Savers can be trusted with the choice

Start with what the proposal actually does, because the objections mostly describe something else. It requires no plan to offer anything. It tells fiduciaries what a defensible process looks like if they choose to consider an asset.

The status quo it replaces was not neutral. Ambiguity about liability meant the safe choice was always to offer nothing unfamiliar, and that choice was made for millions of savers by lawyers managing litigation risk.

Wealthy investors have held these assets for years through accounts that carry no such constraint. The person barred from the option was the one whose savings sit entirely in a workplace plan, which is an odd place to draw a protective line.

The framework being extended is the same one already applied to private equity and real estate. Singling out one asset class for a stricter standard is a policy preference, not an application of existing law.

Process-based standards are also how prudence has always been assessed. Nobody proposes judging a fiduciary on whether an allocation went up, because that would make hindsight the standard and no committee would approve anything.

The genuine risks are real and addressable without prohibition. Custody, valuation and fees deserve scrutiny, and a documented process is precisely the instrument that forces a committee to examine them before offering something.

Menu design answers the consent objection better than a ban does. An explicit standalone option with clear disclosure and a sensible cap is a defensible structure, and it is available under this rule.

The alternative on offer is not safety. It is a permanent presumption that ordinary savers cannot be trusted with a decision that people with private brokerage accounts make routinely.

A plan that offers nothing beyond the familiar is not protecting anyone. It is declining to decide, and calling that fiduciary care.