Leaders Workshop

Soft Skills Development & Training

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.
[TSP_Strategy] L Fund Allocation Changes Approved

[TSP_Strategy] L Fund Allocation Changes Approved

 


TSP board OKs change in allocations to lifecycle funds


__._,_.___

Posted by: sarah_oz@yahoo.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
Re: [TSP_Strategy] Real GDP

Re: [TSP_Strategy] Real GDP

 

Remember that markets are prospective in nature.

__._,_.___

Posted by: sarah_oz@yahoo.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (11)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
Re: [TSP_Strategy] Real GDP

Re: [TSP_Strategy] Real GDP

 

Good luck, Paul!

__._,_.___

Posted by: sarah_oz@yahoo.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (10)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
RE: [TSP_Strategy] Re: Question- Recent Statement

RE: [TSP_Strategy] Re: Question- Recent Statement

 

Thats about right but I would rather have a small negative and be trying than have a small return and be safer in the G or F funds that sometimes don't keep up with inflation every year.


To: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com
From: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:24:16 +0000
Subject: [TSP_Strategy] Re: Question- Recent Statement

 

I'm very happy with the group and plan to follow the suggestions for the foreseeable future. I simply needed to verify that my -2% didn't indicate I had done something wrong. Thank you for your helpful group.


__._,_.___

Posted by: del brett <bretdelman@msn.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (7)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
Re: [TSP_Strategy] Real GDP

Re: [TSP_Strategy] Real GDP

 

I wonder whether the equity market will pay attention to a real economic data or not, but eventually, it will have to pay attention.

The current economic data seem to me is very poor:  GDP slows down, earnings slow down, earnings forecast downward...hmmm!
  
I still think the current market prices are hyped by ultra cheap liquidity injections (created out of thin air...is it not?).  So when those cheap money is no longer available, it will pay the price, a big time.  I just hope many innocent people don't get burn this time around.  Good luck folks! 

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:22 PM, sarah_oz@yahoo.com [TSP_Strategy] <TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 


Real Gross Domestic Product (Seasonally Adjusted Quarterly Data - Annualized)

Chart of the Week for October 30, 2015 - November 5, 2015

The first preliminary estimate of real GDP growth for the third quarter of 2015 showed a 1.5% increase in the quarter.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis ("BEA") reported a preliminary estimate of 1.5% growth in real Gross Domestic Product (inflation adjusted "GDP") for the third quarter of 2015 based on seasonally adjusted annualized data. This is down from the 3.9% growth reported for the second quarter of 2015, and is lower than the consensus forecast of 1.6%. It is also below the 30-year annual average rate of 2.6% for the third time in the past four quarters. Real GDP growth in the third quarter was impacted negatively by a slowing of inventory accumulation and positively by growing consumer spending.

GDP is one measure of the size or health of a country's economy. GDP is generally defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time. Many economists follow movements in GDP growth rates to assess how quickly or slowly an economy is growing or contracting. GDP is measured including the effect of inflation ("nominal") and after subtracting the effect of inflation ("real"). The chart above compares the annualized real GDP growth rate per quarter.



__._,_.___

Posted by: Paul <ur12bfriend@gmail.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (9)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
[TSP_Strategy] Real GDP

[TSP_Strategy] Real GDP

 


Real Gross Domestic Product (Seasonally Adjusted Quarterly Data - Annualized)

Chart of the Week for October 30, 2015 - November 5, 2015

The first preliminary estimate of real GDP growth for the third quarter of 2015 showed a 1.5% increase in the quarter.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis ("BEA") reported a preliminary estimate of 1.5% growth in real Gross Domestic Product (inflation adjusted "GDP") for the third quarter of 2015 based on seasonally adjusted annualized data. This is down from the 3.9% growth reported for the second quarter of 2015, and is lower than the consensus forecast of 1.6%. It is also below the 30-year annual average rate of 2.6% for the third time in the past four quarters. Real GDP growth in the third quarter was impacted negatively by a slowing of inventory accumulation and positively by growing consumer spending.

GDP is one measure of the size or health of a country's economy. GDP is generally defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time. Many economists follow movements in GDP growth rates to assess how quickly or slowly an economy is growing or contracting. GDP is measured including the effect of inflation ("nominal") and after subtracting the effect of inflation ("real"). The chart above compares the annualized real GDP growth rate per quarter.


__._,_.___

Posted by: sarah_oz@yahoo.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (8)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
[TSP_Strategy] Re: Question- Recent Statement

[TSP_Strategy] Re: Question- Recent Statement

 

I'm very happy with the group and plan to follow the suggestions for the foreseeable future. I simply needed to verify that my -2% didn't indicate I had done something wrong. Thank you for your helpful group.

