I have watched the TSP quarterly. I'm not totally sure of the % of the total goes to which fund, but I believe we are fairly diversified and have some funds in 4 or 5 of the different funds (not sure that's the right word). Our pay goes into each according to the % that we alloted the last time we did it. =0) You're doing yourself a disservice to your future retirement if you don't know in what funds your money is allocated, how the bi-weekly pay is allocated and especially how much growth you've had. I only say this because you have recently put your retirement planning to the forefront of your brain and that should include monitoring and learning about the TSP since it will be the vast majority of your husband's retirement. BTW is he under CRS or FERS? Since I started watching the TSP several months ago, I learned that this is not the best time to be in the "F" fund because the USD is constantly down. The domestic US economy is 39th in the world with many of the countries in the "I" fund way higher and close to the top. I originally had everything 20% into each fund, but have since moved things over to the more profitable funds since I"ve learned alot about how the TSP works. 1. Is there a max on the TSP? Hubby says it "used to be 10%", but he thinks that changed. Max amount for 2007 is $15,500 or 20,500 if you're over 50. The max contribution does not include the matching, so that is over and above the limit. We allocate a specific number, not a percentage. We put $425 per pay period into the TSP and that is nowhere near the max, but is over 20% of dh's pay. The more you put in, the more matching you get. If your husband has received any pay increases, then it might be a wise option to increase the TSP contributions. That's what we do whenever dh gets a raise. It allows for a greater tax benefit and more matching dollars. No, I don't mind differing opinions, it helps my brain entertain new ideas and learn something. =0) I know that I am focused on the rental properties and mortgages on them, because at the moment, those are closer to paying off, than the IRA or TSP. I believe in diversification, so the rental properties are currently part of my "retirement plan". They are a part that will begin to pay off long before we retire, and continue once we do retire (or at least that's the plan). I am learning the IRA and TSP world and language (and remember we're looking at 27 years before taking anything out of them, and we are already putting funds into both), but I already understand the houses. =0) It's good that you're looking to diversification and that you're open to look at all avenues. I think what you're missing is the tax benefit to the TSP, especially if you can afford higher deductions because it reduces your taxes that could be offset by the additional tax you pay with your rental properties and paying them off early. Having said that, I prefer to have a home paid for, which goes against many other people's belief here that the funds should go to investment vehicles. I try to diversify that as well by having money in a high yield account plus pay a bit more to principal. Sorry, I thought you were closer to retirement than 27 years to take out of the TSP. That gives you a long time to make the most of your investment opportunity there and is even more reason to learn everything you can about it. If your funds are diversified btwn the 4 or 5, that means you're losing a strong growth opportunity because you would have some money allocated to the G and/or F fund, which aren't producing very well these days. I was extremely overwhelmed when I first started paying attention to the TSP. It's definitely a long learning curve, but I am learning. It is imperitive that you know in what funds you are invested, how much is going into each fund and how they are doing - an not just quarterly. At minimum, you would be best served by checking weekly.

There are many states that are coming out with regulations pertaining to reduced document loans, qualifying ARMs, prudent underwriting of loans, etc. These regulations are often vague and open to all kinds of interpretation. Because the regulations are so vague, many lenders legal counsel advice them to discontine doing business in those states until the states provide more specific guidance. Unfortunately for borrowers, it limits their choices of lenders. I'm not sure about what's going on in Colorado, but I know Mass. just came out with some restrictive legistlation.

cordavamom: "He said as long as the house had power he could do an inspection on the whole house, he'd turn on the water etc. The bank is okay with him doing this. Winter is well over, (it's 77 degrees here today). the bank has made no mention of my son having the home re winterized if the contract falls through -- is this normal?" I can't speak for what is normal with a bank. That said, obviously if the house has power and gas, the electrical and HVAC system can indeed be inspectedand of course, roof structural, which are non-utilities dependent. However, IMO, the HI is a fool to turn on the water....as he is bargaining that there are no problems with the plumbing that could cause property damage. Granted, with a 3 year old home, the chance of that being the case is less than with an older home...however, with a foreclosure, all bets are off as far as the norm...as all too often foreclosed properties are damaged due to owners who want pay-back because of the foreclosure (such as those who were duped by the predatory lenders) or, in a divorce, people can get mighty vindictive. Sometimes the damage is obvioussometimes hidden. We had neighbors who divorced. They had a beautifully upgraded home, very well maintained; the hubby was the original owner of the house brand new, pre-marriage. They split because the wife was having an affair; she continued to live in the house with the children...then had affair guy move in with her. Needless to say, soon to be X was VERY upset...the house went into foreclosure. Wife and affair guy moved out. The bank held an open house through a realtorand we were shocked to see what had been done to the insidedamage everywherethe couple who bought it spent thousands on repairsand he was a contractor..so labor was not an issue. That said, your son needs to make certain that the HI carries errors and omissions insurancethat way, if any damage occurs once the water is turned on, the HI has the financial resources with which to cover it....in addition, your son should make sure that there is some sort of condition in the HI contract where your son cant be held for damages due to the HI turning on the water when he hasnt a clue as to whether of not there is a plumbing problem Last but not least, the water should be on for at least 48 hours prior to inspection, in order to determine if there are any leaks as water somtimes needs a while to circulate before some problems can become evident Last but not least, as you son has no claim to the property, the bank, as the owner/seller would be responsible for any required "winterization", unless your son signed something agreeing otherwise Hope this helps

I think there's a good chance the IRS would consider the son the equitable or beneficial owner of the house since he pays for the mortgage and repairs. That means no capital gains tax will be due upon the sale of the house (provided the other requirements for the exclusion are met). The Tax Court has ruled that an equitable or beneficial owner of a primary residence is entitled to claim the mortgage interest deduction for federal tax purposes (Uslo v. Commissioner, [Tax Court Memo 1997-551 (December 16, 1997)]). The fact pattern in Uslo is strikingly similar to the OP's situation. One set of family members were the owners of record of the house and also the only names on the mortgage papers. The other set of family members lived in the house, paid all the mortgage payments and also were responsible for maintenance and repairs. They claimed a deduction for the mortgage interest on their federal taxes, and this was initially disallowed by the IRS. However, they eventually prevailed in the Tax Court. It's reasonable to assume that the same standard used in Uslo would be true as well for the exclusion from capital gains tax. In Uslo, the parties has executed a quitclaim deed which was intended to be backdated to the original purchase of the property. Even though it was never recorded, the Tax Court found it additional evidence of the parties' intentions that the couple who paid the taxes, etc were the equitable owners of the property. That being so, it would probably be a good idea for the OP to follow happy camper's suggestion and quitclaim the property to their son, but not record the document, in case the question of beneficial ownership should ever arise in the future. Here is a link that might be useful: MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTIBLE BY BENEFICIAL OWNER OF PROPERTY