Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) vs 3M Company Pension Plan

Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data

Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and 3M Company Pension Plan are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) grades B while 3M Company Pension Plan grades A. Funding ratios: 79% vs 100%.

3M Company Pension Plan comes out ahead on the composite rubric. For a participant in either plan, the spread is informative but not directly actionable — pension participation is not portable, so the relevant question is what each plan's funded-status trajectory means for that participant's benefit security.

Verdict

3M Company Pension Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 100/100 (A) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 20.9 percentage points (100.0% vs 79.1%). 3M Company Pension Plan covers 56,773 participants.

MetricMinnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)3M Company Pension Plan
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
71/100 (B)100/100 (A)*
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
79.1%100.0%*
Total Assets$35.0B$12.4B
Total Liabilities$44.2B$12.4B*
Unfunded Liability$9.2B$559.8K*
Participants378,00056,773
1-Year Investment Return5.9%7.1%*
Plan Typepubliccorporate
PBGC Risk Levelmoderatelow
SponsorState of Minnesota3M Company

3M Company Pension Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 100/100 (A) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 20.9 percentage points (100.0% vs 79.1%). 3M Company Pension Plan covers 56,773 participants.

Explore More

Related Comparisons