I\u2019ve always liked immediate eligibility for deferrals. Clean, simple, easy to explain. Let people in the door and let them start saving. Where things go sideways is when a provider layers on a safe harbor contribution, a match, or even profit sharing, and no one stops to revisit eligibility for employer money. That\u2019s where \u201csounds good\u201d turns into \u201cwhy is this so expensive?\u201d<\/p>\n
Deferrals Are Not Contributions<\/p>\n
Immediate eligibility for deferrals works because it\u2019s participant-driven. If they don\u2019t defer, there\u2019s no cost. Employer contributions are different. A safe harbor non-elective, a match, a discretionary profit sharing contribution, those are plan costs. If eligibility for those contributions mirrors deferral eligibility, you may have just expanded your cost base to include every employee, including part-timers you never intended to fund.<\/p>\n
The Question That Doesn\u2019t Get Asked<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s the problem I see over and over. Providers recommend adding a safe harbor feature to solve testing, or a match to drive participation, but they don\u2019t ask the one question that matters: should eligibility for employer contributions be different from deferrals? If that conversation never happens, the default design often sweeps in more employees than the sponsor anticipated. That\u2019s not a compliance failure, it\u2019s worse, it\u2019s a budget surprise.<\/p>\n
Small Design Choices, Big Dollar Consequences<\/p>\n
Eligibility is one of the simplest levers in plan design, and one of the most overlooked. A one-year of service requirement for employer contributions can dramatically change cost without taking anything away from your core goal of letting employees defer immediately. Instead, sponsors end up funding contributions for short-term or part-time employees because no one slowed down to align the design with intent.<\/p>\n
The Bottom Line<\/p>\n
Immediate eligibility for deferrals is smart. Extending that same eligibility to employer contributions without thinking it through is not. Plan design isn\u2019t about adding features, it\u2019s about understanding the cost of every decision before it shows up on your balance sheet.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I\u2019ve always liked immediate eligibility for deferrals. Clean, simple, easy to explain. Let people in the door and let them start saving. Where things go sideways is when a provider layers on a safe harbor contribution, a match, or even … Continue reading