Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund vs United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan

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

Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund and United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund grades A while United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan grades D. Funding ratios: 83% vs 51%.

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 United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan at 49/100 (D). Funding ratios differ by 31.1 percentage points (82.6% vs 51.5%). Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund covers 148,965 participants.

MetricSheet Metal Workers National Pension FundUnited Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
91/100 (A)*49/100 (D)
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
82.6%*51.5%
Total Assets$7.5B$3.3B
Total Liabilities$9.1B$6.5B*
Unfunded Liability$1.6B*$3.1B
Participants148,96573,913
1-Year Investment Return5.3%*5.0%
Plan Typemultiemployermultiemployer
PBGC Risk Levellowhigh
SponsorSheet Metal Workers International AssociationUMWA

Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund has a stronger Pension Health Score of 91/100 (A) compared to United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan at 49/100 (D). Funding ratios differ by 31.1 percentage points (82.6% vs 51.5%). Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund covers 148,965 participants.

Explore More

Related Comparisons