James48843
Well-known member
You COULD say that I would want to use "L" funds as a type of easy, quick, convieniet "hedge fund".
-
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. -
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!
-
$ - 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
New Tracker Wanted!
- Thread starter tsptalk
- Start date
James48843
Well-known member
I would only ever use ONE "L" fund at a time as a possible safe harbor.
Most likely it would be the "L INCOME" or the "L 2020", depending on how much downside risk I wanted to avoid.
I would never split between multiple "L" funds.
Most likely it would be the "L INCOME" or the "L 2020", depending on how much downside risk I wanted to avoid.
I would never split between multiple "L" funds.
James48843
Well-known member
Alright- here is a twist to think about:
I DO want to include the "L" funds, and here is why.
Several times, I've run close to the deadline, and had to decide what I was going to do.
I had a gut feeling about where to go, but also harbored "regrets" before pulling the trigger. I would debate myself for a few minutes about how "sure" I was that I was making the right move to go to "X" positions.
But what I really wanted to do was to move to L income, for instance. If I was moving from a fully invested stock position, to a "G" fund position, but was not real sure, I would have to think about how much did I want to split where, and move it there in little pieces.
IN fact, I have intentionally NOT split with an "L" fund, when I wanted to, specifically because it was not trackable in the tracker.
If I guessed wrong, by having some portion in the "L" funds (Example- L income if I was 95% sure I was better off in "G", but would want to use the L2020 if I was only 60% sure- thereby reducing the risk if losing an upside if it came the next day, but still fairly well protected against a large downside move).
I'm all for including "L" funds.
I think a lot like EWGuy. I'd use only ONE of the "L" funds for a secondary placement, most likely on days when I REALLY don't want to go 100% "G" fund, but want to protect against a huge downside risk the next day.
Today is a prime example.
I was 100% "I" yesterday. I debated about following Ebb into "G", or leaving it where it was, and was persuaded to leave it be when I saw that Japan would probably react favorably, and saw that Ebb had said Monday was looking "I" green.
I ended up not touching anything, being 100% "I".
If I had an "L" option, I probably would have gone 50% "I", 50% L2020, as that affords some consierable downside protection, with considerble uprisk reward potential should the maket go up today.
And it could be done with a simple split, rather than having to figure out how much did I want in five different funds.
Quick. easy, dirty.
Count me as a vote for "L".
I DO want to include the "L" funds, and here is why.
Several times, I've run close to the deadline, and had to decide what I was going to do.
I had a gut feeling about where to go, but also harbored "regrets" before pulling the trigger. I would debate myself for a few minutes about how "sure" I was that I was making the right move to go to "X" positions.
But what I really wanted to do was to move to L income, for instance. If I was moving from a fully invested stock position, to a "G" fund position, but was not real sure, I would have to think about how much did I want to split where, and move it there in little pieces.
IN fact, I have intentionally NOT split with an "L" fund, when I wanted to, specifically because it was not trackable in the tracker.
If I guessed wrong, by having some portion in the "L" funds (Example- L income if I was 95% sure I was better off in "G", but would want to use the L2020 if I was only 60% sure- thereby reducing the risk if losing an upside if it came the next day, but still fairly well protected against a large downside move).
I'm all for including "L" funds.
I think a lot like EWGuy. I'd use only ONE of the "L" funds for a secondary placement, most likely on days when I REALLY don't want to go 100% "G" fund, but want to protect against a huge downside risk the next day.
Today is a prime example.
I was 100% "I" yesterday. I debated about following Ebb into "G", or leaving it where it was, and was persuaded to leave it be when I saw that Japan would probably react favorably, and saw that Ebb had said Monday was looking "I" green.
I ended up not touching anything, being 100% "I".
If I had an "L" option, I probably would have gone 50% "I", 50% L2020, as that affords some consierable downside protection, with considerble uprisk reward potential should the maket go up today.
And it could be done with a simple split, rather than having to figure out how much did I want in five different funds.
Quick. easy, dirty.
