California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) vs Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) (C) and Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) (B) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 67% and 79% respectively — within a few points of each other.
With grades this close, the comparison turns on plan-specific factors: status (active vs frozen), participant maturity, sponsor financial health, and multi-year trajectory rather than the headline composite.
Verdict
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) at 58/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 11.8 percentage points (79.1% vs 67.3%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.
| Metric | California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 58/100 (C) | 71/100 (B)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 67.3% | 79.1%* |
| Total Assets | $473.0B | $35.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $703.0B | $44.2B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $230.0B | $9.2B* |
| Participants | 2,050,000 | 378,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.8% | 5.9%* |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | moderate | moderate |
| Sponsor | State of California | State of Minnesota |
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) at 58/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 11.8 percentage points (79.1% vs 67.3%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.