logo
Coming to a 401(k) near you: Private market assets

Coming to a 401(k) near you: Private market assets

CNBCa day ago
Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan told attendees at an investor conference last month that the day will soon come when private assets are accessible in Americans' retirement accounts. "I would expect at some point, in this administration's history or in the future, to be able to sell private markets into the 401(k) system," Rowan said on stage at the Morningstar Investment Conference in Chicago, Illinois, where the convergence of private and public markets was a major theme. Those comments come as no surprise from the billionaire CEO, who has long stressed the growing importance of private markets in investing. However, the idea is reaching a tipping point. Private market exposure in 401(k) plans was considered permissible in 2020, when the Department of Labor under the Trump administration issued an information letter indicating it could be appropriate for defined contribution plans under certain conditions. The guidance was later affirmed by the Biden-directed agency. But its presence is starting to expand. Asset managers and plan sponsors have created products for retirement vehicles in which Americans collectively hold roughly $8.7 trillion in assets, according to data on 401(k)s at the end of the first quarter of 2025 from the Investment Company Institute . In June, BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, said it's launching a 401(k) target date fund in the first half of 2026 that will include a 5% to 20% allocation to private investments. In May, Empower, the country's second-largest retirement plan provider, said it's joining asset managers such as Apollo to start allowing private assets in some accounts later this year. Those developments come amid a broader push under Trump's second term in office to expand the definition of "accredited investors" to allow more people to invest in private markets through their 401(k)s. Within the retirement plan industry itself, the conversation is reaching a fever pitch. Bonnie Treichel, chief solutions officer at Endeavor Retirement, said, "If you're at retirement plan-related conferences right now, this topic is all the rage, so to speak." Similarly, Fred Reish, a partner at law firm Faegre Drinker said: "It's not just out there somewhere on the horizon, I would say that's in the immediate future." How it works The strategies created for 401(k)s thus far will be coming in the form of pooled investments such as collective trusts, or managed accounts overseen by professional investors, instead of standalone investments assessed by individual employees. Adding private assets to target date funds, which automatically adjust allocations based on a retirement date, is one option that's growing in popularity in the industry. The structure of those investments are meant to address some of the regulatory concerns around the assets, which have traditionally been excluded from 401(k)s even as they were embraced by pension funds and university endowments. The treatment stems from the perception that private investments have risks such as a lack of transparency, which raises predatory concerns, as well as higher fees and long lockup periods. The 2020 Labor Department information letter also attempted to address those concerns, outlining that investments into private assets made within 401(k)s must be done with prudence, or held to the standard of a person who is "familiar with such matters," without which a company or an asset manager can open themselves up to legal ramifications. "If fiduciaries make a bad investment, not bad an outcome, but bad both in outcome and bad in that they didn't really vet it properly, they can be sued, and they can be personally liable for damages," said Reish, who specializes in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) that governs employee retirement plans. "So, not just the company, but also each individual member of the plan committee. Each of those officers and managers that serves on the plan committee can be personally liable. That's frightening." Intel, for example, had a lawsuit dismissed earlier this year by a federal appeals court in San Francisco after a yearslong dispute over its use of alternative assets in its retirement plans. Additionally, what that could also mean is that larger plan sponsors, which have the internal capabilities to vet private investments, could move faster to integrate privates into a 401(k) plan, rather than smaller companies. The case for privates Still, there are several reasons for the excitement around private assets in 401(k) plans. Proponents point out that the investable universe has shrunk over the last three decades, roughly halving to about 4,000 companies from more than 8,000 back in the 1990s, according to the Center for Research in Security Prices. At the same time, the dominance of the largest public companies grows increasingly pronounced with each passing year. CRSP found that the market cap of the top 10 companies accounted for 35% of the total market in 2024, more than double what it was before 2020. Meanwhile, more companies are staying private for longer. The decision helps executives build their businesses away from the glare of regulatory scrutiny or responsibilities to shareholders, but also makes it harder for investors to get in on the ground floor of the next Microsoft or Apple. Thus, the argument goes, private assets will give investors exposure to a market that looks markedly different from what it had in the past — even if it requires locking up capital for longer periods of time at greater cost and greater risk. Still, there are many who worry the risks far outweigh any benefits, calling private investments far too opaque for plan sponsors to do appropriate due diligence. "Being private does not make it better. It makes it less liquid," Apollo's Rowan told investors at the Chicago conference. "Our job is to deliver excess return."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Censorship for Citizenship
Censorship for Citizenship

