This bill amends ERISA to require that plan fiduciaries base investment decisions primarily on pecuniary factors—those expected to materially affect risk or return—and prohibits subordinating participants’ financial interests to ‘‘non‑pecuniary’’ goals except in narrowly documented circumstances. It adds a statutory definition of ‘‘designated investment alternative,’’ tightens rules around proxy voting (including monitoring and recordkeeping obligations and a safe‑harbor for limited non‑voting), and bars selection of plan service providers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
The bill also imposes new disclosure obligations for brokerage‑window (self‑directed) arrangements: participants must receive and acknowledge a four‑part notice explaining the difference between plan‑designated options and brokerage alternatives, including a three‑scenario retirement‑balance projection (4%, 6%, 8%). Finally, it directs the GAO to compare returns from brokerage arrangements to other plan options.
These changes recalibrate fiduciary duties, increase compliance tasks for plan sponsors and vendors, and create new documentary evidence that will be central in any litigation or enforcement action.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends ERISA section 404 to require fiduciary decisions be based on ‘‘pecuniary factors’’ and to limit use of non‑pecuniary factors unless specific documentation explains why pecuniary factors were insufficient. It adds express duties for proxy‑voting prudence and recordkeeping, a nondiscrimination rule for service‑provider selection, and mandated disclosures plus an illustrative projection for brokerage‑window investments.
Who It Affects
Plan fiduciaries and committees of defined‑contribution plans, recordkeepers and brokerage‑window platforms, investment managers and proxy‑advisory firms with delegated voting authority, and plan service providers subject to selection and monitoring by fiduciaries.
Why It Matters
The statute turns previously‑exceptional policy guidance into statutory standards that will shape ERISA litigation, plan QDIA/default design, proxy engagement strategies, and participant communications. Compliance costs and fiduciary documentation will rise, and managers that emphasize ESG or other non‑financial goals may face limits when servicing ERISA plans.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill changes ERISA’s core fiduciary rule by adding a subsection that makes ‘‘pecuniary factors’’ the presumptive basis for plan investment decisions. A pecuniary factor is defined as anything a fiduciary prudently expects will materially affect risk or return over investment horizons aligned with the plan’s objectives and funding policy.
Fiduciaries must not subordinate participants’ retirement interests to non‑pecuniary goals, nor accept lower expected returns or higher risk to pursue such goals. If pecuniary analysis cannot distinguish investment alternatives, a fiduciary may use non‑pecuniary factors only after documenting why pecuniary factors were insufficient and explaining how the chosen option compares on diversification, liquidity, current return, and projected funding performance.
For participant‑directed individual account plans, the bill allows the inclusion of investment options that pursue non‑pecuniary goals only if the fiduciary satisfies the pecuniary‑factor test and related documentation; importantly, a designated investment alternative that lists non‑pecuniary objectives may not be used as a default or automatic investment option. The amendment also adds a statutory definition of ‘‘designated investment alternative’’ and explicitly excludes brokerage windows and self‑directed accounts from that category.On shareholder rights, the bill treats proxy voting and related actions as part of plan asset management, requiring fiduciaries to act solely for participants’ economic interests, to consider costs, evaluate material facts, and keep records of votes and influencing activities.
The statute permits delegations to investment managers or proxy‑advisory firms but requires responsible fiduciaries to monitor those delegates’ proxy activities. The bill establishes a safe harbor that lets fiduciaries limit voting to proposals materially related to issuer business or to refrain from voting where plan assets in an issuer are below 5 percent of plan assets (or assets under management), while preserving an obligation to vote when a proposal is expected to materially affect investment performance.For brokerage windows, the bill requires that participants receive and acknowledge a four‑part notice each time they direct money into a non‑designated investment arrangement.
The notice must say that designated options are prudently selected and monitored, that brokerage alternatives are not, that returns/fees/risks may be worse in a brokerage arrangement, and must include a graph projecting account balances to age 67 under 4%, 6%, and 8% annual return scenarios. The GAO must submit a report within two years comparing returns from non‑designated brokerage arrangements to other plan investment options.
