North Carolina Retirement Systems vs Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS)
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 Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 4.6 percentage points (87.1% vs 82.5%). North Carolina Retirement Systems covers 960,000 participants.
| Metric | North Carolina Retirement Systems | Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 82/100 (A)* | 80/100 (A) |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 87.1%* | 82.5% |
| Total Assets | $112.0B | $105.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $128.6B | $127.3B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $16.6B* | $22.3B |
| Participants | 960,000 | 762,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 6.6%* | 6.2% |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | low | low |
| Sponsor | State of North Carolina | State of Ohio |
North Carolina Retirement Systems has a stronger Pension Health Score of 82/100 (A) compared to Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) at 80/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 4.6 percentage points (87.1% vs 82.5%). North Carolina Retirement Systems covers 960,000 participants.