We're still in basing mode...testing the previous bottom.
Posted by: sarah_oz@yahoo.com
Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (3) |
Soft Skills Development & Training
We're still in basing mode...testing the previous bottom.
Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (3) |
I haven't been able to keep track through all the chatter lately whether you are still recommending S, or C, or I, or ?Paul
Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (2) |
Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
Obama Issues Plan to Give Feds 1.3 Percent Raise in 2016
By Eric Katz
August 28, 2015
President Obama issued an alternative pay plan late Friday, setting an across-the-board increase for civilian federal employees of 1.3 percent in 2016.
The figure matches the amount the president requested in his fiscal 2016 budget proposal. Obama issued a separate plan providing a 1.3 percent boost in monthly basic pay rates for military service members.
The civilian raise will come in two forms. On Friday, Obama authorized a 1 percent across-the-board raise. In November, the president said he will issue an alternative plan for locality pay rates that will bring the aggregate increases to 1.3 percent.
"The 1.0 percent across-the-board base pay increase for civilian employees is the first step toward implementing an aggregate 1.3 percent increase as proposed earlier this year and included in the president's FY 2016 budget," a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget told Government Executive. "The remaining increase in civilian pay will come in the form of locality adjustments across all pay areas."
The National Treasury Employees Union said the 1 percent across-the-board raise will be coupled with a 0.3 percent locality pay bump. Locality pay has been frozen since 2010.
Obama said that his pay proposal "will not materially affect the federal government's ability to attract and retain a well-qualified federal workforce."
NTEU President Tony Reardon took issue with that claim.
"NTEU will continue to push for a more meaningful raise for the federal workforce," Reardon said, "one that would help the government stay competitive with private-sector employers and help employees cope with rising costs for everything from housing to tuition to food. Fair pay will be one of my key priorities in the coming year."
If the president had not informed Congress of his alternative pay plan for feds by the end of August, then the increase mandated by the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act would have kicked in. Under FEPCA, the raise would be determined by the change in the Employment Cost Index minus 0.5 percent.
Presidents largely have ignored the FEPCA formula in their federal pay raise proposals, preferring to offer their own figure. Congress created FEPCA, which provides an annual across-the-board salary boost and a locality pay adjustment for General Schedule employees, to close the public and private sector pay gap. The Federal Salary Council has said that federal employees are underpaid relative to private sector workers by approximately 34.6 percent.
The reality, however, is that Congress will end up determining whether federal employees receive a pay raise next year. So far, lawmakers have remained mum on the issue. Unless Congress proactively alters the proposal, Obama's 1.3 percent recommendation will become law.
Unlike last year, Obama did not indicate he would have given civilian employees a higher raise if economic conditions were improved. He did mention that for the military, however.
"As our country continues to recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our nation on a sustainable fiscal course," Obama wrote in his order to Congress. "This effort requires tough choices, especially in light of budget constraints."
The House has approved a 2.3 percent pay raise for members of the military in 2016, who also received a 1 percent raise in 2014 and 2015. Senate bills setting military pay, however, support a 1.3 percent raise for troops in 2016 -- the same as Obama's proposal.
Raises for both the military and civilian workforces will go into effect Jan. 1, 2016.
By Eric Katz
August 28, 2015
Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (2) |
By Eric Katz
August 28, 2015
President Obama issued an alternative pay plan late Friday, setting an across-the-board increase for civilian federal employees of 1.3 percent in 2016.
The figure matches the amount the president requested in his fiscal 2016 budget proposal. Obama issued a separate plan providing a 1.3 percent boost in monthly basic pay rates for military service members.
The civilian raise will come in two forms. On Friday, Obama authorized a 1 percent across-the-board raise. In November, the president said he will issue an alternative plan for locality pay rates that will bring the aggregate increases to 1.3 percent.
"The 1.0 percent across-the-board base pay increase for civilian employees is the first step toward implementing an aggregate 1.3 percent increase as proposed earlier this year and included in the president's FY 2016 budget," a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget told Government Executive. "The remaining increase in civilian pay will come in the form of locality adjustments across all pay areas."
