Look at this from the perspective of a plan participant. Is it in their best interests to have this oversight duty conducted by full-time experienced professionals or their own company's executives (who stand as amateurs in comparison)? Would you not have more confidence that such a specialist would have better aptitude when it comes to negotiating with plan providers? This will result both in reduced plan costs (thus letting employees enjoy a greater portion of their investment return) as well as greater value through higher quality service providers (thus nudging those investment returns a bit higher).

Returning to company leadership, in completely outsourcing retirement plan operations to a 401(k) MEP, the internal costs of administering such a plan are virtually eliminated. How much are these costs? In terms of HR staffing alone, companies pay anywhere from $131,617 to $221,117 for every 100 people employed. With staff of the 401(k) MEP taking on these duties, that money falls directly to the bottom line. At the very least, increasing corporate margins makes the 401(k) MEP option something to look at.

That's not all. Plan sponsor duties compete for a share of the mind of C-suite staff, too. It's unlikely a firm will cut these folks since their retirement plan duties only make up a small part of their overall obligations. It is likely, however, that without the burden of monitoring the company's retirement plan, those folks in the corner offices will have more time to focus on top-line matters. So, not only does a 401(k) MEP improve the bottom-line, but it also enhances the top-line.

Better results for employees. Better results for employers. What's not to love about 401(k) MEPs?