The Rosenbaum Law Firm P.C. Blog

Let’s cut through the marketing fluff and look at what the 2025 T. Rowe Price Defined Contribution Consultant Study is really telling us, and more importantly, what it means for financial advisors who want to stay relevant, valuable, and indispensable.

1. Fixed Income Diversification Is No Longer Optional

According to this year’s study, 73% of consultant and advisor respondents highlighted fixed income diversification as a major driver in their fixed income evaluations. The message is clear: in a volatile interest rate and inflation environment, vanilla core bond funds just aren’t cutting it anymore. Advisors are increasingly turning to nontraditional bond sectors, think floating rate, bank loans, emerging market debt, and even private credit, to hedge duration risk, inflation risk, and to seek yield.

If you’re still recommending plain-vanilla bond allocations as “the safe middle ground,” you’re behind. Sponsors are now more interested in bond diversification as a way to protect and grow participant outcomes, not just preserve principal.

2. Target Date Funds Are Evolving, And You Should Be Too

One of the boldest shifts in the study: strong support for “blended” target date solutions that combine active and passive management. In other words, the old tug-of-war between active vs. passive is giving way to a hybrid approach that recognizes the strengths, and weaknesses, of both.

In addition, TDFs are increasingly being viewed as tools for both the accumulation and distribution phases. What was once a savings vehicle is now being looked at as a retirement income tool. If you’re simply recommending a target date fund and walking away, you’re missing the second half of the game: what happens after the participant retires.

As an advisor, your value increases if you’re able to walk sponsors and participants through not just “Which target date fund should I pick?” but “How will this fund create income in retirement? How flexible is it? What happens if the participant retires early, takes a job break, or needs to withdraw funds?”

3. Managed Accounts Are Gaining Ground, but Mostly As Add-Ons

The study shows that more than one-third (about 37%) of respondents offer proprietary managed account solutions, usually as an opt-in investment option. Some advisors are pushing the envelope, suggesting dynamic QDIAs where participants begin in a target date fund and transition into a managed account later in their careers. But here’s the rub: managed accounts are not being embraced as the default retirement option for most DC plans. They’re interesting. Optional. But they’re not replacing target date funds anytime soon, at least not yet.

For advisors, that means your firm can offer managed accounts as a value-add, but you can’t expect plan sponsors to make them the backbone of their default retirement strategy without a lot of additional justification and education.

4. Capital Preservation Options Are Back Under the Microscope

What happens when money market fund yields outpace stable value crediting rates? It’s a tailwind that flips the script. In 2025, stable value vs. money market is no longer a simple choice—it’s a heated debate. T. Rowe Price’s study indicates a lot more interest in revisiting capital preservation strategies, including how stable value products are constructed and whether they should be part of target date, managed account, or retirement income strategies. Advisors who can thoughtfully guide sponsors through this debate, evaluating tradeoffs between yield, crediting rates, liquidity, and participant needs, can differentiate themselves. But advisors who default to “You need a stable value fund” without analyzing the current yield environment, policyholder behavior, and crediting rate dynamics are doing a disservice.

5. The Growth of Student Debt, Emergency Savings, and Wellness Programs Is Changing the Scope of Retirement Advice

This year’s T. Rowe Price study highlights advisor and consultant expectations that in-plan student debt repayment programs, emergency savings tools, and financial wellness offerings will become more prominent. These were once seen as fringe or supplemental benefits. Now, thanks to both SECURE 2.0 legislation and changing demographic pressures, they’re starting to be viewed as core components of participant retirement readiness. Advisors who get ahead of this trend, by advising sponsors on how to integrate these programs, how to communicate them, and how to measure their success, will add massive value. But advisors who stick to traditional retirement savings advice (contributions, fund selection, rebalancing) and view these new features as “outside my lane” will be left behind.

6. AI: Not Just a Buzzword

Surprisingly, the study also surfaces artificial intelligence as a disruptive force in advisory practices: from business development and RFP scoring to chatbots and participant Q&A systems. While many firms are still wrestling with compliance, data privacy, and advisor skepticism around AI, those who are proactively integrating AI tools are discovering real operational efficiencies and client-service differentiators. If you’re not thinking about how AI can augment your advisory practice, help you deliver personalized education, automate participant nudges, and scale high-touch interactions, you’re probably giving away competitive advantage. That said, you also need to be thoughtful, compliance and data privacy aren’t afterthoughts in this space.