Count me as a vote for "L".
EW_ret
Retired Tracker
I have used a single L fund and mixed with G because its convenient, and easier, to place 30% L2020 and 70% G. Its just simpler than making five allocations. I do not think we should discriminate on what TSP funds a member uses. I agree it makes no sense to use multiple L funds. I do not see why we should not allow trading the L funds, just as we do G, F, C, S, and I funds. Are we going to stop tracking the L fund return performance? Is so, then we can not compare member performance against the L fund returns.
Take the poll... http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=103282
Playing devil's advocate, buy and hold is not something others will sit by and follow. The tracker is designed so others can watch those that are managing their accounts well. And I agree, someone who sits in the C fund for years isn't imparting any knowledge to those looking in, even if it does well. We can all see what the C fund and the L funds are doing.
I worry about those who trade the L-funds - and split them up (ie 20% L20, 30% L10, 50% C). I'm also worried about the TSP folks getting P.O.'d enough that they take away the daily transfers. I don't want anyone pointing to this site saying we are encouraging trading the L-funds. The men in black already want to shut us down.
Can we make it so that anyone who uses the L-funds can only be 100% in that one fund?
I worry about those who trade the L-funds - and split them up (ie 20% L20, 30% L10, 50% C). I'm also worried about the TSP folks getting P.O.'d enough that they take away the daily transfers. I don't want anyone pointing to this site saying we are encouraging trading the L-funds. The men in black already want to shut us down.
Can we make it so that anyone who uses the L-funds can only be 100% in that one fund?
I guess I see it somewhat differently though. This website isnt about informed day trading, its about informed investing through TSP. And BAH is a popular investing option. Its no different that tracking members who choose to stay in C for years, right?
Not to mention that the L funds will get a lot more attention should congress ever approve the boards recommendation to make the L funds the default funds much like G is now.
Its your barbecue Tom, but Im going to give you my opinion.
Exactly why I recommended putting it in there... shrug
Good day. (Indeed it was, who could deny a 284 point jump in the Dow in one day - just by watching it).
Thanks for all your feedbacks and thanks for EWGuy's clarification, and you exactly hit the right points that I had considered.
But judging by the responses, the L funds tracking seems not needed. So I will not implement it even though all it needs is 5 more fields in a few database tables.
On the other, because of the data is generated automatically from the database, so there will a lot of reports that can be generated with a few clicks of the mouse. I may come up with option that a few favor members that other members may be able to bookmark it. Members like 12%, EBB (until he charges it), Thunder, T2040, ACTJeff, Griffin, Fundsurfer etc etc etc. Hope I can come through with this.
Ocean
Thanks for all your feedbacks and thanks for EWGuy's clarification, and you exactly hit the right points that I had considered.
But judging by the responses, the L funds tracking seems not needed. So I will not implement it even though all it needs is 5 more fields in a few database tables.
On the other, because of the data is generated automatically from the database, so there will a lot of reports that can be generated with a few clicks of the mouse. I may come up with option that a few favor members that other members may be able to bookmark it. Members like 12%, EBB (until he charges it), Thunder, T2040, ACTJeff, Griffin, Fundsurfer etc etc etc. Hope I can come through with this.
Ocean
EW_ret
Retired Tracker
There are actually two parts to this question/issue. Should we track/record the Lifecycle fund prices? Should we track member returns that choose to invest in the L funds?
We currently track all Lifecycle (L) fund prices in the WebTracker database. Rokid lists the YTD performance of each L fund in the Weekly Tally. It makes sense that we continue to track L fund prices so we can calculate returns for report purposes. The alternatives would be 1) not include L fund returns in any future reports, or 2) develop a method to get L fund return data from other internet sites that report weekly, or monthly YTD return performance.
