The United States Supreme Court is set to examine an issuethat could dramatically impact the future of ERISA litigation.  Ahead of that, Nevin (Adams) and Fred (Reish) look at the issues – and potential impact(s).The IssueThe case - Anderson v. Intel - is about what a participant must allege to get an ERISA investment prudence claim past a motion to dismiss.  More specifically, the question presented is: Whether, for claims predicated on fund underperformance,pleading that an ERISA fiduciary failed to use the requisite "care, skill, prudence, or diligence" under the circumstances and thus breached ERISA's duty of prudence when investing plan assets requires alleging a "meaningful benchmark.”Said another way, when a participant says an investment’sunderperformance suggests the fiduciaries acted imprudently, does the complaint have to identify a genuinely comparable investment to get past a motion to dismiss? The Court is weighing how to prevent hindsight comparisons fromstanding in for evidence of a flawed decision, while allowing a claim based on other facts that plausibly point to imprudence. NOTE: It is not deciding whether Intel’s use of private equity and hedge funds was prudent.Some BackgroundAfter the 2008 financial crisis, Intel changed the investment mix in its custom target-date and global diversified funds, adding hedge funds and private equity. Intel said – and communicated to participants – that the strategy was intended to reduce volatility and protect against largelosses in downturns, while acknowledging that it could lag funds with heavier stock allocations during rising markets. Former employee Winston Anderson challenged the strategy, alleging that the funds’ performance and costs, amongother facts, supported an inference that the fiduciaries had acted imprudently. He also alleged that investments benefited Intel’s venture-capital arm.What’s at IssueIn essence, Anderson argues that courts must assess allthe allegations together: unusual allocations, alleged risks and costs, and performance evidence may collectively support an inference of imprudence even without a closely matched comparator. Intel responds that if relativeunderperformance is the basis for inferring a flawed process, the comparison must be meaningful; otherwise, a fund could look deficient simply because it pursued a different objective.The <a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2026/7/dol-backs-meaningful-benchmark-standard-in-supreme-court-challenge">Labor Department</a> and most <a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2026/7/ara-industry-groups-back-intel-fiduciaries-in-supreme-court-case">retirement industry trade groups</a> have weighed in supporting Intel’s position.  Meanwhile, participant advocate groups – and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-498/406686/20260430104108895_25-498%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf">formerLabor Department officials</a> are backing the position of theparticipant-plaintiff.Why is the Supreme Court Considering the Issue?Intel has prevailed at both the district court and appellatecourt levels on the issue.  But different federal court districts have taken different positions on the requirement toassert a meaningful benchmark at the motion to dismiss stage.  The Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth havesupported that requirement, though the Sixth Circuit has taken a somewhat different stance.  However, the disagreement is chiefly about claims that infer imprudence from relative performance or cost, not whether every ERISA prudence complaint needs a benchmark.And note - the <a href="https://fredreish.com/alternative-assets-18-dol-proposal-and-the-six-defined-factors-performance-benchmark-1/">proposed Investment Selection Rule</a> uses the same phrase for a different purpose. Its paragraph (k) would require a fiduciary selecting a designated investment alternative to identify a “meaningful benchmark” and compare the alternative’s risk-adjusted expected returns, net of fees, with it. However, the proposal defines that benchmark broadly: it could be an investment, strategy, index, or other comparator with similar mandates, strategies, objectives, and risks.

