50%S, 50%I does not compute

[fattony]

I am invested 50%S and 50%I. The S fund went up .30% yesterday and the I fund went up .16% but my balance went down. Looking back, I think that at least some of the other calculations have been wrong since I went into 50/50 on the 24th.

Am I missing something or is the TSPcenter making mistakes?

[crondanet5]

If you are referring to 9Mar updates the I Fund went down more than the S Fund went up. So your balance should have dropped. If you are referring to any other day, good luck with that.

[fattony]

Thanks! My mistake. I was looking at the Google charts but I should have been looking at the TSP.GOV share prices...

[BBBInvest]

I am invested 50%S and 50%I. The S fund went up .30% yesterday and the I fund went up .16% but my balance went down. Looking back, I think that at least some of the other calculations have been wrong since I went into 50/50 on the 24th.

Am I missing something or is the TSPcenter making mistakes?

May I ask why you chose 50% S and 50% I? I'm simply curious.

[fattony]

I like S now. I thought "I" would start moving up because it seemed to be doing OK until I bought in but it did the opposite. I probably should do the opposite of what I think I should do from now on.

[BBBInvest]

I like S now. I thought "I" would start moving up because it seemed to be doing OK until I bought in but it did the opposite. I probably should do the opposite of what I think I should do from now on.

I know the mindset and have definitely been there before. If I may, I would issue a word of caution in regards to the I Fund. Some members here say they have done quite well with it, but I find it very hard to find a consistent indicator that leads to profits with the I fund. Quite frankly it's all over the place!

[chief04010]

I agree, I don't mess with the I Fund anymore, I've been burned enough times to be shy.

[dcramer29]

I-Fund intrigues because of one thing and one thing only.

European Quantitative Easing

[RGEN]

And, to add on to Cramer's post, the higher dollar which cuts the dollar value of international revenues. Also cutting import prices on commodities such as oil. I-fund might be worth a look when the dollar weakens. I think Euro Quantitative easing may provide a local boost when converted to dollars will not impact the I-fund much. Now if they use this new money to buy US stocks and bonds, well . . .

[VDaGama]

Exactly!

Indicator-schmindicator!

Trends in economics and profits determine stock prices, not indicators!

[VDaGama]

Oh, yeah, check out BBBInvest’s claimed results.

S/he’s AKA TSPInvesting.

In 2014 his/her claimed returns were 13.78% for h/h Conservative Account, 10.79% for h/h Moderate Account, and 7.8% for h/h Aggressive Account.

From TSP.gov, we learn that 13.78% was precisely the C Fund’s return for that year.

In other words, investing in the C Fund was BBBI’s Best Idea for the Entire Year AND would have at least tied or beaten ALL BBBI’s accounts – without paying ANY fee.

And THAT was BBBI’s “conservative” account, the others being “moderate” or “aggressive.”

In other words, investing in BBBI’s “aggressive” account would have aggressively LOST you money, 5.98% relative to the C Fund’s gain, not counting whatever fees BBBI charges you for the privilege of being pointlessly skinned.

So much for h/h “indicators”!

They “indicate” NOTHING!

Other than Total Ignorance!

Last year, the C Fund was the place to be, because the US economy outperformed the MSCI EAFE (I Fund) world, and large-cap stocks outperformed small-caps, which were overpriced (due to their big run-up the previous year).

This year, the mean has reversed: I and S Funds are cheap and due for outperformance.

As reported in the comments above, as well as many other places, including this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ng-quarter

And what does one pay for all of the above advice: $0.

[crondanet5]

Say what you want but he's beating all the other Professionals on this site. There must be something to his program.

[VDaGama]

The key words there are “other Professionals,” and “professional,” still less “Professional,” isn’t the word I’d use.

As for “beating,” who knows what that means?

The “Profesional TSP Advistory Returns” lists his “start date” as 2013-2-27 and his “return” as 4.09% (* - “updated monthly”).

A quick check of “TSP Charts and Returns” shows the following during that time span:

S Fund: ↑ 41.8%
C Fund: ↑ 40.6%
I Fund: ↑ 15.4%
G Fund: ↑ 4.4%

Yup, that’s right: Even the staid old G Fund, with its guaranteed positive return, whupped him!

You would have done better in the G Fund than with him!

And the I Fund would have whupped him 3.8-fold!

No wonder he can’t find a “consistent indicator that leads to profits with the I fund”!

He evidently has never heard of “bottom line”!

YOU can say what YOU want.

As saying means nothing; it’s facts that count.

And it’s crystal clear that hundreds of participants in “Fantasy TSP” have beaten “BBBInvest”’s “performance.”

As has the G Fund!

[RGEN]

VDa, I think those are annual returns. So numbers only include Jan. and maybe Feb.

[rcozby]

I can feel VDa's evolving pain. The TSP Center's home page has been so wrong for so long that it leads to inside jokes like the above, where those who have been paying attention for a long time know the truth and folks who have only been on for a few months are not only clueless, but are left to draw completely incorrect conclusions. This enables the TSP Center to serve as an inhibitor to informed investing rather than as an aid.

The start date for the Professionals is competely misleading. When we look at our own Fantasy accounts, the start date is 1 Jan 2015. Why doesn't the home page say this for the professionals?

The top crop of the leader board is NOT for 2014, it's YTD for 2015. Why doesn't the home page reflect this?

Why do we have to keep asking these questions?

Why did I donate a full year of donations up front to do my part to help?