Thread: Annual Rate of Return (long-term)

Originally Posted by tsptalk

The FRTIB just doesn't want us to do any thinking on our own.

I'm beginning to think that the most productive TSP analysis I can do is to find out what the Stepford FRTIB wants me to do with my account, and then do the exact opposite .....

Lady

Originally Posted by XL-entLady

I'm beginning to think that the most productive TSP analysis I can do is to find out what the Stepford FRTIB wants me to do with my account, and then do the exact opposite .....

Lady

StepFRTIB? lol!

Originally Posted by tsptalk

This is true, but during bear markets, these numbers "should" change. The L2040 will not take shelter during any signifcant down turn. The only way to beat the indices or a fund like the L-fund, is to be out of stocks when they go down.

This is not to say timing is easy. Beating an index fund is tough during a sustained bull market. It's what you can do in a bear that should make the difference, and since 2008 is the first bear we've had during your study, I don't think it is a true representation of a long term projection of what timing can do - although I do understand that you state studies that show otherwise.

That said, my weakness has been that I have been overly bearish when there were very good buying opps. So yes, it is tough, but if this bear market goes on for any length of time I believe your numbers will swing. It's just tough for me to give over control of my account to the swings of the market.

You have to both get out of the market at the right time, and then, get back at the right time. It's tough to do.

"Studies show"... isn't necessarily convincing. That's why I've been so interested in the tally. A little empirical evidence. Although, it's certainly not conclusive or statistically valid.

I'm convinced that a person's market strategy is a belief system - you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. It's like religion.

I hate gambling. For me, it's a waste of time. So playing the odds, listening to the academics, and taking, a somewhat, conservative approach appeals to me. If I can get the average return without working at it or taking on additional risk, I'm happy. It's probably why I worked for Uncle Sam for 35 years.

Keep up the good work. The way you've built TSPTalk is a real accomplishment.---Jim

I am guessing FRTIB is the group that limited the IFTs less than a year ago. I read all about it in these forums, and it will be interesting to see if they give us some numbers that will back-up their claims.
What is the reason they are so against people having control of their own funds? Are they worried about people losing everything, or are they just looking out for themselves? (I know they claim we lose a bunch of money to trade fees, but do they have any other reason to reduce control?)

Originally Posted by peterson82

I am guessing FRTIB is the group that limited the IFTs less than a year ago. I read all about it in these forums, and it will be interesting to see if they give us some numbers that will back-up their claims.
What is the reason they are so against people having control of their own funds? Are they worried about people losing everything, or are they just looking out for themselves? (I know they claim we lose a bunch of money to trade fees, but do they have any other reason to reduce control?)

Barclays. Answer is here, taken right from TSP.gov.

Barclays Sums Don't Add Up for Doubtful

Barclays also was heavily invested in the two BSC hedge funds that went belly up last year; Barclays is in the process of suing to recover losses. That information is also posted on the MB, just search "Barclays" for a ton of information.

I can't say "I'm surprised by this".

But I am amazed at your resourcefulness and all the more the ability to rapidly tie things together - to get "the real picture".

It's hard to me to fault Bayclays - despite the huge imposition it has created for me and the others on the MB. This is the "Standard Corporate System" - and losses are always spread out to the little guys. As bad as this sounds: "If they had responded in what we would have considered a more appropriate manner" - they would have looked like complete idiots. On the Corporate level you don't worry about feelings; emotions; inconvienciences - you look only at the money and how to limit the loss. So from a Corporate Level - which the only view that really matters - they did okay to mask the real problem by focusing on "us".

And now we know "The rest of the story". Good job L2R!!

I did what you suggested Luv2read, and it seems Barclays' problems and the IFT limits happening at the same time is not a coincidence (as you have stated).
BTW, why is the "U.K.'s fourth-biggest bank" managing our funds anyway?