Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) vs Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) at 68/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 6.8 percentage points (79.1% vs 72.3%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.
| Metric | Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 68/100 (B) | 71/100 (B)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 72.3% | 79.1%* |
| Total Assets | $46.0B | $35.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $63.6B | $44.2B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $17.6B | $9.2B* |
| Participants | 588,000 | 378,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.8% | 5.9%* |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | moderate | moderate |
| Sponsor | State of Arizona | State of Minnesota |
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) at 68/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 6.8 percentage points (79.1% vs 72.3%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.