PDA

View Full Version : TSP board to limit interfund transfers



Pages : [1] 2 3

caymanbrac12
11-19-2007, 02:49 PM
Who didn't see this coming?? scumbags

ChemEng
11-19-2007, 02:49 PM
Im curious what the unions will think of this move. It seems they have been mysteriously absent from all this conversation.

Silverbird
11-19-2007, 02:50 PM
Y'All NEED TO READ THE ARTICLE BELOW, HERE'S A QUOTE:

"The board overseeing the Thrift Savings Plan is taking aim at day traders by restricting the ability of plan participants to shift money between funds to only twice a month.... The board included one exception into the trading restrictions: Investors will be able to shift money into the lower-risk, lower-reward G Fund at any time.

sugarandspice
11-19-2007, 02:54 PM
So 3000 people are shifting billions of dollars? So encouraging people to take an active interest comes with a stipulation now. Active as long as it is only 2 times a month. This is wrong. Blaming the 3000 for driving up costs? Come on.

I think we should start a pool and see how many here at TSPTalk receive one of those "special" letters.

caymanbrac12
11-19-2007, 02:58 PM
Tell me this doesn't put the big squeeze on active members of this website - the related paysites here will not be happy with some serious changes to be afoot. Sounds to me like they are pushing the buy and forget Lfunds.

pogo
11-19-2007, 02:58 PM
Im curious what the unions will think of this move. It seems they have been mysteriously absent from all this conversation.
can you explain to me what the unions have to do with this matter, you better talk to your senator or state rep not the unions by the way i am an union steward

caymanbrac12
11-19-2007, 03:07 PM
This is going to put the big squeeze on the traders on this website and the related paysites are not going to be too happy either. Sounds to me like they are pushing the buy and forget Lfunds.

camper65
11-19-2007, 03:09 PM
can you explain to me what the unions have to do with this matter, you better talk to your senator or state rep not the unions by the way i am an union steward
Yes! It is an election year.... Their ears are open.!

DrFaustus
11-19-2007, 03:13 PM
Oh, for the love of Mike (Causey). I agree, they are pushing the L-funds. I simply cannot believe it costs that much to shift funds around when it is all being performed by computer.

pogo
11-19-2007, 03:13 PM
Yes! It is an election year.... Their ears are open.!

i"ll explain later i am to pi**ed-off right now---sorry

nnuut
11-19-2007, 03:18 PM
A$$HO$$$!:nuts::nuts::nuts: 2612

FUTURESTRADER
11-19-2007, 03:23 PM
well..I was planning on maxing out a loan and dumping it into selling s&p options anyway...3.5% a month the past 6 months, and don't worry about it every day. Thank you TSP board

presskh
11-19-2007, 03:25 PM
Oh, for the love of Mike (Causey). I agree, they are pushing the L-funds. I simply cannot believe it costs that much to shift funds around when it is all being performed by computer.

Agree. If the L Funds rebalance daily (I'm assuming they do), then how do they justify the expenses associated these funds, e.g., what is the difference between our changing our TSP allocations and the rebalancing of the L funds?

pogo
11-19-2007, 03:27 PM
well..I was planning on maxing out a loan and dumping it into selling s&p options anyway...3.5% a month the past 6 months, and don't worry about it every day. Thank you TSP board

i love it---go futurestrader we must stay a step ahead

easting
11-19-2007, 03:29 PM
Any lawyers? What's our recourse here....?

TRAFFIC_DOG
11-19-2007, 03:40 PM
Agree. If the L Funds rebalance daily (I'm assuming they do), then how do they justify the expenses associated these funds, e.g., what is the difference between our changing our TSP allocations and the rebalancing of the L funds?


This is THE salient question!

easting
11-19-2007, 03:41 PM
Crass action deserves class action.

Who's in?....I'm calling EAP for my free legal advice...wooT!

Silverbird
11-19-2007, 03:45 PM
:suspicious: Very unfortunate, this! No surprise it's mostly I transactions when that's the only fund out there that's made more than 7 percent earnings, this year, and that includes the L funds. L funds were invented to avoid the lost money in the as happend in the 2000-2002 account fiascos, however I would point out that the current L funds have not been in effect during a downturn, until now. How can we trust such a new system as the L's? They did well in the upturn, yes, but that's not the time our accounts need help.

The other choice is trying to do it yourself, with you in the driver's seat, and in this time of roller coaster markets, that means lots of corrections. Again during the 2000-2002 fiasco, if I remember, we were very limited in how many times we could change our IFT's and that was one of the reasons a lot of people lost their shirts.

So we are talking about trying to turn the coaster 2X a month and hope you did the second one right, or use a L fund that we haven't seen work during a downturn. I"m sure the L funds have been tested using past trends, but I haven't seen the data so I'm leery.

Minnow
11-19-2007, 04:03 PM
Those L funds are just a retirement horizon based allocation. They don't do anything special for an upturn nor a downturn. They don't do anything for capital preservation nor do they do anything for gain. They simply rebalance EVERY DAY (rebalancing = day-trading, no?) you get closer to 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040. They are not reactive, they simply do what they do regardless of what the markets are doing.

If I am wrong, someone please correct me -- I'm never offended trust me!

Twice a month??? Let's see... the trading curbs are removed on the exchanges now and yet we are gonna try and get the most for our retirement (since they sold the old system down the river long before I became a fed) based on two guesses a month?

More ranting to come --- I'm just more than a little ticked off right now to actually be hearing more about this. We should ask the TSP board for the balance sheets right now!!!

Frixxxx
11-19-2007, 04:04 PM
The board overseeing the Thrift Savings Plan is taking aim at day traders by restricting the ability of plan participants to shift money between funds to only twice a month.
...3,000 of the 3.8 million TSP enrollees are frequently shifting billions of dollars from plan to plan, sometimes on a daily basis.

Board chairman Andrew Saul said the practice amounts to day trading. The board said the excessive transfers are hurting TSP by driving up transaction expenses from $2.2 million in 2004 to more than $15 million in 2006.

...
Chief Investment Officer Tracey Ray said the problem has grown in recent years and is getting worse. Investors traded nearly twice as much money during the first 10 months of 2007 as was traded in all of 2006, she said.

For example, Ray said on Oct. 19, about 2,000 participants moved $295 million into the I Fund’s international stocks. Those 2,000 participants then shifted their money out of the I Fund five days later. Most of the daily trading involves the I Fund, Ray said.


Wait a second....3,000 into 3.8 million = .07% of investors using TSP on a daily basis. But that percentage of account holders caused 13 million dollars in trade costs increases?

3,000 traders are moving 2 billion dollars (from the plural "billions" in the article) are moved almost daily? One question I have is which ones of you guys are doing this for fun? I have no where near that kind of money to influence that much volume.

And now I have to ask, who negotiated a contract where trading increases at that level? I figured we were getting a fair transaction price from Barclay's? I cannot see the numbers adding up here. Some people on this site must be making millions.

This is sheer craziness. I want representation on this matter. Are we kidding ourselves? Our money our rights. I say we start a movement, "the .07%" ers! I call to the PEOPLE! I CALL TO THE INVESTOR! I CALL TO YOU!:cool:

tsptalk
11-19-2007, 04:09 PM
I know some have disagreed, but I keep saying they should charge a small fee per transaction. Don't tie our hands behind our backs. Charge a fee and let us do what we do.

