Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Minnesota Teachers Retirement Association (TRA) vs Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS)

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

Minnesota Teachers Retirement Association (TRA) (B) and Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) (B) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 80% and 77% 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 Teachers Retirement Association (TRA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 72/100 (B) compared to Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) at 70/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 2.5 percentage points (79.8% vs 77.3%). Minnesota Teachers Retirement Association (TRA) covers 195,000 participants.

MetricMinnesota Teachers Retirement Association (TRA)Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS)
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
72/100 (B)*70/100 (B)
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
79.8%*77.3%
Total Assets$28.0B$14.5B
Total Liabilities$35.1B$18.8B*
Unfunded Liability$7.1B$4.3B*
Participants195,000112,000
1-Year Investment Return6.1%*6.0%
Plan Typepublicpublic
PBGC Risk Levelmoderatemoderate
SponsorState of MinnesotaState of Minnesota

Minnesota Teachers Retirement Association (TRA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 72/100 (B) compared to Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) at 70/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 2.5 percentage points (79.8% vs 77.3%). Minnesota Teachers Retirement Association (TRA) covers 195,000 participants.

Explore More

Related Comparisons