Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) vs 3M Company Pension Plan

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

Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) and 3M Company Pension Plan are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) grades B while 3M Company Pension Plan grades A. Funding ratios: 77% vs 100%.

3M Company Pension 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

3M Company Pension Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 100/100 (A) compared to Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) at 70/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 22.7 percentage points (100.0% vs 77.3%). 3M Company Pension Plan covers 56,773 participants.

MetricMinnesota State Retirement System (MSRS)3M Company Pension Plan
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
70/100 (B)100/100 (A)*
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
77.3%100.0%*
Total Assets$14.5B$12.4B
Total Liabilities$18.8B$12.4B*
Unfunded Liability$4.3B$559.8K*
Participants112,00056,773
1-Year Investment Return6.0%7.1%*
Plan Typepubliccorporate
PBGC Risk Levelmoderatelow
SponsorState of Minnesota3M Company

3M Company Pension Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 100/100 (A) compared to Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) at 70/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 22.7 percentage points (100.0% vs 77.3%). 3M Company Pension Plan covers 56,773 participants.

Explore More

Related Comparisons