North Carolina Retirement Systems vs General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Verdict
North Carolina Retirement Systems has a stronger Pension Health Score of 82/100 (A) compared to General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan at 78/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 7.0 percentage points (87.1% vs 80.1%). North Carolina Retirement Systems covers 960,000 participants.
| Metric | North Carolina Retirement Systems | General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 82/100 (A)* | 78/100 (B) |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 87.1%* | 80.1% |
| Total Assets | $112.0B | $66.5B |
| Total Liabilities | $128.6B | $83.0B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $16.6B | $16.5B* |
| Participants | 960,000 | 302,000 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 6.6% | 7.2%* |
| Plan Type | public | corporate |
| PBGC Risk Level | low | low |
| Sponsor | State of North Carolina | General Motors |
North Carolina Retirement Systems has a stronger Pension Health Score of 82/100 (A) compared to General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan at 78/100 (B). Funding ratios differ by 7.0 percentage points (87.1% vs 80.1%). North Carolina Retirement Systems covers 960,000 participants.