-
Join 234 other subscribers
Archives
Meta
-
Recent Posts
- Much Ado About Nothing?: The DOL’s New Alternative Investment Rule vs. the Administrative Procedure Act
- Reasserting ERISA’s Private Enforcement Design: A Rebuttal to EBSA’s “Frivolous Litigation” Narrative
- When Income Is Not Enough: Why the Continued Inclusion of In-Plan Annuities May Breach ERISA Duties When Compared to Capital-Preserving Income Alternatives and Strategies
- The Active Management Value Ratio as a Cost-Benefit Framework: Integrating AI into Fiduciary Prudence Analysis
- Battle of the Best Interests – Whose Are the EBSA and the DOL Supposed to Serve, and Whose Are They Really Serving?
The Prudent Investment Adviser Rules
-
Join 234 other subscribers
Monthly Archives: December 2021
Plan Sponsor Alert: The Hidden Message in the #Northwestern403b Hearing
There were two issues properly before SCOTUS in the recent #Northwestern403b hearing: (1) the sufficiency of the plan participants’ complaint, and (2) the legal merits of the 7th Circuit’s rationale for dismissing the plan participants’ complaint, the “menu of options” … Continue reading
Posted in 401k, 401k compliance, 401k investments, 403b, Active Management Value Ratio, AMVR, cost consciousness, cost-efficiency, ERISA, ERISA litigation, fiduciary compliance, fiduciary law, fiduciary liability, Fiduciary prudence, fiduciary responsibility, fiduciary standard, investment advisers, investments, pension plans, prudence, wealth management, wealth preservation
Tagged 401k, 401k compliance, compliance, ERISA, fiduciary, fiduciary investing, fiduciary law, investment advisers, retirement plans
Leave a comment
The Prudent Investment Fiduciary Rules 