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

Nice article which pretty much mirrors my own perspectives and much what I do now being in retirement.
The way I govern my withdrawal rate, from my portfolio, with me now being in retirement is to take a sum of no more than about one half of what my five year average annual return has equaled. In this way my principal grows over time which helps to offset inflation. And, as principal grows so does the distribution.
My asset allocation of 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity works for well, for me, as I have ample cash on hand to meet the unexpected plus play a special investment position (spiff) from time to time if felt warranted, ample income generated from my income area to more than meet my retirement distribution needs, and ample growth coming from the equity area to grow my principal over time.
One of the big reasons for my success is that I and my wife have lived conservatively staying well within our means, saved and invested for our future anticipated needs. Plus, we received some gift and inheritance transfers as my family for the past three generations believed in passing some assets forward thus helping make life better for our kids than we had it ourselves. My parents did this for me as well as my grandparents did the same for my parents. And, my great grandparents did this for my grandparents. With this, I'm charged with doing the same.
Have a great weekend ... and, I wish all "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

FYI: This is a list of all mutual funds with some key metrics, such as their net assets under management (in millions), YTD return, required minimum retirement (IRA) investment, required minimum standard (taxable) investment, dividend yield, and expense ratio.
Regards,
Ted
https://mutualfunds.com/screener/#tm=screener&r=Webpage#1068&only=meta,data&page=1
Mutual Funds.Com: (The Entire Site)
https://mutualfunds.com/

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/856119/000085611919000019/fvitp10719.htm
497 1 fvitp10719.htm FVIT P1 07/19
FVIT P1 07/19
SUPPLEMENT DATED JULY 19, 2019
TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED MARCH 1, 2019
OF FRANKLIN VALUE INVESTORS TRUST
(Franklin MicroCap Value Fund)
Effective July 19, 2019, the prospectus is amended as follows:
I. The following replaces the first paragraph of the “Fund Summaries – Franklin MicroCap Value Fund” section of the prospectus:
Effective on or about September 19, 2019 (the “Re-Opening Date”), the Fund will re-open to new investors. Through the date before the Re-Opening Date, the Fund is closed to new investors, except certain Funds of Funds of Franklin Fund Allocator Series and new participants in employer sponsored retirement plans invested in the Fund as of February 19, 2013. The Franklin MicroCap Value Fund reserves the right to modify this policy at any time. For more information, please turn to "Fund Details - Franklin MicroCap Value Fund" beginning on page 26 of this Prospectus.
II. The following replaces the “Portfolio Manager” section in the “Fund Summaries – Franklin MicroCap Value Fund” section of the prospectus:
Portfolio Managers
Bruce C. Baughman, CPA
Portfolio Manager of Franklin Mutual and portfolio manager of the Fund since inception (1995).
Oliver Wong, CFA
Portfolio Manager of Franklin Mutual and portfolio manager of the Fund since July 2019.
Bruce C. Baughman will be retiring on December 31, 2019. Effective December 31, 2019, it is anticipated that he will no longer be a portfolio manager of the Franklin MicroCap Value Fund, and Mr. Oliver Wong will become the sole portfolio manager.
III. The following replaces the first paragraph in the “Fund Details – Franklin MicroCap Value Fund” section of the prospectus:
Effective on or about September 19, 2019 (the “Re-Opening Date”), the Franklin MicroCap Value Fund (MicroCap Value Fund) will re-open to new investors. Through the date before the Re-Opening Date, the MicroCap Value Fund is closed to all new investors, except certain Funds of Funds of Franklin Fund Allocator Series. If you are an existing investor in the MicroCap Value Fund, you can continue to invest through exchanges and additional purchases, including purchases made through reinvestment of dividends or capital gains distributions. Employer sponsored retirement plans invested in the MicroCap Value Fund as of February 19, 2013 may open new accounts in the MicroCap Value Fund and invest on behalf of new participants in those retirement plans. Re-registration of accounts held by existing investors, if required for legal transfer or administrative reasons, will be allowed. The MicroCap Value Fund reserves the right to modify this policy at any time.
IV. The following replaces the ““Fund Details – Management – Bruce C. Baughman” section of the prospectus:
Bruce C. Baughman, CPA Portfolio Manager of Franklin Mutual
1
Mr. Baughman has been a lead portfolio manager of the MicroCap Value Fund since inception. He joined Franklin Templeton Investments in 1988.
Oliver Wong, CFA Portfolio Manager of Franklin Mutual
Mr. Wong has been a lead portfolio manager of the MicroCap Value Fund since July 2019. He joined Franklin Templeton Investments in 2012.
V. The following replaces the “Fund Details – Management – MicroCap Value Fund” section of the prospectus:
MicroCap Value Fund
Bruce C. Baughman and Oliver Wong. As co-lead portfolio managers, Messrs. Baughman and Wong are jointly and primarily responsible for the investments of the Fund. They have equal authority over all aspects of the Fund's investment portfolio, including but not limited to, purchases and sales of individual securities, portfolio risk assessment, and the management of daily cash balances in accordance with anticipated investment management requirements. The degree to which each portfolio manager may perform these functions, and the nature of these functions, may change from time to time.
Bruce C. Baughman will be retiring on December 31, 2019. Effective December 31, 2019, it is anticipated that he will no longer be a portfolio manager of the Franklin MicroCap Value Fund, and Mr. Oliver Wong will become the sole portfolio manager.
Please keep this supplement with your prospectus for future reference.
2

