Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (TCRS) vs UFCW International Union Industry Pension Fund
Side-by-side pension health comparison from DOL and public plan data
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (TCRS) (A) and UFCW International Union Industry Pension Fund (A) are close on the LakeQuality rubric. Funding ratios sit at 92% and 86% respectively — within a few points of each other.
With grades this close, the comparison turns on plan-specific factors: status (active vs frozen), participant maturity, sponsor financial health, and multi-year trajectory rather than the headline composite.
Verdict
UFCW International Union Industry Pension Fund has a stronger Pension Health Score of 93/100 (A) compared to Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (TCRS) at 83/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 6.2 percentage points (85.9% vs 92.1%). UFCW International Union Industry Pension Fund covers 365,494 participants.
| Metric | Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (TCRS) | UFCW International Union Industry Pension Fund |
|---|---|---|
| Health Score Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk | 83/100 (A) | 93/100 (A)* |
| Funding Ratio Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded) | 92.1%* | 85.9% |
| Total Assets | $57.0B | $5.2B |
| Total Liabilities | $61.9B | $6.0B* |
| Unfunded Liability | $4.9B | $848.9M* |
| Participants | 378,000 | 365,494 |
| 1-Year Investment Return | 6.8%* | 4.8% |
| Plan Type | public | multiemployer |
| PBGC Risk Level | low | low |
| Sponsor | State of Tennessee | UFCW International |
UFCW International Union Industry Pension Fund has a stronger Pension Health Score of 93/100 (A) compared to Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (TCRS) at 83/100 (A). Funding ratios differ by 6.2 percentage points (85.9% vs 92.1%). UFCW International Union Industry Pension Fund covers 365,494 participants.