Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) vs General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 78/100 (B) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 1.0 percentage points (80.1% vs 79.1%). General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan covers 302,000 participants.
| Metric | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) | General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 71/100 (B) | 78/100 (B)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 79.1% | 80.1%* |
| Total Assets | $35.0B | $66.5B |
| Total Liabilities | $44.2B* | $83.0B |
| Unfunded Liability | $9.2B* | $16.5B |
| Participants | 378,000 | 302,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.9% | 7.2%* |
| Plan Type | public | corporate |
| PBGC Risk Level | moderate | low |
| Sponsor | State of Minnesota | General Motors |
General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 78/100 (B) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 1.0 percentage points (80.1% vs 79.1%). General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan covers 302,000 participants.