July 15, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – People are more connected to their smartphones and other mobile technology than ever, ranking them as important as their toothbrushes and deodorant.
The “Trends in Consumer Mobility Report 2014” from Bank of
America finds that Americans see their smartphone as “an indispensable companion.”
In terms of importance to their daily life, 91% of respondents overall rank
their mobile/smartphone as most important, tying with their car and deodorant,
and surpassed only by their toothbrush (95%) and the Internet in general (93%). Coffee was near the bottom the list (60%).
However, when it comes to age groups, the youngest
Millennials (ages 18 to 24) view their smartphone as the most important part of
their daily lives (96%), while the Internet (88%), deodorant (90%) and their
toothbrush (93%) were deemed as slightly less important.
This strong connection to their smartphones has turned many
Americans into compulsive checkers, according to the survey. A majority of
respondents (85%) check their smartphone several times a day and 35% say they
check it constantly, with only 13% saying they hardly ever check it. In terms
of how long they could last without their smartphone, only 16% of respondents
say they could survive without it indefinitely. About one-third (34%) say they
could survive 24 hours, 28% say they could survive week, and 13% say they could
survive less than an hour without their smartphone.
If their smartphone were lost or stolen, the top five
concerns that respondents would have include: loss of identity and security
information (79%); loss of contact information (79%); loss of photos and videos
(72%); not being able to connect with family and friends while awaiting a
replacement phone (68%); and missing an important call (68%).
As to what respondents would be willing to give up to have
their phones returned to them, 45% would give up alcohol, 34% would give up
chocolate, 22% would give up shopping and 16% would forego watching television
or movies. Women were less likely than men, however, to say they would give up
chocolate in order to have their phone returned to them (27% vs. 42%).
Asked about others’ mobile phone habits, checking the phone while driving was most annoying to 38% of respondents, 15% each said sharing too much
information about themselves via the phone and discussing personal information
loudly in public were the most annoying habits, 12% cited checking the phone in the middle of an in-person
conversation, and 7% selected checking the phone during a meal.
Braun Research conducted the survey, on behalf
of Bank of America, between May 6 and 23, via telephone with 1,000
U.S. adults who were older than 18, had a checking or savings account,
and owned a smartphone. The survey also explored banking behaviors, seeking to explain the how,
when and why consumers are using their mobile devices to manage their finances.
The survey report is here.
July 15, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - His personality is bigger than life, and anytime he walks into our office, we feel like we are advising a friend, not a client.
Ben was once your average factory worker who successfully
climbed the ranks into management thanks to his keen ability to motivate and
inspire productivity amongst his peers.
Today, our meeting agenda included a review of his retirement goals. As he was bringing our team up-to-speed on
recent changes in his company’s benefits, he paused for a moment. “You know,” he reflected, “I really would be
in trouble right now if it weren’t for the fact my employer has remarkable
benefits. I’ve never had to worry about
my son’s need for specialized and frequent medical care, or about being out of
work last year for six months with a broken leg. You know how important my family is to me,”
he continued, “thankfully I don’t have the financial stress that so many of my
friends do.”
Old Mr. Webster defines a “benefit” as something good,
helpful or extra; something that promotes well-being. Traditionally, employee benefits were seen as
a way for employers to make a positive financial impact and give back to the
people they wanted to attract and retain, workers just like Ben. So why is it that employers have become
overwhelmed and burdened by the very thought of offering employee benefits? Perhaps it is because the terrain has become
more challenging concerning benefits—health and welfare offerings, retirement
plans, paid time off, etc.—due to the fact that new rules and regulations are
making administrative duties more time consuming and costly to plan sponsors
and more confusing to employees.
Roughly 70 years ago, American companies began offering
health insurance as a way to avoid wage and price controls brought on by World
War II. Because companies could not
offer larger salaries, they started paying for their employee’s health
insurance instead. The practice of
offering employer sponsored insurance coverage quickly became the norm, thanks
in part to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ruling that exempted employee’s
from paying taxes on health benefits as well as the ability for companies to write
off such costs as business expenses. The
system remained generally unchanged until the passage of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act in 2010 (ACA). Today,
one visit to the Department of Labor’s (DOL) website dedicated to the Employee
Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) can overwhelm even the most seasoned HR
professional. The home page alone provides
links to information regarding the ACA, Mental Health Parity, COBRA, Pension
Protection Act, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Enforcement,
EFAST2 Form 5500 filing, and more.