The amounts they are talking about are such a miniscule percentage but they are using the dollar figures to make it look shocking. Fees went from 2.2 million to 15 million? How much has the total TSP balance grown in that time?

FUTURESTRADER
11-19-2007, 04:13 PM
$2 billion/ 3,000 accounts is $66,666 avg account size. That's reasonable

jlpost
11-19-2007, 04:19 PM
$2,000,000,000/3,000 = $666,666 not $66,000

Talltimber
11-19-2007, 04:31 PM
The board said the excessive transfers are hurting TSP by driving up transaction expenses from $2.2 million in 2004 to more than $15 million in 2006.


3.8 million TSP enrollees

$15 million to serve 3 million people for a year?! This is a problem? That's $5 dollars a year per person. That's an incredibly cheap service they want to take from us.

$666k average, I see I have some catching up to do. I would like to see some details backing these numbers up, they seem to be pulled out of the, umm, ahhhh, air.

FUTURESTRADER
11-19-2007, 04:37 PM
$2,000,000,000/3,000 = $666,666 not $66,000

right...sorry...that does seem a bit of stretch then.

TRAFFIC_DOG
11-19-2007, 04:47 PM
I say "NO RESTRICTION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!"

How about this question...

What part of that expense increase is DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE to the arrival and management of THE L-FUNDS ??????

I'm actively trading now simply to make up for the the Thrift Board's PERNICIOUS MALFEASANCE in the administering of the TSP in the years running up to the final arrival of daily valuations !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

....submission by the 15'th for execution on the 30'th.......PALEEEASE!

Tempest
11-19-2007, 04:47 PM
Wait till 60 Minutes does a segment on TSP.:D

"Want to know which is one of the fastest growing retirement accounts in the country and is absolutely safe bet according to fund managers we talked to?
"Want to know where you pay no transaction fees for transfers?"
"The answer to those questions may surprise you..?
tick... tick.... tick... I'm Steve Kroft... I'm Leslie Stahl....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/60_Minutes.jpg/220px-60_Minutes.jpg

Talltimber
11-19-2007, 04:48 PM
I know some have disagreed, but I keep saying they should charge a small fee per transaction. Don't tie our hands behind our backs. Charge a fee and let us do what we do.

The amounts they are talking about are such a miniscule percentage but they are using the dollar figures to make it look shocking. Fees went from 2.2 million to 15 million? How much has the total TSP balance grown in that time?

2.2-15 million for 3.8 million people is from $0.57 to the astronomical sum of $3.95 dollars per year for each customer, or a huge sum of over a penny a day per account.

They could save a lot of money in postage if they didn't send snail mail for every transaction.

Perhaps a graduated fee, 2 free trades a month, $2 each for the next 5, $4 each for the next 5, etc.. Pay to play.

Who chooses the board members?

Frixxxx
11-19-2007, 04:51 PM
They could save a lot of money in postage if they didn't send snail mail for every transaction.

Perhaps a graduated fee, 2 free trades a month, $2 each for the next 5, $4 each for the next 5, etc.. Pay to play.

Who chooses the board members?

I agree on the postage....I get everything on-line...no postage necessary.

TSPTALK :cool: TOM FOR PRESIDENT OF TSP BOARD!

DrFaustus
11-19-2007, 04:59 PM
If we don't have that option ... are you suggesting that we just go 100% C fund?

budnipper1
11-19-2007, 05:01 PM
They could save a lot of money in postage if they didn't send snail mail for every transaction.

I don't receive anything by "snail" mail on regular routine transactions, do you? Maybe I opted out for that and just don't remember. I get monthly, or quarterly statements (not sure which) even though I thought I also opted out of that, too. Online access is all I really need to keep track of my account activity.

I'm wondering, what magic number have they determined to be an "excessive" trading frequency. Twice a month? Twice a week?

Frixxxx
11-19-2007, 05:03 PM
I don't receive anything by "snail" mail on regular routine transactions, do you? Maybe I opted out for that and just don't remember. I get monthly, or quarterly statements (not sure which) even though I thought I also opted out of that, too. Online access is all I really need to keep track of my account activity. [/B]

I'm wondering, what magic number have they determined to be an "excessive" trading frequency. Twice a month? Twice a week?
If you place an e-mail address in the boxess for notification.....no letter is sent. I got one by accident when I was rushing a trade.:cool:

budnipper1
11-19-2007, 05:12 PM
Two threads with almost the same title are confusing and unnecessary. (MHO) Could they be merged into one?

TSP board to limit interfund transfers
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5143 (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5143)

TSP board limits frequent fund transfers
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5144 (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5144)

Talltimber
11-19-2007, 05:26 PM
The board would prefer to take the easy way out, setting up a way to charge fees would take some actual work.

TRAFFIC_DOG
11-19-2007, 05:34 PM
The board would prefer to take the easy way out, setting up a way to charge fees would take some actual work.


BINGO!

jlpost
11-19-2007, 05:38 PM
Just running some numbers here-

The board chairman is saying these 3000 participants cost $12.8 million in transfer fees? Thats $4267 average cost in trades per each of these 3000 participants.

If there were 250 trading days a year, and each of these 3000 participants traded eary day, the cost per trade would have to have been $17 each to total $12.8million.

If they each traded every other day the cost per trade would have to have been $34 to come up with a figure of $12.8million.

The other 3.8 million participants cost $2200000. $2.2m divided by the $17 trade cost means these 3.8 million participants did 129412 trades. Thats an average of .034 trades per year. Thats one trade per 3 years on average.

If we use the $34 cost per trade figure, then the 3.8 million participants did 64706 trades. Thats one trade per 6 years on average.

What about all the daily L fund rebalance trades?


That what the numbers seem to say. Believe them?

Show-me
11-19-2007, 05:56 PM
Bastards!!! :mad:

ChemEng
11-19-2007, 05:56 PM
can you explain to me what the unions have to do with this matter, you better talk to your senator or state rep not the unions by the way i am an union steward

First of all, I am not a union steward. So be forewarned.

If the TSP Board is tinkering with the policies of government employees retirement accounts, I would think that the unions would have a very strong interest in making sure the best interest of their members are protected.

Oldcoin
11-19-2007, 05:58 PM
I would pay per trade if I got the benefits the same as I get from my regular broker.

1. 100 free trades a year.
2. No noon cut off.
3. Trades occur when ordered, not at days end.
4. I can put a price on the fund to trade at.

After all we’re paying for it.

Show-me
11-19-2007, 06:00 PM
I'm going to move all of these posts to the other thread and reserve this one for folks that want to talk to Stephen.

Miss_Piggy
11-19-2007, 06:01 PM
HEY CAN ANY ONE OF THE MODERATORS MERGE THESE TWO IMPORTANT THREADS ON "TSP TRANSFERS" BEFORE IT GETS FURTHER OUT OF HAND? Thanks in advance.

ChemEng
11-19-2007, 06:02 PM
Employee Thrift Advisory Council, composed of representatives of federal labor unions including the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union and the American Postal Workers Union, and nonbargaining employee groups such as the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, Federally Employed Women, the Federal Managers Association and the Senior Executives Association.

I knew the unions would have some play in this.

Show-me
11-19-2007, 06:03 PM
Alright guys here is the guy to talk to. Get your ducks in line and don't be shy. I plan to frame my letter when I get it. LOL

Show-me
11-19-2007, 06:05 PM
HEY CAN ANY ONE OF THE MODERATORS MERGE THESE TWO IMPORTANT THREADS ON "TSP TRANSFERS" BEFORE IT GETS FURTHER OUT OF HAND? Thanks in advance.

