Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

TSP

Administered by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, this defined contribution plan for federal employees has roughly 4,614,874 participants, and over $358 billion in assets under management. Ask your TSP questions and post related topics here.

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
GWPDA  
#1 Posted : Saturday, May 9, 2020 9:36:04 AM(UTC)
GWPDA

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/26/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,525

Thanks: 265 times
Was thanked: 552 time(s) in 450 post(s)
https://www.washingtonpo...-73b93422d691_story.html


He is replacing the TSP Boardmembers with political appointees who will determine how and where your TSP funds can be invested according to political opinion.
Roger.D  
#2 Posted : Saturday, May 9, 2020 6:02:53 PM(UTC)
roger.d

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/25/2016(UTC)
Posts: 4,690
United States
Location: Midwest

Thanks: 173 times
Was thanked: 1045 time(s) in 810 post(s)
Originally Posted by: GWPDA Go to Quoted Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-eyes-federal-retirement-plan-investments-as-part-of-showdown-with-china-over-coronavirus/2020/05/08/9f9b2058-8fb2-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html


He is replacing the TSP Boardmembers with political appointees who will determine how and where your TSP funds can be invested according to political opinion.


Quote:

Trump on Monday nominated three members to replace the majority on the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, made up of five investment experts who oversee the retirement plan. All of their four-year terms have expired, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have not replaced those serving in the two seats they control.


So board members terms are up. And POTUS is responsible for nominating some of the members. The problem is what?
GWPDA  
#3 Posted : Saturday, May 9, 2020 8:02:24 PM(UTC)
GWPDA

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/26/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,525

Thanks: 265 times
Was thanked: 552 time(s) in 450 post(s)
The problem is that the TSP's investments of federal employees' funds will be based on transient political interests rather than financial responsibility toward the investors. Read the article to note that the objective is to prevent the TSP from offering a particular fund which includes Chinese resources. Now - imagine if you were working for, say GM and had a 401K account. And GM determined that you were only able to invest your money in a way they permitted.

This is the plan. Like it? Is it your money?

Edited by user Saturday, May 9, 2020 8:02:54 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Roger.D  
#4 Posted : Sunday, May 10, 2020 12:58:56 PM(UTC)
roger.d

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/25/2016(UTC)
Posts: 4,690
United States
Location: Midwest

Thanks: 173 times
Was thanked: 1045 time(s) in 810 post(s)
It's difficult to find who nominated the current BOG of the TSP. It looks like all are Obama nominees. Which means Obama fired all that were nominated by Bush. Who likely fired all that were nominated by Clinton..........

I don't believe in investing in Chinese companies. So I am for the current bipartisan initiative to exclude the TSP from investing in China. (Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H)

Looking at the current I fund (tracks the MSCI EAFE) and the proposed fund (MSCI ACWI ex U.S.), the rate of return difference is negligible.

Figures taken from Yahoo Finance iShares ETF. Figures are slightly off of the TSP funds. But should give a reasonable representation.

MSCI EAFE
YTD........-18.53%
1-Month......5.82%
3-Month....-16.17%
1-Year.....-12.47%
3-Year......-1.01%
5-Year......-0.32%
10-Year......3.45%


MSCI ACWI ex U.S.
YTD.......-18.46%
1-Month.....6.37%
3-Month...-15.58%
1-Year....-12.95%
3-Year.....-0.79%
5-Year.....-0.46%
10-Year.....2.60%

Compared to the S&P 500

YTD-2.31%
1-Month......14.25%
3-Month......-4.47%
1-Year........7.07%
3-Year.......13.65%
5-Year.......12.14%
10-Year......13.74%

I also don't feel like investing in a stock fund that historically has a worse rate of return than other stock funds I have access to. So I have never invested in international funds.

If you like to loose money, it's yours to loose.
TheRealOrange  
#5 Posted : Monday, May 11, 2020 3:59:22 AM(UTC)
TheRealOrange

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 869

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 165 time(s) in 144 post(s)
Originally Posted by: GWPDA Go to Quoted Post
The problem is that the TSP's investments of federal employees' funds will be based on transient political interests rather than financial responsibility toward the investors. Read the article to note that the objective is to prevent the TSP from offering a particular fund which includes Chinese resources. Now - imagine if you were working for, say GM and had a 401K account. And GM determined that you were only able to invest your money in a way they permitted.

This is the plan. Like it? Is it your money?

