Has anyone else noticed this?

[$$$AllIn2026]

The I fund killed the C fund in 2025. I was 100% C. It's time to get more exposure to the I fund. So like others, I was thinking a mix of C S & I. And then I looked at the L funds, their percentages for each fund, and their prices. If I used the same percentages as the L funds (2055 2060 2065 2070 2075), ignoring F and G because they only add up to about 1%, (C 52%, S 13%, I 35%), then the price would average about $95/unit. Now look at the prices of those L funds - 2055 2060 & 2065 are $22/unit. Even more interesting is the 2070 fund priced at $13 and the new 2075 fund at only $11. All of these funds started life at $10. Therefore that says to me that the newest L funds will eventually become $22/unit in short time. This looks a buying opportunity to my brain, like an IPO on a stock. If I buy at 11 and it becomes 22, then haven't I doubled my money? And this is without any fund gains. What am I missing here? Mike.

[misfit]

Yes this has been discussed a little before.

‪Question - L Fund prices‬
by ‪misfit‬ » Sat Sep 10, 2022 10:34 am
I was wondering if the price of the L funds were cheaper than buying C, S or I directly. I ask because I’m confused on the fund index prices. For example the L2045 price is very cheap in comparison at $11.88 per share and has apprx 40% going into C, 11% in S and 27% into I. That’s almost 80% going directly into stocks at a much cheaper price.

The C price currently is $62.08 per share, S is $66.92 and I is $31.94. Does this all even out based on the percentages of shares of each separate fund rolled into the L fund or is it actually cheaper to buy the L fund? I hope this makes sense.
Thanks everyone.

Price Day YTD

F $18.54 -0.05% -11.25%
C $62.08 1.54% -13.72%
G $17.03 0.01% 1.75%
F $18.54 -0.05% -11.25%
C $62.08 1.54% -13.72%
S $66.92 2.16% -19.80%
I $31.94 2.12% -19.01%
L2065 $12.47 1.81% -16.24%
L2060 $12.47 1.81% -16.23%
L2055 $12.47 1.81% -16.22%
L2050 $25.83 1.49% -13.97%
L2045 $11.88 1.40% -13.09%
—————————————

Reply - I think you are looking at it wrong.

If you invest $100,000 and own 8417 shares in the L2045 or invest $100,000 and own 1494 shares of the "S" Fund. And say you invested in a hypothetical fund "X" with $100,000 for 1 share of the company?

What if they all went up by 10%? you would have $110,000 dollars in each fund. That wouldn't really happen because the Lfund is more diversified than the S Fund and well, 1 share is the least diversified that you could be. You are more likely to have grater gains and or greater losses in the 1 share of a company vs the "S" fund vs the Lfund because of the diversification factor. Also there are different factors like Large cap vs mid cap vs small cap involved. All things being equal, the only thing that would decrease your 10% gain would be the expense of the funds.

L2045 expense: 0.048%
"S" Fund expense: 0.059%
"X" Fund: unknown

A well diversified portfolio smooths out the losses and gains.

Maybe it would be possible for the 1 company "X" fund to gain 10% and the "S" Fund to gain 10% but the Lfund most likely wouldn't gain 10% simply because they have some bond funds ("F") and the "G" funds that wont keep up with gains in equities.

But vis versa the "X" and "S" fund would lose more than the Lfund because they don't have any bonds ("F" fund) or "G" fund.

In general I would buy a fund/stock on the cheap because I saw value in it meaning I thought that it would outperform a benchmark because it was undervalued and or oversold. I don't think you are going to get that type of dynamic/volatility with the Lfunds unless you are comparing them to other Lfunds, maybe?

The Lfund returns/losses will be based on their Bond to Equity percentages.

**The things you should consider
1. cost of the funds annual expenses
2. the diversification or your portfolio, i.e. US vs International, Large cap, mid cap small cap, bonds ect. based on your age and risk tolerance.

The main reason to invest in the Lfund is for simplification. One fund that rebalances as you get closer to retirement and it provides more diversification because the Lfunds invest in all 5 of the available TSP funds.

That is how I see it.. But, maybe I have it all wrong.

Another reply -

The TSP starts all new funds at $10 regardless of the actual value of the underlying securities. After that the price changes based on the relative market performance.

In June 2003 when the TSP went to daily price changes, it set the price of each fund at $10.00 per share. 19 years later, C, S & I had increased by 480%, 510% & 220% respectively. What I find interesting is that over the long term, G & F aren't that far apart - increasing only 69% & 89%.

[$$$AllIn2026]

Thank you for the reply. All good points, but the answer then is that no one really knows. I guess one would then place their bet and see how it plays out. That's what I did last week - I am now 100% L2075.

To add a little more confusion to this is the way that the L funds are rebalanced DAILY. We all know that they all start out aggressive and eventually shift to lower risk and reward as they get closer to their target dates, eventually becoming part of the L Income Fund. That has no consideration for what I am trying to do right now. It's the low unit price that has my eye. There is the potential to double my money in 3 years.

This is straight from the TSP website:
One of the important things about the L Funds is that they stick to their target allocations for a full quarter regardless of what the markets do. Every trading day, some of the individual funds in an L Fund will do better than others. At the end of the day, the individual funds that did better will make up a higher percentage of the L Fund than the ones that did less well. To maintain each L Fund’s target allocation, we rebalance it at the end of every trading day. We do this by buying and selling the individual funds that make up the L Fund so that the percentages go back to what they were at the beginning of the day. In effect we’re buying low and selling high at the end of every trading day.

