The Rosenbaum Law Firm P.C. Blog

The Investment Company Institute reports that U.S. retirement assets bounced back in Q2 2025, setting record highs. That’s good news — but it’s also a reminder to stay sharp.

What’s driving the climb?

· Market appreciation lifted balances.

· Steady employee/employer contributions added fuel.

· Rollovers and consolidations continue to funnel money into IRAs and DC plans.

The caveats:

· These gains are fragile — one market downturn and the “record” headline disappears.

· Disparities remain: high-balance accounts capture most of the upside.

· Leakage from loans, withdrawals, and fees still eats away at growth.

· Regulatory shifts can quickly change the rules of the game.

What plan sponsors and advisors should do now:

· Stress-test for flat or down markets.

· Tailor communications by participant segment.

· Reinforce value and transparency on fees.

· Tighten controls around leakage.

· Stay on top of regulatory changes.

The record is a checkpoint, not a finish line. Success in retirement planning is measured in outcomes, not headlines.

If you want to stay out of DOL trouble, here’s what I’d tell you over a drink,no legalese, just practical advice.

1. Cybersecurity is a fiduciary issue. The DOL is digging deep into cybersecurity practices, going well past HIPAA compliance. Having an “IT policy” on the shelf won’t cut it. Auditors will want to see meeting minutes, risk assessments, device policies, and even how you handle portable devices and payroll data.

2. Vet and tighten your vendor contracts now. Review your agreements with vendors and recordkeepers (especially those handling participant data or payroll info). Make sure the contracts require strong data security standards, reporting on cyber incidents, encryption, and notifications. And yes—make sure the vendors can’t wiggle out of liability when things go sideways.

3. Look for documentation, not just policies. It’s easy to write a cybersecurity plan, less easy to prove you executed it. The DOL will ask for audit reports, risk assessments, training logs, breach investigations, and communications about security protocols. If you don’t have documented follow-through, you’re vulnerable.

4. Train your people, and document that training. Cybersecurity training isn’t just a “nice to have.” It’s expected. Keep records: who was trained, when, by whom, and what materials were used. The DOL is looking for that chain of evidence.

5. Check your insurance, and insist on cyber coverage. Cyber-insurance isn’t just for tech companies. Review your policies now—what do they cover? Do they address social engineering, phishing, identity theft, or data breaches? What are the limits? Have you made claims before? The DOL might ask.

6. Bring cybersecurity into your plan oversight meetings. Just like you review investment performance or vendor contracts periodically, cybersecurity should be a recurring agenda item for your plan committee. If you treat it as an afterthought, you’ll have trouble explaining your oversight in a DOL audit.

Final Word: Cybersecurity isn’t just an IT problem, it’s an ERISA oversight issue. If you don’t treat participant data protections, vendor security, and breach preparedness as fiduciary responsibilities, don’t be surprised when a DOL audit rips your plan apart. Better to prepare before the audit letters hit.

When it comes to retirement plan regulations, the only constant is change—and the Roth catch-up requirement under SECURE 2.0 has been a rollercoaster. The IRS and Treasury finally issued their final regulations, and plan sponsors can breathe, somewhat, knowing that the mandatory Roth catch-up for high-income participants aged 50 and up won’t kick in until taxable years beginning after December 31, 2026. That delay is a gift, considering how chaotic this provision could have been if it went live as originally scheduled in 2024.

What’s clear is that the agencies listened to industry pushback. The final rules offer flexibility, such as allowing administrators to use prior-year wages from certain common-law employers to determine who’s subject to the rule. They also addressed correction mechanics, Roth election defaults, Puerto Rico plan coverage, and even gave government plans and collectively bargained plans extra breathing room. NAGDCA’s lobbying didn’t go unheard.

The bottom line? This isn’t an indefinite reprieve. Employers can adopt the requirement early, but they’ll need a “reasonable, good faith interpretation” of the statute. Notice 2023-62’s transition relief still ends December 31, 2025. By 2027, the Roth catch-up mandate will be reality, and plan sponsors, TPAs, and advisors should spend the next two years building systems, updating payroll feeds, and educating participants.

Because in my experience, nothing angers a 50-year-old high earner more than finding out their “extra” savings aren’t going in the way they expected. And nothing angers the IRS more than noncompliance.

If you’re a plan sponsor, here’s what I’d tell you about the growing conversation around cryptocurrency in retirement plans.