Done. :D

Miss_Piggy
11-19-2007, 06:07 PM
HEY CAN ANY ONE OF THE MODERATORS MERGE THESE TWO IMPORTANT THREADS ON "TSP TRANSFERS" BEFORE IT GETS FURTHER OUT OF HAND? Thanks in advance.

Just saw Show-me took some action on the issue. As they say, "Great minds run..."

budnipper1
11-19-2007, 06:14 PM
Done. :D
Thank you, Show-me.:)

Talltimber
11-19-2007, 06:18 PM
The Thrift Savings Plan is one of the three parts of the Federal Employees Retirement System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Retirement_System), and is the largest defined contribution plan in the world with over 3.7 million particpants and assets worth over $210 billion dollars. Both the board and its Chairman are nominated by the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) and confirmed by the United States Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate). The current Chairman is Andrew Saul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Saul).
Governance of the agency is carried out by a five-person, part-time Board of Presidential appointees and by a full-time Executive Director selected by those appointees. Each of these persons is required by FERSA to have "substantial experience, training, and expertise in the management of financial investments and pension benefit plans." 5 U.S.C. 8472(d). The Board members collectively establish the policies under which the TSP operates and furnish general oversight. The Executive Director carries out the policies established by the Board members and otherwise acts as the full-time chief executive of the agency. The Board and the Executive Director convene monthly in meetings open to the public to review policies, practices, and performance.
The first Chairman of the board was Roger W. Mehle, who was appointed on October 1st, 1986. In 1988 he was reappointed and served continuously until January 31, 1994. President Clinton appointed James H. Atkins to replace him, and the board named Mehle the agency's executive director. Clintons named Atkins to another term in 1997, and to a third term via a recess appointment in 2000. He was succeeded by Andrew Saul, who named Gary Amelio executive director in 2002, replacing Mehle.


Hmmmm, yes, election year.



He is currently a Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29) candidate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidate) for the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) in New York's 19th congressional district (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_19th_congressional_district) in the 2008 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections%2C_2008#New_York) who is vying to unseat freshman incumbent John Hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hall_%28New_York%29)

Wouldn't admin cost also go up with the increased fund value? Why blame the .07%?


During Saul's tenure, the TSP was grown to over $200 billion in assets by 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007), making it twice as large as when he began in 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003).[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Saul#_note-3)

Miss_Piggy
11-19-2007, 06:22 PM
Three Issues here as I see it.

This is another trash the middle-class movement. When the national trend is to totally eliminate pensions, force people into mandatory 401k savings, and with talk about eliminating Social Security looming, the government is simultaneously tying the hands of those effected, the middle-class, to manage their monies.

Who said Bush wasn’t talented? Bush added 3 new positions to manage the TSP at the beginning of his Presidency – they have successfully done his bidding.

Perhaps Lou Dobbs can help us.

Miss_Piggy
11-19-2007, 06:25 PM
Three Issues here as I see it.

This is another trash the middle-class movement. When the national trend is to totally eliminate pensions, force people into mandatory 401k savings, and with talk about eliminating Social Security looming, the government is simultaneously tying the hands of those effected, the middle-class, to manage their monies.

Who said Bush wasn’t talented? Bush added 3 new positions to manage the TSP at the beginning of his Presidency – they have successfully done his bidding.

Perhaps Lou Dobbs can help us.

Birchtree
11-19-2007, 06:32 PM
Your TSP account was designed as a fiduciary account. That means the many need to be protected from their own undoing. Making only two trades a month is plenty to make extra money - there is plenty of time to trade over a 12 month period.

Miss_Piggy
11-19-2007, 06:46 PM
Your TSP account was designed as a fiduciary account. That means the many need to be protected from their own undoing. Making only two trades a month is plenty to make extra money - there is plenty of time to trade over a 12 month period.
We got you now Birch! You work for them, don't you? :D

McDuck
11-19-2007, 06:55 PM
Three Issues here as I see it.

This is another trash the middle-class movement. When the national trend is to totally eliminate pensions, force people into mandatory 401k savings, and with talk about eliminating Social Security looming, the government is simultaneously tying the hands of those effected, the middle-class, to manage their monies.

Who said Bush wasn’t talented? Bush added 3 new positions to manage the TSP at the beginning of his Presidency – they have successfully done his bidding.

Perhaps Lou Dobbs can help us.

This is the most insightful post that I have read here in a long time.

nnuut
11-19-2007, 06:56 PM
Crass action deserves class action.

Who's in?....I'm calling EAP for my free legal advice...wooT!
I'm with Ya!!:nuts:

McDuck
11-19-2007, 06:56 PM
The unions that represent federal employees should fight this.

I have emailed my local president.

nnuut
11-19-2007, 06:57 PM
I would pay per trade if I got the benefits the same as I get from my regular broker.

1. 100 free trades a year.
2. No noon cut off.
3. Trades occur when ordered, not at days end.
4. I can put a price on the fund to trade at.

After all we’re paying for it.
Now Yer talkin'!!:D

poolman
11-19-2007, 07:05 PM
I have not had time to read this entire thread but I get the jest of it. I worked 11 hour's today outside 45 degree's working on a pool paver job.

My immediate response would be, Charge a "fee or penalty" for anyone making over 2 trades per month if that is what they want to limit us too.

It's my money let me do with it what I want. I would be willing to pay 10 or 15 bucks for a trade or charge me a penalty.

This is more Bull Shxt...:mad:

poolman
11-19-2007, 07:06 PM
I have not had time to read this entire thread but I get the jest of it. I worked 11 hour's today outside 45 degree's working on a pool paver job.

My immediate response would be, Charge a "fee or penalty" for anyone making over 2 trades per month if that is what they want to limit us too.

It's my money let me do with it what I want. I would be willing to pay 10 or 15 bucks for a trade or charge me a penalty.

This is more Bull Shxt...:mad:

Birchtree
11-19-2007, 07:07 PM
They are just trying to maintain parity with private industry. No organization should be exempt - trading mutual funds is taboo, especially in a fiduciary type account. I have rules to follow when I do trading in the Mrs. FRS account affiliated with the State of Florida - it's no big deal to someone that is future oriented with an expanded time horizon. I had planned to start trading in the spring on a limited basis and these caps fit nicely. So I will not be complaining, sorry folks.

ou81200
11-19-2007, 07:11 PM
Tom---

There is nothing about this mess on the TSP goverment web site that I can see. Is this an oversite on my part or do you think they just hav'nt posted anything yet?

Bullitt
11-19-2007, 07:15 PM
So.... you're pushing for the TSP to move towards ETF's and away from Index Funds since you'd like Limit/Stop Orders to occur when ordered.

Has anyone considered that Barclay's is making an attempt to cut costs associated with trading after the huge subprime writedown that they initially denied came to fruition on 11/15? Besides, Barclays must make some money off the TSP funds they manage as they most likely lend out the money to other brokers and managers.

gphill
11-19-2007, 07:39 PM
MORE info on Fred Smith .gov
Hum, seems when you have a gold mine, you get shaft and all!
And now, the games began!
gphill

ou81200
11-19-2007, 07:41 PM
They talk about 3000 participants who are "day traders". How many participants does anybody think make more than 2 trades a month? This will affect more than just people who frequent TSP TALK.

