Texas County & District Retirement System (TCDRS) vs Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
Texas County & District Retirement System (TCDRS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 81/100 (A) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 7.1 percentage points (86.2% vs 79.1%). Texas County & District Retirement System (TCDRS) covers 385,000 participants.
| Metric | Texas County & District Retirement System (TCDRS) | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 81/100 (A)* | 71/100 (B) |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 86.2%* | 79.1% |
| Total Assets | $39.5B | $35.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $45.8B | $44.2B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $6.3B* | $9.2B |
| Participants | 385,000 | 378,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 6.6%* | 5.9% |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | low | moderate |
| Sponsor | Texas Counties | State of Minnesota |
Texas County & District Retirement System (TCDRS) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 81/100 (A) compared to Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) at 71/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 7.1 percentage points (86.2% vs 79.1%). Texas County & District Retirement System (TCDRS) covers 385,000 participants.