Larry Fink Touts Importance of Private Assets in Annual Letter

One way to fix the “retirement gap” is to increase access to alternative investments in 401(k) plans, according to BlackRock's Fink, writing in his annual letter.

Larry Fink, chairman and CEO of $11.5 trillion asset manager BlackRock Inc., wants to expand investor access to alternative investments and warned that too few Americans are saving for retirement in his annual chairman’s letter.

Fink writes that the assets that will “define the future”—including data centers, ports, power grids and the fastest-growing private companies—are out of reach for most investors, only accessible by institutions and high-net-worth individuals.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

“The reason for the exclusivity has always been risk. Illiquidity. Complexity. That’s why only certain investors are allowed in,” Fink wrote. “But nothing in finance is immutable. Private markets don’t have to be as risky. Or opaque. Or out of reach. Not if the investment industry is willing to innovate.”

Fink highlighted BlackRock’s recent acquisitions of private credit firm HPS Investment Partners, infrastructure manager Global Infrastructure Partners and alternatives data firm Preqin, pushing the firm beyond being a traditional asset manager.

“BlackRock has always had a foot in private markets. But we’ve been—first and foremost—a traditional asset manager,” Fink wrote. “That’s who we were at the start of 2024. But it’s not who we are anymore.”

Investing for Retirement 

According to a January BlackRock survey, 33% of Americans have no retirement savings, 51% are more worried about outliving their savings than about dying, and one-third of Americans would have a hard time paying an unexpected $500 bill.

One way to fix the “retirement gap” is to increase access to alternative investments in 401(k) plans, according to Fink.

“We’re going to need better ways to boost portfolios,” Fink wrote. “As I wrote earlier, private assets like real estate and infrastructure can lift returns and protect investors during market downturns. Pension funds have invested in these assets for decades, but 401(k)s haven’t. It’s one reason why pensions typically outperform 401(k)s by about 0.5% each year.”

According to BlackRock, that additional 0.5% every year, when compounded over 40 years, will result in 14.5% more money in a 401(k) plan by the time of retirement. “Or, put another way, private assets just bought you nine extra years hanging out with your grandkids,” Fink wrote. 

Still, there is a long way to go before alternative investments become ubiquitous in employer-sponsored defined contributions plans. While the number of plan sponsors implementing alternative strategies in their plans has increased, sponsors are often faced with lawsuits by plan participants alleging that such investments are violating the plans’ fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The illiquidity of these assets is another issue.

“When you invest in private assets—like a bridge, for example—the values of those assets aren’t updated daily, and you can’t withdraw your money whenever you want,” Fink wrote. “It’s a bridge, after all—not a stock.”

But Fink is confident that alts will play a role in the retirement accounts of the future.

“Asset managers, private-market specialists, consultants, and advisers all play a role in guiding 401(k) providers. That’s part of the reason I’m writing this letter—to cut through the fog,” Fink wrote. “We need to make it clear: Private assets are legal in retirement accounts. They’re beneficial. And they’re becoming increasingly transparent.”

Another important financial wellness tool for American, Fink wrote, is expanding emergency savings.

“No one invests for retirement if they’re worried about paying for a flat tire or ER visit tomorrow,” Fink wrote. He called the emergency savings provision of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 “just a start” and suggested, “We can simplify the rules further, raise contribution limits, and enable automatic enrollment in standalone emergency accounts.”

The 50/30/20 Portfolio and Infrastructure 

Fink’s letter suggested the standard portfolio of the future will include allocations to stocks, bonds and private assets, the latter acting as a diversifier, with infrastructure playing an important role. He described a new standard allocation of 50% stocks, 30% bonds and 20% alternatives. The traditional 60/40 stock/bond portfolio may well be a thing of the past.

“Generations of investors have done well following this approach, owning a mix of the entire market rather than individual securities,” Fink wrote. “But as the global financial system continues to evolve, the classic 60/40 portfolio may no longer fully represent true diversification.”

Fink noted three benefits of including infrastructure in a portfolio; inflation protection, volatility protection and strong historical returns. According to BlackRock, adding infrastructure to both a 60/40 portfolio and a pension portfolio increases returns and decreases portfolio volatility.

