Why do employers require you to spread your 401(k) contributions throughout the year to get the maximum match?
If one makes say, $10K/mo, and the company will match the first 5% dollar for dollar, a 10%/mo deposit of $1K/mo will see a $500/mo match. If the employee manages to request 90% get put into the 401(k), after 2 months, he's done.  If the company wished, they could continue the $500/mo match, I agree. They typically don't and in fact, the 'true up' you mention isn't even required, one is fortunate to get it. Many companies that match are going the other way, matching only after the year is over. Why? Why does any company do anything? To save money. I used to make an attempt to divide my deposit over the year to max out the 401(k) in December and get the match real time, not a true up. "The only way to know the specific explanation in your situation is to ask your employer. Different companies do it differently, and they will have their reasons for that difference. I've asked ""But why is it that way?"" enough times to feel confident in telling you it's rarely an arbitrary decision.  In the case of your employer's policy, I can think of a number of reasons why they would limit match earnings per paycheck: Vesting, in a sense - Much as stock options have vesting requirements where you have to work for a certain amount of time to receive the options, this policy works as a sort of vesting mechanism for your employer matching funds. Without it, you could rapidly accumulate your full annual match amount in a few pay periods at the beginning of the year, and then immediately leave for employment elsewhere. You gain 100% of the annual match for only 1-2 months of work, while the employees who remain there all year work 12 months to gain the same 100%. Dollar Cost Averaging - By purchasing the same investment vehicle at different prices over time, you can reduce the impact of volatility on your earnings. For the same reason that 401k plans usually restrict you to a limited selection of mutual funds - namely, the implicit assumption is that you probably have little to no clue about investing - they also do other strategic things to encourage employees to invest (at least somewhat) wisely. By spacing their matching fund out over time, they encourage you to space your contributions over time, and they thereby indirectly force you to practice a sensible strategy of dollar cost averaging. Dollar Cost Averaging, seen from another angle - Mutual funds are the 18-wheeler trucks of the investment super-highway. They carry a lot of cargo, but they are difficult to start, stop, or steer quickly. For the same reasons that DCA is smart for you, it's also smart for a fund. The money is easier to manage and invest according to the goals of the fund if the investments trickle in over time and there are no sudden radical changes. Imagine if every employer that does matching allowed the full maximum match to be earned on the first paycheck of the year - the mutual funds in 401ks would get big balloons of money in January followed by a drastically lower investment for the rest of the year. And that would create volatility. Plan Administration Fees - Your employer has to pay the company managing the 401k for their services. It is likely that their agreement with the management company requires them to pay on a monthly basis, so it potentially makes things convenient for the accounting people on both ends if there's a steady monthly flow of money in and out. (Whether this point is at all relevant is very much dependent on how your company's agreement is structured, and how well the folks handling payroll and accounting understand it.) The Bottom Line - Your employer (let us hope) makes profits. And they pay expenses. And companies, for a variety of financial reasons, prefer to spread their profits and expenses as evenly over the year as they can. There are a lot of ways they achieve this - for example, a seasonal business might offer an annual payment plan to spread their seasonal revenue over the year. Likewise, the matching funds they are paying to you the employees are coming out of their bottom line. And the company would rather not have the majority of those funds being disbursed in a single quarter. They want a nice, even distribution. So once again it behooves them to create a 401k system that supports that objective. To Sum Up Ultimately, those 401k matching funds are a carrot. And that carrot manipulates you the employee into behaving in a way that is good for your employer, good for your investment management company, and good for your own investment success. Unless you are one of the rare birds who can outperform a dollar-cost-averaged investment in a low-cost index fund, there's very little to chafe at about this arrangement. If you are that rare bird, then your investment earning power likely outstrips the value of your annual matching monies significantly, in which case it isn't even worth thinking about." There's no such requirement in general. If your particular employer requires that - you should address the question to the HR/payroll department. From my experience, matches are generally not conditioned on when you contribute, only how much.
