My money, our TSP fund, and the 2008 TSP IFT Rule.

[nsurf9]

The purpose of this thread is get a professional legal opinion and pursue a successful Injunction or Reformation of the TSP 2008 Rule that limits member to only 2 IFTs per month.

If we don't start some where, we will forever be no where. nsurf9

[jkenjohnson]

The purpose of this thread is get a professional legal opinion and pursue a successful Injunction or Reformation of the TSP 2008 Rule that limits member to only 2 IFTs per month.

If we don't start some where, we will forever be no where. nsurf9

I already tried a couple of times to get the Board to change and failed both times.

[Warrenlm]

There was a major effort back in 2008 and a thread around here discussing it. The results of the effort, and the prospects for another effort succeeding, should be in it. Anyone better at search than I am?

[Bquat]

There was a major effort back in 2008 and a thread around here discussing it. The results of the effort, and the prospects for another effort succeeding, should be in it. Anyone better at search than I am?I think James was running that and we had more than 3000 signed up.

[nsurf9]

Thanks for responding. Did anyone retain an attorney and seek an injunction?

I recall also looking into the issue in about the 2008 time-frame. I spoke to Ms Ray and asked why the Board was not forthcoming as to the cost of an IFT for all the funds - with no response. I also spoke two people at the Department of Labor, if I remember correctly, that they have oversight over the Board, but was told it was limited.
I even had the Federal Times publish an article regarding the severe limitations of the rule..

However, I don't remember anyone really getting what amounts to a memorandum of law regarding an injunction of the 2008 rule. I will start looking back thru the posts, but I don't believe its there. I believe everyone was just beating around the bush with surveys, compaints to advisory board, etc, but no legal action.

The problem I see for the Board, and the ray of hope of TSP members, is that the Board was not forthcoming, as a fiductiary, with the cost of an IFT. It clouded the I fund different exchange rates, trading at different times of the day, with easily ascertainable costs of the other equity funds' pooling and settlement costs. The F, C, and S fund, should have been broken out from the I fund problem. Additionally, the TSP Board and its employees get bonuses for low administrative costs, even when its to its beneficiary detriment.

The bigger issue, moreover, is TSP members exercising control over its own fund.

[nnuut]

Seems like Deja vu all over again?
I agree with you 100%:D

[nsurf9]

The difference between now and then is now I.believe we have a good attorney to pursue the matter

[nsurf9]

Jkenj - What was the form of your efforts?

[James48843]

There is no legal recourse. The board is empowered by law to write the rules.

Of course, we could a go to the next meeting as "Occupy FTRIB", and try to convince them to listen to us that way.


MIC CHECK! :D

[nsurf9]

I recall from my own research, redress for fiduciary violations lies with, if I recall correctly, with the Department of Labor. Do recall the law on that issue? If the rule is, in fact, a violation of fiduciary relationship, there is recourse.

[WorkFE]

If, after 25 years, you have $300K in your TSP and you contributed 100% (Highly unlikely) of that money between your contributions and the match, thats a problem. It is nothing more than an overgrown piggy bank with someone helping you save. There are no earnings.
I assure you, someone is making a ton off of those investments. (Blackrock)
I must admit though that most people are upset because of the last few years economic conditions. I could be wrong but it seems TSP Talks registration steam rolled after 2008. I have not been around since the beginning though.

[nada]

you said it rejoinder. I'm with you on this issue! this arrangement needs to be changed. and also, why does IFT have to be done before noon, markets are closed not until 4? It seems tsp board doesn't want to see its members doing well financially.

folks, below is the address of the TSP board. please spare a few moment of your time to write a few lines to the board on the current IFT rule. we need to form a collective voice, so the issue can get on the board meeting agenda.


FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD
1250 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20005

[it's some board. doesn't even have an email address in this information superhighway age to communicate with its members].


Also, below is the monthly meeting minutes of the board. they even had a bill to introduce a mutual fund into TSP, but it was voted down. we don't need any more financial products. all we need is making TSP operated better. get rid of that IFT limit or at least the 12 o'clock deadline !!!!

http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/minutes.html

[nsurf9]

POST ALL RELATED TSP IFT LAW RESEARCH LINKS ON THIS THREAD. (CFR, US Code, case law, Federal Registry, Advisory Counsil, etc.)

I don't want even a good attorney just taking our money and removing our one good chance at this!

Nada, thanks for the link to the Board minutes.

Please post any and all collective legal research on this thread. If there is a way, we will shead light on it, even if its "Occupy FTRIB Street."

Any body up for writing a letter to President Obama - he and Congress are considering forcing federal employees to contribute more to the TPS.

This thread has drawn impressive attention already, not doubt because we, here, are proactive and many of us have enjoyed the freedom, AFTER we TSP members paid a lot of money for just such a internet based IFT system, to make a reasonable number of IFTs.

[Khotso]

Some questions: Who appoints and how is the board appointed? Are there any employees on the board? Have the federal unions taken this issue up?

[SteelSaving]

Any body up for writing a letter to President Obama - he and Congress are considering forcing federal employees to contribute more to the TPS.



You mean how much we put in or reducing how much they are willing to match?
They can't force us to put money in TSP; if they somehow are able to, then I would strongly believe that they will turn it into another fund to raid and give us IOU's in return. Why can't politicians see past yesterday?

[nsurf9]

Perhaps Mr. Dailing, effectively our representative, might meet with key members of TSP Talk, TSP Fantasy and their attorney, representing several thousand Federal employees and TSP members? He's right in Alexandria, phone number is provided.

Clifford Dailing, chairman of the Employee Thrift Advisory Council(ETAC).

"ETAC is a federal advisory committee established by the Federal EmployeesRetirement System Act of 1986 to give a voice to the participants in the operations."

[url]http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/SUBCOS/727%20pslp%20tsp/Dailing%20Testimony%20Final.pdf

[dannyboy]

There is no legal recourse. The board is empowered by law to write the rules.

Of course, we could a go to the next meeting as "Occupy FTRIB", and try to convince them to listen to us that way.


MIC CHECK! :D
:confused: My (mis-understanding?) of that whole scene was that there was a big loss taken by Blackrock, or those in charge, at the time, on people doing these huge 100% in and out daily swings to the I fund. Which had the largest swings in value and thus the largest gains. I think the time lapse in between. If TSP people really want their multi-trade restored maybe look into them eliminating or restricting the I fund? :suspicious:
db

[nsurf9]

Yes, the I fund heavy trading at the time precipitated the limitation along with a few genuinely frequent traders and barclay's whining.

[nasa1974]

You mean how much we put in or reducing how much they are willing to match?
They can't force us to put money in TSP; if they somehow are able to, then I would strongly believe that they will turn it into another fund to raid and give us IOU's in return. Why can't politicians see past yesterday?

You're right we cannot be forced to put money into our TSP accounts. But remember that TSP is 1/3rd of your retirement if you are FERS. So why not get your matching funds. If you are FERS, unless you have a better way to set up a retirement fund, why not take advantage of TSP. In case you didn't know, all new hires are automatically put into TSP. I would have to go back and look which fund they are being put in, it is either G or one of the L funds.

[nasa1974]

:confused: My (mis-understanding?) of that whole scene was that there was a big loss taken by Blackrock, or those in charge, at the time, on people doing these huge 100% in and out daily swings to the I fund. Which had the largest swings in value and thus the largest gains. I think the time lapse in between. If TSP people really want their multi-trade restored maybe look into them eliminating or restricting the I fund? :suspicious:
db

It wasn't Blackrock it was Barclays also known as BGI. Blackrock bought out Barclays in 2009. We discussed this in depth back then. Check the link below. There are more posts that discussed this but it they are spread out over weeks before and after this link.
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?5743-nasa1974-s-Account-Talk&p=169246#post169246

It wasn't a loss of funds but darn near. The large movement in and out of the I fund by some members caused Barclays to almost not cover the trading for that time period which would have caused all kinds of problems. I would have to dig deeper into my posts to dredge up all the information.

From the FRTIB meeting minutes this is the first mention of Blackrock and Barclays that I found. http://www.frtib.gov/pdf/minutes/2009Jun.pdf I might have missed an earlier reference.

