-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com
-
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
div>
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!Boghies Account Talk
- Thread starter Boghie
- Start date
Boghie
Well-known member
NNuut,
When you see old (sensational) news sensationalized as new news you know you ain't got real news.
The media beclowned themselves again. If you've ever dealt with them you know they make a career of beclowning themselves. I hate working with folks who live the stereotypes heaped on them.
Too bad I didn't get the most current fact news till after TSP locks their books down. Oh well. Maybe some folks will sell on the bump tomorrow
.
Boghie
Well-known member
The ole' standby for a booming market. Too bad the smart money moved so fast:
- G: 0% (Of course)
- F: 0% (No Brainer)
- C: 40% (Fairly valued)
- S: 30% (Although I 'think' this one may have played itself out)
- I: 30% (This one hasn't boomed like the others)
Maybe the recent panic was stupid.
They usually are, they almost always are.
Boghie
Well-known member
Soon the South Koreans (et. al.) will have nukes:
The key question Seoul will be asking is whether America will nuke Pyongyang if Pyongyang nukes Seoul. In such a matter there will be little room for nuance. But President Obama is the heart and soul of nuance. Asked to describe his policy towards Libya the President said:Time for our allies to find new allies, eh...
“It is U.S. policy that Gaddafi needs to go. We’ve got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy. We will continue to pursue those, but when it comes to our military action, we are doing so in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 that specifically talks about humanitarian efforts, and we are going to make sure that we stick to that mandate”.And that has got to worry them. It is hard to get a policy “yes” or a “no” out of President Obama. At times one may elicit a “maybe” but its validity expires faster than a gift certificate from Bernie Madoff.
Boghie
Well-known member
Folks,
I don't know how to use this information, but my best SWAG is that there is money to be made in them thar hills (data from an earlier post):
Our Fund prices at/near the top of the market (as defined by the S&P500, 2007/10/09):
G: $12.1500Our Fund prices on 2008/06/16 (S&P near where we are):
F: $11.5800
C: $17.5700
S: $21.2700
I: $25.7300
G: $12.4800Our Fund prices at the Dump (S&P Low, 2009/03/09):
F: $11.9300
C: $15.4900
S: $19.5100
I: $22.8200
G: $12.7996Current Pricing (2011/03/25):
F: $12.4323
C: $ 7.8673
S: $ 9.0631
I: $10.2903
G: $13.5786
F: $14.2868
C: $15.9561
S: $22.4782
I: $20.4623
Here is a thought. Conservatively, the 'C Fund' should grow at about 9% (actually 10%) per year. The share price of th 'C Fund' on 2003/10/01 was about $10.62.
Thus, assuming a 9% growth rate (the norm) the 'C Fund' should be at:
2010/10/01: $19.41Thus (and, this is NOT safe or real smart - the market goes where the market goes), we are probably severely undervalued in the equities funds. There might be normalizing gains of 32%.
2011/10/01: $21.16
Don't know how to play it.
However, while the market goes where the market goes it does have a normalized long term growth rate and a standard deviation (risk). The high point of 2007/10 was about a year ahead of itself. Then we crashed. And, we crashed because of fear emanating from an asset class we are not able to invest in using TSP.
Thus, I think smart money will be in equities for the long term.
crws
Active member
If you are talking REIT's, boy howdy, I wish we had one now.
Boghie
Well-known member
Yeah, CRWS, a REIT would have been an awesome option - eh...
I was talking Real Estate more generally, but REITs are a good proxy. I've got a couple grand burning a hole in my Schwab account. Maybe I'll buy a REIT. They are probably being punished right now. That real estate bubble was a very destructive bubble. More destructive than the Dumbass.com bubble.
On my topic of a 'C Fund' undervaluation, I just find it intriguing that all the charty types look at all the curvaceous moves of a day, a week, a month, and a year – but never seem to look farther out. Based on last year and this year I am starting to think equities will definitely exceed the norm to meet the norm. Last year and this year seem to be a bit over norm. A very nice way to come out of a secular ten year bear market. That would be very sustainable rate of growth.
I want to catch that – and make a bit more by missing a correction or two.
Boghie
Well-known member
I think...
That I'll run with the bulls for a while.
That is, let the market decide. I now have some space to have acceptable short term losses and still remain in the market without freaking out. Now, a -4% or -5% correction can be sustained without feeling an itch in my index finger.
Probably more like -3%
My guess is that the 'I Fund' will drag me up.
Boghie
Well-known member
Ummmm, Never Find Yourself on the Wrong Side of Mark Steyn's Pen
Ouch...
That hurt...
--------------------
So, the sharpshooting Republicans have decimated the budget by a whopping 1%!!! Cutting, slashing, gutting grandma and throwing the disabled across the border (into Tijuana) to beg in the streets.
We have now just reduced this year’s deficit by 2.34%.
We are now on a sustainable path to prosperity.
Maybe, kinda, sorta, who ya kidding...
