I caught the end of a radio interview...

Sort by newest Sort by date
Re: Cost of running Thrift Savings Plan falling

I listened to that and I have to say I am pretty insulted.

Basically they are saying everyone who moves their money is losing. No exceptions. And if you are paying someone a fee to tell you where to put your money, then you are paying someone to lose your money.

How closed minded is that? Forget the facts. They are basically saying we are too stupid to manage our own accounts. And websites like this (I assume they mean us) are the bad guys leading people down the wrong road.

And they claim they (TSP) are educating the people. Really? Is that why I get hundreds of emails a week answering questions about TSP that TSP should be answering? Try asking them a question. See if and when you get an answer.

Oh, and he said they wish they could shut us down. By us I mean any website that helps people with their TSP.
 
Re: Cost of running Thrift Savings Plan falling

Maybe you should ask for equal time on the show. :D
 
You talk about excess!!!!! I have made more transfers than anyone and still am beating all but the "I" fund! Tell him to shut his big mouth unless he has the data to prove it! DUH!:D
 
Re: Cost of running Thrift Savings Plan falling

tsptalk said:
Oh, and he said they wish they could shut us down. By us I mean any website that helps people with their TSP.
Click to expand...

We must be putting a spur in their operations....guess they know who we are just by cross correlating data....I just hope I can gain long before they attempt to stop the profit making....
 
Re: Cost of running Thrift Savings Plan falling

tsptalk said:
I listened to that and I have to say I am pretty insulted.

Basically they are saying everyone who moves their money is losing. No exceptions. And if you are paying someone a fee to tell you where to put your money, then you are paying someone to lose your money.

How closed minded is that? Forget the facts. They are basically saying we are too stupid to manage our own accounts. And websites like this (I assume they mean us) are the bad guys leading people down the wrong road.

And they claim they (TSP) are educating the people. Really? Is that why I get hundreds of emails a week answering questions about TSP that TSP should be answering? Try asking them a question. See if and when you get an answer.

Oh, and he said they wish they could shut us down. By us I mean any website that helps people with their TSP.
Click to expand...
You talkabout people writing their congressmen! HUH, I'll call DUBAH!
 
Since I do not have Gary Amelios email I sent my question to FederalNewsRadio.

Questions and information I would like to ask for under the FOIA.
Reference: Your Turn with Mike Causey
Guests: Charles Fallis, pres. NARFE, and Gary Amelio, director of the TSP.
Sep 20th - 1:13pm
Posted Online: 12-31-1969 17:12
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/inde...918879&nid=250

How much money did the TSP board spend to educate us?

How, when and to whom was this training provided?

Please provide the data that shows why the 147 applicants mentioned in the radio show lost money. If the data shows that the 147 applicants lost money were they provided training or advised?

Please provide data that backs up the statement that market timing does not work?

Send this to Gary Amelio please.
I am spinning it this way I pay money to make money.
I am one that will prove with data that I am doing better than the L funds he the board is pushing.


Please Educate me.

 
They talked a lot about the L-fund. I am a big fan of the L-funds for most TSP participants. But I believe the people here are looking for a little more.

I also don't think the gov't should be responsible for training us on how to invest our money. But why would they denounce those of us who are trying to learn on our own?
 
tsptalk said:
They talked a lot about the L-fund. I am a big fan of the L-funds for most TSP participants. But I believe the people here are looking for a little more.

I also don't think the gov't should be responsible for training us on how to invest our money. But why would they denounce those of us who are trying to learn on our own?
Click to expand...

The L-funds are great for auto-pilot. I agree that people here are looking for a little more. But we are a relative small group. The majority doesn't have the time (or whatever) to gain the skill to manage their own funds. They remain subject to the risks of "investing".

Training would take up too much time. Denouncing us is wrong! This site is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,... ok money!

Here's a suggestion FWIW. Place what you don't want to lose in the L-funds. Take the remainder and learn from the top members how to trade funds. When you better the L-fund return, and feel confident take a better allocation position.

Investing and fishing-lures have a lot in common. The majority of fishing-lures were not designed to catch fish, no catch fisherman! However the right lure will catch a fish......thats the learning process!

My 2 cents
Regards
Spaf
 
FUTURESTRADER said:
I caught the end of a radio interview with our 'bud' gary amelio yesterday. He says they monitor unofficial TSP web sites, also calling the attempt to time the funds as 'nonsense'. He also said there were only 147 accounts that had 'traded' more than twice a week. I believe the link below is the interview.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=918879&nid=250
Click to expand...


I know we’ve made jokes about the timing of the FV in the I fund on days that the members make a lots of moves to that account….but since they’re monitoring the sites it really makes you start to wonder. Naw, they wouldn’t do that, would they?

Also, it seems like a very small number of people doing twice weekly moves. I just checked and I’ve done 19 moves this year, all positive and they beat the heck out of my old ignore strategy.
 
