History provides context. Without it, today's challenges can feel random — when in reality, they tend to follow a pattern.
Having grown up in the retirement space, I watched a fundamental shift in both how advice was delivered and how it was paid for by employers and their employees. Today, commissions have largely disappeared
It wasn't one event — it was a series of regulatory actions, market pressures and increased scrutiny that reshaped the landscape.
The U.S. Department of Labor introduced Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2020-02, requiring advisers receiving conflicted compensation to act in the client's best interest, disclose conflicts and maintain policies to mitigate them. In practice, this meant that advisers earning commissions had to document why their recommendations were in the client's best interest and prove their compensation was reasonable.
That created a significant compliance burden and one that many firms were not comfortable with. To reduce conflicts, simplify oversight and limit litigation exposure, broker-dealers began shifting toward level-fee arrangements. Not because they wanted to but because it fit more cleanly within ERISA's fiduciary framework.
At the same time, transparency rules under ERISA §408(b)(2) made compensation visible. Plan sponsors could now see how advisers were paid — including revenue sharing — and began asking better questions. That visibility changed behavior.
Then came enforcement. And then came litigation.
When compensation had to be explained and defended, the model changed.
Sound familiar?
The Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021 and subsequent updates in Consolidated Appropriations Act 2026 are bringing that same level of transparency to
If you understand how a market evolves, you can recognize those same patterns as they begin to repeat and position yourself ahead of them.
Why is this more relevant now. In March a federal court ruling in Stern v. JPMorgan Chase allowed prohibited transaction claims related to pharmacy benefit management (PBM) arrangements to proceed. The implication is clear: fiduciary
Retirement addressed these issues through transparency, structure and ultimately a shift in how advisers were compensated.
If I were a betting person, I'd expect a similar outcome: as employers become more informed and fiduciary expectations increase, the market will move toward more transparent, level-fee structures and fiduciary-aligned advice.
The shift to level fees wasn't about preference, it was about survivability under fiduciary standards.
It's time to think differently. Because standing still isn't neutral — it's decline.
