The Rosenbaum Law Firm P.C. Blog

If you’re a TPA and you’re not talking to your small business clients about SEP-IRAs, you’re missing the plot. But if you’re only talking about SEP-IRAs, you’re missing the opportunity.

I’ve always said that plan providers, especially TPAs, need to be more than form-fillers. You’re supposed to be consultants, strategists, educators. And when it comes to SEP-IRAs, too many of you are stuck in default mode: “Oh, they’re small. They can’t afford a 401(k). Just go with the SEP.”

Let me be blunt. That kind of thinking is lazy. And it’s bad for business, for yours and for your clients’.

The Case For SEP-IRAs (Yes, There Is One)

I get it. SEP-IRAs are easy. No Form 5500. No discrimination testing. No complicated eligibility rules. You write a check and move on. For sole props or tiny shops with no employees, they’re often a great fit. They let high-income earners sock away up to 25% of compensation (capped at $69,000 in 2024), without the administrative lift of a qualified plan.

As a gateway, SEP-IRAs make sense. They’re the training wheels of employer-sponsored retirement plans. But the problem is too many employers, and too many plan providers—never take the training wheels off.

Here’s the Rub: Employees Change the Equation

If your client has employees, a SEP-IRA starts to make a lot less sense. Why? Because every single eligible employee has to receive the same percentage contribution. There’s no flexibility. No favoring owners. No incentive structure. You’re giving away benefits like Oprah: “You get 25%! And YOU get 25%!”

Think about that. In a SEP, there’s no matching, no profit-sharing tiers, no vesting schedules. It’s one-size-fits-all, which sounds fair—until the business owner realizes they’re writing fat checks to every employee without any tools to retain or reward their top people.

Compare that with a 401(k)—especially one designed by a smart TPA. Now you’ve got real flexibility:

· Matching formulas that drive participation.

· Profit-sharing allocations that favor older, higher-compensated owners.

· Vesting schedules that reward loyalty.

· Automatic enrollment, Roth options, safe harbor designs—the list goes on.

Yes, there’s more work. But that’s what you’re here for.

Your Job Is to Look Around the Corner

Here’s where TPAs need to step up. Don’t just take the easy sale. If your client has more than one employee, or plans to hire more, the SEP-IRA is a temporary fix at best, and a costly mistake at worst.

Your value is not in processing plan documents. Your value is in showing clients how to maximize tax efficiency, build wealth, and incentivize talent. You don’t do that by rubber-stamping SEP-IRAs every time a CPA calls.

And speaking of CPAs, God bless ’em, but many are still stuck in the “SEP is simple, SEP is safe” mindset. That’s your moment. That’s your chance to be the expert in the room. Educate the CPA. Educate the client. Show them the numbers. Show them what a cross-tested 401(k) design could do. Show them how a solo 401(k) could outperform a SEP for owner-only plans with side-business income. Just show up.

A TPA’s Takeaway

If you’re serious about growing your practice and helping clients make smart decisions, you’ve got to move beyond “easy.” SEP-IRAs are fine, but they are not the answer for everyone. In fact, they’re often a sign that no one’s asking the hard questions.

So ask them.

Ask if the employer is looking to reward and retain employees. Ask if they want more control over contributions. Ask what their growth plans are. And if they say “I don’t know,” good—that’s your opening.

The SEP-IRA is not your enemy. But it’s not your finish line either. It’s a tool. Use it wisely. Then upgrade the client when the time is right.

Because you’re not just a TPA. You’re the architect of the retirement strategy. And every architect knows: the foundation matters, but the real magic is in the design.

Let me start with a confession: I love Bitcoin. I admire what it represents—decentralization, monetary freedom, borderless transactions, and the kind of disruption that makes traditional finance sweat. I hold it, I follow it, and I believe digital assets have a future in the broader investment world.

But here’s the other side of that coin, pun intended: I do not believe Bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrency, belongs in your 401(k) plan. Not now. Not yet. Maybe not ever.

Yes, I’ve read the headlines. The SEC’s 2025 regulatory pivot under Commissioner Hester Peirce’s Crypto Task Force is a bold move—removing outdated restrictions, issuing clarifications on staking and stablecoins, and even walking back the 2019 Joint Statement with FINRA. It’s a new era of regulatory clarity, and for crypto diehards, it feels like Christmas in July. Add in the DOL’s quiet about-face on crypto guidance, whispers of executive orders, and Fidelity’s rollout of crypto-enabled retirement accounts—and suddenly, digital assets aren’t fringe anymore. They’re knocking on the front door of mainstream retirement savings.

