I want to understand if these policies would be considered typical, better than average, or below average.

An employer offers a matching contribution to 401K, details are:

  • 0% vested in employer contributions until year 2, then 20% vesting each year until year 6.
  • Max annual employer contribution $3,250 (3% of a 100K salary, this is a hard number and not a percentage however)
  • Employer matches 50% of deferrals up to the $3,250 limit
  • To receive the match employees must be

    1. Still employed on Dec. 31
    2. Have worked 1,000 hours in past calendar year
  • Match is paid out at end of Q1 the following year

For an employee with a start date of July 29 2019, working 40 hours per week, the effective breakdown is as follows.

  • First contribution will be paid out in Q2 of 2021 (19 months after hire date)
  • Max amount of first contribution is $3,250
  • 4
    That sounds like crazy bad terms to me, and for only 3% of salary too? I'd factor it in as no match for purposes of comparing jobs, and then you end up with a small bonus if you end up working there a long time.
    – Kevin
    Aug 12, 2019 at 17:48
  • The vesting schedule isn't so great. The last company I worked at offered 100% vesting after 3 years. If you think you'll still be at this position in 6 years I guess it wouldn't matter. 3% matching isn't all that great either but better than nothing. One employer I worked for matched 100% of the first 4 percent and 50% on the next 2 percent. Another contributed 5% yearly.
    – Rich
    Aug 12, 2019 at 18:24

1 Answer 1


It's a good deal for people who aren't making so much (e.g. $3250 is a nice percentage of $40k) and seems to be specially designed to discourage short-term employment (because it can't kick in until 9-21 months after signing on).

Also, I'm sure that doesn't meet safe harbor requirements, so the test on highly-compensated employees will be in place, and that's probably even worse than the vesting rules because it will limit your own contributions.

I personally would stay away from any 401(k) "benefit" that does not qualify for safe harbor.

  • 1
    Whooops, forgot to mention it is a 50% match up to the $3,250 limit.
    – jhawins
    Aug 12, 2019 at 18:47
  • Any match is better than no match at all. Granted, some employers match better than others, but it's still basically free money. @tHeMan didn't mention if he was considered highly compensated or not. He tossed out $100k in his example which wouldn't meet the dollar limit to be considered an HCE. If that's accurate, the non-discrimination test result wouldn't limit his contributions at all.
    – kazoni
    Sep 11, 2019 at 3:39
  • @kazoni: The IRS rule is based on "compensation", not "salary". Someone making $100k salary probably has $20k in annual non-salary benefits.(although with this stingy company it's possible OP doesn't).
    – Ben Voigt
    Sep 11, 2019 at 7:42
  • @kazoni: To look at your comment from another perspective, "A plan with a match is better than a plan with no match, if all other aspects of the plan are equal". But other aspects are never equal. A plan without a match but with high performing low fee investments can be better than a plan with a match but horrible investment options. A plan without a match and the full IRS-sanctioned annual contribution limit can be better than a plan with a match and a low employer-imposed contribution limit.
    – Ben Voigt
    Sep 11, 2019 at 16:17
  • @BenVoigt Very true on both counts. If his overall comp is past the HCE threshold then I completely agree with your analysis. It's hard to compare apples to apples between plans as when you're looking for work, they may tell you that part of the benefits is a retirement plan, but I doubt they'd give out the fund lineup unless you accepted employment.
    – kazoni
    Sep 11, 2019 at 16:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.