The United States Supreme Court is set to examine an issuethat could dramatically impact the future of ERISA litigation. Ahead of that, Nevin (Adams) and Fred (Reish) look at the issues – and potential impact(s). The Issue The case - Anderson v. Intel - is about what a participant must allege to get an ERISA investment prudence claim past a motion to dismiss. More specifically, the question presented is: Whether, for claims predicated on fund underperformance,pleading that an ERISA fiduciary failed to use the requisite "care, skill, prudence, or diligence" under the circumstances and thus breached ERISA's duty of prudence when investing plan assets requires alleging a "meaningful benchmark.” Said another way, when a participant says an investment’sunderperformance suggests the fiduciaries acted imprudently, does the complaint have to identify a genuinely comparable investment to get past a motion to dismiss? The Court is weighing how to prevent hindsight comparisons fromstanding in for evidence of a flawed decision, while allowing a claim based on other facts that plausibly point to imprudence. NOTE: It is not deciding whether Intel’s use of private equity and hedge funds was prudent. Some Background After the 2008 financial crisis, Intel changed the investment mix in its custom target-date and global diversified funds, adding hedge funds and private equity. Intel said – and communicated to participants – that the strategy was intended to reduce volatility and protect against largelosses in downturns, while acknowledging that it could lag funds with heavier stock allocations during rising markets. Former employee Winston Anderson challenged the strategy, alleging that the funds’ performance and costs, amongother facts, supported an inference that the fiduciaries had acted imprudently. He also alleged that investments benefited Intel’s venture-capital arm. What’s at Issue In essence, Anderson argues that courts must assess allthe allegations together: unusual allocations, alleged risks and costs, and performance evidence may collectively support an inference of imprudence even without a closely matched comparator. Intel responds that if relativeunderperformance is the basis for inferring a flawed process, the comparison must be meaningful; otherwise, a fund could look deficient simply because it pursued a different objective. The Labor Department and most retirement industry trade groups have weighed in supporting Intel’s position. Meanwhile, participant advocate groups – and formerLabor Department officials are backing the position of theparticipant-plaintiff. Why is the Supreme Court Considering the Issue? Intel has prevailed at both the district court and appellatecourt levels on the issue. But different federal court districts have taken different positions on the requirement toassert a meaningful benchmark at the motion to dismiss stage. The Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth havesupported that requirement, though the Sixth Circuit has taken a somewhat different stance. However, the disagreement is chiefly about claims that infer imprudence from relative performance or cost, not whether every ERISA prudence complaint needs a benchmark. And note - the proposed Investment Selection Rule uses the same phrase for a different purpose. Its paragraph (k) would require a fiduciary selecting a designated investment alternative to identify a “meaningful benchmark” and compare the alternative’s risk-adjusted expected returns, net of fees, with it. However, the proposal defines that benchmark broadly: it could be an investment, strategy, index, or other comparator with similar mandates, strategies, objectives, and risks.

The United States Supreme Court is set to examine an issuethat could dramatically impact the future of ERISA litigation.&nbsp; Ahead of that, Nevin (Adams) and Fred (Reish) look at the issues – and potential impact(s).The IssueThe case - Anderson v. Intel - is about what a participant must allege to get an ERISA investment prudence claim past a motion to dismiss.&nbsp; More specifically, the question presented is: Whether, for claims predicated on fund underperformance,pleading that an ERISA fiduciary failed to use the requisite "care, skill, prudence, or diligence" under the circumstances and thus breached ERISA's duty of prudence when investing plan assets requires alleging a "meaningful benchmark.”Said another way, when a participant says an investment’sunderperformance suggests the fiduciaries acted imprudently, does the complaint have to identify a genuinely comparable investment to get past a motion to dismiss? The Court is weighing how to prevent hindsight comparisons fromstanding in for evidence of a flawed decision, while allowing a claim based on other facts that plausibly point to imprudence. NOTE: It is not deciding whether Intel’s use of private equity and hedge funds was prudent.Some BackgroundAfter the 2008 financial crisis, Intel changed the investment mix in its custom target-date and global diversified funds, adding hedge funds and private equity. Intel said – and communicated to participants – that the strategy was intended to reduce volatility and protect against largelosses in downturns, while acknowledging that it could lag funds with heavier stock allocations during rising markets. Former employee Winston Anderson challenged the strategy, alleging that the funds’ performance and costs, amongother facts, supported an inference that the fiduciaries had acted imprudently. He also alleged that investments benefited Intel’s venture-capital arm.What’s at IssueIn essence, Anderson argues that courts must assess allthe allegations together: unusual allocations, alleged risks and costs, and performance evidence may collectively support an inference of imprudence even without a closely matched comparator. Intel responds that if relativeunderperformance is the basis for inferring a flawed process, the comparison must be meaningful; otherwise, a fund could look deficient simply because it pursued a different objective.The <a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2026/7/dol-backs-meaningful-benchmark-standard-in-supreme-court-challenge" rel="noopener noreferrer">Labor Department</a> and most <a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2026/7/ara-industry-groups-back-intel-fiduciaries-in-supreme-court-case" rel="noopener noreferrer">retirement industry trade groups</a> have weighed in supporting Intel’s position.&nbsp; Meanwhile, participant advocate groups – and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-498/406686/20260430104108895_25-498%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer">formerLabor Department officials</a> are backing the position of theparticipant-plaintiff.Why is the Supreme Court Considering the Issue?Intel has prevailed at both the district court and appellatecourt levels on the issue.&nbsp; But different federal court districts have taken different positions on the requirement toassert a meaningful benchmark at the motion to dismiss stage.&nbsp; The Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth havesupported that requirement, though the Sixth Circuit has taken a somewhat different stance.&nbsp; However, the disagreement is chiefly about claims that infer imprudence from relative performance or cost, not whether every ERISA prudence complaint needs a benchmark.And note - the <a href="https://fredreish.com/alternative-assets-18-dol-proposal-and-the-six-defined-factors-performance-benchmark-1/" rel="noopener noreferrer">proposed Investment Selection Rule</a> uses the same phrase for a different purpose. Its paragraph (k) would require a fiduciary selecting a designated investment alternative to identify a “meaningful benchmark” and compare the alternative’s risk-adjusted expected returns, net of fees, with it. However, the proposal defines that benchmark broadly: it could be an investment, strategy, index, or other comparator with similar mandates, strategies, objectives, and risks.&nbsp;

