When you start looking into switching your 401(k) advisor, it’s usually because something hasn’t been sitting right for a while.

Maybe you’ve had a few too many moments where you needed help and didn’t get it. Maybe the plan hasn’t been looked at in years and you’re not sure if it’s still where it should be. Or maybe you’ve just started asking more questions about fees and support.

So you start poking around to see what a change would involve.

And this is usually the point where things stall out, because as soon as you seriously consider switching, the questions start stacking up. Is this going to create more work for your team? Are employees going to be confused? Are you about to open up a bigger project than you intended?

That’s the assumption most plans get stuck on, but it’s not actually how it plays out.

Beneficiary designations are one of the most important and most overlooked parts of retirement planning.

For employees, they determine who receives retirement assets. For HR teams and plan sponsors, they help ensure a smoother experience for participants and their families.

Because these decisions are often made once during enrollment and never revisited, outdated or incomplete information can surface during moments when clarity matters most. The good news is that many common beneficiary mistakes are easy to prevent.

Here are the most common issues we see and how to avoid them.

For many HR teams and plan sponsors, retirement plan compliance can feel reactive. A nondiscrimination test fails, refunds go out, corrections are made, and the plan moves on.

That’s not how it plays out everywhere. Some organizations deal with fewer surprises, make clearer decisions, and spend less time putting out fires. Their retirement plan supports retention and leadership confidence instead of becoming another annual stress point.

Picture this: an employee opens their pay stub expecting to see 3% of their salary going into their 401(k). Instead—nothing. Payroll missed the deferral months ago. By the time anyone notices, the company owes back contributions, lost earnings, and maybe even penalties.

The short answer: it depends.

The long answer: there are four main cost categories, and how you structure them determines whether you get a fair, sustainable plan—or one that frustrates employees and exposes your company to liability.

Think of a 401(k) like building a house—you’ll pay for the architect, the contractor, and the materials. Skip one, and the whole structure is at risk. The same is true for retirement plans.

Starting 1/1/2026, SECURE 2.0 requires Roth-only catch-up contributions for HCEs. Here’s exactly what’s changing, and the simplest way to avoid getting stuck. 

For HR leaders, payroll managers, and highly compensated employees trying to stay ahead of SECURE 2.0, one mistake is proving more costly than any other. 

What’s tripping people up right now isn’t the rule. It’s the delay in acting on it. 

Across the industry, we’ve seen this pattern again and again. Plans know the change is coming. But the assumption that “someone else is handling it” has quietly become the biggest threat to compliance. 

If you’re a business leader exploring a 401(k) for your employees, you probably have the same first question everyone else does: “How much is this going to cost us?”

Who’s legally responsible when your 401(k) plan gets hit with a lawsuit—your company, or your advisor?
And is your advisor someone who takes accountability, or someone who simply makes suggestions and walks away?