Business
Commentary: Trump wants you to invest your 401(k) in crypto and private equity. Should you bite?
Trump is opening the door to risky ‘alternative investments’ such as crypto and private equity in 401(k) plans. But employers have had good reasons to keep them out of their plans.
If you believe Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, American 401(k) accounts are about to get much better.
Thanks to President Trump’s “bold new vision of a new golden age for America,” Chavez-DeRemer wrote in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, her agency is taking steps to open these crucial retirement accounts to a raft of new investment options, such as cryptocurrencies and private equity funds.
Her goal, she wrote, is to “unwind regulatory overreach and litigation abuse that have stifled innovation.” Her instrument is a proposed regulation that in effect would provide a safe harbor for plan sponsors — that is, employers — to offer those options in their employees’ plans without risking lawsuits or government scrutiny over whether they’re sufficiently prudent for workers to choose.
We have seen a number of proposals from private equity funds where the returns are really not calculated in a manner that I would regard as honest.
— Warren Buffett (2019)
Notwithstanding Chavez-DeRemer’s assertion that this change would be all to the good for workers, the truth is that she and Trump are acting at the behest of alternative investment promoters, who have long slavered for access to the nearly $14 trillion in assets held in 401(k)s and other such defined contribution retirement plans.
Far be it for me to offer anyone investment advice. But there are a few things that Trump and DeRemer aren’t telling you about these proposed new options. Namely, the dangers they present to unwary small investors.
The first clue that something is being hidden appeared in DeRemer’s op-ed, in which she blamed “Washington bureaucrats” and “plaintiff lawyers” for stifling the financial innovation that people supposedly have been clamoring to put in their retirement accounts.
You know who rails against “Washington bureaucrats” and “plaintiff lawyers”? Businesses that are fearful that government regulators and juries will clamp down on their wrongdoing. These critiques are often described as efforts to get government off the backs of the people. What they don’t explain is that once government has climbed off, big business will saddle up.
(As I’ve reported, among the businesses that have recently been demonizing plaintiff lawyers is Uber, which is pushing a ballot measure in California that would all but shut the courthouse doors to some passengers injured during Uber rides.)
So let’s examine the unacknowledged issues with “innovative” alternative investments. Private equity firms are known for buying companies that are either held privately, or are public companies due to be taken private. In many cases, they turn profits for their investors by cutting payrolls and reducing services at their portfolio companies, then draining what’s left until there is nothing left. Cryptocurrencies, as I’ve written, are a scam all their own.
We’ll start with the implicit and explicit rules guiding employers when they decide what investment choices to offer workers in their 401(k)s.
“Employers are fiduciaries, which means they must make decisions about retirement investments that are in their employees’ best interest,” observes Eileen Applebaum of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “They must be prudent in curating a menu of retirement plan options for their workers. And they have been successfully sued for lack of prudence by workers whose retirement accounts held high fee, illiquid, risky investments that failed to perform.”
The fiduciary standards are developed in part by government bureaucrats. And the successful lawsuits? They’re brought by plaintiff lawyers.
In 2021, the Biden-era Labor Department warned that most sponsors of 401(k) plans and other defined contribution plans “are not likely suited to evaluate the use of [private equity] investments” in those plans. The administration shied away from outlawing such investments outright in 401(k)s. Nevertheless, employers understandably saw the warning as a yellow light, if not a flashing red light.
As of 2024, only about 4% of plan sponsors offered alternative investments, Applebaum reported. The threat of litigation also stayed their hand; 66 lawsuits were filed against plan sponsors that year, according to Encore Financial, a personal finance firm. High fees and other fiduciary failures were at the heart of most of the cases.
This isn’t the first time that Trump has tried to wedge private equity investments into 401(k)s. In 2020, during his first term, then-Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia issued an opinion that the mere presence of private equity investments among 401(k) choice was not in itself a fiduciary violation.
Scalia said his goal was to “remove barriers to the greatest engine of economic prosperity the world has ever known: the innovation, initiative, and drive of the American people.”
Until then, individuals were effectively barred from the investments by a Securities and Exchange Commission rule allowing only “accredited” investors — those who could show annual income of more than $200,000 or net worth of $1 million or more, not including their homes.
I didn’t offer an opinion then about the wisdom of these investments, but wrote only that “if I were inclined to invest my 401(k) money in private equity, I would hope that my family would arrange to have my head examined.”
My reasoning then was that private equity funds produce limited disclosure, or no useful disclosure at all; there are no commonly accepted formulas to measure their returns; and they’re subject to management fees immensely higher than conventional stock, bond or money market funds.