This is dollar-cost-averaging at it's finest! And we pay virtually nothing for that service.

[Scarfinger]

In effect we’re buying low and selling high at the end of every trading day.

This is dollar-cost-averaging at it's finest! And we pay virtually nothing for that service.

Agreed. A nice set it and forget it playstyle.

I have been recommending a +10 year to +15 year past retirement date when using L funds to have more equites longer. I just don't understand why having 67% in (G) or cash, which is L-income fund, at retirement would be needed for most of us with federal pensions.

[$$$AllIn2026]

I looked back and all of these funds below started life at $10.
Here is today's (Jan 16, 2026) prices:
L 2030 $59.1118
C Fund $111.0857
S Fund $106.2787
I Fund $57.7662

From this, can I make this assumption? This is ignoring any gains or losses for the funds - unit prices only.
If someone bought one of these funds at inception and let it ride until today, then wouldn't they have 5.91 times the money if they bought the L2030 fund? Likewise for the rest -
C fund 11.1 times
S fund 10.6 times
I fund 5.77 times

[$$$AllIn2026]

C'mon guys, 114 views and only 2 people have an opinion on this? Please chime in. Let's figure this out. It could mean big money for all of us....

[ProduceMan]

The low price of the brand new L Fund had great value to me in the past. I translated it to low price equals more shares equals more gains.

But it all boils down to this, 10% in any L or 10% in CS or I is still 10%. No matter how many shares you own.

Allln, for your 5.91x since inception. That was the difference from very beginning to present. CSI have much greater volatility swings. So, as a buy and hold investor or even a buy and sell high investor your money maker will always be in CSI.


The problem I had and still have is having the stomach to weather the big negatives. That is the decision to take the losses and go to G or just hold on and wait till it regains the huge losses

[$$$AllIn2026]

Finally, someone has given me something to think about. Thanks ProduceMan.
I had the choice to copy the new L funds percentages and build my own from C S & I.
But the L funds' daily rebalancing (for free) intrigues me and it is dollar-cost-averaging at it's finest.
I never bought into an L fund before, and I wanted more exposure to the I fund, so L2075 with it's low price won out. I can always make a change, but so far I like what I see. And I am not locked into this for a long term. I was 100% C fund before this IFT, and I will go wherever the best returns are, within reason.

Attempts to time the market do not work. You screw yourself TWICE by doing so.
As far as the big negative swings go, I have learned that DOWN IS GOOD. Don't panic and ride it out. People need to learn this and get comfortable with it. It's only a number on a piece of paper until you actually make a change. Then the loss becomes real and you lock it in. And by shifting safe, you are also missing out on buying "on sale". More (lower priced) shares get bought every 2 weeks. When things return to normal you have many more shares, which means more $$$. It's those dips where you are buying low so that you can sell high later that give you great returns.

[ProduceMan]

Yes, I concur. I plan on always setting my account to 20 L70, 10 C, 5 S, and 5 I Fund, then moving the 60 percent according to TSPCALC

[Scarfinger]

The I fund killed the C fund in 2025. I was 100% C. It's time to get more exposure to the I fund. So like others, I was thinking a mix of C S & I. And then I looked at the L funds, their percentages for each fund, and their prices. If I used the same percentages as the L funds (2055 2060 2065 2070 2075), ignoring F and G because they only add up to about 1%, (C 52%, S 13%, I 35%), then the price would average about $95/unit. Now look at the prices of those L funds - 2055 2060 & 2065 are $22/unit. Even more interesting is the 2070 fund priced at $13 and the new 2075 fund at only $11. All of these funds started life at $10. Therefore that says to me that the newest L funds will eventually become $22/unit in short time. This looks a buying opportunity to my brain, like an IPO on a stock. If I buy at 11 and it becomes 22, then haven't I doubled my money? And this is without any fund gains. What am I missing here? Mike.

The price of the funds literally doesn't matter because of fractional shares. The amount invested and the return of the funds determines your gains.

[$$$AllIn2026]

Okay, fractional shares makes sense. Now I have 10X the amount of shares than before I switched to L2075.
Looking at L2055 60 65 70 75, all have the same percentages in C S I F G and the same returns, so shouldn't they all be priced at $21.92? What accounts for the price difference of 70 and 75? Looks like a buying opportunity to me.

[Scarfinger]

No. Some funds have different inception dates. The older they are the larger the share value because of compounding interest. I believe all the funds started around 10 dollars.

there is a 1 year age difference in the 2070 and 2075 inception date.

2075: 6/30/25; 2070: 7/26/24; 2065: 7/1/20; 2060: 7/1/20; 2055: 7/1/20; 2050: 1/31/11. I am not positive on what the made-up stating value was for each fund. But some of the funds like the 2045: 7/1/20 has a lower value than the 2065, 2060 and 2055 probably because it has more bonds and isn't 99% stocks like the others with the same inception date.

[$$$AllIn2026]

All the L funds were born with $10 starting prices, that's true. I went for the L2075 because of that low price (more shares) and it's the most aggressive. C fund is no longer the cash cow. I'm aggressive, but I never would do 100% S or I, or even 50/50 S&I. The CSI mix of the L funds fits my needs right now and did better than all C last year. I will be retiring within 1 year, probably much sooner, but I am leaving my money in the TSP to keep growing. Now that I am over 1M, good returns generate a lot of $$$. When the time comes, I am doing the single life annuity, but that is probably a decade away.