benchmarking survey - aronson llc · 2020. 2. 10. · 3rd annual employee benefit plan benchmarking...

BENCHMARKING SURVEY

HOW DOES YOUR BENEFIT PLAN STACK UP AGAINST OTHERS?

INTRODUCTIONAronson’s Employee Benefit Plan Services Group is proud to announce the results of its 3rd Annual Benefit Plan

Survey. The survey is designed to help employers get a better understanding of the overall benefits landscape. Its

release comes at a critical time for employers. Employers across all industries are struggling to meet the needs of

very different employee populations in an effort to recruit and retain top talent. There is great uncertainty with the

direction of healthcare after several years of significant premium increases and many dollars spent to meet the many

compliance requirements set‐forth by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). With any change in the White House comes

a certain level of caution and this time is no different. New efforts are made every day to come up with innovative

ideas to keep employees happy and productive. The challenge is to balance the cost of these ideas with the benefits

they produce.

Our survey spans the industries that are representative of the Washington, DC Metropolitan marketplace and is

designed to help employers gain a better understanding of some of the benefits being provided by their peers and

the associated challenges in doing so.

The race to keep the best and brightest is highly competitive and no employer wants to be left behind! Although this is primarily a tool for your benchmarking purposes, as you review the information it may give rise to questions. Please feel free to reach out to Aronson for answers and potential solutions.

Aronson’s Employee Benefit Plan Services Group is a team of experienced benefit plan auditors and consultants

who help clients get the most out of their plan in consideration of the current regulatory framework. Whether

you need a benefit plan auditor or somebody to help you design and implement a cost effective plan, we are here

to support your business goals and provide guidance before, during and after the engagement. With a strong

commitment to personal service and attention, Aronson’s Employee Benefit Plan Services Group offers custom

solutions for your unique business. Please call us at 301.231.6200 for more information regarding the survey

results or the services we offer.

3rd Annual Employee Benefit Plan Benchmarking Survey 1

WHAT STATE OR U.S. TERRITORY ARE YOU LOCATED IN?

Respondents were from 22 of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Approximately

85% were from the Mid‐Atlantic region, which includes Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland.

SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICSWHAT INDUSTRY ARE YOU IN?

Almost 54% of the 247 respondents to the survey indicated they worked in government contracting, with the next

closest industry being nonprofit (approximately 12%). This is not surprising given that the majority of respondents

(85%) were located in the DC/MD/VA area, and these are two of the region’s most prevalent industries. The

majority of the respondents in the "other" category (7%) indicated they worked in education, hospitality, automotive,

manufacturing, retail, and life sciences.


Majority

1 Response

2 Responses

3 Responses

4 Responses

7 Responses

The survey asked respondents to indicate the size of their organization and retirement plans, based on the number

of employees and plan assets. Where relevant, we have provided survey results separately for respondents with

over 100 employees and those with less than100 employees.

HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DO YOU HAVE?

WHAT IS THE APPROXIMATE SIZE OF YOUR PRIMARY RETIREMENT PLAN?


UNDER $1M

$25M - $74.9M

9%

24%

$1M - $9.9M

$75M - $199.9M

44%

2%

$10M - $24.9M

OVER $200M

6%

15%

33%1-50

51-100

101-250

251-500

501-1,000

OVER 1,000

15%

23%

14%

5%

10%

WHAT TYPE OF PLAN DO YOU HAVE?

There are two general types of retirement plans: defined benefit and defined contribution. Defined contribution

plans (e.g. 401(k) plans) establish the parameters of the contribution made to the plan. The benefit to the

participant is dependent on the contributions and the growth in the participant’s account. A defined benefit plan

(e.g. pension plan) defines the benefit the participant is entitled to receive upon retirement. The contributions to a

defined benefit plan are determined using actuarial assumptions to ensure the plan has enough funds to pay the

promised benefits.

401(k) plans permit participants to contribute pre‐tax income

to be invested for retirement. These plans typically offer

participants a choice of investments. Taxes are not paid until

funds are withdrawn.


403(B)

ESOP

DEFINED BENEFIT

SEP/SIMPLE

*Note: Percentages exceed 100% as respondents could select all that apply.

