What is meant by “unexpected expenses” in my 401k plan?
IANAL, but it sounds like indemnification language. They are saying they have the option to charge expenses to participants if they would like. It should say explicitly (you mention that it does) who the 'default payer' is. Unexpected expenses could be anything that's not in the normal course of business. I know that doesn't help much, but some examples may be plan document restatements or admin expenses from plan failures/corrections. We have language in some of our PFDs that say in the absence of revenue-sharing a participants' share of expenses may be higher. Yes, 'from participant accounts' means they have the authority to deduct from your 401k account.
"IRA is not always an option. There are income limits for IRA, that leave many employees (those with the higher salaries, but not exactly the ""riches"") out of it. Same for Roth IRA, though the MAGI limits are much higher. Also, the contribution limits on IRA are more than three times less than those on 401K (5K vs 16.5K). Per IRS Publication 590 (page 12) the income limit (AGI) goes away if the employer doesn't provide a 401(k) or similar plan (not if you don't participate, but if the employer doesn't provide). But deduction limits don't change, it's up to $5K (or 100% of the compensation, the lesser) even if you're not covered by the employers' pension plan. Employers are allowed to match the employees' 401K contributions, and this comes on top of the limits (i.e.: with the employers' matching, the employees can save more for their retirement and still have the tax benefits). That's the law. The companies offer the option of 401K because it allows employee retention (I would not work for a company without 401K), and it is part of the overall benefit package - it's an expense for the employer (including the matching). Why would the employer offer matching instead of a raise? Not all employers do. My current employer, for example, pays above average salaries, but doesn't offer 401K match. Some companies have very tight control over the 401K accounts, and until not so long ago were allowed to force employees to invest their retirement savings in the company (see the Enron affair). It is no longer an option, but by now 401K is a standard in some industries, and employers cannot allow themselves not to offer it (see my position above)." I am in a similar situation (sw developer, immigrant waiting for green card, no debt, healthy, not sure if I will stay here forever, only son of aging parents). I am contributing to my 401k to max my employer contribution (which is 3.5%, you should find that out from your HR).  I don't have any specific financial goal in my mind, so beside an emergency fund (I was recommended to have at least 6 months worth of salary in cash) I am stashing away 10% of my income which I invest with a notorious robot-adviser. The rate is 80% stocks, 20% bonds, as I don't plan to use those funds anytime soon. Should I go back to my country, I will bring with me (or transfer) the cash, and leave my investments here. The 401K will keep growing and so the investments, and perhaps I will be able to retire earlier than expected. It's quite vague I know, but in the situation we are, it's hard to make definite plans. "You're getting great wisdom and options. Establishing your actionable path will require the details that only you know, such as how much is actually in each paycheck (and how much tax is withheld), how much do you spend each month (and yearly expenses too), how much spending can you actually cut or replace, how comfortable are you with considering (or not considering) unexpected/emergency spending. You mentioned you were cash-poor, but only you know what your current account balances are, which will affect your actions and priorities. Btw, interestingly, your ""increase 401k contributions by 2% each year"" will need to end before hitting the $18K contribution limit. I took some time and added the details you posted into a cash-flow program to see your scenario over the next few years. There isn't a ""401k loan"" activity in this program yet, so I build the scenario from other simple activities. You seem financially minded enough to continue modeling on your own. I'm posting the more difficult one for you (borrow from 401k), but you'll have to input your actual balances, paycheck and spending. My spending assumptions must be low, and I entered $70K as ""take-home,"" so the model looks like you've got lots of cash. If you choose to play with it, then consider modeling some other scenarios from the advice in the other posts. Here's the ""Borrow $6500 from 401k"" scenario model at Whatll.Be: https://whatll.be/d1x1ndp26i/2 To me, it's all about trying the scenarios and see which one seems to work with all of the details. The trick is knowing what scenarios to try, and how to model them. Full disclosure: I needed to do similar planning, so I wrote Whatll.Be and I now share it with other people. It's in beta, so I'm testing it with scenarios like yours. (Notice most of the extra activity occurs on 2018-Jan-01)" A 401k plan will ask you to name a beneficiary who will receive the funds if you don't withdraw them all before death. Usually, a primary beneficiary and a secondary beneficiary is requested. If you don't specify a beneficiary, your estate is the beneficiary by default.  Note that the name supplied to the 401k plan is who will get the money, and you cannot change this by bequeathing the money in your will. For example, if you neglected to change the beneficiary upon divorce, it is useless to say in your will that the money in the 401k plan goes to your new wife; the 401k plan will give it to your ex-wife who still remains the beneficiary of your 401k Money in a 401k plan is what is called income with respect to a decedent (IRD)  on which income tax is levied, and it is also is part of your estate and thus liable to be subject to estate tax.  The latter is true even if the 401k plan assets are not mentioned anywhere in your will, and even if the assets got sent to your ex-wife which is not what you wanted to have happen.  