No less an experienced investor than Warren Buffett warned his own shareholders away from the sector, I pointed out.
“We have seen a number of proposals from private equity funds where the returns are really not calculated in a manner that I would regard as honest,” Buffett said at the May 2019 annual meeting of Berkshire Hathaway, which held his corporate investment portfolio.
Since then — indeed, since the Great Recession of 2007-2009 — the private equity sector has been promoting itself as a source of financial returns superior than those of conventional stock portfolios while glossing over cavils such as Buffett’s.
The promoters boast that their funds have low correlations with public markets — that is, when the public markets falter, the private markets gain; that they’re skilled at finding bargains among targeted businesses; and that they impose profit-gaining efficiencies on their acquired businesses.
In recent years, however, the private equity argument has faded. “Current data raises questions concerning these predicate assumptions,” wrote Nori Gerardo Lietz of Harvard Business School in 2024. Private equity fund performance, she observed, has “eroded materially.”
That’s true. From 2022 through the first three quarters of 2025, according to the research firm MSCI, private equity firms turned in annualized returns of 5.8%, while the Standard & Poor’s 500 index of public firms yielded 11.6%. Institutional investors such as public employee pension funds have begun to ask whether the sector deserves their money.
In the last year, the Yale University endowment and the public employee pension fund of New York City have sold off billions of dollars in private equity investments, some at a discount to their stated values. (To be fair, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, or CalPERS, has remained a fan, attributing its recent improvement in overall returns to a strengthened investment in private equity.)
The doubts being voiced by these major investors has turbocharged the push by the private equity sector to reach into individual retirement accounts. By some measures, however, individual investors have even less tolerance for some of the features of private equity than do institutions. Unlike publicly traded stocks, these investments are illiquid, meaning they can’t be sold at will and they can’t be reliably priced.
As for crypto, the other major alternative investment being touted by Trump, its shortcomings are well documented.
In contrast to conventional stocks and bonds, they don’t represent stakes in anything concrete and as a result are extremely volatile.
Bitcoin, for instance, ran as high as $126,000 in October; as of Thursday it was priced below $72,000. Among other queasy-induced crashes, bitcoin lost 35% of its value in less than four weeks between mid-January and early February, falling from $96,929 on Jan. 13 to $62,702 on Feb. 4.
These are all factors demanding notice from small investors contemplating adding these sectors to their retirement funds. For that reason, some retirement professionals doubt that even the Trump administration’s favor will persuade many plan sponsors to open their doors to alternative investments. Trump’s regulators may be taking a hands-off approach to these sectors, but plaintiff lawyers aren’t likely to back off.
For individual investors, these are sectors that were made for the phrase “caveat emptor.” If you don’t know your Latin, it means “buyer beware.”
Business
Devin Nunes Departs Trump Media After 4 Years as C.E.O.
President Trump’s social media company, which has consistently lost money and struggled with a flagging share price, announced Tuesday that it was replacing Devin Nunes as its chief executive officer.
The announcement offered no reason for the sudden departure of Mr. Nunes, a former Republican congressman from California. Mr. Trump had tapped him to run the company, Trump Media & Technology, in late 2021.
The announcement was made in a news release by the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who is a company board member and oversees a trust that controls his father’s 115-million-share stake in Trump Media. President Trump is not an officer or director of the company.
Mr. Nunes said in a statement on Truth Social, which is Trump Media’s flagship product, that it was an “appropriate time” for a new leader with experience in media and mergers to “steer Trump Media through its current transition phase.”
Trump Media has incurred hundreds of millions in losses, and its shares have performed poorly since the company went public by completing a merger with a cash-rich special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, in March 2024. The stock, which ended its first day of trading around $58 a share, closed Tuesday at $9.82.
Shares of Trump Media trade under the symbol DJT, which are President Trump’s initials. Truth Social has emerged as the main social media platform for Mr. Trump to communicate his policy decisions and opinions to the world.
Last year, Trump Media took in $3.7 million in revenue and recorded a $712 million net loss.
In December, Trump Media announced a plan to merge with TAE Technologies, a fusion power company. The all-stock deal, which was valued at $6 billion at the time, would create one of the first publicly traded nuclear fusion companies.
Trump Media said in February that it was considering spinning off its Truth Social platform in a merger with another cash-rich SPAC, Texas Ventures Acquisition III Corp.
Mr. Nunes is being replaced on an interim basis by Kevin McGurn, who has been an adviser to Trump Media since the end of 2024. Mr. McGurn, a former executive at Hulu, the streaming service, was listed in a recent regulatory filing as the chief executive of Texas Ventures.
