Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) vs UPS Retirement Plan
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 UPS Retirement Plan at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 1.3 percentage points (79.1% vs 77.8%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.
| Metric | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) | UPS Retirement Plan |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 71/100 (B) | 71/100 (B) |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 79.1%* | 77.8% |
| Total Assets | $35.0B | $44.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $44.2B* | $56.6B |
| Unfunded Liability | $9.2B* | $12.6B |
| Participants | 378,000 | 335,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.9% | 6.7%* |
| Plan Type | public | corporate |
| PBGC Risk Level | moderate | moderate |
| Sponsor | State of Minnesota | United Parcel Service |
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to UPS Retirement Plan at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 1.3 percentage points (79.1% vs 77.8%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.