South Carolina Retirement System vs Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
South Carolina Retirement System (C) and Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) (B) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 55% and 79% 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
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to South Carolina Retirement System at 52/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 24.0 percentage points (79.1% vs 55.1%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.
| Metric | South Carolina Retirement System | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 52/100 (C) | 71/100 (B)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 55.1% | 79.1%* |
| Total Assets | $35.5B | $35.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $64.4B | $44.2B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $28.9B | $9.2B* |
| Participants | 575,000 | 378,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 5.2% | 5.9%* |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | high | moderate |
| Sponsor | State of South Carolina | State of Minnesota |
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to South Carolina Retirement System at 52/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 24.0 percentage points (79.1% vs 55.1%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.