But here’s the rub: just because we can include crypto in 401(k) plans doesn’t mean we should.

401(k) Plans Are a Fiduciary Fortress, Not a Risk Playground

Let’s remember what 401(k) plans are. They are not speculative vehicles. They’re not where you chase moonshots. They are the slow, boring, tax-advantaged path to retirement. They are governed by ERISA, one of the most rigid, unforgiving regulatory frameworks out there. Every decision a fiduciary makes must be in the best interest of plan participants—not the loudest investor in the break room or the finance bro who read one Michael Saylor thread too many.

Bitcoin doesn’t break the mold—it shatters it. Its volatility, lack of intrinsic value, and reliance on market sentiment make it the exact opposite of what ERISA demands: prudence, stability, and predictability.

The Fiduciary Minefield Is Real

I don’t care how many clarifying statements the SEC or DOL issue. If you’re a plan sponsor and you offer crypto as an investment option in your 401(k), you’re volunteering to be a guinea pig for litigation. Because when Bitcoin drops 40% in a week—and it will—plaintiffs’ attorneys will come knocking. “Why did you offer such a risky asset?” “What due diligence did you perform?” “Where was the risk disclosure?”

Offering a volatile, poorly understood asset in a retirement plan is not fiduciary innovation—it’s fiduciary roulette.

Let’s Talk About Custody and Complexity

Sure, Fidelity and Coinbase Institutional have custody solutions. But let’s not kid ourselves: this isn’t buying an S&P 500 index fund. Crypto custody has its own unique risks, from hot wallet hacks to private key mismanagement to regulatory shifts that can freeze platforms overnight. We’re asking average American workers to navigate a minefield that even hedge funds struggle with.

Add to that the complexity of staking, forks, airdrops, meme coins, and evolving tax treatment, and suddenly you’ve built a participant education nightmare. Is this the world you want to drop your payroll deductions into?

Yes, There Are Benefits—But They Belong Outside the Plan

I get it. The case for crypto isn’t imaginary:

· Diversification? Check.

· Inflation hedge? Debatable, but okay.

· Exposure to financial innovation? Absolutely.

But that doesn’t mean it belongs in a tax-qualified, fiduciary-heavy vehicle like a 401(k). Want crypto exposure? Fine. Use a brokerage account. Use a Roth IRA with a self-directed option. Use your discretionary income. But don’t use the plan designed to be the financial lifeline for someone’s retirement.

Innovation Is Welcome—but Discipline Is Non-Negotiable

We are entering a new phase in retirement planning. Tokenized securities, blockchain infrastructure, and digital rails are here to stay. I’m not anti-crypto. I’m anti-complacency. I’m anti-fiduciary irresponsibility.

Crypto in 401(k) plans may one day be viable. But today? It’s a shiny object, and chasing it puts participants—and sponsors—at unnecessary risk. A conservative 1%–5% allocation doesn’t fix the fundamental issue: volatility and complexity don’t mix with retirement plans.

The Bottom Line

Bitcoin may be a beautiful, brilliant, world-changing asset. But your 401(k) plan is not the place to explore that beauty. It’s not a sandbox. It’s not an experiment. It’s a promise. A promise to act in the best interest of employees who just want to retire with dignity.

So let’s do them a favor and keep crypto where it belongs, for now, on the outside looking in.

I love Bitcoin. I love private equity. They’re two of my favorite investments, personally. But when it comes to 401(k) plan participants? I hate them. Not because the asset classes themselves are bad, they’re not. But because plan participants, by and large, make classic investing mistakes that alternative assets can make even worse.

Let me explain.

When you give everyday plan participants access to high-risk, low-liquidity investments, you’re handing a loaded gun to someone who thinks the safety’s on because the brochure said “diversification.” Most participants already struggle with things like chasing returns, buying high after something’s made headlines, and bailing out after a dip, locking in losses. They don’t understand time horizons, liquidity constraints, or what a capital call even is. And now we’re going to toss them the keys to private equity and Bitcoin in their retirement accounts?

The new Trump executive order that “broadens access to alternative assets in 401(k) plans” might look like a win for diversification and freedom of choice. And for a sophisticated investor with a financial advisor and a long investment horizon, it might be. But let’s not kid ourselves: most participants aren’t calling the shots with long-term strategy in mind. They’re reacting. They’re panicking. They’re following headlines, not fundamentals.