Actually, by federal law GM (any company) is required to select the investments in a company-sponsored plan; i.e., according to federal law, employers (known as "plan sponsors") are responsible for picking the 401k plan funds. That decision must be made in the best interests of the plan and its participants, just like the TSP, but it is still an employer responsibility. The employer generally chooses a "plan provider" (Fidelity, Vanguard, T Rowe Price, etc.) to administer and maintain the 401k plan, and then the employer decides which of the funds offered by the provider to include in its 401k-plan offering. In your scenario, a company absolutely could avoid making investments in Chinese resources, assuming the provider's funds could be structured that way.
frankgonzalez  
#6 Posted : Monday, May 11, 2020 4:54:58 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 5,584

Thanks: 103 times
Was thanked: 1097 time(s) in 870 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Roger.D Go to Quoted Post
It's difficult to find who nominated the current BOG of the TSP. It looks like all are Obama nominees. Which means Obama fired all that were nominated by Bush. Who likely fired all that were nominated by Clinton........
Misleading. No-one was fired. Their terms expired and new people were nominated and appointed to the vacancies. Fired implies they were removed for cause.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
thanks 1 user thanked frankgonzalez for this useful post.
Martinr4071 on 5/19/2020(UTC)
Roger.D  
#7 Posted : Monday, May 11, 2020 6:04:14 AM(UTC)
roger.d

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/25/2016(UTC)
Posts: 4,690
United States
Location: Midwest

Thanks: 173 times
Was thanked: 1045 time(s) in 810 post(s)
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Roger.D Go to Quoted Post
It's difficult to find who nominated the current BOG of the TSP. It looks like all are Obama nominees. Which means Obama fired all that were nominated by Bush. Who likely fired all that were nominated by Clinton........
Misleading. No-one was fired. Their terms expired and new people were nominated and appointed to the vacancies. Fired implies they were removed for cause.



"Replacing" as the OP said, term expired, contract not renewed, your services are no longer required, asked to resign: Call it what you want, you're fired.
Polar Bear  
#8 Posted : Monday, May 11, 2020 7:22:14 AM(UTC)
Polar Bear

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/24/2018(UTC)
Posts: 213
United States
Location: MO

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 17 time(s) in 17 post(s)
not to belittle the point, but EVERY board organized in this manner is under political control.....

I understand if you don't like the current person at the head of that hierarchy...but that's how it's been. Vote to change it.
thanks 1 user thanked Polar Bear for this useful post.
EagleDog on 6/28/2020(UTC)
EngineerJim  
#9 Posted : Thursday, June 25, 2020 8:45:54 AM(UTC)
EngineerJim

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/17/2013(UTC)
Posts: 467
Man
United States
Location: USA

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 22 time(s) in 20 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Roger.D Go to Quoted Post
I don't believe in investing in Chinese companies. So I am for the current bipartisan initiative to exclude the TSP from investing in China. (Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H)


I agree.
Remember, China is a communist country that is trying to take over the world by any means possible. That includes financial, expanding territory (shipping lanes), telecommunications to monitor your every move, etc.
King_Fed  
#10 Posted : Saturday, June 27, 2020 5:53:36 AM(UTC)
King_Fed

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/26/2013(UTC)
Posts: 579

Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 62 time(s) in 53 post(s)
Originally Posted by: EngineerJim Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Roger.D Go to Quoted Post
I don't believe in investing in Chinese companies. So I am for the current bipartisan initiative to exclude the TSP from investing in China. (Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H)


I agree.
Remember, China is a communist country that is trying to take over the world by any means possible. That includes financial, expanding territory (shipping lanes), telecommunications to monitor your every move, etc.


On a moral ground I agree with you.

Unfortunately, the facts show (google it) that investing in China is unavoidable. Have a mutual fund/ETF or TSP C? You are "investing" in China. Heck, China even invests in U.S. Treasury bonds.

This has less to do with investing and more to do with politics. The left and right will spin this however they want. Other more uninformed people will simply parrot what they heard.

Edited by user Saturday, June 27, 2020 6:33:43 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Roger.D  
#11 Posted : Saturday, June 27, 2020 4:41:02 PM(UTC)
roger.d

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/25/2016(UTC)
Posts: 4,690
United States
Location: Midwest

Thanks: 173 times
Was thanked: 1045 time(s) in 810 post(s)
https://www.investors.co...wn-biggest-chinese-stock*****-list/

This article says that there are no Chinese companies in the S&P 500.

I know many feel that to be diversified you need to have international exposure. But, based upon my earlier post showing the returns over time, I don't see why I would want to have any overseas stock. What is available in the TSP doesn't even come close to matching the C fund.

I might look at a European market fund. With the loss of country specific currency, I am not sure I would do that either.

China buying US Treasuries is irrelevant to the discussion.
King_Fed  
#12 Posted : Saturday, June 27, 2020 9:07:42 PM(UTC)
King_Fed

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/26/2013(UTC)
Posts: 579

Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 62 time(s) in 53 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Roger.D Go to Quoted Post
https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/baba-stock-own-biggest-chinese-stock*****-list/

This article says that there are no Chinese companies in the S&P 500.

I know many feel that to be diversified you need to have international exposure. But, based upon my earlier post showing the returns over time, I don't see why I would want to have any overseas stock. What is available in the TSP doesn't even come close to matching the C fund.

