Thousands of public comment letters show deep divisions over the Labor Department’s proposal to widen access to alternative investments in 401(k) plans.
Critics warned that private-market products could bring higher fees, harder-to-value assets and greater risk into retirement accounts built for everyday savers.
Many commenters also flagged fiduciary-liability concerns, saying plan sponsors could face added legal exposure if complex alternatives underperform or prove unsuitable.
The debate highlights a broader policy clash over whether opening the roughly $12 trillion 401(k) market to alternatives would improve diversification or weaken investor protections.
As regulators open 401(k)s to alternative assets, are savers being empowered or exposed to complex investments with opaque risks and high fees?
A new 'safe harbor' aims to protect 401(k) managers using alternative assets. But with a key court case pending, is it truly safe?
As CalPERS adopts a radical new pay model, are its critics right that the underlying investment strategy is too risky for most pension funds?