The hidden reality                              of payroll & HR                              administration costsExploring...
ContentsExecutive overview                     1Methodology                            3Key findings & recommended strategi...
Executive overviewDo you know how much your                                   In this white paper, we’ll break down      P...
Although these functions are expensive,   In addition to the above findings,analysis of data collected in these       which...
MethodologyThis primary research study includes                        PwC also conducted multiple follow-        • Time &...
Profile of participants                                                    279 organizations (consisting of 205 organizatio...
Key findings & recommended   strategies to reduce   administration costsFour key findings in connection                     ...
In-house administration of payroll, workforce administration, time& attendance, and health & welfare requires a surprising...
When all of these costs are included, large                        Economies of scale lead to a gradualorganizations (more...
Hidden costs account for more than                           Hidden costs drive up the total TCO of these functions beyond...
Figure 5. Average cost of integrating core HR systemsOrganizations with software integration “seams” face an increased TCO...
Additional costs lurk in the mismatch                            Findings on Software-as-a-Serviceof technology and busine...
Outsourcing continues to deliver overall TCO advantages—using in-house payroll, workforce   administration, time & attenda...
Utilizing a common vendor or solution to manage multiple functions delivers tangible cost efficienciesFor many years, the H...
Looking down the road                                    Figure 9. The lack of systems to manage key HR functionsThe need ...
If organizationscontinue down thepath of pursuing bestof breed strategies,they will continue toinvest in a philosophythat ...
ConclusionWhatever solution an organization chooses, organizational design and processimprovements—in conjunction with str...
This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

2011 Total Cost of Ownership Study PwC

1,153 views

Published on

Attached is a study conducted by PriceWaterhouse Coopers that I thought you would be interested in. It talks about the hidden cost of payroll, time and labor, health and welfare, and workforce administration. There are 7 areas that many executives overlook when analyzing true cost of ownership. The cost areas are system installations, system upgrades, system maintenance, process cost, direct labor, direct non labor and indirect labor costs.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,153
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
35
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2011 Total Cost of Ownership Study PwC

  1. 1. The hidden reality of payroll & HR administration costsExploring hidden costdrivers and characteristicsof cost-effectiveorganizationsJanuary 2011
  2. 2. ContentsExecutive overview 1Methodology 3Key findings & recommended strategiesto reduce administration costs 5Conclusion 15
  3. 3. Executive overviewDo you know how much your In this white paper, we’ll break down Past studies have focused exclusivelyorganization is really spending on the different cost drivers of payroll on large organizations (more than and HR administration and lay out 1,000 employees). For the first time,payroll and HR administration? the strategies that are making some the inclusion of mid-size organizationsChances are you may not be organizations more cost-effective at in our most recent study providesconsidering major cost components these functions. additional insight into this issue, andrelated to administering these has allowed us to also measure baselineimportant functions and may As a general rule, we have found that TCO costs for organizations betweenbe spending more than you organizations tend to underestimate 100 and 1,000 employees. the true expense (the “total cost ofthink as a result. ownership,” or TCO) of processing As with previous studies, our current payroll, administering employee health TCO study analyzed the TCO of and welfare benefits, and managing key payroll and HR administration other key HR systems and functions. functions. The new data from this year’s study, collected from 279 While most organizations consider costs participating organizations, shows such as a payroll department’s staff that administration of payroll (PR), or the acquisition costs of a new ERP workforce administration (WA), time & solution, many fail to recognize certain attendance (TA), and health & welfare “hidden” costs necessary for operating benefits (H&W) remains expensive for and integrating these interdependent employers—and it has gotten costlier processes. Additionally, organizations over the years, despite a number of often apply separate technology and technological advances designed to process solutions to these individual diminish costs. administration functions without considering how those solutions work with each other. This fragmentation drives up administration costs through task overlap and other inefficiencies. For nearly a decade, PwC, with the sponsorship of Automatic Data Processing (ADP), has studied these TCO costs and how to mitigate them.1 The hidden reality of payroll & HR administration costs
