Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) vs Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) 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 1.8 percentage points (77.3% vs 79.1%). Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) covers 375,000 participants.
| Metric | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) | Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) |
|---|---|---|
| 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%* | 77.3% |
| Total Assets | $35.0B | $84.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $44.2B* | $108.7B |
| Unfunded Liability | $9.2B* | $24.7B |
| Participants | 378,000 | 375,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.9%* | 5.7% |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | moderate | moderate |
| Sponsor | State of Minnesota | State of Oregon |
Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) 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 1.8 percentage points (77.3% vs 79.1%). Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) covers 375,000 participants.