-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - 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!
Direction of F Fund ?
- Thread starter GTO1970
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
HiAll:
Have a question about the F fund. Went back to 1995 Historical Rates and saw that the F fund Annual Return for that year was 18.31. Is that because the I Fund was not introduced back then? Also is the HAR 18.31 in % or $.For the month of April of 1995 the F Fund was 1.38. The lowest month of 1995 was July –(0.23) and heist was Feb at 2.38. Was just thinking if the F Fund will do the same this year 2005?
Did not check to see if Feds had raised interest rates doing that time or not, wouldn’t know where to look.
Thanks swsop.
HiAll:
Have a question about the F fund. Went back to 1995 Historical Rates and saw that the F fund Annual Return for that year was 18.31. Is that because the I Fund was not introduced back then? Also is the HAR 18.31 in % or $.For the month of April of 1995 the F Fund was 1.38. The lowest month of 1995 was July –(0.23) and heist was Feb at 2.38. Was just thinking if the F Fund will do the same this year 2005?
Did not check to see if Feds had raised interest rates doing that time or not, wouldn’t know where to look.
Thanks swsop.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
It's because interest rates were falling.They ain't fallin anytime soon, dear. Buckle your safety belt. We're in for a rocky interest rate ride. I'd only be interested in the F fund right now if we could short it..
It's because interest rates were falling.They ain't fallin anytime soon, dear. Buckle your safety belt. We're in for a rocky interest rate ride. I'd only be interested in the F fund right now if we could short it..
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
saraho wrote:
Thanks. This is why Ilike thissite:^
swsop
saraho wrote:
It's because interest rates were falling.They ain't fallin anytime soon, dear. Buckle your safety belt. We're in for a rocky interest rate ride. I'd only be interested in the F fund right now if we could short it..
Thanks. This is why Ilike thissite:^
swsop
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Not too soon swsop, you know what they say, go against the masses. Rising interest rates where "suppose" to be bad for the S fund last year also.
Not too soon swsop, you know what they say, go against the masses. Rising interest rates where "suppose" to be bad for the S fund last year also.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Good morning all:
A former poster explained to me when asks about the F fund. He said that when the C is falling the F fund sometime will rise. Also on one finance channel I forget which onethey weretalking about having bonds in your portfolio and that’s what got me to thinking for the short term with my Tsp. What the Heck it didn’t hurt, but it should did take away some of the pain. Well I have been 80% invested in the F fund since Jan 10, 2005. On Jan 10[suP]th[/suP] made an interfund transfer from 25%G, 10%C, 50%S and 15%I to 20%G and 80%F to be affective at COB. That’s where I stayed until Jan 20[suP]th[/suP] when I made another transferto 75G and 25C at COB, following Saraho’s new allocations. I have seen lots of informational post about the F fund so I kind of took a chance on it and it paid off. But as my mother would say god bless her soul “A little equals a lot and that some is better then none”.
SWSOP
Good morning all:
A former poster explained to me when asks about the F fund. He said that when the C is falling the F fund sometime will rise. Also on one finance channel I forget which onethey weretalking about having bonds in your portfolio and that’s what got me to thinking for the short term with my Tsp. What the Heck it didn’t hurt, but it should did take away some of the pain. Well I have been 80% invested in the F fund since Jan 10, 2005. On Jan 10[suP]th[/suP] made an interfund transfer from 25%G, 10%C, 50%S and 15%I to 20%G and 80%F to be affective at COB. That’s where I stayed until Jan 20[suP]th[/suP] when I made another transferto 75G and 25C at COB, following Saraho’s new allocations. I have seen lots of informational post about the F fund so I kind of took a chance on it and it paid off. But as my mother would say god bless her soul “A little equals a lot and that some is better then none”.
SWSOP
Mike
Active member
imported post
tsptorture wrote:
They would have been had they climbed more and been coming up from a higher low point. However, since the overnight lending rate was slashed all the way down to 1%(an all-time low!), and since the Feds only bumped it a quarter point per meeting in the 2nd half of the year, the rising rates never took a bite out of small caps.