  4. 4. Although these functions are expensive, In addition to the above findings,analysis of data collected in these which are discussed in detail in thisPwC studies has uncovered several white paper, analysis of the dataopportunities for increased cost collected for this study also confirmedeffectiveness. The top cost reduction that two of the key findings of thestrategies, measured by overall earlier TCO white papers continueTCO, are: to present opportunities for increased• Outsourcing—organizations cost effectiveness: managing payroll, workforce • Providing payroll and HR self-service administration, time & attendance, functionality to employees—this and health & welfare benefits in- strategy results in a 50% lower TCO house using premise-based or hosted of workforce administration for large software solutions spend on average organizations compared with peers 18% more administering these managing the function without functions than organizations that these features outsource1 these functions • Integrating time & attendance• Utilizing a common vendor with payroll—this leads to a cost or solution—organizations efficiency of 14% over a manual administering these functions in- approach or an approach that is house using software solutions from not integrated multiple vendors spend on average Furthermore, the current study 18% more than those organizations clearly suggests that cost effectiveness administering them in-house using stems from comprehensive process a common vendor. Organizations transformation, not just technology outsourcing multiple functions to a innovations. The required change isn’t single vendor see even stronger cost always easy, but significant financial efficiency—on average 32%—versus benefits may await for organizations organizations using a multiple ready to really embrace and implement vendor or “best of breed” in-house these changes. approach 1. The term “outsourcing” in this paper specifically refers to outsourcing to ADP as this study used only ADP clients to measure the TCO of organizations outsourcing payroll and HR functions. 2
  5. 5. MethodologyThis primary research study includes PwC also conducted multiple follow- • Time & attendance (TA):data collected from 279 participating up calls with respondents to verify, The process of collecting, reviewing,organizations, ranging in size from clean and complete data. In total, PwC submitting and approving time100 employees to more than 100,000 performed more than 500 phone and reporting data, including employeeemployees. This study marks the fourth email follow-ups to clarify completed hours worked, paid time offinstallment in a series during which participant data. This approach enabled (vacation, sick, holiday) andPwC has surveyed more than 600 respondents to provide total costs, leave balances.organizations. Previous studies occurred rather than just labor or system costs.in 2003, 2004, and 2006. • Health & welfare administration (H&W):The current study set out to measure the The data The administration of employeeTotal Cost of Ownership (TCO) of four PwC defined TCO in a manner H&W benefits and programscore business functions—payroll (PR), that broke down total cost into its including open enrollment and lifeworkforce administration (WA), time & component parts. For the purposes event status change maintenance.attendance (TA) and health & welfare of this study, the four core functionsadministration (H&W)—and to analyze are defined briefly, as follows: Collectively, these four componentsfactors impacting these costs. Because • Payroll (PR): The process of provide a comprehensive measurethis study focused only on TCO, areas collecting and entering data of TCO of payroll and HRsuch as quality of administration were administration costs. related to employee hours worked,not addressed. determining taxation, calculating In addition to measuring the TCO of gross and net pay, and distributing the four processes, and providing anPwC conducted this TCO assessmentprimarily through use of a confidential compensation. overall TCO, the current study sought toweb-based questionnaire administered • Workforce administration update the original studies conductedfrom May to August of 2010. Senior (WA): The maintenance and in 2003, 2004, and 2006, especially infinancial and HR executives (i.e., CFOs, administration of the core HR light of significant market changes inVPs of HR, VPs of Finance, Directors of the delivery, technology, and scope of database (often referred to as thePayroll and Controllers) were invited HR systems since 2003. Human Resource Informationto participate, and in cases where an Systems or HRIS) and the activities Respondents were asked to answerorganization had multiple respondentsprovide input, we created a single associated with maintaining questions that quantified all one-timeconsistent response. Many organizations employee information and various and ongoing costs for the areas ofalso participated in phone interviews processing activities such as payroll, PR/WA/TA/H&W administration.conducted by a PwC representative. health & welfare administration, and Detailed component descriptions were other HR activities. provided in the survey itself as well as via personal follow up from PwC where necessary. PwC contacted participants directly when data fell outside the normal range of responses and normalized data where necessary.3 The hidden reality of payroll & HR administration costs
