Skip to main content
PensionRisk

New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) vs Johnson & Johnson Pension Plan

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

New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and Johnson & Johnson Pension Plan are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) grades C while Johnson & Johnson Pension Plan grades A. Funding ratios: 52% vs 124%.

Johnson & Johnson 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

Johnson & Johnson Pension Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 100/100 (A) compared to New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 71.7 percentage points (124.0% vs 52.3%). Johnson & Johnson Pension Plan covers 83,076 participants.

MetricNew Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)Johnson & Johnson Pension Plan
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
54/100 (C)100/100 (A)*
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
52.3%124.0%*
Total Assets$34.0B$21.1B
Total Liabilities$65.0B$17.0B*
Unfunded Liability$31.0B$0*
Participants425,00083,076
1-Year Investment Return5.1%7.5%*
Plan Typepubliccorporate
PBGC Risk Levelhighlow
SponsorState of New JerseyJohnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson Pension Plan has a stronger Pension Health Score of 100/100 (A) compared to New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 71.7 percentage points (124.0% vs 52.3%). Johnson & Johnson Pension Plan covers 83,076 participants.

Explore More

Related Comparisons