Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) vs New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 28.9 percentage points (81.2% vs 52.3%). Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) covers 438,000 participants.
| Metric | Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) | New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 80/100 (A)* | 54/100 (C) |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 81.2%* | 52.3% |
| Total Assets | $51.2B | $34.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $63.1B* | $65.0B |
| Unfunded Liability | $11.9B* | $31.0B |
| Participants | 438,000 | 425,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.8%* | 5.1% |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | low | high |
| Sponsor | State of Illinois | State of New Jersey |
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 28.9 percentage points (81.2% vs 52.3%). Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) covers 438,000 participants.