Updated: N-14 filing:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040612/000104061219000072/broadviewmadisonformn-14pe.htm
Incidentally, investors with Broadview Opportunity Fund, once converted can:
Comparison of Purchase and Redemption Procedures. The Acquired Fund has a minimum initial investment of $1,000 for all accounts and subsequent investments may be made with a minimum investment amount of $100 ($50 if purchases through the Automatic Investment Plan). The Class Y shares of the Acquiring Fund have a minimum initial investment of $25,000 for shares purchased directly from the Acquiring Fund. Class Y shares are also available for purchase by the following investors at a reduced minimum initial investment amount of $1,000 for non-retirement accounts and $500 for retirement accounts:
•Dealers and financial intermediates that have entered into arrangements with the Acquiring Fund’s distributor to accept orders on behalf of their clients.
•The fund-of-funds and managed account programs managed by Madison.
•Investment advisory clients of Madison and its affiliates.
•Members of the Board of Trustees of Madison Funds and any other board of trustees affiliated with Madison.
•Individuals and their immediate family members who are employees, directors or officers of the adviser, any subadviser, or any service provider of Madison Funds.
•Any investor, including their immediate family members, who owned Class Y shares of any Madison Mosaic Fund as of April 19, 2013.
•Any investor, including their immediate family members, who owned shares of the Acquired Fund as of the Effective Date.
The minimum subsequent investment for the Class Y shares of the Acquiring Fund is $50 for all purchases.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/825063/000082506319000015/msp30719.htm
MS P3 07/19
SUPPLEMENT DATED JULY 18, 2019
TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED MAY 1, 2019
OF
FRANKLIN MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL FUND
(a series of Franklin Mutual Series Funds)
The Board of Trustees of Franklin Mutual Series Funds recently approved a proposal to reorganize the Franklin Mutual International Fund (the “Fund”) with and into the Franklin Mutual Global Discovery Fund, each a series of Franklin Mutual Series Funds.
It is anticipated that in the third quarter of 2019, shareholders of the Fund will receive a proxy card and a Prospectus/Proxy Statement requesting their votes on the reorganization. If approved by the Fund’s shareholders, the transaction is currently expected to be completed on or about February 21, 2020, but may be delayed if unforeseen circumstances arise.
Effective at the close of market (1:00 p.m. Pacific time or close of the New York Stock Exchange, whichever is earlier) on August 27, 2019, the Fund will be closed to all new investors except as noted below. Existing investors who had an open and funded account on August 27, 2019 can continue to invest in the Fund through exchanges and additional purchases after such date. The following categories of investors may continue to open new accounts in the Fund after the close of market on August 27, 2019: (1) clients of discretionary investment allocation programs where such programs had investments in the Fund prior to the close of market on August 27, 2019; and (2) Employer Sponsored Retirement Plans or benefit plans and their participants where the Fund was available to participants prior to the close of market on August 27, 2019. The Fund will not accept any additional purchases or exchanges after the close of market on or about February 19, 2020. The Fund reserves the right to change this policy at any time.
Please keep this supplement with your prospectus for future reference.