I had another retirement plan (457 plan) that imposed the same restrictions. They faulted their foreign funds as the reason for the restrictions. As a result, they would impose a 90 day restriction on Foreign fund transfers after making two transfers within the same period.

My guess is the cost of making I fund transfers.

But the numbers they crunched just does'nt make any sense. How can 3000 participants make that big of an impact with the amount of money TSP has in their accounts???

Birchtree
11-19-2007, 07:41 PM
Gee, I've been waiting for the I fund to drop since it was trading at $25.84 back on 10/12 into the $24.00 range. It did hit a peak at $26.02 on 10/29 - no I take that back the peak was at $26.31 on 10/31. So I've waited and finally placed a DCA IFT for the I fund COB 11/20. Suits me just fine. Now which ever way it goes I'll DCA some more.

TRAFFIC_DOG
11-19-2007, 07:52 PM
Your TSP account was designed as a fiduciary account. That means the many need to be protected from their own undoing. Making only two trades a month is plenty to make extra money - there is plenty of time to trade over a 12 month period.


Save it......
You don't have a dog in this fight.

robo
11-19-2007, 08:05 PM
You are waging a battle you can not win. They have the SEC on their side and they are following guidelines from:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8408.pdf

I will be moving to a Vanguard brokerage account when I retire. The main reason is I hate the TSP deadline. I'll pay my 12.00 a move. ( 12.00 a trade if you have over 100k ) I think it's 8.00 if you have 500K, but not sure. I like Vangaurd for my TSP money and will leave my Roth money in Scottrade.

Fivetears
11-19-2007, 08:45 PM
How much will Mr. Losey receive as a result of our exclusive input?
Vulture. :suspicious:

Fivetears
11-19-2007, 09:23 PM
Thanks ass.

easting
11-19-2007, 09:25 PM
Thanks ass.

Where'd that come from?

Show-me
11-19-2007, 09:31 PM
Hey don't kill the messenger, Mr. Losey. He is trying to get some folks to give our side and maybe we need to do that. Use the press to fight the TSP board.

I like the idea of charging a small, reasonable fee for trades in excess of what ever. Maybe that is what they wanted all along. ;)

As of right now I will be changing my contributions down to the 5% for the match and dumping more into my Scottrade accounts. Screw them for screwing me.

Rob
11-19-2007, 09:37 PM
Show-Me just posted what I was going to post as I started reading through this thread.

First of all, it is a horrible thing for the government to limit our money-making abilities, especially when it comes to retirement. Perhaps they feel they might be able to squeeze out a few more years of service from us since the large majority of TSP folks are going to dump their accounts into the G or F fund (I'm headed towards the F fund myself).

Yes, I just lowered my contribution down to the 5% minimum to get the maximum government contribution and plan to take the remaining balance of what I had been putting into TSP and see what I can do myself with playing the market or just dumping it into a Roth IRA.

This is really disappointing news...really disappointing.

$$lake
11-19-2007, 09:40 PM
New article …. http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/articles.showarticle.db.php?intArticleID=1428

Day Traders Taking Bite From TSP Returns


By Ralph Smith (http://www.fedsmith.com/about/ralph.php)
11/19/2007
FedSmith recently ran a survey (http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/articles.showarticle.db.php?intArticleID=1367) to gauge reader reaction to the possibility of the Thrift Savings Plan imposing a limit on the number of trades that participants could make or imposing a fee for TSP participants who trade frequently.
The TSP has studied transaction costs and day trading recently and come up with some interesting statistics. As a result of its findings, there is an internal recommendation to begin imposing limits on the number of TSP trades each month.
Here is a quick summary of the data. In 2004, trading costs for the TSP were $2.2 million. In 2005, the costs jumped up to $6.7 million. In 2006, trading costs continued their upward spiral and hit $15 million. These fees and their percentage increases over the previous year are illustrated in the table below.



Year

Fees
% Increase
2004
$2,200,000
-
2005
$6,700,000
204.55%
2006
$15,000,000
123.88%






The biggest expenses in 2006 resulted from trades in the I fund. Expenses for this fund came to $13.8 million out of the total costs of $15 million.
Trading I fund shares has become more frequent. In September and October, the average I fund daily trading totaled $224 million. That compares to an average of $49 million in daily I fund trades in 2006. According to the TSP study, most of these costs came from frequent traders. In other words, TSP participants who bought or sold shares in the I fund completed a "round trip" of trades within 60 days. In effect, there are about 3000 TSP participants who trade their funds frequently and are accounting for much of the TSP's total trading costs. Part of the costs created by frequent trading is due to the loss of interest that occurs because of delayed settlements. This interest loss has been approximately $1.2 million so far in 2007--in addition to the higher expenses being paid.
It is not only the I fund that has experienced the surge in day trading. It has impacted other funds as well. Here is a chart that shows the dollar amount traded in funds through October 2007 and the dollar amount for these funds in all of 2006:



Impact of Frequent Trading on TSP Funds

Fund
Total $ Amt. Traded (2006)
Total $ Amt. Traded (2007 YTD)
% of Fund (2006)
% of Fund (2007 YTD)
F
$2,389,469,901
$8,006,268,543
23%
69%
C
$7,954,559,207
$9,214,817,528
11%
11%
S
$6,086,286,346
$11,257,570,924
39%
60%
I
$12,306,580,227
$23,467,413,406
72%
88%





The trading costs of TSP funds are also going up considerably for other TSP funds. Ultimately, these costs impact the returns of the funds that are realized by all TSP participants. Most private sector funds have implemented some type of restrictions on trading, especially in international stock funds similar to the I fund. These restrictions vary from charging additional fees to imposing a limit on the number of trades in a specified time period.
In order to cut down on these costs, an internal recommendation has been made to limit the number of TSP transactions that can be made. Under this proposal, an investor would be restricted to two interfund transfers per calendar month. After these two trades, participants would still be able to move more money into the safety offered by the G fund.
The rationale is that two interfund transfers would be enough to allow TSP participants to relance their portfolios every other week and make a total of 24 trades per year. This restriction would effectively eliminate the day trading or frequent trading of the fairly small number of investors who have been increasing their trading activity. The restrictions could be imposed in March or April of 2008.
The restrictions are only a proposal (http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/references/FrequentTrading.pdf)at this time but it is likely that restrictions such as these are going to be implemented. In the meantime, there is also a recommendation to try and slow down the frequent trading in the I, S and F funds. The TSP organization is going to consider mailing a letter to the several thousand people who are frequent traders and urging them to refrain from frequent trading or face being restricted to requesting interfund transfers through the Postal Service until new, automated curbs take effect.
http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/articles.showarticle.db.php?intArticleID=1428

Talltimber
11-19-2007, 09:54 PM
Anyone go to the weekly board meetings? That might be a good place to send some representation, every week...

Talltimber
11-19-2007, 09:58 PM
Originally Posted by Birchtree http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=132900#post132900)
Your TSP account was designed as a fiduciary account. That means the many need to be protected from their own undoing. Making only two trades a month is plenty to make extra money - there is plenty of time to trade over a 12 month period.
Extra money!? You have extra money? Wow.

Cortez
11-19-2007, 10:07 PM
well..I was planning on maxing out a loan and dumping it into selling s&p options anyway...3.5% a month the past 6 months, and don't worry about it every day. Thank you TSP board

I have been seriously considering selling credit spreads using TSP funds. What are the conditions to get a TSP loan?