Let me add another consideration to the company's side of the equation.  Not only is a 401K a tool for the company to make them competitive when recruiting employees among other companies that offer that benefit, it is also a good retention tool. Most company's 401K plans include a vesting period of at least 3 years, sometimes more. An employee that leaves the company before they are vested in the plan will have to give up some % of the employer matched funds in the account. This gives employees incentive to stick around longer and the company reduces the risk of turnover which can be costly in terms of training and recruiting. This also factors into the reason why employers would rather give matching on the 401K than a simple pay raise. Some of those employees are going to leave during the vesting period anyway, and when that happens the employer got the benefit of motivating (extrinsically) the employee, but in the end got to keep some of the money. "typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. ""matching"") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of ""excess contributions"" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and ""adjust"" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove ""matching"" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow ""supplemental after-tax contributions"" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know.  however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change.  especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow ""supplemental after-tax contributions"", but that might be a harder change to get." You are not allowed to take a routine 401(k) withdrawal each year. There are specific reasons that you might be allowed to take a withdrawal and what you're proposing doesn't fit into those categories. Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more.  We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans).  Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings.  The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe. There is no Roth 401(k) match. Or to be clear, when an employee deposits to a Roth 401(k), the company match goes into the traditional, pre-tax 401(k) account.  That money is subject to both tax and 10% penalty on early withdrawal. Its easier than that: employer matching contributions are  always pre-tax. While your contribution is split between the pre-tax and the Roth post-tax parts, matching contributions are always pre-tax. Quote from the regulations I linked to: For example, matching contributions are not permitted to be allocated to a designated Roth account. So the tax you pay is only on the Roth portion of your contribution. One of the reasons for that is the complexity you're talking about, but not only. Matching is not always vested, and it would be hard to determine what portion to tax and at what rate if matching would be allowed to go to Roth. Your question doesn't make much sense. The exceptions are very specific and are listed on this site (IRS.GOV). I can't see how you can use any of the exceptions regularly while still continuing being employed and contributing. In any case, you pay income tax on any distribution that has not been taxed before (which would be a Roth account or a non-deductible IRA contribution). Including the employer's match. Here's the relevant portion: The following additional exceptions apply only to distributions from a   qualified retirement plan other than an IRA: The amount you contribute will reduce the taxable income for each paycheck, but it won't impact the level of your social security and medicare taxes. A 401(k) plan is a qualified deferred compensation plan in which an   employee can elect to have the employer contribute a portion of his or   her cash wages to the plan on a pretax basis. Generally, these   deferred wages (commonly referred to as elective contributions) are   not subject to income tax withholding at the time of deferral, and   they are not reflected on your Form 1040 (PDF) since they were not   included in the taxable wages on your Form W-2 (PDF). However, they   are included as wages subject to withholding for social security and   Medicare taxes. In addition, employers must report the elective   contributions as wages subject to federal unemployment taxes. You might be able to keep this up for more than 7 weeks if the company offers health, dental and vision insurance. Your contributions for these policies would need to be paid for before you contribute to the 401K. Of course these items are also pre-tax so they will keep the taxable amount at zero. If there was a non-pretax deduction on your pay check that would keep the check at zero, but there would be taxes owed. This might be union dues, but it can also be some life and disability insurance polices. Most stubs specify which deductions are pre-tax, and which are post-tax. Warning. If you get the company match some companies give you the maximum match for those 7 weeks, then zero for the rest of the year. Others will still credit you with a match at the end of the year saying if you should get the benefit. It is not required that they do this. Check the company documents. You could also contribute post-tax money, which is different than Roth 401K, for the rest of the year to keep the match going. Note: If you are turning 50 this year, or are already 50, then you can contribute an additional $5,500 You're going to find a lot of conflicting or vague answers on the internet because there are a lot of plan design elements that are set by the plan sponsor (employer).  There are laws that mandate certain elements and dictate certain requirements of plan sponsors, many of these laws are related to record keeping and fiduciary duty.  There is a lot of latitude for plan sponsors to allow or restrict employee actions even if there is no law against that activity.   There are different rules mandated for employee pre-tax contributions, employee post-tax contributions, and employer contributions.  You have more flexibility with regard to the employer contributions and any post tax contributions you may have made; your plan may allow an in-service distribution of those two items before you reach age 59.5. While your HR department (like most -all- HR departments) is not staffed with ERISA attorneys and CPAs it is your HR department and applicable plan documents that will lay out what an employee is permitted to do under the plan. "The question you should be asking yourself is this: ""Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?"" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants   of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments,   the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: ""[Diversification]   doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant   loss."" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of   your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock.   Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when   your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies   experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock   price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock   market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company   risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or   fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix." This creates incentive for the employee to contribute more and increases the funds under management of the 401(k) plan. The size of the plan influences the fees that are charged in each of the funds offered. (The more assets under management, the better for those in the plan.) More importantly, 401(k) plans are not allowed to discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. That discrimination is determined by calculating the average deferrals by your lower compensated employees and comparing them to the average deferrals of your highly compensated employees. If highly compensated employees are saving too much compared to the rest of the pack, they will have some of their contributions returned the next year (with all the tax implications of that). Forcing everyone to contribute 6% to get the full match helps the plan to not fail the discrimination test and protects the highly compensated employees from losing some of their tax deferrals. One important thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that the vast majority of companies have eventually eliminated their Company provided Pension Plans and replaced it with a 401K with some degree of matching.  There is a cost advantage to doing this as companies no longer have to maintain or work to maintain a 100% vested pension plan.  This takes a great burden off them.  They also don't have to manage the pension/annuity that the retirement benefit entails. "If you aren't already contributing the maximum allowable amount, by all means do so. If you are already contributing the maximum, it doesn't matter that much when you make those contributions. Making fixed monthly contributions is done mostly for budgeting reasons. Most of us can't predict fund performance well enough to optimize our contributions (by which I mean, contributing more early if you think the market is going up, but waiting if you think it will go down, following the ""buy low"" strategy). As for employer matching, check with your company to see how they compute matches. They may match contributions for the year, even if those matching funds are only paid up to a maximum per paycheck. (For example, if you contribute 200% of the match for the first 6 months, then contribute nothing for the remaining 6 months, you may still receive the same matching funds per pay period as if you were contributing 100% throughout the year.)" "I agree with the other answers that it is a benefit, but wanted to add another explanation for this: Also, why a company would prefer matching someone's contributions (and   given him or her additional free money) instead of just offering a   simple raise? In addition to a match being a benefit that is part of your total compensation, 401ks have special rules for Highly Compensated Employees.  If the lower paid employees do not contribute, the ""Highly Compensated Employees"" do not get to take full advantage of the 401k.   By offering a match, more lower paid employees will take advantage of a 401k program allowing more Highly Compensated Employees to also take advantage of the program." Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow.  Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any   time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax   elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If   your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you   may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated   Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata   share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included   in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5   years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before   the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified   distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the   nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or   contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not   included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is   determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution   by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated   Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of   $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account   consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of   earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth   contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300   of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for   additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified   distributions from designated Roth accounts.