PBGC 2027 Pension Guarantee by Age: Monthly Cap and Lump-Sum Limit

Whose pension this table covers

PBGC publishes the table on one page and says what it does and does not cover: “The maximum guarantees in these tables apply only to single-employer pension plans whose benefits PBGC pays as trustee. These guarantees do not apply to multiemployer plans.” The same page adds: “Please note: Most benefits in PBGC-trusteed plans are lower than the maximum and not affected by legal limits.”

Source: PBGC, Maximum monthly guarantee tables (updated October 19, 2026); PBGC, multiemployer guarantee page (updated March 2, 2021); 29 U.S.C. 1322; 29 CFR 4022.22 and 4022.23 (Cornell Legal Information Institute). The row on plans outside coverage is cited in our cash balance plan page, which quotes ERISA 4021(b)(13).

The multiemployer figure is a different animal: it is a flat formula per year of service and “is not adjusted for inflation or cost-of-living increases,” in PBGC’s words. The page we read is dated 2021, so we cite it as that and do not call it a 2027 number.

The 2027 table by age, next to 2026

PBGC’s 2027 table runs from age 45 to 75. We added the 2026 straight-life column from the table PBGC showed until the 2027 one replaced it (a copy of the page archived October 16, 2026), then the change and each age’s share of the age-65 amount.

Source: PBGC maximum monthly guarantee tables, 2027 (last updated October 19, 2026) and 2026 (archived October 16, 2026). The joint and 50% survivor amounts apply only if both spouses are the same age.

Three things stand out when the two columns are set side by side.

• Every age rose by 4.16%. The ratio of the 2027 to the 2026 amount is 1.0416 at every age in the table, from 45 to 75, and the same for the joint and 50% column (our arithmetic). The change in dollars grows with age only because the base does.
• The curve is steep after 65. The 2027 amount at 70 is 166.0% of the age-65 amount, and at 75 it is 304.0%: $24,665.47 a month, or $295,985.64 a year (our arithmetic). PBGC explains it this way: “The formula provides lower amounts for younger ages because younger people are expected to receive more monthly pension checks over their lifetime. Conversely, amounts are higher for older ages.”
• The survivor column is a flat 90.0%. That matches the 10% reduction in 29 CFR 4022.23(d)(2) for a survivor benefit of 50% on a contingent basis. Our joint and survivor page compares that 10% with an actuarially neutral reduction; this page does not repeat it.

Which table and which age apply

PBGC’s own instructions are short and worth reading in full, because the wrong year or the wrong age moves the answer by hundreds of dollars.

Source: PBGC, Maximum monthly guarantee tables (updated October 19, 2026); PBGC, Guaranteed benefits (updated May 14, 2021); 29 U.S.C. 1322(g), which treats the bankruptcy petition date as the termination date.

Where the table comes from: the statute and two regulations

The 2027 numbers are not a judgment call. The statute sets an age-65 cap, and a regulation scales it for age and form. 29 U.S.C. 1322(b)(3)(B) sets the cap at “$750 multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the contribution and benefit base” in effect when the plan terminates, over the base in 1974, and 29 CFR 4022.22(a)(2) writes it as $750 multiplied by x/$13,200. We did not rebuild the dollar level from the Social Security base; we took PBGC’s published level as given. What we did rebuild is the age pattern, which comes from 29 CFR 4022.23(c):

Source: 29 CFR 4022.23(c) (Cornell Legal Information Institute); PBGC maximum monthly guarantee tables, 2027. The percentages of the age-65 amount are our arithmetic and match PBGC’s published amounts to the cent at ages 45, 55, 60, 62 and 64.

At 62 the regulation takes off 36 months at 7/12 of 1%, which is 21%, so 79% of $8,113.64 is $6,409.78, and that is the number in PBGC’s table. The ages above 65 are in PBGC’s table but not in the part of the regulation we read; we report them as published.

How the survivor option and the spouse’s age change the cap

PBGC’s table has only two columns, and it says a different survivor percentage or a spouse of a different age gives “different amounts.” The regulation shows how. Under 29 CFR 4022.23(d)(2), a contingent-basis joint and survivor annuity is cut by “10% plus 2/10 of 1% for each percentage point in excess of 50%,” and under (d)(3) a joint-basis annuity by “4/10 of 1% for each percentage point in excess of 50%.” Under (e), a spouse younger than the participant takes off 1% a year of age difference, up to 15 years, and an older spouse adds half of 1% a year, with years over 65 not counted. The factors are added to or subtracted from 1.00 and multiplied together (4022.23(b)).

Source: 29 CFR 4022.23(d)(2) and (d)(3), applied to the 2027 age-65 amount of $8,113.64 for a spouse of the same age. The dollar amounts are our arithmetic.

Worked example (our arithmetic). A participant of 65 with a 50% survivor benefit on a contingent basis and a spouse of 60 has two factors: 0.90 for the survivor option and 0.95 for five years of age difference. The product is 0.855, and 0.855 times $8,113.64 is $6,937.16 a month. This is our reading of the regulation, not a figure PBGC publishes, and PBGC decides the amount in an actual case.

The present value of the cap, age 25 to 85

PBGC publishes a second table that most pension articles skip. The page says what it is for: IRC section 436(d)(3) and ERISA section 206(g)(3)(C) provide that if the “adjusted funding target attainment percentage” is at least 60% but under 80%, a plan generally may not pay a prohibited payment to the extent the payment exceeds the lesser of 50% of the payment or the present value of the maximum guarantee under ERISA section 4022. PBGC adds that “The values below apply to benefits with annuity starting dates in 2027” and that the 2027 table “was developed using the 417(e) segment rates for August 2026 (4.65%, 5.75% and 6.73%, respectively)” and the 417(e) mortality table for 2027.

