Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) 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 Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 61/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 20.0 percentage points (84.8% vs 64.8%). Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) covers 372,000 participants.
| Metric | Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) | Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 61/100 (C) | 80/100 (A)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 64.8% | 84.8%* |
| Total Assets | $58.0B | $35.5B |
| Total Liabilities | $89.5B | $41.9B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $31.5B | $6.4B* |
| Participants | 625,000 | 372,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.5% | 6.4%* |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | high | low |
| Sponsor | State of Colorado | State of Iowa |
Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 61/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 20.0 percentage points (84.8% vs 64.8%). Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) covers 372,000 participants.