The 401(k) was engineered for the climb. The first big wave of participants retiring on one is exposing how little the system was built for the way down.
For forty years the message stayed the same: save more, and let it compound. The 401(k) machine, from auto-enrollment to target-date funds to the green progress bar on the statement, was tuned to one job, getting the balance up. It worked. The system pulled trillions into the market through people who would not have invested on their own.
Then those people started to retire, and the machine that is so good at the climb has little to say about the descent. Call it the decumulation problem. It is the back half of the product, and the industry mostly skipped it.
Look at what a 401(k) optimizes for. Contributions arrive on a schedule. A default investment catches anyone who does not choose one. The committee reviews fees off the 408(b)(2), and the IPS governs the menu. Each piece assumes the participant is still putting money in, and none of it is built around the day the paychecks stop and the account has to become the paycheck.
Take someone hitting 65 with a real balance. In most plans, what they get is a recordkeeper phone number and a polite nudge toward the door. The plan that spent thirty years gathering this person's savings has no native way to turn the balance into a monthly check, so it hands them off right as the hardest financial decision of their life arrives. That should bother anyone who takes the duty of care seriously.
The legal scaffolding for in-plan income has gone up in recent years, and three pieces matter most. First, the lifetime income illustration. Since 2021, ERISA-covered defined contribution plans have had to show each participant once a year what the balance translates to as monthly income, as both a single life annuity and a joint and survivor annuity. For a lot of people it was the first time the balance looked like a paycheck instead of a lump sum, and the first time it looked thinner than they had assumed. That reframing opens the income conversation.
Second, the annuity selection safe harbor. For years the main reason plans steered clear of guaranteed income was fiduciary fear. Pick an insurer, and if it goes under in 2050, are you on the hook? The SECURE Act answered that in 2019 with a statutory safe harbor at ERISA section 404(e): a fiduciary who gathers the specified written representations about the insurer, with nothing on hand to contradict them, is treated as having run a prudent process on its financial strength. The older 2008 regulatory safe harbor still sits alongside it, so a sponsor has two paths.
Third, portability. The old worry was that an in-plan annuity locks the sponsor in forever. Section 109 of the SECURE Act handled it: when a plan drops a lifetime-income option, participants get a window to move the contract out by trustee-to-trustee transfer, free of the usual in-service limits and surrender charges. The plan gets a clean exit, and the saver keeps the guarantee.
The deeper shift is about where this income lives. A menu option nobody is defaulted into stays a curiosity, because in a defined contribution plan the default is how a feature reaches scale. Auto-enrollment showed that. The regulatory direction now points the same way for income: the thinking has moved toward letting a managed-account default keep its QDIA standing even when the income piece runs through insurance contracts, as long as the transferability and notice conditions are met. Income could arrive as the default instead of waiting on a shelf.
A few things to keep straight before anyone runs with it:
Whether to put guaranteed income in front of a sponsor, and whether it fits a plan's people, is a judgment that belongs to the advisor. No software or safe harbor makes that call for you. A person decides. The system remembers.
Most plans should not bolt on an annuity. The advisor paying attention is already doing a few things.
Start with the people. Pull the age curve on each plan you serve. A plan with a wave of participants inside ten years of retirement has a decumulation problem whether anyone has named it or not. A plan full of 28-year-olds does not have one yet. Care starts with knowing which is which.
Then get in front of that lifetime income illustration so it does not ambush people. When a 58-year-old opens a statement and sees the balance as one thin monthly figure, you have an opening for a real conversation. Document the work the way you document a fund review: if guaranteed income reaches a committee, the file should show how it was weighed and which safe harbor the fiduciary process relied on.
The accumulation era was about getting people up the mountain, and the industry got good at it. The next era is walking them back down, which is the harder half, because the decisions are larger and harder to undo. The plans that solve the descent will be the ones that kept their attention on the person behind the balance.
We're onboarding advisory firms now. Apply and we'll reach out, usually within one business day.