Your (my) job depends on sustainable Federal spending. Short term you (me) are at risk by gubmint shutdowns and other Simple Jack Maneuvers. But mid-term (no longer long term - and me thinks mid-term is months not years) your career is based on what your customers will pay for the services offered. And, guess what, they don't think they are getting a square deal. We have to slim down.
Now, if only we had followed the President's path of adding $74 Billion to spending. I have been on a personal debt reduction plan for the past three years. I can see the light now - and it ain't a train. Maybe I could have gotten here faster by spending more:nuts:.
Boghie
Well-known member
This calculator breaks down your income tax and benefit payments to budget line items...
Even though it comes from the Whitehouse (and, thus might have some political slant) it DOES look fair.
It points to the fact that the only real expenses that can be cut to shrink our deficit are the entitlements, national defense, and welfare programs.
Everything else is nibbling at the corners. Everyone yammering about international assistance is yakking about 1.1% of total spending. That is, just a little bit more than the chinzy 'cut' just made. Yowser.
It's going to be difficult to make the hard choices the previous 4 decades of folks refused to make - but they will have to be made. If not, bond holders will make them - and that is a very bad thing.
Additionally, it was stupid to reduce our Social Security payments by 1/3rd this year. Absolutely stupid. Dumber than dumb. Political.
And, here is a deal I'll make James...
If we approach the last Clinton spending (since I know James likes that) I will pay the Clinton era tax rates WITHOUT QUESTION. I will even permit another $200 Billion in Defense spending to cover the war. So here are the numbers (in 2010 dollars):
FY2001 Spending: $2,294 Billion
DOD (or other acceptable bloat): $200 Billion
Thus, when we cut spending to $2,500 Billion I will accept increased taxes without complaint. If we can get to $2,500 Billion in spending than we are looking at an annual deficit of $340 Billion. My guess is that if we make the current tax code permanent we will get to balance in a couple/three years.
Since we spent $3,456 Billion in FY2010 all we need to accomplish is a Trillion dollar annual cut. That is how much we have bloated since FY2001.
Boghie
Well-known member
Well, folks...
Today is goin' to hurt. But as a friend once told me after 9/11, you're going to get cut in a knife fight but you gotta accept it.
I have been lucky enough to build a little cushion in my TSP (about 5.5% growth). I was going to patiently rebalance about 40% out of the market for the May gettaway. And, I took a couple of days off (today and tommorow) to - in part - review the market and make the first move.
Of course, I figured I was leading the market. :nuts:
Oh, well
Regardless, I don't know where to go and I don't want to make a panic move and lock in losses. Will today be followed by tomorrow? Or will tomorrow correct today. You have to be in to win and I have stated that I can accept 3% - 5% losses so I will take today to figure things out.
If I cannot figure things out I think I might go 20% in each fund tomorrow and let the market decide (Average Return: 5%, Average Risk: 7%). I have two IFTs left. But, I hate the 'F Fund' and 'G Fund'. The F is correcting and the G is the Treasury's slush fund in a debt ceiling fight. Yowser
Boghie
Well-known member
I forgot I have a Schwab account and can take a more detailed look at AGG...
Yowser, why would anybody sniff this pigs backside:
•US Treasury 34.65% (Bad, real bad)But, as they say on the infomercials - 'That's Not All!!!':
•Mortgage Pass-Through 31.90% (Oh my God)
•US Corporate 17.09% (Probably Good to Go)
•US Agency 6.36% (Eh)
•Mortgage CMO 3.97% (Ugghhh)
•Foreign Corporation 3.78% (Probably Good to Go)
•Foreign Government 1.42% (Not so good)
•Municipal 0.80% (Enron by the Sea)
•Asset-Backed 0.02% (Bood Value)
•General Obligation 43.38% (Nothing but debt backing debt)So, me thinks the 'F Fund' ain't where I am going to park.
•Transportation 25.55% (Here come the Toll Roads on the I5)
•Water/Sewer 12.54% (Enron by the Sea - Anyone watching Discovery Channel)
•Utilities 6.94% (Good to Go)
•Education 5.52% (Too Funny)
•Misc. Revenue 4.47% (Hope for Change)
•Health 1.21% (Eh)
•Industrial 0.38 (Now, that's investing in America!)
Maybe I'll accept the Treasury digging into my assets. At least I know its coming
crws
Active member
I forgot I have a Schwab account and can take a more detailed look at AGG...
Yowser, why would anybody sniff this pigs backside:
•US Treasury 34.65% (Bad, real bad)But, as they say on the infomercials - 'That's Not All!!!':
•Mortgage Pass-Through 31.90% (Oh my God)
•US Corporate 17.09% (Probably Good to Go)
•US Agency 6.36% (Eh)
•Mortgage CMO 3.97% (Ugghhh)
•Foreign Corporation 3.78% (Probably Good to Go)
•Foreign Government 1.42% (Not so good)
•Municipal 0.80% (Enron by the Sea)
•Asset-Backed 0.02% (Bood Value)
•General Obligation 43.38% (Nothing but debt backing debt)So, me thinks the 'F Fund' ain't where I am going to park.
