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
Verdict
Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund at 29/100 (F). Funding ratios differ by 62.8 percentage points (84.8% vs 22.0%). Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) covers 372,000 participants.
| Metric | Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund | Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 29/100 (F) | 80/100 (A)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 22.0% | 84.8%* |
| Total Assets | $9.5B | $35.5B |
| Total Liabilities | $43.2B | $41.9B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $33.7B | $6.4B* |
| Participants | 380,000 | 372,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 4.5% | 6.4%* |
| Plan Type | multiemployer | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | critical | low |
| Sponsor | Teamsters Central States | State of Iowa |
Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund at 29/100 (F). Funding ratios differ by 62.8 percentage points (84.8% vs 22.0%). Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) covers 372,000 participants.