The second part to this question, that others have voiced opinion, is should we track member returns who use the L funds? We have handled this in the past by having the member give the percentage allocated to each underlying TSP fund (G/F/C/S/I). As FundSufer stated, we did this to minimize the size of the TSPTalk calculator spreadsheet. This Excel spreadsheet got so large last year that its size (11 MB) exceeded many email server attachment limits. Adding five columns, for L funds, in each member spreadsheet would increase the size of this file way beyond limits. Tom and others believed that TSPTalk members should use the basic TSP funds. The L funds are for those who do not have the time, or expertise, to manage their TSP account.
Should we now reconsider tracker members invested in the L funds? The file size issue should not be a problem since the new Auto Tracker database will reside on a TSPTalk server. The second reason is still valid; the L funds are for those who do not have the time, or expertise, to manage their TSP account.
Will we continue to generate the same Excel calculator spreadsheet? I don't see that we need to generate the entire TSPTalk calculator spreadsheet. We can directly generate other reports, such as the Weekly Tally, from the database. These reports need to be defined. The calculator software (php) that I developed to generate Excel shreadsheets from the WebTracker database can generate any member’s worksheet, or All worksheets. I email the All worksheets version to Tom, Rokid and Fundsurfer. Perhaps we will have a demand/need to generate a members worksheet. (?)
We currently track all Lifecycle (L) fund prices in the WebTracker database. Rokid lists the YTD performance of each L fund in the Weekly Tally. It makes sense that we continue to track L fund prices so we can calculate returns for report purposes. The alternatives would be 1) not include L fund returns in any future reports, or 2) develop a method to get L fund return data from other internet sites that report weekly, or monthly YTD return performance.
The second part to this question, that others have voiced opinion, is should we track member returns who use the L funds? We have handled this in the past by having the member give the percentage allocated to each underlying TSP fund (G/F/C/S/I). As FundSufer stated, we did this to minimize the size of the TSPTalk calculator spreadsheet. This Excel spreadsheet got so large last year that its size (11 MB) exceeded many email server attachment limits. Adding five columns, for L funds, in each member spreadsheet would increase the size of this file way beyond limits. Tom and others believed that TSPTalk members should use the basic TSP funds. The L funds are for those who do not have the time, or expertise, to manage their TSP account.
Should we now reconsider tracker members invested in the L funds? The file size issue should not be a problem since the new Auto Tracker database will reside on a TSPTalk server. The second reason is still valid; the L funds are for those who do not have the time, or expertise, to manage their TSP account.
Will we continue to generate the same Excel calculator spreadsheet? I don't see that we need to generate the entire TSPTalk calculator spreadsheet. We can directly generate other reports, such as the Weekly Tally, from the database. These reports need to be defined. The calculator software (php) that I developed to generate Excel shreadsheets from the WebTracker database can generate any member’s worksheet, or All worksheets. I email the All worksheets version to Tom, Rokid and Fundsurfer. Perhaps we will have a demand/need to generate a members worksheet. (?)
FundSurfer
Well-known member
Actually, the reason for not putting that capability into the tracker was that it exploded the size of the tracker spreadsheet. The data is readily available fron the tsp.gov share price page.
FundSurfer
Well-known member
IMHO, if you are using a L-fund, then you should be in that fund as a long and not moving around. Being 50% L-Income and 50% L-2040 just would not make sense. Returns on 100% Allocation on any of the L-funds is easy to find.
I'd bet it wouldn't take a whole lot of programming to add but at the same time I don't think it should be there. I'm sure there will be many others who will want it added. There will be others who want other things added to whatever software program you develop -- version creep. People will never be completely satisfied. I always suggest clean, straight forward, get the job done software.
I'd bet it wouldn't take a whole lot of programming to add but at the same time I don't think it should be there. I'm sure there will be many others who will want it added. There will be others who want other things added to whatever software program you develop -- version creep. People will never be completely satisfied. I always suggest clean, straight forward, get the job done software.
Part of the reason that they weren't tracked before was the difficulty of determining returns using the standard returns spreadsheet. (You had to work with the returns spreadsheet that had the L fund on them.)
I dont use the L funds. But would recommend that if there is very little cost for implementing the capability, include it since you could always remove it later if it is unused or unwanted.