Atlantic

time28 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

Censorship for Citizenship

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Not that long ago, believe it or not, Donald Trump ran for president as the candidate who would defend the First Amendment. He warned that a 'sinister group of Deep State bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists, and depraved corporate news media' was 'conspiring to manipulate and silence the American people,' and promised that 'by restoring free speech, we will begin to reclaim our democracy, and save our nation.' On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order affirming the 'right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech.' If anyone believed him at the time, they should be disabused by now. One of his most brazen attacks on freedom of speech thus far came this past weekend, when the president said that he was thinking about stripping a comedian of her citizenship—for no apparent reason other than that she regularly criticizes him. 'Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her,' he posted on Truth Social. This must have been exhilarating to O'Donnell, who received a brief new grant of relevance and told the Irish broadcaster RTE, 'I am very proud to be opposed to every single thing he says and does and represents.' But once the exhilaration subsides, the fundamental idea is very disturbing: Trump appears to view both free speech and U.S. citizenship as conditional, things he can revoke based on his own whims. Writing off the threat to O'Donnell as just another instance of Trumpian trolling—or an attempt to distract from fatal flooding in Texas, dozens of incomplete trade deals, or intramural MAGA battles over Jeffrey Epstein —is tempting. And the odds that Trump would actually successfully strip O'Donnell of her passport seem slim. But that doesn't mean the threat is irrelevant. What in particular set Trump off here is unclear—he and O'Donnell have been feuding for years—but by all indications, the answer is simply that she has exercised her freedom of speech to jab him. Perhaps this should go without saying, but native-born American citizens like O'Donnell generally cannot be stripped of their citizenship. (Citizens can, however, choose to relinquish their citizenship—something that has become a somewhat popular option for people wishing to avoid U.S. taxes, including former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a New York native.) A president can't just decide that he wants to take it away. In other recent cases where the Trump administration has attempted to suppress speech, officials have at least claimed that they have evidence of criminality (though that's not to say even that was a legitimate standard; such accusations are also dangerous, and judges have dismissed them). With O'Donnell, Trump isn't even pretending she has crossed some sort of criminal line. He's also not (yet) taking action, but Trump often uses initially brash and outlandish threats as a way to acclimate the populace to his overreaching, as I wrote in the January 2024 issue of The Atlantic: 'When a second-term President Trump directs the Justice Department to lock up Democratic politicians or generals or reporters or activists on flimsy or no grounds at all, people will wring their hands, but they'll also shrug and wonder why he didn't do it sooner. After all, he's been promising to do it forever, right?' I wish this argument had aged worse. Trump has begun talking more frequently about revoking citizenship as a means of punishing political speech. He has mused about using the tool against political opponents, including the New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, alleging potential fraud, and his former buddy Elon Musk, who had the temerity to insult him. Both of these men are naturalized, which makes their citizenship marginally easier to remove—though, again, not for simple speech. The administration has also been pursuing denaturalizations of citizens whom it believes it can prove lied on their application, which is an established legal basis for stripping their legal status. Even if Trump doesn't normalize taking away citizenship, he is continuing to entrench the idea that the government—or, really, just the president on his own—can punish citizens who criticize it, or him. That's been one of the most prominent themes of his term so far: He has banished the Associated Press from some White House spaces simply for refusing to adopt his preferred terminology, extorted law firms that employed lawyers involved in the criminal cases against him, and demanded huge payouts from news organizations. He'll continue as long as he's successful. 'If we don't have free speech, then we just don't have a free country,' Trump said in a campaign video posted in 2022. 'It's as simple as that. If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple just like dominos one by one. They'll go down.' Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News President Donald Trump announced a new weapons-transfer plan for Ukraine and threatened to impose high tariffs on Russia if a peace deal is not reached in 50 days. The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with dismantling the Education Department and firing nearly 1,400 workers. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration for withholding more than $6.8 billion in education funding, which helps pay for free or low-cost after-school programs and assistance for students learning English. Dispatches Evening Read The AI Mirage By Ian Bogost 'I'm not going to respond to that,' Siri responded. I had just cursed at it, and this was my passive-aggressive chastisement. The cursing was, in my view, warranted. I was in my car, running errands, and had found myself in an unfamiliar part of town. I requested 'directions to Lowe's,' hoping to get routed to the big-box hardware store without taking my eyes off the road. But apparently Siri didn't understand. 'Which Lowe?' it asked, before displaying a list of people with the surname Lowe in my address book … The latest version of Siri has 'better conversational context'—the sort of thing that should help the software know when I'm asking to be guided to the home-improvement store rather than to a guy called Lowe. But my iPhone apparently isn't new enough for this update. I would need cutting-edge artificial intelligence to get directions to Lowe's. More From The Atlantic Read. Alert the incels! The rest of us love Pamela Anderson, and we will always love her, Caitlin Flanagan writes. Let go. And let your kid climb that tree, Henry Abbott writes. It could actually make them safer. Play our daily crossword.

