The Rosenbaum Law Firm P.C. Blog

I’ve always said that robbing a bank with a pair of pantyhose on your head is a smarter crime than stealing from a retirement plan. At least the bank robber has a shot at making it out the door. An ERISA fiduciary who dips into plan assets? Forget it. Trust statements showing embezzlement are better than fingerprints. The paper trail never lies, and sooner or later, the Department of Labor, the IRS, or the DOJ is going to follow it.

Case in point: James Vincent Campbell, CEO and founder of Axim Fringe Solutions Group, LLC, was indicted for allegedly embezzling more than $2.4 million from an ERISA benefit plan. His mistake? He apparently thought the money participants set aside for their retirement and health benefits was his personal piggy bank to fund exotic hunting trips, casino runs, and even taxidermy bills. Yes, you read that right — he allegedly spent plan money to mount trophies from the animals he hunted.

The Allegations

According to the Department of Justice, Campbell, 47, of Scottsdale, Arizona, is facing one count of theft from an ERISA plan and 11 counts of money laundering. He’s pleaded not guilty.

The indictment alleges that Axim’s clients — federal contractors employing workers covered under Davis-Bacon and Service Contract Act wage determinations — sent funds to Axim to cover retirement contributions and health insurance premiums. Axim was supposed to forward those funds to retirement accounts and insurance carriers, collecting a contractual fee of $40 per employee per month for its services.

But instead, prosecutors say Campbell pooled the money into a master trust account and then helped himself. Over nearly a decade, from 2015 through 2024, he allegedly made 135 unauthorized withdrawals, totaling almost $2.5 million.

What did he spend it on? Hunting trips in Alaska and Africa. Taxidermy services to preserve those big-game “trophies.” Jewelry. Gambling. And payments to his girlfriend. Not exactly the expenses ERISA had in mind when Congress set up fiduciary rules.

What’s at Stake

If convicted, Campbell faces up to 10 years for each money laundering count and 5 years for theft from an ERISA plan. That’s the kind of sentencing math where you don’t need a calculator to know he could be looking at serious time. And unlike plan sponsors who might argue about fiduciary interpretation, outright theft is black-and-white. You can’t argue that a big game safari in Namibia somehow benefitted plan participants.

The DOJ’s release was quick to remind us that an indictment is just an allegation and Campbell is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But the facts alleged here follow a familiar pattern in plan theft cases: the money comes in, the fiduciary holds it too long, and temptation takes over. What starts as “just a little” misappropriation snowballs into years of theft until someone finally notices.

Lessons for Plan Sponsors and Providers

If you’re a plan sponsor, this story is more than just tabloid fodder about a guy funding his adventures with participant money. It’s a warning:

· Monitor Your Providers. Don’t just assume contributions are being deposited. Get proof. Review reports. Demand reconciliations.

· Follow the Money. ERISA requires timely deposit of participant contributions. If a provider is pooling assets in a master account, that’s not necessarily illegal — but it’s an invitation for abuse if no one is watching.

· Remember the Optics. The public doesn’t differentiate between a rogue provider and the employer’s plan. If participants’ money is stolen, you will face the blowback, even if you weren’t indicted.

And if you’re a provider? For heaven’s sake, don’t steal. This industry isn’t glamorous, but it is built on trust. You might get away with questionable marketing, or sloppy administration for a while — but you will never get away with taking participants’ money.

The Smarter Crime?

As I said, stealing from a retirement plan is dumber than robbing a bank in pantyhose. At least the bank robber doesn’t leave behind a trust statement showing every dollar that disappeared. Campbell allegedly left a decade-long financial paper trail that prosecutors didn’t have to dig hard to follow. If guilty, he’ll have traded his African safaris for a federal prison jumpsuit.

In the end, ERISA is about protecting participants’ hard-earned savings. Cases like this remind us that the system works — but only after the damage is done. And that’s the real tragedy: $2.4 million that should have gone to workers’ retirements and healthcare was instead spent on taxidermy bills.

When it comes to ERISA crimes, there’s no such thing as a clean getaway.

When most people think about ERISA lawsuits, the usual suspects are plan sponsors. They’re the fiduciaries who pick the investments, hire the service providers, and have the crosshairs on their backs when plaintiffs’ firms go looking for blood. But every once in a while, the tables turn, and it’s the providers themselves who end up in the defendant’s chair. That’s exactly what happened in New Jersey, where three participants in separate plans are accusing Empower Advisory Group LLC and its affiliates of orchestrating a scheme to mislead participants into rolling over into high-fee products.