Final Reflections

What do all these shifts mean for you, the advisor who wants to stay relevant in a changing retirement landscape? Here’s my take:

1. Evolve your fixed income thinking. Don’t treat the bond sleeve as a static, low-volatility safety net. It’s a dynamic battlefield—one where diversification within fixed income is going to be critical.

2. Think holistically about target date funds. TDFs are no longer just about how much participants save, they’re also about how those savings are spent. Help sponsors think through retirement income, participant behavior, and lifecycle flexibility.

3. Offer managed accounts, but frame them properly. Don’t present them as a replacement for a QDIA unless you’re prepared for pushback. Position them as an upgrade for engaged participants who want a more customized retirement strategy.

4. Become fluent in capital preservation strategy debates. Stable value vs. money market vs. other short-duration strategies is no longer a checkbox—it’s a layered, strategic decision. If you can guide sponsors through that debate, you deepen your value.

5. Lead on financial wellness, student debt, and emergency savings. These issues aren’t “nice-to-haves” anymore, they’re central to retirement readiness. Advisors who can help plan sponsors design and measure these in-plan vehicles will be in high demand.

6. Use AI thoughtfully. Don’t dabble, invest. But do so with care. Well-implemented AI can free you up to spend more time on high-value advisory work. Lazy or careless use, though, can backfire, especially on compliance, fiduciary, and privacy fronts.

T. Rowe Price’s 2025 DC Consultant Study doesn’t just show trends, it shows tensions, trade-offs, and the evolving role that DC consultants and advisors are going to play in retirement planning. If you’re an advisor, your job isn’t just to pick funds or review fees. It’s to partner with plan sponsors and participants through an increasingly complex retirement journey, from accumulation to decumulation, from debt to income, from uncertainty to clarity.

The question isn’t whether advisors will be involved in all of these shifts. It’s whether you’ll lead or lag.

Plan sponsors aren’t hiring advisors so they can get fancy PowerPoints or attendance at cocktail events, increasingly, they’re paying for outcomes. NAPA’s latest slice-and-dice of Fidelity’s Plan Sponsor Attitudes Study shows a clear message: for the fourth year in a row, what sponsors value most is simple: did the advisor help participants save more? Did participants retire with more money?

If you’re an advisor who wants to be highly valued, here’s what I’d tell you over a late-night Zoom—no “fiduciary theater,” just real talk from someone who’s advised sponsors, litigated plan disputes, and watched too many retirement disasters up close.

1. Stop Talking About “Compliance” First — Start with Participant Readiness

Way too many advisors lead with compliance checklists, fee reviews, or plan design resets. Don’t get me wrong—those are important. But when sponsors hear “fiduciary duty” and “safe harbors,” they don’t hear value. They hear expense.

Instead, lead with retirement readiness. Do participants have a shot at retiring? What happens if the 60-year-olds suddenly stop working? How would current savings fall short? When you frame the discussion in terms of “Will my employees retire with dignity?” you’re speaking the sponsor’s language—not your own.

2. Metrics Matter — Show Me How You Move the Needle

Sponsors want numbers. They want to see the needle move. Demonstrate how your interventions—whether they’re auto-enrollment tweaks, matching strategy changes, participant education meetings, or wellness campaigns—have led to measurable improvements in savings rates, contribution levels, asset allocation shifts, and retirement confidence.

If you can show that participants in “your” plans are increasing savings rates year over year, or shifting into more appropriate asset allocations as retirement nears, you’re speaking their language. If all you have is “I talked to them” or “we conducted a webinar,” that doesn’t move the dial. Save the webinars for the marketing slide; sponsors want impact.

3. Education Isn’t a Nice-To-Have, It’s a Core Fiduciary Strategy

Sponsors told Fidelity they want advisors to take the lead on financial planning, financial wellness, and retirement income education. Targeted education—especially for newer or younger employees, was flagged as a major gap and opportunity.

So here’s the rub: advisors who see education as an add-on are missing the point. Education isn’t just nice, it’s essential. Every session, every tool, every follow-up conversation is a chance to nudge participant behavior. The real work is getting people to act, whether that means increasing savings, choosing better investment mixes, reducing debt, or making intentional retirement income choices.

If you aren’t delivering education that actually changes behavior, you’re not delivering value.

4. Plan Design Advice Isn’t Just for Lawyers, It’s an Advisor’s Secret Weapon

The best advisors I know aren’t just good with investments, they’re plan architects. They know how to tweak match formulas, adjust auto-enrollment parameters, fine-tune default options, and repurpose features like in-plan Roth or auto-escalation so participants actually use them.

