Updated May 2026 · PBGC + DOL Form 5500
Moderate Risk Pension Plans
Plans with some funding challenges but generally manageable risk levels. May need attention but not in immediate danger.
53 pension plans currently sit in the moderate-risk tier — covering 12,416,868 active and retired participants with an average funding ratio of 73.4%. Risk is contained but not absent.
Moderate PBGC risk means enhanced monitoring without active intervention — the plan's funded status warrants attention but does not yet trigger formal rehabilitation requirements. 53 plans sit in this bucket.
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 "Moderate Risk" Means in Practice
Moderate-risk plans sit near the national average. Funding ratios typically run 75%–90% with mixed trend signals. These plans are not in immediate stress but lack the cushion to absorb a major market shock or contribution holiday without slipping into the high-risk band. Most U.S. defined-benefit plans cluster in this range when measured at standard actuarial assumptions.
The 53 listed plans report a combined $823.4B 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 Moderate Risk
| # | Plan Name | Type | State | Participants | Funding Ratio | Unfunded Gap | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) State of California | public | CA | 2,050,000 | 67.3% | $230.0B | C |
| 2 | Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) State of Texas | public | TX | 1,730,000 | 78.1% | $54.0B | B |
| 3 | California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) State of California | public | CA | 985,000 | 72.9% | $118.0B | B |
| 4 | Virginia Retirement System (VRS) State of Virginia | public | VA | 740,000 | 75.1% | $28.8B | B |
| 5 | Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) State of Arizona | public | AZ | 588,000 | 72.3% | $17.6B | B |
| 6 | Indiana Public Retirement System (INPRS) State of Indiana | public | IN | 425,000 | 78.2% | $10.3B | B |
| 7 | Georgia Teachers Retirement System (TRS) State of Georgia | public | GA | 405,000 | 77.4% | $21.6B | B |
| 8 | Maryland State Retirement & Pension System State of Maryland | public | MD | 398,000 | 72.1% | $23.6B | B |
| 9 | Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) State of Minnesota | public | MN | 378,000 | 79.1% | $9.2B | B |
| 10 | Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) State of Oregon | public | OR | 375,000 | 77.3% | $24.7B | B |
| 11 | NYC Employees Retirement System (NYCERS) New York City | public | NY | 370,000 | 76.8% | $23.3B | B |
| 12 | Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) State of Kansas | public | KS | 328,000 | 72.3% | $9.5B | B |
| 13 | Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) State of Texas | public | TX | 327,000 | 70.1% | $13.4B | B |
| 14 | NYC Teachers Retirement System (TRS) New York City | public | NY | 225,000 | 74.2% | $32.0B | B |
| 15 | School Employees Retirement System of Ohio (SERS) State of Ohio | public | OH | 218,000 | 67.9% | $7.7B | B |
| 16 | Nevada Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) State of Nevada | public | NV | 218,000 | 76.2% | $15.7B | B |
| 17 | Minnesota Teachers Retirement Association (TRA) State of Minnesota | public | MN | 195,000 | 79.8% | $7.1B | B |
| 18 | Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA) Los Angeles County | public | CA | 186,000 | 75.2% | $24.2B | B |
| 19 | Alabama Teachers Retirement System (TRS) State of Alabama | public | AL | 178,000 | 68.2% | $12.8B | B |
| 20 | Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL) State of Louisiana | public | LA | 172,000 | 66.1% | $11.0B | C |
| 21 | Oklahoma Teachers Retirement System State of Oklahoma | public | OK | 162,000 | 67.8% | $8.6B | B |
| 22 | Georgia Employees Retirement System (ERS) State of Georgia | public | GA | 138,000 | 77.2% | $5.3B | B |
| 23 | Alabama Employees Retirement System (ERS) State of Alabama | public | AL | 132,000 | 69.8% | $6.7B | B |
| 24 | Missouri State Employees Retirement System (MOSERS) State of Missouri | public | MO | 120,000 | 72.2% | $3.7B | B |
| 25 | Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) State of Minnesota | public | MN | 112,000 | 77.3% | $4.3B | B |
| 26 | Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (ATRS) State of Arkansas | public | AR | 112,000 | 71.9% | $7.2B | B |