This was a tough time for this forum.

[nasa1974]

The last posted minutes from the FRTIB was September 2011. The minutes are usually posted the third week of the previous month (September meeting minutes posted in October). They are almost a month late for October's minutes (due in or around 11/20) and should be posting the November meeting minutes next week. The Board generally meets between the 15th and the 20th of each month.

[nsurf9]

http://www.archive.org/details/gov.house.ogr.fw.20110727
House Oversight The Thrift Savings Plan: Helping Federal Employees Achieve Retirement Security (July 27, 2011)

NASA, I knew you'ld remember the Barclay's whining event.

The above link is great stuff. These are the main players live and their current concerns, as of July 27, 2011 - Gregory Long, Exec. Director of TSP; Clifford D. Dailing, Chairman, ETAC, and Joseph Beadoin, Pres, NARFEA. And their house of representative audience - Dennis A. Ross (Florida) Chairman and Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts, Ranking Member, et. al.

Get to know them "first hand," their stance, concerns, read-between-the-lines; and who might help to show the cleavage to drive our (the owners) effort to regain a reasonable measure to be proactive with out own money.

Lots of issues: fund maintenance cost of 25 cents per $1000 invested; no or low return and protection and suspension of G fund; make G whole with back interest; Roth; mutual fund window thru TSP (Long drags his heals stating "paternalistic concern" and Lynch replying external (private) fees can be driven down and Plan needs the diversity (Long and they'll never do it)); attracting/keeping participants.

The meeting is entitled "The Thrift Savings Plan: Helping Federal Employees Achieve Retirement Security"

Witnesses: Mr. Gregory T. Long, Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board; Mr. Clifford D. Dailing, Chairman, Employee Thrift Advisory Council; Mr. Joseph A. Beaudoin, President, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. Video provided by U.S. House of Representatives


House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia.
Dennis A. Ross, Florida, Chairman
Justin Amash, Michigan, Vice Chair
Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Connie Mack IV, Florida
Tim Walberg, Michigan
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina

Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts, Ranking Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia
Gerry Connolly, Virginia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois

[nsurf9]

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03400.pdf

DOL Oversight and Thrift Savings Plan Accountability, April 2003

Also, great stuff. History law of TSP formation, Secretary of Labor oversight (and lack thereof), fiduciary responsibility (and immunity for the TSP Chairman and Board); Presidential appointment of TSP Board; and 4-year term; Jurisdiction, and past venue (Federal District Court of Appeals (DC); Department of Justice role, etc.

I’m still thinking like this is the injunction ticket and/or argument to Lynch, Dawling, and/or Beaudoin

(1) The Board was not forthcoming on the cost of an IFT and effectively subrogated members’ option to pay for an F, C and S fund IFT and straight-jacketing members’ an ability to reasonably protect their retirement;
(2) That the Board’s bonuses were, in 2008 and now, based on low administrative costs, instead of genuinely protecting and enhancing its beneficiary/members’ retirement, immediately before the worst financial recession/depressing since the Great Depression, which amounted to billion of dollar of losses to its members; and,
(3) That, today, its members are additionally faced a G fund that accrues little or no interest; and continue to risk losses, with no ability to proactively manage their retirement in a atmosphere of even greater, unprecedented market volatility and potentially even greater losses.

[nsurf9]

I STILL BELIEVE BECAUSE ITS KNOW ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

I'll find and post the independent survey, done by TSP. My recollection was that it didn't ask the salient question, "What you agree to more IFTs than the present 2 IFTs, if a member paid for the IFT and it cost nothin to the Plan or IFT(s).

Also, I recall another survey I'll need to post, I believe by FedSmith, where an overwhelming number of member said yes to such a question.

It occurs to me that it would be helpful to have a elected representative member(s) of, or from, both both TSP Talk and TSP Fantasy. Tom, James, NASA, Bquat, Coolhand, ExtremeWX, me, anybody will do, with the right message, as our respresentative(s). Does anybody know how many Federal Government employees that would be?

[James48843]

Perhaps Mr. Dailing, effectively our representative, might meet with key members of TSP Talk, TSP Fantasy and their attorney, representing several thousand Federal employees and TSP members? He's right in Alexandria, phone number is provided.

Clifford Dailing, chairman of the Employee Thrift Advisory Council(ETAC).

"ETAC is a federal advisory committee established by the Federal EmployeesRetirement System Act of 1986 to give a voice to the participants in the operations."

[url]http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/SUBCOS/727 pslp tsp/Dailing Testimony Final.pdf

Leave it alone. You just don't get it.

Let me lay it out so that it is clearer for you---

Before the current ETAC President was in place, there was another ETAC President.

The previous ETAC president and I passed e-mail traffic back and forth, regarding the issue of Barclays, the slush fund, and trading limits.

Shortly thereafter, the ETAC president's body was found, dead in his apartment, at age 47.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0709/070109p2.htm

Does that make it clear enough for you?

I had the signatures of 4,000 + TSP shareholders behind me. Submitted to the TSP management (Mr. Long) for the Notice of Proposed rule making. Those signatures were blown off completely by Mr. Long and company.

And I had a website, TSPSHAREHOLDER.ORG, where I laid out the costs and the harm that would be done to shareholders by limiting trades. My calculations proved correct. AFTER they limited trades, the costs went UP, not down.

And I shared that information with several members of the ETAC at the time.

And the head guy. Richard Brown.

And shortly afterwards, before anything could be put on an agenda, ...THE HEAD OF THE ETAC's BODY was found.

Now do you get it?

The 1% (Actually, the 0.01%) at the top do not want you to be able to move your money.

THEY are Barclays, and Black Rock, and the ones who control the strings.

[RealMoneyIssues]

Leave it alone. You just don't get it.

Let me lay it out so that it is clearer for you---

Before the current ETAC President was in place, there was another ETAC President.

The previous ETAC president and I passed e-mail traffic back and forth, regarding the issue of Barclays, the slush fund, and trading limits.

Shortly thereafter, the ETAC president's body was found, dead in his apartment, at age 47.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0709/070109p2.htm

Does that make it clear enough for you?

I had the signatures of 4,000 + TSP shareholders behind me. Submitted to the TSP management (Mr. Long) for the Notice of Proposed rule making. Those signatures were blown off completely by Mr. Long and company.

And I had a website, TSPSHAREHOLDER.ORG, where I laid out the costs and the harm that would be done to shareholders by limiting trades. My calculations proved correct. AFTER they limited trades, the costs went UP, not down.

And I shared that information with several members of the ETAC at the time.

And the head guy. Richard Brown.

And shortly afterwards, before anything could be put on an agenda, ...THE HEAD OF THE ETAC's BODY was found.

Now do you get it?

The 1% (Actually, the 0.01%) at the top do not want you to be able to move your money.

THEY are Barclays, and Black Rock, and the ones who control the strings.

Wow, that is some serious conspiracy theory...

[Show-me]

Just remember who has the deepest pockets.

[nsurf9]

[QUOTE=James48843;340336]Leave it alone. You just don't get it.

Let me lay it out so that it is clearer for you---

Before the current ETAC President was in place, there was another ETAC President.

The previous ETAC president and I passed e-mail traffic back and forth, regarding the issue of Barclays, the slush fund, and trading limits.

Shortly thereafter, the ETAC president's body was found, dead in his apartment, at age 47.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0709/070109p2.htm


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/07/nffe_president_richard_brown_d.html

Richard N. Brown, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, had more than just TSP IFT transfer limits on the table, there was also NSPS (the "pay for performance" answer to the GS pay scale), and he isn't the only union leader MIA. I haven't found a cause of death - just "unknown causes" and "no comment" Arlington county. I must say this 47 year old man's death seems, on first blush, suspect. But, my answer is 3-plus million Federal Employees should not be diswayed from laying claim and taking authority and responsibililty for what was, is, and what will always rightfully be theirs.

Excerpt from Washington Post article:

In recent days, Ault said Brown had expressed strong concerns that the Obama administration had yet to end the controversial National Security Personnel System. The two planned to meet next week with other federal union leaders to update their strategy to lobby against the program.