__._,_.___

Posted by: "Bill Steele Sr." <bill_steele_sr@yahoo.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (6)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
[TSP_Strategy] Contributions

[TSP_Strategy] Contributions

 

Hi Sarah
I'm a newbie so forgive the ignorance. I have been looking thru the this group but wanted to see if u can answer a question I'm sure you answered before but I'm am staying curren . I have my fund spread thru c, s, and I. And a certain percentage in each. Should I be moving funds or adding higher contribution to S fun since this group think it will take off? I do apologize for my ignorance. I just don't want to miss what out on any rallies. Thank you for your patience.
5 yrs until 25yrs

__._,_.___

Posted by: luv2fly30@aol.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (6)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
RE: [TSP_Strategy] Stocks Do Better With Dem Pres and Rep Congress

RE: [TSP_Strategy] Stocks Do Better With Dem Pres and Rep Congress

 

There is  95% chance in my opinion we will end up with a Democratic president and a Republican Congress again for the next 4 years after the next election so the money should keep rolling in.




To: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com
From: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:12:42 -0700
Subject: [TSP_Strategy] Stocks Do Better With Dem Pres and Rep Congress

 



Opinion: Why investors should hope a Democrat is the next president

Published: Oct 28, 2015 5:30 a.m. ET

Stocks do better when there's a Democratic president and a Republican Congress

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (MarketWatch) — One of the best political outcomes for the stock market would be for a Democrat to win the presidential election next year while Congress remains in Republican control.
That's not a statement of my political desires. It's a reflection of the stock market's performance over the past century.
Consider a study conducted by Ned Davis Research, the quantitative-research firm: It measured the Dow Jones Industrial Average's performance under various political scenarios, ranging from Democrats controlling the White House and both houses of Congress to Republicans dominating — and all combinations in between.
One of the best constellations of political power, according to the study, is for there to be a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. Since 1901, the Dow under those conditions has produced an annualized gain (before dividends) of 9.0%. (See chart above.)
That compares with a 7.3% annualized return when the Democrats control both the White House and Congress, and a 7.0% return when the Republicans dominate both.
It might be tempting to conclude from those results that the stock market prefers political deadlock. That certainly accords with the Libertarian notion that the government creates more problems than it solves.
But not all the historical data are consistent with that hypothesis, since not all deadlocked situations in Washington have coincided with an equally strong stock market. Consider those years in which there has been a Republican president and a Democratic Congress: On average, according to the Ned Davis study, the Dow in such years has gained an annual average of only 2.2%.
That's less than a fourth as much as it performed in the reverse situation that is presumably equally deadlocked, when a Democrat was president and the Republicans controlled Congress. The fact is, as you can see from the chart, the stock market over the past century has performed better when a Democrat has been in the White House.
This difference can't be explained in terms of inflation, either. Though inflation on average has been higher during Democratic presidencies than Republican ones, even in inflation-adjusted terms the stock market has performed better when a Democrat has been in the White House.
Some readers howled in protest on past occasions when I reported these results. But note carefully that Democrats don't necessarily deserve the credit for the superior performance of the stock market during their presidencies. It might be, for example, that the stock market during Democratic presidencies is reaping the rewards of the economic discipline imposed during prior Republican presidencies or by the Republican congresses that often accompany Democratic presidencies.
You are entirely free to make such arguments, of course, or interpret the facts in any of a myriad possible alternate ways.
But facts remain facts even when you don't like them.



__._,_.___

Posted by: del brett <bretdelman@msn.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
[TSP_Strategy] Stocks Do Better With Dem Pres and Rep Congress

[TSP_Strategy] Stocks Do Better With Dem Pres and Rep Congress

 


Opinion: Why investors should hope a Democrat is the next president

Published: Oct 28, 2015 5:30 a.m. ET

Stocks do better when there's a Democratic president and a Republican Congress

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (MarketWatch) — One of the best political outcomes for the stock market would be for a Democrat to win the presidential election next year while Congress remains in Republican control.

That's not a statement of my political desires. It's a reflection of the stock market's performance over the past century.

Consider a study conducted by Ned Davis Research, the quantitative-research firm: It measured the Dow Jones Industrial Average's performance under various political scenarios, ranging from Democrats controlling the White House and both houses of Congress to Republicans dominating — and all combinations in between.

One of the best constellations of political power, according to the study, is for there to be a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. Since 1901, the Dow under those conditions has produced an annualized gain (before dividends) of 9.0%. (See chart above.)

That compares with a 7.3% annualized return when the Democrats control both the White House and Congress, and a 7.0% return when the Republicans dominate both.

It might be tempting to conclude from those results that the stock market prefers political deadlock. That certainly accords with the Libertarian notion that the government creates more problems than it solves.

But not all the historical data are consistent with that hypothesis, since not all deadlocked situations in Washington have coincided with an equally strong stock market. Consider those years in which there has been a Republican president and a Democratic Congress: On average, according to the Ned Davis study, the Dow in such years has gained an annual average of only 2.2%.

That's less than a fourth as much as it performed in the reverse situation that is presumably equally deadlocked, when a Democrat was president and the Republicans controlled Congress. The fact is, as you can see from the chart, the stock market over the past century has performed better when a Democrat has been in the White House.

This difference can't be explained in terms of inflation, either. Though inflation on average has been higher during Democratic presidencies than Republican ones, even in inflation-adjusted terms the stock market has performed better when a Democrat has been in the White House.