The National Treasury Employees Union said the 1 percent across-the-board raise will be coupled with a 0.3 percent locality pay bump. Locality pay has been frozen since 2010.
Obama said that his pay proposal "will not materially affect the federal government's ability to attract and retain a well-qualified federal workforce."
NTEU President Tony Reardon took issue with that claim.
"NTEU will continue to push for a more meaningful raise for the federal workforce," Reardon said, "one that would help the government stay competitive with private-sector employers and help employees cope with rising costs for everything from housing to tuition to food. Fair pay will be one of my key priorities in the coming year."
If the president had not informed Congress of his alternative pay plan for feds by the end of August, then the increase mandated by the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act would have kicked in. Under FEPCA, the raise would be determined by the change in the Employment Cost Index minus 0.5 percent.
Presidents largely have ignored the FEPCA formula in their federal pay raise proposals, preferring to offer their own figure. Congress created FEPCA, which provides an annual across-the-board salary boost and a locality pay adjustment for General Schedule employees, to close the public and private sector pay gap. The Federal Salary Council has said that federal employees are underpaid relative to private sector workers by approximately 34.6 percent.
The reality, however, is that Congress will end up determining whether federal employees receive a pay raise next year. So far, lawmakers have remained mum on the issue. Unless Congress proactively alters the proposal, Obama's 1.3 percent recommendation will become law.
Unlike last year, Obama did not indicate he would have given civilian employees a higher raise if economic conditions were improved. He did mention that for the military, however.
"As our country continues to recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our nation on a sustainable fiscal course," Obama wrote in his order to Congress. "This effort requires tough choices, especially in light of budget constraints."
The House has approved a 2.3 percent pay raise for members of the military in 2016, who also received a 1 percent raise in 2014 and 2015. Senate bills setting military pay, however, support a 1.3 percent raise for troops in 2016 -- the same as Obama's proposal.
Raises for both the military and civilian workforces will go into effect Jan. 1, 2016.
By Eric Katz
August 28, 2015
Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
By Eric Katz
2:20 PM ET
New federal employees will automatically see 3 percent of their paychecks deposited into a lifecycle fund of the Thrift Savings Plan beginning next week, the plan's governing board has announced.
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board issued a final rule to note the default plan will change beginning Sept. 5. It will mark the first time since federal agencies began automatically enrolling new employees in the TSP in 2010 that the government securities (G) fund will not be the default investment. Congress approved the change last year, and the board finalized the plan after its proposed rule in July received no comments.
Employees that do not proactively opt into another plan will, starting next week, see their funds invested in the age-appropriate lifecycle, considered riskier but ultimately higher yielding than the G Fund. The G Fund is the most stable investment of the TSP's options, while the L Funds are a mix of the TSP's G, F, C, S and I offerings, and are crafted to move investors to less risky portfolios as they near retirement. The L Funds are composed of the L Income, L 2020, L 2030, L 2040 and L 2050 to mark anticipated retirement dates.
The change will only apply to new or rehired federal employees who are auto-enrolled in the TSP. It will not affect TSP participants who are currently auto-enrolled.
The board will notify new employees of the default plan and of their ability to request a refund of any default contributions. Furthermore, an investment in any fund other than the G Fund is made at the employee's risk, without protection from the government or the board.
The board in 2013 requested the legislation to switch the default fund from the G Fund to the lifecycle funds. The Employee Thrift Advisory Council, which advises the TSP board on investment policies and administration matters, is made up of representatives from employee organizations, unions and the uniformed services. It endorsed the legislative proposal in November 2013 after initially opposing it.
FRTIB has found that while automatic enrollment has increased TSP participation, new government hires under the age of 29 have too much money invested in the G Fund, probably because few have opted for alternatives to the default auto-enrollment in the G Fund. While traditionally very stable, the government securities fund does not yield very high returns.
In a move that could perhaps put some detractors of the switch at ease, the board decided in 2013 that lifecycle funds would allocate a larger proportion of their total configuration to the G Fund. The board contracted a consulting firm to review its L Funds allocations and opted to make the change in light of the findings.
