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
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.