Some readers howled in protest on past occasions when I reported these results. But note carefully that Democrats don't necessarily deserve the credit for the superior performance of the stock market during their presidencies. It might be, for example, that the stock market during Democratic presidencies is reaping the rewards of the economic discipline imposed during prior Republican presidencies or by the Republican congresses that often accompany Democratic presidencies.

You are entirely free to make such arguments, of course, or interpret the facts in any of a myriad possible alternate ways.

But facts remain facts even when you don't like them.


__._,_.___

Posted by: sarah_oz@yahoo.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
[TSP_Strategy] How Divorce or Job Change Could Derail Financial Plans

[TSP_Strategy] How Divorce or Job Change Could Derail Financial Plans

 

How Divorce or a Job Change Could Derail Your Financial Plan

2:32 PM ET

As federal employees close in on retirement, I often get some last minute questions, the answers to which can have a big impact on your post-career life. Here are a few that are at the top of the list:

I was divorced during my federal career.  How much of my retirement will my former spouse be entitled to?

Surprisingly, many people underestimate the importance of this issue. The answer to the question is found in your divorce decree or court order. Divorce papers will spell out the specific benefit payable to the former spouse. If the decree is "silent" and does not mention CSRS, FERS, TSP, FEGLI or any of your other federal benefits (sometimes, even the lump sum annual leave payment be divided in a divorce settlement), then you can be pretty sure that your former spouse is not entitled to any of your retirement or other federal benefits. If there is a mention of your federal benefits, then be sure that you understand how the benefit will be divided. A common misunderstanding is failing to distinguish between the retirement benefit under CSRS or FERS and the CSRS or FERS survivor's benefit. Those are two separate benefits. One is payable while you are living and the other after you pass away. You can check the index of my columns to find more information about former spouse benefits.

A former spouse's entitlement to your Social Security retirement is based on the law, not your divorce agreement. Luckily, your Social Security is not affected even if your former spouse has a right to your federal retirement benefits. Here's more on former spouse entitlement to Social Security.

How will taking a downgrade before retirement affect my benefits? 

Here is a cautionary tale from a law enforcement officer who moved to a non-law enforcement position prior to retirement:

I received an email from a woman who had completed more than 20 years of covered law enforcement service in order to have her retirement computed under the more generous law enforcement officer computation available under FERS (this situation would apply to CSRS as well).  But prior to retirement (and after completing the required 20 years of covered LEO service), she changed jobs to a non-covered position with a pay rate 30 percent lower than her former position. Although she qualifies to have her retirement computed under the more generous formula for law enforcement officers, what she didn't realize was the impact this would have on the overall value of her future retirement. Because of the decrease in her rate of basic pay, her high-three average salary was "frozen" at the time of the pay change. The high-three average salary, which is the basis of your retirement computation, is the average of any three consecutive years of your basic pay, which for her, were the last three years she served in a covered LEO position. 

In addition, she received her lump sum annual leave payment at the new, lower pay rate when she separated. Finally, her life insurance under the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program that she carried into retirement was based on her final pay rate on the date of her separation, instead of the higher salary she would have been paid if she had retired from her law enforcement position. 

It might have made sense for her to retire under the law enforcement retirement first and then find work outside of the federal government and use the extra income to supplement her retirement benefit. This decision had a lifetime impact on the value of her retirement benefits. If you are considering a similar move, you may want to estimate the value of your retirement benefits with and without making such a drastic career move prior. The effect on your benefits can be significant.

What about working part-time prior to retirement?

There are many ways that a full time employee can transition to retirement by working part-time, including:

  • Switch from a full-time work schedule to a part-time work schedule. The Office of Personnel Management offers detailed information about job sharing and part-time employment. The good news is that part-time service will not affect retirement eligibility. Having 30 years of part-time service will meet the 30-year service requirement necessary to retire at 55 under CSRS or the minimum retirement age under FERS, just as 30 years of full-time service would count. However the retirement benefit will be pro-rated to reflect the percentage of a full-time career that was worked.
  • Retire and find a part-time job outside of federal service. This is a common practice among many federal retirees. CSRS and FERS retirement benefits are paid regardless of other income earned through employment after retirement. Keep in mind that there are earnings limits on the FERS supplement and Social Security retirement benefits in some cases. Here's information about the FERS Supplement earnings reporting and here's a link to information about the Social Security earnings limit rule. And don't forget that there could be post-retirement ethics restrictions on employment.    
  • Consider phased retirement. This is finally becoming available for some federal employees. Your agency will determine the requirements for who will be eligible and how the phased retirement program will work as far as mentoring requirements, time limits and return to full-time employment. Not all agencies will participate in the phased retirement program. Here's more information about the program and a video about entering phased retirement.

(Image via Bacho/Shutterstock.com)


2:32 PM ET

How Divorce or a Job Change Could Derail Your Financial Plan

 

__._,_.___

Posted by: sarah_oz@yahoo.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___