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
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) (B) and Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) (C) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 79% and 63% respectively — within a few points of each other.
With grades this close, the comparison turns on plan-specific factors: status (active vs frozen), participant maturity, sponsor financial health, and multi-year trajectory rather than the headline composite.
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.