Thread: NSurf9 Account Talk

The required minimum distribution kicks in at 701/2 - so you should be able to hold your TSP account until the cows come home. Who knows, you might end up with a federal job at some point.

Originally Posted by jean.elmelki

Nsurf9,

This might be a longshot but would it be possible to ask for people that have money in the TSP but aren't military or government employee to still contribute to it? There's a deadline to remove your money from the TSP once you get out of the military and I'm past that deadline. I really would like to be able to contribute to this.

jean.elmelki, check the following: "You will also not be able to make new contributions or take loans from your old TSP account."

http://themilitarywallet.com/tsp-lea...civil-service/

NSurf9. I"m in. I wrote compelling letters to the TSP board members in 2008, and was actually threatened and eventually locked out of my account for several months for doing more EFTs than the board deemed "necessary" because I was deemed to be a threat to the system, and in non-compliance with their decision. This was before the software was changed to limit IFTs, but after they came out with the "ruling". I thought that was illegal to block me from using my TSP account, but aparently they can do whatever they want. I was willing to suffer the consequenses, to make the point that they will have to take extreme measures to block us (and they were willing to). I lost money I could have made with the IFTs, but was glad to stand up for my rights for as long as possible. The problem with limiting the IFTs, is that people like me, who will move, tend to move all their money on one day, where, before, I would move 5% or 10% each day to slowly move in and out of the funds. their contention, is they couldn't handle the large one day moves. it would be interesting to see if it is worse now or better, now that we have limited access to our accounts. I"m glad to hear that there are others out there who are not happy with the restrictions and are willing to do something about it. Having a laywer involved will just rack up costs, and make him rich, so we probably need to be careful about hiring him on a contingency basis on any profit that comes out of the settlement.

Originally Posted by NASAedStevens

NSurf9. I"m in. I"m glad to hear that there are others out there who are not happy with the restrictions and are willing to do something about it. Having a laywer involved will just rack up costs, and make him rich, so we probably need to be careful about hiring him on a contingency basis on any profit that comes out of the settlement.

NASAedStevens, you are our Apollo #62. I sure would feel better with a 100 commitments before consulting the Rose attorneys.

Back in 2008, the TSP Board's restriction actually allowed 3 IFTs. I hit 4 and they sanctioned me also. I did, however, get it lifted until the computer inforced the new rule.

After reading The Federal Employees' Retirement Act (link below), my first obvious impression is a lot has changed since then. First, we're getting next to nothing from the G fund ('til 2014?) and we're required to expose our retirement to more risk in equities to make up the difference. In 1986 most stock was ordered and/held in paper shares. Today, stocks are bought and sold in milliseconds at a fraction of the effective cost of 1986 in E-Trade, AmeriTrade, etc. We paid $41 million for just such an internet based system for TSP, but were permitted just one additional IFT.

The question then becomes, why can our internet based system and our brokerage make fund delution and time delay issues a non-issue for a reasonble fee.

The Department of Justice is their duly appointed counsel - which should be no cost to the TSP. I would hope a judge and its TSP members could hold them to that cost savings avenue. A settlement for monitary damages is unlikely as although the Exec Director and Board are exempt, I not sure the fund itself would not be somehow liable, if it weren't for the problem that profits and/or losses (damags) will likely be shown to be speculative and would not receive any award. Additionally, that it is unlikely we'll receive a monitary awarded, our case would be likely be an hourly arrangement paid solely out of the legal fund, instead of contingency arangement.


http://www.soa.org/library/research/...88v40pt119.pdf

Originally Posted by nsurf9

N

The Department of Justice is their duly appointed counsel - which should be no cost to the TSP.

One problem is that the DOJ attorneys are all federal employees and would have to (At least should)conflict themselves out of the case as they participate in the TSP. The judge then appoints counsel which could mean a high roller civil/tort attorney would come in to represent the TSP.

Originally Posted by Mcqlives

One problem is that the DOJ attorneys are all federal employees and would have to (At least should)conflict themselves out of the case as they participate in the TSP. The judge then appoints counsel which could mean a high roller civil/tort attorney would come in to represent the TSP.

Good point, DOJ attorneys may well have a conflict of interest. The TSP Board did retain outside counsel to pursue the 1st internet programmer/contractor that defaulted.

This market is amazing and driving me crazy. Nothing seems to roll-it-over even close to moving down, out of its rising channel. And, the tortiously small steps makes a rising trend easier to support. But, with only a one-trick set of IFTs - I'm waiting~~?~~~~~~??.

Nobody has said much about the unusually warm weather's effect on housing and shopping, but last year's snowy winter sets up, rather well, this year's unusually warm northeast US winter and year-over-year financial improvement.

Originally Posted by nsurf9

This market is amazing and driving me crazy. Nothing seems to roll-it-over even close to moving down, out of its rising channel. And, the tortiously small steps makes a rising trend easier to support. But, with only a one-trick set of IFTs - I'm waiting~~?~~~~~~??.

Nobody has said much about the unusually warm weather's effect on housing and shopping, but last year's snowy winter sets up, rather well, this year's unusually warm northeast US winter and year-over-year financial improvement.

I play the same waiting game as you...both on the buy in and on the get out sides. The limited transfers really have negatively affected our account management.

As for the housing...don't forget there are tons of vacant houses to fill before the housing stats will start to come around.

Originally Posted by Mcqlives

As for the housing...don't forget there are tons of vacant houses to fill before the housing stats will start to come around.

I have a friend who's a mortgage broker. He told me back in 2008 that home prices in 2007 had been inflated to what should have been 2015 prices. I don't know if that still holds true. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

And what will they fill those vacant houses with - furniture.

Originally Posted by Birchtree

And what will they fill those vacant houses with - furniture.

I'd like to fill them with IFTs.

If you ever really wanted more IFTs and truly believe every federal government employee ought to at least have the choice to actively and effectively manage their retirement. . .
. . . now its the time to say "I'M IN!"

Ladies and Gentlemen (in this case, I use the term very loosely), a long time friend, Virginia attorney, and recent, past county bar association president, has agreed to be a preliminary soundboard in our cause of seeking equitable injunctive relief of the TSP 2008 inter-fund transfer restrictions.

Right now, his counsel is free, but he'll give me ample time for a good preliminary review of the case. Unfortunately, he doesn't practice in DC, but could serve as “of counsel” there. Later, I plan to also utilize his advice with regard to Rose attorneys' review, fees, and other issues, perhaps including framing a legal fund to receive donations.

I still need to put together the primer package of the facts and law for him and the Roses, but plan to meet with him either tomorrow or early next week.

We’re not on, yet, but we are closer.

If it turns out that we have a good shot at this, I believe we’ll be able to get all the funding that is necessary, but right now, I really would like to have over 100 commitments going in to see these attorneys.

In Cleveland A developer is buying all the houses for pennies on the dollars and mowing them over with bulldozers To make room for new housing developments.