Miss_Piggy
11-19-2007, 10:11 PM
Are we under attack? Have we been infiltrated?
I don't think enough of the "right" people got enough of our losses in the last couple of weeks. :D

Show-me
11-19-2007, 10:15 PM
I have been seriously considering selling credit spreads using TSP funds. What are the conditions to get a TSP loan?

It is done on-line, $50 fee, up to $10k personal loan depending on account balance of course.

Off topic, bad Moderator! :D

James48843
11-19-2007, 10:52 PM
Here is the full link to read the fedsmith article:

http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/articles.showarticle.db.php?intArticleID=1428

James48843
11-19-2007, 11:05 PM
And here is the link to the report from the Board:

http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/references/FrequentTrading.pdf

Read it.

I'm going to try and put both the article and the Board paper on a sticky note here in this thread.

fedgolfer
11-19-2007, 11:28 PM
what a bunch of idiots. Vanguard doesn't let you buy back into the fund for 60 days, but then you have 60 other funds to chose from. Most large investment firms do... you can just hop from money market to mutual fund w/out waiting for trade settlement. That's an awful point of comparison!

fabijo
11-19-2007, 11:39 PM
And here is the link to the report from the Board:

http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/references/FrequentTrading.pdf

Read it.

I'm going to try and put both the article and the Board paper on a sticky note here in this thread.

Thanks for the info, James. It looks like the recommendation to trade twice a month is something they are prepared to do until they find another solution. I'll be watching out for this. This is really going to hurt the premium services here, huh?

James48843
11-19-2007, 11:40 PM
We need to ORGANIZE!

When the French government tries to screw the middle class, the middle class fights back. We need a March on Washington!

A TSPTALK MARCH ON WASHINGTON- DON"T SCREW WITH THE TSP!

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE

SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THE EARTH!


O-R-G-A-N-I-Z-E!

James48843
11-19-2007, 11:41 PM
Do Not Accept This Blindly.


Fight Back!

fabijo
11-19-2007, 11:51 PM
According to this, from the September meeting minutes, each fund's expenses year-to-date (September), were .01% - exactly the same as the L Funds:

http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/MM-2007Sep-Att1.pdf

Look at the table on the bottom of the first page.

Talltimber
11-20-2007, 12:24 AM
Barclay's handle our I fund no? They didn't list any restriction on their public funds in the memo, how come they want to limit our trades?

When is the next Board meeting? It would be fun to return the letter to them in person, and let them know what we think. That would save a stamp and all.

http://www.frtib.gov/index.htmll (http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/index.html)

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

These clowns seem to be hiding from their customers.

pogo
11-20-2007, 01:38 AM
They are just trying to maintain parity with private industry. No organization should be exempt - trading mutual funds is taboo, especially in a fiduciary type account. I have rules to follow when I do trading in the Mrs. FRS account affiliated with the State of Florida - it's no big deal to someone that is future oriented with an expanded time horizon. I had planned to start trading in the spring on a limited basis and these caps fit nicely. So I will not be complaining, sorry folks.
i trade my wife's account with the private industry(their rules) and her account is up 10.5 percent this year and my account is up 18.53 percent (with tsp rules) which one is better birch. you better start complaining--sorry birch

troxel
11-20-2007, 04:27 AM
"The board also will send letters to the 3,000 frequent traders in December telling them to cut back on their transfers. If they don’t, the board will take away their abilities to trade online, and they will have to physically mail in their transfers.

“Those 3,000 people will not be happy, and they will complain, some of them very loudly,” Executive Director Gregory Long said. “But the board’s job is to take care of all participants, and this is clearly in their best interests.”

The TSP will install the twice-monthly restrictions into its software by March or April. Frequent traders who ignore warnings and lose their online trading privileges will regain them when the restrictions are up and running."

While other fund service providers strive to develop more efficient mechanisms and increase flexibility, TSP takes a step backward.

This is fundamental economic theory however, the range and quality of services will suffer if:

1. The service providers function within a noncompetitive environment

2. The constituency has no real representation

ayla
11-20-2007, 04:56 AM
This decision wreaks of incompetence.

Remember this is the same board that voted to use SSN as a login id when other government organizations such as NASA understood (in the early 90's) that we needed to have a separate numeric key for tracking electronically.

I'm all for fighting this but if we are successful, it will still probably take years for the TSP board to have a "change of heart" (as it did with their finally learning that SSN logins were a bad idea).

As someone who is retired and 62 years old, I would like to know what other options are out there. Seems like if we can find the best competition and support that group, then that will be one of the best ways to fight this edict especially for those of us who can more easily withdraw our money

I'm one of those who agrees that charging for trades is a reasonable thing to do (above some limit) but I'm guessing that this will take quite a few dollars for them to modify their system to do this. Again, won't happen quick.

Can't withdraw all my funds at first because of tax bite. I'm thinking that there appear to be equivalents to the TSP funds in the non-TSP world. Which are best? What online brokers (or fund managers?) have the cheapest and/or most optimum rules? Would like to hear about plans others may be thinking about (like some have already mentioned.)

James48843
11-20-2007, 06:16 AM
Exactly.

And limiting trades does not solve the "problem". The issue they bring up is strictly the Fair Value issue with the I fund. Even after they institute limits, there will still be exactly the same Fair Value issue with the I fund, only now people will not be able trade as much.

If the FV is really a problem, they could simply execute the "I" trades at night, when the I markets were open, and do them at the real time costs. That would entail only delaying the posting of the "I" fund price until 2 a.m the next morning, when the European markets would open. zzzzzzzzzthe computer could still calculate the price correctly, and update the account balances, and be ready to go by the 9:30 am. market opening in new york.

This plan of theirs stinks.

Show-me
11-20-2007, 06:37 AM
Think not thing, oops. lol Dang spelling!

The_Technician
11-20-2007, 07:00 AM
Here's the funny thing, doesn't the government make more tax money (at withdrawal) when we make more TSP retirement money ???

Then it's to their benefit for us to make more money. I think the TSP board has taken an apple out of the mouth of the Government.

:blink:

James48843
11-20-2007, 07:01 AM
We MUST O-R-G-A-N-I-Z-E and march on their next meeting. We must tell them face to face that they are wrong, and that there are other alternatives which CAN solve the "problem", if there is one, but this is not it.

Who is with me?

Show-me
11-20-2007, 07:15 AM
James,

I'm with ya we do need to O-R-G-A-N-I-Z-E, but the travel expense will be a factor for me. One income family with limited resources and the Holidays coming up.

Jonathan
11-20-2007, 07:25 AM
Your TSP account was designed as a fiduciary account. That means the many need to be protected from their own undoing. Making only two trades a month is plenty to make extra money - there is plenty of time to trade over a 12 month period.

If your strategy is buying-and-holding blindly regardless of what the market is actually doing, then I agree with you. For most of us, it's not. This isn't "extra money" we're talking about -- it's retirement.

For my part, I object to the use of the term "day traders". It's simply not possible to "day trade" with the TSP -- IFT's aren't processed that fast.

Sounds to me like someone didn't think through (or add up) the possible ramifications when they set up the TSP IFT system.

Mudpie
11-20-2007, 07:43 AM
I would rather pull my money out of TSP, than to watch my account disappear with only two trades per month. Why doesn't TSP start off by surveying TSP participants for possible solutions? I would pay $5.00 a trade and stay with TSP, or $7.00 a trade and jump ship to a discount house. Either way it's TAX DEDUCTABLE! Idiots!

