Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) vs UPS Retirement Plan
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and UPS Retirement Plan are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) grades B while UPS Retirement Plan grades A. Funding ratios: 79% vs 91%.
UPS Retirement Plan comes out ahead on the composite rubric. For a participant in either plan, the spread is informative but not directly actionable — pension participation is not portable, so the relevant question is what each plan's funded-status trajectory means for that participant's benefit security.
Verdict
UPS Retirement Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 95/100 (A) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 11.6 percentage points (90.7% vs 79.1%). UPS Retirement Plan covers 243,932 participants.
| Metric | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) | UPS Retirement Plan |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 71/100 (B) | 95/100 (A)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 79.1% | 90.7%* |
| Total Assets | $35.0B | $9.7B |
| Total Liabilities | $44.2B | $10.7B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $9.2B | $993.0M* |
| Participants | 378,000 | 243,932 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.9% | 6.7%* |
| Plan Type | public | corporate |
| PBGC Risk Level | moderate | low |
| Sponsor | State of Minnesota | United Parcel Service |
UPS Retirement Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 95/100 (A) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 11.6 percentage points (90.7% vs 79.1%). UPS Retirement Plan covers 243,932 participants.