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
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.