This isn’t about being a gatekeeper. It’s about being a fiduciary.

As a fiduciary, I have to ask: is this in the best interest of the participants, or is it a win for asset managers who see a new pool of capital to dip into? Because if it’s the latter, and it feels like the latter, then shame on us. Plan sponsors shouldn’t chase the flavor of the month or cave to pressure from providers who see dollar signs instead of people.

Alternative investments have their place. But for most participants, that place is outside their 401(k). Let’s not confuse optionality with responsibility.

Schwab’s latest 2025 RIA Benchmarking Study—based on self-reported data from approximately 1,288 independent advisory firms holding over $2.4 trillion in client assets—delivers powerful insights into what’s driving growth, efficiency, and performance in the RIA space today

1. Growth: Organic Remains King

Despite market swings, organic growth continues to fuel RIA expansion. The study shows median firm AUM rose by roughly 16.6%, revenue jumped by 17.6%, and client growth climbed nearly 4.8% in 2024. For Top Performing Firms, organic growth accounted for about 12.5% of total gains, double that of typical firms And here’s the kicker: firms with written strategic plans, defined client personas, integrated marketing efforts, and referral strategies saw 67% more new clients and 68% more new client assets than their peers. That’s not casual talk, it’s data. If your firm’s growth plan isn’t documented, it’s not really a plan.

2. Client Experience and Personalization: The New Differentiator

Nearly all firms, 95% are prioritizing personalization. Top Performing Firms lean into client segmentation, persona-driven service models, and AI-assisted workflows. Firms leveraging AI for meeting notes, CRM automation, or marketing copy are positioning themselves for deeper, more meaningful client engagement.

3. Talent Strategy: It’s a Growth Engine

Hiring is surging: nearly 78% of firms reported adding staff in 2024, making talent acquisition the second-highest strategic priority behind growth. Compensation in the industry is up roughly 17% over five years, and forward-thinking firms are offering mentorship, equity participation, and professional development programs, not just a higher paycheck.

4. Technology & AI: From Nice-to-Have to Non-Negotiable

RIAs are no longer optional users, they’re essential users of modern tech. About 68% of firms reported using AI tools in some capacity to streamline operations and deliver better client service. If your firm still sees technology as a backend afterthought, you’re missing out on one of the strongest competitive levers available today.

What It All Means: Strategy with Substance

Build the Game Plan

A written strategic plan isn’t just recommended, it’s a requirement if you want to play in the top tier. Firms without formal marketing plans, client personas, or referral playbooks are leaving growth on the table.

Focus on Trusted Relationships

Retention remains high, around 97% historically for legacy firms—with growth driven by referrals and deeper relationships. Delivering a personalized client experience is where scale meets trust.

Hire Smart, Not Just Fast

Competitive compensation helps, but so does culture, mentorship, and career development. Firms that invest in talent holistically are outperforming on growth, retention, and client service metrics.

Adopt AI with Purpose

AI is no longer futuristic. Advisors leveraging AI for client insights, meeting prep, or internal processes are building scalable businesses that can deliver higher-touch service efficiently.

A Parting Thought

Let’s cut to the chase: the 2025 Schwab RIA Benchmarking Study is less about vanity stats and more about cutting-edge strategy. It confirms what many successful firms already know—but too many ignore—that disciplined planning, client-centricity, talent focus, and tech adoption aren’t just buzzwords; they’re the foundation of growth. RIAs that still think “relationships work themselves out,” “we don’t need a strategic plan,” or “we’ll hire people as needed” are behind the curve. To join the ranks of Top Performing Firms, put pen to paper. Draft that client persona. Build that referral machine. Decide today whether you’re in the growth business, or just spinning wheels.This isn’t Schwab marketing, it’s evidence-based guidance drawn from $2.4 trillion of RIA data. If you’re serious about scaling, read the study. Use the benchmarking tools. And then do the work. Because data, discipline, and decisive execution separate the winners from the rest.

Sometimes, in the strange world of ERISA litigation, you get a surprise. And in Hutchins v. Hewlett Packard, we got one: the Department of Labor, yes, that DOL, the one whose name alone strikes fear into the heart of many plan sponsors, has filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of the employer.

That’s right. The DOL didn’t sue. It wasn’t a party. But in the first appellate-level case tackling forfeiture allocation under ERISA, the DOL felt compelled to jump in, not on the side of the plaintiffs, which is usually the case, but on the side of HP.