When you come into a sponsor conversation talking only about fund menu changes or fee compression, that’s one-dimensional. Sponsors are juggling competing priorities: recruitment, retention, DEI, mental health, regulatory shifts, and benefits cost-disclosure burdens. If you can help them adjust their plan design to meet evolving needs, you’re not just a vendor—you’re a strategic partner.

5. Engagement Isn’t Optional — It’s Your Differentiator

If your idea of “participant engagement” is sending an annual statement or dropping a link to a calculator… stop. Sponsors value advisors who drive engagement, period. Whether it’s one-on-one counseling, cohort seminars with follow-up, mobile nudges, savings challenges, or personalized retirement projections—engagement is what leads to behavior change.

Fight the temptation to do “one-and-done” education. We know employers are exhausted by too many demands—new legislation, disclosures, wellness mandates. But consistent, meaningful follow-up is what separates advisors who make a difference from those who produce a brochure.

If you can prove you raised employee engagement metrics—not just webinar attendance—you’ve earned your place at the table.

6. Tell the Sponsor the Whole Story — Don’t Just Pitch a Fund

Too often, advisors pitch a fund lineup or a new investment option and stop there. They don’t tell the whole story of participant experience. What happens if an employee loses their job? What happens if they retire early or need to withdraw? What do distributions or RMDs look like? What are their income options in retirement?

Until advisors connect investment strategy to income strategy, and tie both to participant life events, they’re missing half the equation. Sponsors know this. They want advisors who can walk them through the participant journey, from day one to distribution, and help avoid what I call “retirement regrets.

Final Word

If you want to be one of the advisors sponsors rave about, you need to shift your mindset. Your value isn’t in fee comparisons or quarterly performance charts—it’s in preparing participants for retirement, creating meaningful engagement, and designing plans that work for employees, not just for compliance.

Sponsors don’t want order-takers. They want partner-advisors who see the retirement plan not as a legal obligation, but as a vehicle to create outcomes—real, measurable, long-term outcomes—for those who rely on it.

To steal a joke from Chris Rock, when I worked at a TPA as the lead ERISA attorney, I used to joke that if you wanted to hide something from one of our plan administrators, just put it in the plan document file. Nobody ever cracked one open. Why? Because someone had already plugged the plan specs into Relius, and that’s all anyone looked at.

The problem, of course, was that the woman running the show back then was a complete buffoon. Things were constantly wrong — specs didn’t line up, operational errors piled up, and everyone assumed Relius was the gospel truth. Meanwhile, the plan document — the actual governing instrument under ERISA — sat ignored, like an unread instruction manual stuffed in a drawer.

Here’s the point: plan specs are only as good as the plan document they’re based on. If they don’t match, you’re courting disaster. I’ve seen plan sponsors dragged into compliance nightmares, IRS corrections, and even litigation simply because the specs in the recordkeeping system didn’t mirror what was written in black and white.

So, whether you’re a TPA, advisor, or plan sponsor, don’t treat the plan document like some dusty artifact. Specs, procedures, Relius entries, prototypes — all of it needs to reflect what’s actually in the governing document. Otherwise, you’re just building mistakes into the system and waiting for the IRS or DOL to find them.

Trust me, when they do, you won’t be laughing at the Chris Rock joke anymore.

To steal a joke from Chris Rock, when I worked at a TPA as the lead ERISA attorney, I used to joke that if you wanted to hide something from one of our plan administrators, just put it in the plan document file. Nobody ever cracked one open. Why? Because someone had already plugged the plan specs into Relius, and that’s all anyone looked at.

The problem, of course, was that the woman running the show back then was a complete buffoon. Things were constantly wrong — specs didn’t line up, operational errors piled up, and everyone assumed Relius was the gospel truth. Meanwhile, the plan document — the actual governing instrument under ERISA — sat ignored, like an unread instruction manual stuffed in a drawer.

Here’s the point: plan specs are only as good as the plan document they’re based on. If they don’t match, you’re courting disaster. I’ve seen plan sponsors dragged into compliance nightmares, IRS corrections, and even litigation simply because the specs in the recordkeeping system didn’t mirror what was written in black and white.

So, whether you’re a TPA, advisor, or plan sponsor, don’t treat the plan document like some dusty artifact. Specs, procedures, Relius entries, prototypes — all of it needs to reflect what’s actually in the governing document. Otherwise, you’re just building mistakes into the system and waiting for the IRS or DOL to find them.

