FAQs

1. How do I know if I have retirement investments in the UC Retirement Savings Plan (UCRSP) versus the UC Retirement Plan (UCRP) pension?

To look up your UCRSP accounts, go to (or create) your Fidelity NetBenefits account. You can also check if you have a UCRP account at a different login portal, here.

The details are maddeningly complicated, but the bottom line is simple: most UC faculty have at least some investments in the defined-contribution (UCRSP) component of the UC retirement system. That means most of us are given some control over where these investments are made. Step 1 of this campaign is about choices given the existing options; Step 2 is about improving the options.

Faculty may be invested in the UCRSP through either (1) required retirement contributions (from faculty and/or the UC) directed primarily to the Defined Contribution Plan (DCP), (2) required faculty and UC contributions to a 403(b) plan based on summer salary, and/or (3) additional voluntary retirement savings made via UC-sponsored DCP, 403(b), or 457(b) plans. Regardless of how they got there, these UCRSP funds are all invested via faculty choice from the same menu.

(A) Required contributions to UCRSP plans

Retirement benefits are one component of UC faculty compensation; they include varying combinations of funding by the UC and required deductions from faculty salary. These primary retirement benefits have changed significantly over time.

Faculty hired before July 2016 are mostly part of what is known as the “1976 Tier” of UC retirement benefits; those hired in 2013-16 are part of the “2013 Tier.” Both 1976 and 2013 Tier retirement benefits are delivered primarily through the UCRP traditional defined-benefit pension plan, where faculty do not control investment of individual accounts. However, faculty hired before 2010 also made some mandatory contributions to the DCP. In addition, summer salary before July 2016 triggered UC and faculty contributions to the DCP.

Faculty hired since July 2016 participate in the Retirement Choice Program, which assigns employees by default to Pension Choice or, at their option, to Savings Choice. Pension Choice is another UCRP traditional defined-benefit pension. However, faculty Pension Choice participants with salaries above a state law threshold (about $155,000 in 2025) have additional contributions made by UC and themselves into the DCP. For participants in Savings Choice, all required UC and faculty contributions are directed to the DCP.

Summer salary since July 2016 triggers mandatory UC and faculty contributions to a 403(b) plan within the UCRSP. Details here.

(B) Voluntary contributions to DCP, 403(b), and 457(b) plans

In addition to the primary retirement benefits, faculty may elect to make supplemental, voluntary contributions to several different UC-sponsored plans: DCP, 403(b), and 457(b). All these share the same investment menu within UCRSP.

2. How does the UC Social Equity Fund compare to other investment options within the UCRSP?

Employees with retirement savings in the UCRSP choose from a menu of index funds composed by UC Investments. Based on prior divestment campaigns, all these funds are stated to be fossil fuel-free and tobacco-free. Currently included in the menu is the UC Social Equity Fund, a US stock fund with an “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) screen. Among the screen’s criteria are excluding holdings in weapons manufacturers and certain human rights violators. The most similar non-ESG fund in the UCRSP is the UC Domestic Equity Index Fund. According to information from weaponsfreefunds.org, the UC Social Equity Fund (which tracks the FTSE4Good US Select Index) has no holdings in weapons manufacturers compared to 2.95% of holdings by value for the Domestic Equity Index Fund (based on the Russell 3000). According to this Palestine solidarity divestment shortlist compiled by AFSC, the UC Social Equity Fund has 0.76% of their holdings’ value complicit in occupation, apartheid and genocide, compared to 53.6156% for the UC Domestic Equity Index Fund. The AFSC’s broader divestment shortlist also includes companies complicit in mass incarceration, border policing, and related surveillance. The US Social Equity Fund has .96% of its holdings in companies on this list, compared to 6.84% for UC Domestic Equity.

Over the periods shown below, investments in the UC Social Equity Fund fared similarly, and in most cases slightly better, than investments in UC Domestic Equity Index Fund, according to the UC. Of course, the future can be different than the past, but this at least illustrates that excluding stocks based on the UC Social Equity Fund’s social responsibility screen does not necessarily lead to lower returns.

3. How might moving my money affect my financial security in retirement?

This is a big question! For individualized financial planning advice, please consult a financial advisor; the UC offers a service through Fidelity here. Although we cannot give you investment advice, here is some background information that may be useful. Keep in mind that the UC Move Your Money ask (in Step 1) is to move at least 10% of your UCRSP retirement savings into the UC Social Equity Fund (and to tell us you did!). That 10% figure allows UC Social Equity Fund investments to be part of a diversified retirement savings portfolio. The Social Equity Fund consists of stocks in large U.S. companies, so, aside from its screen for socially responsible considerations, it has features similar to other mutual funds consisting of large U.S. stocks.

Conventional retirement savings advice often recommends that workers invest more heavily in stocks (which often have both higher risks and higher rewards over time) when they are further from retirement and then shift the balance toward a higher proportion of bonds (generally lower risk and lower reward) closer to retirement. For instance, the UC Pathway Fund 2060, which is targeted at those who may plan to retire around 2060, consists of about 10% bonds and 90% stocks. In contrast, the UC Pathway Fund 2030 consists of about 30% bonds and 70% stocks. In addition, workers often are advised to diversify among different types of stocks. For instance, about half of the UC Pathway Fund 2030’s stock investments are in large U.S. companies via the UC Domestic Equity Index Fund, while the other half is spread among index funds of large non-U.S. companies, as well as small U.S. companies and some specialized investments. All of the UC Pathway Funds have at least 20% (and often much more) in the UC Domestic Equity Index Fund, which is the most similar to UC Social Equity in terms of its focus on large U.S. stocks. Thus, anyone putting 10% of their UCRSP investments into UC Social Equity would have ample room to achieve a mix of asset classes similar to the default UC Pathway Funds, depending, of course, on how the remainder of the funds are invested.

An additional consideration is how much someone’s overall retirement finances depend on their UCRSP savings. For some people, their UCRSP savings are relatively small compared to what they expect from the UC’s traditional defined-benefit UCRP pension. In contrast, some more recent hires who opted into the UC Savings Choice plan may be relying more much heavily on their UCRSP accounts. There also is variation in how much savings someone might have from time spent in non-UC employment or in other savings outside the UC retirement system. Where UCRSP accounts are a smaller proportion of total retirement savings, then 10% of UCRSP is likewise a smaller proportion of the total.

Focusing just on a comparison between the UC Social Equity Fund and the UC Domestic Equity Fund (both holding stocks in a cross-section of large U.S. companies), the UC reported the following rates of return as of June 30, 2025:

Over the periods shown, investments in the UC Social Equity Fund fared similarly, and in most cases slightly better, than investments in UC Domestic Equity Index Fund. Of course, the future can be different than the past, but this at least illustrates that excluding stocks based on the UC Social Equity Fund’s social responsibility screen does not necessarily lead to lower returns.

4. How would the existing UC Social Equity Fund need to change to become a State Violence Free Fund?

The UC Social Equity Fund has some very important limitations. As a US stock fund, the largest category of holdings is information technology. Information technology corporations such as Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Nvidia have not made it to the divestment list of AFSC. Nonetheless, there is rapidly increasing evidence (including from the AFSC) of their complicity in occupation and genocide in Palestine, and Big Tech has been actively embracing the military under the second Trump administration. Indeed, AFSC also identifies Amazon and Microsoft as complicit in mass incarceration and border policing. When technology corporations are taken into account as was done in the unmaskingucla.org white paper, a staggering 27% (by value) of the UC Social Equity Fund holdings are complicit, just under the 27.4% of the UC Domestic Equity Index Fund. When counting by companies without weighting for the size of holdings, UC Social Equity Index Fund invests in 22 companies identified by the white paper, versus 37 for UC Domestic Equity Index Fund. This highlights how divestment from even a few companies can make a large difference to the proportion of assets invested in complicit corporations. An important role of divestment is to pressure corporations to not work with states engaged in occupation, apartheid and genocide, and nowhere is this pressure more needed than in the technology sector. A truly conscientious fund would require companies that seek investments to refuse to work with such states.

In addition, the UC Social Equity Fund includes some holdings that are on the AFSC’s broader divestment shortlist, but not its Palestine-specific one, based on their complicity in borders or prisons. This includes two banks that are major financiers of private prisons in the U.S. and Axon Enterprise (formerly TASER), a major supplier of “less-lethal” weapons and other policing and surveillance tools.

5. How is the UCRP traditional defined-benefit pension plan invested in state violence?

Investments in the UCRP that are complicit in occupation, genocide and apartheid have been exposed by a research white paper by graduate students for justice in Palestine and the rank and file caucus of UAW 4811. With the two largest index funds in the UCRP portfolio (labelled as MSCI ACWI IMI TF EX-TOB AND FF and SSGA S&P 500 EX-TOB UCRP), the white paper research estimates over $10.4 billion dollars (nearly one-fifth of the total index funds’ value) of complicit investments. This includes $1.4 billion dollars of investment in weapons manufacturers, and $7.3 billion dollars of complicit information technology investments. Investments beyond the index funds do not disclose their holdings, but researchers found many ties with the military industrial complex.

6. Do faculty currently have any formal avenues to participate in decisions about the investment of UCRP (traditional pension) funds and the investment menu for UCRSP (defined contribution plans)?

Under development.

7. How might critiques of BDS or ESG apply to this campaign for a State Violence Free Fund?

In June 2025, in direct response to Trump administration pressure, UC President Michael Drake announced that “university entities” are banned from boycotting Israel. In a letter to campus leadership, UC President Michael Drake wrote that “boycotts of companies based on their association with a particular country” were a violation of university policy. The divestment campaign laid out in this document does not run afoul of this stated ban because it targets state violence broadly conceived and does not single out Israel. That said, Drake’s pronouncement is a clear example of the Palestine/Israel exception, in which standards applied to other nations (South Africa during the apartheid regime, Sudan in the wake of the Darfur genocide) do not and cannot apply to Israel / Palestine. To wit, the UC Regents voted to divest from South Africa over apartheid in 1986 and from Sudan after the Darfur genocide in 2006. At the state level, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 221 into law in 2007, requiring two California pension funds, CalPERS and CalSTRS, to divest from companies doing business with defense or energy in Iran due to human rights violations and terrorism. Similar bills have been enacted for divestment from Sudan (AB 2941 in 2006) and Turkey (AB 1320 in 2019). At the federal level, the Trump administration is making a number of anti-ESG moves (largely focused on climate politics), but even those that may eventually affect pension investments should apply only to federally regulated private sector pension plans, not the UC.

Google Sites

Report abuse