Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund vs Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS)

Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data

Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund (A) and Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) (A) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 94% and 85% 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

Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund has a stronger Pension Health Score of 97/100 (A) compared to Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 9.3 percentage points (94.1% vs 84.8%). Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund covers 634,861 participants.

MetricCentral States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension FundIowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS)
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
97/100 (A)*80/100 (A)
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
94.1%*84.8%
Total Assets$55.6B$35.5B
Total Liabilities$59.1B$41.9B*
Unfunded Liability$3.5B*$6.4B
Participants634,861372,000
1-Year Investment Return4.5%6.4%*
Plan Typemultiemployerpublic
PBGC Risk Levellowlow
SponsorTeamsters Central StatesState of Iowa

Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund has a stronger Pension Health Score of 97/100 (A) compared to Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 9.3 percentage points (94.1% vs 84.8%). Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund covers 634,861 participants.

Explore More