Brown appeared last week at a Defense Business Board meeting on NSPS. The pay-for-performance operation used to measure the work of approximately 211,000 Defense Department civilians has vocal critics and few defenders.

"Defense workers have already made up their minds on NSPS. They want it gone once and for all," Brown told the board. "I agree with this assessment. I believe that NSPS is unsalvageable and the best possible course of action is full repeal."

[Viva_La_Migra]

There is no legal recourse. The board is empowered by law to write the rules.

Of course, we could a go to the next meeting as "Occupy FTRIB", and try to convince them to listen to us that way.


MIC CHECK! :D
Didn't you try to meet with the FRTIB when they were still considering the rule? I know I contributed a few bucks to the fight back then.

[James48843]

Didn't you try to meet with the FRTIB when they were still considering the rule? I know I contributed a few bucks to the fight back then.

I traveled to D.C. and met with members of the ETAC. Provided several members of the ETAC with hard data and copies of the petitions.


and thanks for the donation.

[nsurf9]

I traveled to D.C. and met with members of the ETAC. Provided several members of the ETAC with hard data and copies of the petitions.


and thanks for the donation.


James, as you may know, I was pretty frustrated and hot under the collar about that time, also. However, I did not know of the extent of your efforts. And, unfortunately, I feel a 2008 de javu again, and again needlessless find myself with no ability to protect my TSP account. To you and those that donated and helped with that effort, have my sincere thanks. nsurf9

[Viva_La_Migra]

I traveled to D.C. and met with members of the ETAC. Provided several members of the ETAC with hard data and copies of the petitions.


and thanks for the donation.
I wish I could have contributed more than I did. Though we didn't prevail, I thought you did an outstanding job representing those of us who actively manage our accounts. I'm prepared to donate again, if need be.

[nnuut]

I wish I could have contributed more than I did. Though we didn't prevail, I thought you did an outstanding job representing those of us who actively manage our accounts. I'm prepared to donate again, if need be.
Me too!

[SteelSaving]

You're right we cannot be forced to put money into our TSP accounts. But remember that TSP is 1/3rd of your retirement if you are FERS. So why not get your matching funds. If you are FERS, unless you have a better way to set up a retirement fund, why not take advantage of TSP. In case you didn't know, all new hires are automatically put into TSP. I would have to go back and look which fund they are being put in, it is either G or one of the L funds.


I think you are missing my point. I was responding to a post that said Obama and Congress will force us to contribute more into TSP. My reply was that I don't know how they could force that so my belief is they would "force" it by reducing matching contributions. Now, if they could force it, why would they? It may benefit the country WAY down the line by leaving retirees better off to care for them selves monitarily, but I've never known the federal government to have any sort of foresight. So that leaves me to believe they want to do with the TSP as they did with Social Security. Start pulling from it and leaving IOU's that the current work force has to fill for the current retirees.

At this point, of course I know that the more I put in, the more I will have at retirement. But I have to wonder why DC would try to FORCE me to put more in. Suspicious cap is on. :suspicious:

BTW, funds for new hirees are put in the G fund.

[James48843]

I think you are missing my point. I was responding to a post that said Obama and Congress will force us to contribute more into TSP. My reply was that I don't know how they could force that so my belief is they would "force" it by reducing matching contributions. Now, if they could force it, why would they? It may benefit the country WAY down the line by leaving retirees better off to care for them selves monitarily, but I've never known the federal government to have any sort of foresight. So that leaves me to believe they want to do with the TSP as they did with Social Security. Start pulling from it and leaving IOU's that the current work force has to fill for the current retirees.

At this point, of course I know that the more I put in, the more I will have at retirement. But I have to wonder why DC would try to FORCE me to put more in. Suspicious cap is on. :suspicious:

BTW, funds for new hirees are put in the G fund.

Ok, back up. Back WAYYYYY up.

The bill in Congress today (House Version), is not going to require people to contribute more to TSP.

The bill in Congress today (House version) IS going to require employees to contribute more to their FERS pension.


Today, employees pay 0.8% of their salary into the FERS pension account. When they retire, they get back their contribution, plus their Agency puts in money, and that's how FERS is funded.


Under this bill, employees no longer will pay 0.8% into FERS, but rather will pay a LOT more. It would up the employee contribution to 2.3% of their pay (for standard FERS employees), and 2.8% of their pay for the law enforcement early out people.



That would be the same as a pay cut in your take home pay.


That's what was being talked about- not a forced TSP.

[James48843]

But wait- there's MORE.

(Cue Ronco pocket fisherman theme...)

You also get a WHOLE NEW set of rules for employees hired after December, 2012.

You get: Instead of FERS contribution going from 0.8% to 2.3%, employees hired after December 2012 will have to pay 4%.


And instead of getting 1% for each year of service, those who are hired after Dec 2012 will only get 0.7% for each year of service.

Meaning a 30-year career FERS employee's pension will be: PAY IN 4%, get out 21% instead of 30% for a 30 year career.

Details:


the legislation would introduce a new retirement structure for employees hired after December 31, 2012 with less than five years of credible service for retirement purposes. The employee contribution to FERS would increase from 0.8% to 4% of salary, an increase of 3.2 percent over current law. The employee contribution for special occupational groups and Members of Congress is also increased by a total of 3.2%, from 1.3% to 4.5%. Under existing law, the employer contribution equals the normal retirement cost reduced by the employee contribution.

The new retirement structure would also change the FERS pension formula salary base for all retirees to the highest-five years’ average salary. Existing CSRS and FERS employees remain subject to a highest-three years’ average salary base.

The FERS pension formula multiplier for basic retirees would also change to 0.7% points, instead of 1% (or 1.1% with 20 or more years of service). Employees in special occupational groups are subject to a proportional adjustment to the multiplier (0.3 percentage points lower than current law).

More:
http://www.fedsmith.com/article/3212/house-bill-would-extend-pay-freeze.html

[SteelSaving]

Ok, back up. Back WAYYYYY up.

The bill in Congress today (House Version), is not going to require people to contribute more to TSP.

The bill in Congress today (House version) IS going to require employees to contribute more to their FERS pension.


Today, employees pay 0.8% of their salary into the FERS pension account. When they retire, they get back their contribution, plus their Agency puts in money, and that's how FERS is funded.


Under this bill, employees no longer will pay 0.8% into FERS, but rather will pay a LOT more. It would up the employee contribution to 2.3% of their pay (for standard FERS employees), and 2.8% of their pay for the law enforcement early out people.



That would be the same as a pay cut in your take home pay.


That's what was being talked about- not a forced TSP.

D'oh. That makes more sense. I think the poster I was quoting back in page 2 may have been confused.
Yeah, what a load of dung. Nothing like doing that on top of a pay freeze for a few more years.

Again, I have to ask, what good is giving tax breaks to the rich while raising the taxes of the middle class? Ok, so the rich have more money to create more jobs and services for a middle class that can no longer afford them... Doesn't make sense.
And this is coming from a staunch conservative.

[nsurf9]

I believe an class action injunction of the 2008 IFT limit is open. See the Lebowitz *** section below. Any thoughts? This would not be a signed petition to request, this would be a U.S. District court order to rescind or reform the 2008 IFT rule.

From “The Thrift Savings Plan: Putting Customers First? Hearing before the Committee on Government Reform – House of Representatives, One Hundred Eights Congress, First Session, July 24, 2003. Serial No. 108-71 - TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman


Mr. Lebowitz, thanks for being with us.
Mr. LEBOWITZ. Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Alan Lebowitz; I’m Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Program Operations of the U.S. Department of Labor’s
Employee Benefits Security Administration [EBSA].

As in ERISA, the Secretary has broad authority to investigate
and audit the activities of the Board and other Plan fiduciaries.
When FERSA was enacted in 1986, the Secretary had the power
to bring civil actions against the Plan’s fiduciaries for breaches of
their fiduciary responsibilities. This changed in 1988, when Congress
amended the act and specifically precluded suits by the Secretary
against the Board’s members and Executive Director.
********Though Plan participants and other fund fiduciaries retain the
right to sue Board members, the amendments do not permit any
claims for monetary recovery against these individuals. *****The 1988
amendments treat actions against the Board for recovery of losses
to the fund as tort actions against the United States, which are defended
by the Attorney General; however, nothing prevents the Department
from bringing an action for recovery against other TSP

[nsurf9]

Interesting reply from Josh Rose, Esq. (the son of David Rose, Esq.), back in 2008, or 2009 to me was, that there may be an action if the Board did not offer its members an option to purchase and IFT. I'll find the specific law here, or where or how Lebowitz refers to participants' retaining the right to sue the Board for injunctive action or specific performance equity action, and take it to the Roses.