TSP is chasing people away...and their money. lol:cool:

TTMartin
11-20-2007, 08:05 AM
If they are still sending out snail mail replies, I can see why it costs too much. I definately can see a $1.00 fee for snail mail reply. We as users can help the situation by entering an email address when we request an interfund transfer.

Show-me
11-20-2007, 08:08 AM
By the way welcome to the mb Mudpie and TTMartin.

fedgolfer
11-20-2007, 08:12 AM
i'm for unlimited trading in TSP... but maybe we could all live with 5 or 6trades a month if it came down to a comprimise. Or, They need to give us more funds to chose from if they're comparing TSP to Vanguard and the likes.

Skip
11-20-2007, 08:19 AM
I think 2 trades a month is not enough, If they are going to limit it ,4 trades
with the option to move to g or f not counting as a trade would be better..

fabijo
11-20-2007, 08:20 AM
Another point to note in anyone's letter to their Congress person is how the I Fund is the one that is costing the most. It is also the one that sometimes makes money on trades because of Barclays' Fair Valuation adjustments. So, it could be argued that the "day traders" are already paying a fee for their actions.

jayhawker
11-20-2007, 08:22 AM
i'm for unlimited trading in TSP... but maybe we could all live with 5 or 6trades a month if it came down to a comprimise. Or, They need to give us more funds to chose from if they're comparing TSP to Vanguard and the likes.

I'm not willing to negotiate the number of trades. Period!

This proposal is total BS! These people can't come up with a better solution to their perceived problem than this proposal??? Are they incompetent??? I agree with Tom, there something else afoot here.

If the I Fund is generating most of the increased trading costs, then limit the number of trades in that fund... or eliminate it altogether. If you can't "trade" it - what the hell good is it?

fabijo
11-20-2007, 08:26 AM
The letter to Greg Long from the Investment Officer gave dollar amounts to show the increase in expenses one year over the next. He failed to note that the total dollar amount within TSP also increased year over year. He also failed to quote what is readily available on the meeting minutes - that the trading costs are actually less than last year if looking at the percentage of each fund. Last year, the trading costs were about .02% of each fund's holdings. This year, it is looking like it will be .01% of each fund's holdings, which is EXACTLY the same as the costs of running each L Fund.

Hardcorps
11-20-2007, 08:40 AM
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1295720&nid=250

Show-me
11-20-2007, 08:43 AM
IMO, it is not about keeping fees lower. It is about preserving the fixed profit margin for the company that has the contract to manage the account. Ta da!!! We are killing their bottom line on this contract, IMO.

Hardcorps
11-20-2007, 08:45 AM
Since my kids go to private school,would the government mind lowering my property taxes.Raise the taxes on those that use the public schools.I'll be waiting for my letter next month.

Frixxxx
11-20-2007, 08:45 AM
IMO, it is not about keeping fees lower. It is about preserving the fixed profit margin for the company that has the contract to manage the account. Ta da!!! We are killing their bottom line on this contract, IMO.

You are absolutely correct. THEIR bottom line! Now let me pose this little nasty for everyone:

If 3000 (we should take on the Persians) are causing this, what percentage of the 3.8 million are doing absolutely nothing with their accounts and the contract is recieving "free" administration charges.

Anyone?:cool:

jayhawker
11-20-2007, 09:29 AM
TheGreatBear:

Trades cannot be made effective instantly for the TSP. It's against the law!

It's not just the TSP that's affected by this law. It's all exchange funds and mutuals funds. This law will never change.

There is no way to value every stock instantly to determine the value of a fund that owns all of those stocks. ALL mutual funds are traded this way.

I suggest you revise your letter and stick to the point.

The_Technician
11-20-2007, 09:32 AM
http://www.tsp.gov/features/chapter10.html states the daily transfer available to TSP'ers....there is no regulation of trades in the original retirement fund setup. So why the beef now.....L funds and individual trade costs should have been planned from the get go initially ( and I'm sure were) or was there a presumption of minimal trading in the planning stages....or else there is another motive from Causey and company....something in which I speculate.

qibovin
11-20-2007, 09:36 AM
If they are still sending out snail mail replies, I can see why it costs too much. I definately can see a $1.00 fee for snail mail reply. We as users can help the situation by entering an email address when we request an interfund transfer.

Why don't they just add a block when someone submits an IFT without an email address that offers them a choice of entering an email address, not receiving a response (other than the confirmation screen on the website) or paying $1 for a snail mail confirmation.

qibovin
11-20-2007, 09:37 AM
i'm for unlimited trading in TSP... but maybe we could all live with 5 or 6trades a month if it came down to a comprimise. Or, They need to give us more funds to chose from if they're comparing TSP to Vanguard and the likes.

One per week would be reasonable (and allow for play of the Sentiment Survey!)

DrFaustus
11-20-2007, 09:39 AM
I haven't received a snail mail confirmation on my trades for several years now. All of my confirmations are done electronically - I receive an email. I think there is a box you can check somewhere but I don't remember where it is.

jayhawker
11-20-2007, 09:40 AM
Why don't they just add a block when someone submits an IFT without an email address that offers them a choice of entering an email address, not receiving a response (other than the confirmation screen on the website) or paying $1 for a snail mail confirmation.

Because they aren't set up to deduct that $1. The same with charging for each IFT. No doubt it would cost them another $70 million to make such a complicated change in the system. :blink:

(Watch out - I'm very testy today.) :suspicious:

qibovin
11-20-2007, 09:43 AM
IMO, it is not about keeping fees lower. It is about preserving the fixed profit margin for the company that has the contract to manage the account. Ta da!!! We are killing their bottom line on this contract, IMO.

BINGO.

Perhaps we should be directing our emails, letters and calls to Barclay's who is no doubt strongarming the board for this. Perhaps presented with other reasonable alternatives (profitable to them) they would bring them to the board for "consideration."

DrFaustus
11-20-2007, 09:43 AM
If 3000 (we should take on the Persians) are causing this, what percentage of the 3.8 million are doing absolutely nothing with their accounts and the contract is recieving "free" administration charges.

Anyone?:cool:

Traders! Prepare for GLORY!! lol :D

qibovin
11-20-2007, 09:43 AM
Since my kids go to private school,would the government mind lowering my property taxes.Raise the taxes on those that use the public schools.I'll be waiting for my letter next month.

Amen to that, Brother!

DayLate
11-20-2007, 09:49 AM
Ok, I am new to all this so just as an interesting read.
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37813&ref=rellink
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38051&ref=rellink
Then of course today's.
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38616&dcn=todaysnews

troxel
11-20-2007, 09:51 AM
How does one find out the names of the boards members and to obtain the minutes of the Board meeting?

Aviator_Guy
11-20-2007, 09:51 AM
I agree that it’s in your best interest to let your reps in DC land know that limiting TSP trades to only twice a month is a really bad idea. That limitation would cost me a lot of money. But, if their data is true and I’m HIGHLY skeptical that it is, excessive trades do cost money and someone must pay for those transactions. If a very small percentage of TSP investors are making daily trades, then why must the majority of our participants pay?