I'm mostly in bonds now, in retirement, but with a 32% exposure, still, to equities. Almost all of that is in PRWCX. Best move I ever made. (Of course, I'm watchful. Nothing lasts forever.) I want the income, though I've not tapped into any of it, yet. PRSNX is solid. Almost half of my total. My other bond fund is PTIAX. Great ratings, and higher income per share than PRSNX.

I'm about 10 years away from retirement so am 70% equities and about 30% in money markets.

@MIkeW, you may want to consider a multi-sector bond fund such as PIMIX to start. In my humble opinion money market funds pay very little and it should be used to meet short term goals. For longer term diversification from equity, bonds are logical choice.
I started with Vanguard Total Bond index years ago in my 401(K). Over time I learned to use actively managed bonds. Bill Gross was very good but that was awhile back and there are more choices today.

FYI: I know this is a bold, and possibly controversial title, but retirement planning is broken and leaving people broke.
The destructive narrative is, “work hard, save money in a retirement plan, wait and it will all work out in the long run.”
The reality is, without the ingredients of responsibility and accountability, there is no easy solution for retirement. Meaning, if we just work hard and set money aside, we are putting money into a market we have no control over.
The institutions are winning though. Taking fees along the way. Convincing us to separate ourselves from our hard earned money, encouraging us to take it out of the business we know and put it into investments we don’t.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/garrettgunderson/2019/07/16/youd-be-better-off-just-blowing-your-money-why-retirement-planning-is-doomed/#31d23618302d

Thanks @Crash and @Junkster for sharing your current holdings. Junkster it sounds like IOFIX is a long term holding for you and not one that you trade in and out of. I'm about 10 years away from retirement so am 70% equities and about 30% in money markets. I've been looking for an entry point into bonds all year but have shied away because I keep expecting rates to rise... have been wrong to date. Certainly hard to establish a position now with the big run up in bonds.

From a slightly different perspective: You can’t determine how much to set aside until you figure out where you’re heading after retiring. I agree in playing with different simulators as an educational experience. I sure did in the last 2 or 3 years before jumping ship and retiring, and also for 2 or 3 years after retiring as things were still falling into place. I did a lot of experiments with compound interest calculators and with the numerous suggested allocation models that existed online back than. Most fund companies had one of their own or had access to one. American Century’s proved especially helpful to me. Surprisingly, back than suggested allocations for those in or near retirement differed quite markedly from model to model. So in the end, a lot was left to the individual to work out. One suggestion for those facing retirement in the near future is to “look under the hood” at some of the “funds of funds” (like at T. Rowe) and observe how their managers allocate various assets for different life scenarios (generally expressed in a range of options from conservative investor to aggressive investor).
The simulators mentioned by both the article and @MJG and others all sound very useful in this regard. After you’ve been retired for several years you should have a good handle on how you’re faring, so I think simulators become somewhat unimportant. Rule #1 - Don’t quit a good paying and relatively secure job to transition into retirement unless you’ve run some simulations and are confident you have “all your ducks lined up”. Generally it’s better to err on the side of working longer and spending less in retirement than the other way around.
There’s much you cannot simulate ahead of time: Will you still be healthily enough or feel like working part time during retirement? What will taxes be? Will you or your spouse encounter unexpected health expenses? What will the inflation rate be? What type of returns will bonds and equities be yielding during retirement? What will your equity stake in your home be worth? How high will interest rates be if planning to use some of your home equity? What standard of living will you be comfortable with? And the “granddaddy” of all - How long will you live? Still, the unknowns persist. Few could have foreseen the financial collapse of ‘07-‘09 and the long term consequences for financial markets and investors. And how many models work with both the Traditional IRA and the Roth IRA (as well as a combination of both) during retirement to anticipate your outcomes? There’s a big difference between the two in how your standard of living eventually evolves.
I think a lot of simulators are “bottom up” in approach. They look at what your needs will be and than attempt to arrive at an investment strategy during retirement. I tend to focus more on a “top down” approach. With that approach one pays close attention to shaping an all-weather portfolio and financial plan that has a good chance of keeping pace with or outrunning inflation. That means that if inflation is running at only 1-2% during certain retirement years, you’ll be earning less on your investments. However, should it run at 7, 8 or even 10% your investments will by and large keep pace and protect you as much as possible. Caveat: Don’t trust the greatly understated government inflation numbers. It’s your inflation (as actually experienced) that counts. Not theirs.
@MJG - you were once known for rather verbose submissions. I assure you I’ve greatly outdistanced anything you ever achieved in that regard with this rambling (possibly nonsensical) one. :)

