FY2024 source-reconciled actuarial data · Public Plans Database

South Carolina Retirement Systems

Drawing on 23 years of Public Plans Database history (Boston College CRR), this page covers South Carolina Retirement Systems's funded ratio, unfunded liability, member counts, and investment returns, cross-checked against actuarial valuations.

By · · South Carolina · General State Plan · Data through FY2024

Funded Ratio: 60.7% (Under-funded) South Carolina Retirement Systems funded ratio compared to national public pension benchmark. FUNDED RATIO 60.7% Under-funded Nat'l avg 75.49869791666667% 0% 60 70 80 100% Healthy > 80% · At-risk 70-80% · Critical < 60%
South Carolina Retirement Systems funded ratio is 60.7 percent, classified as Under-funded. National public-pension benchmark is 75.49869791666667 percent.
Actuarial funded ratio
60.7%
Health grade
CReported funded ratio below full funding
Actuarial assets
$44.03B
Members
656,480

According to the Public Plans Database, compiled by the Boston College Center for Retirement Research, South Carolina Retirement Systems is one of 197 public pension plans tracked nationwide. The plan card reports source-reconciled actuarial figures through FY2024; the multi-year table includes only years whose reported ratio ties to its actuarial dollars. This site’s database copy was last loaded in July 2026. See our methodology for the full source and update cadence.

Larger membership book

South Carolina Retirement Systems ranks #12 of 190 by reported members (656,480), top-third membership book among plans with a count.

South Carolina Retirement Systems in the larger-membership third

According to the Public Plans Database, South Carolina Retirement Systems carries a top-third membership book (656,480, #12 of 190) with a 60.7% actuarial funded ratio (grade C).

60.7%
Funded · #140 of 192
C
Health grade
656,480
Members · #12 of 190
-27.4pp
FY2001→FY2024
Subscribe to funded-ratio changes (RSS)

Actuarial Unfunded Liability

$28.50B

Very large unfunded liability · source-reported UAAL

Total Members

656,480

active + retired + vested

1-Year Return

9.5%

Above assumed rate · net investment return

1.2pp vs 5-yr avg

5-Year Avg Return

8.3%

Above assumed rate · annualized, net of fees

F
Composite Health Score
25/100
South Carolina Retirement Systems

Transparent derived index from public pension-plan filings, not an official rating. A 4-dimension composite (funded ratio, contribution discipline, 5-year investment return, unfunded burden), each scored against this dataset's own percentile distribution across 197 reporting plans. Not the same as the plan's headline funded-ratio grade above. See the exact dimensions, weights, and formula.

Funded Ratio F
60.7%
Actuarial assets as a share of liabilities
Contribution Discipline F
100.0%
Share of the actuarially required contribution actually paid
Investment Returns C-
8.3%
5-year annualized investment return
Unfunded Burden F
38.7%
Unfunded liability as a share of total obligations
How this score is calculated (benchmark table)
Dimension P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 Weight
Funded ratio (higher = better) 57.6% 67.2% 75.0% 87.0% 97.6% 0.35
Contribution discipline (ARC) (higher = better) 88.4% 100.0% 100.0% 104.1% 122.1% 0.25
5yr investment return (higher = better) 6.4% 7.5% 8.3% 9.1% 9.9% 0.20
Unfunded burden (lower = better) 2.0% 12.7% 25.0% 33.1% 42.4% 0.20

Percentiles computed across all 197 plans in this database with a reported value for that metric (2026-09-09). A dimension a plan does not report drops out of its composite, and that weight redistributes across the dimensions it does report, so thin reporting never silently lowers a score relative to a fully-reported peer.

Participant Composition

Participants: 239.9K active, 177.4K retired, 0 separated Plan participant breakdown showing active workers, retirees, and separated-vested members. PARTICIPANT MIX 656.5K total members 37% 27% Active 239.9K Retired 177.4K Separated 0 Active-to-Retiree 1.35 · Transitioning
Plan participant breakdown: 239.9K active workers, 177.4K retirees, 0 separated-vested members. Sustainability rating: Transitioning.