[Show-me]

It seems like you have a fire in your belly, wish I could help but you're working above my pay grade.

[nsurf9]

The way I see it, besides a few more IFTs before a potential world depression, is if the Board and Director bought a tonn of gold with our money and retired with it to some 3rd world country, we couldn't do a thing about it, but maybe sue so ancillary fiduciary.

[Show-me]

I spoke to Tracy Ray and Greg Long about allowing us to buy additional IFT like a ScotTrade account. They would not hear of it they wanted to eliminated unlimited IFT because the rest of the members were paying for it and that was not fair. That and they believed it was driving up costs. They based their plan on private sector funds, ETAC was a bunch of sheep that just followed Long and Ray.

[nsurf9]

This is not about what the Board wants. Its about what Federal District Court will order. The key is the Board had a duty to estimate the cost of and IFT to members and offer them at a reasonable price, so it wouldn't amount to additional costs to other members, but it wrongfully refused and, thereby, denied any above the 2 IFTs per month.

[Show-me]

This is not about what the Board wants. Its about what Federal District Court will order. The key is the Board had a duty to estimate the cost of and IFT to members and offer them at a reasonable price, so it wouldn't amount to additional costs to other members, but it wrongfully refused and, thereby, denied any above the 2 IFTs per month.

You got my vote! Sound like a great angle to pursue because all they did was shut us down and lock us out. We gave our opinions and they took the weight of those that said nothing over ours because the buy and holder should not have to pay for our trading.

[nnuut]

Cool nsurf9. then I want back the 12 grand I lost during 9/11, we only had one IFT then I got out at the bottom and couldn't get back in for a month, the market rebounded so after losing 12K I got back in and lost another 5K! Then 2008 came!

[nsurf9]

This is worth repeating.

A TSP participant can bring suite againt the Board and the Executive Director of the TSP.
And, I believe an class action for injunctive relief of the 2008 IFT limit is open.

See the Lebowitz *** section below. Any thoughts? This would not be a signed petition to request, this would be a U.S. District court order to rescind, reform, or seek specific performance of the 2008 IFT rule.

The excerpts, below, are from “The Thrift Savings Plan: Putting Customers First? Hearing before the Committee on Government Reform – House of Representatives, One Hundred Eights Congress, First Session, July 24, 2003. Serial No. 108-71 - TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman


Mr. Lebowitz, thanks for being with us.
Mr. LEBOWITZ. Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Alan Lebowitz; I’m Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Program Operations of the U.S. Department of Labor’s
Employee Benefits Security Administration [EBSA].

As in ERISA, the Secretary has broad authority to investigate
and audit the activities of the Board and other Plan fiduciaries.
When FERSA was enacted in 1986, the Secretary had the power
to bring civil actions against the Plan’s fiduciaries for breaches of
their fiduciary responsibilities. This changed in 1988, when Congress
amended the act and specifically precluded suits by the Secretary
against the Board’s members and Executive Director.

********Though Plan participants and other fund fiduciaries retain the
right to sue Board members, the amendments do not permit any
claims for monetary recovery against these individuals. *****

The 1988
amendments treat actions against the Board for recovery of losses
to the fund as tort actions against the United States, which are defended
by the Attorney General; however, nothing prevents the Department
from bringing an action for recovery against other TSP

[alevin]

You can count me in, nsurf. I was a lot more active about IFTs when I started following one of the currently paid services (back before it went to paid), which was of course right before they shut us down. I did well with account that year (relative to my track record since then).

[nsurf9]

Merry Christmas!
In sections B and C, below, you will note that the Board and the Executive Director continue to not be immune from suit by members.
Jurisdiction is in the United District Court.

5 USC CHAPTER 84 - FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM 01/07/2011
8477. Fiduciary responsibilities; liability and penalties.
(2) No civil action may be maintained against any fiduciary with
respect to the responsibilities, liabilities, and penalties
authorized or provided for in this section except in accordance
with paragraphs (3) and (4).
(3) A civil action may be brought in the district courts of the
United States -
(A) by the Secretary of Labor against any fiduciary other than
a Member of the Board or the Executive Director of the Board -
(i) to determine and enforce a liability under paragraph
(1)(A);
(ii) to collect any civil penalty under paragraph (1)(B);
(iii) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any
provision of subsection (b) or (c);
(iv) to obtain any other appropriate equitable relief to
redress a violation of any such provision; or
(v) to enjoin any act or practice which violates subsection
(g)(2) or (h) of section 8472 of this title;

(B) by any participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary against any
fiduciary -
(i) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any
provision of subsection (b) or (c);
(ii) to obtain any other appropriate equitable relief to
redress a violation of any such provision;
(iii) to enjoin any act or practice which violates subsection
(g)(2) or (h) of section 8472 of this title; or

(C) by any participant or beneficiary -
(i) to recover benefits of such participant or beneficiary
under the provisions of subchapter III of this chapter, to
enforce any right of such participant or beneficiary under such
provisions, or to clarify any such right to future benefits
under such provisions; or
(ii) to enforce any claim otherwise cognizable under sections
1346(b) and 2671 through 2680 of title 28, provided that the
remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b)
and 2672 of title 28 for damages for injury or loss of property
caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any
fiduciary while acting within the scope of his duties or
employment shall be exclusive of any other civil action or
proceeding by the participant or beneficiary for recovery of
money by reason of the same subject matter against the
fiduciary (or the estate of such fiduciary) whose act or
omission gave rise to such action or proceeding, whether or not
such action or proceeding is based on an alleged violation of
subsection (b) or (c).

(7)(A) The district courts of the United States shall have
exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions under this subsection.

[nnuut]

I hope you're a Damn lawyer! Because I myself have no access to many of the referenced documents and have no idea if they set presidence over the requirements of the listed. I you are digging deep that's good, but unless your take into consideration everything one paragraph means nothing.
section 8472 of this title;
sections 1346(b) and 2671 through 2680 of title 28
sections 1346(b)and 2672 of title 28
sections 1346(b)
and 2672 of title 28 for damages for injury or loss of property
caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any
fiduciary while acting within the scope of his duties or
employment shall be exclusive of any other civil action or
proceeding by the participant or beneficiary for recovery of
money by reason of the same subject matter against the
fiduciary (or the estate of such fiduciary) whose act or
omission gave rise to such action or proceeding, whether or not
such action or proceeding is based on an alleged violation of
subsection (b) or (c).
Keep up the GOOD WORK!

[nsurf9]

The only section we need is this one.

(ii) to obtain any other appropriate equitable relief to
redress a violation of any such provision;

Equitable relief includes injunctive relief, i.e. recission, reformation, specific performance of the 2008 IFT restriction rule.

Section 8478 sets out appointments, lengths of terms, general fiduciary duties, etc. With respect to Title 28, it's irrelevant, as we won't get money. Just reform the 2008 rule. We are close to 50 "I'm in's." I'll see if I can get an appointment with the Rose attornies soon. Also, perhaps I can enlist the help Steve Loosey (sic) of Federal Times, perhaps we can get some real help and money, if the regular TSPers would at least like to have the option be active and protect their retirement, especially, if the Board and Director coughs-up the price/cost of an IFT between all the funds, but the I fund - - making the cost of an IFT the fund, nothing to the fund.

[nnuut]

As I remember the main problem to them was losing money on the "I" fund due to the time lag between our IFTs and the close of the fund. They (Barcays) estimated the next days returns and when their estimates were off the loss in the funds doubled or tripled causing the overhead cost to spike. We suggested that the TSP (Barcays) use the next day numbers (07:00 AM) numbers instead, neutralizing the problem, but NOOOOOO they would not even consider the change!