The Complaint

The plaintiffs are from three very different plans:

· Shakira Williams-Linzey, from the Central Jersey Family Health Consortium 403(b).

· Jennifer Patton, from the Heliogen, Inc. 401(k).

· Kathleen McFarland, from the Global Medical Response, Inc. 401(k).

Together, they allege that Empower and its web of affiliates—Empower Retirement LLC, Empower Financial Services Inc., and Empower Annuity Insurance Co. of America—crossed the line from being neutral recordkeepers into being conflicted salespeople. The accusation? That Empower harvested confidential participant data and then used it to target those nearing retirement or with larger balances, steering them into what was portrayed as “the” recommended investment solution: managed accounts branded as Empower Premier IRA and My Total Retirement.

On paper, these programs promised personalized, objective advice. In reality, the lawsuit says, participants got little more than cookie-cutter asset allocations stuffed with Empower-affiliated funds, along with fee layers that could reach 1.35% of assets.

The Fee Angle

If you’ve been in this business long enough, you know where plaintiffs’ lawyers love to sink their teeth—fees. And the complaint here reads like a case study:

· Advisory fee: up to 0.55%.

· Fund expenses: often flowing back to Empower affiliates.

· All-in cost: as high as 1.35%.

Now, one and a third percent may not sound like highway robbery if you’re thinking in retail-brokerage terms, but in the retirement plan world, that’s going to catch a fiduciary litigator’s eye. When you add the allegations that sales reps were incentivized by bonuses and commissions—despite Empower’s public claims that they were “salaried and unbiased”—you start to see why plaintiffs’ counsel believes they have a live one.

A Familiar Pattern

If all this sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve seen this movie before. Back in 2021, TIAA-CREF shelled out $97 million to settle charges over misleading rollover practices. The allegations in that case? Very similar—sales reps pushing participants toward in-house managed products under the guise of objective advice. The law firm behind the Empower suit, Schlichter Bogard, is no stranger to these kinds of fights. When Schlichter shows up, you know it’s serious.

Empower’s Position

To no surprise, Empower says the claims are meritless, pointing out that plaintiffs’ firms like Schlichter regularly sue providers. That may be true, but it doesn’t mean every complaint is frivolous. Empower is the second-largest recordkeeper in the country, with over $1.4 trillion in assets and 17.4 million participants. When you operate at that scale, your compliance practices had better be bulletproof—because if they’re not, the ripple effects hit millions of savers.

What It Means for the Industry

This lawsuit is yet another reminder that plan providers aren’t immune from ERISA’s fiduciary standards. It’s not just sponsors who need to worry about their duty of loyalty and prudence. When providers leverage participant data to cross-sell, or when they blur the line between objective advice and product distribution, they’re painting a target on their backs.

In the end, the question is simple: were participants given truly independent advice, or were they funneled into high-fee, proprietary investments under the guise of objectivity? If it’s the latter, Empower could find itself in the same club as TIAA and others who paid dearly for similar allegations.

My Take

For years, I’ve said this business is about trust. Whether you’re a TPA, an advisor, or a recordkeeper, you don’t get to play both sides of the table. If you’re going to present yourself as a fiduciary, you can’t have your hand in the till through revenue-sharing, proprietary funds, or hidden fee layers. Eventually, someone will call you out on it.

The Empower case is a cautionary tale. Providers need to make a choice: are they in the business of delivering unbiased fiduciary guidance, or are they in the business of selling product? Because trying to do both under the same roof rarely ends well.

The Insured Retirement Institute (IRI) is once again carrying water for the annuity industry, this time urging the Department of Labor to retain a regulatory safe harbor that’s already obsolete. The safe harbor in question, rooted in the Pension Protection Act of 2006, was designed to give plan fiduciaries guidance in selecting annuity providers. But the DOL is correct in its proposal to eliminate it, because Congress already provided a more streamlined fiduciary safe harbor in the SECURE Act of 2019.

The DOL isn’t removing the protections for fiduciaries; it’s removing redundancy. And redundancy in regulation isn’t harmless, it’s confusing, it’s inefficient, and it creates traps for the unwary. Fiduciary law is complicated enough without giving plan sponsors two competing “paths” for compliance.

