Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) vs University of California Retirement Plan

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

Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and University of California Retirement Plan are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) grades C while University of California Retirement Plan grades B. Funding ratios: 60% vs 84%.

University of California 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

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.

MetricMississippi 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*
Participants322,000305,000
1-Year Investment Return5.3%7.2%*
Plan Typepublicpublic
PBGC Risk Levelhighlow
SponsorState of MississippiUniversity 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.

Explore More