Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) vs Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS)

Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data

Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) (B) and Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) (A) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 79% and 88% 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

Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 82/100 (A) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 8.7 percentage points (87.8% vs 79.1%). Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) covers 218,000 participants.

MetricMinnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS)
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
71/100 (B)82/100 (A)*
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
79.1%87.8%*
Total Assets$35.0B$36.8B
Total Liabilities$44.2B$41.9B*
Unfunded Liability$9.2B$5.1B*
Participants378,000218,000
1-Year Investment Return5.9%6.3%*
Plan Typepublicpublic
PBGC Risk Levelmoderatelow
SponsorState of MinnesotaTexas Cities

Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 82/100 (A) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 8.7 percentage points (87.8% vs 79.1%). Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) covers 218,000 participants.

Explore More