| 27 | New Mexico Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) State of New Mexico | public | NM | 108,000 | 67.9% | $7.7B | B |
| 28 | Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System (APERS) State of Arkansas | public | AR | 98,000 | 74.8% | $3.2B | B |
| 29 | Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) State of Oklahoma | public | OK | 88,000 | 70.3% | $4.3B | B |
| 30 | Lockheed Martin Corporation Retirement Plan Lockheed Martin | corporate | MD | 84,564 | 78.8% | $4.7B | B |
| 31 | New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS) State of New Hampshire | public | NH | 72,000 | 65.1% | $5.3B | C |
| 32 | Montana Public Employee Retirement Administration (MPERA) State of Montana | public | MT | 65,000 | 75.2% | $4.1B | B |
| 33 | NYC Police Pension Fund New York City | public | NY | 60,000 | 78.3% | $13.6B | B |
| 34 | West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System State of West Virginia | public | WV | 60,000 | 78.1% | $1.7B | B |
| 35 | Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund (OP&F) State of Ohio | public | OH | 56,000 | 73.8% | $6.2B | B |
| 36 | Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System (LACERS) City of Los Angeles | public | CA | 49,000 | 75.8% | $6.4B | B |
| 37 | Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS) Orange County | public | CA | 46,000 | 76.2% | $6.4B | B |
| 38 | West Virginia Teachers Retirement System State of West Virginia | public | WV | 45,000 | 68.3% | $2.7B | B |
| 39 | North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System (NDPERS) State of North Dakota | public | ND | 44,000 | 68.3% | $1.9B | B |
| 40 | Wyoming Retirement System (WRS) State of Wyoming | public | WY | 38,000 | 77.8% | $2.3B | B |
| 41 | Alaska Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) State of Alaska | public | AK | 38,000 | 67.8% | $3.4B | B |
| 42 | NYC Fire Department Pension Fund New York City | public | NY | 28,000 | 76.2% | $5.5B | B |
| 43 | Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Association Contra Costa County | public | CA | 23,000 | 78.3% | $2.8B | B |
| 44 | Vermont State Employees Retirement System State of Vermont | public | VT | 22,000 | 67.9% | $1.1B | B |
| 45 | Denver Employees Retirement Plan City of Denver | public | CO | 21,000 | 79.2% | $1.3B | B |
| 46 | San Diego City Employees Retirement System (SDCERS) City of San Diego | public | CA | 20,500 | 73.3% | $3.7B | B |
| 47 | Detroit General Retirement System City of Detroit | public | MI | 20,000 | 71.8% | $780.0M | B |
| 48 | National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF) IBEW & NECA | multiemployer | DC | 18,619 | 74.3% | $523.2M | A |
| 49 | Phoenix Employees Retirement System City of Phoenix | public | AZ | 18,000 | 68.1% | $1.5B | B |
| 50 | San Jose Federated City Employees Retirement System City of San Jose | public | CA | 12,000 | 74.2% | $1.5B | B |
| 51 | General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan General Motors | corporate | MI | 11,395 | 77.1% | $219.7M | B |
| 52 | General Motors Salaried Pension Plan General Motors | corporate | MI | 3,061 | 71.5% | $187.0M | C |
| 53 | International Brotherhood of Boilermakers National Pension Trust Boilermakers Union | multiemployer | KS | 729 | 71.4% | $55.9M | B |
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 "Moderate Risk" mean for a pension plan?
Plans with some funding challenges but generally manageable risk levels. May need attention but not in immediate danger. Moderate-risk plans sit near the national average. Funding ratios typically run 75%–90% with mixed trend signals. These plans are not in immediate stress but lack the cushion to absorb a major market shock or contribution holiday without slipping into the high-risk band. Most U.S. defined-benefit plans cluster in this range when measured at standard actuarial assumptions.
How many pension plans are at moderate risk level?
PensionRisk currently classifies 53 pension plans at moderate risk. The top 53 are listed below by participant count and unfunded liability, covering 12,416,868 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.
53 pension plans currently sit in the moderate-risk tier — covering 12,416,868 active and retired participants with an average funding ratio of 73.4%. Risk is contained but not absent.