The Trump Media release announcing the management change provided no update on the merger with TAE Technologies or the proposed SPAC deal for Truth Social.
Business
Netflix plans to buy historic Radford Studio Center
Streaming entertainment giant Netflix is in negotiations to buy the historic Radford Studio Center lot in Studio City.
Netflix plans to purchase the Los Angeles studio that has been home to generations of landmark television shows, including “Gunsmoke” and “Seinfeld,” according to two people with knowledge of the pending deal who were not authorized to speak about it publicly.
The studio’s previous operator, Hackman Capital Partners, defaulted on a $1.1-billion mortgage in January. Investment bank Goldman Sachs took over the property and is in talks with Netflix to sell it for between $330 million and $400 million.
Representatives for Hackman and Netflix declined to comment on the planned sale.
Culver City-based Hackman Capital Partners and Square Mile Capital Management teamed up to buy the Radford Avenue property from ViacomCBS in 2021 with a winning bid of $1.85 billion, after a competitive battle for the 55-acre studio beloved by the television industry.
At the time, the staggering price tag underscored the value — and scarcity — of TV soundstages in Los Angeles as content producers scrambled for space to shoot TV shows and movies to stock their streaming services. It was one of the largest-ever real estate transactions for a TV studio complex in Los Angeles.
Since then, production has substantially declined in Southern California. L.A. continues to battle the loss of production to other states and countries, as well as the lingering effects on the industry of the pandemic and the 2023 dual writers’ and actors’ strikes. Cutbacks in spending at the major studios after a surge in streaming-fueled TV production have further damped film activity in the region.
Founded by silent film comedy legend Mack Sennett in 1928, the lot became known as “Hit City” in the decades after World War II as popular TV shows such as “Leave It to Beaver,” “Gilligan’s Island,” “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “The Bob Newhart Show” and “Will & Grace” were made there. The storied lot gave the Studio City neighborhood its name,
Netflix, which has a market cap of about $455 billion — more than double that of Walt Disney Co. — has maintained its dominance in the global streaming business with more than 325 million subscribers.
The Los Gatos-based company has production offices worldwide, including facilities in Albuquerque, Brooklyn, London, Madrid and Toronto.
Netflix had secured an $82.7-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. studios and streaming services in December, but withdrew from the bidding war in late February after Paramount Skydance offered $31 a share. As part of the switch, Netflix was paid a $2.8-billion termination fee.
Business
Kevin Warsh, Trump’s Pick to Lead Fed, Faces Senate at Tricky Moment
Kevin M. Warsh, President Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Reserve, has spent years refining his pitch for why he should get one of the most powerful economic jobs in the world.
At his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, he will have to convince Senate lawmakers that he is ready to step into the role, which has become politically explosive amid Mr. Trump’s relentless attacks on the institution and its current chair, Jerome H. Powell.
Mr. Warsh, who is scheduled to testify before the Banking Committee at 10 a.m., plans to commit to being “strictly independent” on decisions related to interest rates, according to his prepared remarks. He also plans to tell lawmakers that he is unbothered by Mr. Trump’s incessant calls for substantially lower borrowing costs. And he will use his opening statement to underscore his focus on disrupting the “status quo” at an institution he said just last year was in need of “regime change.”
“In a time that will rank among the most consequential in our nation’s history, I believe a reform-oriented Federal Reserve can make a real difference to the American people,” he plans to tell lawmakers, adding: “The stakes could scarcely be higher.”
Mr. Warsh, 56, faces significant hurdles to winning confirmation. He has broad support among Republicans, who control the Senate and can confirm him along party lines. Yet his candidacy has stalled because of an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department into Mr. Powell and his handling of the Fed’s headquarters renovations.
Mr. Powell’s term as chair ends May 15, but Mr. Warsh looks increasingly unlikely to be in place by then. That’s because Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina — a Republican on the Banking Committee who has expressed support for Mr. Warsh — has vowed to block any attempt to confirm a new Fed chair until the legal threats into Mr. Powell are resolved. For Mr. Tillis, the investigation is a blatant attempt to coerce Mr. Powell into lowering rates, undermining the Fed’s independence and confirming the politicization of the Justice Department.
“I’m not going to condone bad decision-making and bad behavior,” Mr. Tillis told reporters on Monday in reference to the Justice Department’s lack of evidence of any wrongdoing.
The department has vowed to continue its investigation, despite numerous legal setbacks.
“I think ultimately, he will be confirmed,” Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, another Republican on the committee, told reporters on Monday. “I just don’t know what decade.”
Mr. Warsh’s ascent would mark a homecoming for the Wall Street financier, who served as a Fed governor from 2006-11.
