Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two GS-14's, both 33. We like our jobs so plan to stay federal and work till at least 65. So, we're using the L2050.

Current allocation (April, 2019):
11% G
7% F
40% C
13% S
29% I

What is wrong with this?

The short answer is that it’s too conservative for someone your age.

The difference between 80/20, 90/10 and 100/0 probably isn’t significant and when you add in the behavioral questions around people’s savings rates and reallocations to market swings it becomes even harder to say anyone “needs” have more than 80% stocks

Anonymous wrote:Two GS-14's, both 33. We like our jobs so plan to stay federal and work till at least 65. So, we're using the L2050.

Current allocation (April, 2019):
11% G
7% F
40% C
13% S
29% I

What is wrong with this?

The short answer is that it’s too conservative for someone your age.

Anonymous wrote:There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the L funds except perhaps that we’re in the midst of a very long bull market for equities. Next time the market drops 20 % the L fund will be more attractive who only look at recent returns.

The question of whether to treat your pension as of it were an i lnvestment in bonds is much debated. You might want to read up on Bogleheads.

Basically the question becomes how much risk can you afford to take and how much risk do you want to take.

TSP is not a pension. Pension is a different thing.

OP here. Thanks for the perspectives. I think I'm going to stick with the L fund. I don't want to deal with re-balancing (maybe in the future, but not now) and I like the security of some portion in bonds in case I need to take a loan out. Can't get a loan against FERS as far as I know.

Maybe when the L2060 starts I'll consider moving to that or will want to take on re-balancing.

There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the L funds except perhaps that we’re in the midst of a very long bull market for equities. Next time the market drops 20 % the L fund will be more attractive who only look at recent returns.

The question of whether to treat your pension as of it were an i lnvestment in bonds is much debated. You might want to read up on Bogleheads.

Basically the question becomes how much risk can you afford to take and how much risk do you want to take.

I started out allocating 10% of my TSP contributions to the I fund. But now I'm allocating 0% to it. It's too volatile. And it's return since fund inception is a measly 4%. I'm currently allocating 80% - C fund, 20% S fund. I'm 44 years old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two GS-14's, both 33. We like our jobs so plan to stay federal and work till at least 65. So, we're using the L2050.

Current allocation (April, 2019):
11% G
7% F
40% C
13% S
29% I

What is wrong with this?

That's actually not too bad. I would probably nix the bonds because you will have a govt pension and your time horizon is over 30 years.

Since small cap stocks outperform large cap stocks historically, upping the S fund makes sense.

I fund is much better because it now covers emerging markets. If you are pessimistic about the US, you might want to up the I fund. A lot of people get burned by thinking their country is #1.

Getting the bond allocation correct will probably have the biggest impact on your performance.

Large cap (C fund) has outperformed small cap (S fund) historically. The international index that the I fund currently tracks has not done well historically and the I fund will be changing to follow a different international index soon. I plan to invest in the I fund at that time. Compare the current one to the total world index and you can see that the total world index seems better- the index fund that the I fund currently tracks has leveled out recently and is not increasing at a rate similar to the other indexes.

S isn’t small cap and hasn’t been for MANY YEARS. Why do you people continue to post incorrect and inadequate information about the TSP? If you can’t be bothered to keep up with a measly five funds and keep track of them for over a decade why do you post on them?

The S Fund is the Dow Jones US completion total. It isn’t small cap stocks, it’s the ENTIRE STOCK MARKET minus the S&P 500 which are in the C fund. The S Fund hasn’t been a small cap fund for a decade.

I think you are making a big deal out of nothing. SP500 control 85-90% of total market. S captures only 10-15%... they are basically small cap companies.

-np

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two GS-14's, both 33. We like our jobs so plan to stay federal and work till at least 65. So, we're using the L2050.

Current allocation (April, 2019):
11% G
7% F
40% C
13% S
29% I

What is wrong with this?

That's actually not too bad. I would probably nix the bonds because you will have a govt pension and your time horizon is over 30 years.

Since small cap stocks outperform large cap stocks historically, upping the S fund makes sense.

I fund is much better because it now covers emerging markets. If you are pessimistic about the US, you might want to up the I fund. A lot of people get burned by thinking their country is #1.

Getting the bond allocation correct will probably have the biggest impact on your performance.

Large cap (C fund) has outperformed small cap (S fund) historically. The international index that the I fund currently tracks has not done well historically and the I fund will be changing to follow a different international index soon. I plan to invest in the I fund at that time. Compare the current one to the total world index and you can see that the total world index seems better- the index fund that the I fund currently tracks has leveled out recently and is not increasing at a rate similar to the other indexes.

S isn’t small cap and hasn’t been for MANY YEARS. Why do you people continue to post incorrect and inadequate information about the TSP? If you can’t be bothered to keep up with a measly five funds and keep track of them for over a decade why do you post on them?

