TSP Advice for Good Investors

[Anonymous]

Are there really any disadvantages to simply putting all my money in the C fund and letting it ride for years rather than allocating between several funds? It has the best returns track record, and I am not that risk averse. I am mid 30's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there really any disadvantages to simply putting all my money in the C fund and letting it ride for years rather than allocating between several funds? It has the best returns track record, and I am not that risk averse. I am mid 30's.

No, there is not. But times are good now...could you stomach losing half or more of your nest egg in a bear market over a few short months, weeks, or even a day? It happened in '08-'09 with no end in sight which caused many to panic sell and retreat into the G-Fund, wiping out years of gains. You never lose a single dime until the day you sell since the number of shares you own does not change (only the price). But if you do sell at a huge loss, the earnings are lost forever. At that point it's a mental game and battle of intestinal fortitude.

Determining the amount of risk you are willing to take and not panic when the market is choppy is the hard part of investing. Historically, a 60/40 portfolio has performed (predictably) a little less than 100/0 portfolio, but at a fraction of the risk. 50/50, 60/40, 70/30 is much more manageable for the average investor saving in a 401k/TSP as compared to 100/0. There is also the feeling of missing out during down markets because a 100/0 portfolio has no "dry powder" to buy stock in the dip. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Hey why do I need to rebalance my fund allocations? I chose my fund allocations, but why do they automatically steer one way and go out of wack? Basic question I know...it's just strange that the allocations change. Is it based on how well one is doing? The allocations automatically change?

Anonymous wrote:
I assume you are referring to L funds?

L funds rebalance automatically on a glidepath to more a more conservative holding as retirement nears. The FRTIB manages this for you and does a good job at it. L funds are truly "set it and forget it".

If you are using C/S/I/F/G funds in your portfolio, they naturally get out of proportion with your ongoing contributions + gains/losses in the market. You don't have to rebalance, but they will go off track as time goes on. Thinking of it as both "locking in your gains" when stocks are high and "buying low" when stocks dip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there really any disadvantages to simply putting all my money in the C fund and letting it ride for years rather than allocating between several funds? It has the best returns track record, and I am not that risk averse. I am mid 30's.

No, there is not. But times are good now...could you stomach losing half or more of your nest egg in a bear market over a few short months, weeks, or even a day? It happened in '08-'09 with no end in sight which caused many to panic sell and retreat into the G-Fund, wiping out years of gains. You never lose a single dime until the day you sell since the number of shares you own does not change (only the price). But if you do sell at a huge loss, the earnings are lost forever. At that point it's a mental game and battle of intestinal fortitude.

Determining the amount of risk you are willing to take and not panic when the market is choppy is the hard part of investing. Historically, a 60/40 portfolio has performed (predictably) a little less than 100/0 portfolio, but at a fraction of the risk. 50/50, 60/40, 70/30 is much more manageable for the average investor saving in a 401k/TSP as compared to 100/0. There is also the feeling of missing out during down markets because a 100/0 portfolio has no "dry powder" to buy stock in the dip. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations

Hmmm...I'm at at 60% C and 40% S. Is that still a lot of risk? That allocation is still all US securities. Should 40% actually be in bonds to spread the risk?

[Anonymous]

If L2040 is too timid for you, use 2050. or half 2040/2050.

[Anonymous]

Thanks all for the advice. I also have an IRA through Vanguard maxed out every year in the S&P500, so i do have more in stocks. I'll look into the L2050 and different allocations, but will wait until after the election.

[Anonymous]

I'm hoping Hillary Clinton fights for a 2.2 percent raise for Feds.

[Anonymous]

Um it's time for more like a 6 percent hike for Feds....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Um it's time for more like a 6 percent hike for Feds....

That's, um, not gonna happen.

[Anonymous]

AS the dollar became stronger and stronger, I upped my contributions to the I fund. Yes, my returns in the I fund have been lower than the C and S but that is because as the dollar strengthens, the value of the fund drops allowing for the purchase of more shares.

When the dollar eventually drops expect returns in the I fund to increase, and your total gain to have increased due to the extra shares purchased.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/investing/value-of-us-dollar-affects-investments.aspx

In the long term it evens out, but if you rebalance your portfolio often you can take advantage of this. For my personal accounts, I often buy ADRs in part based on currency movements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Um it's time for more like a 6 percent hike for Feds....

Has any organization done an analysis of how much Feds have lost realistically during the past 6 years? Premiums are up, cost of living in DC area is insane, and we've received nothing and then minimal increases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um it's time for more like a 6 percent hike for Feds....

Has any organization done an analysis of how much Feds have lost realistically during the past 6 years? Premiums are up, cost of living in DC area is insane, and we've received nothing and then minimal increases.

I personally am guessing I'm down about 10-15% over the past 6 years. The real inflation rate is more along the lines of 4% each year according to Shadowstats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um it's time for more like a 6 percent hike for Feds....

Has any organization done an analysis of how much Feds have lost realistically during the past 6 years? Premiums are up, cost of living in DC area is insane, and we've received nothing and then minimal increases.

Friendly reminder of how unkind President Obama has been to feds with the 2011-13 COLA freeze and a paltry ~1% since. Since 2010, it's been pretty rough:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um it's time for more like a 6 percent hike for Feds....

That's, um, not gonna happen.

+1.

At least it won't happen with a safety-for-all, union-backed Democratic President.

With a Republican President trying to establish a performance-based organization, it could easily happen (but 10% of the lowest-performers would get fired).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um it's time for more like a 6 percent hike for Feds....

Has any organization done an analysis of how much Feds have lost realistically during the past 6 years? Premiums are up, cost of living in DC area is insane, and we've received nothing and then minimal increases.

Friendly reminder of how unkind President Obama has been to feds with the 2011-13 COLA freeze and a paltry ~1% since. Since 2010, it's been pretty rough:

This seems to coincide with the Tea Party takeover in 2010.