86%

20%

10%

9%

5%

4%

401(k)

PROFIT SHARINGA profit sharing plan typically allows the company to provide

retirement benefits to employees, but does not require the

administrative burden of providing for participant deferral

contributions. Participants are often permitted to choose

their investments.

403(b) plans, which are sponsored by nonprofit organizations,

have similar features to their for‐profit counterpart, the

401(k) plan.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) use plan sponsor

stock as the primary investment for employer contributions

made to the plan, thereby developing a culture of employee

ownership. ESOPs have an additional layer of complexity

and can be very costly to plan sponsors if they are not

administered properly.

Use of defined benefit plans continues to decline due to costs,

and more and more sponsors are freezing and terminating

these plans. Pension risk management strategies continue to

be at the forefront for sponsors that maintain these plans.

Simplified Employee Pensions (SEPs) and SIMPLE plans are

more basic vehicles with streamlined features that remove

much of the compliance burden found in most qualified plans.

These can be very productive options for employers with

limited administrative resources who do not need all of the

bells and whistles available with other plan types.


PLAN GOVERNANCE & F IDUCIARY RESPONSIBIL IT IESWHO “INTERNALLY” IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PLAN?

DO YOU HAVE A 401K COMMITTEE, AND IF SO, HOW OFTEN DO YOU MEET?

AND WE MEET. . .

Annually ‐ 18% Semi‐annually ‐ 20% Quarterly ‐ 44% Monthly ‐ 2% As Needed ‐ 16%

Broaden the responsibility of the plan to multiple

individuals.

Of Committees

PROSOf Committees

There are only so many hours in a day...

This becomes a low priority to plan sponsors.

CONS

HR Staff 7% 24%

37%

7%

24%

1% Other/I don’t know

CEO/Owner

Controller/CFO

HR Director

Accounting Staff

50%YES 50%NO

TREND

LESS CEOS AND OWNERS TAKING RESPONSIBIL ITY OVER THE PRIOR YEAR (DOWN FROM 43%)

TREND

MORE AND MORE PLANS ARE UTIL IZ ING COMMITTEES OVER THE PRIOR YEAR (UP 11%)


DO YOU USE AN OUTSIDE ADVISOR, AND IF SO, HOW OFTEN DO YOU MEET WITH THEM?

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE NEW DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PLAN FIDUCIARY RULES?

AND WE MEET. . .

Annually ‐ 23% Semi‐annually ‐ 23% Quarterly ‐ 30% Monthly ‐ 3% As Needed ‐ 21%

You are able to utilize the expertise of an advisor to

make sound financial choices for your employees.

Of Advisors

PROSOf Advisors

Advisors are not free. It is important to do your due

diligence to find the best one at the best price.

CONS

IF YOU ANSWERED "YES" TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, WHAT CHANGES ARE YOU MAKING IN YOUR ADVISOR RELATIONSHIP?

No Changes ‐ 82% Modifying Current Services/Structure ‐ 14% Changing Brokers ‐ 4%

78%YES 22%NO

71%YES 29%NO

TREND

CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR YEAR RESULTS, MOST RESPONDENTS USE AN OUTSIDE ADVISOR.


Over the last several years, the Department of Labor (DOL) has worked to expand the definition of "investment

fiduciary." This is commonly referred to as the DOL Fiduciary Rule (the Rule). The new Rule was scheduled to

begin to go into effect on April 10, 2017. However, the current Administration has delayed its implementation

with the hopes that it is never implemented.

Under the Rule, an advisor making a recommendation or sale, as opposed to simply giving ongoing advice, would

be considered a fiduciary. Previously, only advisors charging a fee for services were deemed to be a plan fiduciary.

Such fees could be hourly or a percentage of assets, but not commissions. As a fiduciary, the DOL requires

advisors to act in the best interests of their clients. All fees must be shown in hard dollars and any conflicts of

interest disclosed. At the heart of the Rule is the fact that a fiduciary must recommend investments that are in the

client’s "best interests," not investments that are merely suitable based on various needs and objectives.