Several provisions carry explicit effective‑date timing: the pecuniary‑factor rule applies to fiduciary actions taken 12 months after enactment; proxy rules apply to rights exercised on or after January 1, 2026; and the brokerage‑window disclosure requirement takes effect January 1, 2027.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a statutory requirement that fiduciaries base plan investment decisions on ‘‘pecuniary factors’’—defined as factors expected to materially affect risk or return—and prohibits sacrificing investment return or adding risk to pursue non‑pecuniary goals.
If pecuniary factors cannot distinguish options, fiduciaries may use non‑pecuniary factors only after documenting (i) why pecuniary factors were insufficient, (ii) a comparison of diversification, liquidity/current return, and projected funding performance, and (iii) how the non‑pecuniary factors align with participants’ financial interests.
The bill amends 404(a)(1) to require service‑provider selection, monitoring, and retention be done without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, creating an explicit nondiscrimination duty in provider hiring decisions.
With respect to proxies, fiduciaries must act solely for participants’ economic interest, keep records of proxy votes and influence attempts, prudently monitor delegated investment managers or proxy advisers, and may rely on a safe‑harbor voting policy that limits votes to materially related proposals or situations where plan holdings in an issuer exceed 5%.
Brokerage‑window investments (self‑directed arrangements) must come with a four‑part notice that participants must acknowledge, including a hypothetical projection of balances to age 67 at 4%, 6%, and 8% returns; the GAO must report within two years comparing returns of such arrangements to other plan options.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Make pecuniary factors the default and require documentation to rely on non‑pecuniary factors
This provision amends ERISA’s duty of prudence to state that fiduciaries act ‘‘solely in the interest’’ of participants only when their investment actions are based on pecuniary factors. It defines pecuniary factors as those expected to have a material effect on risk or return and requires that any use of non‑pecuniary factors be backstopped by contemporaneous documentation explaining why pecuniary factors could not distinguish options and how the selected alternative compares on diversification, liquidity/current return, and projected funding objectives. Practically, plan committees will need processes and templates for that documentation and to review fund/manager selection against clearly stated funding and investment horizons; absent such records, sponsors increase their litigation and ERISA enforcement risk.
Prohibit discrimination in selecting and retaining plan service providers
This short but consequential amendment adds an explicit nondiscrimination requirement to the service‑provider selection clause of ERISA section 404(a)(1). Fiduciaries must select, monitor, and retain fiduciaries, counsel, employees, or service providers in accordance with prudence and loyalty rules and ‘‘without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’’ Implementation will require sponsors to document procurement processes and selection criteria to show decisions were merit‑based; failure to keep that evidence may invite statutory or administrative claims alleging improper selection.
Treat proxy rights as plan asset management, require prudence, recordkeeping, monitoring, and a safe‑harbor voting policy
The bill explicitly includes shareholder rights among duties that constitute management of plan assets. Fiduciaries must evaluate whether exercising rights serves participants’ economic interests, account for costs, evaluate material facts, and maintain a record of proxy votes and attempts to influence management. Delegations to investment managers or proxy advisers are permitted but trigger monitoring duties. The safe harbor lets fiduciaries limit voting to economically material proposals or not vote when plan holdings in an issuer are below 5%—a quantitative trigger likely to be converted into internal policy thresholds. These mechanics change both the operational workflow (more records and monitoring) and the decision calculus for engagement and stewardship programs.
Require a four‑part, acknowledged notice for brokerage‑window transactions with a three‑scenario projection
This amendment conditions participant ‘‘control’’ over self‑directed brokerage arrangements on receipt and acknowledgement of a four‑part notice that (1) contrasts designated investment alternatives (prudently selected) with brokerage options (not prudently selected), (2) warns about potential for lower returns/higher fees/higher risk, and (3) provides a hypothetical illustration projecting balances to age 67 at 4%, 6%, and 8% returns. Plans and recordkeepers offering brokerage windows must integrate this notice into transaction flows and log acknowledgements; failure to do so could jeopardize a sponsor’s ability to rely on section 404(c) protections.
