Captain401 (YC S15) raises $3.5M to help more businesses offer a 401k
blogs.wsj.com
blogs.wsj.com
We can offer a 401k program despite being a small company plus they integrate with Gusto so I have to do nothing to actively maintain it.
#TheDream
As a founder, this goes beyond just another benefit. Supporting your employees' long-term financial future is really important. Maybe early employees make a few hundred million, but far more likely your company will fail. In that case, they shouldn't have lost years of savings potential.
How do these financial services justify charging a percentage of the funds managed? Is there more work involved in handling an account with a larger balance?
However, you're right that costs are less-than-proportional to funds under management, so they usually offer to lower the percentage as you invest more, cf. Vanguard admiral-class shares: https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/admiral-shares
Plus even more on the employer side! Wow.
And people say they are cheaper than other 401k providers? That's nuts.
EDIT: OK, it appears (https://captain401.com/investments) that they will optionally do some automatic rebalancing for you so they're a bit more than just a warehouse but still.
Fees are extremely important in a 401(k) plan. Guideline never charges fees on AUM. Your money is free to grow. Guideline's average expense ratio is .14 and made up of the very same Vanguard funds. How can we do this? Look at the form ADV for your providers, it will dictate how administrators are compensated. You'll notice lots of hands in the cookie jar... We are full stack, owning every piece of the plan up to custody. We don't outsource. We charge $8/pp/m to the employer, nothing to the participant. You can learn more at https://www.guideline.com
Make them portable such that an IRA is and watch the fees fall.
My startup is in the financial wellness space of the 401(k) industry (we are not advisors and just do participant education) and I'm going to be applying to to the next session so this bit of news is of interest to me. Thanks.
(Even better would be for the law to not limit employee 401k choices to ones selected by the employer, based on some misguided belief that they benefit from having the same choices as the "highly paid employees", as required by the 401 code, given that those very executives don't actually rely on 401ks for retirement and thus have little incentive to get the choices right ... but hey, you gotta work with what you have.)