The investment industry and retirement plan sponsors alike have been preparing for these new requirements for

the last several years with many plans having already established a relationship with an advisor that meets the

fiduciary standard.

Survey results showed that just over 70% of respondents were familiar with the new Rule. It is somewhat shocking

that almost 30% of respondents were not. This could mean one of two things, the new Rule ultimately does not

impact their current relationship because their advisor met the standards already or they truly know nothing about

the Rule. The new Rule could greatly impact an employer’s relationship with their advisor, if not force them to

completely change advisors.

Of the respondents that were familiar with the new Rule, roughly 20% were currently in the process of modifying

their current service model or completely changing their advisor. It is likely that most of the other respondents

had already evaluated their advisor relationships within the context of the new Fiduciary Rule and implemented

any appropriate changes.

Regardless of the fate of the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule, all plan sponsors should demand that their advisor adhere to the two basic investment fiduciary tenets that they operate in your best interests and that your fees are properly disclosed.


PLAN DESIGNIn this year’s survey, we asked again about your plan’s eligibility and enrollment provisions.

TREND

ELIGIBIL ITY

Immediate 45% 7%

8%

2%

22%

16% Other

After 1 Year

After 6 Months

After 1 Month

After 3 Months

If employees are allowed to participate immediately, plan sponsors must make sure

all employees are offered enrollment unless they have specifically been excluded from

participation in the document. Part‐time employees should be allowed to participate

if they meet the eligibility requirements. Be sure to monitor hours and do not just

assume the requirements have not been met just because of their part‐time status!

Failure to offer enrollment to ALL eligible participants can result in costly corrections.

Attractive benefit for new employees. No need to

track a participant’s eligibility period, which can

save administrative time.

To Immediate Eligibility Periods

PROSTo Immediate Eligibility Periods

Plan sponsors with a workforce with high turnover

may end up accumulating small balances for

numerous participants, which can increase cost

and administrative burden.

CONS

Consistent with prior year results, approximately 83% of respondents offer participants the right to contribute

within three months of their hire date, with larger employers offering enrollment earlier than smaller employers.


In an effort to get more workers to save for retirement, many employers began adding automatic enrollment

provisions to their retirement plans several years ago. 34% of total respondents indicated they have this feature for

their plan, up from 28% in the prior year. Interestingly, the percentage for smaller plans stayed at approximately

22% while the percentage of companies with over 100 employees increased from 34% to 46%.

TREND

Increased participation which generates better

nondiscrimination testing results. Increased

number of individuals saving for retirement as

they did not need to take action to enroll.

To Automatic Enrollment

PROSTo Automatic Enrollment

Concerns that when starting rates are set too low,

participants tend to contribute at these lower rates

for longer than they should, thus not saving enough.

This can be somewhat mitigated by adoption of the

automatic escalation provisions. Increased costs to

the employer, due to higher matching contributions.

Increased administrative burden to administer

the provisions.

CONS

While the majority of respondents with plans that provide for automatic enrollment still do not include an

auto escalation feature, it appears the percentage adding the automatic increase is rising. In the under 100

employee category the percentage with this feature increased slightly from 20% to 22%, while those with over

100 employees reported utilizing this feature increased from 24% to 41%.

AUTO-ENROLLMENTUNDER 100 OVER 100

AUTO ESCALATIONUNDER 100 OVER 100

YES

YES

NO

NO

NOYES

NOYESThe majority of reported

escalation rates were 1% per year, with caps varying from 6%‐15%.

22%

78%

46%

54%

22%

78%

41%

59%

6% ‐ 18%

3% ‐ 43%

5% ‐ 11%

4% ‐ 11%

2% ‐ 7%

Over 6% ‐ 5%

Unknown ‐ 3%

1% ‐ 2%

Starting Rates

3% ‐ 41%

6% ‐ 23%

Unknown ‐ 15%

1% ‐ 9%

4% ‐ 4%

5% ‐ 4%

Over 6% ‐ 4%

Starting Rates


The following provisions give employers the most trouble when administering auto‐enrollment provisions:

• Who should be auto‐enrolled, new employees or all employees without an enrollment election? Employers often

do not know who their document specifically says must be enrolled.

