Have you ever had a client misuse your work to unfairly influence a third person?

The professional-conduct code of the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries and other divisions of the American Retirement Association includes this:

“A Stakeholder [a Member or a Credential Holder] shall not perform Professional Services when the Stakeholder has reason to believe that they may be altered in a material way or may be used to violate or evade the Law. The Stakeholder should recognize the risk that materials prepared by the Stakeholder could be misquoted, misinterpreted, or otherwise misused by another party to influence the actions of a third party{,} and should take reasonable steps to ensure that the material is presented fairly and that the sources of the material are identified.” Am. Ret. Ass’n, Code of Pro. Conduct, Control of Work Product (amended May 2026), https://fcwpol.files.cmp.optimizely.com/download/cea33626560611f18c27b2e7a7a4a6b0.

In your real-world experience, how often does it happen that something you wrote or compiled was used with a person beyond your client?

Was your writing misused?

Did someone use your materials to persuade a person beyond your client that you support a conclusion, opinion, or advice that’s not your advice?

When someone used your materials to persuade a person beyond your client that you support a conclusion you did not express, do you feel you had failed to prepare for the risk that your work could be misused?

Or, would the misuse have happened no matter how carefully you expressed your work?

Do you think what the rule asks is fair to the professional?

Should a professional have a duty to guard against the possibility that someone other than one’s client misunderstands your work you presented to your client?

And, most important, why or why not?

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

FINRA rule change—Trump Accounts under Code §530A

Publication: July 7, 2026
Federal Register document: 2026-13648
Source: FINRA Rule 3210 treatment of Code §530A accounts
Comments due: July 28, 2026

FINRA amended Rule 3210 to except Code §530A Trump Accounts from its requirements concerning accounts maintained by associated persons at other broker-dealers or financial institutions.

Consequently, associated persons generally will not need:

• prior written employer-firm consent;
• notice to the institution holding the Trump Account; or
• duplicate confirmations and account statements under Rule 3210.

FINRA treated the change as immediately effective, citing the standardized, passive nature of Trump Accounts and their limited eligible investments

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

Top Heavy Determination Date of 12/31/2025 for calendar year plan. (not a first year plan)

Client funds a 2025 Plan year contribution in 3/2026. 

Is the contribution funded in 3/2026 included as a receivable in the 12/31/2025 balance?

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

A Plan participant was mistakenly terminated in the TPA’s system on 9-30-2025, which stopped his loan payments.  In November 2025, a 1099-R was issued using Code M (plan loan offset).  The error was not discovered until May 2026 after the maximum cure period expired.  Since his employment did not terminate, I believe he should have been issued a 2026 Form 1099-R using Code L (deemed distribution).

Normally, we would advise the loan be reinstated.  However, since the error was not discovered until after the maximum cure period had expired, the TPA is unable to reinstate the loan.  The employee was harmed by the error since his loan became taxable.  Does anyone have any suggestions as to how this can be remedied under the Plan? 

View the full text of this job opportunity

Hi all, Any suggestions on recurring emails to subscribe to as a replacement for the old benefitslink newsletter? I don't think i realized how much I relied on those to keep myself up to date on H&W matters until they disappeared! Appreciate any and all suggestions. Thanks!

Hi all, Any suggestions on recurring emails to subscribe to as a replacement for the old benefitslink newsletter? I don't think i realized how much I relied on those to keep myself up to date until they disappeared! Appreciate any and all suggestions. Thanks!

I have a question to present as there is no clear answer in EPCRS. There was an asset sale in April (4/2/26) and the employees were hired/transferred to the newly formed company with new EIN of the buyer. I have finally received confirmation by legal counsel that the buyer did not agree to take over the sellers 401k plan after the sale. However,  the newly formed company continued to contribute to the plan of the seller after the sale closed - deferrals and match. What is the correction here? Distribute deferrals to the employees as 1099 income for 2026, but what about the match? Normally under EPCRS excess amounts attributable to match would be forfeited but the match was funded by an ineligible employer since there was an asset sale. Following that line of correction, the match would be forfeited, the plan terminated by the seller, and then there will be forfeitures to deal with. So after any plan expenses, lets say that forfeitures remain. Do they get reallocated - Ineligible match contributed after the 4/2 asset sale by an ineligible employer gets reallocated to the participants? Or, could this be viewed as a mistake of fact and return the match to the buyer? I have not had this come up before, can one of you M&A experts chime in maybe?

Thank you !!

View the full text of this job opportunity

Is anyone seeing an uptick in IRS audits for the 2023 plan year?