Thanks, but not original. At the time of the GFC (global financial crisis), people were referring to retirement accounts as 201(k)s.
See, e.g. Scott Burns, They Don't Call Them 201(k)s for Nothing, April 24,2009.
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/they-dont-call-them-201k-s-for-nothing

Yes, it does make financial sense, but of course with ownership comes voting rights.
I can already hear the protests from the Cato Institute et al. : "The government has no business influencing the free markets! Get the government off the back of Wall Street! Get the government out of our financial lives! The government has no business picking winners!! etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum.
Can you just imagine the reaction from the Trumpsters if SS were to emulate Norway and drop oil investments? Or, for that matter, from the environmentalists if SS were to invest in same?

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20190304/stepleman-do-target-date-funds-do-their-job
Buffet recommended these vehicles recently.
We have 10 % in 401k in tdf

Huh?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-target-date-funds-arent-way-go-175409855.html
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/40833/target-date-funds-buffett

Yahoo Finance reader Greg Woodruff from Bakersfield, California asked Warren Buffett, the CEO Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A, BRK-B), if target date funds are really adding value.
“No, probably not,” Buffett said during a wide-ranging interview with Yahoo Finance’s Andy Serwer. “The S&P 500 Index Fund is the one to use. That’s the one I used in that bet I made for ten years. It’s the one I’ve told the trustee for my wife to put 90% of the funds I leave her in to.”

Also, the idea with target date funds is to use them for substantially all of your assets. If you don't, you're working against the glide path which is designed for your overall portfolio.
Suppose the glide path for your age says you should be 50/50 stocks/bonds and you have 10% in the tdf and 90% in equity funds. Then your mix is 95/5. What's the point of using the tdf? If you want to control the portfolio allocation yourself, it's easier to work with fixed allocation funds than with ones that "glide".

Who is this guy? His arguments against target date funds are lame.

It's easy enough to find out who this guy is:

... He has also written on portfolio risk management for Barron’s Financial Weekly. Additionally, he assists in the management of the investment portfolio of the Community Foundation of Sarasota County.
Dr. Stepleman holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of Maryland and a B.S. in Physics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has taught at the University of Virginia and Rutgers University. He also spent 20 years at Exxon Research and Engineering Company and seven years with the RCA David Sarnoff Research Center. ...

Some of his arguments do seem lame. For example, on the one hand lamenting that there's not agreement on what a "correct" glide path is; on the other complaining about "one size fits all". There isn't agreement on a correct glide path precisely because one size doesn't fit all. Different glide paths are offered because what is correct for one person is not correct for another.
Some of his points IMHO not lame at all. "Research by Wade Pfau and Michael Kitces suggests a more optimal glide path ramps down even more severely to 10 percent stocks at retirement and then starts increasing the stock holding gradually to 50 percent. Their research indicates this glide path can provide better protection against sequence of return and longevity risks."
Of course I would think this part had substance. I have to. I said the same thing two days ago:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/111071/#Comment_111071

I hadn’t heard this term before. A bit hard running it down, but did come across an Investopedia article that discusses it as one allocation approach.
https://www.investopedia.com/investing/6-asset-allocation-strategies-work/
Each will have his / her own take on this. I get the general drift that the approach is designed to cut losses. But it runs contrary to everything I know and feel about investing. Would you sell your home if its assessed value fell below a certain level? How about the vacant lot in the neighborhood you bought for spec? Or the antique auto you own and admire?
When I invest in funds I’m investing in the underlying assets (companies, commodities, gold, infrastructure, secured debt, etc.). I expect these will vary in value over the years (as a home might). But if I believe it’s worthwhile owning those underlying assets, than why would I sell them just because their market value dropped?
I remain optimistic that over the longer term (10+ years) a well diversified portfolio that has exposure to many types of investments (read: not 100% invested in VFINX or TRBCX) will keep me at least on pace with inflation - and probably somewhat ahead of it. Generally, I’d rather own “things” than pieces of paper with $$ signs printed on them.
—
@DavidV - I have not addressed the issue of age (which you mention). Your question seemed to be more about a specific allocation strategy. I’m aware 2 or 3 prominent board members mentioned during the past year that they were moving almost entirely to cash. The reasons seemed to be related primarily to age. IMHO that’s an entirely separate decision that everyone with the help of family and friends needs to make at some point. Call it an “allocation strategy” if you like. Whatever works. :)
(I’m not a qualified financial advisor.)

