Search results

American workers at nearly every level of the income spectrum are not and often cannot to save properly to be secure in retirement. Addressing this challenge will require a comprehensive policy discussion by both federal and state policymakers. Employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) are the primary form of employee ownership, and for reasons explored in this report, companies organized as S corporations are especially likely to be fully ESOP-owned. The purpose of the paper is to explore the role played by employee ownership in retirement security overall and across wage and age groups.

The findings described in this report are derived from a survey of privately held S corporation ESOPs. The report compares these findings to nationally representative survey data. The online survey, conducted between January and March 2018, received responses from 39 companies that supplied the median and average account balances of a total of 61,020 plan participants. It breaks new ground by presenting retirement account balances by wage and age categories (e.g. 20,000 lower-wage workers and 8,000 employees nearing retirement).

ESOP participants represented in this survey have more than twice the average total retirement balance of Americans nationally: $170,326 vs $80,339. This is not just a function of higher wage ESOP employees driving the average up. ESOP employees making less than $25,000 a year also have on average more than double the retirement savings ($55,526) compared to similar workers nationally ($22,447). Nearly all of the respondent companies (97 percent) offer at least one other retirement plan in addition to the ESOP. By contrast, 32 percent of all workers in the US workforce as a whole do not have access to any retirement benefits at work, and 49 percent of all workers are not participating in the plan that is available to them. Additionally, these S corporation ESOP companies provide an array of benefits at levels solidly higher than firms overall where comparison data exist. Certainly, these benefits make their own contribution to retirement security because workers are less likely to have to dip into savings for critical investments or expenses, such as tuition, to advance their career or unexpected medical expenses. Among the surveyed S ESOPs, workers nearing retirement have on average a median account balance of $147,522 in their ESOP plus $98,974 in a non-ESOP plan(s). By contrast, more than one-third (35 percent) of all workers nearing retirement have neither retirement savings nor a defined benefit pension. This percentage rises to 50 percent among low-income workers in this age bracket. As such, national data place the median account balance of all US workers aged 55–64 years at zero. Even among workers who have retirement accounts, the median balance nationally is $100,000. A typical millennial worker (25–34 years old) at a surveyed S ESOP company has a median ESOP account balance of $22,588 and a median balance of $11,239 in a non-ESOP account. In contrast, the median savings of US millennials is zero. Among the surveyed S ESOPs, lower-wage employees ($10.00–$12.85 per hour) typically have median account balances in their ESOP of $4,381 and in a non- ESOP plan of $2,149. In contrast, nationally, 56 percent of workers in this category do not have access to any retirement benefits at work. This translates into a median savings for this group of zero. Finally, ESOPs are clearly associated with reduced turnover. Respondent companies report quit and separation rates that are more than two times lower than national rates.

This is the first such study of its kind.

Close to half of all privately held companies in the USA are owned by baby boomers, meaning 2.7m American businesses are owned by someone age 55 or older. In the coming decades, all of these businesses will either change owners or disappear. The median state has 34,000 businesses approaching an ownership transition. The effects of this generational shift will be felt in cities, small towns and rural areas. At the same time, state governments are struggling with the challenge of preserving jobs and stimulating local economies buffeted by larger economic trends. States currently spend an estimated $45bn to $70bn a year on efforts to attract and retain jobs. If even a fraction of these exiting owners pursued an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) as their business exit strategy, the potential positive impact on workers, communities and state economies would be substantial. Yet, many business owners are not even aware of ESOPs as an option. In light of this knowledge gap, many of these businesses will instead shut down or sell to outside investors who may not be interested in preserving and growing local jobs. This paper aims to discuss these issues.

Review of state information and statistics on employee ownership.

Currently, there are around 6,660 ESOPs in the USA holding total assets of nearly $1.4 trillion. These plans cover 14.2m participants. The Midwest is home to the greatest number of ESOPs, followed by the South. There is a least one ESOP headquartered in 4,131 distinct zip codes.