Let’s be clear: this is not the DOL turning into the employer’s best friend. The Department even acknowledged it had never weighed in on this issue before. And courts, rightfully, don’t like when agencies attempt to make law through litigation rather than through proper rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. But in this case, the DOL appears to be saying: “We can’t wait for years of notice and comment and inter-agency politics while litigation explodes across the country like brushfire.”

Forfeiture litigation isn’t new, but what’s changed is volume. We’re now talking about fifty-plus active cases, all attacking the use of plan forfeitures, often arguing they should’ve reduced employer contributions instead of covering plan administrative expenses. While district courts have generally sided with employers, the trickle of cases hasn’t slowed. That’s where the DOL likely felt pressure: a growing patchwork of inconsistent decisions and no clear, authoritative guidance.

What makes this case even more fascinating is that the DOL’s position wasn’t a given. This is the same Department that’s often criticized for aggressively siding with plan participants and making fiduciaries jump through regulatory flaming hoops. So when they side with the defense, you pay attention.

Now, let’s talk strategy. The DOL’s brief leaned heavily on the language of the plan document. That’s not surprising. In ERISA land, the plan document is gospel. If the plan explicitly allows forfeitures to pay for admin expenses, then that’s the rule. The DOL, to its credit, stuck to that orthodoxy. They also noted the plaintiffs’ case was thin on specifics, even after being amended. In litigation, that’s everything.

And because this is the Ninth Circuit, the appellate court for the Wild West of ERISA litigation, the DOL’s focus was understandably narrow, sticking to that Circuit’s precedent. Still, this brief is a shot across the bow to plaintiffs everywhere, and it signals that the DOL and the IRS are now singing from the same hymnal. That’s important, because some practitioners were rightly concerned that one agency might go rogue.

Perhaps the most compelling part of the DOL’s argument is their observation about the potential conflict between plan sponsors and plan administrators when forfeitures are involved. If a fiduciary is forced to use forfeitures to reduce employer contributions, rather than pay plan expenses, it puts them in a bind, because funding decisions belong to the plan sponsor (the

settlor), not the fiduciary. It’s the kind of nuance that ERISA nerds (like me) find thrilling and that casual readers find exhausting.

But before plan sponsors start celebrating or sending fruit baskets to the DOL, let’s pump the brakes. This is just a brief. The Ninth Circuit hasn’t ruled yet. They could ignore the DOL’s argument entirely. It’s happened before. And even if the court agrees, the ruling only binds courts in the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs’ lawyers in other circuits may not be deterred.

Still, this changes the game. The DOL has sent a signal: not every forfeiture allocation claim is going to fly. If you’re a fiduciary sitting on pins and needles because your forfeiture allocation is under attack, this might be the first decent night’s sleep you’ve had in a while. You’re not in the clear—but you’re not alone either.

Ultimately, what we have here is the DOL doing something pragmatic and, dare I say, refreshingly reasonable. They saw a litigation trend spiraling out of control, recognized the lack of regulatory clarity, and tried to inject some order. That doesn’t mean we’re headed for a golden age of DOL-employer camaraderie, but in a litigation climate that often feels like trench warfare, it’s nice to see a little common sense.

So for now, plan sponsors, keep doing what you’re doing, dotting the i’s, crossing the t’s, and following your plan document to the letter. And maybe, just maybe, don’t curse the DOL under your breath today. They might’ve just saved you from your next ERISA headache.

There’s a hard truth about being a plan sponsor or a plan provider: you can be doing everything right and still get sued. That’s the world we live in—especially in the retirement plan space. You can dot every “i,” cross every “t,” and follow ERISA to the letter, but none of that guarantees you’ll avoid a courtroom or, at the very least, a legal headache.

I’ve seen it firsthand. A plan sponsor who took their fiduciary duties seriously—reviewed fees regularly, kept great documentation, and ran a tight ship—still got hit with a lawsuit. Why? Because a participant got confused or upset about something they didn’t understand, and they found a lawyer who was happy to take the case. And guess what? It didn’t matter that the claims had no merit. The lawsuit still needed to be defended. Time was wasted. Legal fees piled up. And stress levels skyrocketed.

I know a fiduciary who got sued not for something they did, but for something their predecessor did—a guy who literally stole plan assets the year before. No connection, no fault, no wrongdoing—just bad luck and bad timing. That’s what happens when an overly aggressive attorney is looking to make a name or a buck.