Its spooky to think we are that much of a pest to these money managers. Maybe we are doing to good of a job and threatening theirs. Just a thought Mayday
 
Oldcoin said:
I know we’ve made jokes about the timing of the FV in the I fund on days that the members make a lots of moves to that account….but since they’re monitoring the sites it really makes you start to wonder. Naw, they wouldn’t do that, would they?


I would'nt put it past em. Does make ya wonder
Click to expand...
 
Radio Interview

I just listened to the relevant portions of the program.

The 146 accounts that traded more than twice weekly were monitored during the first twelve months of the time period since we went to daily transactions. Since when have we been able to make IFT's daily? I can't remember exactly. He stated that most lost money, but when was that and what was the market doing at that time? (Also, it is possible that by "losing money" he meant "making less." That is, they made less than would have had they adopted a static allocation.)

Then he said that the web sites which offer paid allocation advice were the ones he wished he was able to shut down. That does not include this site. Here we just talk about it, we don't charge for it. I do give Tom a small monetary consideration, voluntarily, but I do that with other chat-sites in which I participate, because it costs them money to create the service I utilize, so we can't count that. It cost nothing to open an account here.

I don't think we can dispute the statistics. Just look at our tracker and the monthly tally. I have said before that if I cannot beat the L2040 I would join it, and I mean it. That fund is beating many of us, some of whom have made more than 20 IFT's so far this year and so are not slouching. Timing is not for everybody.

Dave
 
Oldcoin said:
I know we’ve made jokes about the timing of the FV in the I fund on days that the members make a lots of moves to that account….but since they’re monitoring the sites it really makes you start to wonder. Naw, they wouldn’t do that, would they?
Click to expand...

Remember it's Barclays that makes the FV decisions. And while the I fund makes up a significant portion of the larger fund that is managed by Barclays, it is not big enough that Barclays would take TSP's "recommendations" on the I fund price.
 
He said they looked at the first years numbers following our being able to go to a daily IFT. They looked at people who trade at least twice a week (~100 trades a year). Almost all of those lost money. He blamed websites which charge a fee which are telling people how to move their money.

1. I've been researching pay sites and all of them have been beating the S&P 500 regularly. There have been a few years when sites have not beaten the S&P but usually they were close and other years they have soundly beaten the S&P. Long term I think almost all would outperform the S&P. NONE of those sites recommend trading on a biweekly or more frequent basis.

2. Looking at the Tracker/Tally, we have only 4 members who would qualify in the more than 2 trades a week categorie. Nnuut 8.63% & Low Ki ( a couple moves shy of 2 trades a week) 3.31% (have been posting since the beginning of the year and WOZ 14.32% and Ocean 12.39% started after the beginning of the year. Of those only Low Ki has a return less than the S&P 500. (It would take 74 moves since the beginning of the year to qualify.)

3. I'd bet the numbers of frequent trades has increased and I'd bet that the percentage who have beaten the S&P 500 has probably increased. It may have taken the first year for people to figure things out. There may also be people out there who foolishly try to day trade their accounts, but I'd bet that percentage is really small.

He said they were in the process of doing the analysis again. Be interesting to see if the results get out.

My opinion is that this guy sincerely thinks that we should not be trying to time the market and that this can not be done. I also don't think he is aware that there are people that have been doing it very successfully. He only knows the data he was given of the frequent traders. I question the validity of the freqent trader data that they presented. I also think they should have another category for "frequent" which would be more than 12 trades a year and check those numbers.

Now having said all of that. Realize that the people here who are frequent traders and who have educated themselves on how to increase their gains are NOT the norm. Realize that the reason that they created the L funds is because not enough people were agressive enough with their accounts. Many people have all their money in the G-fund and the L-funds were created to help these people. The TSP board has to look out for those vast majority of people. We just have to be thankful that they set up the system in a manner that we who want to can take advantage of the opportunity to increase our risk.
 
I wonder why he is even concerned about it. There are 3.6 million people in the TSP. 147 trade too frequently. Statistically, that's 0%. People are using his L funds at a higher rate than they had even hoped. TSP is way under budget. Dude, the glass is a little more than half full. Ease up.
 
I would have to agree that if TSPer’s didn’t do their homework the L2040 is the way to go in today’s bull market. However, if we get a significant market crash (perish the thought) those are the folks that are going to pay for it through the nose. Being informed and knowledgeable will best protect our capital and that’s what this site does for it’s members.

Plus…..it’s a heck of a lot of fun!
 
Examining the Return Tally report of 9-22-2006, we have 48% (24/50) of our longer-term members (Since January 2006 or longer) beating the L2040 fund for YTD performance. That in my opinion is success of TSPTalk over the short term. Hopefully that percentage would remain high in a prolonged downturn period.
 
I agree with FS. I think he is viewing old data and I don't believe our tally would be considered official data :).

As Dave M mentioned, this is a free site but we do offer RevShark's newsletter services for a fee - but it is kicking butt! Beating every fund and doubling the return of the S&P 500 doesn't sound like losing money to me.

I understand the director's concern - he just doesn't have his facts right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top