SEC Chair Atkins Updates House on Introducing Private Assets to DC Plans
Addressing the House Committee on Financial Services, Paul Atkins said that 401(k)s should have access to alternative investments, much like pension plans.
Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins voiced his support for private assets in defined contribution plans on Wednesday during a hearing before the House Committee on Financial Services.
Atkins stressed that expanded access to private investments for retirement investors would benefit DC plans, provided there are proper guardrails supporting the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. He also noted that the SEC is working with the Department of Labor, particularly its Employee Benefits Security Administration, on relevant guidance in response to President Donald Trump’s August 2025 executive order on the topic.
EBSA submitted its proposed rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a division within the Office of Management and Budget, last month. The proposed regulation remains under review.
Atkins signaled that the SEC is poised to revisit and potentially overhaul the definitions of “accredited investor” and “qualified purchaser”—key thresholds that determine who can invest in private, restricted markets. He described the current criteria as outdated and in need of substantial revision.
He further pointed out that many workers already have indirect exposure to alternative investments through their pension plans.
“Why not extend it to 401(k)s?” he asked.
Atkins argued that, in today’s market environment, it is difficult to build a truly diversified portfolio without private market investments.
According to information on the SEC website, accredited investors can include “entities with assets in excess of $5 million: corporations, partnerships, LLCs, trusts, 501(c)(3) organizations, employee benefit plans, ‘family office’ and any ‘family client’ of that office.”
In other testimony this week, Atkins appeared at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Banking and urged Congress to pass digital-asset legislation and reduce public-company disclosure requirements to help increase the number of initial public stock offerings in the U.S.
Atkins repeatedly backed passage of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, which has already moved through the House of Representatives and is now in the Senate, as the best way to “future-proof” oversight of digital assets and markets by drawing a clearer line between responsibilities of the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
He told senators that statutory clarity would prevent the whiplash of “regulation by enforcement” and reduce uncertainty for innovators trying to determine whether a product falls under federal securities or commodities rules and regulatory jurisdiction.
To bridge the gap while Congress negotiates final legislative language, Atkins said the SEC and CFTC are now working through “Project Crypto”—a joint initiative focused on creating a token taxonomy and defining potential exemptions designed to allow certain transactions to occur on blockchains while maintaining investor protections.
The push comes as the White House has been trying to break a stalemate among banks and digital asset firms on unresolved issues—including disagreements over stablecoin rewards—that have slowed momentum behind broader crypto market-structure bills.
The Senate Banking Committee still needs to advance its version of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which focuses on the SEC’s responsibilities, after the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry advanced its portion of the bill, focused on the CFTC’s role, with a vote along party lines at the end of January.
The legislation has become increasingly difficult to pass, because Democrats want to include certain ethics requirements to address conflicts of interest of some federal officials who are profiting from the crypto industry. Democrats’ support would be needed for the bill to reach a full Senate vote.
Democrats attempted to add the ethics amendment in the Agriculture Committee’s version, but it did not pass. However, they could insist that such an amendment be included in the full Senate version if the bill gets that far.