I might look at a European market fund. With the loss of country specific currency, I am not sure I would do that either.

China buying US Treasuries is irrelevant to the discussion.


Many of the companies in the SP 500 invest in China and do business in China. There is absolutely no discussion against that. Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Berkshire, etc. etc... You don't get around China! Even Buffett called China an economic miracle. They hold close to (or maybe over) 20% of global GDP. Again, on moral grounds, you are right. I'm talking money.

You don't know why anyone would want international exposure? Diversification for starters.

Although, I agree with you, I don't have international TSP/MFs/ETFs directly. Again, a connected world so I have "exposure" to international stocks indirectly. But then I don't have bonds either. There are a lot of conversation on this approach - I can't recommend it for most people. I have other investments that make this approach right for me. It is not a sure path - very risky.

I have a high tolerance for risk and balance that out other ways where I won't have to touch my invested money in a downturn. Right now I'm in "search/buy mode" (purchased in March for example... waiting for another drop to buy more).

I generally recommend the Boglehead approach. https://www.bogleheads.o...s/investment-principles/ . Specifically the three fund approach: https://www.bogleheads.o...d-portfolio-2019-update/

China buying Treasuries is very relevant... it is a very connected world.

People need to understand this is nothing more than politics.

You seem to be eaten up with China so I'll leave the conversation for you to have it... pump that fist at the sky!

Edited by user Saturday, June 27, 2020 9:54:06 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Roger.D  
#13 Posted : Sunday, June 28, 2020 11:45:53 AM(UTC)
roger.d

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/25/2016(UTC)
Posts: 4,690
United States
Location: Midwest

Thanks: 173 times
Was thanked: 1045 time(s) in 810 post(s)
Originally Posted by: King_Fed Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Roger.D Go to Quoted Post
https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/baba-stock-own-biggest-chinese-stock*****-list/

This article says that there are no Chinese companies in the S&P 500.

I know many feel that to be diversified you need to have international exposure. But, based upon my earlier post showing the returns over time, I don't see why I would want to have any overseas stock. What is available in the TSP doesn't even come close to matching the C fund.

I might look at a European market fund. With the loss of country specific currency, I am not sure I would do that either.

China buying US Treasuries is irrelevant to the discussion.


Many of the companies in the SP 500 invest in China and do business in China. There is absolutely no discussion against that. Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Berkshire, etc. etc... You don't get around China! Even Buffett called China an economic miracle. They hold close to (or maybe over) 20% of global GDP. Again, on moral grounds, you are right. I'm talking money.

You don't know why anyone would want international exposure? Diversification for starters.

Although, I agree with you, I don't have international TSP/MFs/ETFs directly. Again, a connected world so I have "exposure" to international stocks indirectly. But then I don't have bonds either. There are a lot of conversation on this approach - I can't recommend it for most people. I have other investments that make this approach right for me. It is not a sure path - very risky.

I have a high tolerance for risk and balance that out other ways where I won't have to touch my invested money in a downturn. Right now I'm in "search/buy mode" (purchased in March for example... waiting for another drop to buy more).

I generally recommend the Boglehead approach. https://www.bogleheads.o...s/investment-principles/ . Specifically the three fund approach: https://www.bogleheads.o...d-portfolio-2019-update/

China buying Treasuries is very relevant... it is a very connected world.

People need to understand this is nothing more than politics.

You seem to be eaten up with China so I'll leave the conversation for you to have it... pump that fist at the sky!


There is a difference in "buying a Chinese company" and "buying a company that does business in China"

Russia also buys US Treasuries. Though sold off nearly 80% in 2018. Does that mean I am investing in Russia because they hold US debt? No.

Though not a registered member, I read the Bogle board nearly daily for the last year. I know you are a revered member there. I have been investing with Vanguard sense the mid 1990's after hearing about them from the Bob Brinker radio show. I almost followed his QQQ call. But I didn't have much money back then and chose to stay my course with TSM.

A stock fund is invested in for growth. The TSP I fund has a abysmal record compared to the C fund, as noted in post #4. I don't see a need for that kind of diversification. Comparing International funds at Vanguard, the results are abysmal also. Even the European fund lags the S&P by 8% over the last 10 years.

IMO, the 3 fund portfolio (Stocks[US-International]/Bonds) is not what it is cracked up to be. Better a 2 fund portfolio (stocks/bonds). If an international fund had a ROI of 2-4% below the S&P500 I could see an argument for investing in it for diversification.

Changing from the current (MSCI EAFE) to the proposed (MSCI ACWI ex U.S.) brings little to the table as far as a greater ROI, historically speaking.

Edited by user Sunday, June 28, 2020 12:54:02 PM(UTC)  | Reason: add: (Stocks[US-International]/Bonds)

Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 0.326 seconds.