Most plan sponsors can tell you their provider's name and not what the plan costs. That is not carelessness — the fees are split across three layers that are never shown together. Here is how to separate them, and how to read your own disclosure.
A plan can look reasonable in total while one of these is well out of line. Benchmarking tests each one on its own.
What the provider charges to run the plan — hold the accounts, process contributions, file the paperwork. Sometimes a flat figure per participant, sometimes a percentage of assets, and the difference matters enormously as the plan grows.
What the advisor on the plan is paid, and — the part that gets skipped — whether they are a 3(21) or a 3(38). Those carry different liability. The difference is set out here.
What the funds themselves cost, which is where the quiet money usually is. The same fund is frequently sold in several share classes at different prices, and being in the wrong one is the single most common finding in a benchmarking review.
Providers are required to give you this document. It is the one place the layers are broken out, and you do not need us to look at it.
A single all-in number tells you almost nothing. Two plans at the same headline cost can be built completely differently underneath.
A percentage-of-assets recordkeeping fee grows every year your people save more, for work that has not changed. On a growing plan this is where cost quietly compounds.
Then look up whether a cheaper share class of that same fund exists and whether your plan is large enough to qualify for it. This is the check that most often finds real money.
Some funds pay part of their expense back to the recordkeeper. That is not automatically wrong, but you should know it is happening and where it lands.
We publish no benchmark table here on purpose. A credible comparison depends on your participant count, plan assets and average balance — a figure that is competitive for a 40-person plan can be poor for a 400-person one. A number without those inputs is decoration.
Same funds, same provider, lower expense. The most common outcome and the least disruptive.
Providers move on price when a sponsor arrives with a documented comparison. Often the review pays for itself here.
If the plan is competitive, the right answer is to write down that you checked and why you kept it. That record is the point — the fiduciary obligation is a prudent process, not the lowest possible cost.
It happens, and it is the exception rather than the default outcome.
Cannon Capital serves plans as a 3(38) investment fiduciary, which means we take discretionary responsibility for the investment menu and the liability that comes with it. The review itself is complimentary and there is nothing to buy at the end of it.