We like to believe that competence is protection, and to an extent, it is. If you’re a plan sponsor or provider doing your job well, you’ll likely come out on the other side of litigation unscathed. But that doesn’t mean you won’t have to go through it. Being right doesn’t prevent the lawsuit. It just improves your odds once you’re in it.

So yes, there are ways to reduce your risk:

· Document everything.

· Run regular fee benchmarking.

· Stay on top of investments.

· Communicate clearly with participants.

· Hire experienced service providers.

But let’s be clear—you can reduce risk, but you can’t eliminate it. You can do everything right and still find yourself on the receiving end of a complaint because someone misread a statement or didn’t update their address or just didn’t like what they saw in their account balance.

In the retirement plan world, doing a good job isn’t always enough. It just means you’ll have a strong defense when the lawsuit comes—which, unfortunately, is sometimes the best we can hope for.

There’s a hard truth about being a plan sponsor or a plan provider: you can be doing everything right and still get sued. That’s the world we live in—especially in the retirement plan space. You can dot every “i,” cross every “t,” and follow ERISA to the letter, but none of that guarantees you’ll avoid a courtroom or, at the very least, a legal headache.

I’ve seen it firsthand. A plan sponsor who took their fiduciary duties seriously—reviewed fees regularly, kept great documentation, and ran a tight ship—still got hit with a lawsuit. Why? Because a participant got confused or upset about something they didn’t understand, and they found a lawyer who was happy to take the case. And guess what? It didn’t matter that the claims had no merit. The lawsuit still needed to be defended. Time was wasted. Legal fees piled up. And stress levels skyrocketed.

I know a fiduciary who got sued not for something they did, but for something their predecessor did—a guy who literally stole plan assets the year before. No connection, no fault, no wrongdoing—just bad luck and bad timing. That’s what happens when an overly aggressive attorney is looking to make a name or a buck.

We like to believe that competence is protection, and to an extent, it is. If you’re a plan sponsor or provider doing your job well, you’ll likely come out on the other side of litigation unscathed. But that doesn’t mean you won’t have to go through it. Being right doesn’t prevent the lawsuit. It just improves your odds once you’re in it.

So yes, there are ways to reduce your risk:

· Document everything.

· Run regular fee benchmarking.

· Stay on top of investments.

· Communicate clearly with participants.

· Hire experienced service providers.

But let’s be clear—you can reduce risk, but you can’t eliminate it. You can do everything right and still find yourself on the receiving end of a complaint because someone misread a statement or didn’t update their address or just didn’t like what they saw in their account balance.

In the retirement plan world, doing a good job isn’t always enough. It just means you’ll have a strong defense when the lawsuit comes—which, unfortunately, is sometimes the best we can hope for.

Could listing designated beneficiaries on a participant statement spark a fiduciary breach lawsuit? In today’s world, the answer is always yes — and in LeBoeuf v. Entergy, it did.

This case involved Alvin Martinez, a longtime Entergy employee who remarried but never updated his 401(k) beneficiary form. Despite receiving quarterly statements listing his children as beneficiaries, the plan correctly distributed his $3 million account to his second wife after his death, per ERISA rules (no spousal waiver = spouse gets it).

The children sued, arguing the statements were misleading. The district court dismissed it. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Why? Because:

· Plan documents and SPDs clearly said remarriage voids prior beneficiary designations;

· No one inquired about the rule — and fiduciaries aren’t liable for participant confusion absent a question;

· Entergy and T. Rowe Price weren’t acting as fiduciaries in just issuing statements.

Bottom line: Printing a name on a statement isn’t a fiduciary act. But it still took years of litigation to prove that.

Let this be a reminder: Participants need to know the rules — and update their forms. Spouses matter. Waivers matter. And if you’re a plan fiduciary, disclosure matters most of all.

I’ve been in the retirement plan business for 27 years, and during that time, I’ve seen the best and the worst it has to offer. But without a doubt, the most despicable person I’ve encountered is Matt Hutcheson. Matt paraded himself as a fiduciary expert, leveraging his appearance on PBS Frontline as proof of his supposed authority. Like an episode straight out of “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” where a character named Kieran MacDuff mysteriously appeared, Matt Hutcheson seemingly materialized out of nowhere, cloaking himself in credibility he never truly possessed.