[nsurf9]

Nnut, thanks for constructive insite. I'm happy just to find a cause of action thru the board and director's immunity. Now, to show the fudicary violations and a make a case for the injunction. Not a small order. I'd like to put thoughts together with others knowledgeable on the issues. I'm considering calling the elder Rose attorney and answering his question of what we want - restoration of a reasonable degree of conrol of TSP members own retirement money before the 2008 IFT restrictions. The idea is to get the attorney to give us show us a plan for a winning case and l'll find a way to get the fee and appeal to his prior federal employment sympathies.

[nsurf9]

Writing to the Board, ETAC, and the Executive Director will get you no where (or less), as was demonstrated by James' effort back in 2009. The Executive Director and Board already have immunity from all monitary damages it may cause, intentional or otherwise, which is untenable, and 3 million apathetic or clueless TSP participant/members.

The only way, that I can see, is for us to stand-up, demonstrated that we own our own money, and take legal action.

Will don't need millions of members to agree, just a good attorney and a judge that has common sense, else our money and the fund will be sitting prey that continues to be run over with whatever the TSP management sees fit for itself, then for us.

[nsurf9]

I will be putting a phone call in to Mr. Clifford Dailing, Chairman, Employees’ Thrift Advisory Council today, 12/29, at 2pm to get his thoughs.

The theme will be straight forward, the effect of an IFT, at a number of more than 2 per month, can be made to cost nothing to the fund. The TSP fiduciaries had a duty to assess the cost of an IFT in 2008, but continue to subverted it all together by stating that the cost of an IFT could not be calculated.
It then went on to effect an 2008 IFT rule as restrictive as possible, after its members paid approximately $41 million dollars to do just the opposite.

The current restriction leaves its members with no margin for making an error and severely and needlessly chills a member from expending even a single IFT, effectively locking them into losses when the market goes down and precluding them from gains when it goes up. Moreover is needlessly distroys a member's willingness to be proactive with their retirement by all but distroying their ability to move.

Any thoughs, comments?


http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/SUBCOS/727%20pslp%20tsp/Dailing%20Testimony%20Final.pdf

[nsurf9]

I spoke to Mr. Clifford Dailing, Chairman, Employees’ Thrift Advisory Council, today, 12/29. He listen patiently to my concerns and suggested that I write Mr. Steven Galling, he's the representative for Uniform Services part of the Council.

In other words, try what James attempted - after being flatly ignored, even with a 4,000-signature petition. It would seem that the only way, if there is one, is to bring an injunction for the fiduciary violation, as we won't need a mass of millions, just the attorney's fee.

My next conversation should be with the Rose attornies - even if its without a retainer in hand.

[FAB1]

If its the governmint its crooked. if there is money laying around they'll steal some.

[FAB1]

Well is this headed anywhere? I for one think you can talk to you're blue in the face to the TSP board and they
are going to do absolutely ZILCH, because they don't have to! Now taking real Legal Action - THAT would get their attention and
getting the media involved would be the icing on the cake. Call the newspapers and television stations, show them that we mean
business!

I dont think these Bored dudes will want to be seen as despotic control freaks. Only Bad Guys would be preventing Fed employees from being able to trade freely in the market (with their own money). The TSP Bored has never had this issue in the limelight and its all been pretty private. Some one ought to put up a dedicated website too - publishing the facts and the logic that supports our more than reasonable requests.

I think with some real pressure on them they will quickly capitulate, so far we have really done nothing to twist their collective arms
and remember small special interest groups have historically made huge headway where the goobermint is concerned.

[Show-me]

First you have to get them to admit they are wrong................ROFLMAO.

Second you will have to get them to document why we need to change back to the old system or increase the number of IFT.

Then you will need to change the CFR, I think.

They will not do this willingly, you will need to twist arms and ETAC is in lock step with them because they are a bunch of people that are there as figure heads.

Get the lawyers. I'm in for $100, more if needed. Only money and lawyers will change this. Be ready for a fight too, Tracy Ray is a ........... and will not budge even if she is wrong.

[nsurf9]

Thanks, Showme. Fortunately, I probably don't know I've got us or myself into, but we're on! We do out number them. I had my own personal conservation with Tracy Ray, it was silence after I ask her why the TSP wasn't forthcoming with the price of an IFT. If we can get what amounts to a positive memorandum of law on the issue, the idea is to then seek the press and make, if possible, the clueless TSP participant masses, clueful, I believe we have a chance.

Right now, the chink in the armor seems to be not figuring out the price of an IFT for us and not giving us the opportunity to pay for it and some way to opt out. I will be putting all the law together that I can find for the Roses this next week and get an appointment, hopefully with both of them. Also, consult a long time attorney friend of mine, and a past partner of my father's, whom is now a president of a Virginia county bar association for consult of the Roses and framing the donation trust. I wish Benjamin Franklin was here.

[nsurf9]

Fab1, if we can get what amounts to a favorable/successful memorandum of law as to reasonable, equitable relief, and do start putting a case together, I'll contact Steve Loosey at Federal Times to cover the effort and whatever press venues we can muster. Steve published an editorial I wrote on the issue back in 2008. Perhaps he'd like a follow-up.

[KevinD]

I think you should look at it from their side. What is their case likely to be and what will be your response to their argument?

What is customary for other defined contribution plans? Is there a norm?

[RealMoneyIssues]

I think you should look at it from their side. What is their case likely to be and what will be your response to their argument?

What is customary for other defined contribution plans? Is there a norm?

I'm sorry, I can't think like that... How can we look at it from their side IF IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO A FAIR PERSON http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/censored.gif

[KevinD]

Maybe I should have said that our arguments should be crafted by what we anticipate their arguments to be. You know...prepare in advance by playing devils advocate. I'm sure the attorneys will do their best but I'm also sure that we know more about this situation than they do.

I wasn't trying to suggest that we try to see things their way. Far from it...

[nasa1974]

I think you should look at it from their side. What is their case likely to be and what will be your response to their argument?

What is customary for other defined contribution plans? Is there a norm?

I would have to go back and research this to get the information absolutely correct but to paraphrase this is what the reasoning was for restricting us to only 2 IFT's for the month.

1) The FRTIB's biggest excuse to allow 2 IFT's was the cost per trade it was costing ALL the members for just a few that made multiple trades a month. They have yet to produce what the cost was then vs. the cost per trade now.
2) The FRTIB said it would be difficult to manage a program that would allow us to pay X amount of dollars to perform more than 2 IFT's a month.
3) The FRTIB also said that how they were going to allow us to use the 2 IFT's per month was better than similar businesses that managed retirement funds.

Thats how I remember it.

[Show-me]

Nasa is correct, I spoke to Tray Ray and Greg Long. I mentioned the paid trades and they did not like it because they wanted a Thrift "Savings" Plan not a Thrift "Trading" Plan. They did not like that others were paying for the fews inactive account transferring. The just wanted sheep to sit in buy and hold forever even though the world of investing has changed dramatically with electronic trading and instant market news and statistics.

The trading cost per member and per trade is the key.

IMO, we should get more trades per month first and then a fee per trade there after.

[nsurf9]

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

[nasa1974]

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

First of all thanks for taking this on.

Monitary damages I think would get this whole thing tossed out before it even started. It would be hard for us to prove that the money wouldn't have been lost even with more IFT's. How would you determined who, let alone how much.

I know the issue of fees came up during our arguments. Didn't they say that they would have a difficult time collecting possible fees?

I think showing how the market has evolved shows how trying to keep the TSP a passive system is outdated. Back in the beginning if you left your money in the G fund for your career and deposited the maximum every year at 6% every year you would have over $250,00.00 for retirement (fast math). Not a lot of money, but for someone in CSRS not bad. But how many actually put in th emax and the G fund did not keep a steady percentage from year to year. The G fund didn't even make 4% last year, if my math was correct. OK I'm rambling. Later.

[nsurf9]

First of all thanks for taking this on.
The G fund didn't even make 4% last year, if my math was correct.

And G's return, according to the President and Fed Bernake, along with the prime rate, will have their efforts to be kept low until 2014.

The other half of the 1986 story, besides saving a few percent off CSRS total costs, was that Congress like the fact that federal employees' investment in G fund would defer the Government's payout of wages.

