TSP percentages

[Anonymous]

I am 100% C fund because I like VOO. My brokerage account is where I get my small cap and international exposure in a more focused way than S/VXF and I/VEA would allow. When I retire my TSP will become focused on the G fund with my stock exposure being in my brokerage account.

[Anonymous]

Most feds I know who sold out and put into the G fund, never timed the market correctly to get back in. This is starting from 2008-2010 Financial Crisis. I know it's scary. We lost around 40% in market value during that time, but spouse and I kept it in mostly equities b/c we knew our investment horizon was more than 20 plus years at that point. I used to have more G and F, but in the last 5 years or more, they've really sucked. As PPs point out, owning G is losing money. F has been even worse. I have 90% in C,S and I. I am 51 soon to be 52 and have $1.6M in TSP. I am not selling equities to move to G fund and realizing the loss of Trump/Musk's craziness these last 7 weeks. Since we won't access the TSP all at once, there is still time to recover it over time. I'm old enough to realize that last 10 years is not normal for market returns anyway. If we average 7% over the lifetime of the account, I would rather do that then lose it all to G. Besides with everything they're doing US dollars will become worth even less (e.g., huge tax cuts for billionaires/wealthy, firing tons of fed workers, tariffs).

[Anonymous]

All in C and S. 2.2 mil balance but I am sure it’s been taking beatings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am 100% C fund because I like VOO. My brokerage account is where I get my small cap and international exposure in a more focused way than S/VXF and I/VEA would allow. When I retire my TSP will become focused on the G fund with my stock exposure being in my brokerage account.

I do the exact same thing in retirement and use Avantis in my brokerage/IRA. It is simple and gives you lots of options without losing access to the G fund.

[Anonymous]

50% C fund and 50% S fund as always. I'm 49 and max it out every year and plan to do so as long as I work for government.

[Anonymous]

I've been 100% in stocks for years even though I'm late 50s (the pension is the hedge, so no need to be conservative with TSP IMO), but 2 weeks ago I moved it all to the 2030 lifecycle plan. And very glad I did. At this point, who knows if I'll be getting a pension or SS, and I lost no money this past week.

[Anonymous]

I just moved half into I fund for the first time in several years. The rest is 30% C and 20% S. I was in C and S prior. In wait and see mode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most feds I know who sold out and put into the G fund, never timed the market correctly to get back in. This is starting from 2008-2010 Financial Crisis. I know it's scary. We lost around 40% in market value during that time, but spouse and I kept it in mostly equities b/c we knew our investment horizon was more than 20 plus years at that point. I used to have more G and F, but in the last 5 years or more, they've really sucked. As PPs point out, owning G is losing money. F has been even worse. I have 90% in C,S and I. I am 51 soon to be 52 and have $1.6M in TSP. I am not selling equities to move to G fund and realizing the loss of Trump/Musk's craziness these last 7 weeks. Since we won't access the TSP all at once, there is still time to recover it over time. I'm old enough to realize that last 10 years is not normal for market returns anyway. If we average 7% over the lifetime of the account, I would rather do that then lose it all to G. Besides with everything they're doing US dollars will become worth even less (e.g., huge tax cuts for billionaires/wealthy, firing tons of fed workers, tariffs).

Maybe this is a dumb question but if the C/S/I funds lost 40% wouldn't someone who sold C/S/I and bought G/F at any point during that 40% slide still be better off than someone who stayed in?

Sure it's practically impossible to time it exactly and reap that entire 40% but even if you didn't sell until 20% down and then bought back in while 30% down and it lost another 10%, you're still 10% up on someone who held the whole time, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just moved half into I fund for the first time in several years. The rest is 30% C and 20% S. I was in C and S prior. In wait and see mode.

Same. I moved about $200K to I last week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100% G until the crash.

I’ve got a bridge to sell you…

Do you still have a bridge to sell me?

[Anonymous]

The simple fact is that the U.S. government is promising harsh austerity measures while the frickin' Germans are changing laws to issue a ton of debt to fund a war posture (i.e., lots of stimulus that will flow through the economy with a large multiplier effect).

Read the tea leaves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most feds I know who sold out and put into the G fund, never timed the market correctly to get back in. This is starting from 2008-2010 Financial Crisis. I know it's scary. We lost around 40% in market value during that time, but spouse and I kept it in mostly equities b/c we knew our investment horizon was more than 20 plus years at that point. I used to have more G and F, but in the last 5 years or more, they've really sucked. As PPs point out, owning G is losing money. F has been even worse. I have 90% in C,S and I. I am 51 soon to be 52 and have $1.6M in TSP. I am not selling equities to move to G fund and realizing the loss of Trump/Musk's craziness these last 7 weeks. Since we won't access the TSP all at once, there is still time to recover it over time. I'm old enough to realize that last 10 years is not normal for market returns anyway. If we average 7% over the lifetime of the account, I would rather do that then lose it all to G. Besides with everything they're doing US dollars will become worth even less (e.g., huge tax cuts for billionaires/wealthy, firing tons of fed workers, tariffs).