On Fidelity Women's Leadership: the idea of favoring teams with more diversity senior leadership teams actually makes financial sense. "There's substantial evidence that gender diversity at the management level enhances a company's performance" (CNBC, 2018). The three gender-screened funds that I know of (Pax, Glenmede and a SPDR) all have above-average returns.
The problem is pinning down exactly why that's the case since knowing how gender diversity contributes to the bottom line helps understand what sorts of things to screen for. So my skepticism is more aimed at "any one woman in 'senior leadership' is good enough for us" as a screening criterion.
David

"Around this time last year ... the Republican agenda was intact."
@Ted - you put this in play
The article continues ... "All that changed in the last three months of the year.   ...[Elaine Stokes] says 'We went from a Republican-led agenda to a mixed Congress with stalemate situations '"
What was that agenda that became stalemated only after September? Serious question. I get nervous when managers let their politics drive their investing.
According to National Review (Jan 2018),

At the White House, infrastructure is the big idea. ...
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan keeps talking up welfare reform: ... He also says that reform of Medicare and Social Security is on his wish list, although he does not see it happening this year.
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, says action on welfare is unlikely but suggests that bipartisan legislation on immigration and financial regulation might be possible.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/worthwhile-republican-agenda-2018/
That was January. In April, CNBC's headline was: Trump keeps calling for major legislation, but Congress isn't listening – especially with midterms coming.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/03/trump-congress-dont-expect-big-legislation-in-2018.html
It's one thing to have hopes (of whatever political persuasion), it's another for a fund manager to look at a 2018 Congress that was dysfunctional and believe that only now has it become stalemated.
Especially since much of the major 2018 legislation was bipartisan, e.g. sanctioning of Russia, criminal justice reform, opioid crisis response act. Not to mention the farm bill that passed with wide support once a provision to restrict food stamps was pulled out.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/25/a-productivity-scorecard-for-115th-congress/

Nice article. My own contention is fund collecting is detrimental to returns. I think Tom was trying to be kind in his comments.
A couple worth while comments:

So you can see how some investors' portfolios can grow quite large. Will these investors necessarily do better than an investor who only invests a small number of funds, or even just in the Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth Fund? There is no way to know in advance but I suppose it depends largely on how accurately each investor has judged in advance which fund categories and specific funds will do better than the performance of the total stock and bond markets. This is extremely hard for any investor, or even financial professional, to accomplish...

Bottom line: In the end, individual investors must decide for themselves the number of funds they want to invest in, as there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Given that, it would worthwhile for investors choosing more than a handful of funds to periodically check to see whether their choices as a whole are doing better than the option of sticking to just a very small number of funds.

FYI: Even after one of the most storied careers in financial markets, Bill Gross has a few surprises left.
For one, he’s been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, the autism-spectrum disorder. Gross says he lived most of his life unaware of the condition and now believes it helps explain not only why he was such a successful investor for so long but also why he could, by his own admission, rub people the wrong way.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-01/taxes-deficits-and-asperger-s-the-bill-gross-you-didn-t-know

Thanks to both of you for your input. I was debating yesterday whether to post the WSJ article, but decided not to because of the paywall, and the entire story was far too detailed to summarize in a quick excerpt / recap. Here's a few choice excerpts from the WSJ article:
"When a fund pays a fee that aims to result in the sale of fund shares, either directly or indirectly, securities laws require it to be part of what is known as a 12b-1 plan and to be disclosed to investors."
"In the internal Fidelity document, the company indicates that it doesn’t consider the infrastructure fee to cover distribution services. Rather, it categorizes the agreement between Fidelity and funds on its platform as “shareholder services”; such fees may not require a 12b-1 plan."
Sleaze in the financial markets, as usual. No, no... not a "distribution fee"... it's a "shareholder service" fee.
Right.

