Abstract
Regulating cryptocurrency’s place in America’s most popular retirement savings vehicle generates thorny legal, ethical, and social justice dilemmas. Too little regulation could hurt those at highest risk of underfunded retirement. Too much could exacerbate existing racial, ethnic, and gender inequities.
Though recent regulatory efforts suggest 401(k) administrators violate their fiduciary duty of care by offering cryptocurrency investment options to plan participants, the established fiduciary regime protects 401(k) plan participants from cryptocurrency risk while respecting their savings preferences. Yet, the current framework falls short of ethically and equitably serving all plan participants, particularly members of underserved communities— a problem largely unaddressed in academic, industry, or regulatory discourse.
This Article demonstrates how regulators’ needlessly paternalistic approach toward cryptocurrency options could disproportionately impact minority retirement savings participation. Applying the existing fiduciary framework and practical mechanisms that plan fiduciaries currently use would minimize cryptocurrency risk to participants without rewriting the rules governing plan administration. This Article also proposes a novel, scientifically supported method by which fiduciaries should convey retirement planning information to improve retirement outcomes for all: via non-traditional media.
Recommended Citation
Lauren K. Valastro,
Did the Superbowl Ad Curse Heighten Defined Contribution Plan Fiduciary Duties?: Deciphering the Legal and Ethical Landscape of Cryptocurrency Options in 401(k)s,
57
U. Mich. J. L. Reform
109
(2023).
Available at:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol57/iss1/4