Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) vs UFCW International Union Industry Pension Fund
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
UFCW International Union Industry Pension Fund has a stronger Pension Health Score of 93/100 (A) compared to Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 1.1 percentage points (85.9% vs 84.8%). UFCW International Union Industry Pension Fund covers 365,494 participants.
| Metric | Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) | UFCW International Union Industry Pension Fund |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 80/100 (A) | 93/100 (A)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 84.8% | 85.9%* |
| Total Assets | $35.5B | $5.2B |
| Total Liabilities | $41.9B | $6.0B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $6.4B | $848.9M* |
| Participants | 372,000 | 365,494 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 6.4%* | 4.8% |
| Plan Type | public | multiemployer |
| PBGC Risk Level | low | low |
| Sponsor | State of Iowa | UFCW International |
UFCW International Union Industry Pension Fund has a stronger Pension Health Score of 93/100 (A) compared to Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 1.1 percentage points (85.9% vs 84.8%). UFCW International Union Industry Pension Fund covers 365,494 participants.