FYI if you dont like the C I S G fund offered at tsp you can always rolled to your private 401k w/ forms. I would not suggest rolling but its an options if you like trading or place monies in new funds
https://www.bing.com/search?q=rollover+tsp+form&cvid=5878385eeaaa4103b81fdeded07c6563&aqs=edge..69i57.3276j0j4&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531

This year is hard on the investors when both stocks and bonds are falling at the same time. When the he last time this happened? My recent memory goes back to 1994 when Greenspan hiked rates 6 times. Now we are about to enter the same situation.

In 2018, the S&P 500 dropped 4.23% (including divs), 10 year T-bonds dropped 0.02%, and Baa corporates dropped 2.76%.
In 1994, the S&P rose 1.33%. Quite likely, given that it was a lousy hear for Treasuries (not so bad for corporates, down only 1.32%) that in some months of 1994 stocks and Treasuries both fell.
https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html
(That's a great go-to page for historical data)

There is a fixed administrative cost the employers pay for their employees to the plan administrators. It appears the government want to employees to pay for most of it and that is why you are seeing two layers of fees. Personally this is a losing proposition.
This year is hard on the investors when both stocks and bonds are falling at the same time. When the he last time this happened? My recent memory goes back to 1994 when Greenspan hiked rates 6 times. Now we are about to enter the same situation.
Other than TSP G fund, all TSP choices are having double digit loss. Adding active managed funds at this time will not make much difference.

IMO, TSP holders should stick with the previous strategy of using the TSP stock and bond funds that are among the cheapest index funds around. TSP G Fund (SV) is also doing better (although not as good as TIAA Traditional). Use other funds (from Vanguard, Fido NTF, Schwab NTF, etc) in taxable accounts and IRAs.
TSP G Fund (SV) https://www.tspfolio.com/tspgfundinterestrate
TIAA Traditional (SV) https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/142/tiaa-traditional-rates-monthly?page=2&scrollTo=649
Tracking TSP funds via ETFs in Portfolios at M*, PV, etc https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/112/federal-tsp-funds-etfs

Ick. Why not offer everyone costly C-class funds? This is nuts -- better to stick in the existing TSP offerings and save the $150/yr fee.

Hello Derf/ MFA memers
I think its a great idea, although have some concerns regarding fees.
We Will look at it further, but I think tsp is well over due for new fund and fund families.
I hope get more vanguard type derivatives. I do believe more diverse now and will look at account more carefully and maybe buy more derivatives funds like vanguard star or vanguard primecap core, fidelity contrafund. I wish they allow simple options like put sale or cover call sales and buy sp500 stocks/mid caps stocks, dji stocks, or qqq types vehicles [lcid coke costco for instance]
Tsp still 90% stocks:10% bondsfixedincomes distribution

I have a TSP account, as a retired Fed and I was appalled with the "mutual fund window"! A yearly fee of $150 and a $28.75 transaction fee just to buy a fund that will likely underperform the C Fund! No way! My money is currently invested in the G Fund in preparation for a trustee to trustee transfer to Fidelity.

Investment advisory firms are required to file with the SEC. Here's GQG's filing:
https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/firm/summary/283720
The breakdown of its AUM is on p. 13 of its Form ADV.
https://reports.adviserinfo.sec.gov/reports/ADV/283720/PDF/283720.pdf
(d) Investment companies (13): $35B
(f) Pooled investment vehicles (39): $37B
(g) Pension and profit sharing (9): $4B
(i) State/muni governments (8): $4B
(l) Sovereign wealth funds (5): $3B
(m) Corp or other business (26): $8M
That $35B for mutual fund companies' AUM is more meaningful than the AUM that M* reports for six mutual funds managed by GQG Partners, Inc. The six funds are likely GQGIX ($9.6B), GQFIX ($0.1B), GQRIX ($1.1B), GQJIX ($0.05B), GQHIX ($0.1B), and GQEIX ($1.2B).
Jain also manages GSIMX ($24B) and NWAUX ($0.1B).

@ PRESSmUP. +100

One of the things I like about SCHD--for example--is that its top ten sectors do not show a reliance on consumer durables, utilities, infrastructure, or REITS for its payout. I like to buy those sectors separately.

That's precisely why SCHD is my largest ETF/OEF holding. I have other funds focused on those items, mostly CEFs but also some individual stocks.
The other point which hasn't been mentioned...in addition to the return remarkably close to that of the S&P 500, it also has 11.98% annual dividend growth over the last 5 years.
Sign me up for that.

