Sounds like insurers are pushing their agenda in Washington as they attempt to buy votes for this bill's passage.
I never understood why 403(b) plans were offered to non-profits when 401(k) plans were the preferred offering in the private sector. Insurers carved out their customer base by pushing 403(b) and are now are looking for additional customers.
Good article on the differences:
https://humaninterest.com/blog/403b-compared-to-401k-retirement-plans-for-non-profits/
and,
https://investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/what-difference-between-401k-plan-and-403b-plan.asp
Most 403(b) investment options are variable annuities that have loads, management fees, sales fees, wrap fees, rider fees, early redemption fees...even rules that limited upside capture of market returns...feh! These TSAs are offered by insurance companies that, like AIG, are not immune to failing.
As a teacher, we fought long and hard to "force" management to offer 403b(7) investment options with low fee firms like Vanguard.
Any annuity (Insurance product) should be competitively priced and closely regulated.
Once you head down the (Annuity 401(k)) rabbit hole its expensive tunneling out.
Alternative:
Invest in low fee funds during your working years, then consider buying an immediate annuity with a portion of your investments to compliments your retirement income. This decision can wait until you are close to retiring and in fact even later into retirement if that makes better financial sense.

Interesting. From the article:
"Two-thirds of all workers aren’t putting any money into an employer-sponsored retirement plan." Disappointing but not a big surprise.
And also: "The biggest reason for this is many simply don’t have access. One study found that just 14% of employers across the country even offer their employees access to a retirement plan (per Bloomberg)." This caught me flat-footed. 14% seems awfully low.
However I would also argue that many don't contribute because they simply don't make enough money or have any left after all the bills get paid. Something is really messed up.

@expatsp, I'm going to go with there is much more probability of down side than up. I'm no expert, but I personally wouldn't add anything right now... except for CDs.
As far as I'm concerned, if the market is going to drop 10, 15, 20%, let it happen asap. This is playing mind games on my retirement thinking.

I think a global fund makes sense just because I think domestic bonds may be at the starting stage of a bear bond market right now. And given that, I do not plan to hold to much in bond specific mutual funds going forward. I'm holding onto MAINX and debating what to do with my holdings in IOFIX and PONDX. I'd rather put the ballast or safe money into CD's (cash) which has no place to go but up. I do have a couple balanced funds and I intend to use a TRP retirement fund as a core holding. They all have bonds of course.
Income from bonds? Most all my money is in a 401k and IRA, so this idea of income/dividends means nothing to me. Plan to retire this year.
But more to your question, yes I think a global bond fund does make sense since domestic alone has little upside IMHO.

"...The key is not retirement itself, in other words, but what you do in retirement. When thinking about whether to retire, Fitzpatrick emphasized, “We need to focus on more than financial health alone.”

FYI: Billy Kaderli separated a delicious–looking piece of cheesecake with his fork. That’s when he turned to me and smiled. “A financial reporter recently interviewed me,” he said. “I explained that we live off the proceeds of our investment portfolio. She was surprised when I told her we have more money now than we did when we first retired.”
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/the-biggest-risks-of-the-4-percent-retirement-rule

FYI: (The Linkster took his Social Security at 62, and have made it to 81, I think !)
:)
Think twice—nay, thrice—before claiming your Social Security benefits at age 62. Your life might depend on your decision.
Literally.
That’s because there’s a marked increase in mortality among men who retire at 62 and begin receiving Social Security, according to a fascinating new study that recently was distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Its authors are two economics professors: Maria Fitzpatrick of Cornell University and Timothy Moore of the University of Melbourne in Australia.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-early-retirement-can-be-a-killer-2018-03-19/print

More importantly to me, how are people's portfolios holding up? Individual funds will have their day, what holds up now still may not be the best option to hold over time.
So if anyone wants to share, how's the portfolio doing YTD now that we have seen the "Trump bump" and the start of the "Trump dump"?
I'll throw it out there. After yesterday my 50/50 combination of Schwab robo (62:38), down -1.6%, and my self managed (about 40:60), down -0.3% gives me a total loss of -0.9% YTD.
A benchmark I use is the TRP 60:40 retirement fund TRRBX,down -1.3% and the 50:50 fund TRRGX also down -1.3%.
And just because some like to measure against it, the S&P 500 (VFINX) is down -2.8

Absurd. Why should anyone peg retirement cost of living to income? Happily my income has increased geometrically but my cost of living has only increased with inflation. Same car, same house, same boat as in 1999. Kids grown, no debt. Not everyone lets their overhead rise with their income.

FYI: The guideline about replacement income is widely recommended but is valid only for some. Many retirees end up needing more income.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cetusnews.com/business/Beyond-the-‘70-80’-Rule--How-Much-Do-You-Really-Need-in-Retirement-.ry2F5LbqG.html

Hey Larry. The quarterly dividend on this fund is, how shall we say, flexible. While disappointing I wouldn't let one quarters decline send my blood pressure into overdrive. It's possible that the funds sponsor sold off some high yield (risky) assets in favor of lower yield, presumably safer holdings or possibly for holdings with better prospects for future dividend growth. Do they explain or account for the drop in their quarterly/annual reports?
We are in agreement that most in retirement do not take kindly to reductions in their distributions. Hang in there until you know more.