Hutcheson was charismatic, hosting fiduciary symposiums and claiming connections that stretched all the way to a potential cabinet position as Secretary of Labor. He painted himself as a hero fighting for fiduciary transparency. Unfortunately, it was all smoke and mirrors. Behind the self-promotion, the truth was darker: Hutcheson was methodically embezzling millions from the multiple employer retirement plans (MEPs) he oversaw.

How do I know this? I replaced Hutcheson as fiduciary for one of the few MEPs he hadn’t robbed blind, though even that didn’t spare me from litigation. Unlike Hutcheson, I had fiduciary liability insurance, and because of it, I ended up getting sued. Meanwhile, Matt tried to convince me to suffer a default judgment in my own case so he could “rescue” me, another lie in an endless series of deceptions.

In 2013, Hutcheson was convicted on 17 counts of wire fraud involving more than $5 million in stolen retirement plan assets. Though sentenced to 17 years in prison, he somehow managed to secure a commutation. Yet karma wasn’t done with him. The Tax Court later determined that the $5,307,688 Hutcheson siphoned constituted taxable, unreported income. To add insult to injury, Hutcheson now owes back taxes, and severe penalties, on the stolen funds.

Reading through the court’s detailed findings reveals the depths of Hutcheson’s deception. He misappropriated retirement plan assets to fund an extravagant lifestyle, spending $1.2 million to purchase and renovate his own home, another $3 million attempting to buy a golf course, and yet another $1.2 million on personal and professional expenses. Judge Goeke made it crystal clear: Hutcheson had abandoned his fiduciary role, betraying the participants he was supposed to protect.

What’s particularly shocking is how long Hutcheson managed to maintain his facade. Despite clear warnings, despite the skepticism of participants who saw their distributions vanish, Hutcheson continued to double down, concocting elaborate lies to hide his theft. And ironically, while he testified before Congress advocating fiduciary transparency, he was secretly funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars into his pockets.

Judge Goeke didn’t mince words. He found Hutcheson’s explanations implausible, inconsistent, and utterly untrustworthy. The court concluded decisively that Hutcheson knowingly evaded taxes, underreported income by millions, and deserved every bit of the harsh penalties imposed.

This entire saga serves as a stark reminder for those of us involved in retirement plan management. Adopting employers were the ones who ultimately uncovered Hutcheson’s criminal acts, not regulators or watchdogs. It’s a sobering lesson about the importance of vigilance and due diligence. Fiduciary responsibility isn’t a mere title or a box to check; it’s a profound obligation demanding continuous oversight and integrity.

As we move toward simplifying retirement plans and reducing burdens on employers, let’s never forget the essential role of ongoing oversight. Removing barriers to plan adoption is important, but we cannot compromise fiduciary vigilance. Hutcheson’s story underscores the necessity of maintaining constant, careful monitoring of providers, particularly in multiple employer settings. Otherwise, we risk repeating history, and enabling fraudsters like Matt Hutcheson to strike again.

After six long years of litigation, Intel’s 401(k) plan design just got a big legal endorsement. A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit dismissed a lawsuit filed by plan participants who claimed that including hedge funds and private equity in the company’s defined contribution plans was a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA.

This decision is important—not just because it ends a legal marathon, but because it puts to rest the argument that certain investment types, like private equity or hedge funds, are automatically off-limits for participant-directed plans.

The plaintiffs tried to paint these investment options as high-fee, high-risk landmines. They also tried to claim a conflict of interest, accusing Intel of funneling plan money into companies tied to its venture capital arm. But the courts weren’t buying it. The district court tossed the case, citing a lack of any valid performance comparisons or evidence of actual conflicts. And now, the Ninth Circuit has backed that decision.

Here’s what this ruling really means for plan sponsors: ERISA doesn’t prohibit complexity. It prohibits imprudence. If a plan sponsor includes private equity or hedge fund options as part of a thoughtfully constructed, well-documented investment lineup—one that fits within a diversified portfolio and serves the best interests of participants—that’s not a breach. That’s fiduciary judgment.

Let’s be honest: not every plan should offer private equity. But for larger plans with access to institutional share classes and the tools to educate participants, this ruling confirms what some of us already knew—there’s no one-size-fits-all definition of prudence.

Intel stuck to its guns. It documented its process. It didn’t back down when the lawsuits came. And now, it has a federal appellate decision to show for it.

The takeaway? Plan fiduciaries who follow a sound process shouldn’t be scared of complexity. They should be scared of neglecting their process.