Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund vs New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data

Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund and New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund grades A while New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund grades C. Funding ratios: 83% vs 50%.

Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund comes out ahead on the composite rubric. For a participant in either plan, the spread is informative but not directly actionable — pension participation is not portable, so the relevant question is what each plan's funded-status trajectory means for that participant's benefit security.

Verdict

Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund has a stronger Pension Health Score of 91/100 (A) compared to New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund at 61/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 32.3 percentage points (82.6% vs 50.3%). Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund covers 148,965 participants.

MetricSheet Metal Workers National Pension FundNew York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
91/100 (A)*61/100 (C)
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
82.6%*50.3%
Total Assets$7.5B$1.8B
Total Liabilities$9.1B$3.7B*
Unfunded Liability$1.6B*$1.8B
Participants148,96533,330
1-Year Investment Return5.3%*4.3%
Plan Typemultiemployermultiemployer
PBGC Risk Levellowhigh
SponsorSheet Metal Workers International AssociationNY Teamsters Conference

Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund has a stronger Pension Health Score of 91/100 (A) compared to New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund at 61/100 (C). Funding ratios differ by 32.3 percentage points (82.6% vs 50.3%). Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund covers 148,965 participants.

Explore More

Related Comparisons