Maybe this is a dumb question but if the C/S/I funds lost 40% wouldn't someone who sold C/S/I and bought G/F at any point during that 40% slide still be better off than someone who stayed in?

Sure it's practically impossible to time it exactly and reap that entire 40% but even if you didn't sell until 20% down and then bought back in while 30% down and it lost another 10%, you're still 10% up on someone who held the whole time, right?

No because the person who sold at some point during the slide (statistically) did not buy back in at the bottom and experience the recovery. The person who stayed in C/S/I lost 40% but then recovered their losses plus much more over the next couple of years. The person who sold out earned much less in the G fund.

[Anonymous]

It is so hard to watch the market today in c fund. I feel there are more days like today this year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most feds I know who sold out and put into the G fund, never timed the market correctly to get back in. This is starting from 2008-2010 Financial Crisis. I know it's scary. We lost around 40% in market value during that time, but spouse and I kept it in mostly equities b/c we knew our investment horizon was more than 20 plus years at that point. I used to have more G and F, but in the last 5 years or more, they've really sucked. As PPs point out, owning G is losing money. F has been even worse. I have 90% in C,S and I. I am 51 soon to be 52 and have $1.6M in TSP. I am not selling equities to move to G fund and realizing the loss of Trump/Musk's craziness these last 7 weeks. Since we won't access the TSP all at once, there is still time to recover it over time. I'm old enough to realize that last 10 years is not normal for market returns anyway. If we average 7% over the lifetime of the account, I would rather do that then lose it all to G. Besides with everything they're doing US dollars will become worth even less (e.g., huge tax cuts for billionaires/wealthy, firing tons of fed workers, tariffs).

Maybe this is a dumb question but if the C/S/I funds lost 40% wouldn't someone who sold C/S/I and bought G/F at any point during that 40% slide still be better off than someone who stayed in?

Sure it's practically impossible to time it exactly and reap that entire 40% but even if you didn't sell until 20% down and then bought back in while 30% down and it lost another 10%, you're still 10% up on someone who held the whole time, right?

No because the person who sold at some point during the slide (statistically) did not buy back in at the bottom and experience the recovery. The person who stayed in C/S/I lost 40% but then recovered their losses plus much more over the next couple of years. The person who sold out earned much less in the G fund.

I’m the pp who went into the G fund. I did this in the Great Recession as well. Did I sell at the top and buy at the bottom? No. I sold after the market was down 10% and bought back in at the 8000’s only to watch it fall to the 6000’s before recovering. I made more money than if I had just rode it all the way down and back up.

If I buy it right now, I get more shares than I sold when I went into G. You don’t have to be perfect, you just have to be willing to buy back in and lose some. Considering the market hasn’t even hit bear territory yet I’m not too worried about missing gains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most feds I know who sold out and put into the G fund, never timed the market correctly to get back in. This is starting from 2008-2010 Financial Crisis. I know it's scary. We lost around 40% in market value during that time, but spouse and I kept it in mostly equities b/c we knew our investment horizon was more than 20 plus years at that point. I used to have more G and F, but in the last 5 years or more, they've really sucked. As PPs point out, owning G is losing money. F has been even worse. I have 90% in C,S and I. I am 51 soon to be 52 and have $1.6M in TSP. I am not selling equities to move to G fund and realizing the loss of Trump/Musk's craziness these last 7 weeks. Since we won't access the TSP all at once, there is still time to recover it over time. I'm old enough to realize that last 10 years is not normal for market returns anyway. If we average 7% over the lifetime of the account, I would rather do that then lose it all to G. Besides with everything they're doing US dollars will become worth even less (e.g., huge tax cuts for billionaires/wealthy, firing tons of fed workers, tariffs).

Maybe this is a dumb question but if the C/S/I funds lost 40% wouldn't someone who sold C/S/I and bought G/F at any point during that 40% slide still be better off than someone who stayed in?

Sure it's practically impossible to time it exactly and reap that entire 40% but even if you didn't sell until 20% down and then bought back in while 30% down and it lost another 10%, you're still 10% up on someone who held the whole time, right?

No because the person who sold at some point during the slide (statistically) did not buy back in at the bottom and experience the recovery. The person who stayed in C/S/I lost 40% but then recovered their losses plus much more over the next couple of years. The person who sold out earned much less in the G fund.

I’m the pp who went into the G fund. I did this in the Great Recession as well. Did I sell at the top and buy at the bottom? No. I sold after the market was down 10% and bought back in at the 8000’s only to watch it fall to the 6000’s before recovering. I made more money than if I had just rode it all the way down and back up.

If I buy it right now, I get more shares than I sold when I went into G. You don’t have to be perfect, you just have to be willing to buy back in and lose some. Considering the market hasn’t even hit bear territory yet I’m not too worried about missing gains.

So that is your win. The internet is full of people who only win. In reality for every story you hear on the internet of someone bragging about selling high and buying low, there is someone who does not want to talk about buying low and selling high.