This year's rate hikes could be more aggressive, and they are starting at a higher point than last year, so things will probably play out a bit differently. If I had to guess, I'd say part of the reason why the S plunged so badly to start the year is that fund managersstarted dumpinghuge chunks of their small cap holdings in favor of the blue chips (or maybe even cash holdings). They know interest rates are probably going to rise considerably this year, and they also know what effect (negative) that has on small companies. So, they engaged in profit-taking, leaving us where we're at now. Again, this is just speculation, but I'd bet that I'm right.
tsptorture wrote:
They would have been had they climbed more and been coming up from a higher low point. However, since the overnight lending rate was slashed all the way down to 1%(an all-time low!), and since the Feds only bumped it a quarter point per meeting in the 2nd half of the year, the rising rates never took a bite out of small caps.
This year's rate hikes could be more aggressive, and they are starting at a higher point than last year, so things will probably play out a bit differently. If I had to guess, I'd say part of the reason why the S plunged so badly to start the year is that fund managersstarted dumpinghuge chunks of their small cap holdings in favor of the blue chips (or maybe even cash holdings). They know interest rates are probably going to rise considerably this year, and they also know what effect (negative) that has on small companies. So, they engaged in profit-taking, leaving us where we're at now. Again, this is just speculation, but I'd bet that I'm right.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
I'd bet that you're dead wrong regarding the blue chips. If what you said was true (buying blue chips), then we should have seen a significant bounce in the C fund. Instead, this has been "profit-taking" across the board albeit mostly in the small caps. Thishas occurred in a traditionally strong small cap month. If you're a fund manager and you see interest rates rising, why take the risk of investing in stocks when you have a sure thing that is going to give youmore than 1%?
Besides the interest rate play, thus far this year, there has been significant interestagain in the energy sector (probably due in part to the cold wave) andin junior metal companies.If inflation starts to really catch hold, asmany are assuming it already has (myself included) then the dollar will again start to drop and the metals rise, despite thecontinuing rise ininterest rates.
I'd bet that you're dead wrong regarding the blue chips. If what you said was true (buying blue chips), then we should have seen a significant bounce in the C fund. Instead, this has been "profit-taking" across the board albeit mostly in the small caps. Thishas occurred in a traditionally strong small cap month. If you're a fund manager and you see interest rates rising, why take the risk of investing in stocks when you have a sure thing that is going to give youmore than 1%?
Besides the interest rate play, thus far this year, there has been significant interestagain in the energy sector (probably due in part to the cold wave) andin junior metal companies.If inflation starts to really catch hold, asmany are assuming it already has (myself included) then the dollar will again start to drop and the metals rise, despite thecontinuing rise ininterest rates.
grandma
Well-known member
imported post
Sitting in G fund againhas me feelingI am back where Iwas when I found this site and got started moving out. Then I find the market is changing its directions.What I gained since first of Dec, I have given back. I certainly don't have the Midas Touch, and could even nuture the thought I caused the slump for everyone else by joining up here!
Only a few have mentioned using F, some a whole lot, others just some. I would like to feel I am making some progress in these months before retirement, but don't want to move just because of hyperactivity-ness. I had some in F, then at the last minute moved it out the end of the week. Since then I see others have gone in, so unless I hear some Real `Oh No' s, I will replace it Monday before noon.
Thanx -
Sitting in G fund againhas me feelingI am back where Iwas when I found this site and got started moving out. Then I find the market is changing its directions.What I gained since first of Dec, I have given back. I certainly don't have the Midas Touch, and could even nuture the thought I caused the slump for everyone else by joining up here!
Only a few have mentioned using F, some a whole lot, others just some. I would like to feel I am making some progress in these months before retirement, but don't want to move just because of hyperactivity-ness. I had some in F, then at the last minute moved it out the end of the week. Since then I see others have gone in, so unless I hear some Real `Oh No' s, I will replace it Monday before noon.
Thanx -
imported post
grandma wrote:
grandma wrote:
Hi Grandma, I'm sitting in the F Fund watching for stocks to bottom out then I'll jump back in. Lots of us lost money in early Jan. I'm thinking Feb won't be any better based on historic data. I might be in the F for another 5 weeks or so. = TimerSitting in G fund againhas me feelingI am back where Iwas when I found this site and got started moving out. Then I find the market is changing its directions.What I gained since first of Dec, I have given back. I certainly don't have the Midas Touch, and could even nuture the thought I caused the slump for everyone else by joining up here!
Only a few have mentioned using F, some a whole lot, others just some. I would like to feel I am making some progress in these months before retirement, but don't want to move just because of hyperactivity-ness. I had some in F, then at the last minute moved it out the end of the week. Since then I see others have gone in, so unless I hear some Real `Oh No' s, I will replace it Monday before noon.
Thanx -
Spaf
Honorary Hall of Fame Member
imported post
Smine... You were right as I recall, January for the first few weeks was suppose to be good.
Grandma / Timer.... The S&P had it's last higher high at 1213 on Dec. 30.04. If we advance above that we have the bull market. If we rally below that we will have a bear market. The current correction is leaving a lot of negative money flow in it's wake. IMHO we have a 50/50 chance either way (with not a lot of visibility).
My actions have been to park in the G-fund, to conserve resources. I'll wait for better investment signals.
Rgds
Spaf
Smine... You were right as I recall, January for the first few weeks was suppose to be good.
Grandma / Timer.... The S&P had it's last higher high at 1213 on Dec. 30.04. If we advance above that we have the bull market. If we rally below that we will have a bear market. The current correction is leaving a lot of negative money flow in it's wake. IMHO we have a 50/50 chance either way (with not a lot of visibility).
My actions have been to park in the G-fund, to conserve resources. I'll wait for better investment signals.
Rgds
SpafSystemTrader
Member
imported post
There's been a lot of talk about the F Fund here. It's commonly believed the F Fund is a poor choice because "interest rates are rising." Well, that's halfway true.Short-term rates are rising, but not long-term rates. And the F Fund has been the best performer this year. So what gives?
Well, my allocation is 100%in the F Fundfor a very simple reason--my system told me to do this. But whether you use a system or your own judgement, it pays to consider more than just short-term rates or "Fed hikes" when considering the F Fund.
First,price is arguably the best indicator for any security. And bond prices (not yields) have been going up. (This is true for corporate bonds like theDow Jones20 BondIndexand government bonds such as 30-year Treasuries.) If you're a trend-follower, then the trend is clearly on the upswing for bonds.
Some would argue that long-term rates will eventually have to rise if the Fed keeps raising shorter-term rates. Maybe. But that could take awhile. Bond traders are a savvy group, and their view of the economy isn't as rosy as the Fed's. They're not buying the idea that long-term rates must increase with each short-term rate hike. The decreasing yield on the 10-year is clear evidence of this.
I'll end with someinterestingfacts about long-term rates and the predictions of economists. (Note: this isan excerpt from Dr. Steve Sjuggerud's free email service. [E-mail: Investment U|Website: www.InvestmentU.com.] It's not from a paid content newsletter or website.)
[align=left]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal polled 56 economists, and 55 agree: Long-term interest rates will RISE in 2005. But wait! Don't go making plans just yet...
Today I'll show you why those 55 out of 56 economists are likely wrong, and how it leads me to believe that interest rates have a better chance of heading LOWER in 2005 rather than higher.
You probably don't believe me now. But you will after reading what I share with you...
The Disastrous Track Record of "the Experts"[/align]
Twice a year, the Wall Street Journal polls economists for their predictions about rates.
It's nice of the Wall Street Journal to make the effort. However, after having 46 polls of the experts since 1982, the historical record shows that the only use of the "expert" forecasts is as a contrary indicator. Let me explain:
In the last SIX polls, the "experts" have predicted HIGHER interest rates in every poll. However, interest rates have steadily moved down. In fact, interest rates have been consistently moving down since the early 1980s, and the experts have consistently predicted incorrectly.
The actual forecasting record of the world's highest paid financial "experts" for forecasting interest rates is nothing short of disastrous.
Not only were they not even close in predicting what interest rates would be, they couldn't even predict the direction interest rates would move correctly.
Since 1982, the beginning of Wall Street Journal's Forecasting Survey, the experts have gotten the direction of interest rates right in their predictions less than one third of the time.
Flipping a Coin to Beat the Experts
Said another way, you or I could have flipped a coin as our prediction of the direction of interest rates. And we would have crushed the predictions of the experts.
Right now, 55 out of 56 experts are predicting higher long-term interest rates in 2005.
Most people will believe these forecasts. Investment U readers will know these forecasts are completely worthless.
If they have any value at all, it is as a contrary indicator... Which tells us that interest rates may well fall in 2005.
© 2004 Investment U
There's been a lot of talk about the F Fund here. It's commonly believed the F Fund is a poor choice because "interest rates are rising." Well, that's halfway true.Short-term rates are rising, but not long-term rates. And the F Fund has been the best performer this year. So what gives?
Well, my allocation is 100%in the F Fundfor a very simple reason--my system told me to do this.
But whether you use a system or your own judgement, it pays to consider more than just short-term rates or "Fed hikes" when considering the F Fund. First,price is arguably the best indicator for any security. And bond prices (not yields) have been going up. (This is true for corporate bonds like theDow Jones20 BondIndexand government bonds such as 30-year Treasuries.) If you're a trend-follower, then the trend is clearly on the upswing for bonds.
Some would argue that long-term rates will eventually have to rise if the Fed keeps raising shorter-term rates. Maybe. But that could take awhile. Bond traders are a savvy group, and their view of the economy isn't as rosy as the Fed's. They're not buying the idea that long-term rates must increase with each short-term rate hike. The decreasing yield on the 10-year is clear evidence of this.
I'll end with someinterestingfacts about long-term rates and the predictions of economists. (Note: this isan excerpt from Dr. Steve Sjuggerud's free email service. [E-mail: Investment U|Website: www.InvestmentU.com.] It's not from a paid content newsletter or website.)
[align=left]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal polled 56 economists, and 55 agree: Long-term interest rates will RISE in 2005. But wait! Don't go making plans just yet...
Today I'll show you why those 55 out of 56 economists are likely wrong, and how it leads me to believe that interest rates have a better chance of heading LOWER in 2005 rather than higher.
You probably don't believe me now. But you will after reading what I share with you...
The Disastrous Track Record of "the Experts"[/align]
Twice a year, the Wall Street Journal polls economists for their predictions about rates.
It's nice of the Wall Street Journal to make the effort. However, after having 46 polls of the experts since 1982, the historical record shows that the only use of the "expert" forecasts is as a contrary indicator. Let me explain:
In the last SIX polls, the "experts" have predicted HIGHER interest rates in every poll. However, interest rates have steadily moved down. In fact, interest rates have been consistently moving down since the early 1980s, and the experts have consistently predicted incorrectly.
The actual forecasting record of the world's highest paid financial "experts" for forecasting interest rates is nothing short of disastrous.
Not only were they not even close in predicting what interest rates would be, they couldn't even predict the direction interest rates would move correctly.
Since 1982, the beginning of Wall Street Journal's Forecasting Survey, the experts have gotten the direction of interest rates right in their predictions less than one third of the time.
Flipping a Coin to Beat the Experts
Said another way, you or I could have flipped a coin as our prediction of the direction of interest rates. And we would have crushed the predictions of the experts.
Right now, 55 out of 56 experts are predicting higher long-term interest rates in 2005.
Most people will believe these forecasts. Investment U readers will know these forecasts are completely worthless.
If they have any value at all, it is as a contrary indicator... Which tells us that interest rates may well fall in 2005.
© 2004 Investment U
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
System,
The big pictureguy is back....that means the "smart money-paying that trade in order to eat" are saying that stocks are overvalued. If you read the data...there has been major outflows of money from the stock market and major inflows to the bond market. The closer the yield curve gets to inversion the harder the stock market will fall.
The overnight rate is 2.5% and the 30 year is (I believe) around 4.50%...why take 30 years of risk for 2% of yield? Only a fool would do that or fools that are SCREAMING AT YOU stocks are overvalued. Once again the charts and data tell you what is going on...not the talking heads on tv. The talking heads on tv are not allowed toown stocks...so all they care about is ratings...we all know when the market goes down their ratings (and in turn their bonuses) suffer.
That is the big picture.
MT
System,
The big pictureguy is back....that means the "smart money-paying that trade in order to eat" are saying that stocks are overvalued. If you read the data...there has been major outflows of money from the stock market and major inflows to the bond market. The closer the yield curve gets to inversion the harder the stock market will fall.
The overnight rate is 2.5% and the 30 year is (I believe) around 4.50%...why take 30 years of risk for 2% of yield? Only a fool would do that or fools that are SCREAMING AT YOU stocks are overvalued. Once again the charts and data tell you what is going on...not the talking heads on tv. The talking heads on tv are not allowed toown stocks...so all they care about is ratings...we all know when the market goes down their ratings (and in turn their bonuses) suffer.
That is the big picture.
MT
SystemTrader
Member
imported post
MarketTimer wrote:
I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not saying to buy and hold the F Fund or anybond/bond fund indefinitely.Thebond timing model I useis pretty sensitive tochanges in the bond market/monetary climate.If bonds start sinking, the model will give a sell signal before any majorbond losses.
From what I've seen,it's better to move to the F Fund when you're not in stocksif the bond trend is up. Yes, you'll lose a few $$ at times. But in the long run, it's more profitable than always moving to the G Fund.
As for the talking heads, I only listen to them for entertainment.
~John
MarketTimer wrote:
MT,
I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not saying to buy and hold the F Fund or anybond/bond fund indefinitely.Thebond timing model I useis pretty sensitive tochanges in the bond market/monetary climate.If bonds start sinking, the model will give a sell signal before any majorbond losses.
From what I've seen,it's better to move to the F Fund when you're not in stocksif the bond trend is up. Yes, you'll lose a few $$ at times. But in the long run, it's more profitable than always moving to the G Fund.
As for the talking heads, I only listen to them for entertainment.
~John
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
SystemTrader wrote:
SystemTrader wrote:
I think you're both correct..just reacting over different timeframes.. ST is more short focus. MT very long focus.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
saraho wrote:
What I am saying the next nine months is going to be rough. Those who are patient will have assets to take advantage of the low prices...in 24 months we will be retesting the old highs again. The same thing happened last year...2002, 2001, 2000, 1999the only reason 2003 was not different was the retro dividend tax cut...I am saying you do not need to be invested 100% stocks all the time...the risk reward right now is horrible on the long side.
You are a good person. I want to get along with everyone. There are times to have your body and the water and there are times just to stick your toe in the water...I strongly believe to toe your way through.
I guess I am the only bearish person on this board...that is why I am the focal point of your hate...that is ok...but hopefully others would enjoy heasring a view based on charts, data, 16 years of trading experienceand not greed and need and the market allways goes UP. That simply is not true...the market goes down too. Hold and hope (the old school of hold and hope) is passe. Money mangers love the hold and hopers because they earn their management fee for doing nothing...nothing will take them out of hold and hope. Hold and hope works great in a bull market but not in a sideways or bear market. The market has traded sideways now for over six years...and the performance of the index funds are no where in six years. Good luck.
MT
saraho wrote:
Sarah,
What I am saying the next nine months is going to be rough. Those who are patient will have assets to take advantage of the low prices...in 24 months we will be retesting the old highs again. The same thing happened last year...2002, 2001, 2000, 1999the only reason 2003 was not different was the retro dividend tax cut...I am saying you do not need to be invested 100% stocks all the time...the risk reward right now is horrible on the long side.
You are a good person. I want to get along with everyone. There are times to have your body and the water and there are times just to stick your toe in the water...I strongly believe to toe your way through.
I guess I am the only bearish person on this board...that is why I am the focal point of your hate...that is ok...but hopefully others would enjoy heasring a view based on charts, data, 16 years of trading experienceand not greed and need and the market allways goes UP. That simply is not true...the market goes down too. Hold and hope (the old school of hold and hope) is passe. Money mangers love the hold and hopers because they earn their management fee for doing nothing...nothing will take them out of hold and hope. Hold and hope works great in a bull market but not in a sideways or bear market. The market has traded sideways now for over six years...and the performance of the index funds are no where in six years. Good luck.
MT
Similar threads
- Article
