When participants assume alignment without verification, problems remain hidden until they are too large to ignore. Misalignment doesn’t announce itself—it compounds quietly, year after year.
Tag "Ron Surz"
The calendar flipped to 2026, and with it came a fresh crop of 401k new year opportunities. Will this be the year 403(b) plans finally shed legacy costs, SECURE 2.0 provisions hit their stride, and markets remind participants that risk never really sleeps?
Risk capacity anchors 401k advice in hard data—income stability, net worth, liquidity, and retirement timeline. Unlike tolerance, which shifts with market moods, capacity reflects what participants can afford to lose, aligning with ERISA’s fiduciary duties.
Not all impactful changes come from courtrooms or market forecasts. Sometimes the quietest adjustments happen in the administrative framework of retirement plans. This summer, two such moves stood out as underreported 401k stories that carry both promise and peril for fiduciaries.
Such hesitation shifts the spotlight back to fiduciary fundamentals. New rules may widen the menu, but ERISA doesn’t relax the obligation to fully understand and monitor what’s offered.
By proactively addressing these critical 401k plan sponsor questions, sponsors can enhance their plans, protect participants, and shield themselves from unnecessary fiduciary exposure.
Here’s where the real disconnect kicks in: participants and pros don’t speak the same language on risk. Participants “feel” it. Meanwhile, advisers whip out rulers like standard deviation or some index, measuring volatility in neat little boxes.
Making matters worse is the changing regulatory environment once the new SECURE Act 2.0 rules become effective. The good news is the dust settles after that.
Here the intent is to make it possible for a plan/IRA to apply the QDIA safe harbor to involuntary rollovers. But how will this impact plan participants?
What Happens When Everyone Starts Caring About Their 401k?
The long bull market has masked serious risk in target-date funds near retirement. When the next correction hits, participants who thought they were “protected” will wake up—angry—and demand change.