Season 6, Episode 8: The Meanings Behind a “Meaningful Benchmark?”

The PPA didn't invent automatic enrollment, target-datefunds, or professional investment management. But it was arguably a transformative shift in the design of workplaceretirement plans – and the focus of those who support them.Signed into law on August 17, 2006, the Pension ProtectionAct: •       Tightened pension funding rules (pension “protection,” after all),•       Created automatic enrollment safe harbor, including auto escalation,•       Directed development of qualified default investment alternatives (QDIAs),•       Made key EGTRRA provisions permanent (higher contribution limits, catch-up contributions, Roth 401(k)).The bigger change was philosophical.  The PPA gave us a plan design template architected to leverage participant behavior towards better outcomes.  Not so much an “if you build it, they will come” presumption, as a “let us do it for you” acknowledgement.In this episode, Nevin (Adams) and Fred (Reish) recap someof the impacts – and how the PPA transformed the very essence of retirement planning in the U.S.Episode Resources<a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2026/8/talking-points-20-years-later-did-the-ppa-really-change-everything/">Talking Points: 20 Years Later, Did the PPA Really Change Everything?</a><a href="https://www.plansponsor.com/magazine/the-pension-protection-act-this-changes-everything/">The Pension Protection Act: This Changes Everything | PLANSPONSOR</a><a href="https://www.ebri.org/retirement/individual-retirement-plans/content/the-impact-of-ppa-on-retirement-savings-for-401(k)-participants-3948">The Impact of PPA on Retirement Savings for 401(k) Participants</a>

The PPA didn't invent automatic enrollment, target-datefunds, or professional investment management. But it was arguably a transformative shift in the design of workplaceretirement plans – and the focus of those who support them. Signed into law on August 17, 2006, the Pension ProtectionAct: • Tightened pension funding rules (pension “protection,” after all), • Created automatic enrollment safe harbor, including auto escalation, • Directed development of qualified default investment alternatives (QDIAs), • Made key EGTRRA provisions permanent (higher contribution limits, catch-up contributions, Roth 401(k)). The bigger change was philosophical. The PPA gave us a plan design template architected to leverage participant behavior towards better outcomes. Not so much an “if you build it, they will come” presumption, as a “let us do it for you” acknowledgement. In this episode, Nevin (Adams) and Fred (Reish) recap someof the impacts – and how the PPA transformed the very essence of retirement planning in the U.S. Episode Resources Talking Points: 20 Years Later, Did the PPA Really Change Everything? The Pension Protection Act: This Changes Everything | PLANSPONSOR The Impact of PPA on Retirement Savings for 401(k) Participants

The PPA didn't invent automatic enrollment, target-datefunds, or professional investment management.&nbsp;But it was arguably a transformative shift in the design of workplaceretirement plans – and the focus of those who support them.Signed into law on August 17, 2006, the Pension ProtectionAct: •&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Tightened pension funding rules (pension “protection,” after all),•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Created automatic enrollment safe harbor, including auto escalation,•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Directed development of qualified default investment alternatives (QDIAs),•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Made key EGTRRA provisions permanent (higher contribution limits, catch-up contributions, Roth 401(k)).The bigger change was philosophical.&nbsp; The PPA gave us a plan design template architected to leverage participant behavior towards better outcomes.&nbsp; Not so much an “if you build it, they will come” presumption, as a “let us do it for you” acknowledgement.In this episode, Nevin (Adams) and Fred (Reish) recap someof the impacts – and how the PPA transformed the very essence of retirement planning in the U.S.Episode Resources<a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2026/8/talking-points-20-years-later-did-the-ppa-really-change-everything/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Talking Points: 20 Years Later, Did the PPA Really Change Everything?</a><a href="https://www.plansponsor.com/magazine/the-pension-protection-act-this-changes-everything/" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Pension Protection Act: This Changes Everything | PLANSPONSOR</a><a href="https://www.ebri.org/retirement/individual-retirement-plans/content/the-impact-of-ppa-on-retirement-savings-for-401(k)-participants-3948" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Impact of PPA on Retirement Savings for 401(k) Participants</a>

