Anonymous wrote:
Well, now you are talking about timing the market rather than choosing an investment allocation. If you think you can time the market and move in and out of stocks and bonds to make more money, fine. But for everyone who gets this right there is someone who gets this wrong - every buyer has a seller. Many people who went into bonds when the market crashed missed out on the recovery.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP. I think PP meant FERS.
Yes I was talking about the FERS annuity. When I retire I'll get 42% which is actually close to 50% since there are no payroll taxes out of it. Then there is social security. That's 2 separate fixed income retirements. The idea that I would be using the G fund seems a bit out there. I can survive the drops in the market. I won't need to withdrawal at retirement anyway.
Just as a real-world example ... by heeding an advisory recommendation to move things out of equity funds prior to the '08 dive, we averted a loss of approx. $170-200k in our TSP account had we left it fully in equities.
With the growth in the account from '09-14, it was up more than $250k in that period. Losing approx., say, 30% of the growth of $180k plus the actual loss of the $180k that was averted, that is $200k that is in our account today because there was a reallocation to about 55%G in '08 before the big dive. That's the difference between a $800k TSP balance and a $550k balance = real money to most people.
So it can make a significant difference. I've been retired for 2 yrs. and won't have to touch the TSP account for years and have other assets so for us it's not so critical, but if your TSP account performance matters, as it does to many, many people, going all in on equities and just riding it out is a proven less than optimal (to put it mildly) way to go.
2008 won't happen again unless you're expecting another real estate crash nationwide. [..]
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP. I think PP meant FERS.
Yes I was talking about the FERS annuity. When I retire I'll get 42% which is actually close to 50% since there are no payroll taxes out of it. Then there is social security. That's 2 separate fixed income retirements. The idea that I would be using the G fund seems a bit out there. I can survive the drops in the market. I won't need to withdrawal at retirement anyway.
Just as a real-world example ... by heeding an advisory recommendation to move things out of equity funds prior to the '08 dive, we averted a loss of approx. $170-200k in our TSP account had we left it fully in equities.
With the growth in the account from '09-14, it was up more than $250k in that period. Losing approx., say, 30% of the growth of $180k plus the actual loss of the $180k that was averted, that is $200k that is in our account today because there was a reallocation to about 55%G in '08 before the big dive. That's the difference between a $800k TSP balance and a $550k balance = real money to most people.
So it can make a significant difference. I've been retired for 2 yrs. and won't have to touch the TSP account for years and have other assets so for us it's not so critical, but if your TSP account performance matters, as it does to many, many people, going all in on equities and just riding it out is a proven less than optimal (to put it mildly) way to go.
Well, now you are talking about timing the market rather than choosing an investment allocation. If you think you can time the market and move in and out of stocks and bonds to make more money, fine. But for everyone who gets this right there is someone who gets this wrong - every buyer has a seller. Many people who went into bonds when the market crashed missed out on the recovery.
Anonymous wrote:The L funds are a touch more conservative than my own preferences, so I've picked one for the decade beyond when I would potentially retire.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP. I think PP meant FERS.
Yes I was talking about the FERS annuity. When I retire I'll get 42% which is actually close to 50% since there are no payroll taxes out of it. Then there is social security. That's 2 separate fixed income retirements. The idea that I would be using the G fund seems a bit out there. I can survive the drops in the market. I won't need to withdrawal at retirement anyway.
Just as a real-world example ... by heeding an advisory recommendation to move things out of equity funds prior to the '08 dive, we averted a loss of approx. $170-200k in our TSP account had we left it fully in equities.
With the growth in the account from '09-14, it was up more than $250k in that period. Losing approx., say, 30% of the growth of $180k plus the actual loss of the $180k that was averted, that is $200k that is in our account today because there was a reallocation to about 55%G in '08 before the big dive. That's the difference between a $800k TSP balance and a $550k balance = real money to most people.
So it can make a significant difference. I've been retired for 2 yrs. and won't have to touch the TSP account for years and have other assets so for us it's not so critical, but if your TSP account performance matters, as it does to many, many people, going all in on equities and just riding it out is a proven less than optimal (to put it mildly) way to go.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:C 65%
S 20%
I 15%
done.
I do 40/40/20 myself. I used to do the L fund but I'm find putting everything in the market. As a federal employee you should be able to absorb the risk because you have a pension which is like a giant bond. If half your retirement is already in a bond why put anything in G?