@Starchild: I have provided a link to Dr. Tom Madel's mutual fund newsletter. You can review current and past newsletters once you open the link. I'm sure, being a new investor, there is a weath of information contained in these newsletter from asset allocation models and recommended fund selections that will be of some benefit.
http://funds-newsletter.com
You might wish to give a shout out to @JoJo26 as she seems to be of the new school spirited type investor for her thoughts. In addition, perhaps @tmadell might have a thought or two for you. I'm of the old school type and invest the traditional way via broker and financial advisor.
I wish you the very best in the coming years with your investing endeavors.
Old_Skeet

Thanks Skeet! Much appreciated.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1679960/000116204419000108/state497201902.htm
497 1 state497201902.htm
SUPPLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2019 TO THE
ENHANCED ULTRA SHORT DURATION MUTUAL FUND PROSPECTUS
DATED MARCH 29, 2018, AS SUPPLEMENTED
On February 20, 2019, the Board of Trustees of State Funds (the “Trust”), upon the recommendation of New York Alaska ETF Management LLC, the investment adviser for the series of the Trust, approved a plan to liquidate and terminate (the “Liquidation”) the Enhanced Ultra Short Duration Mutual Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust. It is anticipated that the Liquidation will be completed on or about March 6, 2019 (the “Liquidation Date”). A shareholder vote is not required to approve the Liquidation.
Any shares of the Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed on that date. Effective as of the regularly scheduled close of regular trading on the New York Stock Exchange on February 27, 2019, the Fund will no longer accept investments from new shareholders. Redemption orders received in proper form as described in the Fund’s prospectus after the close of regular trading on the New York Stock Exchange on February 27, 2019 will not be subject to any contingent deferred sales charges or other sales charges imposed by the Fund, except that shares held through a broker-dealer or other financial intermediary, such as omnibus accounts, may be subject to sales charges in accordance with the protocols of the financial intermediary.
At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem their shares of the Fund pursuant to the procedures set forth in the prospectus under “How to Redeem Shares.” A letter will be sent to shareholders who hold shares directly with the Fund with respect to the Liquidation and the distribution of their redemption proceeds. Shareholders who hold their shares in the Fund through a financial intermediary should contact their financial representative to discuss their options with respect to the Liquidation and the distribution of such shareholders’ redemption proceeds.
It is expected that as soon as practicable following the Liquidation, the cash proceeds of the Liquidation will be distributed to shareholders of the Fund in complete redemption of their shares, after all charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities of the Fund have been paid or accounted for. For federal income tax purposes, the automatic redemption on the Liquidation Date will generally be considered a taxable event like any other redemption of shares. Shareholders should consult with their tax advisors for more information about the tax consequences of the Liquidation to them, including any federal, state, local, foreign or other tax consequences.
In order to provide for an orderly liquidation and satisfy redemptions in anticipation of the Liquidation, the Fund will no longer pursue its investment objectives and strategies between now and the Liquidation Date.
For assistance or more information, shareholders can contact their registered representative or contact the Fund by calling toll free 1-800-523-8382.
* * * * *
Please retain this Supplement for future reference...

@Starchild: I have provided a link to Dr. Tom Madel's mutual fund newsletter. You can review current and past newsletters once you open the link. I'm sure, being a new investor, there is a weath of information contained in these newsletter from asset allocation models and recommended fund selections that will be of some benefit.
http://funds-newsletter.com
You might wish to give a shout out to @JoJo26 as she seems to be of the new school spirited type investor for her thoughts. In addition, perhaps @tmadell might have a thought or two for you. I'm of the old school type and invest the traditional way via broker and financial advisor.
I wish you the very best in the coming years with your investing endeavors.
Old_Skeet

I agree with the conclusion, but with little else here. Slott plays to his crowd: the government is bad, the government is out to get you, the government lies.
Look at the quote Gary gave (gov said SS would never be taxed). Here's what SSA says about that:

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. ...
In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department.

I suspect Slott would be bringing up notch babies, except that nearly all of this part of his crowd has died off. (They'd be over 100 years old.)
He said that people who had already made Roth contributions would be grandfathered in. IMHO he's being too generous here. Previous contributions and previous earnings would be grandfathered in, but not people. Future earnings in Roths by people who already had Roths could be taxed easily.
The reasons why I believe that, and not what he described would be the worst case are twofold:
1 - Government honesty (seriously). Governments (federal, state, local) may individually tax the same income (e.g. fed and state tax the same W2 income), but a single government entity does not tax the same income twice. (The IRS may tax corp. earning and then tax dividends paid out of those earnings, but those are taxes levied on two different taxpayers, at two different levels.) Roth contributions have already been taxed as personal income; they will not be taxed again.
2 - Pragmatics. No one is required to maintain records of contributions or earnings in Roth IRAs (at least once the five year requirements have been met). So it would be difficult for the government to tax past earnings on contributions. It would be very easy for it to tax future earnings. Just change the law so that people (and financial institutions) are required to keep track of those earnings.

