I thought the linked article from @JohnN good - but pretty rudimentary.
On a different (I hope related) note, a slick 30-minute TV infomercial - from one of those free dinner annuity peddlers provides occassional comedic relief Sunday mornings (especially if you missed SNL Saturday night). Always interesting observing their various scare tactics designed to dissuade folks from investing in mutual funds. Lots of big impressive looking charts. They seem to prey on poorly informed seniors and those nearing retirement.
The guy today was focused on frightening people away from mutual funds (and Target Date Retirement funds in particular) by highlighting the performance of American Funds Target Date 2010 REATX during 2008 (hardly a representative year). He claims it lost 28% in 2008 despite having only 38% in equities and over 60% in bonds (75% of them rated A or higher).
Can’t confirm his numbers. I’m surprised if REATX actually lost that much. However, in 2008 those invested in it would likely have been working (and importantly still contributing) and at least 2 years from retirement. For comparison, Price’s TRRIX runs a similar 40 / 60 allocation and lost around 20% in ‘08. What these hucksters did not mention was that 2009 was a strong up year. Likely REATX recouped most (not all) of that 2008 loss.
Obviously if you want to frighten folks away from target date retirement funds, highlighting the worst stock market / financial year out of the past 30 or 40 is the way to do it.

Nice... Will look into it.. May add for mama retirement portfolio

@Charles Much obliged.
It seems hard to make case for international investing. I sometimes do invest in Target Date fund which don't have redemption fees in my retirement accounts when my models get me out of index funds and I can't get back in because it's not permitted.

@JoJo26- I guess it's what you choose to believe. From the article:
"Comprehensive research [5] on the topic has been published by Aon Hewitt, which concludes that 403(b) customers waste $10 billion dollars per year in excess fees."
Note [5]: "There are lots of anecdotes about how teachers’ 403(b)s participant-borne costs are far in excess for services than comparable 401(k)s – see for example this or this – but I want to focus instead on the hard data. For the mathematically minded, it paints a picture of public servants not being served by their own school districts."
In any case it appears that we are quibbling. On the main point, all are in agreement that the annuities are a bad deal. The question seems to be what percentage of 403(b)s actually are invested in annuities.

Judging from the above comments, the components of a 403(b) must depend upon the individual school district. We maxed out my wife's 403(b) every year. The SF "United" School District's plan offered a very wide array of mutual funds and other options, but there was no matching contribution from the SFUSD involved. For some reason American Funds was not on that list, so we maxed out her IRA, and mine, with purchases of various American Funds.
In addition to those tax-sheltered retirement funds we purchased additional shares of both American Funds and American Century funds with whatever we could afford each year.
Both of us also contributed to our respective defined benefit pensions, and Social Security. Thanks to all of that saving we are in very good financial shape now.

FYI: How is it possible that two variations of tax-deferred retirement accounts, born of similar ideals and motivations, have evolved into shockingly different animals?
I refer to 401(k) and 403(b) investment accounts. Despite being part of similar tax codes with nearly identical goals, in practice the portfolios of each bear little resemblance to each other. As a result, millions of American teachers, among others, are retiring with less in savings than they deserve.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-15/teachers-deserve-better-from-retirement-plan-system

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

FYI: (MFO Members how did you do ?)
Plan participants using a self-directed brokerage option in their 401(k)s had a brutal fourth quarter.
Retirement plan participants using self-directed brokerage accounts with Schwab lost on average more than 10 percent of their account balances during the fourth quarter of 2018, according to Charles Schwab’s SDBA Indicators Report. For the year, the average loss was about 6.3 percent.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/self-directed-401-k--participants-were-swamped-in-the-4th-quarter-43785.html?print

Here are a few pages from Schwab about their plan. They (or other providers) can set up and manage a plan for you.
DB plans can be very useful for tax purposes, generally for high earners over age 50. The reason for that age is that since these are pension plans, the value of the plan at retirement must be enough to sustain the promised pension. The fewer the years until retirement, the more you can/must put into the plan annually to build up to that value. If you've got many years until retirement, you may find the amount you're allowed to contribute limited (since there's a cap on how large your pension can be).
A couple of caveats excerpted from the first Schwab page:

• Contributions are generally required annually, and this plan is suited for someone who can contribute $80,000 or more for several years. Note: Contributions are not discretionary—you must make the annual required contributions needed to properly fund the plan.
• [D]ue to the permanency requirement, the IRS could disqualify the plan if it is terminated in less than five years

https://www.schwab.com/public/file/P-1604569/SLS25840-05-ST.pdf
Q&A Guide: https://www.schwab.com/public/file/P-1604574/MKT35488_WB.pdf
FAQs:
https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/accounts_products/accounts/small_business_retirement/personal_defined_benefit_plan/personal_defined_benefit_plan_faqs
Schwab plan/setup/costs:
https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/accounts_products/accounts/small_business_retirement/personal_defined_benefit_plan (multiple tabs)
A plain English article from the NYTimes with its own set of benefits and risks. In addition to the caveats above, it points out that because defined benefit plans are pension plans, they (like state pension plans) may be required to add extra money beyond what they planned for if the investments don't perform as well as expected. (Amounts in article are from 2012.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/your-money/defined-benefit-plans-allow-fast-retirement-saving-but-with-risks.html

