I show an 8% coupon for the Mex. bonds held by my PRSNX. The character of this fund has morphed a bit, taking on more risk than before. Or maybe it's a product of being labeled differently by M* and therefore the stats are being compared now to oranges, rather than apples, so to speak.

Coupon may be quite a bit different from yield. I'm guessing that you're talking about the second largest holding in the fund's portfolio, United Mexican States, 8%, maturity 12/07/2023.
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=PRSNX&region=usa&culture=en-US
Here's some detail on that bond (assuming I found the right one). It's trading above par, so its actual YTM is 6.77%.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/bonds/8_000-mexiko-vereinigte-staaten-bond-2023-mx0mgo000003
But it is denominated in pesos (See here for currency.) So you have to discount that yield by the anticipated loss in value of your principal between now and the time the bond matures, due to higher inflation in Mexico than one finds in the US.
In short, don't let yourself get carried away by high coupons, without checking out the premium on the bond and the expected loss on the foreign currency.
(I can say with some confidence that the currency has a lot to do with the nominal high yield, because if you use the same site to check for Mexican bonds denominated in USD, you'll see much lower YTMs.)

Hi Guys,
Making predictions is always hazardous duty, yet we do it all the time when making investment decisions.
In the referenced article, I especially liked observation 12: “ Effort put into a prediction may increase confidence more than accuracy.“. Much truth in that statement. At various times we all fall into that inviting trap.
None of us have even near perfect decision records. The challenges and uncertainties dominate that decision. That is built into the nature of the problem. The best we can hope for is a winning forecasting record. Experts suffer from this same performance problem over time. In the short run we can be lucky, but luck evens out in longer timeframes. Here is a Link to a very nice summary article that provides expert prediction performance data:
https://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/
The summary table did indeed surprise me. Among the experts examined, the highest correct prediction score was only 70%. Perhaps I should not say “only 70%”. On reflection, that’s not too bad a score. I wish my success record was that high! Decision making is a tough business.
Best Wishes

FYI: We study compound returns to nearly 62,000 global common stocks during the 1990 to 2018 period, documenting that the majority, 56% of US stocks and 61% of non-US stocks, under perform one-month US Treasury bills over the full sample. Focusing on aggregate shareholder wealth creation measured in US dollars, we find that the top-performing 1.3% of firms account for the $US 44.7 trillion in global stock market wealth creation from 1990 to 2018. Outside the US, less than one percent of firms account for the $US 16.0 trillion in net wealth creation. These results highlight the practical implications of the fact that the distribution of long-run stock returns is strongly positively skewed.
Regards,
Ted
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3415739

FYI: Mutual fund fees have been falling for seven years, and the trend isn’t slowing.
By 2025, combined active and passive expense ratios will decline by 22 percent, according to PwC’s 2019 U.S. Mutual Fund Outlook released Tuesday.
Managers have long measured success by the amount of assets under management. But declining fees have altered that metric.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1gdcdxtq5rvh0/Fees-Are-In-Free-Fall-and-They-re-Not-Stopping

https://www.barrons.com/articles/mexican-bonds-look-tempting-but-investors-should-proceed-with-caution-51563551322
A 4% yield is tough to turn down in a world with $14 trillion in negative-yielding bonds. But be prepared to get out of Mexico fast.

FYI: SOCIAL SECURITY remains a great mystery to many Americans and is widely misunderstood. For instance, when Social Security’s trustees release their annual report, we get vastly different interpretations. One group will read the report, and conclude there’s a “surplus” and plenty of money to improve benefits. Meanwhile, another concludes that the program is in fiscal trouble and fixing it is vital.
Headlines frequently state the program is going bankrupt. It isn’t. Today’s level of benefits may not be sustainable, given current funding sources, but Social Security payroll taxes are sufficient to maintain the bulk of benefits currently paid. A recent survey indicates that 76% of younger American are concerned that Social Security will not be there for them. It will be.
On top of that, many older Americans don’t believe Social Security keeps up with inflation. They don’t understand the formula for each year’s COLA, or cost-of-living adjustment.
Regards,
Ted
https://humbledollar.com/2019/07/righting-wrongs/

How trillion-dollar stock-market index funds are vulnerable to manipulation that ‘could harm American investors’
If I held index funds - would there be an easy way to find out about their voting track records?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-trillion-dollar-stock-market-index-funds-are-vulnerable-to-manipulation-that-could-harm-american-investors-2019-02-19

@Lewis You got to be kidding me, Pocahontas's, recession scare appears long on fear, short on facts.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/22/elizabeth-warrens-recession-scare-is-long-on-fear-short-on-facts.html
National Review:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/elizabeth-warren-terrible-plans/
Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-has-lots-of-ideas-bad-ideas/2019/06/19/ec645b36-920e-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e44670e19a1c
Mises Institute:
https://mises.org/power-market/another-reminder-elizabeth-warren-fraud
Washington Examiner:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/elizabeth-warren-is-wrong-this-race-really-is-about-the-size-and-scope-of-government

We've moved to a new web location and adopted several new features that will make our search tools site more friendly and support its growth.
More details here, including two month subscription extension for all subscribers, past and present.
c

FYI: Money gets a bad rap. In the current environment, amid levels of inequality not seen since the 1920s, too many people find it too easy to disparage wealth and the quest for material goods. There is no doubt that lifestyle creep and the hedonic treadmill are not the paths to true happiness. But what we see today is a backlash caused, in part, by the hangover from the 2007-09 financial crisis.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-22/money-doesn-t-deserve-the-bad-rap-it-s-getting