I'm not an expert on F but it's my understanding that it's only usful to invest in when interest rates are high. While rates are low, corporate bonds bought are going to have little profit.
Interesting analysis but I don't agree with it at all. Your "pension" that you refer to is, I assume your TSP annuity? That's only part of your retirement plan and getting a strong return on your TSP account part is critical to a successful retirement scenario, so the idea that you can absorb the risk of being improperly allocated is misguided IMO, especially later in your career. Risking a 20%+ loss in a bad year on a TSP account of, say, $800k (not unheard of) fully invested in equities can really put a crimp in your retirement financial picture.
Do you understand that the G fund is not a bond fund? I don't understand why you equate it with bond investments (which are the F fund). In fact, the G fund is the lowest cost, highest return money market type fund you can find, that's where you want to park the cash portion of your portfolio IMO because whatever the interest rates are, you'll get more in the G fund than from Vanguard Prime or Fidelity Cash Reserves, etc. You're not going to grow that part of the portfolio much right now but it is a downside cushion. The G fund & bonds are apples & oranges.
So, imagine your ideal allocation is a split between bonds and equities. The idea is that the FERS annuity mimics the features of the bond component of your ideal allocation, as it provides a fixed nominal return. So when interest rates fall, the value of the FERS annuity increases just like bonds would.
If you set your allocation in TSP according to the norms for people who don't have an annuity component, you will end up over-exposed to bond-like instruments and under-exposed to equities, and generate a lower return than you should.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP. I think PP meant FERS.
Yes I was talking about the FERS annuity. When I retire I'll get 42% which is actually close to 50% since there are no payroll taxes out of it. Then there is social security. That's 2 separate fixed income retirements. The idea that I would be using the G fund seems a bit out there. I can survive the drops in the market. I won't need to withdrawal at retirement anyway.
Just as a real-world example ... by heeding an advisory recommendation to move things out of equity funds prior to the '08 dive, we averted a loss of approx. $170-200k in our TSP account had we left it fully in equities.
With the growth in the account from '09-14, it was up more than $250k in that period. Losing approx., say, 30% of the growth of $180k plus the actual loss of the $180k that was averted, that is $200k that is in our account today because there was a reallocation to about 55%G in '08 before the big dive. That's the difference between a $800k TSP balance and a $550k balance = real money to most people.
So it can make a significant difference. I've been retired for 2 yrs. and won't have to touch the TSP account for years and have other assets so for us it's not so critical, but if your TSP account performance matters, as it does to many, many people, going all in on equities and just riding it out is a proven less than optimal (to put it mildly) way to go.
Anonymous wrote:If you have 20+ years left, you really don't need to put money into G.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:C 65%
S 20%
I 15%
done.
I do 40/40/20 myself. I used to do the L fund but I'm find putting everything in the market. As a federal employee you should be able to absorb the risk because you have a pension which is like a giant bond. If half your retirement is already in a bond why put anything in G?
I'm not an expert on F but it's my understanding that it's only usful to invest in when interest rates are high. While rates are low, corporate bonds bought are going to have little profit.
Interesting analysis but I don't agree with it at all. Your "pension" that you refer to is, I assume your TSP annuity? That's only part of your retirement plan and getting a strong return on your TSP account part is critical to a successful retirement scenario, so the idea that you can absorb the risk of being improperly allocated is misguided IMO, especially later in your career. Risking a 20%+ loss in a bad year on a TSP account of, say, $800k (not unheard of) fully invested in equities can really put a crimp in your retirement financial picture.
Do you understand that the G fund is not a bond fund? I don't understand why you equate it with bond investments (which are the F fund). In fact, the G fund is the lowest cost, highest return money market type fund you can find, that's where you want to park the cash portion of your portfolio IMO because whatever the interest rates are, you'll get more in the G fund than from Vanguard Prime or Fidelity Cash Reserves, etc. You're not going to grow that part of the portfolio much right now but it is a downside cushion. The G fund & bonds are apples & oranges.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP. I think PP meant FERS.
Yes I was talking about the FERS annuity. When I retire I'll get 42% which is actually close to 50% since there are no payroll taxes out of it. Then there is social security. That's 2 separate fixed income retirements. The idea that I would be using the G fund seems a bit out there. I can survive the drops in the market. I won't need to withdrawal at retirement anyway.
Anonymous wrote:NP. I think PP meant FERS.