What is a 401(k) Loan Provision?
"Congratulations on the job offer!  That type of matching sounds good if you plan to stay at a company for more than a year. My experience has been that 401k matching can range from 2% up to 8% for your typical starting job, so a total of 6% is good. You would definitely want to contribute at least 5% to take advantage of the ""Free"" money. Loan provision could mean that loans from 401k are allowed. I did some research and found that not all company 401ks allow for you to take a loan out of your 401k. Typically this is bad practice since you are robbing your 401k of it's major advantage - tax free compound interest.  Source" 401K accounts, both regular and Roth, generally have loans available. There are maximum amounts that are based on federal limits, and your balance in the program. These rules also determine the amount of time you have to repay the loan, and what happens if you quit or are fired while the loan is outstanding. In these loan programs the loan comes from your 401K funds. Regarding matching funds. This plan is not atypical. Some match right away, some make you wait. Some put in X percent regardless of what you contribute. Some make you opt out, others make you opt in. Some will direct their automatic amounts to a specific fund, unless you tell them otherwise.  The big plus for the fund you describe is the immediate vesting. Some companies will match your investments but then only partially vest the funds. They don't want to put a bunch of matching funds into your account, and then have you leave.  So they say that if you leave before 5 years is up, they will not let you keep all the funds. If you leave after 2 years you keep 25%, if you leave after 3 years you keep 50%... The fact they immediately vest is a very generous plan. "As Mhoran answered, typical match, but some have no match at all, so not bad.  The loan provision means you can borrow up to $50k or 50% of your balance, whichever is less. 5 year payback for any loan, but a 10 year payback for a home purchase.  I am on the side of ""don't do it"" but finance is personal, and in some situations it does make sense. The elephant in this room is the expenses within the 401(k). Simply put, a high enough expense will wipe out any benefit from tax deferral. If you are in this situation, I recommend depositing to the match, but not a cent more.  Last, do they offer a Roth 401(k) option? There's a high probability you will never be in as low a tax bracket as the next few years, now's the time to focus on the Roth deposits, if not in the 401(k), then in an IRA." "Basically, a 401(k) can have what is called a ""loan"", but is more properly a ""structured withdrawal and repayment agreement"". This allows you to access your nest egg to pay for unforeseen expenses, without having to actually cash it out and pay the 10% penalty plus taxes. You can get up to half of your current savings, with an absolute cap of $50k, minus the balance of any other loan outstanding. While there is a balance outstanding, you must make regular scheduled payments. The agreement does include an interest rate, but basically that interest money goes into your account. The downside of a 401(k) loan is the inflexibility; you must pay the scheduled amount, and you also have to keep the job for which you're paying into the 401(k); if you quit or are fired, the balance of the loan must usually be paid in 60 days, or else the financial institution will consider the unpaid balance a ""withdrawal"" and notify the IRS to that effect. Now, with a Roth account, it works a little differently. Basically, contributions to any Roth account (IRA or 401(k)) are post-tax. But, that means the money's now yours; there is no penalty or additional taxes levied on any amount you cash out. So, a loan basically just provides structure; you withdraw, then pay back under structured terms. But, if you need a little cash for a good reason, it's usually better just to cash out some of the principal of a Roth account and then be disciplined enough to pay back into it."
