I fund for March 08

[Guest2]

I'm not too savvy about this FV stuff. I know where the threads are to
read up on the stuff. I'll be doing so very soon. In my humblest opinion;

I understand that the EFA closed unchanged & there was no FV from
yesterday. According to some others, today's FV will lower the I-Fund
share price to 22.26. (or a lose of .10 TSP Cents). However, I believe
Barclays will give back some deficit it owes to the YTD figures. That
deficit currently equals .27 TSP Cents (High) or 1.20%. Don't be surprised
if the I-Fund comes out with a "lesser lose then .10" - "unchanged" or
"with a small gain" based on my estimates. So my best guess would be
between 22.33 - 22.38 per share.

This "Best Guess" is for "entertainment purposes only" and it's always
interesting to see how this all plays out after the 7:30pm TSP update.
Here's to hoping they give us back more. Good Luck.

 

[Corvette]

EAFE up $0.11
plus Wednesday (previous) FV of $0.00 = +$0.11
plus FV (guess) for Wednesday of +0.00= +$0.11


i was going to guess -$0.12, but dollar was down a lot late in the day.

 

[12%ayear]

bonus +.16 cents tonight

 

[Guest2]

They cut the YTD deficit in half. From .27 TSP Cents. The deficit now
stands at .11 TSP Cents or .49%. I knew Barclays would hold off until
a down day. Final price per share is 22.52 (I-Fund). It would appear that
FV and Keeping Funds closely related to Indexes (percent wise) go hand
in hand when determining final TSP share prices. Just my opinion !

EVEN MORE CONFUSING, HOW DID THE F-FUND END UP +.01 TODAY

 

[wv-girl]

They cut the YTD deficit in half. From .27 TSP Cents. The deficit now
stands at .11 TSP Cents or .716%. I knew Barclays would hold off until
a down day. Final price per share is 22.52 (I-Fund). It would appear that
FV and Keeping Funds closely related to Indexes (percent wise) go hand
in hand when determining final TSP share prices. Just my opinion !

EVEN MORE CONFUSING, HOW DID THE F-FUND END UP +.01 TODAY

If the deficit is actually .27 then why did you subtract the entire .16 gain instead of the .05? .11 is what we officially earned in the I fund and the .05 is the FV which is what should be subtracted from the YTD. Although I am not sure how you figured we had a YTD deficit anyway.

 

[Guest2]

WVG, I gotta run out, but I'll be back to answer (try) your question in an hour or so.

 

[Corvette]

EAFE up $0.11
plus Wednesday (previous) FV of $0.00 = +$0.11
plus FV for Wednesday of +0.05= +$0.16

FV for Thursday (previous) of -$0.05

 

[Corvette]

G fund 12.38 push
F fund 12.17 up .01
C fund 15.20 down .13
S fund 18.12down .10
I fund 22.52 up .16
FV for Thursday (previous) = -$0.05

 

[Guest2]

If the deficit is actually .27 then why did you subtract the entire .16 gain instead of the .05? .11 is what we officially earned in the I fund and the .05 is the FV which is what should be subtracted from the YTD. Although I am not sure how you figured we had a YTD deficit anyway.

After years of tracking the differences between indexes and the TSP who
represent a "close" following of each Fund, ie... C=S&P - S=DWCPF -
F= AGG - I = EFA, I was (still am) unfamiliar with FV as it is followed here.
However, It stood to reason that if the S&P 500 was down YTD @ -8.66%
then the C-Fund needed to reflect a close (if not equal) YTD outcome.

With all the other things that affect the I-Fund (currency fluxuations etc.)
I found that the I -Fund comparisons (before FV) to their corresponding
Indexes, still needed to maintain a close representation of the ETF which
tracked the MSCI-EAFE index. That being the EFA. Understanding that the
ETF has fees, etc... of it's own, it produced a less then accurate forcast
of future share prices within the TSP. However, a trend started to become
very evident. The EFA YTD % will "always" track up or down to bring the
I-Fund YTD % in line. And Vice-A-Verca.

So when I say that the I-Fund was owed .27 TSP (1.20%) or has a deficit
that means Barclays needed to give the I-Fund more then what the EFA
closed at. Today, according to the FV of +.11 cents. You might ask why
did the I-Fund increase by +.16 cents? My conclusion was that Barclays
gave back approximately +.05 more then what the FV folks were looking
for. Not being a FV tracker also played a part in my comments. I look at
the entire +.16 as a subtraction from it's deficit which Barclays needed
to bring both YTD% differences closer to zero.