Season 6, Episode 7: (How) The PPA Changed Everything

What can plan sponsors (and advisors) learn from litigation?  As it turns out, a lot – even if you aren’t responsible for a billion-dollar plan.There are, of course, things to be learned from litigation.  We’ve learned that the plaintiffs’ bar doesn’t (always) knowhow to calculate fees (they rely on Form 5500), doesn’t know how to calculate performance, and doesn’t appreciate important distinctions in target-date fund glidepaths.  Though some do, of course. But the lessons drawn from litigation can serve as a reminder that fiduciaries should never assume, and never take anything for granted.  Particularly not only what the law allows, but what the plandocument permits.In a special edition of the Nevin & Fred podcast (or, if you prefer, a special edition of Prime Capital’s The Reish Brief), Nevin (Adams) and Fred (Reish) cover a wide range of topics with plenty of lessons to learn.  We’re talking about things like:1. Annual Beneficiary Checkups: Treat beneficiary designations like milk in the fridge—check them at least annually (and after marriage/divorce), because tiny “paperwork sins” like using 33⅓% instead of whole numbers can void the change and send everyone to court.2. Zombie Beneficiary Cleanup: Don’t let auto-enrollment create “beneficiary-less zombies” in your plan; track thepercentage of participants missing designations and run a recurring campaign to get them completed before a claim turns into a family feud.3. Documented Prudence Wins: Win lawsuits the boring way: hold regular (often quarterly) committee meetings, usean IPS that guides without handcuffing you, hire qualified advisors, keep written reports, and document why you kept or replaced investments—because ERISA wants prudence, not psychic powers.4. Defensible Glidepath Choices: Target-date funds can be sued for being too conservative when markets soar and too aggressive when markets tank, so pick a glidepath based onworkforce demographics/industry realities and communicate the “why” to participants like Intel did.5. Forfeiture Compliance Trap: Forfeitures are the new litigation piñata: confirm your plan is using forfeitures exactlyas the document says today, and prepare for upcoming restatements that may force you to hardwire a specific forfeiture-use method instead of “we’ll decide later.”That’s right – all that – and more!Episode Resources:<a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2019/2/court-says-call-center-communication-didnt-change-beneficiary-designation/" target="_blank">Court Says Call Center Communication Didn't Change Beneficiary Designation</a>.<a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2022/9/appellate-court-backs-beneficiary-designation/" target="_blank">Appellate Court Backs Beneficiary Designation</a><a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2025/7/beneficiary-disclosures-trigger-fiduciary-breach-suit-appeal/" target="_blank">Beneficiary Disclosures Trigger Fiduciary Breach Suit, Appeal</a><a href="https://nevinandfred.com/season-4-episode-2-glidepaths-and-guide-paths/">Season 4 Episode 2 "Glidepaths and 'Guide' Paths” | Nevin & Fred % %</a><a href="https://nevinandfred.com/season-5-episode-7-nevin-fred-has-the-forfeiture-tide-turned/">Season 5 Episode 7: Nevin & Fred – Has the Forfeiture Tide Turned? | Nevin & Fred % %</a>

