Skip to main content
PensionRisk

San Francisco Employees Retirement System vs Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System (LACERS)

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

San Francisco Employees Retirement System (A) and Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System (LACERS) (B) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 87% and 76% respectively — within a few points of each other.

With grades this close, the comparison turns on plan-specific factors: status (active vs frozen), participant maturity, sponsor financial health, and multi-year trajectory rather than the headline composite.

Verdict

San Francisco Employees Retirement System has a stronger Pension Health Score of 82/100 (A) compared to Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System (LACERS) at 70/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 11.5 percentage points (87.3% vs 75.8%). San Francisco Employees Retirement System covers 68,000 participants.

MetricSan Francisco Employees Retirement SystemLos Angeles City Employees Retirement System (LACERS)
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
82/100 (A)*70/100 (B)
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
87.3%*75.8%
Total Assets$33.8B$20.1B
Total Liabilities$38.7B$26.5B*
Unfunded Liability$4.9B*$6.4B
Participants68,00049,000
1-Year Investment Return6.4%*5.9%
Plan Typepublicpublic
PBGC Risk Levellowmoderate
SponsorCity and County of San FranciscoCity of Los Angeles

San Francisco Employees Retirement System has a stronger Pension Health Score of 82/100 (A) compared to Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System (LACERS) at 70/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 11.5 percentage points (87.3% vs 75.8%). San Francisco Employees Retirement System covers 68,000 participants.

Explore More

Related Comparisons