The C-Fund or S&P500 track each other so closely, that there is rarely
any deficit. The C-Fund would go down equally (not exact) to the S&P.

The S-Fund does have such fluxuations compared to the DWCPF. Today,
the S-Fund owed the DWCPF -.12 TSP Cents. After 7:30pm the TSP and
Barclays gave the S-Fund a lose of -.10 cents. The YTD% between both
was -.12 TSP Cents. After the update, it lowered the -.12 to -.11 TSP
Cents. This trend back to zero does not happen as quickly as the EFA.
It's more gradual.

Does FV answer for all the differences between expected share prices
and the Final TSP Share Prices published? I think not. Barclays needs
the I-Fund to closely reflect the MSCI-EAFE. Lately, since the cost
issue has errupted, Barclays has been delaying the payback of deficits
until down days and has allowed the deficits to grow to +.32 cents in
order to do so. Thats unusually high compared to recent years. Thats
when you see the EFA loses -3.65% for the day, but the I-Fund only
goes down -1.54% for the same day.

In conclusion, All of this is speculation based on my tracking of all funds
over the last 5 years or so. It's become a hobby and may have no merit
what so ever. Thats why, when making an IFT, I simply use this and other
information to decide which fund I put my money in.

Sorry for the novel, I hope this helps you understand what I was trying
to say. I wish you all the luck in the world and may the TSP treat you
to a well deserved retirement.

 

[McDuck]

Nikkei slips 1.8 pct; TDK drags, financial worries weigh
Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:08am GMT

TOKYO, March 27 (Reuters) - Japan's Nikkei average slipped 1.8 percent on Thursday, dragged lower by TDK Corp (6762.T: Quote, Profile, Research) after a newspaper reported the company would likely miss its profit forecast due to a stronger yen, while financials fell on worries about the outlook for bank profits.

Exporters such as Toyota Motor Co (7203.T: Quote, Profile, Research) lost ground on a firmer yen and concerns about a recession in the United States, a key destination for Asian exports.

The benchmark Nikkei average .N225 was down 225.65 points at 12,480.98, after gaining nearly 8 percent in the last six days.

The broader TOPIX shed 1.4 percent or 17.81 points to 1,219.74. (Reporting by Aiko Hayashi)

© Reuters 2007.

 

[tspgo_com]

After years of tracking the differences between indexes and the TSP who
represent a "close" following of each Fund, ie... C=S&P - S=DWCPF -
F= AGG - I = EFA, I was (still am) unfamiliar with FV as it is followed here.
However, It stood to reason that if the S&P 500 was down YTD @ -8.66%
then the C-Fund needed to reflect a close (if not equal) YTD outcome.

With all the other things that affect the I-Fund (currency fluxuations etc.)
I found that the I -Fund comparisons (before FV) to their corresponding
Indexes, still needed to maintain a close representation of the ETF which
tracked the MSCI-EAFE index. That being the EFA. Understanding that the
ETF has fees, etc... of it's own, it produced a less then accurate forcast
of future share prices within the TSP. However, a trend started to become
very evident. The EFA YTD % will "always" track up or down to bring the
I-Fund YTD % in line. And Vice-A-Verca.

So when I say that the I-Fund was owed .27 TSP (1.20%) or has a deficit
that means Barclays needed to give the I-Fund more then what the EFA
closed at. Today, according to the FV of +.11 cents. You might ask why
did the I-Fund increase by +.16 cents? My conclusion was that Barclays
gave back approximately +.05 more then what the FV folks were looking
for. Not being a FV tracker also played a part in my comments. I look at
the entire +.16 as a subtraction from it's deficit which Barclays needed
to bring both YTD% differences closer to zero.

The C-Fund or S&P500 track each other so closely, that there is rarely
any deficit. The C-Fund would go down equally (not exact) to the S&P.

The S-Fund does have such fluxuations compared to the DWCPF. Today,
the S-Fund owed the DWCPF -.12 TSP Cents. After 7:30pm the TSP and
Barclays gave the S-Fund a lose of -.10 cents. The YTD% between both
was -.12 TSP Cents. After the update, it lowered the -.12 to -.11 TSP
Cents. This trend back to zero does not happen as quickly as the EFA.
It's more gradual.

Does FV answer for all the differences between expected share prices
and the Final TSP Share Prices published? I think not. Barclays needs
the I-Fund to closely reflect the MSCI-EAFE. Lately, since the cost
issue has errupted, Barclays has been delaying the payback of deficits
until down days and has allowed the deficits to grow to +.32 cents in
order to do so. Thats unusually high compared to recent years. Thats
when you see the EFA loses -3.65% for the day, but the I-Fund only
goes down -1.54% for the same day.