What can plan sponsors (and advisors) learn from litigation? As it turns out, a lot – even if you aren’t responsible for a billion-dollar plan. There are, of course, things to be learned from litigation. We’ve learned that the plaintiffs’ bar doesn’t (always) knowhow to calculate fees (they rely on Form 5500), doesn’t know how to calculate performance, and doesn’t appreciate important distinctions in target-date fund glidepaths. Though some do, of course. But the lessons drawn from litigation can serve as a reminder that fiduciaries should never assume, and never take anything for granted. Particularly not only what the law allows, but what the plandocument permits. In a special edition of the Nevin & Fred podcast (or, if you prefer, a special edition of Prime Capital’s The Reish Brief), Nevin (Adams) and Fred (Reish) cover a wide range of topics with plenty of lessons to learn. We’re talking about things like: 1. Annual Beneficiary Checkups: Treat beneficiary designations like milk in the fridge—check them at least annually (and after marriage/divorce), because tiny “paperwork sins” like using 33⅓% instead of whole numbers can void the change and send everyone to court. 2. Zombie Beneficiary Cleanup: Don’t let auto-enrollment create “beneficiary-less zombies” in your plan; track thepercentage of participants missing designations and run a recurring campaign to get them completed before a claim turns into a family feud. 3. Documented Prudence Wins: Win lawsuits the boring way: hold regular (often quarterly) committee meetings, usean IPS that guides without handcuffing you, hire qualified advisors, keep written reports, and document why you kept or replaced investments—because ERISA wants prudence, not psychic powers. 4. Defensible Glidepath Choices: Target-date funds can be sued for being too conservative when markets soar and too aggressive when markets tank, so pick a glidepath based onworkforce demographics/industry realities and communicate the “why” to participants like Intel did. 5. Forfeiture Compliance Trap: Forfeitures are the new litigation piñata: confirm your plan is using forfeitures exactlyas the document says today, and prepare for upcoming restatements that may force you to hardwire a specific forfeiture-use method instead of “we’ll decide later.” That’s right – all that – and more! Episode Resources: Court Says Call Center Communication Didn't Change Beneficiary Designation. Appellate Court Backs Beneficiary Designation Beneficiary Disclosures Trigger Fiduciary Breach Suit, Appeal Season 4 Episode 2 "Glidepaths and 'Guide' Paths” | Nevin & Fred % % Season 5 Episode 7: Nevin & Fred – Has the Forfeiture Tide Turned? | Nevin & Fred % %

What can plan sponsors (and advisors) learn from litigation?&nbsp; As it turns out, a lot – even if you aren’t responsible for a billion-dollar plan.There are, of course, things to be learned from litigation.&nbsp; We’ve learned that the plaintiffs’ bar doesn’t (always) knowhow to calculate fees (they rely on Form 5500), doesn’t know how to calculate performance, and doesn’t appreciate important distinctions in target-date fund glidepaths.&nbsp; Though some do, of course.&nbsp;But the lessons drawn from litigation can serve as a reminder that fiduciaries should never assume, and never take anything for granted.&nbsp; Particularly not only what the law allows, but what the plandocument permits.In a special edition of the Nevin &amp; Fred podcast (or, if you prefer, a special edition of Prime Capital’s The Reish Brief), Nevin (Adams) and Fred (Reish) cover a wide range of topics with plenty of lessons to learn.&nbsp; We’re talking about things like:1. Annual Beneficiary Checkups:&nbsp;Treat beneficiary designations like milk in the fridge—check them at least annually (and after marriage/divorce), because tiny “paperwork sins” like using 33⅓% instead of whole numbers can void the change and send everyone to court.2. Zombie Beneficiary Cleanup:&nbsp;Don’t let auto-enrollment create “beneficiary-less zombies” in your plan; track thepercentage of participants missing designations and run a recurring campaign to get them completed before a claim turns into a family feud.3. Documented Prudence Wins:&nbsp;Win lawsuits the boring way: hold regular (often quarterly) committee meetings, usean IPS that guides without handcuffing you, hire qualified advisors, keep written reports, and document why you kept or replaced investments—because ERISA wants prudence, not psychic powers.4. Defensible Glidepath Choices:&nbsp;Target-date funds can be sued for being too conservative when markets soar and too aggressive when markets tank, so pick a glidepath based onworkforce demographics/industry realities and communicate the “why” to participants like Intel did.5. Forfeiture Compliance Trap:&nbsp;Forfeitures are the new litigation piñata: confirm your plan is using forfeitures exactlyas the document says today, and prepare for upcoming restatements that may force you to hardwire a specific forfeiture-use method instead of “we’ll decide later.”That’s right – all that – and more!Episode Resources:<a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2019/2/court-says-call-center-communication-didnt-change-beneficiary-designation/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Court Says Call Center Communication Didn't Change Beneficiary Designation</a>.<a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2022/9/appellate-court-backs-beneficiary-designation/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Appellate Court Backs Beneficiary Designation</a><a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2025/7/beneficiary-disclosures-trigger-fiduciary-breach-suit-appeal/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Beneficiary Disclosures Trigger Fiduciary Breach Suit, Appeal</a><a href="https://nevinandfred.com/season-4-episode-2-glidepaths-and-guide-paths/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Season 4 Episode 2 "Glidepaths and 'Guide' Paths” | Nevin &amp; Fred % %</a><a href="https://nevinandfred.com/season-5-episode-7-nevin-fred-has-the-forfeiture-tide-turned/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Season 5 Episode 7: Nevin &amp; Fred – Has the Forfeiture Tide Turned? | Nevin &amp; Fred % %</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;

