Skip to main content
PensionRisk

United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan vs National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF)

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

United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan and National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF) are meaningfully apart on the LakeQuality pension-health rubric: United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan grades D while National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF) grades A. Funding ratios: 51% vs 74%.

National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF) 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

National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan at 49/100 (D). Funding ratios differ by 22.8 percentage points (74.3% vs 51.5%). National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF) covers 18,619 participants.

MetricUnited Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension PlanNational Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF)
Health Score
Composite of funding ratio, trend, and PBGC risk
49/100 (D)80/100 (A)*
Funding Ratio
Assets as % of liabilities (100%+ is fully funded)
51.5%74.3%*
Total Assets$3.3B$1.5B
Total Liabilities$6.5B$2.0B*
Unfunded Liability$3.1B$523.2M*
Participants73,91318,619
1-Year Investment Return5.0%5.2%*
Plan Typemultiemployermultiemployer
PBGC Risk Levelhighmoderate
SponsorUMWAIBEW & NECA

National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF) has a stronger Pension Health Score of 80/100 (A) compared to United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan at 49/100 (D). Funding ratios differ by 22.8 percentage points (74.3% vs 51.5%). National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF) covers 18,619 participants.

Explore More

Related Comparisons