• When should employees be auto‐enrolled? Some employers struggle to consistently enroll employees in a timely manner.

• Applying the automatic contribution increase often causes difficulties. Employers do not seem to have a good

process for applying auto increases in a consistent, accurate manner.

• Employers must take care to provide a uniform application of auto‐enrollment provisions.

It is important to understand the timing of the step‐up (e.g. same date for all participants,

participant’s anniversary of auto‐enrollment). Errors can result in missed deferral opportunities

and can require corrections that are less costly if certain conditions are met. The new options

were made available in an effort to make auto‐enrollment as a whole more attractive to

plan sponsors.

IS YOUR PLAN A SAFE HARBOR 401(K) PLAN?

No discrimination testing failures while providing

a great benefit to your employees.

PROS

More expensive than a discretionary contribution

plan. Is more challenging to administer, and you

are locked in to that benefit for the year.

CONS

YES 50% NO 36% ? 14%

If you choose to have a safe harbor plan, be aware that if you note such benefit in your proposals

on contracts, you will be locked in for that benefit.


DO YOU PROVIDE A MATCHING CONTRIBUTION, AND IF SO, WHAT KIND OF MATCH AND AT WHAT FREQUENCY?

An annual contribution versus the rest ‐ An annual contribution provides options. You can add a service

requirement where the participants must be employed as of year‐end in order to receive such contributions;

however participants may feel slighted that they do not receive their match on a pay‐by‐pay basis

like their withholdings.

WHAT IS YOUR MATCH FORMULA? SOME OF THE MOST INTERESTING MATCHES NOTED ARE:

Provides flexibility to your contribution. You have

the ability to reduce the contribution in tough

profitability years.

Of Discretionary Over Fixed

PROSOf Discretionary Over Fixed

Discretionary is seen as less of a benefit by

your employees.

CONS

PAY PERIOD

MONTHLY

QUARTERLY

ANNUALLY

NONE

55%

18%

4%

4%

20%

DISCRETIONARY

FIXED

NONE

25%

55%

20%

• 50%, up to 12% of compensation

contributed garners a lot of participation

among your employees.

• 100%, up to 10% of compensation

contributed garners a lot of participation

and is very expensive.

• 100%, up to $6,000 contributed.

9%

12%

19%

20%

40%

50%, up to 6% of compensation contributed



N/A

Other


DO YOU HAVE A PROFIT SHARING CONTRIBUTION, AND IF SO, WHAT IS THE FORMULA?

DOES YOUR PLAN CONTAIN PROVISIONS FOR PREVAILING WAGE FRINGE BENEFIT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PLAN (I.E. SERVICE CONTRACT ACT, DAVIS BACON)?

PROFIT SHARING CONTRIBUTIONS CONTINUE TO BE THE UNPOPULAR CHOICE WITH ONLY 28% OF RESPONDENTS INCLUDING THE CONTRIBUTION IN THEIR PLAN.

IF YOU ANSWERED “YES” TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, DID YOU MAKE SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PLAN?

YES

NO

A RANGE OF RESPONSES:

• Discretionary, determined by management each year

is the overwhelming response.

• As low as 1% of salary up to 25% of compensation

with the majority of the responses hovering in the

2‐3% range.

YES

NO72%

28%

14%

86%

NO

YES37%

63%

TREND


Construction contractors and subcontractors working on certain federal contracts must comply with the Davis‐

Bacon Act. This act requires these contractors to pay the laborers and mechanics employed under the contract no

less than the locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits for similar projects in the area, as set by the DOL.

Similarly, government contractors and subcontractors performing services under contracts covered by the

McNamara‐O’Hara Service Contract Act (SCA) must pay service employees in various classes no less than the

wage rates and fringe rates in the area, also set by the DOL.

