North Carolina Retirement Systems vs Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
North Carolina Retirement Systems and Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: North Carolina Retirement Systems grades A while Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) grades C. Funding ratios: 87% vs 63%.
North Carolina Retirement Systems 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
North Carolina Retirement Systems has a stronger Pension Health Score of 82/100 (A) compared to Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) at 57/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 24.0 percentage points (87.1% vs 63.1%). North Carolina Retirement Systems covers 960,000 participants.
| Metric | North Carolina Retirement Systems | Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 82/100 (A)* | 57/100 (C) |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 87.1%* | 63.1% |
| Total Assets | $112.0B | $36.2B |
| Total Liabilities | $128.6B | $57.4B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $16.6B* | $21.2B |
| Participants | 960,000 | 245,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 6.6%* | 5.4% |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | low | high |
| Sponsor | State of North Carolina | State of Pennsylvania |
North Carolina Retirement Systems has a stronger Pension Health Score of 82/100 (A) compared to Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS) at 57/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 24.0 percentage points (87.1% vs 63.1%). North Carolina Retirement Systems covers 960,000 participants.