Investment Policy Mix

Asset Allocation: 55% equity, 25% fixed income, 17% alternatives South Carolina Retirement Systems investment policy mix as reported in its CAFR and actuarial valuation. ASSET ALLOCATION $45.1B market assets · CAFR / actuarial valuation 55% 25% 17% Equity 55.0% Fixed Inc. 25.0% Alternatives 17.0% Cash 3.0% Investment Stance: Growth-Tilted · Equity + Alts 72%
South Carolina Retirement Systems asset allocation: 55% equity, 25% fixed income, 17% alternatives, 3% cash. Investment stance: Growth-Tilted.

Funded ratio, 2001 to 2024

Assets as a share of the benefits already promised, one point per reported year. Down 27.4 points across the series. This is the multi-year table's series, so its last point can be a later year than the plan card above, which reports the plan's own latest valuation.

50%60%70%80%90% 200120042007201020132016201920222024 60.7%

What changed, FY2023 to FY2024

1.7 pts funded ratio

South Carolina Retirement Systems's funded ratio rose 1.7 points from FY2023 to FY2024, with assets contributing +4.9 points and the accrued liability contributing -3.2.

Funded ratio
59.0% → 60.7%
Actuarial assets
$40.65B → $44.03B (+8.3%)
Accrued liability
$68.87B → $72.53B (+5.3%)
Where the 1.7-point move came from
Assets
+4.9 pts
Accrued liability
-3.2 pts

Accrued liability is the source-reported value for benefits already promised. The two contributions are the move the ratio would have made on the prior year’s liability (assets) and the remainder (liability); they sum to the total by construction. Both years shown provide source-reconciled actuarial assets and liability, so neither figure rests on a ratio published on its own. Source: Public Plans Database (Boston College CRR / NASRA), loaded July 2026. See our funding-change board for how this plan’s move compares with the rest of the dataset.

Historical Actuarial Funding

Year Actuarial Ratio
2024 60.7%
2023 59.0%
2022 57.9%
2021 56.4%
2020 55.2%
2019 55.5%
2018 56.1%
2017 57.2%
2016 60.4%
2015 62.9%
2014 63.6%
2013 63.3%
2012 65.5%
2011 68.0%
2010 66.5%
2009 68.7%
2008 70.2%
2007 71.2%
2006 71.1%
2005 73.1%

What the Data Says About South Carolina Retirement Systems

South Carolina Retirement Systems is funded above the midpoint but still carries a real shortfall, 15 points below the 75.5% national average across tracked plans. A 5-year average investment return of 8.3% factors into the plan's overall trajectory.

For South Carolina taxpayers and plan members, the $28.50B source-reported actuarial unfunded liability is the shortfall this plan must close over time.

Where this data comes from + how funding gaps get resolved

These figures come from the Public Plans Database, a collaboration between the Boston College Center for Retirement Research and NASRA that compiles them from each plan's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) and actuarial valuations. The relationship between contribution adequacy and investment performance determines whether an unfunded liability narrows or expands year over year, and the gap itself is typically closed through some combination of higher contributions, investment returns, or benefit modifications. See our methodology for how public-pension funding differs from ERISA-backed private plans, and our disclaimer below before acting on this data.

Membership

239,874
Active Members
177,354
Retirees
656,480
Total Members

Plan Details

Plan Type
General State
Market Assets
$45.10B
Source: Public Plans Database (PPD)
Boston College CRR / NASRA

Plans With a Similar Funded Ratio

The closest plans nationwide to South Carolina Retirement Systems's 68.1% funded ratio.

Showing 5 of 191 plans nationwide with a reported funded ratio.

Every figure on PlainPension is rendered directly from the Public Plans Database (Boston College Center for Retirement Research), no number is typed in by an editor. South Carolina Retirement Systems ranks #140 of 192 by funded ratio and #12 of 190 by membership. This information is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice, consult a qualified professional before acting on it. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the typed corrections pathway, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of July 2026.