Annuities Don’t Belong in 401(k) Plans

IRI frames this as a fight over lifetime income options, but let’s be clear: the real issue is whether the annuity industry gets an easier time pushing its products into 401(k) plans. I’ve never been a fan of annuities in defined contribution plans. Why? Because they bring the same problems they’ve always had:

· High costs and opaque fees. Annuities often come loaded with surrender charges, hidden expenses, and compensation structures that enrich the insurer and the salesperson, not the participant.

· Complexity. 401(k)s are already complex enough without layering on an insurance contract that few participants will ever fully understand.

· Illiquidity. Plan participants expect flexibility from their 401(k) savings. Locking them into annuities undermines one of the key advantages of the DC system.

The idea of guaranteed income in retirement sounds great in theory. In practice, annuities inside 401(k)s create more fiduciary risk, not less. The “safety” that annuities promise is outweighed by the costs and risks of giving participants products that may not fit their needs.

Fiduciaries Don’t Need Two Safe Harbors

IRI argues that eliminating the regulatory safe harbor will disrupt fiduciary practices. That’s nonsense. Fiduciaries still have the statutory safe harbor from the SECURE Act, which is clearer and directly tied to ERISA. The DOL is doing plan sponsors a favor by streamlining the rules.

The annuity lobby’s real concern isn’t about fiduciaries—it’s about sales. The more annuities are framed as “safe” for plans, the easier it is for insurers to pressure sponsors into adding them. That’s not about retirement security; that’s about distribution channels and profit margins.

The Bottom Line

The DOL is right. Fiduciary rules should be streamlined, not cluttered with duplicative, outdated provisions. The retirement plan marketplace doesn’t need more excuses to wedge annuities into 401(k) plans. Participants are better served with transparency, diversification, and liquidity—things annuities rarely deliver. Plan sponsors should resist the pressure. Just because the annuity industry wants a broader playground doesn’t mean you have to give them access to your participants’ retirement savings.

When Congress passes a bill with a title like the “One Beautiful Bill,” you can already guess who had their fingerprints on it. Out of this legislation comes the so-called Trump Account, a new hybrid savings vehicle that sits somewhere between a Section 529 Plan, a Roth IRA, and a cafeteria plan add-on. While many questions remain unanswered, employers should start familiarizing themselves with the basic framework.

How Do Trump Accounts Operate?

No contributions can be made before July 4, 2026, meaning employers and families have almost a year to evaluate whether they want to play in this sandbox.

Starting that date, contributions may be made annually until the child beneficiary reaches age 18. Contributions can come from parents, employers, extended family, or “others,” subject to an annual cap of $5,000 (unchanged through 2027).

Children born between December 31, 2024 and January 1, 2029 will automatically receive a $1,000 Federal contribution, unless parents opt out. In those cases, the IRS will open an account for the child unless one is already established.

Withdrawals are subject to restrictions—qualified education expenses, certain life events, and specific timing rules. In other words, think 529 Plan meets IRA rules: stray from the “qualified” use, and the IRS will hit you with penalties.

Employer Angle: Trump Accounts as an Employee Benefit

Employers are permitted to contribute up to $2,500 per year (steady through 2027) into a Trump Account for an employee or their dependent. These employer contributions are excluded from gross income—meaning they’re treated as a pre-tax benefit.

Administration will likely mirror that of a Section 125 Cafeteria Plan. That means:

· A written plan document will be required.

· Employee notifications must be issued.

· Contributions must pass nondiscrimination testing, similar to the rules for dependent care accounts.

That last point is critical: the IRS won’t let employers skew Trump Account contributions toward highly compensated employees. Fail the test, and corrections will be required.

Next Steps for Employers

While the Trump Account could be marketed as a patriotic savings tool with employee appeal, practical hurdles remain. Employers need clarity on key issues, including:

· Must employees open their own accounts before employers can contribute?

· Will employees be allowed to make pre-tax deferrals into these accounts?

· What remedies will be available if an employer fails nondiscrimination testing?

· How are contributions reported on Form W-2?

Until these questions are answered through IRS guidance and further regulations, the Trump Account remains more concept than practical tool.

Bottom Line

For now, Trump Accounts are a political talking point dressed up as a savings vehicle. Employers should keep them on their radar because, if the IRS and Treasury work out the details, these accounts may offer a low-cost benefit with real tax advantages.

But as with most shiny new benefits, the devil is in the details—and the IRS hasn’t published those yet. Employers should hold off on rushing into plan design until they can see what’s under the hood.