Season 6, Episode 6: Learning from Litigation

Last August  President Trump signed <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/democratizing-access-to-alternative-assets-for-401k-investors/">an executive order</a> directing the Secretary of Labor to, among other things, “reexamine the Department of Labor’s guidance on a fiduciary’s duties regarding alternative asset investments in ERISA-governed 401(k) and other defined-contribution plans” – a stance widely seen as encouraging the consideration of alternative assets in defined contribution plans, including401(k)s and 403(b)s.Then on March 30, the Labor Department issued a proposedregulation in response to that directive, titled “Fiduciary Duties In Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives.”  However, while it acknowledged that while the executiveorder “focused on fiduciary responsibilities for offering an asset allocation fund that includes investments in alternative assets, the proposed regulation would apply to the selection of any type of investment as a designated investment alternative, including investments in so-called “alternative assets.”That said, the comment period closed with more than 47,000comments!In this episode, Nevin and Fred consider the…alternatives…and the future of the proposal.Episode Resources:<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EBSA-2026-0166-0001/comment">Regulations.gov</a>(the comments)<a href="https://fredreish.com/category/dol-activity/">DOL Archives - Fred Reish</a><a href="https://nevinandfred.com/season-6-episode-4-rip-the-retirement-security-rule/">Season 6 Episode 4: The Investment Selection Proposal | Nevin & Fred % %</a><a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2026/6/talking-points-retirement-income-defaults-and-fiduciary-duty/">Talking Points: Retirement Income, Defaults and Fiduciary Duty</a><a href="https://endeavor-retirement.activehosted.com/index.php?action=social&chash=f770b62bc8f42a0b66751fe636fc6eb0.467&s=f1b8e69fc34995b9d807df36b7a3c6f3">Special Edition: Fiduciary Duties In Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives Proposed Rule</a>  <a href="https://endeavor-retirement.activehosted.com/index.php?action=social&chash=f770b62bc8f42a0b66751fe636fc6eb0.467&s=f1b8e69fc34995b9d807df36b7a3c6f3">https://endeavor- retirement.activehosted.com/index.php?action=social&chash=f770b62bc8f42a0b66751fe636fc6eb0.467&s=f1b8e69fc34995b9d807df36b7a3c6f3</a><a href="https://www.psca.org/news/psca-news/2026/6/ags-congressional-democrats-say-dol-proposal-weakens-prudence-standard/">AGs, Congressional Democrats Say DOL Proposal Weakens Prudence Standard</a><a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2026/3/ebsas-aronowitz-outlines-fiduciary-framework-for-investment-selection-rule/">EBSA’s Aronowitz Outlines Fiduciary Framework for ‘Investment Selection Rule’</a><a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2026/4/how-many-times-does-the-dol-proposed-rule-mention-litigation/">How Many Times Does the DOL Proposed Rule Mention ‘Litigation?’</a><a href="https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/erisa/fiduciary-duties-in-selecting-designated-investment-alternatives.pdf">Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives</a> (the “Investment Selection Rule”)<a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2025/7/president-trump-signs-executive-order-to-boost-private-market-investments-in-401ks/">Breaking News: Trump Signs EO to Advance Private Market Investments in 401(k)s</a>

Last August President Trump signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Labor to, among other things, “reexamine the Department of Labor’s guidance on a fiduciary’s duties regarding alternative asset investments in ERISA-governed 401(k) and other defined-contribution plans” – a stance widely seen as encouraging the consideration of alternative assets in defined contribution plans, including401(k)s and 403(b)s. Then on March 30, the Labor Department issued a proposedregulation in response to that directive, titled “Fiduciary Duties In Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives.” However, while it acknowledged that while the executiveorder “focused on fiduciary responsibilities for offering an asset allocation fund that includes investments in alternative assets, the proposed regulation would apply to the selection of any type of investment as a designated investment alternative, including investments in so-called “alternative assets.” That said, the comment period closed with more than 47,000comments! In this episode, Nevin and Fred consider the…alternatives…and the future of the proposal. Episode Resources: Regulations.gov(the comments) DOL Archives - Fred Reish Season 6 Episode 4: The Investment Selection Proposal | Nevin & Fred % % Talking Points: Retirement Income, Defaults and Fiduciary Duty Special Edition: Fiduciary Duties In Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives Proposed Rule https://endeavor- retirement.activehosted.com/index.php?action=social&chash=f770b62bc8f42a0b66751fe636fc6eb0.467&s=f1b8e69fc34995b9d807df36b7a3c6f3 AGs, Congressional Democrats Say DOL Proposal Weakens Prudence Standard EBSA’s Aronowitz Outlines Fiduciary Framework for ‘Investment Selection Rule’ How Many Times Does the DOL Proposed Rule Mention ‘Litigation?’ Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives (the “Investment Selection Rule”) Breaking News: Trump Signs EO to Advance Private Market Investments in 401(k)s