I wish something like a “10% Rule” was common knowledge when I started working in the 1970s. Nobody talked about saving for retirement then, and the stock market was considered a risky gamble. You could earn 12% interest from a money market account and my friends were more concerned about buying a car or house before prices went up again.
I didn’t start saving for retirement until my mid-30s when my employer started a 401k Plan. I contributed the amount that my employer would match, probably about 3% of my salary. I invested it all in cash and bonds because— again— stocks seemed like gambling. My employer provided no guidance or education about investment options, diversification, etc. Fortunately bonds did well during that period and even money markets paid 5-6%.
I finally got educated about investing when I left that job and rolled over my 401k and pension to an IRA. I was about 40 by then and immersed myself in financial literature. I invested the bulk of my savings in a diversified collection of stock funds, with a few bonds for safety, and never looked back. I increased my savings to about 10% of my salary including the employer match, and it all turned out OK in the end. For the last 20 years of my career, my employer had a pension but I kept contributing to a 401k, so my savings were closer to 15-20% of my salary— through my own ignorance because I didn’t realize that the pension was equivalent to saving about 10%.
Bottom line, for young workers or older ones who aren’t saving yet for retirement, the 10% Rule is a pretty good guideline for getting someone started in investing.

The rule given, to save 10% (including employer contributions) for retirement, is a bit simplistic, as even the writer acknowledges:

Of course, there will be times when you’re between jobs or you need your money for a pre-retirement-age emergency. In those cases, ...
Of course, everyone’s situation is and will be different, so 10% is a guideline, not a guarantee. (Furthermore, if you start later in life, 10% won’t be nearly enough.)

Still, one had better have a single number in mind. Otherwise, your employer is going to pick one for you when it automatically enrolls you in its 401(k). How do the tools you suggested help a 25 year old determine how much to set aside for retirement?
The column references an EBRI model that "estimates the risk of running out of money after retirement by taking into account many more factors than the usual online calculator: contributions, market changes, Social Security benefits and salary growth, as well as a range of health outcomes and longevity prospects."
It's a little ironic, criticizing the idea of identifying a target savings rate number as too simplistic, while praising a tool for its simplicity that essentially says: for this asset allocation and retirement spending rate, here's the magic dollar number you need to survive.
As I've said before, simulation tools (regardless of the underlying technology or simplicity) are better than a stick in the eye. By the same token, so is the suggested 10% savings rate guideline.

Hi Guys,
Retirement planning is a challenge because it is complex with many uncertainties. One absurdly simple rule is a dream; it just isn't so.
Given the complexity and uncertainties is a situation that almost demands a Monte Carlo simulation approach to provide some outcome ranges and probabilities. The industry has recognized this and has responded with many such codes that do the job. The best of these codes are easy to use and yield quick and informative predictions.
One such code is provided by Vanguard. Here is the Link:
https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VGApp/pe/pubeducation/calculators/RetirementNestEggCalc.jsf
Please give it a try. Other codes can be located by simply searching for retirement Monte Carlo simulators. Answers will vary. That is the nature of projecting future outcomes. Portfolio survival is always the target goal. Vary parameters to explore their impact on portfolio survival odds. You can improve those odds and these codes give you a rough roadmap. Good luck to everyone.
Best Regards
I provided the Vanguard reference because of its simple input requirements. Here is yet another Link to a Monte Carlo code provided by Portfolio Visualizer that has a more complete set of input demands:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation#analysisResults
You might give this tool a few tests. Yes results vary, but the trends are your friends when exploring possible outcomes. Indeed, good luck is a major part of the equation.

FYI: Make sure you understand leverage, each fund a lot)
What’s better than a portfolio that will pay you a $117,000 salary every year in retirement?
How about one that delivers a consistent paycheck each and every month that you can plan all of your regular expenses around?
I’ll show you how, via with three already-diversified high-yield monthly dividend stocks. But first, let me show you how most income investors get it wrong.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brettowens/2019/07/13/this-diversified-3-click-portfolio-yields-11-7-pays-monthly/?ss=etfs-mutualfunds#303cd9e81ad2
M* Snapshot THW:
https://www.morningstar.com/cefs/xnys/thw/quote.html
M* snapshot PDI:
https://www.morningstar.com/cefs/xnys/pdi/quote.html
M* Snapshot OXLC:
https://www.morningstar.com/cefs/XNAS/OXLC/quote.html

