Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) vs Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) (C) and Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) (B) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 65% and 79% 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
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 61/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 14.3 percentage points (79.1% vs 64.8%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.
| Metric | Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 61/100 (C) | 71/100 (B)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 64.8% | 79.1%* |
| Total Assets | $58.0B | $35.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $89.5B | $44.2B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $31.5B | $9.2B* |
| Participants | 625,000 | 378,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.5% | 5.9%* |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | high | moderate |
| Sponsor | State of Colorado | State of Minnesota |
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 61/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 14.3 percentage points (79.1% vs 64.8%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.