  6. 6. Profile of participants 279 organizations (consisting of 205 organizations that do not outsource these functions and 74 organizations that outsource to ADP) participated in this study. 120 (43%) are classified as large organizations, with more than 1,000 employees; 159 (57%) are classified as mid-size organizations, with 100–1,000 employees. Figure 1. Survey participants by organization size 12% 29% 12% 100–300 employees 18% 301–1,000 employees 1,001–2,500 employees 29% 2,501–5,000 employees 5,001 + employees Note: Percents may differ slightly from other figures in the paper due to rounding. The larger sample in the 100–1,000 Because of the economies of scale we space is due to the larger number see in larger organizations (which are of organizations operating in these discussed within this paper), when we segments, and the need to augment compare the TCO of organizations that the work completed in previous studies, outsource to organizations that use which focused exclusively on large in-house solutions, it was important organizations. to normalize the results for the effects of size—in other words, we compared The term “outsourcing” in this paper the results as if both groups had specifically refers to outsourcing to organizations of similar size. ADP as this study used only ADP clients to measure the TCO of organizations All participating organizations areThis publication has been prepared for general outsourcing payroll and HR functions. U.S.-based companies or subsidiaries orguidance on matters of interest only, and does The study did not evaluate, and thus business units of non-U.S. companies,not constitute professional advice. You should findings cannot be directly applied to, and come from more than 17 industries,not act upon the information contained inthis publication without obtaining specific ADP’s HR business process outsourcing with the most prevalent industriesprofessional advice. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP offerings. PwC makes no representation being manufacturing (15%), healthcare(PwC) has exercised reasonable professional that the comparative key findings of (13%), and finance, insurance andcare and diligence in the collection, processing, this survey can be generalized to other real estate (10%). Federal and stateand reporting of this information. However, payroll and HR outsourcing providers. governments were not specificallydata used from third-party sources has notbeen independently verified or audited. No addressed in this study. This study,representation or warranty (express or implied) Organizations surveyed used a wide like previous studies, is focused onlyis given as to the accuracy or completeness of range of platforms and solutions, on costs.the information contained in this publication, including approximately 65 platformsand, to the extent permitted by law, PwC, its in payroll alone. Payroll vendors This white paper has been researchedmembers, employees and agents do not acceptor assume any liability, responsibility or duty represented in the in-house analysis and prepared by PwC. ADP is theof care for any consequences of reliance on include the market-leading software sponsor of this TCO study.information contained in this publication. vendors. 4
  7. 7. Key findings & recommended strategies to reduce administration costsFour key findings in connection 1. In-house administration of payroll, 4. Utilizing a common vendor orwith the cost of administering workforce administration, time solution to manage multiple & attendance, and health & functions, rather than leveragingpayroll and HR in-house surfaced welfare requires a surprisingly a “best of breed” approach orduring our analysis of the data large commitment of time and maintaining disparate legacycollected in the study: resources—typically over $1,400 per systems, can deliver tangible employee per year (PEPY) for large cost efficiencies—organizations organizations and nearly $2,000 administering these functions using PEPY for mid-size organizations. software solutions from multiple • “Hidden costs,” as defined below, vendors spend on average 18% continue to account for more than more than those organizations 50% of the TCO of administering administering them in-house using these functions in-house. a common vendor. Organizations outsourcing multiple functions to a 2. TCO for payroll is actually single vendor see even stronger cost increasing—contrary to our efficiency—on average 32%—versus expectation, and despite organizations using a multiple vendor technological advances, or “best of breed” in-house approach. administration costs have actually increased rather than decreased In the remainder of this section, we will since 2003 as organizations focus on explore each of these findings, and their technology transformation rather implications for organizations. than process transformation. 3. Outsourcing continues to deliver overall TCO advantages—using in-house payroll, workforce administration, time & attendance, and health & welfare solutions increases TCO by 18% on average.5 The hidden reality of payroll & HR administration costs