Since leaving the Fed, he has amassed assets worth well in excess of $100 million, according to financial disclosures submitted before his hearing. Those have drawn scrutiny because Mr. Warsh repeatedly invoked “pre-existing confidentiality agreements” to avoid disclosing the details behind several of his investments. He has said he would divest a substantial amount of his assets before taking the job.
The global financial crisis dominated Mr. Warsh’s first tenure at the Fed, thrusting him into the middle of discussions about how the central bank should respond to the threat of bank failures, turmoil in financial markets and a painful recession that followed. Mr. Warsh, then the youngest-ever member of the Board of Governors, was initially supportive of the Fed’s efforts to shore up financial markets by buying enormous quantities of government bonds and expanding its balance sheet to ease strains in financial markets and support growth by keeping market-based rates low.
But he soon soured on subsequent efforts to buy more bonds and resigned in protest. That experience has stuck with Mr. Warsh, who has made a smaller balance sheet a pillar of his plans if he takes over as chair.
Mr. Warsh would also be likely to usher in changes to how the Fed communicates its policy views, having expressed misgivings about its strategy of providing so-called forward guidance, or hints about how interest rates may change in the future to guide expectations. He has also suggested that policymakers across the Fed system should speak far less. Mr. Powell held a news conference after each rate decision, or eight a year, and delivered speeches with regularity. Mr. Trump’s pick to join the Fed last year, Stephen I. Miran, often speaks multiple times a week.
“Once policymakers reveal their economic forecast, they can become prisoners of their own words,” Mr. Warsh said in a speech last year. “Fed leaders would be well served to skip opportunities to share their latest musings. The swivel-chair problem, rhetorically waxing and waning with the latest data release, is common and counterproductive.”
What is far less clear is how much Mr. Warsh would heed the president’s demands for lower interest rates. Mr. Trump said he would not pick someone for chair who did not support lower borrowing costs.
Mr. Warsh sought in his opening statement to downplay the costs of a president’s voicing his opinions about rates, saying central bankers must be “strong enough to listen to a diversity of views from all corners, humble enough to be open-minded to new ideas and new economic developments, wise enough to translate imperfect data into meaningful insight and dedicated enough to make judgments faithfully and wisely.”
Earlier this year, many officials at the Fed saw a path to gradually lower rates as the impact of Mr. Trump’s tariffs faded and inflation restarted its slide back toward 2 percent after almost of year of stalling out. The war in Iran — and the energy shock it has unleashed — has upended those forecasts, however, prompting officials to turn wary about lowering rates.
Mr. Warsh will face questions on Tuesday about the economic impact of the war and how it has changed his thinking around the Fed’s ability to lower rates. While at the Fed, he was known as an inflation hawk who often argued against providing policy relief for fear that it could stoke price pressures. He also said the Fed should aspire to engage in rule-based policymaking that stems from formulas that prescribe how officials should set rates based on levels of inflation and employment.
While campaigning to be chair, Mr. Warsh embraced the need for rate cuts, arguing that there was a path for lower borrowing costs because of his plans to shrink the balance sheet, which would lift longer-term rates that then could be offset by lowering short-term ones. He also argued that higher productivity from the boom in artificial intelligence could unleash higher growth without stoking inflation, which could give the Fed more space to lower rates than otherwise would be the case.
In his opening statement, Mr. Warsh made clear, however, that a failure to bring down inflation, which has been stuck above the Fed’s 2 percent target for roughly five years, would strictly be the Fed’s fault, suggesting that he would shoulder the blame if he did not bring it back down during his tenure.
“Inflation is a choice, and the Fed must take responsibility for it,” he will tell lawmakers.
Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.
-
Denver, CO5 minutes agoMotorcyclist seriously injured in Denver hit-and-run crash – AOL
-
Seattle, WA11 minutes agoBrock: 2 drafts fits at edge rusher for Seattle Seahawks
-
San Diego, CA17 minutes agoJoseph Allen Oviatt – San Diego Union-Tribune
-
Milwaukee, WI23 minutes agoMilwaukee Brewers overpower Detroit Tigers to win 12-4
-
Atlanta, GA29 minutes agoWhat this food hall could mean for a south Atlanta neighborhood
-
Minneapolis, MN35 minutes agoEllison, Minneapolis, St. Paul update lawsuit against Operation Metro Surge with new data
-
Indianapolis, IN41 minutes ago
Indianapolis, Carmel area fails air pollution measures in new report
-
Pittsburg, PA47 minutes agoCallie DiSabato: Unregulated short-term rentals hurt Pittsburgh