A new Empower survey has made some waves in the retirement plan industry. According to their July 2025 survey, a striking 68% of advisors already use private market investments—things like private equity, private credit, and private real estate, mostly in high-net-worth or wealth-advised accounts. More surprising is that 58% of those advisors would recommend private markets within retirement plans. Among advisors with pension or defined benefit experience, that number jumps to 75%. Overall, 43% of advisors are open to the idea.

On its face, this looks like momentum. Edmund F. Murphy III, Empower’s CEO, framed it as aligning the U.S. defined contribution system with the global investing universe, where private markets are hardly niche. The survey points to diversification (62%), higher return potential (48%), and lower correlation to public markets (48%) as the perceived benefits. The challenges—liquidity (68%), fees (48%), and complexity (33%)—are exactly the reasons I’ve always been skeptical about shoehorning private equity into 401(k)s.

I’ve been around this business long enough to know that plan participants already struggle with traditional investments. Too many chase performance, too many cash out at the wrong time, and too many don’t diversify properly. Adding illiquid and opaque private investments to that mix is like handing matches to someone who already leaves the stove on. The professionals in pension funds may have the sophistication and governance structure to handle private markets, but average 401(k) participants and their plan committees? That’s another story.

The survey also shows that 66% of advisors would be more inclined to recommend private markets if ERISA and the Department of Labor provided greater regulatory clarity. Translation: advisors want the legal cover before they stick their necks out. And that’s fair. Plan sponsors live under the constant threat of fiduciary liability, and the risk of litigation grows exponentially when you add complexity.

Empower isn’t just floating ideas—they’ve already moved. Back in May 2025, they launched a program offering access to private investments through seven major asset managers via collective investment trusts (CITs). The structure is designed to address liquidity and fees while offering limited exposure. It’s a landmark initiative, and if it succeeds, it could change the shape of the retirement plan investment menu.

But here’s the thing: private markets are not a magic wand. Yes, they offer diversification and potential returns, but they also come with higher fees, opaque pricing, and limited liquidity. Defined benefit plans can absorb those risks because they pool assets and make decisions centrally. Defined contribution plans, by their very nature, push decisions down to individuals. And when individuals make bad investment decisions, they pay the price, not the plan.

To me, the jury is still out. Private markets may have a place in retirement plans, but that place needs to be small, carefully monitored, and overseen by fiduciaries who truly understand what they’re buying. Without that, private equity in a 401(k) isn’t diversification—it’s a liability waiting to happen.

As with most things in this business, good intentions are never enough. The road to litigation is paved with them.

One of my favorite movie scenes in Donnie Brasco is when Lefty and the crew bust open city parking meters for dimes because they’ve got to make their weekly nut. Sometimes, I feel like ERISA litigation is the same thing, plaintiffs’ attorneys are searching for loose change in the form of new fiduciary causes of action. The latest example? Becerra v. Bank of America Corp. On Tuesday, Judge Max Cogburn Jr. in the Western District of North Carolina denied Bank of America’s motion to dismiss a case that cuts right into a sore spot for plan sponsors: the use of forfeitures. The plaintiffs claim Bank of America improperly used forfeited plan assets—millions of dollars’ worth, to offset its own future contributions instead of paying plan expenses. In their view, that’s not just bad optics, it’s a fiduciary breach under ERISA.

The Fiduciary Question

Bank of America argued that its use of forfeitures was a “settlor” decision, outside the scope of ERISA’s fiduciary rules. That’s been the line many plan sponsors have leaned on when it comes to plan design decisions. But Judge Cogburn wasn’t buying it—at least not yet. He held that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a breach of fiduciary duty by claiming plan assets were used to reduce employer contributions, not for the exclusive benefit of participants.

It’s worth noting that courts haven’t spoken with one voice on this issue. Some judges have accepted the “settlor” argument. Others, like Cogburn here, have kept the door open for plaintiffs to proceed. The Department of Labor hasn’t helped by filing an amicus brief in other forfeiture cases that supports employers, further muddying the waters.

Anti-Inurement and Prohibited Transactions

The decision also breathes life into claims under ERISA’s anti-inurement clause and prohibited transactions rule. The anti-inurement provision says plan assets can’t inure to the benefit of the employer. Plaintiffs allege that using forfeitures to lower contributions is exactly that. On prohibited transactions, Cogburn noted that the complaint plausibly alleged “self-dealing”—using plan assets in a way that benefits the employer.