Some small tax points:
- one gets 1099-DIVs from closed end funds as well as from mutual funds and from stocks
- one gets 1099-INTs from bonds, because they pay interest, not dividends
- 1099-MISC income (e.g. for independent contractors) can usually fund SEP IRAs
It is your employer, not you, who funds a SEP-IRA. To put it another way, for you to be able to contribute to a SEP, you must be your own employer (i.e. self-employed). This is different from a 401(k) where you (as employee) contribute. Though the employer may also contribute via matching or profit sharing.
If you (as the employer) have multiple employees, you must fund everyone's SEP. That can be a strong disincentive to using SEPs.
Another way for your business to save "so much in taxation" is with the new 20% deduction on qualified business income (QBI). Though there's a laundry list of service businesses that don't qualify, e.g. law and accounting. On the other hand, architects and engineers get special treatment. "Just do research and ask ur cpa"

Hi @poptart
I forgot about lsbrx for income... Several mfo members owed this fund before, I have it since 2012..good reasonable fund to have for nice monthly income
Just some personalize thoughts being in market for 12 yrs now :
I do hold fidelity total bond market Fbnd and Phk in mom portfolios she is few months from retirement plannings
In my acct I have bnd - Vanguard total bond market
At 35 yo I would do 80 to 90% stocks portfolio in my holdings to reap most rewarding to long terms investments lol... You still have a long way to go +35 or 40yrs until retirement ... I would not change nor touch portfolio too much maybe once every few yrs.. Being couched and iddle maybe best for you and invest more in indexes stocks.. At least this is what buffet and boggle keep on preachings for many years
For my tsp 401k I have 80/20 since started investing in 2007 (right before the largest crash in modern time),,, have not changed portfolio much since 2007 and I am doing very well with those positions and holdings... Currently still >80%stocks <20%bonds
For 401k-tsp biggest holdings
Indexes from tsp 80% large cap mid cap small cap and em divided evenly
10% 2040 maturity fund Tdf
10% G bond
Brk.b another large holdings
Vgstx
Vppcm Vanguard prime cap
Another thing if you have 1099 return forms (most investment company have these for their portfolio for tax purposes if you have div incomes from bonds or MF ETFs)
you maybe able qualified to open sep-ira acct, we have this since few yrs now, this acct works exactly as regular-Ira but you can put in 20%of your income and maxed out at 55k annually... the best thing is you can have this along w tsp(private 401k if working for govt) and regular 401k. You may save lots tax money once able to retired many yrs from Now and just let those money grow taxed free... Just do research and ask ur cpa at your institution before starting... I highly recommend having Sep-ira + roth Ira... We saved so much in taxation $$ past 3 yrs now
Good luck

https://www.etftrends.com/core-etf-channel/iusb-cheap-bond-etf-for-retirement-investors/
Iusb - cheap bond ETF for retirement investors

https://money.usnews.com/investing/slideshows/7-tips-for-finding-the-best-target-date-retirement-funds-to-buy?src=usn_invested_nl
7 Tips for Finding Target-Date Retirement Funds
March 11, 2019
One in three Americans have nothing – zilch – saved for retirement. That's not OK. If you're financially able, you need to start saving, today. A retirement nest egg is vital for a full, happy, and healthy life.
Once you start saving, choosing where to invest your money is another hassle. Thankfully, retirement funds have made this much easier for investors, and target-date retirement funds, which adjust their holdings as you age to suit your changing risk profile, are even easier. Contrary to public perception, figuring out how to invest responsibly isn't rocket science.
Here are seven tips to finding the best target-date retirement funds for you.
1. Figure out your timeline. This is generally the easiest and most crucial variable to consider when narrowing down what kind of target-date funds will work for you. Most target-date funds contain a year in their name, which corresponds to the year you expect to retire. If you're 45 and expect to retire at 65, pick a target-date fund roughly 20 years out. They're often organized into five-year increments, so in this case you might consider a 2040 target-date retirement fund. There are also target-date funds designed for those currently in retirement.
2. Figure out your risk tolerance. Remember, target-date funds are designed to be full portfolios, so if you have other investments, consider how those might affect the total risk you're taking. For example, if you already have a good chunk of money in the stock market, you might want to lean more conservative than you otherwise would, choosing funds with less equity exposure, or funds that move to lower-risk investments more quickly than others. – John DIvine

A SeekingAlpha article today on your original post:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4247709-need-income-retirement-investments-want-growth?isDirectRoadblock=false

