Skip to main content

Understanding Your Retirement Plan Fee Methodology


Understanding your retirement plan’s fees is not only a good practice; it’s a fiduciary requirement as prescribed by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The traditional enforcement mechanism has been DOL plan audits. More recently, high-profile litigation has driven plan sponsors to evaluate their plan fees. These fees can be grouped into several categories: record keeping, administrative, legal, plan advisory, investment, and education and communication. The principal reason fees have been thrust into the limelight is that

plan participants often bear most, if not all of the cost of running the plan. This article does not discuss how to determine if fees are reasonable, but instead explores a relatively new debate over which fee assessment methodology is fairer. Since DOL has been silent on this issue, it affords the plan sponsor the opportunity to determine the most appropriate structure for their plan based on their demographics.



There are two basic retirement plan fee structures: per capita hard dollar fees and fees charged as a percentage of assets. Determining whether to charge per participant hard dollar fees or fees as a percentage of assets is a philosophical decision, with each scenario possessing distinct positive and negative attributes.


Hard Dollar Fees


Under a per capita hard dollar fee scenario, each participant pays the same hard dollar fee deducted from his or her account, usually monthly or quarterly. On the surface this may seem to be a very desirable approach. It is easily understood by participants and everyone pays the same amount irrespective of their individual account balance. This seems logical since the same services are offered to all participants and the expense to the record keeper is the same whether it is an account with a $200,000 balance or a $5,000 balance.



However, if you consider the hard dollar fee relative to each participant’s account balance, a different perspective emerges. For example, if the annualized participant hard dollar fee is $100, the fee for an individual with a $200,000 account balance is proportionally much lower than for an individual who has $5,000 in his or her account (illustrated below). The optic becomes more revealing when extrapolating this one example across a plan demographic with a sizable executive and/or professional population generally with high account balances, along with a sizable lower paid population with generally lower account balances (such as a hospital or manufacturer).






























Participant A


Participant B


Account Balance


$200,000


$5,000


Fee


$100


$100


Fee Percentage


0.05%


2.0%






Asset-Based Fees



An alternative fee structure is one in which the charge is calculated
as a percentage of a participant’s accumulated account balance.  Under this method, the fee a participant pays
(in total dollars) increases as his or her account balance grows.  There is a legitimate argument that this
approach does not seem equitable because those with the highest account
balances are paying a higher fee and yet receive the same services as other
participants in the plan.  However, this
payment methodology is consistent with other plan fees, most notably the underlying
mutual fund investment management fees.  Participants
are accustomed to paying these fees, which are expressed as a mutual fund
expense ratio that often can range from 0.05% to 1.25%.





If we return to the illustration we used for hard dollar
fees, with same account balances, but apply a fee of .25%, the resulting fee
structure is completely opposite: participant A pays a significantly higher fee;
40 times higher than participant B (illustrated below).






























Participant A


Participant B


Account Balance


$200,000


$5,000


Fee


$500


$12.50


Fee Percentage


0.25%


0.25%






Summary



Clearly both of the fee structures discussed in this article
have pros and cons.  There are also
various combinations of the above methods that may be a better fit for your
organization.  Remember, there is no
“right way,” so the plan sponsor must determine the most appropriate fee
structure based on their demographics and corporate philosophy.  





The decision of how fees are allocated is a fiduciary
decision so it is important that plan sponsors understand the different options
and how fees are assessed in their plan. 
It is the plan sponsor’s responsibility to regularly review and
benchmark plan fees to determine if they are appropriate given the type, frequency,
and quality of the services delivered.  Once
the total fee required by the various constituencies is determined, the process
of allocating those fees comes next.  It
is a complex and ever-evolving process; and one that should be taken seriously. 





If you have any questions, or would like to begin talking to an advisor, please get in touch by calling (800) 388-1963 or e-mail us at hbs@hanys.org.

Popular posts from this blog

What is Risk Management? 4 Key Topics to Know

Understanding risk management in retirement programs  Managing a retirement program is complex, with multiple layers of risk. For organizations and their leadership, understanding and mitigating these risks is crucial to ensuring the long-term success and reliability of these programs.   It often leaves human resource professionals, employers and program administrators questioning, "What is risk management, and how can we excel at it?"  This blog post explores the various aspects of risk management in retirement program administration and provides actionable insights to help organizations better manage these risks.  The importance of risk management  Retirement programs are designed to benefit participants and beneficiaries, but they come with their own set of risks. These risks can be broadly categorized into four main topics:  Fees  Administration  Investments  Cybersecurity  Each of these topics requires meticulous attention and ...

Innovative employee retention strategies: 9 fresh ideas

Employee engagement and retention are pivotal in every sector, but they carry even more weight in the not-for-profit space, where resources are often limited. High turnover can be both costly and disruptive, impacting productivity and damaging morale. In an era of workforce evolution, to effectively retain their top talent, organizations must explore innovative employee retention strategies that go beyond conventional methods.  Engaged employees are distinguished by their higher productivity, motivation and loyalty, and they are more likely to stay with a company for the long term. Gallup recently updated its research article, The Benefits of Employee Engagement , finding that "low engagement teams typically endure turnover rates that are 18% to 43% higher than highly engaged teams."  In addition to turnover, disengaged employees negatively impact a company's financial health, with turnover costs averaging six to nine months of the departed employee's salary, accordin...

Executive disability income protection program: C-suite FAQ

Implementing a comprehensive risk management strategy is imperative for C-level executives and senior management at HANYS member hospitals. One critical, but often overlooked component, is the executive disability income protection program. But what exactly is this program and why is it vital for high-income earners?   With increasing interest in executive disability income protection programs from C-suite executives, TruePlan Benefit and Retirement Advisors interviewed Bernard A. Gleeson, Director, Employee Benefit Services on Executive disability income protection programs FAQs.  What is an executive disability income protection program?  An executive disability income protection program (EDIPP) is a specialized form of disability insurance designed to supplement existing group disability plans offered by employers. These individual plans provide additional coverage beyond the typical monthly maximum benefit cap found in traditional employer-based offerings. By ove...