Last August&nbsp; President Trump signed <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/democratizing-access-to-alternative-assets-for-401k-investors/" rel="noopener noreferrer">an executive order</a> directing the Secretary of Labor to, among other things, “reexamine the Department of Labor’s guidance on a fiduciary’s duties regarding alternative asset investments in ERISA-governed 401(k) and other defined-contribution plans” – a stance widely seen as encouraging the consideration of alternative assets in defined contribution plans, including401(k)s and 403(b)s.Then on March 30, the Labor Department issued a proposedregulation in response to that directive, titled “Fiduciary Duties In Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives.”&nbsp; However, while it acknowledged that while the executiveorder “focused on fiduciary responsibilities for offering an asset allocation fund that includes investments in alternative assets, the proposed regulation would apply to the selection of any type of investment as a designated investment alternative, including investments in so-called “alternative assets.”That said, the comment period closed with more than 47,000comments!In this episode, Nevin and Fred consider the…alternatives…and the future of the proposal.Episode Resources:<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EBSA-2026-0166-0001/comment" rel="noopener noreferrer">Regulations.gov</a>(the comments)<a href="https://fredreish.com/category/dol-activity/" rel="noopener noreferrer">DOL Archives - Fred Reish</a><a href="https://nevinandfred.com/season-6-episode-4-rip-the-retirement-security-rule/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Season 6 Episode 4: The Investment Selection Proposal | Nevin &amp; Fred % %</a><a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2026/6/talking-points-retirement-income-defaults-and-fiduciary-duty/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Talking Points: Retirement Income, Defaults and Fiduciary Duty</a><a href="https://endeavor-retirement.activehosted.com/index.php?action=social&amp;chash=f770b62bc8f42a0b66751fe636fc6eb0.467&amp;s=f1b8e69fc34995b9d807df36b7a3c6f3" rel="noopener noreferrer">Special Edition: Fiduciary Duties In Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives Proposed Rule</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://endeavor-retirement.activehosted.com/index.php?action=social&amp;chash=f770b62bc8f42a0b66751fe636fc6eb0.467&amp;s=f1b8e69fc34995b9d807df36b7a3c6f3" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://endeavor- retirement.activehosted.com/index.php?action=social&amp;chash=f770b62bc8f42a0b66751fe636fc6eb0.467&amp;s=f1b8e69fc34995b9d807df36b7a3c6f3</a><a href="https://www.psca.org/news/psca-news/2026/6/ags-congressional-democrats-say-dol-proposal-weakens-prudence-standard/" rel="noopener noreferrer">AGs, Congressional Democrats Say DOL Proposal Weakens Prudence Standard</a><a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2026/3/ebsas-aronowitz-outlines-fiduciary-framework-for-investment-selection-rule/" rel="noopener noreferrer">EBSA’s Aronowitz Outlines Fiduciary Framework for ‘Investment Selection Rule’</a><a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2026/4/how-many-times-does-the-dol-proposed-rule-mention-litigation/" rel="noopener noreferrer">How Many Times Does the DOL Proposed Rule Mention ‘Litigation?’</a><a href="https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/erisa/fiduciary-duties-in-selecting-designated-investment-alternatives.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives</a>&nbsp;(the “Investment Selection Rule”)<a href="https://www.napa-net.org/news/2025/7/president-trump-signs-executive-order-to-boost-private-market-investments-in-401ks/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Breaking News: Trump Signs EO to Advance Private Market Investments in 401(k)s</a>

Season 6, Episode 5: Comment Airing: (More) Thoughts on the Investment Selection Rule

Join Nevin Adams & Fred Reish for the inaugural episode of "Nevin & Fred: Fresh & Best Perspectives." 
Technically, it’s not a “rule”—but after years of debate, hearings, comments, litigation and preparation, there are some new rules regarding investment advice—and some help for retirement plan advisors. Nevin Adams and Fred Reish take a look at the implications. And have some fun doing it.
Episode Resources:
DOL PTE 2020-02: <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-12-18/pdf/2020-27825.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-12-18/pdf/2020-27825.pdf</a> 
The DOL’s Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2020-02 provide relief from prohibited compensation resulting from nondiscretionary fiduciary advice.  And, in the preamble to the PTE, the DOL explains that it is reinterpreting the regulatory definition of fiduciary advice so that many more recommendations to plans, participants and IRA owners will be fiduciary advice. 
 