Also according to BlackRock, $68 trillion in infrastructure investment will be needed between 2024 and 2040, which Fink described as the equivalent of building the U.S. interstate highway system and its transcontinental railroad every six weeks for 15 years.

But for infrastructure investments to make sense for individuals and for retirement accounts, Fink called for the deregulation of infrastructure permitting.

“We can’t democratize investing if it takes 13 years to build a power line,” Fink wrote, noting that it typically takes longer to permit infrastructure projects than it takes to build them. “Giving retirement investors access to infrastructure matters less if the infrastructure never gets built. That’s often the case today.”

Lawsuits Call Attention to ESOP Cash Holdings

Plan fiduciaries have been accused of failing to prudently invest cash held in employee stock ownership plan trusts in recent cases.

In the last year, at least four companies have faced class action lawsuits over their management of cash holdings in employee stock ownership plans, potentially signaling a new litigation trend.

While investments in company stock have been commonly scrutinized, the focus on cash holdings may be a “significant and novel shift,” according to attorneys Caleb Barron and David Joffe at Bradley Law Firm P.C. 

The same law firm, Engstrom Lee LLC, filed ESOP cash investment-related complaints against Aerotech Inc., Aluminum Precision Products Inc., Pride Mobility Products Corp. and Wilson Electric Services Corp.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

In Schultz et al. v. Aerotech Inc. et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in April 2024, former and current participants of Aerotech’s ESOP argued that the company failed to invest the non-employer stock assets of the ESOP prudently and for the exclusive benefit of ESOP participants.

According to the lawsuit, the ESOP has two types of assets: Aerotech stock and other investments. The other investments are known as the other investments account.

The company’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust Committee has kept the OIA invested exclusively in cash equivalents, namely money market accounts and short-term certificates of deposit. The plaintiffs argued that the committee’s investment of the OIA s “unusual and imprudent.”

“Cash equivalents are appropriate only if the investor has a short-term investment objective, needs to preserve their principal balance, and cannot tolerate market risk,” the lawsuit stated. “These investments are not designed or expected to provide competitive long-term growth needed by retirement plan participants.

The plaintiffs argued that monitoring recent market data would have shown the committee that cash equivalents “earn significantly less over the long term, even when valued during declines in other asset classes.”

Aerotech has kept the OIA invested exclusively in cash equivalents since at least 2009, according to the complaint.

The complaint also suggested that one strategy to avoid investing exclusively in cash equivalents is to allow participants to direct their “other investments” balances to pooled funds that offer stocks and other asset classes. This could be accomplished by offering pooled funds within the ESOP or by allowing participants to move balances to the company’s 401(k) plan.

Attorneys at Bradley Law Firm P.C., who are not involved in any of the ESOP cases, argued in a recent post that the option of moving individuals’ balances to the 401(k) plan is most useful when the accounts of terminated participants are segregated and immediate distributions are not permitted.

“While there are complex pros and cons to this approach, reducing the fiduciary obligations on the ESOP fiduciaries is a clear benefit,” the attorneys wrote.

In a motion to dismiss the case, Aerotech argued that the cash-heavy approach was necessary to meet future repurchase obligations. However, the plaintiffs claimed that the company could have pursued higher-yield investments while maintaining adequate liquidity.

The lawsuit survived motion to dismiss in February and will proceed to discovery. The court pointed to the “vast disparity” between Aerotech’s cash-heavy approach and the practice of similar ESOPs, arguing that the Aerotech ESOP held nearly 200 times as much cash as comparator ESOPs. The court stated that the vast disparity “supports a reasonable inference of a lack of prudence.” 

Aerotech did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Many of the other cases are ongoing. The suit against Pride Mobility Products reached a settlement in February.

In January, the Department of Labor issued a proposed regulation aimed at clarifying the term “adequate consideration” regarding the valuation of employer stock in ESOP transactions, as required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The proposal seeks to strengthen protections for participants, while providing fiduciaries with guidance on determining the fair market value of employer stock in these transactions. However, it was withdrawn after the inauguration.

Hillary Abell, the head of the DOL’s Division of Employee Ownership under the Employee Benefits Security Administration, was reinstated to her position in March after initially being terminated in February as part of President Donald Trump’s efforts to downsize the federal government.

«