Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) vs Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 19.0 percentage points (79.1% vs 60.1%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.
| Metric | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) | Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 71/100 (B)* | 54/100 (C) |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 79.1%* | 60.1% |
| Total Assets | $35.0B | $29.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $44.2B* | $48.3B |
| Unfunded Liability | $9.2B* | $19.3B |
| Participants | 378,000 | 322,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.9%* | 5.3% |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | moderate | high |
| Sponsor | State of Minnesota | State of Mississippi |
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 19.0 percentage points (79.1% vs 60.1%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.