FAQs for Fiduciary Advice Exemption: <a href="https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/new-fiduciary-advice-exemption.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/new-fiduciary-advice-exemption.pdf</a> 
The DOL has issued guidance on understanding and interpreting its expansion of the definition of fiduciary advice and on the exemption from prohibited transactions resulting from nondiscretionary fiduciary advice. 
 
DOL guidance to selecting an advisor:  <a href="https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/choosing-the-right-person-to-give-you-investment-advice.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/choosing-the-right-person-to-give-you-investment-advice.pdf</a> 
The DOL has issued guidance to help IRA owners and plan participants select advisors to help with rollover decisions and IRA investing.  This publication offers “Questions to Ask an Investment Advice Provider”.

Join Nevin Adams & Fred Reish for the inaugural episode of "Nevin & Fred: Fresh & Best Perspectives." Technically, it’s not a “rule”—but after years of debate, hearings, comments, litigation and preparation, there are some new rules regarding investment advice—and some help for retirement plan advisors. Nevin Adams and Fred Reish take a look at the implications. And have some fun doing it. Episode Resources: DOL PTE 2020-02: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-12-18/pdf/2020-27825.pdf The DOL’s Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2020-02 provide relief from prohibited compensation resulting from nondiscretionary fiduciary advice. And, in the preamble to the PTE, the DOL explains that it is reinterpreting the regulatory definition of fiduciary advice so that many more recommendations to plans, participants and IRA owners will be fiduciary advice. FAQs for Fiduciary Advice Exemption: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/new-fiduciary-advice-exemption.pdf The DOL has issued guidance on understanding and interpreting its expansion of the definition of fiduciary advice and on the exemption from prohibited transactions resulting from nondiscretionary fiduciary advice. DOL guidance to selecting an advisor: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/choosing-the-right-person-to-give-you-investment-advice.pdf The DOL has issued guidance to help IRA owners and plan participants select advisors to help with rollover decisions and IRA investing. This publication offers “Questions to Ask an Investment Advice Provider”.

Join Nevin Adams &amp; Fred Reish for the inaugural episode of "Nevin &amp; Fred: Fresh &amp; Best Perspectives."&nbsp;
Technically, it’s not a “rule”—but after years of debate, hearings, comments, litigation and preparation, there are some new rules regarding investment advice—and some help for retirement plan advisors. Nevin Adams and&nbsp;Fred Reish&nbsp;take a look at the implications. And have some fun doing it.
Episode Resources:
DOL PTE 2020-02: <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-12-18/pdf/2020-27825.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-12-18/pdf/2020-27825.pdf</a> 
The DOL’s Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2020-02 provide relief from prohibited compensation resulting from nondiscretionary fiduciary advice.&nbsp; And, in the preamble to the PTE, the DOL explains that it is reinterpreting the regulatory definition of fiduciary advice so that many more recommendations to plans, participants and IRA owners will be fiduciary advice. 
 
FAQs for Fiduciary Advice Exemption: <a href="https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/new-fiduciary-advice-exemption.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/new-fiduciary-advice-exemption.pdf</a> 
The DOL has issued guidance on understanding and interpreting its expansion of the definition of fiduciary advice and on the exemption from prohibited transactions resulting from nondiscretionary fiduciary advice. 
 
DOL guidance to selecting an advisor: &nbsp;<a href="https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/choosing-the-right-person-to-give-you-investment-advice.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/choosing-the-right-person-to-give-you-investment-advice.pdf</a> 
The DOL has issued guidance to help IRA owners and plan participants select advisors to help with rollover decisions and IRA investing.&nbsp; This publication offers “Questions to Ask an Investment Advice Provider”.

Episode 1 - Unpacking the Fiduciary Rule

Irreverent, but relevant. Nevin Adams and Fred Reish offer listeners their perspectives on all things retirement.

Share Nevin & Fred

Sign up to save your podcasts

Nevin & Fred

Nevin & Fred episodes

About Nevin & Fred

More shows like Nevin & Fred

Hidden Brain

Real Time with Bill Maher

Odd Lots

Pivot

Notes on the Week Ahead

The Daily

Capital Ideas podcast

Up First from NPR

Wall Street Breakfast

The Bid - An Investing Podcast from BlackRock

Revamping Retirement

Morning Brew Daily

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

401(k) Specialist Podcast

Huberman Lab