I have been with the TSP since day one. In the past, limited to one trade per month that was really tough. The current system works extremely well and I hope they don’t change it. But if they do change, I would prefer a pay per trade system. This would be fair for everyone and would allow the participant the freedom to move their funds around as they wish. The disadvantage would be to the new employees. The fees would ding them a lot harder than the older ones who have large account balances. :cool::cool:

saturneptune
11-20-2007, 09:54 AM
Because they aren't set up to deduct that $1. The same with charging for each IFT. No doubt it would cost them another $70 million to make such a complicated change in the system. :blink:

(Watch out - I'm very testy today.) :suspicious:
Two questions come to mind.
1. Can we transfer our entire TSP to a private broker, such as AG Edwards if we still are working?
2. If we can, would we have to wait until 59 1/2 to withdraw. Now we can the year we turn 55 if retired?

Any response would be appreciated.

The best weapon would be to put these clowns out of business.

tsptalk
11-20-2007, 09:57 AM
I wanted to share a well written letter to the Thrift Board from one of our readers.



RE: November 6, 2007 Memorandum “Frequent Trading”

I have just learned of your intention to impose a restriction on Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) trading activity, specifically limiting participants to no more than two (2) transfers per month. I believe this will have a serious, negative impact on my ability to maximize my retirement account, which in turn lowers my quality of life in retirement. This is incongruent with the philosophy of the TSP program.

As a career federal employee faced with the challenge of ensuring I have put aside adequate funds for my retirement, the TSP is an excellent investment option. Through my active participation, my returns have been much greater than they would have been if the number of transfers was restricted, as you are recommending.

Based on the September 18, 2006 Government Executive article, “Cost of running TSP lower than anticipated”, the September 17, 2007 “Minutes of the Meeting of the Board Members”, the “Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Budget”, and numerous other resources, the cost of administering the TSP is and has been under budget, specifically for years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and the increase in 2007 is not entirely due to increased trading costs, but most likely due to “Other contractual services”, and the production of a DVD for participants who don’t read the available material.

As justification for the transfer limitations, you cite Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA) sec. 8475 which directs the board to “develop investment policies…which provide for…low administrative costs.” However, in 5 CFR Ch. VI, Subpart D “Contribution Allocations and Interfund Transfer Requests”, §1601.32(4)(b) “Limit. There is no limit on the number of contribution allocations or interfund transfer requests that may be made by a participant.”

To allow my continued active participation in securing adequate retirement income, I would be more than willing to pay an off-setting fee to TSP for the increased transaction costs. Therefore, I ask that you give further consideration to imposing restrictions on TSP trading activity.

sugarandspice
11-20-2007, 09:59 AM
3,800,000 enrollees in the TSP. Minus the 3000 enrollees who are making it such a financial burden on the system. That leaves 3,797,000 people who are making less IFT's than the rest of us? Please! If these 3,797,000 are just letting their money sit, then TSP really doesn't want members doing anything with their accounts. And money sitting around is their true goal. And where is that money sitting? In a closet? Under a mattress? Im sure it is collecting some sort of interest rate in a nice account somewhere.

Frixxxx
11-20-2007, 10:06 AM
3,800,000 enrollees in the TSP. Minus the 3000 enrollees who are making it such a financial burden on the system. That leaves 3,797,000 people who are making less IFT's than the rest of us? Please! If these 3,797,000 are just letting their money sit, then TSP really doesn't want members doing anything with their accounts. And money sitting around is their true goal. And where is that money sitting? In a closet? Under a mattress? Im sure it is collecting some sort of interest rate in a nice account somewhere.

Sugar.....and spice,

You are seeing things from my perspective.


Now let me pose this little nasty for everyone:

If 3000 (we should take on the Persians) are causing this, what percentage of the 3.8 million are doing absolutely nothing with their accounts and the contract is recieving "free" administration charges.

Anyone?:cool:

I want pure numbers for research on this one. I want an accountant, auditor, and lawyer to review the numbers. I know this is the land of opportunity, but it shouldn't get this crazy. If anything, maybe the 3000 people actively trading could be the marketing campaign for TSP and not the added expense of the DVD for beginners. That would cover our trade costs!:cool:

offtrack
11-20-2007, 10:07 AM
When you see a new street beautification project, do you admire the beauty or do you wonder what politics went into granting the contract for planting a few trees? The TSP wasn't designed for us to make money. It was designed to generate market capital - presently 1/4 trillion dollars since the TSP inception. It's kind of a reverse socialism. Instead of the government owniing part of the corporations, the corporations grabbed a part of our pay. The liquidity influx from our pensions, other pension plans, and overseas did not generate an increase in steady dividends as would be expected from long established stable companies. It has only fueled price speculation, which is not what I'd normally want for a retirement account. Limitations on our investment options, the push for L funds, and the restriction of transfers gives more control of the liquidity to those corporations.
If they wanted to give us a retirement perk then every citizen would have the option of saving and writing off the maximum allowable IRS retirement contribution and then investing it in their own personal savings option.

fabijo
11-20-2007, 10:26 AM
How does one find out the names of the boards members and to obtain the minutes of the Board meeting?

The meeting minutes are available on this page:
http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/index.html

The first page of each report says who was present.

sugarandspice
11-20-2007, 10:31 AM
I guarantee the 3000 people they are targeting are the best spokespeople for the TSP. They are the ones using the system to their advantage and educating themselves on how it works. My account has taken a major dive this year but still I know the advantages of having unlimited access to move. The "3000" are the best advertisers for TSP.

sdouglas3
11-20-2007, 10:40 AM
Okay, I admit I am one of the 3000 members who have traded on a daily basis. But, whats the point in all this? Is the TSP board afraid that all 3.7 million participants are going to trade at once one day? I have a suggestion for the board. After the second transaction during the month. Charge me a small fee (ex. $7 or so) for each transaction thereafter. My risk, my gain (loss). But, don't keep me from being able to trade if I want to. This is a capitalistic society. Don't limit my freedom to make myself as rich or broke as I can get. :)

Steve

tsptalk
11-20-2007, 10:43 AM
Is the TSP board made up of governemnt employees, contractors, both?

tsptalk
11-20-2007, 10:45 AM
After the second transaction during the month. Charge me a small fee (ex. $7 or so) for each transaction thereafter.
They don't want to risk you pushing the wrong button. :D

offtrack
11-20-2007, 10:46 AM
Is the TSP board made up of governemnt employees, contractors, both?


http://www.tsp.gov/features/def_ch1-board-members.pdf

It appears you have to copy and link the post to get it to work

base pay 130k -150k I doubt that includes bonuses

sdouglas3
11-20-2007, 10:50 AM
They don't want to risk you pushing the wrong button. :D


Isn't there only one button to push? LOL

sugarandspice
11-20-2007, 10:52 AM
How about an annual fee? 2-3-500 bucks for unlimited IFT? How many trading days are there in a year? Maybe 250? There is a solution to keep traders happy. It is just whether or not TSP wants to do it. And that depends on their true reasons for restricting IFT's. Frizz is right. We need the numbers. And TSP won't give them. At least not all of them.

TRAFFIC_DOG
11-20-2007, 10:58 AM
Right now the 3,000 of "us" are no more than fleas catapulting themselves from the sidewalk against the granite facade of the sears tower.

I may wait to file suit for "material damages" along with "false and misleading statements" used to support changes directed for the financial benefit of non TSP participant entities who have excercised undue and illegitimate influence on the TSP board.

I have outperformed the funds' return every year that I have actively traded my account.

I am sitting on 12.5% gains YTD, having been OUT of the market more than in.

