Conflict-Free Retirement Advice Is the Future of Our Industry

For years, it was considered normal that retirement plan advice could sound fiduciary in tone but remained connected, directly or indirectly, to product distribution, rollover economics or cross-selling opportunities. Today, plan sponsors are asking more informed questions and have more credible alternatives than before. As a result, the market is rewarding advisory models that are more transparent, more specialized and more structurally aligned with client outcomes.

That positioning is resonating most strongly with sponsors facing greater scrutiny of governance, fees and fiduciary process. In turn, this demand is accelerating broader changes in how retirement plan consulting is delivered and valued.

This does not mean conflict-free models dominate the landscape. They do not. But the forces shaping the next phase of retirement advice—from litigation and regulation to sponsor expectations and enabling technology—are converging in a way that favors firms willing to separate consulting from compensation structures that can create divided loyalties. In my view, that shift will define the next generation of successful retirement plan advisory businesses.

Standard of Care Rises as Rules Shift

The Department of Labor’s 2024 Retirement Security Rule, produced by the administration of former President Joe Biden, was intended to expand fiduciary coverage under ERISA. But in 2026, after Texas court decisions vacated the rule and related amendments and long after President Donald Trump began his second term, the DOL formally removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations and restored the long-standing 1975 five-part test.

That rollback matters, but it would be a mistake to interpret it as a return to business as usual. The legal definition may have narrowed again, yet the expectations shaping real-world advice have not simply reset to an earlier era. Plan sponsors, in particular, continue to operate as if the practical standard of care has moved higher—and they are selecting and evaluating advisers accordingly.

Just as important, Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2020-02 remains in effect, preserving best-interest obligations, disclosure requirements and retrospective review expectations for rollover-related advice. Outside of ERISA, SEC Regulation Best Interest continues to influence conduct standards for broker/dealers.

Put simply, while formal fiduciary boundaries still matter, the effective standard of care is being shaped by a broader mix of regulation, litigation risk and, increasingly, sponsor expectations. That combination is reinforcing demand for advisory relationships in which alignment is clear, defensible and easy to explain.

Fee Scrutiny, Litigation Make Conflicts Harder to Defend

Litigation remains a central force behind this shift. Regardless of one’s view on the volume of ERISA lawsuits, the message for plan fiduciaries is unmistakable: Process quality, fee reasonableness, documentation and governance discipline all matter—and they must hold up under scrutiny.

The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Cunningham v. Cornell University has further sharpened attention on how prohibited transaction claims can proceed and how carefully fiduciaries and service providers must document compensation structures and oversight processes.

In this environment, conflicted compensation models become harder—not just to manage, but also to justify. Even when an arrangement is technically permissible, sponsors are more consistently asking: Who is being paid? Why? How does that compensation align with participant outcomes?

That shift in questioning matters. It moves the conversation away from technical compliance alone toward perceived alignment and fiduciary defensibility. Business models that rely on proprietary products, rollover capture or adjacent wealth opportunities now carry more procedural and reputational friction. By contrast, models that reduce or eliminate embedded conflicts are often simpler to govern, monitor and explain—making them more attractive to sponsors focused on long-term fiduciary discipline.

Plan Sponsors Redefine Adviser Value

There is also a clear demand-side driver. Plan sponsors increasingly expect advisers to deliver value well beyond investment menu construction. This aligns with industry data, including PLANADVISER’s 2026 Adviser Value Survey, which found that sponsors rely on advisers across a widening range of services beyond investments alone.

This expanding scope reinforces a shift away from viewing advisers primarily as product intermediaries and toward seeing them as strategic partners in managing retirement outcomes and workforce financial health. As financial stress remains elevated and retirement readiness concerns persist, employers are looking for ways to connect plan design with real-world financial behaviors. Survey data from providers such as Fidelity point to continued sponsor focus on participant outcomes and simplifying plan complexity.

Personalization is part of this evolution. Managed accounts, targeted communications, retirement income education and integrated financial wellness solutions all reflect an effort to meet participants where they are. But personalization only builds trust when sponsors and participants believe the guidance is driven by their needs—not by embedded economic incentives.

Artificial intelligence—particularly generative and emerging agentic tools—are expanding the ability to deliver more personalized, scalable support. While AI does not eliminate the need for judgment or fiduciary discipline, it can reduce reliance on legacy compensation structures that historically introduced conflicts into advisory relationships.

Where the Industry Is Heading

The implications of these converging forces are becoming clearer. Plan sponsors are more informed, more engaged and more selective in how they evaluate advisory relationships. Regulators and courts continue to reinforce the importance of process, documentation and alignment—even when definitions evolve. Meanwhile, technology is expanding what advisers can deliver without relying on legacy economic structures.

Against that backdrop, the firms best positioned for long-term relevance will be those that combine fiduciary discipline, transparent economics and modern consultative service delivery.

Sponsors want advisers they can trust—partners who can support not just investment decisions, but broader responsibilities tied to governance and participant outcomes. Participants increasingly expect guidance that feels personal and credible. Meeting those expectations consistently requires advisory models in which incentives are clear and alignment is built in.

Conflict-free retirement consulting may not yet be the universal standard. But it is increasingly the direction in which both sponsors and the broader market are moving—and the firms that recognize it early will help define what comes next.

Matthew Vandre is the director of digital services and a financial planner at Francis LLC.