Retirement Plan News

On July 3, 2026, the Department of Labor released its 2026 Regulatory Agenda. In this article, we highlight two ERISA rulemaking projects of particular relevance to retirement plan sponsors – “Fiduciary Duties In Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives” and “Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights.” Both of these projects have been included in the Administration’s Regulatory Plan, identified as “the most important significant regulatory actions that [DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)] reasonably expects to issue in proposed or final form in [the current] fiscal year or thereafter.”

If you’re looking to change pension administrators but are concerned about losing historical data or disrupting your participants, you’re not alone. Sometimes staying with an underperforming provider can even feel like the safer option.  

On June 22, 2026, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of defendant sponsor fiduciaries in In Re: Quest Diagnostics Erisa Litigation, an ERISA fiduciary fund “underperformance” case. Because this was a decision on summary judgment, coming after discovery, we get a consideration (and ultimate approval) by the court of the process by which plan fiduciaries selected and retained certain (allegedly) underperforming funds – providing a useful example of what constitutes fiduciary prudence in constructing and managing a 401(k) plan fund menu.

Stocks slipped in June, producing modest losses for pension sponsors in June. Both model plans we track¹ lost ground last month: Plan A declined less than 1% in June, ending the first half of 2026 up more than 7%, while the more conservative Plan B lost a fraction of 1% last month and remains up 2% through the first half months of 2026: 

Finding the right pension administrator is an important decision. Whether you're selecting your first third-party administrator or considering a change, the right partner can make a big difference in the long-term success of your pension plan. 

On June 10, 2026, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) published an exposure draft/Proposed Accounting Standards Update “Discount Rate Used to Measure the Benefit Obligation for Certain Market-Return Cash Balance Plans.” If adopted, the proposal would allow most sponsors of market-return cash balance (MRCB) plans to report participant liabilities as equal to the participant account balances.

In this, our final article looking at how different plan designs/investment strategies worked over the last five years, we want to synthesize what we have learned in a way that will help sponsor decision-makers. We’re not going to predict the future – our assumption is that the market is better at that than we are. Rather, we are going to lay out our view of what things (generally) work in retirement finance, in both DB and DC plans. And when they don’t work.

On March 31, 2026, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Bugielski et al. v. AT&T et al., denied defendants’ (fiduciaries of the AT&T Retirement Savings Plan) motion for summary judgment with respect to (among other things) the reasonableness of the compensation paid to Financial Engines (now Edelman Financial Engines) and (indirectly) to Fidelity (the plan’s recordkeeper). A critical issue in the case was whether the plan fiduciaries adequately considered those indirect FE-to-Fidelity fees. And in this note, we focus on that issue.

The Pension Risk Transfer market continues to evolve, supported by active insurer participation, increased industry awareness of de-risking strategies and supportive economic environments. The combination of this evolution and favorable conditions persist, the sooner a plan sponsor enters the marketplace, the greater the opportunity to leverage attractive prices and interest rate dynamics.

Though they can be effective, traditional 401(k) plans have significantly lower contribution caps compared to alternative plans, especially for S Corp owners and other high earners.  

If managing your defined benefit plan feels more difficult than it should, you're not alone. Many pension administration problems don't come from one big mistake. Instead, they build up over time because of outdated systems, inconsistent processes, or a lack of investment. The result is more work for your HR team, frustrated participants, and unnecessary risk. 

When managed poorly, even minor pension administration challenges can create downstream consequences. Delayed retirements, frustrated employees, compliance concerns, and extra work for your HR team often tie back to administration.  

Strong stock markets in May drove continued improvement in pension finances. Both model plans we track¹ gained ground last month: Plan A improved more than 2% in May, ending the month up 8% for the year, while the more conservative Plan B gained 1% last month and is up more than 2% through the first five months of 2026:

After completing my master’s degree in data science, I joined a company in London supporting derivatives traders. But after a few years, I wanted to return to Chicago, where I grew up. At that time, I discovered a contract role at October Three and had the opportunity to join the team on a new project. I would say working with interest crediting rate and funding data was a unique experience. It’s substantially different from derivative trading, but there were certain similarities that I could apply to the October Three project. 

A leading US-based manufacturer with over 70 years of history wanted to terminate its Defined Benefit pension plan. However, their existing provider relationship had become a source of frustration, marked by inconsistent guidance and growing internal friction.  

Pension finances lost ground in March due to declining stock markets, but higher interest rates softened the blow. Both model plans we track[1] lost 1% last month, and are now slightly underwater through the first quarter of 2026: