Contribution Allocation

[GGal]

I have usually pretty much had my contribution going the same way as my account allocation....

This year have it more 1/3 C, 1/3 S, 1/3 I

I'm having second thoughts. I think this could ultimately be just as important a consideration as the principal allocation.

Given that over the last two years, the I fund cost has increased about $7 per share, the S fund about $4 or $5 per share, and the C Fund only about $3 per share.......would it ultimately be more prudent right now (unless the I fund falls long-term) to be socking all of the contributions into C?

Or is that placing too much emphasis on the likelyhood that C will ultimately have a big rally against I? Crystal Ball, where are you?

I think this is a very important consideration, especially for me, who only has 7 yrs to retirement. I need to maximize every way I can.

Any food for thought?

GA

 

[GGal]

Was this a stupid question, undeserving of an answer of any sort?????

 

[FundSurfer]

I actually have my contributions going the same way. I typically move several times a month so it isn't there long. I know some have there allocation going into g-fund and then move it where they want it. I don't worry about it cause I move often. I went with the 1/3 C, S, I allocation figuring that long term these funds move up. I'm looking at those as long term even though they get swept the next time I do an IFT.

Make sense?

 

[GGal]

Right, thanks for reply!

I wouldn't think to put my contributions in G. And I don't move nearly as often as you, FS.

But I guess the fact that I move any makes it silly for me to fret over should they go to C or I.

Thanks for clearing the web.

GA

 

[James48843]

Whether or not a certain fund goes up seven dollars a share, or three or four, doesn't matter. What matters is which goes up a higher percentage. For that, this year at least, "I" has been king.

If you only have 7 years left till retirement, please remember that stocks can go DOWN as easy as they go up (or easier). If you invested everything in a single fund in 2000 at the bubble, it would have taken years to get back to neutral. Just remember that, and that you CAN take a large hit by being 100% in stocks at any given time, IF that is the day the market takes a big hit.

 

[Griffin]

I actually have my contributions going the same way.

Do you constantly change your allocation? Initially I did an allocation change every time I did an IFT.

Now, I have everything go to the G. In theory (if my moves were all perfect) those funds would enter the market at the optimum moment, assuming I move at least once every two weeks.

The difference in the strategies probably does not amount to a hundreth of a percent annually.

 

[Birchtree]

I would surmise that an additional acumulation of 1300 shares/year would equate to more than a hundreth of a percent annually. I won't get that much in 2007 because the price will be going up. I may have to consult Palladin sooner than I anticipated if I'm to reach my goal.

 

[Griffin]

Do you think before you post?

Were talking about the difference between initially allocating those funds to the G for a few days while looking to target a bottom (factoring the success rate). Alternatively, initially allocating those funds straight into the stock funds (given the ebb and flow of the market and the fact that no one does an IFT to move there latest contribution into the G when they are already in CP mode). My point is that the difference is irrelevant.

On a side note, there is no need to bait me into another squabble, I will happily engage you when I decide I have nothing better to do with my time.

I would surmise that an additional acumulation of 1300 shares/year would equate to more than a hundreth of a percent annually. I won't get that much in 2007 because the price will be going up. I may have to consult Palladin sooner than I anticipated if I'm to reach my goal.

 

[SkyPilot]

hey, it's all good. We makin' the money! No worries