  8. 8. In-house administration of payroll, workforce administration, time& attendance, and health & welfare requires a surprisingly largecommitment of time and resourcesThis study, like PwC’s previous benchmark analyses, showed that many organizationsmay be unaware of the true expense of administering the PR, WA, TA and H&Wfunctions because not all costs are readily visible. Organizations may find that,upon detailed examination, their actual costs far exceed their expectations, byup to several hundred percent.Visibility into the total costs, especially across functions, is low in part becausethese related functions are often “owned” by different functional leaders (Finance,HR, IT). Accordingly, many organizations make decisions about the technologyand sourcing that work best for the individual function without consideration ofthe potential synergies across the enterprise.A complete cost analysis should • Indirect labor costs—Cost ofconsider the following types of labor for employees not directlycosts across all four functions: related to the payroll and HR• System installation costs— departments supporting these The one-time costs related functions in the field (i.e., to the initial acquisition and collecting, approving and implementation of an organization’s preparing employee hours for PR, WA, TA, and H&W systems payroll; distributing paychecks;• System upgrade costs— answering employee questions The periodic acquisition and about benefits, etc.)—where implementation costs related to employees are typically spending upgrading to a more current version only a fraction of their time on of the PR, WA, TA, and H&W systems these activities• Direct labor costs—The cost of • Outsourcing costs—The total labor (salary plus benefits) of the annual costs of any outsourced direct staff necessary to support the services related to processing of PR, WA, TA, and H&W functions PR, WA, TA and H&W such as tax filing, paycheck printing, etc.• Direct non-labor costs—The total costs of consultants, vendor fees and facilities, G&A, and corporate overhead related to the PR, WA, TA, and H&W functions• System maintenance costs— The IT costs specifically related to maintaining the current systems 6
  9. 9. When all of these costs are included, large Economies of scale lead to a gradualorganizations (more than 1,000 employees) shift in TCOspend $1,403 combined PEPY on the four keyfunctions surveyed and mid-size organizations While we show two segments for organization size(100–1,000 employees) spend $1,953 PEPY as throughout this study, and the difference in results byshown in Figure 2. segment can appear quite dramatic, we find that economies of scale within segments are generally more gradual. In centralized processes like PR and WA, we find that these economies occur quite smoothly. In more distributedFigure 2. Average TCO per employee per processes like TA, however, they are not always as apparent.year by function for organizations managingthe process in-house Figure 3. In-house payroll TCO per paycheck by $1,953 organization size $34 $348 $1,403 $22 $312 $21 $18 $221 $17 $484 $321 $354 100–300 301–1,000 1,001–2,500 2,501–5,000 5,001–15,000 Employees $809 Note: The trend line depicts the gradual decline of TCO per paycheck as organization size increases. $507 It is no surprise that large organizations achieve greater economies of scale, and have lower TCOs per employee. With the amount of centralized labor required for these Mid-size Large functions, larger organizations are better able to a) have organizations organizations an individual staff role support more employees; and b) develop specialization among staff roles to further drive Health & Welfare (H&W) Workforce Administration (WA) efficiency. Systems spending results also demonstrate the Time & Attendance (TA) Payroll (PR) impact of size, as systems costs can be spread over a greater number of employees.7 The hidden reality of payroll & HR administration costs
  10. 10. Hidden costs account for more than Hidden costs drive up the total TCO of these functions beyond50% of the payroll TCO what conventional wisdom generally suggests. The largest driver of TCO for PR, for instance, is labor costs, specificallyWhen evaluating their current or potential future systems, indirect labor costs. The indirect time of employees tomost organizations fail to consider the significant costs perform such tasks as approve and assemble submitted timebeyond the direct labor needed to use the systems and the for processing, distribute paychecks, and maintain the corecost of the systems themselves. Overlooking these “hidden” PR system represents a substantial cost—nearly $10 percosts could result in an underestimate of 50% or more as paycheck for both large and mid-size organizations.shown in Figure 4. Analogous sets of hidden costs apply to the other processesFigure 4. Breakdown of TCO by cost type we examined, including H&W, where business managers, HR professionals, plant managers, supervisors, and others are involved with activities such as enrollments, life event changes and plan support. “Visible” costs “Seams” costs 49% When viewed individually, each of the four processes 35% contains unrecognized expense. But there is a bigger picture here, too, as the inefficient interaction between processes creates additional costs at the “seams.” The administration functions covered in this study are interdependent and rely on one another to work. Seams costs refer to the activities organizations must undertake to provide integration between and among various processes, and occur when there is a need to implement a new interface or manually support or otherwise maintain the interaction between processes. 51% We have differentiated these “seams” costs from “hidden” “Hidden” costs costs because seams costs refer to costs incurred from 65% operating separate processes and systems within a single, interdependent business environment—and both have been captured in TCO. Mid-size The 2006 PwC study identified these “seams” and quantified organizations their costs and found that, among the four processes we have studied, the average organization was spending Large approximately $100 per employee per year. The current organizations study, which evaluated PR, WA, TA, and H&W functions simultaneously, suggested that organizations with seams experience higher costs—$200 per employee per year or more—to, among other things, get disparate systems working together. 8