(Image via sheff/Shutterstock.com)
By Eric Katz
2:20 PM ET
New Feds Will Default Into Riskier TSP Fund Starting Next Week
New Feds Will Default Into Riskier TSP Fund Starting... Employees will no longer be automatically enrolled in the safe but low-yield G Fund. | |||||
Preview by Yahoo | |||||
Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
TSP Pilot is a waste of money. Sarah's advice is free and results are posted, unlike TSP Pilot.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:41 PM, Herminia Galang hlg13158@yahoo.com [TSP_Strategy] <TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Hi Jim, I just started my subscription with TSP Pilot. I have been retired since 2013 and just left all my TSP in G fund. Now I've decided to be a little bit more aggressive. How is your experience with TSP Pilot so far? I haven't followed it's advisory since I've subscribed in July. Thanks.HerminiaSent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From:"'SETTLE, KERRY S GS-13 USAF AFMC AFCEC/CZOM' kerry.settle@us.af.mil [TSP_Strategy]" <TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com>
Date:Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:20 AM
Subject:RE: [TSP_Strategy] Re: Seasonality of Bear MarketsMichael,
I may have missed something in your following reply, but could expand on your following statement as to what is your strategy: "Since my strategy mitigates about 50% of the market risk, I suggest that one could hold a bit more than the L fund relative to your age while invested. The strategy is designed to capture most of the gains during the favorable season for equities and avoid the stress and market downdrafts during the unfavorable season."
Much appreciated!
Kerry
-----Original Message-----
From: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 8:56 AM
To: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TSP_Strategy] Re: Seasonality of Bear Markets
Your input is worth way more than 2 cents, Michael. Thank you!
Looking at the L Funds for equities percentage (not their mix) is a good idea. However, some articles say "120 minus your age" is a good percentage to have in equities. Because I will have a great gov retirement benefit in a few years (both CSRS and FERS), I feel I can be a bit more aggressive with my TSP funds..
I have a paid subscription to TSP Pilot that I think provides an excellent monthly assessment of all markets and recommendations for conservative and aggressive TSP participants.
A few years ago (about in the middle of this bull market) I paid a professional planner and asset management firm a % fee for one year to see how well my TSP account would perform based on their advice. I found them to so much more worried about preserving wealth against any possible downturn that they missed an entire year of generally upward movement!
For now, I'm learning from Sarah and other's on this site, including you and several TSP sites. Thanks for your input.
Jim
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 9:37 AM, michaelhbond@yahoo.com [TSP_Strategy] <TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Hi Jim,
I'm not sure all the damage is in for the summer. In 2010 after a 9% drop, the S&P 500 bounce and recouped two thirds of its gains in 3 days. It then rolled over to deeper losses. Yesterday was the third day of a rally. Hopefully, this does not happen again for you but it could and I think it will be a volatile summer.
As for the moving averages, most technical indicators to include moving averages are really just momentum measures that attempt to eliminate the noise from actual changes in the direction of the market. Sometimes they work great, but sometimes the market punishes these indications by oscillating just enough to reverse direction right after your indicator signals a change. In other words, it gets you to sell low and buy high.
The C, S and I fund are positively correlated. Frankly most of the markets became positively correlated when the central bankers started their liquidity operations. I do not think this correlation will change when the markets turn down. When the US markets turn down, so will the I fund markets.
I am not a fan of the L funds since they maintain 100% exposure to the markets no matter what. But if you are looking for a guide as to how much exposure you should have based on your age (relative to retirement), you could look at the L fund most closely aligned to your retirement date and see what percent they allocate to equities verses F/G fund.
I have found other Lifecycle funds allocation diversification do different significantly from the TSP L funds, so there is no perfect answer and everyone's situation is different. I do highly recommend finding a fee only independent and certified financial planner to provide a tailored plan for everyone from time to time.
I would also use these same L funds as a benchmark for how you are doing instead of the C and S fund returns. Comparing your returns to 100% allocation levels is inappropriate since this is a higher risk level than most investors with large accounts and near retirement should hold.
Since my strategy mitigates about 50% of the market risk, I suggest that one could hold a bit more than the L fund relative to your age while invested. The strategy is designed to capture most of the gains during the favorable season for equities and avoid the stress and market downdrafts during the unfavorable season. And, of course, let's stay away from bear markets.