There are various estate tax exceptions for spouse beneficiaries (no  estate tax due now, but will be charged when the spouse passes away). With regard to income tax, the beneficiaries of a 401k plan (similarly IRAs, 403b plans etc) generally get to take the whole amount and pay the income  tax themselves. Edit in response to littleadv's comments: Each 401k plan is different, and some plans, especially the smaller ones, may prefer to distribute the  401k assets as a lump sum rather than allow the beneficiaries to withdraw  the money over several years (and pay income tax on the amount withdrawn each year). This is because there are far too many rules and regulations to trip over when making withdrawals over several years. The lump sum distribution can be transferred into a newly established  Inherited IRA (see the Nolo article linked to in @littleadv's answer for some details and some pitfalls to avoid) and the income tax is thus deferred until withdrawals occur.  Spouse  beneficiaries are entitled to more generous rules than non-spouse  beneficiaries. If your heirs are otherwise well provided for and you are in a  philanthropic mood (or you don't want to give 'em a dime, the ungrateful... who never call, not even on Father's Day!), one way of avoiding a  lot of tax is to make the beneficiary of your 401k be one or more of your favorite charities. In fact, if your testamentary inclination is to make some charitable bequests as part of your will, it is much more advantageous to give money from a tax-deferred account to the charity (size of estate is reduced, no income  tax paid by anyone on amount given), and bequeath assets in non-retirement accounts to one's heirs (bequests are not taxable income, and heirs get a step up in basis for assets that have appreciated) rather than the other way around (heirs pay income tax as they withdraw the money from tax-deferred  account) Estate planning is a complicated business, and you really should talk to a professional about such matters and not rely on advice from an Internet forum. "Early this year I wrote an article Are you 401(k)o’ed?  I described the data from a 401(k) expense survey and the punchline was that the average large retirement plan (over 1000 participants) expense was 1.08%, and for smaller plans it rose to 1.24%.  As I commented below, if one's goal is to make deposits with income that avoid a tax of 25%, and hope to withdraw it at retirement at 15%, it doesn't take long for a 1% fee to completely negate the benefit of pretax savings.  These numbers are averages, in the same article, I mention (ok, I brag) that my company plan has an S&P fund that costs .05%. That's 1% over 20 years.  The sound bite of ""deposit to the match"" needs to be followed by ""depending on the choice of investments and their expenses"" within the 401(k).  Every answer here has added excellent points, fennec's last sentence shouldn't be ignored, there's a phaseout for IRA deductibility, and another for Roth eligibility. For Married filing joint, IRA deduction starts to be lost at $92K, and Roth deposit disallowed at $173K. This adds a bit to the complexity of the decision, but doesn't change the implication of the 1%+ 401(k) fees." "Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great.  He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later).  Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately ""not most people"" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions." "Yes, the penalty is the tax you pay on it again when you withdraw the money. The withdrawal of the excess contribution is taxed as your wages (but no penalty). Excess contribution cannot be added to the basis or considered ""after-tax"" (hence the double taxation). Note that allowing you to keep the excess contribution in the plan may lead to disqualifying the plan, so it is likely that the plan administrator will force you to remove the excess contribution if they become aware of it. Otherwise you may end up forcing early 401(k) withdrawal on all of your co-workers. More on this IRS web page. And this one." US corporations are allowed to automatically enter employees into a 401K plan.  A basic automatic enrollment 401(k) plan must state that employees   will be automatically enrolled in the plan unless they elect otherwise   and must specify the percentage of an employee's wages that will be   automatically deducted from each paycheck for contribution to the   plan. The document must also explain that employees have the right to   elect not to have salary deferrals withheld or to elect a different   percentage to be withheld. An eligible automatic contribution arrangement (EACA) is similar to   the basic automatic enrollment plan but has specific notice   requirements. An EACA can allow automatically enrolled participants to   withdraw their contributions within 30 to 90 days of the first   contribution. A qualified automatic contribution arrangement (QACA) is a type of   automatic enrollment 401(k) plan that automatically passes certain   kinds of annual required testing. The plan must include certain   features, such as a fixed schedule of automatic employee   contributions, employer contributions, a special vesting schedule, and   specific notice requirements. You generally have a period of time to stop the first deposit. One I saw recently gave new employees to the first paycheck after the 60 day mark to refuse to join. You also may be able to get back the first deposit if you really don't want to join. If you don't want to participate look on the corporate website or the Fidelity website to set your future contributions to 0% of your paycheck. Keep in mind several things: Personally I'm against any type of government sponsored investments or   savings. I can save money on my own and I don't care about their   benefits. Some companies provide an annual  contribution to all employees regardless of participation in the 401K. They do need to establish an account to do that. Again that is free money Does it mean if I never contribute any money so I will have 0 I might   go below 0 and owe them money in case they bankrupt or do bad   investments? Even in total market collapse the value of the 401K could never go below zero, unless the 401K was setup to allow very exotic investments.