Viewing this content requires a Basic (Free) Membership or better. You are not currently logged in. If you have an account, you may login below, or use the “Log In”
Basic Members
When too many moving parts are introduced at once, decisions slow down. Employers may delay action while trying to understand their options, or they may default to inaction when the path forward is not clear.
Viewing this content requires a Basic (Free) Membership or better. You are not currently logged in. If you have an account, you may login below, or use the “Log In”
That is the line committees cannot afford to miss. They cannot interfere, but they also cannot ignore. Those two verbs define the narrow lane that fiduciaries must stay in if they want delegation to work as intended.
Fiduciaries can follow every step of a prudent process and still end up with outcomes they did not anticipate. That’s not how fiduciary risk is supposed to work. Or at least, not how it used to work.
Once the regulatory gaps are acknowledged, the issue quickly shifts from theory to action. Plan sponsors are not just waiting for guidance. They are being forced to decide whether to engage with the Saver’s Match at all.
Private equity inside a daily-valued, participant-directed plan introduces structural tension. Illiquid assets must coexist with participant liquidity expectations. Valuations must be estimated where markets do not exist. And governance must bridge that gap without introducing bias or delay.
Viewing this content requires a Basic (Free) Membership or better. You are not currently logged in. If you have an
Private equity investments raise a second layer of fiduciary difficulty because they are not simply harder to compare. They are also harder to value, harder to redeem, and harder to explain to participants who may assume daily-priced plan options operate under familiar public-market rules.
Ongoing forfeiture lawsuits involving major plans are reshaping how courts evaluate fiduciary oversight. Sponsors who rely on routine processes may discover that governance gaps create legal exposure for committees and financial harm for participants.