Funds have distributions that include dividends and realized CGs. Stockcharts allows adjusted-prices (similar to growth-of-10K; use TICKER) and actual-prices (use _TICKER) for a dramatic effect on the same chart. As the link (using HBLAX for 10 yrs for example) may default later to 1 yr, I am also including screenshot image.
HBLAX & _HBLAX https://stockcharts.com/h-perf/ui?s=HBLAX&compare=_HBLAX&id=p86439220899

Members on another board referenced the following article regarding dividends.
It's a good read...
"Wellington Management began by dividing dividend-paying stocks into quintiles by their level of dividend payouts. The first quintile (i.e., top 20%) consisted of the highest dividend payers, while the fifth quintile (i.e., bottom 20%) consisted of the lowest dividend payers."
"The second-quintile stocks outperformed the S&P 500 Index seven out of the 10 time periods (1930 to 2021), or 77.8% of the time, while first- and third-quintile stocks tied for second, beating the Index 66.7% of the time. Fourth- and fifth-quintile stocks lagged behind by a significant margin."

Addendum, 5/30/22. For the 3 funds in the M* example, FKIQX (nominal equity 38.59%, new M* MPRS 68.81%, Effective Equity 63.67%), RBBAX (20.44%, 44.21%, 44.75%), ACEIX (63.47%, 88.26%, 82.42%), both M* MPRS and Effective Equity systems lead to 1-notch bump ups in their respective categories. For OAKBX (61.20%, 92.97%, 85.96%), both systems would indicate 2-notch bump ups, but M* did only 1-notch bump up in its category. For FAIRX (88.47%, 110.27%, 132.21%), M* old and new categories don't make sense. It seems that regardless of the new M* MPRS data, M* has done just 1-notch bump ups and that may have been a business decision. In these evaluations, all data used are to 4/30/22 (M*, PV).

@Junkster : Thanks for the info & check the link out for more info.
https://stockinvesting.today/ma1608/article/the-1973-1974-bear-market?

Updates for now:
Barron's LINK1
Bloomberg BusinessWeek LINK2

Many sentiment indicators have been at levels associated with major bottoms. But sentiment indicators can be fickle and imprecise. What you need is strong price momentum to confirm the sentiment indicators. The past three trading days were very powerful - advances over declines and upside/downside volume. But three days does not a bull make. If the next 5 trading days are more of the same though a major bottom will be in place if history is any guide. But that is a big “if” so let’s see what next week brings, Bear markets are notorious for sucker rallies. The 73/74 bear had a doozy of a bear market rally of 15%.

Updates for now:
Barron's LINK1
Bloomberg BusinessWeek LINK2

The infamous BusinessWeek 'The Death of Equities' cover story has long been touted
as a contrary stock market indicator.
I stumbled across this story on Barry Ritholtz's website and hadn't read it before today.
This is an interesting (but lengthy) article from a historical perspective.
Link

Yes, that nominal equity % over 5 yrs has carried over from old to new M* pages. But that doesn't explain, for example, OAKBX having 60.78-71.04% nominal equity range, but then having new MPRS of 92.97% (reference about 100% for SP 500) and Effective Equity of 85.96% (reference 100% for SP500). So, the devil is in the details of types of stocks and bonds held and also allocation moves (untimely?). I would have bumped OAKBX category from 50-70% 2 notches up to 85%+, but M* may have gotten cold feet in making hard application of its new measure.

Bob Farrell was a frequent guest on Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser.
MarketWatch published an article (also in Barron's) earlier this month about Bob Farrell.
Mr. Farrell was feeling bearish during a recent webcast.
"In the April 27 webcast for Rosenberg Research clients, Farrell said he expects investors in U.S. stock indexes could be mauled with a 30% loss and that downward pressure on share prices could last through summer. He advises selling into rallies rather than buying dips, and otherwise sheltering in value stocks—specifically in the defense, cybersecurity, utilities and energy sectors, as well as owning gold and income-generating master limited partnerships."

I found this article from Investopedia
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/082015/3-biggest-misconceptions-dividend-stocks.asp
useful in thinking about picking funds that pay dividends. My first reaction to the OP led to a suggestion that Free Cash Flow may be just as important a criterion in choosing funds that will pay a decent yield. Obviously the managers of a fund such as SCHD are well aware of this measure of a company’s financial health because without FCF no safe dividends can be paid. I have tilted my LCV and MCV allocations towards funds such as COWZ (which pays a quarterly dividend) and GQEPX and away from stalwarts such as VIG. I think CDC is worth considering as is DSTL. To be clear, my primary goal is not current income, and I reinvest all distributions. For an investor experienced in trading CEFs, some equity funds have adopted distribution plans that may pay out 6-8% on a quarterly schedule. HQL and BME are funds I have held. There are, of course, fixed income CEFs that can provide reliable yield; they don’t happen to fit my style of investing.