I will see the Roses soon, and we'll have a better idea. All they have to do is show us a winning case. But, I want to be able to say, right now I have monitary commitments from over 100 members to this effort and I believe, once mainstreamed to a larger TSP audience, can assure ample funding thru final decision.

PS, what you're thoughs being able to opt out with your current TSP balance to a Self-Directed, Tax Deferred LLC IRA? Your account would thereafter remain open and receive contributions and matching fund - but thereafter under the 2008 rule. You could invest in ETFs basically the same as we're invested now, only it would be the price of E-Trade, Ameritrade, etc, plus a world of other investments.

[FishSqueezer]

I'm still in, but want to remind of the idea of not just focusing on IFTs. It wasn't my idea, but there are additional alternatives that could be negotiated, such as moving the Noon ET trade time to Market Close.

[Mcqlives]

Nsurf...Reference post #68. I would love to be able to directly fund, with pretax benefits, an independent growth IRA. Right now most of my private investments are in ROTH accounts with a few dividend reinvesting stocks so having that option would be fantastic.

That being said, let's keep focused on a couple of key targets for now. I leave those targets up to you and some of the long term members that fought the fight in 2008 for all of us (Thanks all for trying!). I like the idea of more transfers, later deadlines, fee based transfers, opt out for other investments, and most of the other ideas that have been sent to you on your thread. We just have to pick which battle to fight.

[nsurf9]

I didn't meet with the Virginia attorney today as I was too busy with Uncle Sam's work. I will meet sometime next week.

Without out clear definitions, Congress did, it seems to appear to intend TSP to be an indexed fund that may well be intended to be passive. The question, then becomes what is "in the best interest of its participants." One question that comes to my mind, is would all this effort be worth one or two, possibly fee based, additional IFTs per month that could be possibly be traded later into the day; and, an option to roll out a current balance to a qualified IRA. The existing accout would remain open to receive all subsequent contribution and matching funds, but thereafter, that balance would remain under TSP rules.

Remember the old days. Thought the following excerpt from Ms. Ray of TSP might, however, be of interest. It was published upon completion of the TSP's web based system.

"In the old system, you could move money from one account to another once a month. Now you can do it every day," Ray said. Investors will be able to log on to the TSP Web site and see the value of their accounts as of the close of the previous business day.

TSP retirement system work complete -- Washington Technology

Incidentially, TSP was denied in US Federal District court, to bring suit on its on. Court found DOJ was its legal counsel. Decision was appealed by TSP, but a settlement was entered with AMS, which likely made the appeal moot.

http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/...lawsuit/10603/

[nasa1974]

If congress really wanted our TSP to be passive why didn't they put us just in the G fund with matching dollars. With the opportunity to move our money between funds that does not make it passive, even with 2 IFT's a month.

[nsurf9]

Actually my reading indicates that the "passive" feature didn't refer to participants at all. The term "passive," from my reading, referred only to TSP management investment approach.

"Active" investment referred to the regular approach most investors do to research a specific investments in order to make a financially sound choice. Whereas, investing by way of "indexing," or buying a statistically representative number of shares of say the Wilshire 4500, would allow TSP to broadly and passively invest, with little or not research into an index of funds to remove not only a significant degree of admistrative and research costs, but also remove the potential for politics (an important consideration) to enter into the TSP fund.

Additionally, proxy share votes held in the invested corporations are not acted upon. Another political avoidence measure. I'm not sure what benefit Blackrock may derive from the unacted proxy votes.

In fact, a major consideration of Congress' choice of the current plan, one of I believe it was 4 plans, was chosen because it allowed the TSP participant the choice to the invest their own account among the, then, 3 or 4 different funds.

It seems to me that the fly in the ointment occures when TSP waits until the next morning to make purchases when, as what happend in 2007 in the I fund, where you had a very number of IFT in and out requests.

[nasa1974]

Actually my reading indicates that the "passive" feature didn't refer to participants at all. The term "passive," from my reading, referred only to TSP management investment approach.

"Active" investment referred to the regular approach most investors do to research a specific investments in order to make a financially sound choice. Whereas, investing by way of "indexing," or buying a statistically representative number of shares of say the Wilshire 4500, would allow TSP to broadly and passively invest, with little or not research into an index of funds to remove not only a significant degree of admistrative and research costs, but also remove the potential for politics (an important consideration) to enter into the TSP fund.

Additionally, proxy share votes held in the invested corporations are not acted upon. Another political avoidence measure. I'm not sure what benefit Blackrock may derive from the unacted proxy votes.

In fact, a major consideration of Congress' choice of the current plan, one of I believe it was 4 plans, was chosen because it allowed the TSP participant the choice to the invest their own account among the, then, 3 or 4 different funds.

It seems to me that the fly in the ointment occures when TSP waits until the next morning to make purchases when, as what happend in 2007 in the I fund, where you had a very number of IFT in and out requests.


Makes sense. Thanks.

[nsurf9]

If you haven't already seen TSP Talks' "TSP-Transfer-Limits" poll, please go follow the below thread and vote. It is not a commitment to "I'm in" just a quick measure of where we stand on the IFT limit issue.


TSP Transfer Limits (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/tsp-transfer-limits/)

[PessOptimist]

bump

[Govt46]

I will commit to and support your efforts to repealing TSP -

[nsurf9]

Govt46, thanks for you're "I'm in" commitment.

As an update of our nailing down a legal opinion, I could not meet with the Virginia attorney due to my schedule, and he was in trial for the majority of trial last week. I am looking again to meet with him this coming week 3/5-3/9.

[nsurf9]

Update - I have an appointment regarding the TSP IFT case next Tuesday with the Virginia attorney. I'll update you on his consultation.

[nasa1974]

Update - I have an appointment regarding the TSP IFT case next Tuesday with the Virginia attorney. I'll update you on his consultation.

nsurf, Thanks.

[travelingman]

Nice.., thanks my tsp brother.., for fighting the good fight...

[nsurf9]

Next appoint is with the Rose attorneys in D.C.

I met with the Virginia attorney yesterday. We reviewed what I know as to the facts, law, and what we wanted, more IFTs, later deadline, option-out, and window thru as well was consideration as to setting up a trust account to receive legal fund donations.

Although he is a trial lawyer and certified to appear before the supreme court of Virginia and the United States, he is not licensed in the District of Columbia. His initial impression was that we may have a case for based on a violation of fiduciary duty by the Board; but to write what amounts to a memorandum of law and make a thorough assessment of the likelihood of success would take significant work. And, given the Roses would be counsel, he would not likely receive any fee for his work from the legal donation fund, unless the Roses asked him to appear as “of counsel” – which is unlikely.

As such, he suggested that I should go directly to the Rose attorneys in D.C., as they are in the D.C. jurisdiction and venue may well lie there and is certainly most conveniently, as well as a decision there may well set presidence, nationwide.

The upside is, he was generally interested in the cause and stated that he would look closer at the case generally and for a course of action, review any pleadings, and generally act as a soundboard throughout our efforts.

Additionally, he advised that I should not establish a trust account for the legal fund, myself, but to have the Roses do this.

[nasa1974]

nsurf, Thanks for the update. Good luck.

[nsurf9]

I spoke with Josh Rose today with regard to setting up a funding vehicle for the IFT restriction relief effort and, again, generally about the law and facts.

I have an appointment with the Rose attorneys next week, Wed. 4/11/12, to meet them in person and consider starting the IFT relief-ball rolling, in earnest.

[nasa1974]

I spoke with Josh Rose today with regard to setting up a funding vehicle for the IFT restriction relief effort and, again, generally about the law and facts.

I have an appointment with the Rose attorneys next week, Wed. 4/11/12, to meet them in person and consider starting the IFT relief-ball rolling, in earnest.

Thanks for the update. Checkbook at the ready.

[KevinD]

Set it up to take PayPal...

[nsurf9]

This is a little house-keeping - moving copying IFT restriction from nsurf9 thread to My money ... thread - for the record.

I meet with Josh Rose, the Washington DC administrative law trial attorney, yesterday, 4/11/12. I am still gathering my thoughs and want talk the Virginia attorney before posting something of substance on the message board. Right now, I can only say it was a long, uphill walk, and metro ride, back to my car.