Trump Backs Bondi, Blames Dems For Epstein List Fiasco
Trump Backs Bondi, Blames Dems For Epstein List Fiasco

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Backs Bondi, Blames Dems For Epstein List Fiasco

President Donald Trump has sought to calm growing divisions within his political base by defending Attorney General Pam Bondi and dismissing renewed scrutiny over the handling of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents. Trump took to social media over the weekend and posted to support Bondi, writing that Bondi is 'doing a FANTASTIC JOB!' Trump claimed in his post that the Epstein 'client list,' which has recently been claimed nonexistent by the Department of Justice (DOJ), was created by previous Democratic leaders. 'For years, it's Epstein, over and over again. Why are we giving publicity to Files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration…' wrote the President. 'They created the Epstein Files, just like they created the FAKE Hillary Clinton/Christopher Steele Dossier that they used on me, and now my so-called 'friends' are playing right into their hands. Why didn't these Radical Left Lunatics release the Epstein Files? If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn't they use it?' Trump also berated a reporter last week when asked about the handling of the Epstein documents, indicating that more important things were to be focused on than Epstein. 'And are people still talking about this guy, this creep?' Trump questioned. 'That is unbelievable.' These statements from the President come shortly after a joint memo from the DOJ and FBI claiming that there is no evidence supporting conspiracy theories about Epstein's death or the existence of a so-called 'client list.' However, the claims made by the FBI and DOJ directly contradict Bondi's previous statement, in which she claimed to have the client list ready for review. 'It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump,' she said in February when asked about the client list. Bondi has since attempted to clarify these comments, claiming that she meant to review more than just Epstein's files. 'I did an interview on Fox, and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed – meaning the file along with the JFK, MLK files as well. That's what I meant by that,' she explained, per CNN. Despite the attempt at clarification, many political activists have now called for changes within the Trump administration. 'Blondi [sic] has been very DAMAGING to the admin and she has damaged public trust in the DOJ. She is hurting President Trump and his staff/advisors,' wrote Laura Loomer on social media. 'She lied on national TV and needs to be held accountable for harming the Trump admin and public trust.' Similarly, Tucker Carlson called out Bondi's claims, adding that he now believes that the government does not have 'much relevant information about Jeffrey Epstein's sex crimes.' 'Rather than just admit that, Pam Bondi made a bunch of ludicrous claims on cable news shows that she couldn't back up, and this current outrage is the result,' he explained during an interview with NBC News. Currently, there has been no indication made by the White House about plans to move on from Bondi, with many expecting the attorney general to retain her role for the foreseeable future.

The Benefit of Ebbing EVs
The Benefit of Ebbing EVs

Wall Street Journal

time32 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

The Benefit of Ebbing EVs

Helping Ukraine against a weakened Russia coincides nicely with the demise of electric vehicles, wind turbines and solar panels ('Trump Calls Out the Putin Charade,' Review and Outlook, July 9). Freed-up U.S. manufacturing capacity can go to missile systems and ammunition primarily for sale to Europe and use by Ukraine. General Motors has shown such versatility by producing tens of thousands of tanks and armored vehicles in World War II and 30,000 ventilators during the Covid pandemic. It's time to heed Rahm Emanuel's rule: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. William J. Doyle

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store