FYI: “Eventually, I’ll stop working.” Most of us think that and know it will happen, but millions of us worry whether we’re saving enough to live on once we do. We want to know: How much of my earnings should I set aside? What’s the magic number? 3%? 5%? 10%? More?
What your financial adviser won’t tell you:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-math-of-saving-for-retirement-2019-05-22/print

I don't keep up with the various offerings from all of the fund families (especially funds like these, being more of a DIY person myself), so I hadn't looked into TRLAX.
Apparently T. Rowe Price rebooted the fund two years ago, changing it from a target date fund into a managed payout fund. So the short answer is that this fund isn't much different from other managed payout funds now, but it used to be.
https://retirementincomejournal.com/article/t-rowe-price-reopens-the-market-for-payout-funds/
Viewing 4% as a "safe" withdrawal rate, that's what Vanguard targets. It adjusts the amounts periodically based on performance (as do virtually all managed payout funds). As @hank noted, T. Rowe Price fund targets 5%, while pointing out that it is designed to pay out more early in retirement and less later on (possibly not keeping up with inflation). That's not necessarily a bad idea; generally retirees are expected to spend more in early retirement while they are still more active.
You're not giving up flexibility with managed payout funds. As T. Rowe Price notes on the overview page, you have the "Freedom to withdraw additional funds", and to "Increase (or reduce) your monthly payouts ... by adding or removing investment assets."
The expense ratio does seem high, and is due to "other expenses", not management fees. I don't know why Price isn't operating more efficiently. In theory, you could mimic the fund yourself (it's a fund of funds), except that (a) you'd pay more than the 0.47% it pays for the aqcuired funds because you can't buy institutional class shares, and (b) some of the funds it uses are closed. Using retail class shares (if you could) would bring your expenses up to around 0.60%. (That's about the same as Fidelity charges for its 2020 RMD fund.)
Can one do better on one's own? Maybe. ISTM this question is not much different from asking: why invest in any allocation fund; can't one do better by investing one one's own in separate large cap, small cap, investment grade, junk bonds, international? Or would one do better by paying that same 0.71% and just buying PRWCX?

"So what's needed instead? ... Well, it's something called target-income funds or TIFs. Those are funds that would provide investors with a specified level of income in retirement -- much like a defined benefit plan or an annuity."
There's already a product that provides investors a specified level of income much like an annuity. It's called an annuity. If this is what one really wants - a fixed, specified level of income that lasts a lifetime, no more, no less - one can already convert part of one's retirement savings into an immediate fixed annuity.
However, that might not be what one desires. If one wants an income stream that might grow with inflation and might leave something for heirs, and one is willing to take some risk with the variability of those payments and whether they will last a lifetime, there are managed payout funds, from providers like Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab.
https://www.myretirementpaycheck.org/How-My-Paycheck-Works/Savings-and-Investments/Managed-Payout-Funds
https://humbledollar.com/money-guide/managed-payout-funds/
"Savers know how much income they can expect to receive from Social Security and, if they have one, their defined-benefit plan. But that's not the case with a 401(k) plan which only tells the investor much money they've accumulated, and not how much income those assets will produce."
That's a matter of disclosure, not product design. If you like this idea, take a look at HR 2367, the Lifetime Disclosure Act.
https://govtrackinsider.com/lifetime-income-disclosure-act-would-project-your-monthly-retirement-paycheck-based-on-your-4b976ee2e8db
https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/Academy_Comments_LIDA_07062018.pdf

https://www.thestreet.com/retirement/target-date-funds-may-fall-short-for-retirement-savers-15016076
Target-date funds, or what some call TDFs, have become the investment of choice for many folks saving for retirement. You buy one fund that is aligned with your anticipated year of retirement and you don't have to do much else.

FYI: Given the thin margins in the retirement business, firm says it was justified in cutting deals with money managers to boost profits
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=X6IlXfPLMsu4tQbGr5XADw&q=Fidelity+says+it's+entitled+to+alleged+'secret+payments'+in+401(k)+plans&oq=Fidelity+says+it's+entitled+to+alleged+'secret+payments'+in+401(k)+plans&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3664.3664..5791...0.0..0.274.340.1j0j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0.VxBR-Lln1ck