Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund 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 Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund at 29/100 (F). Funding ratios differ by 57.1 percentage points (79.1% vs 22.0%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.
| Metric | Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 29/100 (F) | 71/100 (B)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 22.0% | 79.1%* |
| Total Assets | $9.5B | $35.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $43.2B* | $44.2B |
| Unfunded Liability | $33.7B | $9.2B* |
| Participants | 380,000 | 378,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 4.5% | 5.9%* |
| Plan Type | multiemployer | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | critical | moderate |
| Sponsor | Teamsters Central States | State of Minnesota |
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund at 29/100 (F). Funding ratios differ by 57.1 percentage points (79.1% vs 22.0%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.