Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) vs University of California Retirement Plan
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
University of California Retirement Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 78/100 (B) compared to Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 23.4 percentage points (83.5% vs 60.1%). University of California Retirement Plan covers 305,000 participants.
| Metric | Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) | University of California Retirement Plan |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 54/100 (C) | 78/100 (B)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 60.1% | 83.5%* |
| Total Assets | $29.0B | $82.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $48.3B* | $98.2B |
| Unfunded Liability | $19.3B | $16.2B* |
| Participants | 322,000 | 305,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.3% | 7.2%* |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | high | low |
| Sponsor | State of Mississippi | University of California |
University of California Retirement Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 78/100 (B) compared to Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 23.4 percentage points (83.5% vs 60.1%). University of California Retirement Plan covers 305,000 participants.