The 401(k) Problems Employers Don’t Notice Until They Become Expensive
Most executives assume their 401(k) plan is fine until it isn’t.
Every year, as tax season approaches, many investors turn their attention to deductions, refunds, and filing deadlines. Far fewer pause to reassess one of the most powerful long-term wealth-building tools available to them: their 401(k).
In my experience, retirement shortfalls rarely happen because someone ignored their future entirely. They happen quietly — through years of under-contributing, missing incremental increases, or assuming that “good enough” is sufficient. Meanwhile, contribution limits change, catch-up rules evolve, and new legislation reshapes how higher earners must structure their savings.
A 401(k) is not simply a payroll deduction. It is a strategic tax shelter, a compounding engine, and in many cases the backbone of a household’s retirement security. Small adjustments made consistently over time can translate into meaningful differences in long-term outcomes.
For 2025 and 2026, the IRS has increased contribution limits and implemented important structural changes, including updated catch-up provisions and new Roth requirements for certain earners under SECURE 2.0. Understanding these changes is not just about staying compliant — it is about maximizing opportunity.
Before moving into another year on autopilot, it is worth reviewing what has changed and how those updates fit into your broader retirement strategy.
401(k) Feeses Are the Silent Drain on Retirement Savings
Fees are the most invisible cost in many retirement plans, yet they are among the most consequential.
Retirement plan researchers have repeatedly documented that many plans pay significantly more in administrative and investment fees than necessary. The 2023 Morningstar U.S. Fund Fee Study
Morningstar’s U.S. Fund Fee Study highlights continued fee compression across the industry, but also underscores meaningful dispersion in what investors pay for comparable strategies, particularly across share classes.
What does that mean in practice?
Imagine a mid‑size company with $6 million in plan assets. If the total fees paid by the plan exceed efficient benchmarks by 0.40 percent annually, that gap may seem small on a quarterly statement. Over 30 years, however, that difference can reduce a typical participant’s retirement savings by tens of thousands of dollars.
To visualize this, consider this suggested chart:
Employees rarely notice this drag because fees are embedded in net returns. They see performance but not the true cost beneath it. For employers, this hidden fee burden is risky because it diminishes retirement outcomes while increasing the possibility of fiduciary scrutiny. Regulators look at fee reasonableness relative to plan size and service needs. Plans that are out of market without documented rationale invite questions.
Defaults Shape How Most Employees Experience the 401(k) Plan
Most employees do not actively manage their 401(k) investments. They stick with the defaults. That makes default design one of the most powerful decisions a plan sponsor makes.
According to Vanguard’s 2024 How America Saves report, 401(k) plans that use automatic enrollment achieve an impressive 94% participation rate, far higher than plans relying on voluntary sign-ups. Even more encouraging, many participants stick with the default investment options—typically target-date or balanced funds—for years, relying on professionally managed portfolios designed to grow steadily over time. This demonstrates the power of thoughtful plan design: with the right automatic features in place, employees are more likely to save consistently and build long-term retirement security, even without actively managing every investment decision.
This pattern reflects human behavior. When a default is set, most people stick with it rather than make an active choice. If the default option is suboptimal in fees or expected returns, then a majority of your employees experience those suboptimal outcomes every year.
Most people are focused on their work, their families, and daily life. They do not spend their evenings reviewing mutual fund prospectuses. They trust the plan sponsor to set defaults that make sense.
When defaults have not been reviewed in years, when target date funds are not aligned with workforce age demographics, or when lower‑cost equivalents exist that have never been considered, most participants never realize the opportunities they are missing. The consequence is lower lifetime savings for employees and unrecognized inefficiencies for the employer.
Engagement Looks Better Than It Is
It is common to interpret a 401(k) plan’s engagement statistics as satisfactory because participation rates are high. But participation is just the beginning. Contribution rates matter. Understanding matters. Confidence matters.
Studies of employee financial wellness consistently show that many participants either contribute at minimal levels or misunderstand key aspects of their plan. According to The Plan Sponsor Council of America (PSCA) 67th Annual Survey of 401(k) plans shows that although participation rates are high — with 88% of eligible employees having a 401(k) balance and 86.9% making contributions in 2023 — the average participant deferral rate remains modest at about 7.8% of pay. This suggests that many participants are not actively increasing their savings or maximizing their contribution potential even when enrolled.
From a human capital perspective, a retirement plan that functions well is a stabilizing force. From an executive perspective, disengaged employees cost money in turnover, recruiting, and lost productivity before anyone realizes it. Few HR leaders connect retirement engagement and workforce stability, but the data shows they are intertwined.
Compliance is Not Protection
There is a subtle but critical difference between a plan that meets regulatory requirements and a plan that protects the employer from risk.
Many sponsors find comfort in compliance testing. Annual nondiscrimination tests are passed. Form 5500 is filed on time. The plan “meets the rules.” That is a necessary baseline. It is not the end goal.
Regulatory and fiduciary investigations often focus not on whether the tests were completed but whether the plan sponsor prudently documented oversight, fee benchmarking, investment selection rationale, fiduciary committee activity, and ongoing monitoring.
