Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) vs General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 78/100 (B) compared to Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 61/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 15.3 percentage points (80.1% vs 64.8%). General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan covers 302,000 participants.
| Metric | Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) | General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 61/100 (C) | 78/100 (B)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 64.8% | 80.1%* |
| Total Assets | $58.0B | $66.5B |
| Total Liabilities | $89.5B | $83.0B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $31.5B | $16.5B* |
| Participants | 625,000 | 302,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.5% | 7.2%* |
| Plan Type | public | corporate |
| PBGC Risk Level | high | low |
| Sponsor | State of Colorado | General Motors |
General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 78/100 (B) compared to Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 61/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 15.3 percentage points (80.1% vs 64.8%). General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan covers 302,000 participants.