TSP Nerd — TSP Allocation Dashboard
Equity Curves
2026 YTD Context
The strategy is down -1.11% while I Fund is +4.67% — a gap driven by tariff-driven volatility in Q1. The AND gate (VIX backwardation AND SPY below 200-day SMA) correctly moved to G Fund during the late March tariff shock when both signals fired together, avoiding heavy equity losses. On prior single-gate false alarms — Feb VIX spike without trend break, early March chop — the AND gate stayed invested where a VIX-only gate would have whipsawed. Over 15+ years of backtest the AND gate is defensive on ~9% of rebalance days (vs 17% for VIX-only). Full backtest context →
VIX WATCH — STAYING INVESTED
Only one signal bear — AND gate needs both → staying in S Fund
combined verdict
Full G Fund only when both signals flash bear. Either alone is informational (Watch state). Updated 2026-06-10 22:54
Current Allocation
Monthly Transfers
of 2 used
2 remaining
Full budget available · G moves are free
Transfer Deadline
Strategy Performance
Growth of $100,000 since 2010
Total Return
1312%
16yr backtest
Sharpe Ratio
1.187
risk-adjusted
Max Drawdown
-32.0%
vs C: -33.7%
AI Research Council
Four agents analyze and debate every Monday. Momentum drives allocation -- agents provide market context.
The strategy signals 100% S this week — hold the equity-momentum allocation per the AND-gate rules, while noting the council's unanimous flag that this is the highest-volatility, lowest-ballast posture during a rate-driven fear spike.
Market Commentary
Equities sold off across the board last week as a blowout jobs report flipped the script — strong labor data shrank the odds of imminent Fed easing, sent yields higher, and sparked a Big Tech derating (C -2.8%, S -2.2%, I -2.1%), with the F Fund also falling (-0.5%) instead of catching a flight-to-quality bid, confirming a rate-driven, not recessionary, episode. All three council agents agree on the diagnosis: this is a hawkish 'higher-for-longer' valuation shock inside an intact uptrend, with average equity correlation spiking to ~0.88, meaning diversification across stock sleeves offers little near-term protection. They diverge sharply on positioning: the Macro and Sentiment Analysts both dissent against concentrating in the highest-volatility S Fund — Macro argues a C-weighted core is the rational 'risk-on' expression since small-caps are the most rate-sensitive, leverage-dependent names and already fell hardest, while the Risk Analyst warns the 100% S tilt is 'the riskiest possible equity posture,' maximizing punishing beta with a VaR-95 of -4.6% and zero G/F ballast in a fear-spiked tape (sentiment score 14). Against that, the rules-based AND-gate momentum signal is unambiguous — VIX/VIX3M and SPY-vs-SMA200 conditions keep the system fully invested in equity momentum, and 3-month breadth (C +9.0%, S +10.2%) still confirms the trend. The arbiter's read: the agents are right to flag concentration as the dominant risk, but their objections are risk-management color, not a regime break that would override the signal — the strategy is a momentum system, and momentum is still pointing up. The honest caveat is that this engine's recent calls have struggled (4-week accuracy 50%, 0% on the arbiter's own last four), so respect the dissents on sizing even as the signal holds.
Where the Agents Disagree
Position: The 100% S-fund tilt is the riskiest possible equity posture — it concentrates the entire book in the ~20%-vol sleeve with VaR-95 of -4.6% and no G/F ballast, exactly when correlations are 0.88 and sentiment is at 14.
Counter: The momentum signal and Macro's Bull-Stable read hold that the uptrend is intact and the episode is a valuation derating, not a regime change warranting de-equitizing.
Arbiter: Risk is correct that concentration, not direction, is the real exposure here — but this is a sizing critique, not a reason to override a rules-based momentum signal that still reads trend-up. Valid caution, not a veto.
Position: A C-weighted core, not an S-concentrated all-in, is the rational expression of risk-on: small-caps are the most rate-sensitive and leverage-dependent names and fell hardest precisely when diversification is dead at 0.88 correlation.
Counter: The Risk Analyst's allocation and the AND-gate signal both land on the S sleeve; Sentiment adds that backward-looking momentum hasn't yet caught late-cycle caution.
Arbiter: Macro's logic on small-cap rate sensitivity is sound and the asymmetric downside in S is real if yields grind higher — but the live system is a momentum engine, and the signal, not discretionary fund-mix preference, governs the recommendation.
Position: Regime confidence deserves more humility than the model's 1.00 Bull-Stable tag — fear spikes, mega-cap conviction trimming, and rising hedging are flashing late-cycle caution that lagging momentum hasn't registered, and a 100%-S book has zero ballast for a reflexive positioning cascade.
