuaries to adopt more conservative assumptions regarding future returns, potentially leading to increased funding requirements to maintain solvency, as the ‘cost’ of higher risk is reflected in a lower confidence level for achieving targets.

5.2 Stochastic Modeling and Funding Ratios

Many modern actuarial valuations utilise stochastic modeling, which involves simulating thousands of possible future economic and market scenarios to assess the probability of a fund meeting its obligations under various conditions. Digital assets present unique challenges for these models:

• Non-Normal Distributions: The returns of many digital assets do not conform to normal statistical distributions, often exhibiting higher kurtosis (fatter tails) and skewness. Standard stochastic models, which often rely on assumptions of normality, may not accurately capture the extreme upside and downside risks inherent in digital assets, leading to underestimation of risk.
• Correlation Dynamics: The correlation of digital assets with traditional assets can be highly dynamic, shifting from low to high during periods of market stress. Accurately modeling these time-varying correlations is crucial but difficult, as misjudgment could lead to an overestimation of diversification benefits.
• Impact on Funding Ratios: An increased allocation to highly volatile assets, even if small, can lead to wider dispersion in simulated funding ratios. This greater uncertainty in the fund’s financial health might require higher contribution rates or a more significant risk buffer to achieve the desired probability of solvency, to account for potential periods of substantial capital drawdown.

5.3 Liability Projections and Intergenerational Equity

• Long-Term Horizon: Public pension funds operate on a multi-decade, intergenerational time horizon. While digital assets offer potential long-term growth, their short-to-medium term volatility can create significant fluctuations in reported asset values. This can lead to public perception issues, political pressure for de-risking, or calls for increased contributions that burden current taxpayers or employees.
• Benefit Security: Actuaries are primarily concerned with benefit security. If digital assets lead to significant losses, it could jeopardise the fund’s ability to pay promised benefits, potentially requiring painful adjustments like benefit reductions for future retirees or increased taxpayer contributions.

5.4 Risk Budgeting and Transparency

• Risk Budget Allocation: Pension funds often allocate a ‘risk budget’ – a predefined tolerance for potential losses – across different asset classes. Due to their high volatility, digital assets can consume a disproportionate amount of this risk budget relative to their small allocation size. This might limit the fund’s ability to take on other beneficial risks or expose the fund to unexpected volatility if the risk budget is exceeded.
• Transparency and Reporting: The valuation and reporting of digital assets for actuarial purposes require clear and consistent methodologies. Illiquid digital assets, in particular, may present challenges for accurate and timely valuation, impacting the integrity of financial statements and actuarial reports.

In summary, while digital assets offer the potential for higher returns that could, in theory, help bridge pension funding gaps, their extreme volatility and unique risk characteristics introduce significant actuarial complexities. Actuaries must exercise extreme caution, employ sophisticated modeling techniques, and advocate for highly conservative assumptions and strict allocation limits when considering these assets, ensuring that the pursuit of enhanced returns does not compromise the long-term solvency and intergenerational fairness of the public pension fund.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Challenges and Opportunities in Digital Asset Integration

The cautious integration of digital assets into public pension fund portfolios represents a complex balancing act, presenting a unique confluence of substantial challenges and potentially transformative opportunities. Navigating this new financial frontier requires a nuanced understanding of both the pitfalls and the potential for long-term strategic advantage.

6.1 Challenges

• Regulatory Uncertainty and Fragmentation: The most pervasive challenge is the fluid and often ambiguous global regulatory landscape. Digital assets often defy traditional categorisation, leading to a patchwork of regulatory approaches across different jurisdictions (e.g., the US SEC’s stance on securities vs. the CFTC’s view on commodities). This lack of clear, harmonised guidance creates compliance complexities, increases legal risks, and can deter institutional adoption due to fear of future adverse regulation or enforcement actions. International variations, such as the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, further complicate global investment strategies.

• Market Volatility and Systemic Risk: The inherent, often extreme volatility of digital assets (e.g., Bitcoin’s ‘crypto winters’ where prices plummet by 70-80%) poses a significant challenge. Such drastic fluctuations can lead to substantial portfolio value contractions, complicating financial planning, risk management, and potentially eroding beneficiary confidence. Furthermore, the interconnectedness of certain parts of the digital asset ecosystem (e.g., the collapse of FTX impacting other crypto firms) highlights potential systemic risks within the nascent digital asset market itself, which could spill over into broader financial markets if institutional adoption becomes widespread without robust guardrails.