Direct GAO comparison of brokerage‑window returns to other plan options
The Comptroller General must submit a report within two years comparing returns from non‑designated brokerage arrangements to returns from designated plan options. The statutory requirement is limited to defined‑contribution plans and to arrangements that are not designated alternatives. The GAO’s findings are likely to inform future regulatory or legislative activity and could influence plan design if the study shows material underperformance or excessive cost in brokerage windows.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Participants invested in prudently selected designated options — they gain a clearer statutory requirement that plan fiduciaries prioritize financial return and document decisions, which can protect pooled plan investors from being exposed to investments chosen primarily for non‑financial aims.
- Fiduciaries and plan committees that maintain strong, documented investment‑selection processes — a statutory standard that emphasizes pecuniary analysis and contemporaneous records may reduce uncertainty for committees that already follow rigorous procedures.
- Traditional asset managers and funds that compete on financial metrics rather than social objectives — the bill’s emphasis on pecuniary factors and restrictions on defaulting into funds with non‑pecuniary goals may increase demand for strategies explicitly tied to risk/return metrics.
Who Bears the Cost
- Plan sponsors and fiduciaries — increased documentation, new procurement records to prove nondiscrimination in hiring, proxy‑vote recordkeeping, and monitoring of delegated managers will raise administrative and compliance costs.
- Asset managers and fund complexes that market ESG or explicitly non‑pecuniary strategies to ERISA plans — such products may be harder to include as default options and will face higher evidentiary burdens if selected.
- Recordkeepers, brokerage‑window platforms, and third‑party administrators — they will need to implement transaction‑level disclosure and acknowledgement flows, produce the required projections/graphics, and retain acknowledgement records, increasing technology and operational costs.
- Proxy advisory firms and investment managers with delegated voting authority — these entities face more active monitoring by plan fiduciaries and potential changes to engagement workflows driven by fiduciary policies and the safe‑harbor thresholds.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether fiduciaries should focus narrowly on near‑term, measurable financial metrics (protecting participants from potential shortfalls and litigation) or whether they should have latitude to consider broader, sometimes slower‑burning factors (like climate risk or social practices) that may ultimately affect long‑term returns but are harder to quantify; the bill resolves that tension toward a narrow, pecuniary‑first approach while creating narrow exceptions that are administratively and legally risky to invoke.
Several implementation ambiguities and operational tradeoffs stand out. First, the statutory definition of ‘‘pecuniary factor’’ ties materiality to expected effects on risk or return, but it does not elaborate on time horizons, measurement standards, or which long‑term ‘‘non‑pecuniary’’ issues (for example, certain environmental risks) are nonetheless material.
That gap creates room for litigation over whether a given ESG consideration is properly treated as pecuniary or non‑pecuniary, shifting the field from regulatory guidance to case‑by‑case factual disputes.
Second, the documentation requirement for using non‑pecuniary factors and the mandatory proxy‑vote records will produce a trove of contemporaneous evidence useful to plaintiffs and regulators. That raises a tension between transparency and defensive recordkeeping: fiduciaries must create records to rely on exceptions, but those records can be used against them in litigation.
Operationally, delegations to managers and proxy advisers remain permitted but will require a step‑up in monitoring practices; plans without already‑robust monitoring processes will need to redesign contracts, reporting, and oversight.
Finally, the brokerage‑window notice mandates aim to inform participants but also change default‑choice architecture by conditioning ‘‘control’’ on an acknowledgement. That raises questions about behavioral effects (will participants abandon brokerage windows, or will forced acknowledgements become perfunctory clicks?) and about the GAO study’s ability to produce causal conclusions given selection bias (participants who choose brokerage windows are not a random sample).
The bill simplifies some policy tradeoffs into bright‑line rules, but those lines will shift significant costs and compliance burdens across fiduciaries, vendors, and managers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.