Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund vs Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund has a stronger Pension Health Score of 97/100 (A) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 15.0 percentage points (94.1% vs 79.1%). Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund covers 634,861 participants.
| Metric | Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 97/100 (A)* | 71/100 (B) |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 94.1%* | 79.1% |
| Total Assets | $55.6B | $35.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $59.1B | $44.2B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $3.5B* | $9.2B |
| Participants | 634,861 | 378,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 4.2% | 5.9%* |
| Plan Type | multiemployer | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | low | moderate |
| Sponsor | Teamsters Local 710 | State of Minnesota |
Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund has a stronger Pension Health Score of 97/100 (A) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 15.0 percentage points (94.1% vs 79.1%). Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund covers 634,861 participants.