In order to increase the effectiveness and penetration of local outreach and education, states can: create an office of employee ownership with a dedicated staff person. The office could exist within a state agency or as a nonprofit receiving state funding; provide grants to one or more nonprofits to run an outreach program; hold seminars statewide in conjunction with professional, business, and trade publications and organizations; publish and disseminate brochures and other material; and work with the media to encourage stories on local ESOP companies. In order to promote ESOPs as an attractive alternative to private equity, outside competitors, and other potential purchasers of the business, ESOP outreach should: focus on business owners who are approaching retirement or a liquidity event, as opposed to start-ups or businesses who are interested in progressive management. Focus on the human side and emotional impact of employee ownership. Videos and other personal testimonials contrasting the storylines of a company that becomes employee-owned vs one that becomes owned by an outside investor can be powerful. Take advantage of the ESOP community by facilitating peer-to-peer connections, where company leaders talk with their peers who have sold to an ESOP. These connections are usually fostered based on location or industry. Take care to ensure that the center is seen as providing objective information as opposed to being perceived as trying to “sell” owners on the idea.

This is the first published review of ESOPs in the states.

This chapter discusses the extent to which the absorptive class has been created as essentially narcissistic in character by the system of capitalist production. Guy Debord, an early critic of a post modern capitalism, argued that capitalism had gone so far in the production of the commodity that society is turned into a mirror or spectacle that represents the kind of void in existence felt at the core of the individuals within it. He also laments the way in which the economy exists for its own sake, rather than for those that live within it and as part of it. In his somewhat incoherent work, The Society of the Spectacle, he writes of the commodity as spectacle, and we find such assertions as (Debord, 1983):“The spectacle aims at nothing other than itself.”“The spectacle subjugates living men to itself to the extent that the economy has totally subjugated them. It is not more than the economy developing for itself.”“The spectacle is capital to such a degree of accumulation that it becomes an image.”

This viewpoint will present some statistical information about employee ownership in the US and interpret and analyze this information in order to address the barriers question using material from qualitative interviews that the authors have conducted over the last ten years with practitioners in the field. There have been few actual empirical studies that sort out the different barriers to employee ownership. The authors have chosen to focus on employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) in the US because this is the principal example from which people could learn from, and the high prevalence of ESOPs plays an important role in the US. This overview will present interpretations of these interviews with conceptual arguments that cannot always be supported with either overwhelming empirical studies or arguments that conclusively eliminate one or other explanation. This is an initial attempt to bring some comprehensive treatment and data to this incipient discussion. This is based on an interpretive analysis of qualitative interviews without quantification or social survey methods used for measurement. The advantage of this approach is that it lays out a completely different level of analysis of the barriers to employee ownership in the US that is “closer to the ground” and more based in the views of front-line practitioners who are actually implementing it.

Analysis and interpretation of qualitative interviews.

The list of barriers that has been identified is not exhaustive. The preliminary conclusions are that (not necessarily in this order) limitations of investment banking models, poor supportive infrastructure, complexity and cost and regulatory issues, the lack of support by political parties and social movements, the sale of companies due to financial considerations and legal complexities and lack of clarity and resistance by Federal agencies are major barriers in the US. Various sectors of Wall Street has been amenable to employee ownership with the proper government and private sector support. What is needed now is a series of quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews of retiring business owners in closely held companies and of CEOs and CFOs in stock market companies in order to gauge the barriers that they believe are blocking their own action in the employee share ownership area. The Rutgers Institute for the Study of Employee Ownership and Profit Sharing is working on such a research agenda at this time. In addition, with the future size of the US employee ownership sector at stake, a more intensive one-year interview project would make sense in order to present these different explanations to key actors and practitioners and ask them to provide evidence to prove or disprove the relevance of the different barriers.

Empirical research which can resolve which barriers are more important than others is presented, when possible; however, studies that provide metrics to compare different barriers are not available and need to be carried out.

Other countries considering employee ownership policies can learn from the US experience. US policymakers and legislators can learn from an original, recent discussion of barriers.

If employee ownership sectors are to be developed, a careful discussion of barriers is most relevant.

Original document by the authors based on original interviews.