Virginia Retirement System (VRS) vs Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to Virginia Retirement System (VRS) at 70/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 4.0 percentage points (79.1% vs 75.1%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.
| Metric | Virginia Retirement System (VRS) | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 70/100 (B) | 71/100 (B)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 75.1% | 79.1%* |
| Total Assets | $87.0B | $35.0B |
| Total Liabilities | $115.8B | $44.2B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $28.8B | $9.2B* |
| Participants | 740,000 | 378,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 6.0%* | 5.9% |
| Plan Type | public | public |
| PBGC Risk Level | moderate | moderate |
| Sponsor | State of Virginia | State of Minnesota |
Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 71/100 (B) compared to Virginia Retirement System (VRS) at 70/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 4.0 percentage points (79.1% vs 75.1%). Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) covers 378,000 participants.