For many plan sponsors, the story is the same. The plan was set up years ago. Employees participated. Contributions flowed. Nobody complained. From the sponsor\u2019s perspective, the 401(k) worked exactly as intended. And for a long time, that was true.<\/p>\n
The problem is that \u201cworking\u201d and \u201cholding up under scrutiny\u201d are not the same thing.<\/p>\n
A plan that functioned smoothly in 2004 can quietly become misaligned in 2026. Fees that once seemed reasonable drift out of range. Investment lineups stop reflecting best practices. Participant demographics change, but the plan design does not. The workforce gets younger, more mobile, and more skeptical\u2014while the plan remains frozen in time.<\/p>\n
What often triggers concern isn\u2019t a slow decline. It\u2019s an event. A key employee leaves and asks uncomfortable questions. A new CFO wants benchmarking data. A merger forces a review. Or a lawsuit headline makes its way into the boardroom. Suddenly, decisions that went unquestioned for decades are being examined through a fiduciary lens.<\/p>\n
The dangerous assumption is that longevity equals prudence. ERISA does not reward consistency for its own sake. It rewards a prudent process, applied continuously. A plan sponsor who hasn\u2019t revisited provider relationships, fees, or governance in years may feel loyal\u2014but loyalty is not a fiduciary defense.<\/p>\n
Plans don\u2019t usually fail because they were neglected once. They fail because they were never revisited. The longer a plan goes without a meaningful review, the more expensive that first real look tends to be.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" For many plan sponsors, the story is the same. The plan was set up years ago. Employees participated. Contributions flowed. Nobody complained. From the sponsor\u2019s perspective, the 401(k) worked exactly as intended. And for a long time, that was true. … Continue reading