To complicate things further, plan sponsors are also tasked
with staying abreast of regulatory changes and taking on new fiduciary
responsibilities concerning their qualified retirement plans, most commonly 401(k)
plans. In 1974, ERISA was passed and it
set the foundation for employer-sponsored retirement plans as we know them
today. There have been several
modifications and amendments over the last 40 years, namely the Small Business
Job Protection Act of 1996, the approval of automatic enrollment in 1998, the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) in 2001, the Pension
Protection Act of 2006, and the 404(a)(5) participant fee disclosure rules in
2012. There will certainly be more to
come as federal and state governments focus their attention on the savings, or
lack thereof, of the American people.
Why Even Bother?
Of the total compensation paid to the average
worker in the private sector, 30.1% of employer cost was spent on benefits
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2013).
Furthermore, the trend since 2005 is that employers are spending nearly
double on health care for employees than on retirement benefits (Employee
Benefit Research Institute). In addition
to the hard dollar cost, there is also a significant time and resource
commitment. According to the Workplace
Benefits Report (Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Dec 2013), 61% of human resource
professionals report they have increased time spent on health care related activities
over the last two years, and 38% report spending more time on their 401(k)
plan, compared with 32% more time on hiring/firing.
It is clear that the setup and ongoing administration of
an employee benefits package is incredibly time consuming and can be very
costly. However, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, only 73% of private industry workers who were offered
employer-sponsored medical benefits choose to participate, and 64% of all private
workers have access to a retirement plan in which 49% of all private workers
with or without access participate, for a take-up rate of 76% (Employee
Benefits in the United States, March, 2013). The fact that HR departments are spending more
time and resources coupled with the fact that employee benefit plans are not
being fully utilized by employees can create a frustrating combination.
Breaking the Cycle
In their best intentions, employee benefits are meant to
benefit the employee—and they still do.
The Kaiser Family Foundation study on Employer Health Benefits cited the
fact that employer-sponsored insurance covers about 149 million non-elderly
people. Additionally, according to the
most recent Department of Labor Statistics (June 2013), defined contribution
plans cover more than 88 million participants.
The key to breaking the cycle of burdensome benefits is
to develop a plan that creates a holistic and complimentary benefits package
rather than allowing disparate offerings to fight for dollars and attention. Employers are starting to catch on to this
idea, with 82% believing that employees would gain from access to more holistic
financial services offerings, yet only 55% of employers surveyed have taken
this approach (Workplace Benefits Report).
Studies have also shown that overall financial well-being leads to more
satisfied, loyal, engaged and productive employees (Stephen Miller, SHRM,
12/12/13).
Quality financial education is also becoming invaluable
when preparing employees for their retirement.
Next month, we will discuss components of an education strategy. For too
long, employees and employers have mortgaged their retirement plans to pay for
health insurance. This is a slippery
slope to benefits management for both parties. Working with an adviser who takes a holistic
approach to bringing your insurance and retirement benefits together may be
able to help your company and employees break the burdensome benefits cycle and
allow you to refocus on the “benefits” of your benefits package.
Trent
A. Grinkmeyer, CRPC, Jamie Kertis, QKA, AIF, and Valerie R. Leonard, AIF
Trent
Grinkmeyer, Valerie Leonard, and Jamie Kertis are Registered Representatives
and Investment Adviser Representatives with/and offer securities and advisory
services through Commonwealth Financial Network, Member FINRA/SIPC, a
Registered Investment Adviser. Fixed insurance products and services offered
through Grinkmeyer Leonard Financial or CES Insurance Agency. Grinkmeyer
Leonard Financial, 1950 Stonegate Drive, Suite 275, Birmingham, AL 35242, (205)
970-9088.
This feature is
to provide general information only, does not constitute legal or tax advice,
and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. Any opinions of the
authors do not necessarily reflect the stance of Asset International or its
affiliates. The persons portrayed in this example are fictional. This material
does not constitued a recommendation as to the suitability of any investment
for any person or persons having circumstances similar to those portrayed, and
a financial adviser should be consulted.