Thanks @Ted,
Is there a link to the LifePath Spending Tool?

The tool is initially being shared with retirement plan sponsors, but over time will be made available to the general public via BlackRock’s website.

...OK

FYI: Retirement plan sponsors, participants and many advisors often struggle to determine how much someone can safely spend in retirement – now, there’s an easy-to-use tool for that.
On Wednesday, BlackRock launched the LifePath Spending Tool, designed to help retirees estimate spending over the course of their lifetimes. The tool is initially being shared with retirement plan sponsors, but over time will be made available to the general public via BlackRock’s website.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/blackrock-launches-retirement-spending-tool-for-plans-37754.html?print

Far be it from me to start a discussion about a fund but I was wondering if anyone noticed the almost 20% decline in the March distribution relative to March 17? This ETF had been growing it's distribution very nicely since it's inception. Not a great way to slide into retirement but if you can't take a joke you should stick to CD's.

Thanks @Old_Skeet for the suggestion. Franklin is also well known for its Income Fund FKINX (FRIAX...low ER, High minimum option). M* star is quoting performance YTD for FISCX closer to 5% (4.93%).
A no load version of FISCX is FCSZX. ER of .59, though requires a $100k investment through my brokerage.
Has anyone invested in high minimum funds and do these funds require one to maintain that high minimum?
Jaywalking...@msf?

FSICX is load waived af Fido. As is FKINX. Low minimums, especially in retirement accounts

Not sure how SEP-IRAs entered this thread, but many institutions provide them for free, since they're little more than traditional IRAs. I opened a free one at Fidelity about a decade ago. As I vaguely recall, I opened it for a partial year where I couldn't have contributed more had I created an individual (solo) 401(k) account instead.
Main upside is simplicity:, no special filings (no 5500 form), basically follows IRA rules (including April 15 deadline to open). Main downsides are lower contribution limits than for individual 401(k), and no Roth option is available.
Inherited Roth IRAs and all Roth 401(k)s (post-retirement) are subject to RMDs. Note that if a surviving spouse treats an inherited IRA as his or her own, the assets are transferred to a different IRA in the spouse's name and there is no longer an inherited IRA.

@bee, I also find it very confusing on TRP's side. The funds named "Retirement" are essentially asset allocation funds. I don't believe they change much if at all in equity/bond allocation. They should be called more appropriately '60:40 fund', or '50:50 fund' or '70:30 fund', whatever the allotment.
My 401k was with TRP for many years. I can remember them sending information a couple years ago when they decided to go the 'target date' and the 'retirement' funds as different style offerings. I don't remember the rationale .

@MikeM, That's interesting.
I have a 65 year old friend working and participating in a "mandatory 401K plan" through his employer.
Related IRS Reg change:
corporate.findlaw.com/corporate-governance/irs-approves-mandatory-401-k-contributions-if-appropriate.html
Getting a little deeper into the weeds...your ticker (PAIRX) is the advisor share class with a (.43) Expense ratio. TRRUX is the slimmed down ER version at (.18). My friend share class offered through John Hancock (plan administrator) has it's own ticker different from either PAIRX or TRRBX and I am now wondering if it is a TDF or a RF. I made the assumption they were one in the same. Hancock's version of TRRUX or TRRBX carries an ER closer to 1.18% vs 0.18% from TRPrice...so much for lower costs for investors.
TRPrice also offers a "Personal Strategy Income Fund", (PRSIX), which seems to be a pretty close slice of bread when compared to TRRUX. Is PRSIX the fund a retiree settles into once their TDF reached its target date or do they settle into a Retirement Fund?
Finally, For each coinciding Target Date Fund their is a Retirement Fund with a similar year designation offered at TRP. T.Rowe Price has Retirement Funds (2010, 2015, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050) and Target Date Funds (2010, 2015, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050)...I'm confused!

@bee, not sure if you know the difference between the TRP "Target Date" funds and the TRP "Retirement" Funds. My understanding is the target date funds reduce equity as they get closer to the stated date. The retirement funds keep the same equity bond distribution. For example the TRP 2020 target date fund (PAIRX) has 45% stocks. The 2020 retirement fund (TRRBX) you used in you chart is around 60% stocks.
I think your analysis and post was much better than the rather useless article though.

I will add this... for those invested in TDF and within 15 years of retirement:
Do some homework. Figure out your retirement income sources and your likely retirement budget.
Any shortfall will need to be made up by withdrawing from other investments. This should be considered "safe asset money".
Find some alternatives to even the most conservative TDF (TRRBX for example). Here are a few funds that I quickly compared to TRBBX (VWINX, PRSIX, and AONIX).
Looking at the 2007-2009 time frame is important in this comparison. Find other funds to compare and possibly decide on a few that would appropriate for your "safe asset money" Funds.
Remember volatility can be both negative and positive: