--- title: "FCERA expanded private credit capacity and kept Aksia after a fee review | Altss Blog" description: "FCERA increased private credit capacity and retained Aksia after a fee review. The implications for institutional fundraising." canonical: "https://altss.com/blog/fcera-private-credit-capacity-aksia-fee-review-2026" --- [Altss Research](https://www.linkedin.com/company/altss) 3 min read Updated Nov 13, 2026 Share # FCERA expanded private credit capacity and kept Aksia after a fee review FCERA increased private credit capacity and retained Aksia after a fee review. The implications for institutional fundraising. [Back to blog](https://altss.com/blog) Share [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=) [X](https://x.com/intent/tweet?url=&text=FCERA%20expanded%20private%20credit%20capacity%20and%20kept%20Aksia%20after%20a%20fee%20review) Copy link On October 21, 2026, the Fresno County Employees’ Retirement Association board [voted 6–0](https://fcera.community.diligentoneplatform.com/document/38121?lastModified=639294088942600000) to accept an advisory fee reduction and continue its relationship with Aksia. ## The June increase addressed a specific capacity shortfall FCERA’s [June 3 staff memorandum](https://fcera.community.diligentoneplatform.com/document/769c6d91-8fc3-4a3f-b53b-8ca7882813f7/) set out a $190 million private credit pacing plan for 2026. With $40 million committed during the year, it identified $150 million still to commit. High Sierra Series 2 had approximately $54 million of remaining authorisation. The difference was about $96 million. Adding $100 million would take that remaining capacity to roughly $154 million, only about $4 million above the remaining pacing plan. This arithmetic uses the memorandum’s dated, approximate figures; it does not establish how much capacity remained later in the year. The board [approved the increase 8–0](https://fcera.community.diligentoneplatform.com/document/31187?lastModified=639173212724400000). The associated [guideline amendment](https://fcera.community.diligentoneplatform.com/document/6cad073f-1aab-48ab-abd8-19474b1dbeff) raised Series 2’s commitment ceiling from $500 million to $600 million and retained its December 31, 2026 end date. The approval also authorised the chair to execute the corresponding investment management agreement amendment. These records establish the board’s authority and instructions; they do not demonstrate that the matching agreement was executed or identify a new underlying fund commitment. Treating the $600 million ceiling as a fresh pool of available capital would substantially overstate what this decision says. ## A programme review did not predetermine an adviser replacement FCERA’s [May request for quotes](https://content.fcera.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/FCERA-Private-Credit-and-Private-Equity-Program-Evaluation-and-Search-Assistance-Request-for-Quote-002-1.pdf) sought help evaluating its discretionary private credit and private equity relationships. The assignment allowed recommendations to retain or change providers. A subsequent advisory RFP depended on the recommendation and board approval of a plan of action. That structure created two decisions to track: what the evaluator would recommend and what the board would adopt. Altss’s [Connecticut consultant-authority analysis](https://altss.com/blog/connecticut-private-capital-consultant-recommendations-investment-authority) examines the same distinction between recommendation and authority. The procurement itself did not solicit commitments to underlying private funds. A firm selling advisory services and a fund seeking capital therefore had different reasons to follow it. ## The fee review clarified the cost of retention The [October staff memorandum](https://fcera.community.diligentoneplatform.com/document/3cb8f2dd-ada3-4c58-af19-ac2ad089dec7) describes a consequential document problem. Staff obtained final investment documents, discovered that the earlier fee understanding was wrong and asked RVK to revisit its assessment and discuss a reduction with Aksia. [RVK’s October 21 memorandum](https://fcera.community.diligentoneplatform.com/document/f049ad04-58ee-4448-aa99-11df8201fc74) distinguishes the two fee bases. The 2.5-basis-point rate applied to legacy assets. High Sierra I and II were subject to 35 basis points on NAV. Aksia proposed 30 basis points on the first $500 million, with 22.5 basis points above that threshold; the legacy rate remained unchanged. Staff estimated annual savings of approximately $187,000. The calculation is five basis points multiplied by $374 million—the combined High Sierra asset value that RVK dated to June 30, 2026. It is an annualised estimate on that asset base, not evidence of realised savings. Applying the reduction to Series 2’s $600 million commitment ceiling would mix a commitment limit with the assets used to assess advisory fees. ## The follow-up depends on the role being pursued An advisory competitor should update this lead around the adopted October outcome. An underlying credit manager needs a different assessment: whether its strategy fits the continuing programme and whether subsequent investment decisions demonstrate an opportunity. The capacity amendment alone supplies neither an allocation to a named manager nor evidence of unused capacity today. Share this article Share ## Related articles [Image: Top 6 Private-Company Deal-Sourcing Databases Used by PE & VC Firms (2026)](https://altss.com/blog/top-6-private-company-deal-sourcing-databases-used-by-pe-and-vc-firms-2025) Private Markets 18 min read ### [Top 6 Private-Company Deal-Sourcing Databases Used by PE & VC Firms (2026)](https://altss.com/blog/top-6-private-company-deal-sourcing-databases-used-by-pe-and-vc-firms-2025) Updated for 2026: the six platforms buy-side teams actually use—PitchBook, S&P Capital IQ Pro, SourceScrub, Grata, CB Insights, and Altss—with ownership ch [Altss Research](https://www.linkedin.com/company/altss) Oct 6, 2025 [Image: A removable report face for Citadel and a separate reveal shield for HBK illustrate restatement versus later disclosure of historical holdings.](https://altss.com/blog/13f-amendments-restatement-new-holdings-citadel-hbk) Private Markets 4 min read ### [13F amendments: replacing a report or adding previously omitted holdings](https://altss.com/blog/13f-amendments-restatement-new-holdings-citadel-hbk) 13F restatements and additions need different dataset operations. Exact Citadel and HBK filings show reporting-period and entry-count boundaries. [Altss Research](https://www.linkedin.com/company/altss) Oct 15, 2026 [Image: A three-date comparison instrument separates June30 holdings, August14 filing and October15 observation,107days after the holdings date.](https://altss.com/blog/13f-october-2026-june-holdings-q3-reporting-deadline) Private Markets 6 min read ### [13F dates in October 2026: June holdings and the Q3 deadline](https://altss.com/blog/13f-october-2026-june-holdings-q3-reporting-deadline) Original Q2 filings and current SEC guidance explain holdings dates, filing dates, the Q3 deadline and what an October 13F observation can establish. [Altss Research](https://www.linkedin.com/company/altss) Oct 15, 2026 ## Canonical URL https://altss.com/blog/fcera-private-credit-capacity-aksia-fee-review-2026