Test your SCA knowledge with an Aronson blog: http://blogs.aronsonllc.com/fedpoint/2014/03/31/test-service-contract-act-knowledge/

Regardless of whether employers choose to pay cash or use bona fide fringe benefits and a

contribution to the retirement plan to meet the fringe obligation, it is critical to establish controls

over the process to ensure the obligation is properly satisfied. Some of the errors we have

seen over the years are as follows: not using the correct hours to calculate the obligation, not

updating the fringe rate when the contract has been modified to incorporate a new hourly rate,

not updating the cost of the fringe benefit when the insurance was renewed, and applying an

inappropriate fringe benefit to offset the obligation. While it is rare for these errors to result in a

material correction, given the complex nature of the calculation the opportunity for error is great.

Cost savings. The bona fide fringe benefits that

qualify to offset the obligation are often costs that

would likely be incurred regardless of whether or

not the employee is subject to a prevailing wage

obligation. Therefore the employer will not only

retain and attract employees by offering these

benefits, the costs assist in meeting the funding

obligation for prevailing wage employees. Any

excess obligation is deposited into the Plan as a

prevailing wage contribution. Because none of the

obligation was met by paying cash to the employee,

payroll taxes do not apply.

For Making Prevailing Wage Contributions

PROSFor Making Prevailing Wage Contributions

Burdensome administration. Significant time and

effort is required to calculate and administer these

contributions. The majority of our clients that make

prevailing wage contributions to the retirement plan

outsource the calculation of such contributions to

a third party provider that specializes in prevailing

wage contracts to relieve some of the burden.

The typical retirement plan third party provider is

not likely to have the expertise needed to perform

these calculations.

CONS

BONA FIDE BENEFIT Life Insurance, Health Insurance, Pension, Paid Time Off, Sick Leave

THERE IS A SLIGHT INCREASE IN RESPONDENTS THAT HAVE INCORPORATED A PREVAILING WAGE CONTRIBUTION PROVISION. OVER HALF OF THESE RESPONDENTS MAKE A PREVAILING WAGE CONTRIBUTION.

TREND


WHAT IS YOUR VESTING SCHEDULE?

For those employers that have a vesting schedule, it is important to review the process and

controls in place to ensure the proper vesting is applied to participants, even if the vested

balance is being determined by a third party provider.

Assists in attracting and retaining talented

employees. Helps to meet the condition of a safe

harbor plan.

Of Immediate Vesting Schedules

PROSOf Immediate Vesting Schedules

Costly to employers. No forfeitures available to

offset future contributions or pay plan expenses.

Removes an incentive for employees to stay until

they reach full vesting.

CONS

TRENDOur survey continues to show immediate vesting in employer contributions remains in the forefront

with approximately half of respondents providing immediate vesting to their employees.

2%

49%

15%

11%

9%

9%

5%100% vested immediately

20% per year with full vesting after 5 years

0% first year, and 20% per year with full vesting after 6 years

33% vesting per year with full vesting after 3 years

25% vesting per year with full vesting after 4 years

Cliff vesting reaching 100% vesting after 2 or 3 years

No schedule as no employer contributions allowed

WHAT IS YOUR VESTING YEARS OF SERVICE METHOD?

TRENDThe results showed a large increase in the number of employers using the elapsed time method.

Easy to administer. No requirement to track hours.

For Elapsed Time Methods

PROSFor Elapsed Time Methods

Can be costly for employers with a large

part‐time workforce.

CONS

Credit is given only when employee works

at least 1000 hours.

For Hours Methods

PROSFor Hours Methods

Tracking hours is burdensome. Higher risk

of error due to improper hours.

CONS

OTHER BENEFITSWHAT OTHER TYPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT/COMPENSATION PROGRAMS DO YOU OFFER?

ANSWER OPTIONS SURVEY RESPONSE

Non‐qualified deferred compensation for upper management

Synthetic equity for selected employees

Stock options

N/A

Other

13%

2%

10%

73%

2%


Hours

Method

24% 65% 11%

Elapsed

Time Method

N/A As No Employer

Contributions Allowed


WHAT OTHER TYPES OF BENEFIT PROGRAMS DO YOU OFFER, OTHER THAN HEALTH BENEFITS?