[nsurf9]

As you have probably guessed, Josh Rose did not say "bingo" let go get 'em. I am dragging my feet. This area of law is new to me, but if there is a hole, of soft spot in the TSP restriction rule - I plan to find it

I'm still researching the Federal Employees Act of 1986, but it appears we are not in Kansas violation of fiduciary duty anymore - we're in the land of the "Administrative Procedure Act of 1946" and Title 5 of the USC. Its link is setout below.

Apparently, the bad news is, under its legislative rulemaking process (as opposed to judical finding), agencies are given wider latitude and less apt for judicial court review. The reasoning is that a new rule is presumably the product of a concensus of interested parties.

I'm still not ready to give a full report of Mr. Rose's initial impression, but if we are willing to pay for a written memorandum of law review and through survey of a theory of relief of the 2008 IFT restriction, he'll do it for $2-3K. Title 5 does, at the court's discretion, provide for an award of attorney fees and costs to complaints (us) - but not monitary awards.

A couple of notes: it was not Tracy Ray that stated TSP members could now make trades every day - it was a Mr. Ray of the second vendor that completed the TSP internet site who made this statement. My mistake, they have the same last name. Nonetheless, the subsequent published TSP booklets state this permission. Also, with respect to TSP's statement on Vanguard mutual fund "60 day probition," I spoke to Vanguard, the fact is it costs nothing to make transfers and there are are so many fund, the prohibition has very little effect. I'm a curious as to what other half-truths we spoken about the cost and restriction on the other mutual funds cited in TSP support for the 2008 rule and rebuttal comments, i.e. the exact cost of an IFT doesn't need to be found if member paid substantially more than an estimated cost. Additionally, Congress has already suggested the option in Title 5 of the Act that a window through TSP could be opened (... to highly dissatified federal employees who want to feel more like they still own their own money and want to actually be successfully pro-active with the retirement they will ultimately be left with...) and option out.



U.S. Code Title 5, Sections 500-596 (2004) (2000 Edition and Supplement IV) (http://www.oalj.dol.gov/PUBLIC/APA/REFERENCES/STATUTES/USCODE_TITLE_5_SECTIONS_500_TO_596_(2004).HTM#706)


CHAPTER 7 - JUDICIAL REVIEW


SHORT TITLE

The provisions of sections 551 to 559 of this title and this chapter were originally enacted by act June 11, 1946, ch. 423, 60 Stat. 237, popularly known as the "Administrative Procedure Act". That Act was repealed as part of the general revision of this title by Pub. L. 89-554 and its provisions incorporated into sections 551 to 559 of this title and this chapter.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CITE: 5 USC Sec. 706 (2004)

Sec. 706. Scope of review

To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall -
(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be -
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.
In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.

[RealMoneyIssues]

My brain hurts ;)

[nsurf9]

My brain hurts ;) me too - Josh said bingo, let go get 'em.

[CrabClaw]

Many thanks for taking this on :)

[RealMoneyIssues]

Many thanks for taking this on :)

DITTO !!!

[nsurf9]

This is a little more housekeeping.

I’m still waiting to get back to the Virginia attorney and I plan to talk to Jose Rose one more time.

The below set out paragraph is what we are up against and the links below are to most of my research on the TSP related restriction matter and on agency Administrative Procedure Act.

The snag is that the separation of legislative, judicial and executive powers doctrine is less of an issue with an agency’s rulemaking authority that its judicial, and executive functions. An agency’s legislative rulemaking is given a lot more leeway in court because, as a product of a consensus, “it is much more like the legislative process reserved for Congress in Article II.” The courts' main role here is ensuring agency rules line up with the Constitution and with agency's statutory commands from Congress. Thus, even if a court finds a rule unwise, it will stand as long as it is not patently "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law." Administrative Procedure Act: Definition from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/administrative-procedures-act)

For the vast majority of federal employees – the ones that would rather have ultra-low cost, indexed, passive investment vehicle, however, the current TSP structure and monthly restrictions are probably - just fine. However, for the at least 4-5 thousand of us that know how, and why, better – the “window” may be our best bet and, at the same time, in our best interests (the foremost consideration of the 1986 Federal Employees’ Retirement Act).

Back in 2008, the TSP Board did tell the truth – the “exact” cost of an IFT probably cannot be calculated. I submit the “exact” cost of any future transaction cannot be “exactly” calculated. Back in 2008, ETAC should have more closely questioned the TSP Board. Personally, I believe that are many half-truths and self-serving truths to TSP’s comments that were made contemporaneously with the enforcement of 2008 IFT restrictions; whether 1 or 2 more IFTs with a fee would, or would, not be fair and reasonable; and what other mutual funds restrict, or do not restrict. The problem that many of us have is, we know that in a highly volatility market and next to nothing coming from the G fund - - even with a $500 fee, the cost of being straight-jacketed to effectively one roundtrip into equities will cost many members more than ten-fold that $500 fee. Most importantly, however, to me, and I believe to most of us is: I want my retirement fund to actually be and feel more like it is was when I put my money in - MINE.

If you still really want a 4pm transfer deadline; unrestricted transfers; and, the ability to effectively and proactively manage your retirement investment – I believe it is still possible. To get Josh Rose, Esq. to thoroughly examine the law and write a lawyerly type “memorandum of law” on the matter, at 65 commitments, $2500 comes down to about $38.46 each. That would not include bringing and arguing the complaint, but, if it produced a compellingly viable argument, I believe we could muster all the funds necessary to fund the effort. As an addition note, my reading indicates in the court’s discretion, a prevailing party(s) could be reimbursed for attorney fees and costs.

As a separate note, Rose stated he did not want to be a donation point and suggested a 501(3)(c) Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html)
non-profit corporation formation. To incorporate would be a couple of hundred bucks and an IRS non-profit fee of $400 for up to $10k donations, should our effort get that far.

Unfortunately, back in 2008, ETAC let us down. My guess is, they are probably not financial experts and the fact is they knew well that there are 4+ million members who are perfectly happy not moving any funds anywhere; sitting in the G fund for years putting absolutely no effort forth to grow their retirement; and, incurring absolutely the lowest possible cost, is the perfect strategy for them.

My impression from the appointment with Josh Rose and my reading of the pertinent law is that once ETAC consented to the rule change as our representative council, and the 2008 IFT restriction rule was published for the requisite period of time in the Federal Registry, TSP’s legislative rulemaking authority became very strong – and it will likely stand.

Nonetheless, it appears that the soft spot to the 2008 rulemaking restriction isn’t a spot at all, but a window. A window thru TSP to invest your individual funds in a tax deferred retirement vehicle, apart from TSP. Best of all - Congress has already suggested the mutual fund window as an alternative thru the TSP investment structure; and further, even codified it in Title 5 of the United States Code. The catch is that the Code section requires approval of the TSP Board. What a terrific wrinkle for 4-5 thousand unhappy TSP members. The trick here seems not to break down the door with a rule challenge, but slide-open a window that Congress, in its collective wisdom, has already so gracious provided.

A self-directed IRA, as opposed to a mutual fund, would seem be the vehicle of choice as it would have little or no restrictions or time deadlines, except for the 4pm market close. You could even invest in parallel to what your familiar with. the TSP funds in form of ETFs, if you so choose, and lots, lots more.

If you’ve read this far, post a thought to this thread.

