Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) vs Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS)
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 Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) at 57/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 16.0 percentage points (79.1% vs 63.1%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.
| Metric | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) | Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 71/100 (B)* | 57/100 (C) |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 79.1%* | 63.1% |
| Total Assets | $35.0B | $36.2B |
| Total Liabilities | $44.2B* | $57.4B |
| Unfunded Liability | $9.2B* | $21.2B |
| Participants | 378,000 | 245,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.9%* | 5.4% |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | moderate | high |
| Sponsor | State of Minnesota | State of Pennsylvania |
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) at 57/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 16.0 percentage points (79.1% vs 63.1%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.