With the economy at almost full employment, virtually all employers are being challenged to keep their best people

regardless of their position in the organization. HR departments are constantly trying to come up with creative

compensation and benefits strategies that serve both themselves and their employees. Designing arrangements

for non‐shareholder, upper management employees is particularly challenging. Our 2017 survey results reflect

an increase in the overall usage of supplemental retirement/compensation vehicles over and above the broad

based qualified plan. These arrangements are specifically designed to compensate upper management. While

the survey reflects only minimal usage of synthetic equity arrangements, we know anecdotally that these are an

ever growing strategy for attracting and retaining the top members of an organization. While our survey shows

an increase in the usage of stock option arrangements, we have generally found that these strategies are being

used less frequently. When crafting executive compensation and benefits arrangements, employers must take

great care in determining their goals. Far too often, employers start in the middle of the process by focusing on

arrangement type, tax consequences, investment product or something similar. This ultimately leads to a solution

that is not in either party’s best interest.


Unlimited leave 4%

Long‐term disability insurance 89%

Short‐term disability insurance 83%

Life insurance 95%

Tuition reimbursement 67%

Long‐term care insurance 9%

Wellness program 26%

Gym membership reimbursement 19%

Pet insurance 16%

Various concierge services 8%

Developing benefit arrangements for all employees also keeps HR professionals up at night. Competitive, unique

packages are very important to employees and employers spend a lot of time and resources trying to meet this

requirement. As you can see, most employers are providing the standard benefits. What is most interesting is how

unique benefits (e.g. pet insurance) are becoming more popular. This is both a function of employers trying to

differentiate themselves as well as cater to the ever‐growing millennial workforce. Our survey reflects the wellness

trend that continues the focus on employee health that has been building for the last several years. As the impact

of tuition debt becomes greater and greater, employers and legislators alike are trying to develop employee

friendly avenues to get out from under this burden. The next wave of benefits will likely include tax favored tuition

debt repayment options.

The advent of these new benefit types reflects the extreme pressure on employers to keep their people happy and

avoid the costs associated with turnover.

*Note: Percentages exceed 100% as respondents could select all that apply.


For most employers, the most costly employee benefit is health insurance and in recent years this cost has

increased significantly. The healthcare landscape has gone through a lot of change over the last several years,

mostly due to the Affordable Care Act. Day after day, we hear about the Act’s shortcomings and negative impact

on virtually everyone involved, but oddly enough, our survey reflected 50% of respondents being in favor of not

repealing the ACA and 50% being in favor of repealing. It is unclear as to why employers would not desire a repeal

when so many healthcare people feel so strongly that it needs significant changes. Of the respondents that desire

change and indicated what type of change, there was a common theme; the administrative burden is too much,

specifically the reporting. It is next to impossible to predict what changes will or will not be made to the ACA, but

some level of reporting relief is likely.

Employers continue to use a variety of health insurance structures to meet their goals. Even so, 92% of respondents

indicated that they provide some form of fully insured benefits and 17% of those respondents do so through a

High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) combined with a health savings account (HSA). HSAs allow employees

to accumulate tax‐free dollars that grow tax free if used for medical expenses. These plans continue to grow

in popularity as a means for employers to reduce costs and force employees to take greater responsibility for

managing their costs. It is expected that the number of these plans will continue to grow as a means to manage

costs.

In order to pass some of the premium savings on to employees, employers will often make contributions to

employees’ HSAs. Our survey showed that almost 40% of employers sponsoring HDHPs with an HSA feature

contribute greater than $1,500 to their employees’ account.


Yes

No

51%

49%

ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT BEING REPEALED?

WHAT TYPES OF HEALTH INSURANCE ARRANGEMENT(S) DO YOU OFFER?


Self‐funded 9%

Self‐funded/partially insured hybrid 7%

High deductible health plan with health savings accounts 16%

Fully insured 34%

Combination of the above 34%

WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST STRUGGLE IN MANAGING YOUR PLAN(S)?


IF YOU OFFER A HIGH DEDUCTIBLE HEALTH PLAN COMBINED WITH A HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT, HOW MUCH DOES THE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTE ANNUALLY TO THE HSA PER EMPLOYEE?