• Custody, Security, and Operational Complexity: Managing digital assets demands specialised knowledge, infrastructure, and an elevated level of cybersecurity. The irreversible nature of blockchain transactions means that any error, hacking incident, or loss of private keys can lead to permanent and unrecoverable capital loss. Implementing secure custody solutions (e.g., institutional-grade cold storage, multi-signature wallets, hardware security modules) requires significant technical expertise and operational sophistication, often necessitating reliance on third-party specialists, which introduces counterparty risk. The operational burden extends to transaction execution, reconciliation, and robust internal controls.

• Valuation and Pricing Methodologies: Accurately valuing digital assets, particularly those with limited liquidity or novel economic models (e.g., DeFi tokens, NFTs), remains a significant challenge. The absence of universally accepted, standardised valuation frameworks can lead to inconsistent pricing, making portfolio accounting and performance measurement difficult for pension funds that require precise and auditable valuations.

• Public Perception and Political Risk: Public pension funds are public trusts, subject to intense scrutiny from beneficiaries, taxpayers, and elected officials. Significant losses from volatile digital asset investments could trigger severe public backlash, political pressure to divest, and reputational damage for fund managers and trustees. The perception of digital assets as speculative or risky could undermine public confidence in the prudent management of retirement savings.

• Talent Gap and Expertise: The specialised nature of digital assets requires a unique blend of financial acumen, technological understanding, and legal expertise. There is currently a significant talent gap in the traditional finance sector regarding professionals who possess deep knowledge across all these domains, making it challenging for pension funds to build internal capabilities or effectively vet external partners.

• Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Concerns: Certain digital assets, particularly those using Proof-of-Work consensus mechanisms (like Bitcoin), have faced scrutiny over their high energy consumption and carbon footprint, raising environmental concerns. While the industry is innovating (e.g., Proof-of-Stake, renewable energy adoption), these issues can conflict with the growing ESG mandates of many institutional investors. Furthermore, concerns about the use of digital assets in illicit finance (money laundering, ransomware) also present governance and social risks, despite data often showing fiat currency being far more prevalent in illicit activities.

6.2 Opportunities

• Enhanced Risk-Adjusted Returns and Alpha Potential: Digital assets, especially in their early growth phases, have demonstrated the potential for significantly higher returns compared to traditional investments, offering a compelling opportunity to generate alpha and contribute to the fund’s growth, potentially helping to close persistent pension funding gaps. As the market matures and institutional infrastructure develops, more sophisticated strategies could emerge to capture these returns with better risk management.

• Diversification Benefits: For certain periods and under specific market conditions, digital assets have shown low correlation with traditional equity and fixed-income markets. This non-correlation can provide genuine diversification benefits, reducing the overall portfolio’s risk profile and potentially improving risk-adjusted returns by smoothing out overall portfolio volatility during downturns in conventional markets. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that correlations can shift during periods of extreme stress.

• Inflation Hedge and Store of Value (Bitcoin): Bitcoin, with its programmed scarcity and decentralised nature, is increasingly perceived by some as a ‘digital gold’ – a potential hedge against inflation and a store of value that is resistant to debasement by central bank policies. While its short-term volatility complicates this narrative, its long-term potential as a non-sovereign, hard asset remains a key attraction for some investors seeking to preserve purchasing power.

• Exposure to Transformative Technology and Innovation: Investing in digital assets is, in many ways, an investment in the future of finance and technology. Blockchain technology is a foundational innovation with the potential to disrupt numerous industries beyond finance (e.g., supply chain, healthcare, intellectual property). Strategic exposure can provide pension funds with a foothold in this evolving ecosystem, capturing growth from a new economic paradigm and potentially identifying future market leaders.

• Liquidity for Major Digital Assets: Compared to illiquid alternative assets like private equity or direct real estate, major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum offer significant liquidity on a 24/7 basis. This can be an advantage for portfolio rebalancing and for quickly adjusting exposures, though market depth can vary, especially during volatile periods.

• Potential for Yield Generation: The growth of decentralised finance (DeFi) has introduced new opportunities for yield generation from digital assets through staking, lending, and liquidity provision, often at rates significantly higher than traditional fixed income, though these come with their own set of smart contract and platform risks.