My two cents for the day,
Michael
Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (43) |
"I just started my subscription with TSP Pilot. I have been retired since 2013 and just left all my TSP in G fund. Now I've decided to be a little bit more aggressive. How is your experience with TSP Pilot so far? I haven't followed it's advisory since I've subscribed in July." |
Hi Jim, I just started my subscription with TSP Pilot. I have been retired since 2013 and just left all my TSP in G fund. Now I've decided to be a little bit more aggressive. How is your experience with TSP Pilot so far? I haven't followed it's advisory since I've subscribed in July. Thanks.HerminiaSent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From:"'SETTLE, KERRY S GS-13 USAF AFMC AFCEC/CZOM' kerry.settle@us.af.mil [TSP_Strategy]" <TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com>
Date:Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:20 AM
Subject:RE: [TSP_Strategy] Re: Seasonality of Bear MarketsMichael,
I may have missed something in your following reply, but could expand on your following statement as to what is your strategy: "Since my strategy mitigates about 50% of the market risk, I suggest that one could hold a bit more than the L fund relative to your age while invested. The strategy is designed to capture most of the gains during the favorable season for equities and avoid the stress and market downdrafts during the unfavorable season."
Much appreciated!
Kerry
-----Original Message-----
From: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 8:56 AM
To: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TSP_Strategy] Re: Seasonality of Bear Markets
Your input is worth way more than 2 cents, Michael. Thank you!
Looking at the L Funds for equities percentage (not their mix) is a good idea. However, some articles say "120 minus your age" is a good percentage to have in equities. Because I will have a great gov retirement benefit in a few years (both CSRS and FERS), I feel I can be a bit more aggressive with my TSP funds..
I have a paid subscription to TSP Pilot that I think provides an excellent monthly assessment of all markets and recommendations for conservative and aggressive TSP participants.
A few years ago (about in the middle of this bull market) I paid a professional planner and asset management firm a % fee for one year to see how well my TSP account would perform based on their advice. I found them to so much more worried about preserving wealth against any possible downturn that they missed an entire year of generally upward movement!
For now, I'm learning from Sarah and other's on this site, including you and several TSP sites. Thanks for your input.
Jim
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 9:37 AM, michaelhbond@yahoo.com [TSP_Strategy] <TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Hi Jim,
I'm not sure all the damage is in for the summer. In 2010 after a 9% drop, the S&P 500 bounce and recouped two thirds of its gains in 3 days. It then rolled over to deeper losses. Yesterday was the third day of a rally. Hopefully, this does not happen again for you but it could and I think it will be a volatile summer.
As for the moving averages, most technical indicators to include moving averages are really just momentum measures that attempt to eliminate the noise from actual changes in the direction of the market. Sometimes they work great, but sometimes the market punishes these indications by oscillating just enough to reverse direction right after your indicator signals a change. In other words, it gets you to sell low and buy high.
The C, S and I fund are positively correlated. Frankly most of the markets became positively correlated when the central bankers started their liquidity operations. I do not think this correlation will change when the markets turn down. When the US markets turn down, so will the I fund markets.
I am not a fan of the L funds since they maintain 100% exposure to the markets no matter what. But if you are looking for a guide as to how much exposure you should have based on your age (relative to retirement), you could look at the L fund most closely aligned to your retirement date and see what percent they allocate to equities verses F/G fund.
I have found other Lifecycle funds allocation diversification do different significantly from the TSP L funds, so there is no perfect answer and everyone's situation is different. I do highly recommend finding a fee only independent and certified financial planner to provide a tailored plan for everyone from time to time.
I would also use these same L funds as a benchmark for how you are doing instead of the C and S fund returns. Comparing your returns to 100% allocation levels is inappropriate since this is a higher risk level than most investors with large accounts and near retirement should hold.
Since my strategy mitigates about 50% of the market risk, I suggest that one could hold a bit more than the L fund relative to your age while invested. The strategy is designed to capture most of the gains during the favorable season for equities and avoid the stress and market downdrafts during the unfavorable season. And, of course, let's stay away from bear markets.
My two cents for the day,
Michael
Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (42) |
got it, thank you
Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (7) |