Where to start?
Catch 22: When you don't know much, you have no idea if your broker (or even your financial adviser) is good, when you get better you don't need an adviser.
Brokers are not Fiduciaries. I would not use a FA(financial adviser) Fiduciary either.
Remember, a FA is a jack of all trades master of none. A FA can give advice after just several months of passing 2-3 courses(I did it in 3 months but never practiced). If you need a tax advice use a CPA. If you want to set up a will, power of Attorney, a trust you want an attorney. Think how many years it took to become a CPA or an attorney.
One of the most important myth for a FA is to put their clients' interest first but if they do that they will starve. A good FA needs about 2-3 hours to set up a typical client (I can do it under an hour). This setup should be good for several years unless something drastic changed. This means, you should pay a $1000 every several years but the reality is a typical FA wants to have a long-term relationship with you (I'm already married :-) ) so they can charge you based on your portfolio size. Why would I pay someone according to portfolio size and not by the hour or the job? Please run. That's how a CPA works and they are real experts.
Here is an easy way to see why your broker has his interest first, send him an email (because you want to see it in writing) and ask him what is the commission to buy 100 shares of AAPL, 500 shares and 1000 shares. Please report back(Hint: it's only $4.95 regardless at Fidelity + Schwab).
Lastly, if you walk in the street and see a broker please cross the street asap, if you see a FA say hi and keep walking :-)

FYI: Shares of Kraft Heinz (KHC) are down nearly 30% today following a big earnings miss and the disclosure that the company has been subpoenaed by the SEC. KHC accounts for more than 7% of Berkshire Hathaway’s’ equity portfolio, and that stock is trading down close to 2% ahead of this weekend’s earnings report on a day when the broader market is firmly in positive territory. Following this weekend’s report, Warren Buffett himself will be all over financial television on Monday to talk about all things Berkshire and its portfolio of companies.
Given the confluence of events, though, the question of whether or not Buffett has lost his touch is once again making the rounds. Remember, it was just a week ago that Coca-Cola (KO), which accounts for over 10% of the Berkshire equity portfolio, dropped over 8% after it reported earnings. In the case of KO, last Thursday’s decline was the most negative reaction to earnings the stock has had since 2002! With two stocks comprising 18% of Berkshire’s total equity portfolio getting demolished on earnings, you can’t blame traders for being a little more skeptical and taking some profits in their Berkshire positions. Year to date, the stock is one of less than 35 in the S&P 500 that are actually in the red YTD.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/has-buffett-lost-his-touch-here-we-go-again/

Sounds to me like @Old_Skeet has simply got an old fashioned, "traditional" full service account. Which can be a good deal if you've got enough money invested.
"Small fry" pay loads that go largely to brokers for sales and service. But for larger investors, fund families pay for those services out of their own pockets - not from loads. This is common industry practice. In a sense, not only is Skeet getting shares at NAV, but he's getting a kickback in the form of a payment from the fund family to his broker for services.
As Skeet mentioned, ongoing servicing is paid for by trailing fees that come from the ER. So that part of the servicing isn't free. Though when he buys say, TEDIX, in theory at least he gets some service for his ¼% 12b-1 fee. What value does one get for that fee when buying at Schwab or Fidelity? Personally, I'd open an MDISX account directly and save the 12b-1 fee. (I can do that; I'm grandfathered.)
It's nice that people are concerned about DIY's paying a 1% wrap fee to do their own investing. I often wonder, though, where the concern is for DIY's buying class C shares? These shares tack on a 1% annual 12b-1 fee (load) just as surely as wrap accounts tack on a 1% fee for owning a no-load share class.
Just today, someone posted a message in another thread speaking favorably about having owned C class shares of a fund. (The praise was for the fund; ownership of class C was incidental; in other instances people have posted about buying C class shares without paying a front end load.)