Sincerely, NSurf9

[nsurf9]

1. Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service on TSP, with USC, CFR statutory references
http://www.cpms.osd.mil/ASSETS/DF5D1F2918D546FEB4138C0412C59E4B/tsp.pdf
2. The Thrift Saving Plan.Gov official internet site.
3. https://www.tsp.gov/index.shtml
4. TSP Talk – a strategy internet site where members have made commitment to fund legal cause
TSP Talk - Thrift Savings Plan (http://www.tsptalk.com/)
5. Fantasy TSP – another strategy internet site (There’s some overlap of members on the two sites, but in total represents several thousand federal employees. I was active on that site as well, but found one board was enough. If we can put a convincing case together with a convincing likelihood of success – I’m confident the legal fees, thru a trial, would be covered.
http://*********.com/fantasyTSP.php
6. TPS Board case rejected for use outside counsel, instead of Justice Department, in DC US District Court for breach of contract/performance on vendor doing work on its internet based system
Court rejects TSP board (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2001/12/court-rejects-tsp-boards-350-million-lawsuit/10603/)
7. Matcom’s Lou Ray (correcting my assertion that Tracy Ray of TSP made statement) "In the old system, you could move money from one account to another once a month. Now you can do it every day," $26m to Matcom for system (write off was $41m, paid by members).
TSP retirement system work complete -- Washington Technology (http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2003/06/16/tsp-retirement-system-work-complete.aspx)
8. U.S. GAO - Thrift Savings Plan Delayed Allocation of Failed System Development Costs to Participant Accounts.
U.S. GAO - Thrift Savings Plan: Delayed Allocation of Failed System Development Costs to Participant Accounts (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-827R)
9. TSP Board’s Rebuttal - Trading Restrictions Federal Register Notice April 24, 2008
http://www.soa.org/library/research/transactions-of-society-of-actuaries/1988/january/tsa88v40pt119.pdf
10. Reasons for 2008 IFT Restrictions - Federal Register, Volume 73 Issue 47 (Monday, March 10, 2008)
Federal Register, Volume 73 Issue 47 (Monday, March 10, 2008) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-03-10/html/E8-4776.htm)
11. My Federal Retirement publications on 2008 IFT restrictions
TSP Trading Restrictions: Federal Register Notice April 24, 2008 (http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/253.cfm)
12. TSP expense ratio ironically goes up after 2008 Rule effected in May
https://www.tsp.gov/investmentfunds/fundsoverview/expenseRatio.shtml
13. 5 USC § 8477 – Code section authorizing action against TSP Board by its Members - Fiduciary responsibilities; liability and penalties - Legal Information Institute
5 USC § 8477 - Fiduciary responsibilities; liability and penalties | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/8477)
14. ETAC Federal employee union leader found dead at 47 - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com – A member of TSP Talk, that had a 4000 signature petition in 2008 regarding the TSP Limits, had exchanged several email with Mr. Brown. ETAC is the agency voice for its federal employees.
Federal employee union leader found dead at 47 - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2009/07/federal-employee-union-leader-found-dead-at-47/29484/)
15. Matcom’s Lou Ray, correcting assertion of Tracy Ray’s statement - after TSP write down of $41M for internet system – publically states members can make a Trade (IFT) every day -- Washington Technology – same policy is effected into the internet system.
TSP retirement system work complete -- Washington Technology (http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2003/06/16/tsp-retirement-system-work-complete.aspx)
16. Federal Register, Volume 73 Issue 47 (Monday, March 10, 2008) – ruling make process step to effect agency change
Federal Register, Volume 73 Issue 47 (Monday, March 10, 2008) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-03-10/html/E8-4776.htm)
17. FRTIB Board Minutes, Most Current Years ; 2012 Mar 22 – on FRTIB web site (see its Homepage at bottom)
FRTIB: Board Minutes, Most Current Years ; 2012 Mar 22 (http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/minutes.html)
18. House Oversight Meeting Video - The Congressional, TSP and ETAC main players (video)
The Thrift Savings Plan: Helping Federal Employees Achieve Retirement Security : House Oversight : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive (http://archive.org/details/gov.house.ogr.fw.20110727)

[nsurf9]

More on Agency rulemaking procedure. TSP Board did not consider Congress' suggestion for window thru TSP.
Note challenging the rule as arbitrary, capricious, unfair.

Rulemaking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulemaking)


The Federal Rulemaking Process - An Overview
http://www.thecre.com/pdf/20120422_RL32240.pdf

[CrabClaw]

Sounds great, let us know what we can do.

[nsurf9]

you said it rejoinder. I'm with you on this issue! this arrangement needs to be changed. and also, why does IFT have to be done before noon, markets are closed not until 4? It seems tsp board doesn't want to see its members doing well financially.

folks, below is the address of the TSP board. please spare a few moment of your time to write a few lines to the board on the current IFT rule. we need to form a collective voice, so the issue can get on the board meeting agenda.


FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD
1250 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20005


[it's some board. doesn't even have an email address in this information superhighway age to communicate with its members].

Also, below is the monthly meeting minutes of the board. they even had a bill to introduce a mutual fund into TSP, but it was voted down. we don't need any more financial products. all we need is making TSP operated better. get rid of that IFT limit or at least the 12 o'clock deadline !!!!

FRTIB: Board Minutes, Most Current Years ; 2012 Mar 22 (http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/minutes.html)

Nada, thanks for posting this, I had to re-read the minutes to get the flavor and get the names of the players the mutual fund window proposed rule.

http://www.frtib.gov/pdf/minutes/2011Aug.pdf


Mr. Trabucco also reported to the Board that Mr. Long testified at
a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal
Service, and Labor Policy on July 2. Mr. Trabucco said there were two notable
topics of discussion during the hearing. First, Congressman Lynch expressed to Mr.
Long that he remains interested in seeing the TSP offer a mutual fund window, as
authorized by the Thrift Savings Plan Enhancement Act of 2009. Mr. Trabucco
reminded the Board that the vote was 2 to 2 (with one Board member absent) the
last time the Board considered a mutual fund window and that ETAC members were
similarly divergent in their opinions. Mr. Long added that Clifford Dailing, who
represents the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, indicated that he might like
to see ETAC and the Board revisit discussions about a TSP mutual fund window.

The answer is:

TSP Executive Director Greg Long defended the mutual fund window option as a way to meet the demands of a small group of participants without changing the overall nature of the TSP. He noted that he had no plans to implement it until the ETAC and FRTIB agreed to the plan.

http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2009/11/critics-call-tsp-mutual-fund-option-risky/30279/

Now, a semi-self-directed IRA window, investing in ETFs would be inherently less risky, lower in costs that a mutual fund, and would allow TSP members to invest more proactively in more funds - all-in-all, it would solve everyone's problem - Congress, the unions, ETAC, and even us here at TSP Talk. In principal, in Gregory Long's own words, might be agreeable, if the Unions and FRTIB agreed.

You gotta love this - we may have been fighting the wrong people here all along.

[nsurf9]

More lamenting on Long's "testimony" in support mutual fund window.

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/7-27-11_long_TSP_testimony.pdf

I know that are other TSP Talk member who are already using it, but I though it might still be useful to post it - General rules for traditional self-directed IRA.

http://www.theentrustgroup.com/investment_options/investment_prohibited_transactions/

[nsurf9]

This is the end of this thread and its purpose - to research TSP pertinent law to seek judicial IFT restriction relief. A new thread will be created to support a Roth and modified traditional, self-directed IRA window-thru TSP option.

Thanks you, very much, for the support and encouragement - especially to those that committed to an "I'M IN." Sincerely, NSurf9.

My conclusion from appointments with attorney Josh Rose and past President of the Arlington County Bar Association, attorney William Hassan, and my reading and research of the pertinent law, reports and information is that, once ETAC consented to the rule change as our representative council, and the 2008 IFT restriction rule was published for the requisite period of time in the Federal Registry, TSP’s negotiated legislative rulemaking authority made the 2008 IFT rule restriction very strong – and it will likely withstand a judicial constitutional challenge in United Stated District Court.

[KevinD]

You gave it your best. Thanks for the effort.

[nsurf9]

You haven't seen my best effort, yet.

[nasa1974]

You haven't seen my best effort, yet.

Again thanks for everything you have done so far.

It really does appear that the "self-directed IRA" (now to be known as SDIRA) would solve most of the issues brought up because of the restrictions of our current TSP. Most said they would be willing to pay a small fee to have extra moves per month, SDIRA offers that and more (you can make multiple moves per day if you want to pay for them). Some wanted to be able to wait until closer to the closing bell to make a decision, SDIRA offers that. SDIRA also offers more venues than the current funds we have in our TSP. Anyway at first blush it looks like this may be what a bunch of us where asking for.

[pmcint01]

Does anyone think the Self Directed IRA option thru TSP will ever be implemented? Will it take 8 years or something absurdly long time to do it?