Plan sponsors are often surprised to learn that when their advisor, TPA, and recordkeeper disagree, the conflict doesn\u2019t protect the plan sponsor\u2014it exposes them.<\/p>\n
ERISA places fiduciary responsibility squarely on the employer. That means if one provider says something is fine and another raises concerns, ignoring the issue or picking the most convenient answer can create real risk. Regulators and courts don\u2019t care which provider was \u201csupposed\u201d to handle the issue. They care whether the sponsor acted prudently.<\/p>\n
This shows up most often with operational failures: late deposits, missed eligibility, incorrect matches, or forfeiture mistakes. Each provider may see only part of the problem, but the sponsor owns the whole picture.<\/p>\n
The smartest move isn\u2019t to referee arguments. It\u2019s to document them. Ask providers to put their positions in writing, evaluate the risks, and make a reasoned decision. Silence or informal assurances are rarely defensible after the fact.<\/p>\n
Sponsors who treat provider disagreement as a warning sign\u2014rather than a nuisance\u2014are usually the ones who avoid bigger problems later.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Plan sponsors are often surprised to learn that when their advisor, TPA, and recordkeeper disagree, the conflict doesn\u2019t protect the plan sponsor\u2014it exposes them. ERISA places fiduciary responsibility squarely on the employer. That means if one provider says something is … Continue reading