Source: PBGC, Present value of PBGC maximum guarantee (last updated October 22, 2026), 2027 and 2026 tables. The change columns and the last column are our arithmetic. PBGC publishes ages 25 to 85.

Two readings of the table, both our arithmetic:

• The present value did not rise with the cap. The monthly maximum rose 4.16% at every age, but the 2027 table is discounted at higher rates than the 2026 one (4.65%, 5.75% and 6.73% against 4.20%, 5.29% and 6.08%). The two effects roughly cancel at 62 to 65: the 2027 value is $3,066 lower at 62 and $801 higher at 65. It is lower at every age from 25 to 64 (down 2.3% at 55) and higher above 65 (up 1.4% at 75 and 2.6% at 85).
• The cap is measured in lump sums too. The 2027 age-65 value divided by the 2027 monthly cap in thousands is $140,301 per $1,000 a month. Our lump sum page computes a minimum lump sum of $140,232 per $1,000 a month at 65 from the same August 2026 rates and the 2027 mortality table. The two differ by 0.05%, so PBGC’s table is consistent with the 417(e) arithmetic; we did not reconstruct PBGC’s method, which it describes in Technical Update 07-4.

What section 436 does to a lump sum

Section 436(d) has three zones, in the text of 26 U.S.C. 436 we saved. If the plan’s adjusted funding target attainment percentage is under 60%, the plan “may not pay any prohibited payment after the valuation date for the plan year.” While the plan sponsor is a debtor in bankruptcy, it generally may not either. From 60% to under 80%, the lesser-of rule applies, and only one such payment may be made to a participant in a period of consecutive plan years to which the limits apply. At 80% or more, this part of the section does not limit the payment. PBGC points to Treasury’s benefit restrictions regulations for what counts as a “prohibited payment”; a lump sum is the case readers usually have in mind, which is our reading, not PBGC’s statement.

Worked examples (our arithmetic), with an annuity starting date in 2027 and a plan funded at 70%:

• A 65-year-old is entitled to a $2,500,000 lump sum. 50% is $1,250,000; the 2027 present value at 65 is $1,138,348. The lesser is $1,138,348, so the PBGC value binds, and the rest would wait or go in another form under the plan’s rules.
• A 62-year-old is entitled to a $1,500,000 lump sum. 50% is $750,000; the present value at 62 is $950,804. The lesser is $750,000, so the 50% rule binds.

The two tests meet where the payment equals twice the present value, which is the last column of the table above. A lump sum below that threshold is limited by the 50% rule alone, in the 60% to under 80% zone. The percentage the plan reports is the “adjusted” one in the statute; where your plan sits is on its annual funding notice, not in this table.

Other limits that sit beside the cap

The table is only one of the limits. Each is quoted or paraphrased from a primary document we saved.

Source: documents named in the table, read and saved on October 31, 2026.

Worked example for a business owner (our arithmetic). A majority owner whose plan had been in effect 4 years when it terminated would have a fraction of 4/10, or 0.4, applied to the amount otherwise guaranteed. If that amount were the 2027 age-65 cap of $8,113.64, the owner’s guarantee would be $3,245.46 a month. Section 1322(b)(5) is the text; PBGC applies it case by case.

Before you decide

• Find out whether your plan is a single-employer plan covered by PBGC. The annual funding notice, the summary plan description or the plan administrator will say. A multiemployer plan, a plan of a professional practice that is exempt, or a plan that is not a defined benefit plan has none of these guarantees.
• Compare your own monthly benefit with the cap for your age. If your pension in the form you would choose is under the cap, the cap is not what limits you. If it is over, the difference is the part the table does not insure.
• Ask what the funding percentage is. The 60% and 80% marks in section 436 depend on the plan’s adjusted funding target attainment percentage. A lump sum offer from a plan under 80% can be limited as described above.
• Remember the year. A plan that fails in 2028 will use the 2028 table, which PBGC has not published.

What a reader can do with this

1. Look up your age in the 2027 table and compare the straight-life or joint and 50% amount with the monthly benefit your plan shows for the same form.
2. If you are married and your spouse’s age or the survivor percentage differs from the table, ask the plan for its factors and use the regulation rows above only as a way to check the order of magnitude.
3. If you have a lump sum offer, look up your age in the present-value table, double it, and see whether your offer is above that line. If it is and the plan reports a funding percentage in the 60% to under 80% zone, ask the administrator how section 436 applies to you.
4. If you are a business owner, ask when the plan was adopted and what the majority-owner and five-year rules do to your guarantee.
5. Read the rollover and lump sum mechanics in our pension lump sum page, and the spouse’s consent rules in our joint and survivor page. If you are going through a divorce, PBGC’s qualified domestic relations order rules are in our QDRO page.

FAQ

Sources, read and saved on October 31, 2026: PBGC, Maximum monthly guarantee tables for 2027 (last updated October 19, 2026) and the 2026 table from a copy of the same page archived by the Internet Archive on October 16, 2026; PBGC, Present value of PBGC maximum guarantee (last updated October 22, 2026); PBGC, Guaranteed benefits (updated May 14, 2021) and the multiemployer guarantee page (updated March 2, 2021); 29 U.S.C. 1322 and 26 U.S.C. 436 (Cornell Legal Information Institute); 29 CFR 4022.22, 4022.23 and 4022.24 (Cornell Legal Information Institute). Percentages, dollar differences, worked examples and the thresholds in the last column of the present-value table are our arithmetic. Your plan, its funding level and the date it fails decide your actual guarantee. This is analysis of public documents, not investment, legal or tax advice.