Trust me, when they do, you won’t be laughing at the Chris Rock joke anymore.

The beauty of social media is that everyone has an opinion. The negative part of social media is that everyone has an opinion.

Once upon a time, disagreements lived at the dinner table, in union halls, or on the floor of Congress. Now they’re broadcast 24/7, amplified by algorithms, and weaponized by people hiding behind avatars. The vitriol we see, with each political side tearing at the other, has been sharpened and accelerated by social media.

I fear that this constant stream of outrage isn’t just bad for civil discourse — it’s dangerous. When online debates devolve into hate-filled pile-ons, it creates an atmosphere where extreme voices feel justified, even celebrated. What starts as words on a screen can too easily cross into actions in the real world.

Social media has given us connection, access, and a platform to be heard. But it’s also exposed the ugliest parts of human nature and magnified them. My concern is that unless we collectively learn how to dial back the toxicity, things are only going to get worse.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has released its Spring 2025 regulatory agenda, and for those of us in the retirement plan industry, it reads like a greatest hits playlist — ESG, fiduciary rule, auto-portability, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), electronic disclosure, lost and found, ESOPs, and yes, even IB 95-1.

The DOL framed this agenda as “a set of high-priority actions designed to reduce unnecessary burdens on employers and employees.” That’s the nice way of saying: changes are coming, and whether they’ll actually reduce burdens depends on where you sit in the industry.

ESG: The Never-Ending Ping-Pong Match

ESG is back on the table. The DOL intends to finalize a new rule by May 2026 that would ensure fiduciaries only consider financial factors when selecting investments or exercising proxy voting rights. The message is clear: no advancing social causes under the guise of fiduciary duty.

Conservatives have long argued ESG is politics dressed up as risk management. While the Biden rule in 2023 made it easier to use non-financial factors as tiebreakers, the Trump administration seems poised to tighten the screws again. For plan sponsors, this means the ESG conversation will continue to be less about investments themselves and more about how the political winds blow.

Fiduciary Rule: Here We Go Again

If you’ve lost track of how many versions of the fiduciary rule we’ve had, you’re not alone. Biden’s “Retirement Security Rule,” finalized in April 2024, extended ERISA fiduciary duties to one-time advice like rollovers and annuity purchases. That rule is still tangled in litigation in the 5th Circuit.

The Trump administration says a new final rule is on the way by May 2026, promising it will be “based on the best reading of the statute” and aligned with deregulation goals. Translation: expect a rollback or rewrite. Every time this pendulum swings, providers and advisors are left trying to adjust compliance frameworks yet again.

Auto-Portability: Getting Closer

Auto-portability — the process of automatically rolling over small accounts when participants change jobs — has been promised for years. The agenda indicates a final rule by January 2026. Whether it builds on Biden’s 2024 proposal remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: recordkeepers and TPAs need to prepare for more operational complexity.

Independent Contractors: A Hot-Button Issue

The DOL is targeting September 2025 for a new proposal on defining employees versus independent contractors. Any changes here could ripple into retirement plan coverage, especially for industries heavily reliant on gig workers. The expectation? It will become easier to classify workers as contractors, reducing employer obligations.

PBMs: Transparency on the Horizon

By November 2025, the DOL aims to propose rules that would improve transparency around the direct and indirect compensation PBMs receive from employer health plans. While not strictly retirement-focused, this signals the DOL’s ongoing push for fee and cost transparency — a theme that crosses over to retirement plans.

Electronic Disclosure: Deregulation in Disguise?

The agenda suggests new regulations on electronic disclosure for health and welfare plans by May 2026, pitched as a “deregulatory action.” If that’s true, plan sponsors could get more flexibility in how they communicate, which would be a welcome change given how outdated some notice rules feel in 2025.

Lost and Found: Still in the Works

Remember the Retirement Savings Lost and Found database promised by SECURE 2.0? The DOL now says regulations for data collection will come by April 2026. The concept is great — participants shouldn’t lose track of their savings — but we’ve been waiting for the infrastructure to catch up.

ESOPs: Adequate Consideration

By January 2026, the DOL could issue a new rule on the adequate consideration of shares in ESOPs. This has always been a thorny area, with valuation disputes at the heart of countless lawsuits. Providers in the ESOP space should watch this closely.

IB 95-1: Pension Risk Transfers Under Review

Lastly, IB 95-1, which governs fiduciary considerations in pension risk transfers, could see new amendments by April 2026. Given the recent uptick in pension risk transfers, an update here would be timely, but it could also raise the compliance bar for sponsors looking to offload liabilities.

