The recent executive order by the White House to open the door to alternatives in 401(k) plans is seen as a boon to asset classes like private equity, private credit, and private real estate. Private market assets, like private equity and credit, provide exposure to a larger investible market—only an estimated 1% US companies are publicly traded—so alternatives may provide 401(k) participants access to similar investment opportunities of other fiduciary-managed plans like larger pension funds and cash balance plans.¹ Privates may also potentially offer excess return per unit of risk and an ability to steadily compound returns over longer periods of time. While private market assets are considered “riskier” than the public markets assets, parts of the private credit market, like senior secured direct lending, may offer investors equity-like returns with less risk than stocks, which may have applications in managed solutions like target date funds and public/private-blended strategies.

While alternatives do offer potential opportunities, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 requires employers of defined benefit contribution plans to always act in their employees’ best interests. Therefore, it is incumbent upon plan sponsors, consultants and financial professionals to reexamine criteria about suitable investments within their plans and then thoroughly evaluate the specific risks, like leverage, complexity, lack of transparency, higher fees and, in some instances, lack of liquidity, of each type of alternative investment. This process should enable the fiduciaries to make sound decisions when selecting strategies that may be additive and appropriate for plan participants.

US Government Shutdown Looms
 

With neither full-year appropriations bills nor a continuing resolution (CR) providing temporary funding in place, it’s quite possible the US government will at least partially shut down when the federal fiscal calendar flips to 2026 at midnight tomorrow.

The lack of progress on regular appropriations this late in the game is not unusual; Congress has passed the 12 funding bills before the start of the fiscal year only three times since 1977, most recently for 1997.¹ To avoid the disruption that would accompany the necessary shuttering of federal agencies once funding lapses, Congress has long relied on temporary spending bills known as continuing resolutions to provide interim budget authority. Fiscal 2025 was funded by three consecutive CRs, for example, while fiscal 2024 needed four. (Note that a government shutdown does not impact mandatory spending that falls outside the appropriations process, like Social Security payments and sovereign debt service.)

Not surprising given the polarized nature of today’s government, enacting a CR is proving no easier than the regular appropriations process. On September 19, the House of Representatives passed a Republican-backed continuing resolution through November 21—largely on party lines—though the bill was defeated in the Senate later that day. While Republicans are pushing a “clean” stopgap bill, Democrat lawmakers seek to tie any CR to a reversal of recent spending cuts to Medicaid and an extension of certain soon-to-expire subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.² Subsequently, the White House has instructed federal agencies not only to prepare for a shutdown, but also to “use this opportunity to consider Reduction in Force” notices to lay off federal employees.