As the article notes, there are a few exceptions to the rule that you can skip RMDs with employer accounts: if you're a 5% owner of the company, or if the plan docs (not the IRS) require you to take RMDs at 70½. But generally you don't have to take RMDs if you're still working there.
You raised two new questions: does this cover all types of employer plans, and what about continuing to contribute.
If I may offer a side comment, I think Congress went a little wacko in creating all these hybrid plans, SIMPLE, SEP-IRA, SARSEPs. There are "clean" employer plans, 401(k)s, 403(b)s. There are IRAs. Then there are these genetic mutations. I try not to look at them unless I have to (and I have had a SEP IRA).
Apparently they (SEPs and SIMPLEs) follow the IRA RMD rules. No exceptions. See
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-required-minimum-distributions-rmds
Can you continue contributing? Something that I was never worried about, but a quick search turned up this ThinkAdvisor piece. If it is to be believed (I haven't checked tax code, etc. to verify), you can continue contributing to 401(k)s, and the employer must continue contributions to SEPs. But you can't contribute to a traditional IRA. But, but, you can continue contributing to a Roth IRA.
https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/08/22/the-post-70-retirement-plan-contribution-rules/?page_all=1
Is this anyway to run a tax code?

@msf - Thank you for that correction. That's an important distinction. In my head that means that if you contribute to a retirement account with your employer, be it 401k, IRA or whatever else they call it and you remain employed past the age of 70.5 you can take a pass on RMD's? Or can somebody give me an example of what an employer's retirement plan is that isn't what I think it is (e.g. 401k, IRA)?

I did a google search on "can one delay RMD's past age 70.5" and found several linked articles but none of which pertain to mutual funds so consider this input useless or of little value.
...
Here's one from Forbes in May, 2018 to get you started:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcarlson/2018/03/23/when-rmds-from-retirement-accounts-arent-required/#411487ad909d

Great find! It's got everything right and lays things out clearly.

"It is possible to delay RMDs if one is still working"
It is true that one can delay RMDs from an employer retirement plan before retirement. The article was discussing RMDs for IRAs though ("It's ridiculous that the IRS forces them to begin withdrawing from their IRAs"). One cannot delay RMDs for an IRA - that's the point of the article.
" It is said that the IRS has never defined the term "still working""
That's correct, since the term "still working" doesn't appear in the IRC or in the regs. The expression used in the Regulations is "retires from employment with the employer maintaining the plan" (401(a) and 403(b)). In plain English it's essentially the same thing, so perhaps a distinction without a difference.
Again, this RMD exception applies only to employer sponsored retirement plans, not to IRAs.Note that employers have the option of imposing RMDs at age 70½ even on current employees. That could be a source of some of the confusion.
Regarding "April 1 of the year after one turns 70.5", that's not too complicated, though the ramifications may be. If you turn 70½ in 2019, you have an RMD this year. Your deadline for this first RMD is April 1 of the next year, 2020.
That can lead to two RMDs in the same year 2020, one for 2019 and one for 2020. That would boost your income in 2020. That's your choice, how you plan your taxes, just as bunching deductions every other year is your choice, how you plan your taxes. The IRS is giving you flexibility. If it's confusing, just ignore the flexibility and do everything on a calendar basis.

I did a google search on "can one delay RMD's past age 70.5" and found several linked articles but none of which pertain to mutual funds so consider this input useless or of little value.
It seems that you can if you are still working for the same employer/company as you've always been and there seems to be a few other work arounds as well.
I converted all of my IRA's to Roth IRA's back when the Roth's became available so I really haven't kept up on this topic.
Here's one from Forbes in May, 2018 to get you started:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcarlson/2018/03/23/when-rmds-from-retirement-accounts-arent-required/#411487ad909d

When we save into tax deferred retirement account we push taxes (on income) into the future.
It would be an interesting stat to compare present day tax savings in the year that the IRA contribution was made to the tax liability on that contribution (and its potential investment growth) over time. The longer that we have for investments to potentially grow the better the potential outcome.
If I pay taxes on $100 at a rate of 20% in the year I earn that income I net $80 after taxes. If instead, I let the $100 grow tax deferred and I remain in a 20% tax bracket in retirement the government stands to collect not only it's initial 20%, but also 20% of any growth that the $100 made. I keep 80%.
It seems to me that the closer one is to withdrawing IRA funds (whether RMD or not) the less impactful (investment success) these tax deferred contributions can potentially be.
In fact, if you were one year away from retirement withdrawals and that $100 tax deferred contribution fell in value to say $50 (that would suck for you) and then it was withdrawn from the IRA, the taxes collected would be halved as well (that would suck for Uncle Sam).
This is why contributions made closer to retirement should be carefully invested on the risk spectrum. Those dollar potentially have less time to grow meaningfully.
Thoughts?