"Assuming the numbers work out roughly the same (and you can frankly whip up a spreadsheet to prove that out), a defined benefit scheme that pays out an amount equal to an annuitized return from a 401(k) is better.  The reason is not monetary - it is that the same return is being had at less risk. Put another way, if your defined benefit was guaranteed to be $100/month, and your 401(k) had a contribution that eventually gets to a lump sum that, if annuitized for the same life expectancy gave you $100/month, the DB is better because there is less chance that you won't see the money. Or, put even simpler, which is more likely? That New York goes Bankrupt and is relieved of all pension obligations, or, the stock market underperforms expectations.  Neither can be ruled out, but assuming even the same benefit, lower risk is better. Now, the complication in your scenario is that your new job pays better.  As such, it is possible that you might be able to accumulate more savings in your 401(k) than you might in the DB scheme.  Then again, even with the opportunity to do so, there is no guarantee that you will.  As such, even modelling it out really isn't going to dismiss the key variables. As such, can I suggest a different approach?  Which job is going to make you happier now?  Part of that may be money, part of that may be what you are actually doing.  But you should focus on that question. The marginal consideration of retirement is really moot - in theory, an IRA contribution can be made that would equalize your 401(k), negating it from the equation.  Grant you, there is very slightly different tax treatment, and the phaseout limits differ, but at the salary ranges you are looking at, you could, in theory, make decisions that would have the same retirement outcome in any event. The real question is then not, ""What is the effect in 20 years?"" but rather, which makes you happier now?" No. But you are not splitting the 401(k), the judge is. There is no provision for an employee to simply request funds to give to the ex-spouse. But there is a QDRO, a qualified domestic relations order whereby a judge orders this to occur. The lawyers will be aware of the loans, as will the judge, and will take that into account when splitting the 401(k). Depending on what other money the Ex has, he make be required to pay the loans back, partially, or in full.  No one can guess what will happen. The judge will take all aspects of your finances and current earnings into account. I moved from contributing 10% to maxing as my salary rose over the course of three years after graduation.  Because of my raises, my monthly take home still increased, so it was a pretty painless way to increase my 401(k) contribution and also avoid lifestyle inflation. That said, I would not do it if you have any credit card debt, school loans, or an auto loan.  Pay that off first.  Then work on maxing the 401(k).  Personally I rate owning a home behind that, but that's partially because I'm in an area where the rent ratios are barely on the side of buying, so I don't find buying to be a pressing matter. One thing to investigate is if your company offers a Roth 401(k) option.  It's a nice option where you can go Roth without worrying about income limits.  My personal experience does not include a Roth IRA because when I still qualified for one I didn't know much about them, and now that I know about them I have the happy issue of not qualifying. "The ""Deferral"" for the 401k means that you're not collecting your pay immediately, but instead diverting it to a retirement account (Roth 401k in this case). This article defines deferral well: What is the difference between a regular 401(k) deferral (pre-tax) and a Roth 401(k) deferral?  Under either a regular 401(k) deferral or a Roth 401(k) deferral, you   make a deferral contribution by electing to set  aside part of your   pay (by either a certain percentage or a certain dollar amount).  For   a regular 401(k) deferral, the  taxable wages on your W-2 are reduced   by the deferral contribution; therefore, you pay less current income   tax.   However, you will eventually pay tax on these contributions and   earnings when the plan distributes the regular  401(k) deferrals and   earnings to you.  The result is that the tax on the regular 401(k)   deferrals and earnings is only  postponed.  A Roth 401(k) deferral is an after-tax contribution, which  means you   must pay current income tax on the deferral.   Since you have already   paid tax on the deferral, you won’t pay tax on it again when you   receive a distribution of  your Roth 401(k) deferral.  In addition, if   you satisfy cer tain distribution conditions, then you won’t have to   pay tax  on the earnings either.  This means  that the distribution of   the Roth 401(k) earnings can be tax free not just tax  postponed. Traditionally, this deferred compensation typically was directed to a 401k, but now that Roth 401k is another available option, deferred compensation can be directed there as well." the government wants to tax your money before you die. If you die your 401(k) becomes part of your estate and will not be taxed to as great an extent. If you roll your funds from a 401k to an individual Vanguard account it will be in an IRA. Some people talk about IRA loans, but what is happening is that you are given a check for the value of the IRA and you have 60 days to deposit that full amount in another qualified account before being assessed a distribution penalty. The IRS also has rules to prohibit you from making several back-to-back rollovers to try to float the money for longer than 60 days. You should be able to take a loan out on the 401(k).  You can't do a roll-over unless you leave your job.  If your 401(k) is that bad, you should consider maxing out your IRA contributions first and putting the rest into your 401(k) - so if you're putting away about 7k a year, lower your withholding to 1500 and put 5500 into an IRA. "A little terminology: Grant: you get a ""gift"" with strings attached. ""Grant"" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the ""gift"" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law."