EBSA enforcement data show that compliance activities often reveal deeper fiduciary issues even when basic plan tests and filings are technically satisfied. In FY 2023, EBSA’s enforcement program recovered $1.4 billion for plans, participants, and beneficiaries and obtained countless non‑monetary corrections like improved fiduciary governance, removing illegal plan provisions, and other fiduciary reforms — underscoring that many plans had underlying problems not identified by routine compliance testing.
Small Decisions Can Have Large Consequences on your 401(k)
Almost every employer I have worked with assumed that early plan decisions could simply stay unchanged indefinitely. Most decisions at inception feel reasonable at the time: choice of provider, default contribution rate, set of investment options, frequency of oversight meetings.
But retirement plans are not static. Workforces evolve. Markets evolve. Benchmarking standards evolve. Employee expectations evolve. When the plan does not evolve alongside these changes, small past decisions become structural inefficiencies.
For example, a default contribution rate that was common ten years ago may be below current best practices. A lineup of investment options selected when the workforce was younger may not align with current age demographics. Administrative fees that seemed acceptable a decade ago may be high relative to today’s market standards.
The cumulative effect of these small decisions is larger than most executives realize.
The Cost of Delayed Action
When inefficiencies remain unnoticed for years, correction is not simple. Addressing silent problems often involves:
• Revisiting historical participant contributions and allocations
• Recalculating investment returns and reallocating balances
• Communicating changes clearly and effectively to employees
• Documenting fiduciary decisions for compliance purposes
For smaller employers, these steps might be manageable. For medium and larger organizations, they can consume significant time and resources, distract leadership, and expose the company to legal scrutiny if not handled carefully.
Proactive plan reviews save money not just in fees but in executive attention and leadership time.
Steps Employers Can Take Today
Clearly, silent problems are expensive problems. The difference between a plan that underperforms quietly and one that delivers tangible value is not luck. It is oversight, intention, and disciplined review.
Here are steps executives can consider:
-
Regular Plan Benchmarking
Hire an independent evaluator to compare fees, investment options, and services to market standards. -
Ongoing Monitoring and Oversight
Establish documented reviews of performance, fees, and participation trends at least annually. -
Employee Engagement Programs
Invest in communication and education so employees understand how to optimize contributions and investment choices. -
Proactive Compliance and Risk Review
Go beyond minimum legal requirements to document fiduciary decisions and oversight discipline.
Implementing these measures early can prevent small, invisible problems from turning into significant costs and legal liabilities.
The difference between a plan that underperforms quietly and one that delivers real value lies in proactive oversight, intentional decision‑making, and continuous engagement. Companies that wait until a problem surfaces often face disruption, increased costs, and exposure.
If your company’s 401(k) plan has not been independently benchmarked, structurally reviewed, or evaluated for engagement outcomes recently, the question is not whether it is compliant. The question is whether it is efficient, defensible, and aligned with your workforce goals.
For organizations that prefer to operate proactively rather than reactively, a structured plan review and benchmarking process can reveal hidden inefficiencies, align defaults and fees with best practices, and demonstrate fiduciary prudence in documented fashion.
Sometimes the most valuable meeting of the year is the one that provides clarity rather than crisis management.
Analysis by Shoven & Walton (NBER) finds that differences in glide path equity allocations can significantly affect drawdowns; in early 2020, long‑dated target‑date funds lost up to 35 % of value while nearer‑dated funds lost materially less.
This highlights the importance of using modernized, well-managed default funds, as participants who rely on outdated defaults may miss out on optimal long-term growth.
This gap is particularly pronounced for mid-career employees or executives with complex financial situations. A CFO contributing 6% of salary to a target-date fund that’s overweight in bonds may see $50,000–$100,000 less at retirement than if the allocation had been reviewed and updated periodically.
The silent risk here is twofold:
-
Employees unknowingly under-save or accumulate lower returns, reducing trust in the company’s benefits.
-
Employers face fiduciary exposure if defaults are demonstrably misaligned with participant demographics or industry benchmarks.
How Employee Psychology Determines Retirement Outcomes
Executives often assume that employees will make rational financial decisions when enrolled in a 401(k), but decades of behavioral finance research say otherwise. People are predictably irrational when it comes to saving, investing, and retirement planning.
All of these factors—hidden fees, outdated defaults, behavioral blind spots, and disengaged participants—add up quietly but relentlessly. They do more than affect retirement balances. They ripple through your organization, influencing talent retention, employee trust, and even your bottom line. The challenge is that these risks are silent. They do not announce themselves until the costs are real, tangible, and often expensive to fix. That is why proactive oversight, thoughtful plan design, and engagement strategies that truly consider employee behavior are essential leadership decisions that protect both your people and your company. The question is not whether these problems exist. They do. The real question is how quickly you are prepared to address them before they become too costly.
The good news is you do not have to face these challenges alone. At nVest Advisors, we help executives, HR leaders, and business owners uncover hidden 401(k) inefficiencies before they become expensive problems. Our approach combines expert benchmarking, strategic plan design, and employee engagement strategies that actually work.
Taking action now can protect your employees’ futures, strengthen trust in your leadership, and prevent costly disruptions down the line. Schedule a complimentary consultation with one of our advisors today. Let us help you turn your retirement plan from a silent risk into a powerful tool for growth, loyalty, and long-term success. Click HERE to book a FREE CONSULTATION with our advisor today!
