North Carolina Retirement Systems vs New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
North Carolina Retirement Systems has a stronger Pension Health Score of 82/100 (A) compared to New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 34.8 percentage points (87.1% vs 52.3%). North Carolina Retirement Systems covers 960,000 participants.
| Metric | North Carolina Retirement Systems | New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 82/100 (A)* | 54/100 (C) |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 87.1%* | 52.3% |
| Total Assets | $112.0B | $34.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $128.6B | $65.0B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $16.6B* | $31.0B |
| Participants | 960,000 | 425,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 6.6%* | 5.1% |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | low | high |
| Sponsor | State of North Carolina | State of New Jersey |
North Carolina Retirement Systems has a stronger Pension Health Score of 82/100 (A) compared to New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) at 54/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 34.8 percentage points (87.1% vs 52.3%). North Carolina Retirement Systems covers 960,000 participants.