In NM the education folks (ERB) have a separate retirement from the rest of state government (PERA).  The most recent report on the ERB retirement system made the following general statements:

Over the last 12 months, the Fund experienced a gross investment gain of $1.3 billion, which includes a gross investment loss of $333.0 million during the second quarter.  Total assets decreased from $8.6 billion at the beginning of the quarter to $8.2 billion on June 30, 2010, with  $38.9 million in net distributions during the quarter.

Over the past five years, the Fund returned 4.0% per annum, outperforming its policy index by 0.8%, ranking in the 10th percentile of the Independent Consultant Cooperative's Public Funds > $1 billion universe.  For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, the Fund returned 10.6%, outperforming its policy index by 5.9%, ranking in the 2nd percentile of public funds > $1 billion.  For the quarter, the Fund posted a -3.0% return, outperforming its policy index by 0.6%, ranking in the 32nd percentile of public funds > $1 billion.  All asset classes were within policy ranges on June 30, 2010. 

Reading this you would be given the impression that the fund is doing just fine and is outstanding among its peers.  The fund has a total equity of about 8.2 billion dollars.  It is interesting that the information doesn't include the fact that the fund is actuarially insolvent with a shortage of over $4 billion to meet its future obligations.  That is half the value of the fund and that is a huge problem, one that should be clearly explained to its members but instead has been kept quiet so as not to cause concern from its members.  This problem has been known for several years and some attempts to fix it have been way too little too late.  It was further exacerbated when the three-tier teacher pay was passed into law.  Those teachers whose salaries jumped significantly in the years near their retirement enjoy a much-enchanced return from the fund while the lion's share of their contribution and the state's contribution was predicated on the previously much lower salary.  I am not placing blame on anyone here as it has taken several years to grow into this problem but the fact of the matter is that it was flawed in the beginning and because it is a defined-benefit, the taxpayers are on the hook.