In conclusion, All of this is speculation based on my tracking of all funds
over the last 5 years or so. It's become a hobby and may have no merit
what so ever. Thats why, when making an IFT, I simply use this and other
information to decide which fund I put my money in.

Sorry for the novel, I hope this helps you understand what I was trying
to say. I wish you all the luck in the world and may the TSP treat you
to a well deserved retirement.

Hi Squalebear:

Keep in mind that the EFA is not the same as the EAFE. The EAFE is the one that actually tracks the I-Fund. Your explanation of catching up, balancing and adjustments holds true for the EAFE. However, it does not hold true for the EFA. I would almost dare to say that for our purpose the EFA is almost useless. Most the time you will see adjustments made due to the accumulation of fractions of a penny because the number of decimals in the EAFE

Remember that the OSM (Europe, Asia, etc) closes around 11:30 (Eastern). That's when the EAFE stops for the day. However, you will notice that the EFA continues to trade until the closing of the USM when there is no OSM market open. The reason for FV's is precisely because OSM is closed while the USM is still trading. There is an explanation of the FV in the TSP website and there are several threads here that explains it pretty well.

Good luck and .. don't forget your "watch calls". I turned in my chits already.

 

[Corvette]

Nikkei down 0.80% :worried:
AORD down 0.05% :worried:

FV for Wednesday (previous) = -$0.05

 

[MR_BOOOOM]

thanks corvette for putting up the estimates

Nikkei down 0.30% :worried:
AORD up 1.22%
FV for Wednesday (previous) = +$0.00

Echo those remarks. Great job, your insight is appreciated.

 

[Guest2]

Hi Squalebear:
Good luck and .. don't forget your "watch calls". I turned in my chits
already.

Thanks TSP_GO, I've been a little behind in reading up on FV, however,
I have those areas of the MB saved for future study. I only wish that
the MSCI-EAFE could be tracked during Market Hours like the S&P500.
Your breakdown is understood and more then appreciated.

It appears that after 18 years, those chits will be required to hang on my
hip well past eligability. It's about affordabilty now. Please enjoy that hard
earned retirement, god only knows you deserve it.

 

[Guest2]

Echo those remarks. Great job, your insight is appreciated.

Love the avitar BOOOOM

 

[Asylum]

Looks like the I fund has flattened out...

the question is will it drop or go up next week?

I am thinking it will come down before it goes up but that is merely a guess based on reading posts here and on the news.

Thoughts?

 

[Corvette]

EAFE estimate of up $0.15
minus Thursday (previous) FV of $0.05 = +$0.10
__________________

 

[MR_BOOOOM]

Love the avitar BOOOOM

Thanks, I got the match to that tatooed to my shoulder. Diehard!!!

Does anyone know how next week will work ? I received one of the certified letters and now must do them through snail mail. My questions are - 1) When will they have it in place so they can control us to 3 a month and 2) How long on average does it take for the IFT to hit if I mail it in and 3) For traders in my same position, what are you going to do next week, I am thinking L2040 or 25% ea f,c,s,i.

 

[Silverbird]

I think the address is a post office box, so you can't use FEDEX but USPS Express Overnight should do. With return receipt if you wish.

 

[qibovin]

• There are still NO limits as to HOW MANY IFT's you can make, just on HOW you can make them (snail mail for the brave 600). Please re-read the Interim Rule, last section which specifically states THERE ARE NO LIMITS. You can still make as many as you want, even by snail mail.

Personally, I'd really like to see how they plan to handle processing 600 snail mails a day for at least 1 month--and who's going to pay for it. I encourage everyone to send in one IFT per trading day (whether you send it snail mail 3-5 days in advance or overnight doesn't matter--personal preference). Unless I sense pending disaster, I plan to move to some sort of long-term allocation and move 1% back and forth between the I and F funds every trading day until this whole thing settles out. I'll monitor my daily allocation via TSP.com and write my Congresspeople if they are not processed "in a timely manner." This process will be most effective if all 600 participate. Even if you're looking at settling in a long-term allocation of some sort, it'll only cost you (.42 * 22 =) $9.24 to make your point with a 1% transfer. I imagine it will cost them a bit more than that. You can go 1% G to 1% L Income on the conservative end or 1% S to 1% I for the "risqué." (For an "extreme" experience you can go 100% I to 100% S every other day.:nuts: This is unlikely to be any more detrimental than a buy-and-hold strategy in recent market conditions.) I would encourage including the I-fund in your IFT since it's such a hassle for them.