  11. 11. Figure 5. Average cost of integrating core HR systemsOrganizations with software integration “seams” face an increased TCO of $200per employee per year Time & Health & Payroll HRIS attendance welfare Denotes integration and data flow required between different HR systemsThe TCO for payroll is actually increasingMost would expect PR TCO to have dropped since 2003, the year of PwC’sinitial benchmark study. A focus on improved technology, new delivery models,department cutbacks, and other factors should have reduced PR TCO over theyears.But that has not happened. In fact, the TCO for PR has actually risen a full $1per paycheck since 2003 for large organizations that use in-house solutions.The increases are primarily driven by the hidden costs described in the sectionabove. TCO for mid-size organizations and functions beyond payroll was notmeasured in the initial 2003 study, so TCO trending for those segments cannotbe included in this study.Figure 6. Average TCO per paycheck in 2003 compared to 2010 forlarge organizations managing payroll in-house al Actu +6% Ex pe M ct ark at e io t $17 n $16 2003 Study 2010 Study9 The hidden reality of payroll & HR administration costs
  12. 12. Additional costs lurk in the mismatch Findings on Software-as-a-Serviceof technology and business process delivery modelsBecause organizations have tight budgets and timeframes, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) is a prominent deliverythey often implement technology improvements without model that has gained momentum since we published ourtaking into account the impact of technology on business initial TCO study in 2003. This deployment model enablesprocess. Technology alone is viewed by many as the sole organizations to host applications as well as store and managesolution to cutting costs. However, by implementing or their data on remote, virtual servers, rather than on theirupgrading technology, whether in traditional or new in-house computers (premised-based model). Some softwaretechnology models (such as Software-as-a-Service or SaaS), vendors now offer their solutions exclusively through a SaaSorganizations will likely incur additional, unintended costs— or on-demand model accessed via any Internet connection,such as manual activities to conform technology to existing while other vendors provide customers a choice of a SaaS orprocesses, to accept customization within the organization, or premise-based delivery model.to link the SaaS technology to existing technology within theenterprise. This study found that SaaS helps reduce costs for many organizations—but only to a point. It is clear that while SaaSIt seems self-evident that organizations would seek to can reduce a mid-size organization’s total administrationemploy technology solutions that best support their business costs over a premise-based or traditional software model,processes. But in reality it often does not work this way. organizations outsourcing process functions such as PR and H&W administration still demonstrate additional costMany organizations have not matched their business savings over organizations leveraging a SaaS model. Ourprocesses with technology and thus cannot take full analysis also showed that the benefits of SaaS models, whenadvantage of the applications available to them. The results deployed without the added benefit of process outsourcing,of the study suggest that many organizations need to focus taper off as organizations get larger and actually provided noon process redesign when they decide to change software. TCO savings, on average, over on-premise software solutionsFailure to do so drives both the hidden and seams costs for large organizations with more than 1,000 employees.described above. These findings reinforce the discussion above regarding the importance of process transformation in conjunction with technology investment to reduce administration costs. 10
  13. 13. Outsourcing continues to deliver overall TCO advantages—using in-house payroll, workforce administration, time & attendance, and health & welfare solutions increases combined TCO by 18% on averageConsistent with the findings of our prior Mid-size organizations that use outsourced solutions demonstrate a lower TCOstudies, the current study shows that across the comprehensive bundle of the four processes—PR/WA/TA/H&W—outsourcing is a cost-effective way to than organizations that use in-house solutions. Given the extensive bundlingadminister these four functions. It is of solutions in this segment of the market, this comprehensive approach is themore cost effective than the various in- most accurate approach for cost analysis.house solutions we reviewed. This studyshows that organizations using in-house Figure 7. TCO (PEPY) comparison by method across all four functionssolutions for PR, WA, TA and H&Wspend on average 9% more (for mid-sizeorganizations 100–1,000 employees) 18% Higher TCOand 27% more (for large organizationsover 1,000 employees) than those thatuse outsourced solutions. Of course,costs for any individual organizationdepend on the specific circumstancesof the functions outsourced and the $1,634organization’s needs. $1,388In our analysis, organizations thatoutsource experience lower direct non-labor costs, indirect labor costs, andsystem maintenance costs (“hidden”costs). These efficiencies are likelydue to the strong process governanceframework and increased process Organizations Outsourcing Organizations Managing HR & Payroll HR & Payroll In-Housestandardization that is typical in theoutsourcing model.Even allowing for economies of scale,where TCO drops as organizations arebetter able to spread labor and systemsinvestments, large organizations thatoutsource core HR processes see anadditional cost benefit when comparedto in-house organizations.11 The hidden reality of payroll & HR administration costs
