Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) vs General Electric Pension Plan
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
General Electric Pension Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 72/100 (B) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 2.9 percentage points (76.2% vs 79.1%). General Electric Pension Plan covers 318,000 participants.
| Metric | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) | General Electric Pension Plan |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 71/100 (B) | 72/100 (B)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 79.1%* | 76.2% |
| Total Assets | $35.0B | $38.5B |
| Total Liabilities | $44.2B* | $50.5B |
| Unfunded Liability | $9.2B* | $12.0B |
| Participants | 378,000 | 318,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.9% | 6.8%* |
| Plan Type | public | corporate |
| PBGC Risk Level | moderate | moderate |
| Sponsor | State of Minnesota | GE Aerospace (formerly General Electric) |
General Electric Pension Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 72/100 (B) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 2.9 percentage points (76.2% vs 79.1%). General Electric Pension Plan covers 318,000 participants.