Final Thoughts

The DOL’s regulatory agenda is never light reading, and this one is no exception. While agendas are not binding and often move slower than promised, the themes are clear: ESG will stay political, the fiduciary rule is a moving target, transparency remains a focus, and operational rules like auto-portability and lost and found are slowly taking shape.

For plan providers, the best strategy is the same as always: stay nimble, prepare for change, and remember that just because a rule is on the agenda doesn’t mean it’s arriving on time. If there’s anything my years in the retirement plan business have taught me, it’s that DOL timelines age about as well as milk left out in the sun.

Chalk up another win for plan fiduciaries in the ongoing wave of forfeiture reallocation suits — and this time, the plaintiffs didn’t even get the courtesy of a do-over.

The Case

Roughly a year ago, participant Guadalupe Cano sued Home Depot and the administrative committee of its FutureBuilder Plan. The allegations? Breach of fiduciary duty, violation of ERISA’s anti-inurement provision, and engaging in prohibited transactions.

But the heart of the complaint was about how forfeitures were used. Cano argued that Home Depot consistently failed to use forfeited funds to pay plan administrative expenses — money that, in her view, should have reduced the amounts charged to participant accounts. Instead, forfeitures were reallocated to offset employer contributions.

She claimed millions of dollars in contributions between 2018 and 2022 were reduced because of this practice. Cano further argued that Home Depot failed to investigate alternatives or consult independent experts, painting the company’s actions as disloyal and imprudent.

The Decision

Judge Tiffany R. Johnson of the Northern District of Georgia was not persuaded. While she acknowledged that forfeitures are plan assets and that Home Depot was acting in a fiduciary role when deciding how to allocate them, she found no breach of duty.

Why? Because the plan document itself allowed the company to use forfeitures either for administrative costs or for employer contributions. That choice is not prohibited by ERISA. Judge Johnson went further, emphasizing that ERISA doesn’t require fiduciaries to eliminate participant expenses entirely or to maximize participant benefits at all costs. The law requires prudence under the circumstances and adherence to plan terms — and Home Depot checked those boxes.

On the anti-inurement charge, the court was blunt: forfeited funds never left the plan, so there was no self-dealing. As for prohibited transactions? No transaction, no claim.

Finally, when plaintiffs asked for another shot at reframing their arguments, the judge shut the door. Amendment would be futile, she said, given the clear language of the plan and decades of regulatory guidance supporting this type of forfeiture use.

What This Means

Forfeiture suits have been cropping up all over the country, and while outcomes have varied, this ruling fits the emerging trend: if the plan document permits reallocating forfeitures and the practice aligns with long-standing IRS and Treasury regulations, fiduciaries are on solid ground.

Home Depot’s win underscores a basic but crucial point for plan sponsors: document terms matter. As long as you follow the plan and the regulations, courts are increasingly unwilling to stretch ERISA to create new obligations.

And in this case, the judge also made clear she wasn’t going to let plaintiffs keep rolling the dice until they finally hit a sympathetic ear. That’s an important message for the litigation environment going forward.

For fiduciaries, the takeaway is reassuring: consistency with plan terms and regulatory history remains the strongest defense against these creative — but ultimately unsuccessful — forfeiture claims.

According to Fidelity Investments’ latest Q2 2025 retirement analysis, retirement savers got some good news: average 401(k), 403(b), and IRA balances hit record highs. Despite the rocky market start this quarter, balances climbed: 401(k)s up 8%, 403(b)s up 9%, and IRAs up 5% compared to a year ago.

That’s not just a stat to file away. It’s a reminder of one of the most basic, yet hardest-to-follow principles of retirement saving: stay the course.

As someone who has spent a career watching the retirement plan industry twist itself in knots over fees, litigation, and compliance, I can tell you this: the real “secret sauce” of retirement success isn’t hidden in the latest investment option or recordkeeping platform. It’s about consistency. Participants who avoid making emotional decisions, who contribute steadily and diversify reasonably, are the ones who build wealth over decades.

Fidelity also drilled down on higher education employees. The findings were encouraging: strong savings rates and healthy asset allocation. But not everything is rosy. Younger workers and women, in particular, are showing gaps in preparedness. That’s not a higher-ed-only problem, that’s an industry-wide challenge. It’s another reminder that plan sponsors and providers need to think beyond average balances and address disparities within their participant population.