If those claims stick, it could be costly. With a $63 billion plan covering over 250,000 participants, Bank of America is a very big target.

What It Means for Plan Sponsors

This isn’t a ruling on the merits, but it’s a reminder that forfeitures are a landmine. The regulations allow forfeitures to be used to pay plan expenses or to reduce future employer contributions. Many sponsors, and many plan documents, lean on that second option. But cases like Becerra show that just because the regulations say you can doesn’t mean plaintiffs’ lawyers won’t try to argue you shouldn’t.

This is why I tell plan sponsors that “doing the right thing” isn’t always enough—you have to be able to show it. Document your forfeiture policy, make sure your plan document is crystal clear,

and when in doubt, consider applying forfeitures toward legitimate plan expenses. That’s a harder target for plaintiffs to attack.

Final Bell

The Bank of America case is just getting started, but it’s another skirmish in the larger war over how far fiduciary liability extends. Until we get more consistent rulings—or better guidance from the DOL, plan sponsors need to treat forfeitures with the same care they’d treat investment lineups or fee arrangements.

Because when it comes to ERISA litigation, the plaintiffs’ bar is going to keep shaking every meter, looking for dimes.

When it comes to retirement plan litigation, the common theme I’ve noticed over the years is that lawsuits rarely die in the early rounds. A fiduciary’s best hope is to win on summary judgment or at trial, but a motion to dismiss? That’s usually a long shot. And Sentara Healthcare just found that out the hard way.

In Carter et al. v. Sentara Healthcare Fiduciary Committee et al., the Eastern District of Virginia refused to toss claims that Sentara and its fiduciary committee breached their duties by mismanaging a stable value fund, the Guaranteed Interest Balance Contract (GIBC) from Principal. While one plaintiff, Bonny Davis, initially lacked standing because she wasn’t yet in the GIBC, the court granted her leave to amend, effectively keeping her in the game. That’s like arguing your opponent doesn’t have a ticket to the dance, only for the judge to hand them one at the door.

Why This Matters

Stable value funds are supposed to be the “safe harbor” in a defined contribution plan, the place where risk-averse participants can find steady returns. The plaintiffs here allege the GIBC fell short of that promise, claiming its returns lagged far behind what comparable products offered at the same level of risk. That’s a damning accusation, because ERISA isn’t about guaranteeing the highest return, it’s about guaranteeing a prudent process. If the committee didn’t properly monitor the investment or solicit competitive bids, the court is saying that’s enough to let the case move forward.

And the hammer didn’t just fall on the committee. Judge Walker made it clear that Sentara itself, as the plan sponsor, has independent oversight duties. Employers sometimes think they can silo off risk by delegating responsibility to a committee, but ERISA doesn’t work that way. If the committee makes a mistake and the employer sits on its hands, the employer is just as liable for failing to step in. As the court put it, Sentara had the duty “to monitor investments and remove imprudent ones” and to rectify poor decisions.

The Bigger Picture

This isn’t a headline-grabbing case about excessive recordkeeping fees or overpriced share classes. It’s about something that most sponsors overlook, monitoring supposedly “safe” options. With $3 billion in plan assets and over 40,000 participants, Sentara is a big target. But size doesn’t matter when it comes to fiduciary responsibility; process does. A plan with $30 million in assets can just as easily get tripped up if it fails to follow a prudent process.

The lesson? Fiduciaries must treat every investment option, whether it’s an S&P 500 index fund or a stable value contract, with the same disciplined monitoring process. That means reviewing performance relative to peers, documenting discussions, and yes, occasionally soliciting bids to make sure the product is still competitive. If you assume “safe” means “immune from litigation,” this case should disabuse you of that notion.

Final Thoughts

Sentara says it will show the court evidence of its prudent practices at summary judgment. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. But this case underscores the central truth of ERISA litigation: motions to dismiss rarely save you, and fiduciary oversight is never passive. You can delegate responsibilities, but you can’t delegate accountability.

The road to fiduciary trouble isn’t paved with bad intentions—it’s paved with complacency. And as Sentara is finding out, complacency can be very expensive.