Counter: Macro counters that momentum and 3-month breadth confirm the uptrend is intact, so the regime tag correctly distinguishes a repricing from a regime change.
Arbiter: Sentiment's reflexivity warning is the most important tail risk on the table, but it remains a risk-of versus a realized break; absent a genuine regime flip, the signal stands while the caution is logged.
Where They Agree
- Last week's selloff was a hawkish 'good news is bad news' rate repricing, not a growth or credit scare
- Bonds (F) fell alongside equities, providing no defensive hedge — a positive stock-bond correlation regime
- Average equity correlation near 0.88 means cross-fund diversification offers little near-term protection
- The medium-term uptrend is intact: 3-month gains hold (C +9.0%, S +10.2%) beneath a 1-week air pocket
Risks to Watch
- Hawkish repricing turns reflexive — yields keep climbing and the mega-cap unwind cascades into a positioning-driven selloff
- Positive stock-bond correlation persists, leaving the 100%-S book with no F/G defensive ballast
- Asymmetric small-cap drawdown: a continued yield grind hits rate-sensitive, weak-balance-sheet S names far harder than C
- Correlation pinned near 0.88 means a vol shock hits all equity sleeves at once, with no diversification offset
- Signal-model reliability is weak right now (4wk accuracy 50%), raising the cost of an unhedged concentrated bet
Individual Analyses
Macro Analyst
Fed policy, inflation, yield curves
The structural backdrop stays Risk-On: a high-confidence Bull-Stable regime, healthy 3-6 month equity gains, and labor-market strength that signals economic resilience rather than recession. The near-term tape is choppy — a hawkish rate repricing off the hot jobs print is squeezing Big Tech and bonds — so favor domestic equity beta (C/S) while keeping F underweight against rising yields and holding G as dry powder for volatility.
Sentiment Analyst
VIX, put/call ratios, fund flows
Short-term sentiment has sharply deteriorated as a double-beat jobs report triggered a 'good news is bad news' equity selloff and a Big Tech valuation wobble, lifting fear gauges while bonds offered no shelter against firmer yields. But the damage is a hawkish repricing, not a fundamental crack — the medium-term risk-asset trend remains firmly intact. The fear-vs-tape gap argues for a mildly constructive, contrarian read: don't chase the panic.
Risk Manager
VaR, correlations, tail risk
No allocation change this commentary week, but the 100% S-fund tilt is the riskiest possible equity posture: it concentrates the entire book in the highest-volatility sleeve precisely while equity correlations sit at 0.88 and headlines/sentiment flag a risk-off shift the 'Bull-Stable' label isn't capturing. Weekly 95% VaR is ~-4.6% (~$4,600 on $100k), with fatter left-tail risk than the normal estimate implies given small-cap recession sensitivity. If the AND-gate defense permits, I would prefer rotating part of S into C to cut single-fund concentration without leaving equities.
Strategy Arbiter
Synthesizes into recommendation
Equities sold off across the board last week as a blowout jobs report flipped the script — strong labor data shrank the odds of imminent Fed easing, sent yields higher, and sparked a Big Tech derating (C -2.8%, S -2.2%, I -2.1%), with the F Fund also falling (-0.5%) instead of catching a flight-to-quality bid, confirming a rate-driven, not recessionary, episode. All three council agents agree on the diagnosis: this is a hawkish 'higher-for-longer' valuation shock inside an intact uptrend, with average equity correlation spiking to ~0.88, meaning diversification across stock sleeves offers little near-term protection. They diverge sharply on positioning: the Macro and Sentiment Analysts both dissent against concentrating in the highest-volatility S Fund — Macro argues a C-weighted core is the rational 'risk-on' expression since small-caps are the most rate-sensitive, leverage-dependent names and already fell hardest, while the Risk Analyst warns the 100% S tilt is 'the riskiest possible equity posture,' maximizing punishing beta with a VaR-95 of -4.6% and zero G/F ballast in a fear-spiked tape (sentiment score 14). Against that, the rules-based AND-gate momentum signal is unambiguous — VIX/VIX3M and SPY-vs-SMA200 conditions keep the system fully invested in equity momentum, and 3-month breadth (C +9.0%, S +10.2%) still confirms the trend. The arbiter's read: the agents are right to flag concentration as the dominant risk, but their objections are risk-management color, not a regime break that would override the signal — the strategy is a momentum system, and momentum is still pointing up. The honest caveat is that this engine's recent calls have struggled (4-week accuracy 50%, 0% on the arbiter's own last four), so respect the dissents on sizing even as the signal holds.
Council last met: 2026-06-07