1. Risks Are Real — and Fiduciary Responsibility Wins

Cryptocurrency might seem sexy or edgy, but from a fiduciary standpoint, it’s a minefield. Lack of regulation, market volatility, operational risk, and custody and valuation challenges all pose problems. Fiduciaries can’t simply shrug and hope “the millennials” want crypto. ERISA standards demand prudent due diligence and proper process.

Takeaway for sponsors: just because crypto is “on the menu” doesn’t mean you have to serve it. Or worse, force-feed it.

2. The Regulatory Weather Is Unsettled

Back in 2022, the Department of Labor issued a stern warning—telling plan fiduciaries to “exercise extreme care” before offering crypto in retirement plans. That guidance was later rescinded, shifting DOL’s position to a more neutral stance. But “neutral” does not mean “endorsing,” and it certainly doesn’t eliminate fiduciary risk.

The regulatory pendulum might swing again. If you’re thinking about crypto, keep your eyes on upcoming guidance and potential litigation issues.

Takeaway for sponsors: don’t assume the current hands-off posture means risk has evaporated, far from it.

3. Operational Complexity Can Be Overlooked, at Great Cost

Crypto doesn’t behave like a mutual fund or a bond. It raises real questions around:

· Custody: Who holds the asset, who controls the keys, and what happens if private keys are lost?

· Valuation: How do you price it on your plan books?

· Liquidity: Can participants get out when they need to?

· Recordkeeping, fees, and fund structuring: How do investment flows get tracked, reported, audited, and reconciled for ERISA compliance?

These aren’t trivial details, they’re everyday plan administration issues that can become fiduciary nightmares if mishandled. If your provider can’t show you how they’re solving these issues—don’t go there.

4. Education, Communication, and Participant Experience Are Key

Crypto is not a vanilla investment. Most people don’t understand blockchain, wallets, private keys, or volatility cycles. Participant understanding is a major concern.

It’s not enough to add a “crypto option” and assume participants will read a disclosure notice. Plan sponsors must educate and communicate clearly, especially about:

· upside and downside

· the speculative nature of crypto

· volatility and drawdowns

· the risk that participants could lose everything, especially if they get into crypto late in their saving timeline

Lesson: crypto isn’t just another TDF or large-cap equity fund with a shiny label. Treat it like a foreign language when you roll it out.

5. If You Do Consider It — Think Small, Wrapped, and Optional

If, after all that, you still think crypto deserves a place in your retirement lineup, here are a few guardrails to consider:

· Limit exposure. Don’t let crypto become a major part of the core default investment lineup. Treat it as a niche or optional exposure, not a central building block.

· Wrap it in a fund or managed product. Some sponsors may offer crypto exposure via target-date or multi-asset funds, or through professionally managed vehicles, rather than giving participants direct access to raw crypto.

· Use education and opt-in. If crypto is offered, make it opt-in, with clear participant disclosures, not a default or core menu item. Let participants choose it, don’t force it.

· Update your Investment Policy Statement (IPS). If crypto is being evaluated, your IPS needs to explicitly address it: how it will be evaluated, how performance will be monitored, how fund providers will be vetted, and how liquidity and risk assessments are built into the oversight process.

6. But Here’s the Bigger Picture: Crypto Is a Distraction from What Really Moves the Needle

Crypto is sexy, crypto is headline-grabbing, and crypto makes for great marketing speeches. But if you are a sponsor who hasn’t nailed your auto-enrollment design, your match formula, your participant communication strategy, or your low-cost qualified default investment alternative, then crypto is a distraction. Participants don’t save less because there’s no Bitcoin—they save less because they aren’t engaged, don’t understand what to do, or don’t get a match. They don’t retire because they don’t save, not because they didn’t have crypto.

Crypto may be “the next frontier.” But retirement savings failure today isn’t about missing the next frontier, it’s about not winning the frontier we’re already on.

Final Word

Crypto in retirement plans comes with real opportunity, but even more real risk. As plan sponsors, your job isn’t to chase every shiny new investment trend. It’s to build durable, well-designed, financially secure retirement plans, and to safeguard participants’ savings for decades—not for a spectacular crypto rally.

If you’re thinking about crypto, do your homework. Document your process. Ask hard questions. Don’t assume regulatory neutrality means risk is gone. And above all, ask yourself: Would I rather be the sponsor who led participants into a crypto windfall, or the sponsor who led participants through a crypto meltdown and into a lawsuit?

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.