"But pension funds, endowments, and other institutional investors represent the vast majority of public company shareholders—and, according to a recent study, these investors view buybacks as among the best actions management can take when it comes to allocating capital."
I think this is a crock of crap. I contend Management uses this to line their nest.

Of course they do.

For most of the 20th century, stock buybacks were deemed illegal because they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. But since 1982, when they were essentially legalized by the SEC, buybacks have become perhaps the most popular financial engineering tool in the C-Suite tool shed. And it’s obvious why Wall Street loves them: Buying back company stock can inflate a company’s share price and boost its earnings per share — metrics that often guide lucrative executive bonuses.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/02/28/shareholders-should-be-required-to-vote-on-stock-buybacks
Also: Are Stock Buybacks Starving the Economy?, The Atlantic (July 21, 2018)
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/are-stock-buybacks-starving-the-economy/566387/

In an exhaustive financial analysis of buybacks [see link below], the consultancy McKinsey found that companies would generally be better off issuing dividends or increasing investment instead. Buybacks also might distort earnings-per-share calculations and other measures of profitability and value.

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/how-share-repurchases-boost-earnings-without-improving-returns

Heartland Advisors isn't quite the place I'd go for insight into the bond market. Remember that Will's dad (William J. Nasgovitz), CEO and controlling shareholder at the time, settled with the SEC for mispricing two muni bond funds. As a result of the mispricing, the funds' NAVs dropped by 69.4% and 44% in a single day.
https://www.twincities.com/2008/01/29/heartland-advisors-agrees-to-3-5-million-settlement-of-sec-suit/
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/23/business/sec-freezes-the-assets-of-three-heartland-funds.html
Some corporations have their act together a bit better than Heartland (which got out of the bond fund business around 2003). Here's S&P's report from six months ago entitled U.S. Refinancing Study--$4.88 Trillion Of Rated Corporate Debt Is Scheduled To Mature Through 2023
https://www.allnews.ch/sites/default/files/files/20180822_SP_US-Refinancing-Study-Rated-Corporate-Debt.pdf

Maturities are set to rise above $1 trillion annually in 2021 and 2022, up from $721 billion in 2019. While this is a substantial amount of debt, credit markets in the U.S. have shown sufficient depth and demand for corporate credit to facilitate companies' issuance of new debt to manage pending maturities. ...
While the maturity wall steepens as debt mounts in 2021 and 2022, we expect that companies will issue new debt between now and then, and that the amount of debt maturing in those years will decline in the intervening years.

It's a solid 17 page report, covering different grades of bonds, financial and non-financial corporate. If the subject is of interest, this is a good place to start.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-3-trillion-tsunami-is-about-to-wash-over-the-stock-market-warns-fund-manager-2019-02-20
"Will Nasgovitz, who oversees about $1.3 billion in assets as the chief executive of Heartland Advisors, isn’t calling for a “full blown financial crisis,” but, with trillions in corporate debt coming due in the coming years, the industry veteran’s not exactly predicting smooth sailing in the stock market, either."
eventually a crash will occur ...the 3 trillion dollars ?! Answer is when
It's like crying wolf

That page looks okay as far as it goes, but it's about as clear as mud if you don't already have an idea of how the industry is organized.
For example:
"The Dual Registered channel includes RIAs who are dually licensed as both a registered investment advisor and a registered representative". While it describes RIAs, nowhere else does it give a clue what a registered rep is.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/registeredrepresentative.asp
"RIA[s] ... access[] mutual funds ... via supermarket platforms such as Schwab, Fidelity ..." What's a supermarket platform and how does it differ from the Discount Channel it describes elsewhere? (I think they're the same thing, though discount brokerages will cut different deals for individual investors and for RIAs.)
"First Clearing ... Clearing Firm (categorized under Wirehouse due to affiliation with
Wells Fargo)". Yet National Financial Services LLC, which is not merely affiliated with Fidelity Brokerage, but is a wholly owned subsidiary of FMR, is not categorized as a Wirehouse. (Nor is Schwab, which it also classifies as a clearing firm.)
It's not easy to sort out the pieces, so it's not surprising to see sites get tangled up in trying to classify interrelated firms. (I claim only the most basic and incomplete sense of what the pieces are.)