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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?