Roll over three 401k accounts to TSP or not?

[Anonymous]

I read TSP has low fees. I worked at 3 other places before joining the government so I have 3 I can roll over. Any reason not to? Maybe if the funds I selected in one is doing better than the C in TSP?

[Anonymous]

OP adding. Or keep it to diversify the funds, for example. I get a lot of choices of funds with my Schwab, Wells Fargo, and Ascensus retirement accounts compared to the TSP options.

[Anonymous]

I would unless it offers funds you really like. For 99% of people, TSP is diversified enough.

[Anonymous]

DW is in the same boat. Entered service this month. She has 2 401ks from private companies that we're planning to roll in. The TSP has low fees and plenty of options and it will simplify dealing with all these different accounts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read TSP has low fees. I worked at 3 other places before joining the government so I have 3 I can roll over. Any reason not to? Maybe if the funds I selected in one is doing better than the C in TSP?

Don't chase performance. Chase low costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read TSP has low fees. I worked at 3 other places before joining the government so I have 3 I can roll over. Any reason not to? Maybe if the funds I selected in one is doing better than the C in TSP?

Don't chase performance. Chase low costs.

This is not good advice. For mutual funds in particular, as long as you're not in A or C shares, the performance is NET fees. So if you have a low cost fund that earned 10% but a high cost fund that earned 12%, you want the 12%. Who cares if the expense ratio was higher? You still netted 2% more.

I would roll them to an IRA somewhere of your choosing and choose your own investments. The TSP doesn't have enough options if you're interested in sectors, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read TSP has low fees. I worked at 3 other places before joining the government so I have 3 I can roll over. Any reason not to? Maybe if the funds I selected in one is doing better than the C in TSP?

Don't chase performance. Chase low costs.

This is not good advice. For mutual funds in particular, as long as you're not in A or C shares, the performance is NET fees. So if you have a low cost fund that earned 10% but a high cost fund that earned 12%, you want the 12%. Who cares if the expense ratio was higher? You still netted 2% more.

I would roll them to an IRA somewhere of your choosing and choose your own investments. The TSP doesn't have enough options if you're interested in sectors, etc.

THIS. It's been true for me. I have a TSP - but it's only 2 yrs of my retirement savings. The other 10 (from before I joined the gov't) reside in a Fidelity IRA where I can pick investments -- and yes I know enough about it that I have extremely low cost investments rivaling TSP expenses but allowing me to diversify beyond the 5 freaking funds the gov't has decided are enough for us with no sector investments whatsoever. However consider how well you understand returns vs. expense ratios -- if you truly don't get it, stick with the TSP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read TSP has low fees. I worked at 3 other places before joining the government so I have 3 I can roll over. Any reason not to? Maybe if the funds I selected in one is doing better than the C in TSP?

Don't chase performance. Chase low costs.

This is not good advice. For mutual funds in particular, as long as you're not in A or C shares, the performance is NET fees. So if you have a low cost fund that earned 10% but a high cost fund that earned 12%, you want the 12%. Who cares if the expense ratio was higher? You still netted 2% more.

I would roll them to an IRA somewhere of your choosing and choose your own investments. The TSP doesn't have enough options if you're interested in sectors, etc.

THIS. It's been true for me. I have a TSP - but it's only 2 yrs of my retirement savings. The other 10 (from before I joined the gov't) reside in a Fidelity IRA where I can pick investments -- and yes I know enough about it that I have extremely low cost investments rivaling TSP expenses but allowing me to diversify beyond the 5 freaking funds the gov't has decided are enough for us with no sector investments whatsoever. However consider how well you understand returns vs. expense ratios -- if you truly don't get it, stick with the TSP.

i have no complaints with tsp. near 1 mil point so it's been good for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read TSP has low fees. I worked at 3 other places before joining the government so I have 3 I can roll over. Any reason not to? Maybe if the funds I selected in one is doing better than the C in TSP?

Don't chase performance. Chase low costs.

This is not good advice. For mutual funds in particular, as long as you're not in A or C shares, the performance is NET fees. So if you have a low cost fund that earned 10% but a high cost fund that earned 12%, you want the 12%. Who cares if the expense ratio was higher? You still netted 2% more.

I would roll them to an IRA somewhere of your choosing and choose your own investments. The TSP doesn't have enough options if you're interested in sectors, etc.