  14. 14. Utilizing a common vendor or solution to manage multiple functions delivers tangible cost efficienciesFor many years, the HR community Figure 8. TCO (PEPY) comparison by platform type for payroll,has suspected that integrated PR, workforce administration, and time & attendanceWA, TA and H&W functions cost lessto administer than separate pointsolutions. The survey empirically 18% Higher TCOconfirmed that conventional wisdom. 32% Higher TCOThis applies both to in-house solutions,and, to an even stronger degree, toorganizations that outsource multiplefunctions. $1,202Unfortunately, for most organizations, $910 $1,020common platforms remain a missedcost-savings opportunity. In fact, ouranalysis of the common platformapproach could not look across allprocesses because there were simplynot enough organizations with acommon platform for all four processes. Outsourcing Solution—Common PlatformHowever, sufficient data is available In-House Solution—Common Platformto evaluate the impact of a common In-House Solution—Multiple Platformsplatform for three of the processes (PR,WA, and TA) as shown in Figure 8. Additional cost efficiency from using a common platform provided by an outsourcer As shown above, organizations using multiple in-house platforms experience a TCO that is 18% higher than organizations using a common in-house solution and 32% higher than organizations outsourcing these three functions to a single vendor. In large organizations, the impact was even more dramatic. In-house users on a common platform experience a 29% higher TCO compared to peers outsourcing the same functions to a single vendor. 12
  15. 15. Looking down the road Figure 9. The lack of systems to manage key HR functionsThe need for seamless integration ofpayroll and HR administration functions Successionwill become even more acute in the Planningcoming years. As organizations addadditional solutions to their mix for Compensationmanaging automated payroll and HR Managementadministration—such as recruiting, Performancetalent management, etc.—the lack of Managementa common platform, and the resultingcost inefficiencies, is likely to increase. Learning Management System (LMS)Of the organizations participating Employee Self-Servicein this study, more than half had noautomated solution for performance Applicant Tracking/management, compensation Recruitmentmanagement, or learning management.In addition, more than eight in 10 had Benefits Tracking/ Data Maintenanceno automated solution for successionplanning. Core HRIS 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of organizations without a system or solution to manage the HR function listed Large organizations Mid-size organizations13 The hidden reality of payroll & HR administration costs
  16. 16. If organizationscontinue down thepath of pursuing bestof breed strategies,they will continue toinvest in a philosophythat produces hiddenand seams costs. 14
  17. 17. ConclusionWhatever solution an organization chooses, organizational design and processimprovements—in conjunction with straight technology investments—will betteraddress the hidden costs of HR management. Additionally, a comprehensiveevaluation of the integration needs across payroll, workforce administration, time& attendance, and health & welfare benefits administration rather than individualprocess assessments, will allow organizations to identify interdependencies thatcan result in reduced costs for the overall solution. Better understanding of thesources and size of the hidden and seams costs in an organization, and addressingthose process and technology options, will allow organizations to realize theirobjective of reducing TCO.15 The hidden reality of payroll & HR administration costs
  18. 18. This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional advice. You should not act upon the informationcontained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) has exercised reasonable professional care and diligence inthe collection, processing, and reporting of this information. However, data used from third-party sources has not been independently verified or audited. No representationor warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, PwC, itsmembers, employees and agents do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of reliance on information contained in thispublication.© 2011 PwC. All rights reserved. “PwC” and “PwC US” refer to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership, which is a member firm ofPricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each member firm of which is a separate legal entity. This document is for general information purposes only, and should notbe used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors. MW-11-0206

×