401(k) Case Study #1: Company XYZ, A Growing IT Consulting Firm
Company XYZ is an IT consulting company based in the Southeast. The two owners (each aged 38 at the time) started the company in 2009 with six employees and expanded since then to about 30 employees (with plans to grow to 45 employees by 2022).
When the two owners opened Company XYZ, they used a large payroll company for payroll processing. The payroll company also offered a 401(k) program, so the owners opted to use this 401(k) because it seemed the easiest option as they got the company off the ground.
Here are a few of Company XYZ’s experiences:
- They find it hard to get in touch with anyone at the payroll company if issues arise (and even harder to resolve small issues).
- They had several employees ask about offering low-cost index funds instead of the original mutual funds in the investment line-up. When the HR department inquired with the payroll company, they stated it was not possible to offer these funds.
- While Company XYZ offers a great match of 4% with automatic vesting, participation hovers at 65%. Company XYZ would like to improve this number, but the payroll company does not offer any support or customization that would help enhance participation.
As an all-in fee, the Company XYZ pays the payroll company about 1.65% (all paid out of participant accounts).
For the first decade of the Company XYZ’s existence, none of the issues seemed urgent enough to make a change in the plan. In 2020, however, the two owners of the company each turned 50. After investing the profits back in the company over the past decade, they mentioned in passing to the CFO it has become more urgent for them to save more for their personal retirement (and reduce their business tax burden).
Proactively, the CFO reached out to Investors Asset Management (IAM) to see if they could help meet the new needs of the growing company. They sent a few documents over and received a proposal from IAM. Here are the changes IAM could make to their plan:
- IAM would provide customized employee onboarding specific to Company XYZ, as well as one-on-one support for those who have additional questions to increase participation
- IAM provides an investment line-up consisting exclusively of low-cost index funds and ETFs, with access to Target Risk model portfolios (hint: about 95% of participants opt into the Target Risk model portfolios rather than selecting individual funds from the line-up).
- Company XYZ could also layer on a profit-sharing component to the plan. This would allow the owners to increase their contribution level from $19,500 annually up to $57,000 annually (with other small contributions to each employee). An additional option of layering on a cash balance plan is also an option in the future.
- IAM also suggested implementing a vesting schedule for the match to incentivize employee recruitment and retention as the company grows over the coming years.
In the conversation, IAM also let them know the owners and the CFO know they would be taking on the 3(38) liability for the Company XYZ (which they didn’t even realize was on their plate, but now they would sleep better at night). The all-in cost would also be 1.25% - so, more services for less cost out of employee’s pockets. As the plan grows, this fee should also continue to decline.
After a year, the employee participation rose to 87% and the owners of the company had fully executed on the profit-sharing component of the plan and had started socking away $57,000 each for their future retirement (and save on their business taxes!). In retrospect, Company XYZ wished they had started with IAM at the beginning as they could have saved headaches and money but are glad they made the switch now.
All names and identities of companies based on real-life scenarios, but have been disguised to protect identity. This scenario is for illustrative purposes only.