None

Cost

Complexity of Rules/Compliance

Miscellaneous

Time, Resources Admin

Reporting

Employee Education

Vendor Struggles

10%

7%

4%

16%25%

30%

4% 4%

$1 - $500 $501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $1,500 OVER $1,500

13%

17%

32%

38%

Similar to last year’s results, cost containment, compliance complexity, and resource/administrative difficulties are

the primary challenges faced by employers when managing their plans. These issues all increased in popularity

this year, while fewer employers indicated that they did not have any struggles.

• Managing Costs ‐ Healthcare is by far the most costly employee benefit for employers. Premiums continue to

rise, and the time spent keeping up with the rules and reporting requirements has not really stabilized, especially

for smaller organizations. In the retirement plan space, investment fee pressure is immense.

• Complexity of Rules ‐ For years, employers have lamented the confusing nature of retirement plan rules. Even

with the assistance of outside help, employers still find it difficult to fully understand the dos and dont’s of the

typical retirement plan arrangement.

• Time and Resources ‐ As discussed above, the burden for managing these plans and ensuring they are a viable

component of an employer’s benefit strategy can be heavy. The pressure to provide robust, cost effective benefit

arrangements is ever increasing, as is the complexity and government oversight. Employers ask more and

more of their staff not directly linked to revenue generation and it is often met with resistance when additional

resources are requested to help maintain these plans.

The compliance components associated with benefits makes administering plans more difficult than ever, especially given the ACA requirements. Working with legitimate healthcare experts is key to an employer’s healthcare plan success. It is important that your advisor and associated support team have the knowledge to navigate these complexities and bring solutions to the table. Additionally, employers need to be sure they are working with a provider that is the right size for their group, neither too big nor too small.

Plan fiduciaries must constantly be watching the investment fees their employees are paying for the funds in the retirement plan. This creates additional pressure to try and drive administrative costs down, which can in turn lead to being penny wise and pound foolish. Employers almost always have to hire outside advisors to navigate the complex guidelines set-forth by the IRS and DOL. However, merely hiring outside advisors does not absolve employers of their ultimate responsibilities. The most successful plans have a strong commitment to internal procedures and making sure they have the right person in charge with the appropriate level of support.



ABOUT ARONSON

Date Founded: 1962 | Total Employees: 250+

Single Office: Rockville, MD

Aronson LLC provides a comprehensive platform of

assurance, tax, and consulting solutions to today’s most

active industry sectors and successful individuals. For

more than 50 years, we have purposefully expanded our

service offerings and deepened our industry specialties

to better serve the needs of our clients, people, and

community. From startup to exit, we help our clients

maximize opportunity, minimize risk, and unlock their full

potential.

WHAT WE DO

• Audit services for approximately 180

benefit plans, including:

• Consulting services

• Trusted advisor on fiduciary matters

‐ 401(k) plans

‐ Profit sharing plans

‐ 403(b) plans

‐ Defined benefit plans

‐ Employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)

‐ Health and welfare plans

ARONSON’S EMPLOYEE BENEFIT TEAM

Aronson’s benefit plan practice is unique in that they have a full‐time staff dedicated to employee benefit plan

services, something not seen in most other firms.

INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT ARONSON LLC OR OUR SERVICES?Call 301.231.6200 or visit us at www.aronsonllc.com

KATE PETRILLO, PARTNER 301.231.6233 | [email protected]

AMANDA FULLER, PARTNER 301.231.6289 | [email protected]

EMILY SHAPIROMANAGER

Experience: 8 years

MINDY SNYDERSR. ASSOCIATE

Experience: 11+ years

KATIE SCIANDRAMANAGER


HO-MING FONGMANAGER


KATHRYN PETRILLOPARTNER


AMANDA FULLERPARTNER


MARK FLANAGANDIRECTOR


KAYLA KANIASR. MANAGER


JILLIAN GOBBOMANAGER


CAITLIN LYNCHMANAGER


MIKE WALSHSR. ASSOCIATE


ANDREW MAHANSR. ASSOCIATE


DEREK CASSELLSSR. ASSOCIATE


benchmarking survey - aronson llc · 2020. 2. 10. · 3rd annual employee benefit plan benchmarking...

Documents