When I talk to plan sponsors or providers at “That 401(k) Conference,” I often joke that my New York Mets have taught me patience (too much patience, maybe). But it’s the same with 401(k)s: you can’t let one bad quarter define your season. You stick with your plan, and over time, the wins outweigh the losses.

The lesson from Fidelity’s Q2 analysis is simple: retirement savers who tuned out the noise and kept contributing are in a stronger position today. If you’re a plan sponsor or advisor, your job isn’t just about picking funds or benchmarking fees—it’s about reminding participants of this very truth.

Because at the end of the day, the best retirement strategy is often the least exciting one: keep calm, keep saving, and let time and compounding do their work.

A long-time client of a financial advisor had a 401(k) plan sponsor that was quiet, easy to deal with, and, most importantly, loyal. Everything seemed smooth until the advisor’s new employee came on board. The new hire saw the plan and thought it was the perfect time to make their mark. Acting as the 3(38) fiduciary, they completely overhauled the fund lineup.

Now, let’s be clear, that was within their rights. As a 3(38), you have discretion over the investments. The problem? The plan sponsor didn’t appreciate the change. Instead of seeing it as proactive management, they saw it as disruptive. The end result: the advisor lost a long-term client.

The Fragile Balance

Sometimes working with plan sponsors is a lot like walking on eggshells. One small misstep—or even something you thought was the “right” step, can cause a crack that ends the relationship.

I know that feeling all too well. Growing up at home, I had to walk on eggshells constantly. The smallest changes in tone, the smallest perceived mistake, could lead to outsized consequences. With plan sponsors, it’s eerily similar. Even if you’re doing your job correctly, even if you’re following fiduciary standards to the letter, you can still get fired.

The Lesson

I’m not saying you shouldn’t do your job. You absolutely should. Fiduciary responsibility is not optional. But there’s a difference between doing your job and being tone-deaf to the client’s perspective.

Plan sponsors want stability. They want reassurance. And they don’t want surprises. If you’re going to make major changes, like revamping an entire fund lineup, you’d better be prepared to communicate why, when, and how it benefits them. Dropping it on them like a ton of bricks is rarely going to end well.

The Bottom Line

Advisors, TPAs, and other providers need to remember that relationships with plan sponsors are as much about trust as they are about technical expertise. You can be right and still lose the client. You can be prudent and still get fired.

That’s the uncomfortable reality of our business. Do your job, but don’t forget the human side. Communicate. Educate. And above all, respect the fact that, to a plan sponsor, change can feel like chaos.

Sometimes, keeping the eggshells intact is just as important as the fiduciary duty itself.

A long-time client of a financial advisor had a 401(k) plan sponsor that was quiet, easy to deal with, and, most importantly, loyal. Everything seemed smooth until the advisor’s new employee came on board. The new hire saw the plan and thought it was the perfect time to make their mark. Acting as the 3(38) fiduciary, they completely overhauled the fund lineup.

Now, let’s be clear, that was within their rights. As a 3(38), you have discretion over the investments. The problem? The plan sponsor didn’t appreciate the change. Instead of seeing it as proactive management, they saw it as disruptive. The end result: the advisor lost a long-term client.

The Fragile Balance

Sometimes working with plan sponsors is a lot like walking on eggshells. One small misstep—or even something you thought was the “right” step, can cause a crack that ends the relationship.

I know that feeling all too well. Growing up at home, I had to walk on eggshells constantly. The smallest changes in tone, the smallest perceived mistake, could lead to outsized consequences. With plan sponsors, it’s eerily similar. Even if you’re doing your job correctly, even if you’re following fiduciary standards to the letter, you can still get fired.

The Lesson

I’m not saying you shouldn’t do your job. You absolutely should. Fiduciary responsibility is not optional. But there’s a difference between doing your job and being tone-deaf to the client’s perspective.

Plan sponsors want stability. They want reassurance. And they don’t want surprises. If you’re going to make major changes, like revamping an entire fund lineup, you’d better be prepared to communicate why, when, and how it benefits them. Dropping it on them like a ton of bricks is rarely going to end well.

The Bottom Line

Advisors, TPAs, and other providers need to remember that relationships with plan sponsors are as much about trust as they are about technical expertise. You can be right and still lose the client. You can be prudent and still get fired.

That’s the uncomfortable reality of our business. Do your job, but don’t forget the human side. Communicate. Educate. And above all, respect the fact that, to a plan sponsor, change can feel like chaos.

Sometimes, keeping the eggshells intact is just as important as the fiduciary duty itself.