Plan
Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System
State
California
Funded Ratio
71.3%
Assets
$18.05B
Members
59,533
Health Grade: C — Underfunded — significant gap between assets and liabilities
FY2023 data Grade C Public Plans Database

Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System

Funded ratio, unfunded liability, member counts, ARC coverage, and 23-year financial history for Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System — sourced from the Public Plans Database (Boston College CRR) and cross-checked against actuarial valuations.

Funded Ratio: 71.3% (At Risk) Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System funded ratio compared to national public pension benchmark. FUNDED RATIO 71.3% At Risk Nat'l avg 73.5% 0% 60 70 80 100% Healthy > 80% · At-risk 70-80% · Critical < 60%
Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System funded ratio is 71.3 percent — classified as At Risk. National public-pension benchmark is 73.5 percent.
C
Financial Health Grade
Underfunded — significant gap between assets and liabilities

Funded Ratio

71.3%

actuarial assets / liabilities

Unfunded Liability

$7.26B

actuarial shortfall

Total Members

59,533

active + retired + vested

1-Year Return

10.2%

net investment return

2.4pp vs 5-yr avg

5-Year Avg Return

7.8%

annualized, net of fees

ARC Payment

22.7%

of actuarially required contribution

How Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System Funded Ratio Compares

Plan Funded Ratio 71.3%
National avg

A ratio of 71.3% compared against the national public-pension average of 73.5%.

Healthy Threshold

Plans above 80% are generally considered adequately funded by NASRA standards.

Participant Composition

Participants: 25.9K active, 22.5K retired, 0 separated Plan participant breakdown showing active workers, retirees, and separated-vested members. PARTICIPANT MIX 59.5K total members 43% 38% Active 25.9K Retired 22.5K Separated 0 Active-to-Retiree 1.15 · Transitioning
Plan participant breakdown: 25.9K active workers, 22.5K retirees, 0 separated-vested members. Sustainability rating: Transitioning.

The active-to-retiree ratio is a leading indicator of long-term plan sustainability — plans with more retirees than active contributors face mounting cash-flow pressure as benefit payments outpace incoming contributions.

Investment Policy Mix

Asset Allocation: 55% equity, 25% fixed income, 17% alternatives Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System investment policy mix as reported in Form 5500 Schedule H disclosures. ASSET ALLOCATION $18.0B market assets · Form 5500 Schedule H 55% 25% 17% Equity 55.0% Fixed Inc. 25.0% Alternatives 17.0% Cash 3.0% Investment Stance: Growth-Tilted · Equity + Alts 72%
Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System asset allocation: 55% equity, 25% fixed income, 17% alternatives, 3% cash. Investment stance: Growth-Tilted.

Public pension plans report their asset allocation in Form 5500 Schedule H Part I disclosures. Equity-heavy mixes capture market upside but introduce volatility; fixed-income tilts protect funded status during downturns at the cost of long-run return.

Historical Funded Ratio

Year Funded Ratio
2024 71.3%
2023 70.3%
2022 69.9%
2021 67.6%
2020 66.4%
2019 70.7%
2018 70.7%
2017 71.4%
2016 74.6%
2015 75.1%
2014 77.9%
2013 76.8%
2012 77.7%
2011 79.6%
2010 81.2%
2009 78.9%
2008 94.1%
2007 100.8%
2006 99.3%
2005 97.8%

What the Data Says About Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System

Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System reports a funded ratio of 71.3% as of fiscal year 2023, earning a financial health grade of C in the Public Plans Database. The plan holds $18.05B in market assets against an unfunded liability of $7.26B. As a General State plan operating under California sponsorship, it covers 59,533 members (25,875 active contributors, 22,510 retirees drawing benefits). These figures aggregate from Form 5500 filings submitted to the Department of Labor and actuarial valuations reported through NASRA.

A funded ratio in the 60–80% range indicates moderate underfunding that falls near the national average of 72–75% but leaves the plan exposed to market downturns and demographic shifts. Employer contributions covered 22.7% of the Annual Required Contribution in the most recent reporting cycle, while the plan posted a 5-year average investment return of 7.8%. The relationship between contribution adequacy and investment performance determines whether the unfunded liability narrows or expands year over year.

For California taxpayers and plan members, the $7.26B unfunded gap represents the actuarial shortfall that must eventually be closed through a combination of contributions, investment returns, or benefit modifications. Unlike private-sector pensions governed by ERISA and backstopped by the PBGC, public plans like Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System rely on the full faith and credit of California — meaning funding shortfalls flow through to state and local budgets rather than a federal insurance program. This information summarizes official Public Plans Database disclosures and is provided for research and educational purposes only. It is not financial, legal, or retirement-planning advice; active and retired members with specific benefit questions should consult their plan administrator directly.

Membership

25,875
Active Members
22,510
Retirees
59,533
Total Members

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System fully funded?

Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System has a funded ratio of 71.3% as of FY2023, earning a health grade of C. A funded ratio of 100% means the plan has enough assets to cover all projected liabilities. Ratios above 80% are generally considered adequately funded; ratios below 60% indicate significant underfunding and risk to future benefits.

What happens if Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System runs out of money?

Public pension plans like Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System are backed by the sponsoring government entity — in this case California. If a plan's assets are insufficient, the state or local government is typically required to make up the difference through increased contributions, benefit adjustments, or tax measures. Unlike private pensions, public pensions are not insured by the PBGC, but they do carry the full faith and credit of the sponsoring government.

What does a funded ratio of 71.3% mean?

A funded ratio of 71.3% means that Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System currently has assets equal to 71.3% of its projected benefit obligations. The unfunded liability — the gap between assets and liabilities — stands at $7.26B. This represents a moderate funding gap that requires ongoing monitoring.

How does Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System compare to other public pensions?

Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System is a General State plan in California serving 59,533 members. Nationally, the average funded ratio for public pension plans tracked by the Public Plans Database is approximately 72–75%. Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System's funded ratio of 71.3% places it near the national average.

How many members does Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System have?

Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System covers 59,533 total members, including 25,875 active employees and 22,510 retirees currently receiving benefits. The ratio of active members to retirees is a key indicator of plan sustainability — when the number of retirees grows relative to active contributors, funding pressure increases.

What is the ARC payment percentage for Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System?

Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System pays 22.7% of its Annual Required Contribution (ARC). Consistently underpaying the ARC accelerates the growth of unfunded liabilities and places future benefits at greater risk. Employer contribution patterns are tracked annually in the Public Plans Database.

Related

Data sourced from official Public Plans Database and actuarial valuations from federal and state pension systems. See our methodology for details. Retrieved and formatted by Kiznis Studio Editorial

Disclaimer: This information is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. Data is sourced from the Public Plans Database (PPD). Consult a qualified professional before making decisions based on this data.

All federal data sources used on this page