The S Fund is the Dow Jones US completion total. It isn’t small cap stocks, it’s the ENTIRE STOCK MARKET minus the S&P 500 which are in the C fund. The S Fund hasn’t been a small cap fund for a decade.

NP. Looks like the TSP expert found something to split hairs over. The S fund includes both small cap AND medium cap stocks. Massive difference lol

Anonymous wrote:

S isn’t small cap and hasn’t been for MANY YEARS. Why do you people continue to post incorrect and inadequate information about the TSP? If you can’t be bothered to keep up with a measly five funds and keep track of them for over a decade why do you post on them?

The S Fund is the Dow Jones US completion total. It isn’t small cap stocks, it’s the ENTIRE STOCK MARKET minus the S&P 500 which are in the C fund. The S Fund hasn’t been a small cap fund for a decade.

They should rename it the D fund then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two GS-14's, both 33. We like our jobs so plan to stay federal and work till at least 65. So, we're using the L2050.

Current allocation (April, 2019):
11% G
7% F
40% C
13% S
29% I

What is wrong with this?

That's actually not too bad. I would probably nix the bonds because you will have a govt pension and your time horizon is over 30 years.

Since small cap stocks outperform large cap stocks historically, upping the S fund makes sense.

I fund is much better because it now covers emerging markets. If you are pessimistic about the US, you might want to up the I fund. A lot of people get burned by thinking their country is #1.

Getting the bond allocation correct will probably have the biggest impact on your performance.

Large cap (C fund) has outperformed small cap (S fund) historically. The international index that the I fund currently tracks has not done well historically and the I fund will be changing to follow a different international index soon. I plan to invest in the I fund at that time. Compare the current one to the total world index and you can see that the total world index seems better- the index fund that the I fund currently tracks has leveled out recently and is not increasing at a rate similar to the other indexes.

S isn’t small cap and hasn’t been for MANY YEARS. Why do you people continue to post incorrect and inadequate information about the TSP? If you can’t be bothered to keep up with a measly five funds and keep track of them for over a decade why do you post on them?

The S Fund is the Dow Jones US completion total. It isn’t small cap stocks, it’s the ENTIRE STOCK MARKET minus the S&P 500 which are in the C fund. The S Fund hasn’t been a small cap fund for a decade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two GS-14's, both 33. We like our jobs so plan to stay federal and work till at least 65. So, we're using the L2050.

Current allocation (April, 2019):
11% G
7% F
40% C
13% S
29% I

What is wrong with this?

That's actually not too bad. I would probably nix the bonds because you will have a govt pension and your time horizon is over 30 years.

Since small cap stocks outperform large cap stocks historically, upping the S fund makes sense.

I fund is much better because it now covers emerging markets. If you are pessimistic about the US, you might want to up the I fund. A lot of people get burned by thinking their country is #1.

Getting the bond allocation correct will probably have the biggest impact on your performance.

Large cap (C fund) has outperformed small cap (S fund) historically. The international index that the I fund currently tracks has not done well historically and the I fund will be changing to follow a different international index soon. I plan to invest in the I fund at that time. Compare the current one to the total world index and you can see that the total world index seems better- the index fund that the I fund currently tracks has leveled out recently and is not increasing at a rate similar to the other indexes.

Anonymous wrote:Two GS-14's, both 33. We like our jobs so plan to stay federal and work till at least 65. So, we're using the L2050.

Current allocation (April, 2019):
11% G
7% F
40% C
13% S
29% I

What is wrong with this?

That's actually not too bad. I would probably nix the bonds because you will have a govt pension and your time horizon is over 30 years.

Since small cap stocks outperform large cap stocks historically, upping the S fund makes sense.

I fund is much better because it now covers emerging markets. If you are pessimistic about the US, you might want to up the I fund. A lot of people get burned by thinking their country is #1.

Getting the bond allocation correct will probably have the biggest impact on your performance.

Take a look at this sheet.

https://www.tsp.gov/PDF/formspubs/tsplf14.pdf

G Fund is a bond fund but your pension is already invested in Treasuries and is a guaranteed income stream for life. You don’t need more bonds.

F Fund only goes up when the market falls. They don’t buy and hold corporate bonds. They sell the bonds and buy new which means if rates fall they are making money on the bonds. This is a bond “trading” fund.

I Fund has the highest fees in the TSP due to the nature of the fund. It has a bad track record compared to the US funds. 29% in the I fund is IMHO way too much.


You should have 100% of your money in stocks and the vast majority of that in the C and S funds. With 25-30 years left to work you really really REALLY don’t need any G fund.

Two GS-14's, both 33. We like our jobs so plan to stay federal and work till at least 65. So, we're using the L2050.

Current allocation (April, 2019):
11% G
7% F
40% C
13% S
29% I

What is wrong with this?