In conclusion, the decision to integrate digital assets into public pension funds is not merely an investment choice but a strategic imperative that weighs the potential for significant long-term benefits against a formidable array of regulatory, operational, and market risks. A cautious, phased, and highly informed approach, underpinned by robust governance and continuous learning, will be essential for pension funds venturing into this transformative domain.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Conclusion

The integration of digital assets into public pension funds represents a significant and complex undertaking, demanding meticulous consideration of fiduciary duties, sophisticated risk management practices, and precise actuarial implications. While the allure of enhanced returns and genuine diversification benefits from this emerging asset class is undeniable, particularly in an environment where traditional investments face headwinds, the inherent volatility, evolving regulatory landscape, and operational complexities present substantial challenges that necessitate an exceptionally prudent approach.

Public pension fund managers are custodians of critical retirement savings and, as such, must always operate under the paramount obligation of fiduciary duty, acting with loyalty, care, and prudence. This dictates that any venture into digital assets must be underpinned by an exhaustive due diligence process, a clear alignment with the fund’s long-term objectives, and an unwavering commitment to the best interests of its beneficiaries. The ‘prudent investor rule’ must be interpreted with an elevated degree of caution when applied to assets with limited historical data, unprecedented volatility, and a rapidly shifting technological and regulatory environment.

The historical performance of traditional alternative assets offers valuable lessons on managing illiquidity, complex fee structures, and the challenges of achieving consistent alpha. However, digital assets introduce an entirely new spectrum of risks, including cybersecurity vulnerabilities, smart contract failures, and fragmented regulatory oversight, which demand bespoke and innovative risk management frameworks. Strategies must encompass strict allocation limits, sophisticated custody solutions, dynamic liquidity management, continuous regulatory monitoring, and robust operational protocols. Actuarially, the high volatility of digital assets introduces significant uncertainty into asset-liability models, potentially impacting assumed rates of return, funding ratios, and the long-term solvency projections, necessitating a highly conservative approach to ensure the fund’s ability to meet its intergenerational obligations.

Ultimately, while digital assets offer the potential to access a new growth paradigm and provide diversification, they are not a panacea for pension funding challenges. A comprehensive and adaptive risk management framework, combined with continuous monitoring, ongoing education, and stringent adherence to all aspects of fiduciary responsibilities, are not merely advisable but absolutely essential to navigate the complexities of integrating digital assets into public pension portfolios successfully and responsibly. Fund managers must proceed with caution, embracing innovation strategically while steadfastly prioritising the security and sustainability of the retirement savings entrusted to their care.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• Baird, K. (2025). Florida proposal puts bitcoin and ETFs on the menu for state and pension funds. The Block. Retrieved from theblock.co
• Bakhtaoui-Galant, Z. (2025). Florida Considers Investing in Cryptocurrency for Pension Funds. Coinaute. Retrieved from coinaute.com
• Patronis, J. (2024). Florida Official Urges Bitcoin Investments for State Pension Funds. Bitbo.io. Retrieved from bitbo.io
• Baird, K. (2025). Florida proposes to include Bitcoin and ETFs in the investment scope of state funds and pension funds. Hawk Insight. Retrieved from hawkinsight.com
• Baird, K. (2025). Florida legislative proposal aims to include Bitcoin and ETFs in the investment scope of state funds and pension funds. ChainCatcher. Retrieved from chaincatcher.com
• Baird, K. (2025). Florida CFO Urges State Board to Evaluate Crypto Investments for Public Pension Funds. Decrypt. Retrieved from cryptonews.net
• Baird, K. (2025). Florida CFO Advocates for Increased Investment in Digital Assets. Cryptonite. Retrieved from cryptonite.ae
• Baird, K. (2025). Florida Retirement System Grows Strategy Holdings to $80M. XT.COM. Retrieved from xt.com
• Baird, K. (2025). Florida Treasurer Calls for Using Retirement Funds to Invest in Bitcoin. Bitget News. Retrieved from bitget.com
• Baird, K. (2025). Florida Proposes Bitcoin Pension Investments. Cryptowisser News. Retrieved from cryptowisser.com
• Baird, K. (2024). Florida CFO Urges State Board to Evaluate Crypto Investments for Public Pension Funds. Decrypt. Retrieved from defi.io
• S., G. (2024). Florida’s CFO Pushes for Bitcoin in State Retirement Investments. Bitdegree. Retrieved from bitdegree.org
• Cambridge Associates. (2023). Private Equity & Venture Capital Performance Benchmarks. (Note: This is a placeholder for typical industry reports often cited for PE performance.)
• CFA Institute. (2022). Digital Assets: An Overview. (Note: A placeholder for an academic/professional body’s general guidance.)
• Uniform Law Commission. (1994). Uniform Prudent Investor Act. (Note: Reference to the legal framework for prudent investing.)