It looks we've got a repeat.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/51340/prospect-of-fed-cut-pushing-dividend-investors-into-tech-energy

FYI: This week, the Warren Campaign put out its plan to “rein in Wall Street” – their words not mine – including some hyper-specific proposals to completely blow up the private equity business model and offer access to plain vanilla banking services directly from the Federal government.
Elizabeth Warren is a much more dangerous candidate for the banking industry than Bernie Sanders ever was, because Warren actually understands how all this stuff works, while Bernie just shouts the loudest. She’s done the research. She’s documented all the ways in which finance acts counterproductively for the economy and channels more of the available wealth to its own executives – in many cases while laying the risk off onto other parties and even regular people.
Regards,
Ted
https://thereformedbroker.com/2019/07/21/elizabeth-warrens-banking-sector-napalm/

FYI: Warren Buffett isn’t close to beating the market this year, and a giant pension fund has cut its investment in Berkshire Hathaway , the investment juggernaut that Buffett helms.
Class B shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock (ticker: BRKb ) have only managed a 0.9% gain so far in 2019 through Friday’s close, in sharp contrast to the S&P 500’s 18.7% rise.
We’ve noted that Buffett suffered “a reputational and financial black eye” earlier this year as Berkshire took a $1 billion paper loss when Kraft Heinz stock (KHZ)—one of its larger investments—tumbled. Years ago, Buffett backed the combination of H.J. Heinz and Kraft Foods Group that created the company.
Oregon’s Public Employees’ Retirement Fund slashed two-fifths of its Berkshire stock investment by selling 141,822 Class B shares in the second quarter. OPERF, as the pension is known, made the disclosure in a form it filed this week with the Securities and Exchange Commission. OPERF, which recently was counted as the 42nd largest public pension in the world by assets, now owns 222,763 Class B Berkshire shares.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/berkshire-hathaway-stock-is-lagging-and-a-giant-pension-just-slashed-its-stake-51563707754

+1.

2019 contribution limits are:
401(k): $56K + $6K (catch up) = $62K
SEP: $56K (no catch up provision)
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/cola-increases-for-dollar-limitations-on-benefits-and-contributions
The IRS has not yet announced 2020 figures for retirement plans. If Vanguard provided contribution limits for 2020, they were projections.
Projected for 2020:
401(k): $57K + $6.5K (catch up) = $63.5K
SEP: $57K (no catch up provision)
https://thefinancebuff.com/401k-403b-ira-contribution-limits.html
Again, see Schwab example cited above for comparison between SEP and DB plan. (For a fair comparison, you need to account for the earnings that are added to the DB plan but not to the SEP. This significantly reduces the gap between the two.)

Hi msf thx... What firms do you recommend for db plans? Vanguard
Hi ema
I believe you can have 401k and distribution 18 or 20k annually and you can buy higher aggressive stocks funds in these
My tax adivesor states same as your thoughts have to be 5 or 6% annually returns or you may run into tax issues irs issues
If you don't like plans you can switch to sep-ira 5 yrs later this is what Vanguard advisor told me (56k distribution 2020)

FYI: Beating the bond market is far more a matter of luck than skill. That is a surprising and somewhat disturbing statement, since beating the market is widely assumed to be the gold standard for determining whether a manager has ability.
It’s difficult to square that notion with the widely varying percentages of bond mutual fund managers who beat their benchmarks from year to year. In some calendar years this percentage is above 90%, and in other years it is zero.
Either you accept that managers are incredibly able in some years and suddenly inept in subsequent years, or you must conclude that something other than ability is at work.
That something else has a lot to do with whether interest rates have gone up or down over the period in question. Since almost all actively managed bond funds are hedged, even if only slightly, they stand to outperform their benchmarks whenever interest rates rise and bond prices fall. For the same reason, most such funds stand to lag their benchmarks whenever rates fall and bond prices rise.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-know-if-your-bond-fund-is-worth-the-money-2019-07-18/print

That sounds about right. I believe you could instead project a higher ROR and contribute less. You would still fund the pension plan up to the IRS limit ($225K/year pension @retirement). You would invest for higher returns and wouldn't even have to contribute as much to get the same level of benefits. But see below for risk.
Are you sure that you were being told that you should not invest for higher return, or did your actuaries say that they would use a lower rate of return for projections? They have to use a credible ROR for projections to determine the max you can contribute. The object is to reach the max permitted balance at retirement. The lower the assumed ROR, the more you can contribute, at least initially.
Regardless, the amount you can/must contribute is recalculated annually. If you project a low (but credible) ROR and perform better, your subsequent contributions will be reduced. If you project a higher (still credible) ROR and underperform, your subsequent min contribution requirements may be increased, possibly substantially.
I trust the actuaries explained to you how you are committing to maintaining high contribution levels for several years (otherwise you risk seeing the IRS disqualify your plan).
Here's a 2016 guide from from Schwab with an example of someone age 55, planning to retire at age 65. (See p.3). Schwab also uses a low projected ROR (here, 3.98%). Note that because you're younger (presumably with more years to retirement), all else being equal, you'd be able to contribute less than the $166K shown. So I'm curious where the $250K figure you gave came from.
https://www.schwab.com/public/file/P-1604569/SLS25840-05-ST.pdf