Skip to main content
PensionRisk

Updated May 2026 · PBGC + DOL Form 5500

High Risk Pension Plans

Plans with significant funding gaps and concerning trends. PBGC considers these at elevated risk of requiring intervention.

27 pension plans currently sit in the high-risk tier — covering 5,328,443 active and retired participants with an average funding ratio of 56.9%. They face elevated PBGC concern but have not crossed into formal critical designation.

High PBGC risk triggers enhanced monitoring and, in many cases, mandatory funding-improvement plans. 27 plans hold this classification, reflecting funded-status pressure that has crossed regulatory thresholds.

PBGC risk classification applies primarily to private single-employer and multi-employer plans. Public-sector plans operate under state oversight rather than PBGC, so the risk signal there comes from state-level fiscal monitors instead of the federal scheme. For participants, the PBGC classification matters because it signals both the immediate intervention probability and the longer-term benefit-guarantee outlook. Each plan page below links to its full PBGC status and funding history.

What "High Risk" Means in Practice

High-risk plans show meaningful funding gaps and concerning trend signals but have not crossed into formal critical or at-risk designation. They typically post funding ratios in the 60%–75% band with declining or flat 3-year trends. Sponsors of high-risk plans face elevated minimum required contributions and increased PBGC variable-rate premiums for corporate plans, which can compound the funding stress over time.

The 27 listed plans report a combined $417.6B in unfunded liability — the dollar gap between plan assets and the present value of accrued benefit obligations at each plan's assumed discount rate.

For ERISA-covered private and multiemployer plans, risk classifications draw from PBGC publications and from DOL Form 5500 Schedule SB or MB filings, which disclose the actuarial valuation, the assumed return rate, and any at-risk or Critical-status designation. For public plans, risk reads come from the Public Plans Database compilation of ACFR data, since public plans are not subject to PBGC.

None of this content is investment advice. Participants concerned about a specific plan should review the most recent Annual Funding Notice (mailed annually under ERISA Section 101(f)) and consult a fee-only fiduciary advisor before making any decision about a benefit election or rollover.

Plans at High Risk

#Plan NameTypeStateParticipantsFunding RatioUnfunded GapGrade
1Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)
State of Colorado
publicCO625,00064.8%$31.5BC
2South Carolina Retirement System
State of South Carolina
publicSC575,00055.1%$28.9BC
3Pennsylvania Public School Employees Retirement System (PSERS)
State of Pennsylvania
publicPA518,00057.8%$52.6BC
4Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSERS)
State of Michigan
publicMI465,00060.4%$35.4BC
5Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund
United Association (UA)
multiemployerDC430,00064.1%$11.8BC
6New Jersey Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)
State of New Jersey
publicNJ425,00052.3%$31.0BC
7Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)
State of Mississippi
publicMS322,00060.1%$19.3BC
8New Jersey Teachers Pension & Annuity Fund (TPAF)
State of New Jersey
publicNJ268,00048.1%$30.8BC
9Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System (SERS)
State of Pennsylvania
publicPA245,00063.1%$21.2BC
10Kentucky County Employees Retirement System (CERS)
State of Kentucky
publicKY185,00048.4%$9.1BC
11Kentucky Teachers Retirement System (KTRS)
State of Kentucky
publicKY152,00055.3%$17.0BC
12Hawaii Employees Retirement System (ERS)
State of Hawaii
publicHI132,00059.8%$13.4BC
13Louisiana State Employees Retirement System (LASERS)
State of Louisiana
publicLA108,00062.2%$6.8BC
14Massachusetts Teachers Retirement System
State of Massachusetts
publicMA102,00055.2%$18.7BC
15Massachusetts State Employees Retirement System
State of Massachusetts
publicMA98,00064.9%$5.1BC
16Connecticut Teachers Retirement Board
State of Connecticut
publicCT92,00052.3%$18.7BC
17New Mexico Educational Retirement Board (ERB)
State of New Mexico
publicNM92,00064.1%$8.1BC
18Michigan State Employees Retirement System
State of Michigan
publicMI88,00061.8%$7.5BC
19New Jersey Police & Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS)
State of New Jersey
publicNJ88,00058.1%$21.6BC
20United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan
UMWA
multiemployerDC73,91351.5%$3.1BD
21Philadelphia Municipal Retirement System
City of Philadelphia
publicPA63,00048.2%$6.2BC
22Rhode Island Employees Retirement System (ERSRI)
State of Rhode Island
publicRI55,00058.1%$6.9BC
23New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund
NY Teamsters Conference
multiemployerNY33,33050.3%$1.8BC
24Houston Municipal Employees Pension System
City of Houston
publicTX28,00058.2%$3.2BC
25Vermont State Teachers Retirement System
State of Vermont
publicVT27,00054.8%$1.8BC
26Alaska Teachers Retirement System (TRS)
State of Alaska
publicAK27,00062.2%$3.1BC
27Dallas Police & Fire Pension System
City of Dallas
publicTX11,20045.1%$2.9BD

How Risk Classifications Are Determined

For ERISA-covered private and multiemployer plans, classifications come from PBGC publications and from the at-risk and Critical-status designations disclosed on Schedule SB and Schedule MB of Form 5500. For public plans, classifications are derived from funding ratio and 3-year funding trend, since public plans are not subject to PBGC. The Pension Health Score weights PBGC risk at 20% of the composite, alongside funding ratio (50%) and trend (30%). Read the full methodology.

Browse by State

Frequently Asked Questions

What does "High Risk" mean for a pension plan?

Plans with significant funding gaps and concerning trends. PBGC considers these at elevated risk of requiring intervention. High-risk plans show meaningful funding gaps and concerning trend signals but have not crossed into formal critical or at-risk designation. They typically post funding ratios in the 60%–75% band with declining or flat 3-year trends. Sponsors of high-risk plans face elevated minimum required contributions and increased PBGC variable-rate premiums for corporate plans, which can compound the funding stress over time.

How many pension plans are at high risk level?

PensionRisk currently classifies 27 pension plans at high risk. The top 27 are listed below by participant count and unfunded liability, covering 5,328,443 active and retired participants in aggregate.

What is the PBGC and how does it set risk classifications?

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is a federal agency that insures private-sector defined-benefit pensions. PBGC publishes a list of multiemployer plans in Critical or Critical-and-Declining status under PPA, and a separate framework for corporate single-employer plans designated as at-risk under ERISA Section 430(i). Plans funded below 80% are at-risk, and plans below 70% face stricter rules including amendment and lump-sum distribution restrictions. PBGC publications and the agency's annual report are available at pbgc.gov.

Are public pensions PBGC-rated?

No. Public pension plans — those sponsored by state, county, or municipal governments — are not subject to ERISA or PBGC. They have no federal risk classification. PensionRisk applies a low PBGC-risk default to public plans for the purpose of computing the Pension Health Score; the actual risk signal for public plans comes from funding ratio, 3-year trend, and the sponsor's contribution discipline as reported in each system's ACFR.

Where does the underlying data come from?

Risk classifications come from PBGC publications for ERISA-covered plans and from PensionRisk's composite scoring for public plans (low PBGC-risk default, with funding ratio and trend driving the overall risk read). Funding ratios come from DOL Form 5500 Schedule SB or MB and the Boston College Public Plans Database. The current dataset reflects filings available as of May 2026.

27 pension plans currently sit in the high-risk tier — covering 5,328,443 active and retired participants with an average funding ratio of 56.9%. They face elevated PBGC concern but have not crossed into formal critical designation.