THIS. It's been true for me. I have a TSP - but it's only 2 yrs of my retirement savings. The other 10 (from before I joined the gov't) reside in a Fidelity IRA where I can pick investments -- and yes I know enough about it that I have extremely low cost investments rivaling TSP expenses but allowing me to diversify beyond the 5 freaking funds the gov't has decided are enough for us with no sector investments whatsoever. However consider how well you understand returns vs. expense ratios -- if you truly don't get it, stick with the TSP.

i have no complaints with tsp. near 1 mil point so it's been good for me.

No one said the TSP is bad. The point is you could do better, if you are willing to take the time to do some research. I'm not acting as if you will double your money etc but even an additional earnings of 1% on 1mil is $10,000. To a lot of people, that's worth the effort of looking around and considering other options.

But to make the argument (not saying it was you) that low cost = better is just incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read TSP has low fees. I worked at 3 other places before joining the government so I have 3 I can roll over. Any reason not to? Maybe if the funds I selected in one is doing better than the C in TSP?

Don't chase performance. Chase low costs.

This is not good advice. For mutual funds in particular, as long as you're not in A or C shares, the performance is NET fees. So if you have a low cost fund that earned 10% but a high cost fund that earned 12%, you want the 12%. Who cares if the expense ratio was higher? You still netted 2% more.

I would roll them to an IRA somewhere of your choosing and choose your own investments. The TSP doesn't have enough options if you're interested in sectors, etc.

THIS. It's been true for me. I have a TSP - but it's only 2 yrs of my retirement savings. The other 10 (from before I joined the gov't) reside in a Fidelity IRA where I can pick investments -- and yes I know enough about it that I have extremely low cost investments rivaling TSP expenses but allowing me to diversify beyond the 5 freaking funds the gov't has decided are enough for us with no sector investments whatsoever. However consider how well you understand returns vs. expense ratios -- if you truly don't get it, stick with the TSP.

i have no complaints with tsp. near 1 mil point so it's been good for me.

No one said the TSP is bad. The point is you could do better, if you are willing to take the time to do some research. I'm not acting as if you will double your money etc but even an additional earnings of 1% on 1mil is $10,000. To a lot of people, that's worth the effort of looking around and considering other options.

But to make the argument (not saying it was you) that low cost = better is just incorrect.

agree. i am not disagreeing with you. for most passive investors (like most feds), tsp is good enough, imho

[Anonymous]

I did because my agency's rules on preclearing trades (including when the 401K administrator decides to substitute one investment for another) made it too complicated for me to manage my old 401Ks.

[Anonymous]

I rolled over my 401k into an IRA with T Rowe Price. Some of their funds have low fees.
Money Magazine has a list of the best mutual funds at the end of every issue and once a year the have the best overall funds. They include fees and long-term performance in their ratings.

[Anonymous]

you *should* be fine rolling it into tsp however personally I don't like the lack of control over the funds I can invest in and their website and customer service is horrible versus say a Fidelity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read TSP has low fees. I worked at 3 other places before joining the government so I have 3 I can roll over. Any reason not to? Maybe if the funds I selected in one is doing better than the C in TSP?

Don't chase performance. Chase low costs.

This is not good advice. For mutual funds in particular, as long as you're not in A or C shares, the performance is NET fees. So if you have a low cost fund that earned 10% but a high cost fund that earned 12%, you want the 12%. Who cares if the expense ratio was higher? You still netted 2% more.

Sure. But then you weren't chasing performance.

To OP, if you have to ask, you probably don't want to do more work than a lifecycle fund in the TSP. And even if you do more work than that, you may not come out much ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read TSP has low fees. I worked at 3 other places before joining the government so I have 3 I can roll over. Any reason not to? Maybe if the funds I selected in one is doing better than the C in TSP?

Don't chase performance. Chase low costs.

This is not good advice. For mutual funds in particular, as long as you're not in A or C shares, the performance is NET fees. So if you have a low cost fund that earned 10% but a high cost fund that earned 12%, you want the 12%. Who cares if the expense ratio was higher? You still netted 2% more.

I would roll them to an IRA somewhere of your choosing and choose your own investments. The TSP doesn't have enough options if you're interested in sectors, etc.

THIS. It's been true for me. I have a TSP - but it's only 2 yrs of my retirement savings. The other 10 (from before I joined the gov't) reside in a Fidelity IRA where I can pick investments -- and yes I know enough about it that I have extremely low cost investments rivaling TSP expenses but allowing me to diversify beyond the 5 freaking funds the gov't has decided are enough for us with no sector investments whatsoever. However consider how well you understand returns vs. expense ratios -- if you truly don't get it, stick with the TSP.

Which Fidelity investments rival the TSP's costs.