•Transportation 25.55% (Here come the Toll Roads on the I5)
•Water/Sewer 12.54% (Enron by the Sea - Anyone watching Discovery Channel)
•Utilities 6.94% (Good to Go)
•Education 5.52% (Too Funny)
•Misc. Revenue 4.47% (Hope for Change)
•Health 1.21% (Eh)
•Industrial 0.38 (Now, that's investing in America!)
Maybe I'll accept the Treasury digging into my assets. At least I know its coming
you were reading my mind, eh? Rope a little AGG?
Thanks for the expose'.
I'm lending a bit o' the shoulder to the Uncle as well,
at least I know where it is.
Boghie
Well-known member
CRWS,
Here is where the 'G Fund' assets are going...
The Administration (and most of the Republicans) think they are in control of the situation. They still might have some control, but the window is closing. The sound of us talking about the 'F Fund' is the sound of that window closing. Bill Gross closed his last month. Completely and with finality. In fact, he is smashing it through the bottom of the frame. He is shorting the US Treasury and Bond market.
Why do I want to place assets with someone who thinks they can yak about the debt like we were running $400 Billion deficits. There is NO TIME for that. And, my guess is that the Moody's rating is not current. The other shoe will probably fall soon!!!
After a bit of research Moody's warned of a rating reduction in January.
This Administration BeClowns itself whenever possible.
Boghie
Well-known member
Re(1): 'A Comment on the Deficit', Calculated Risk
CR has an adult discussion on deficit reduction.
We HAVE TO CUT our budget by the structural deficit NOW.
Boghie
Well-known member
Again, we DO NOT NEED to come to balance right now.
We have to take care of structural debt and start the debt snowball.
It might not be proper to link to a political site, but this comment is perfect (and adult):
S&P isn’t looking for a commitment to end deficit spending altogether. They want to see the trajectory of debt-to-income shift soon, and permanently, in order to keep assuring investors in the financial stability of the US government. This is a warning that a recalculation will happen soon if Washington refuses to act, and it will also act as a warning to bond purchasers to avoid US Treasuries in the short term.We have months, not years.
There will be deep cuts. Who defines them?
Already, we in TSPTalk are looking askance at the 'F Fund' and 'G Fund'.
hessian
Member
Boghie,
Much Thanks for the clarity you provided on the Teasuries/Bonds here.
This is what I was after trying in my novice way to understand with the F-Fund thread.
My understanding is that they're not legally entiltled to "raid" our G-Fund. Right? :suspicious:
Last edited:
Boghie
Well-known member
Boghie,
Much Thanks for the clarity you provided on the Teasuries/Bonds here.
This is what I was after trying in my novice way to understand with the F-Fund thread.
My understanding is that they're not legally entiltled to "raid" our G-Fund. Right? :suspicious:
Hessian,
When you hold 'G Fund' assets you are holding Social Security bonds. The Treasury does some slight-of-hand legalese based on the fact that they can borrow hard cash from the Social Security slush fund and give Social Security a bond. Thus, they treat your holdings in the ‘G Fund’ as payroll contributions to Social Security. Very Enrony, eh… Kinda double posting.
Anyway, the Treasury has borrowed 'G Fund' assets multiple times in the past. At least twice in the past ten years. It happens when they exceed the debt ceiling. I think it happened a couple of times in the 90s as well.
I, for one, don’t want the risk of Treasury making a grab and freezing the assets. That has not happened in the past, but we have never run $1,600,000,000,000 annual deficits in the past either. Obama make ‘W’ look like a miser. But, then again, the ‘F Fund’ is basically another Federal Gubmint debt instrument. And, it can dump while the ‘G Fund’ is ‘guaranteed’.
Boghie
Well-known member
Re(1): 'My Perspective on the Budget Fight', Library of Economics Liberty, Arnold Kling
HT: Instapundit.
Beware:
I don't think of the long-term budget fight as being between Democrats and Republicans or between rich and poor. I look at it as a fight between people with funded retirements and unfunded retirements.The pension portion of our FERS retirement is not fully funded. It is a funding line (group of lines) in the Federal budget. It is 4.6% of Federal expenditures. It is NOT in a 'Lock Box'. Thus, it is NOT funded.
Look at the numbers. Does anyone think that a 0.8% paycheck contribution will generate the assets to pay the expected benefit. If you think that is the case why don't you contribute just 1% of your salary to TSP and invest it only in the 'G Fund'. If I saved for retirement as such:
- Age: 24 years old
- Salary: 3K per pay period (very, very high for a 24 year old)
- Contribution: 1% of Gross Salary per pay period to 'G Fund' (more than 0.8%)
- Match: 1% Match to 'G Fund'
- Return: 4.26 (Return of 'G Fund' over last ten years)
- Inflation: 3.10% (Long term average)
- Grow Contribution by Inflation
- Retire at: 65 years old
What is the Federal Gubmint promising you?
To all of us, it would be best to fund your own retirement using TSP.
DO NOT COUNT on your pension. Things will change.Similar threads
