Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) vs Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 57/100 (C) compared to Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 3.0 percentage points (63.1% vs 60.1%). Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) covers 245,000 participants.
| Metric | Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) | Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 54/100 (C) | 57/100 (C)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 60.1% | 63.1%* |
| Total Assets | $29.0B | $36.2B |
| Total Liabilities | $48.3B* | $57.4B |
| Unfunded Liability | $19.3B* | $21.2B |
| Participants | 322,000 | 245,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.3% | 5.4%* |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | high | high |
| Sponsor | State of Mississippi | State of Pennsylvania |
Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 57/100 (C) compared to Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 3.0 percentage points (63.1% vs 60.1%). Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) covers 245,000 participants.