Short answer....it doesn't. If I understand which article you are referring to.
G Fund is not a bond fund. That would be our F fund.
As for the Lifecycle suitability, however, I think he is right on. It's a different topic, really. As I read it, he is saying that our Fed Pension is like the G fund. And it is. Your Pension will not go down, and once you start taking your Pension (that is, retire.) and are 62, you will get some COLA help to offset inflation.
So why put a large amount in G, if you already are taking a large % in Pension? Maybe your risk tolerance is low, so the Pension buffer against a large downturn in the stock market is not enough. As long as you realize that is what you're doing, that's fine.
But that is the reason I intend to stay relatively invested in retirement. Being in G for some 25 years in retirement (if I am to be so lucky), will be eaten alive by inflation.
As for Lifecycle Funds....they are definitely better than leaving your TSP in G during your working years. But when others ask me about Lifecycle, I recommend that if they want to do Lifecycle, they should push out the choice of fund another 20 years. If retiring in 2020, go to the 2040 fund. This will allow a more aggressive stance during working years and the first part of retirement.
I think I have said similar things before, under other circumstances. Bottom line is you just have to do something OTHER THAN leave your $$ in G. And for my own feeling, that includes during retirement.
In my own case, for the first 20 years of work, I was in 33/34/33, C/S/I. Buy and Hold and Dollar Cost Averaging. It worked out well, as long as I did not watch it too closely and fret at the downturns (gotta think of those as buying opportunities when doing DCA!!). After 20 years, the amount going in per payday has very little affect against the total, so I moved more to going in and out as needed. That is also when I found TSPtalk, so that was good.
Bookmarks