Years ago, back in law school, I was the Executive Editor of the student news magazine. It wasn’t the New York Times, but it was our little soapbox to gripe about professors, tuition hikes, and the lousy food in the cafeteria. In one of my last issues, a friend of mine wrote a piece that was as hilarious as it was true. His beef was with the timing of professor evaluations. They were always handed out before final exams, before we knew our grades. He argued, quite convincingly, that evaluations should come after grades, because nothing colors your impression of a professor like the grade you get. In his words, a good grade meant you’d happily wave to that professor on the street; a bad grade meant you wouldn’t even relieve yourself on them if they were on fire. It was crude, it was biting, but it was also dead on. Our real view of the class usually came after we saw our transcript.

That article sticks with me because it reminds me of retirement plan sponsors and their relationship with third-party administrators (TPAs). Sponsors usually don’t get the real picture of their TPA’s competency until they’re walking out the door—during the dreaded de-conversion process. A de-conversion is just what it sounds like: unwinding your plan from the old TPA to hand it over to the new one. And like moving apartments in the middle of a New York summer, it’s rarely fun and sometimes downright miserable.

Why is it harrowing? Because the truth comes out in the move. If you’ve been working with a solid TPA, or if you’ve kept an eye on things with annual compliance reviews, then de-conversion is smooth. The boxes are labeled, the furniture makes it through the door, and you can actually see the floor when it’s done. But if you’ve been asleep at the wheel—if you don’t know the difference between the ADP test and ADP, the payroll company—you’re in for some nasty surprises.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been called in by a plan sponsor during a transition, only to find skeletons tumbling out of the compliance closet. Plans that should have failed their Top Heavy test but didn’t because the TPA flubbed it. Plans with years of overcharging hidden in plain sight. And let me tell you: no new TPA wants to inherit a mess. They’ll make you clean it up before they take on the plan, which means more cost, more headaches, and more sleepless nights for the sponsor.

That’s why I always tell clients: don’t wait for a breakup to find out who you were really dating. Do an annual review. Call it a plan tune-up, a compliance check, or whatever you want, but get an independent look at your plan’s administration. Whether it’s my $750 Retirement Plan Tune-Up or someone else’s review, the point is the same: know what you’re dealing with before you’re forced to confront it. Because when it comes to TPAs, the evil you know is always better than the evil you don’t.

In the retirement plan business, I’ve watched too many plan providers obsess over competitors—who’s stealing clients, who’s lowering fees, who’s suddenly offering “cutting-edge” solutions. But here’s the truth: if a plan sponsor is happy with their provider, they’re not going anywhere. Period.

When a client makes a change, it’s not because someone dazzled them—it’s because something wasn’t working. Service was slow. Mistakes piled up. Communication was nonexistent. Whatever it was, the client felt neglected or underserved.

Changing plan providers is a hassle. No one does it for fun. So if you lost a client, take it as a sign that something needed fixing—on your end.

Instead of worrying about what the competition is doing, focus on keeping your clients happy. Return calls. Solve problems. Be proactive. Show them you care.

Because in this business, it’s simple: happy clients never leave.

One of my favorite sayings is: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” To me, it’s a reminder that even when we mean well, things don’t always turn out the way we hoped.

A big part of what I do is help advisors and brokers build their retirement plan practices. Sometimes I serve as counsel, sometimes I partner up to chase new business. I like helping people do things the right way—cutting through the noise on fees, finding the right TPA, and staying on the right side of fiduciary duty.

A few years ago, I met a broker who was eager to make a name for himself. He liked what I had to say—loved my takes on plan expenses and TPA quality. He started prospecting a plan that used to be a client of mine back when I was head ERISA counsel at a New York TPA. I offered some insights—issues I remembered that might help him close the deal.

Apparently, they worked. He landed the client. But then came the twist.

He told me they were moving the plan to a payroll provider TPA, one I’m not a fan of. Not because I hold grudges, but because I’ve seen how often payroll TPAs prioritize convenience over quality. He chose them because they worked better with his platform, not necessarily because they were better for the client.

So, some of my well-meaning advice ended up helping a broker land a client… only for the client to be moved to a provider I would never have recommended.

This is why that old saying sticks with me. Good intentions don’t guarantee good outcomes. Sometimes your efforts to help can still lead to decisions you wouldn’t make yourself.

We all want to do right by our clients and partners. But in this business, the follow-through matters just as much as the intent. Because when advisors push changes just to get paid faster, that’s not fiduciary. That’s self-serving. And that’s exactly what we’re supposed to be working against.

Sometimes your guidance leads to great results. And sometimes… it doesn’t.