Anonymous
06/16/2017 22:47
Subject: Re:Is the G Fund actually safe?
Anonymous wrote:Stay with the current allocation.
Wait for the market to tank by at least 20% (might be tomrrow might be a few years from now you just have to wait).
Move everything to 100% stock and let it stay there till you retire. Direct any new contributions to the g fund only which will then rebalance your portfolio over your lifetime.
What you are not accounting for in your allocation is your FERS pension. Most people in the private sector do not have that. Because you have that fall back plan you can afford to take the high equity allocation risk. I would not take it at current valuations though.
Wait until the market is at an all time low and then buy! Then wait until it is at all time high, but about to tank, and then sell! I don't understand why people don't get this!
Anonymous
06/16/2017 22:16
Subject: Re:Is the G Fund actually safe?
Anonymous wrote:Stay with the current allocation.
Wait for the market to tank by at least 20% (might be tomrrow might be a few years from now you just have to wait).
Move everything to 100% stock and let it stay there till you retire. Direct any new contributions to the g fund only which will then rebalance your portfolio over your lifetime.
What you are not accounting for in your allocation is your FERS pension. Most people in the private sector do not have that. Because you have that fall back plan you can afford to take the high equity allocation risk. I would not take it at current valuations though.
I *just* spoke with a colleague today who was doing CSI until last year and then moved his money into G fund, trying to time the market. (Remember when Brexit and Trump's electoral win were supposed to tank the market???) Well, he regrets doing so because of the growth he's missed out on over the course of that year and reallocating his money back to CSI.
Anonymous
06/16/2017 18:50
Subject: Re:Is the G Fund actually safe?
Anonymous wrote:Stay with the current allocation.
Wait for the market to tank by at least 20% (might be tomrrow might be a few years from now you just have to wait).
Move everything to 100% stock and let it stay there till you retire. Direct any new contributions to the g fund only which will then rebalance your portfolio over your lifetime.
What you are not accounting for in your allocation is your FERS pension. Most people in the private sector do not have that. Because you have that fall back plan you can afford to take the high equity allocation risk. I would not take it at current valuations though.
Stop giving crazy market timing advice. The market might go up by another 50 percent while she is waiting for the crash!
Anonymous
06/16/2017 17:34
Subject: Re:Is the G Fund actually safe?
Stay with the current allocation.
Wait for the market to tank by at least 20% (might be tomrrow might be a few years from now you just have to wait).
Move everything to 100% stock and let it stay there till you retire. Direct any new contributions to the g fund only which will then rebalance your portfolio over your lifetime.
What you are not accounting for in your allocation is your FERS pension. Most people in the private sector do not have that. Because you have that fall back plan you can afford to take the high equity allocation risk. I would not take it at current valuations though.
Wait for the market to tank by at least 20% (might be tomrrow might be a few years from now you just have to wait).
Move everything to 100% stock and let it stay there till you retire. Direct any new contributions to the g fund only which will then rebalance your portfolio over your lifetime.
What you are not accounting for in your allocation is your FERS pension. Most people in the private sector do not have that. Because you have that fall back plan you can afford to take the high equity allocation risk. I would not take it at current valuations though.
Anonymous
06/16/2017 16:55
Subject: Is the G Fund actually safe?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If I were you, I would move existing balance to all stock (CSI) as well as the new contributions OR do 1/2 and 1/2 between 2040 and 2050 funds (nest egg) and still keep new contribution in CSI.
Don't do this. Way too aggressive for someone risk averse.
I wouldn't bother with a financial advisor. Just do 50 percent 2040, 50 percent 2050 for everything.
PP you are responding to. You think it's too aggressive? 50/50 between L2040 and L2050 funds is ~80% CSI and ~20% G/F funds (L2040 has ~27 G/F, L2050 has ~17 GF). So, 80 is okay but 100 is too aggressive with 20+ years to go?
Yes. OP is conservative and doesn't want to have to think about it. So why should she tilt towards riskier assets? Your suggestion is more complicated, out of line with standard investing advice, and goes against her own risk-averse inclinations. it would require her to pay attention and start shifting towards bonds later on. I am not saying you are wrong, and your strategy would be the right advice for you; but not for her.
Anonymous
06/16/2017 16:51
Subject: Is the G Fund actually safe?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You have no idea what you are doing. I don't mean that in a bad way, but just that you are potentially severely damaging your financial future...
Please put all your money in the lifecycle fund based on the estimated retirement date (L2040?) and leave it there...
OP, this is excellent advice. You have to find a way to accept that you are guaranteed to lose if you don't take any risk. The L funds are perfect for people like you. Keep it simple and try to forget about it.
And BTW- The G fund is an AWESOME bond fund.
F is bond not G
F is corporate bonds, G is government bonds.