I vowed NEVER AGAIN to allow the maket action of 2000-2003 to decimate my retirement due to a buy and hold strategy.

With a law suit brings the opportunity for DISCOVERY, which would otherwise be impossible.

They are F'ING with MY future! Let's see the what these maggots have really been saying to each other, and why.

TTMartin
11-20-2007, 10:59 AM
This certainly doesn't seem to indicate there is a problem:

http://www.tsp.gov/rates/tspexpenseratio2006.pdf

Cortez
11-20-2007, 11:12 AM
I have outperformed the funds' return every year that I have actively traded my account.

I am sitting on 12.5% gains YTD, having been OUT of the market more than in.

I vowed NEVER AGAIN to allow the maket action of 2000-2003 to decimate my retirement due to a buy and hold strategy.


I find it ironic that this decision comes when the stock market is on the precipice of being a bear market - the exact period where greater nimbleness is required to preserve capital in long only accounts.

mojo
11-20-2007, 11:14 AM
Expense ratio 06. I was trying to remember where I had seen this before, thanks TTMartin. 30 cents per $1000 investment in 06.

Skidude78
11-20-2007, 11:20 AM
First of all the board is there to serve us. I have done much better in my personal Roth than I have in the TSP. My Roth IRA is a regular trading account. I would be into shifting all of my TSP funds into my Roth. Because of modern technology it's very easy and cheap to make transactions. I want the board to know this is my money and not theirs. If they can not serve all of their customers, they need to quit. These are probably the same people who brought us subprime mortgages. Why don't we talk about the lousy selection of funds we have compared to other plans. I say we get a new contractor who can give us a wider selection of funds (exchange traded funds would be better) and not limit our transactions. I say fire the board. They are out of touch. We need some responsible people to manage this very important program. Who do I write? How do I get on the board.
This is our money, isn't it?

fcassiday
11-20-2007, 11:23 AM
:mad: What an outrage!!!! The pompous arogance of the TSP Board "acting to protect everybody" is restricting "anybodies'" right to make more than 2 transfers per month. Oh please!!!!! The constant rebalancing required by the L funds adds more to the cost of operations for the TSP Board than the "2 or 3 thousand" who trade frequently. I am a retired CSR annuitant who has saved ever since it was an option, and I can honestly say that I have found the administration of TSP to be the most un-professional and self serving bunch of bureaucrats that I've had to deal with. I can not relate all the negative experiences I've encountered over the last approximately 25 years. Not enough room here! I'll just ask a question - How much of that $984,000 went to the 5 Board of Directors, and the Executive Director??? Not bad for attending a meeting once in a while. Yet we're driving up the costs???? I'm also curious how much it cost to transfer the accounting for TSP from the National Finance Center in New Orleans??? To say these folks are looking out for our interest is like saying Michael Vick was looking out for dogs!

saturneptune
11-20-2007, 11:31 AM
Two questions come to mind.
1. Can we transfer our entire TSP to a private broker, such as AG Edwards if we still are working?
2. If we can, would we have to wait until 59 1/2 to withdraw. Now we can the year we turn 55 if retired?

Any response would be appreciated.

The best weapon would be to put these clowns out of business.
bump

fabijo
11-20-2007, 11:58 AM
Can we transfer our entire TSP to a private broker, such as AG Edwards if we still are working?

I was also looking into this. So far, the option I figure would be to leave the government, roll it over into an IRA, then try to get hired again! :)

Birchtree
11-20-2007, 12:23 PM
I think I'll just keep quiet on this matter.

Show-me
11-20-2007, 12:37 PM
Two questions come to mind.
1. Can we transfer our entire TSP to a private broker, such as AG Edwards if we still are working?
2. If we can, would we have to wait until 59 1/2 to withdraw. Now we can the year we turn 55 if retired?

Any response would be appreciated.

The best weapon would be to put these clowns out of business.

Quick answerers

1. No. Only if you retire of quit.

2. You can not so the question is mute.

Show-me
11-20-2007, 12:53 PM
JMO.

TheGreatBear and everyone else,

Send any letter, e-mail, voice mail, or what ever to get the word out to the elected officials that there is a problem. It does not need to be elegant, articulate, or correct spelling in my opinion as long as it gets "face time". Even if your facts are off they will get sorted out as long as we all send something that gets "face time".

Elected officials do not just work for the articulate, they are suppose to work for all citizens and if you don't write as well as others.......SO WHAT!!! Get the letter out and in their hand so they know you are not happy because YOU have a VOTE. You don't need to be educated by the best school to say your piece. SAY IT!!!

Toms letter is excellent and I will send it, also send one in your own words. Send one every week even if it only sez, I hate what the Thrift Board has done with Inter Fund Transfer limits and I would like it corrected.

Take the time to send one every week because the "squeaky wheel gets the oil." wink wink

The details will get done by the lawyers and politicians. First make you voice heard.

Show-me
11-20-2007, 12:58 PM
NOW, if I really was "Day Trading" my account. I would have sold the rally at +1% today and been sip'n a Crown and Coke by now. Instead, I'm freak'n waiting for the close to see if I'm screwed or not. LOL

Set'n up the Scottrade until this gets worked out.

jayhawker
11-20-2007, 01:00 PM
It was the Employee Thrift Advisory Council that recommended a fee be charged for taking out a TSP loan. Maybe they would be willing to take the same stance rather than restrict the number of IFT's. The ETAC represents us.

From March 1, 2004:

"In general, there seemed to be a consensus among ETAC members that many TSP participants are making excessive use of the TSP loan program. There was general support for the thrust of the Board’s proposals, though there was a diversity of opinions on the specific ideas. Most of us agree that charging a fee for the loans makes sense as a way of discouraging excessive use of the program and for more fairly allocating the administrative costs of the loan program. However, not all the organizations that make up ETAC favor the restrictions on second TSP loans. We look forward to discussing proposed revisions to the regulations governing the loan program at our next ETAC meeting later this month."

Link (http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Testimony&HearingID=155&WitnessID=537)

FUTURESTRADER
11-20-2007, 01:03 PM
NOW, if I really was "Day Trading" my account. I would have sold the rally at +1% today and been sip'n a Crown and Coke by now. Instead, I'm freak'n waiting for the close to see if I'm screwed or not. LOL

Set'n up the Scottrade until this gets worked out.

careful with Scottrade, Show-me. Don't submit a 'cancel' order then buy or sell for a different price, they may not cancel your first order. Just make a 'change' order. They hosed me on that a few years ago. Ultimately my fault, tho.

Show-me
11-20-2007, 01:08 PM
careful with Scottrade, Show-me. Don't submit a 'cancel' order then buy or sell for a different price, they may not cancel your first order. Just make a 'change' order. They hosed me on that a few years ago. Ultimately my fault, tho.

Always a learning curve, but you have options at your finger tips. Thanks for the heads up. :D

Frixxxx
11-20-2007, 01:15 PM
It was the Employee Thrift Advisory Council that recommended a fee be charged for taking out a TSP loan. Maybe they would be willing to take the same stance rather than restrict the number of IFT's. The ETAC represents us.
....

I'm asking for status quo on this.....I feel that any charges per trade will inevitably keep going up and we will be asked for more and more. Before TSP, CSRS employees knew what they were getting for retirement, no negotiation. Years X Rate X .?? = retirement pay. The government didn't want to keep that kind of retirement plan on the books. It was too expensive. THEY decided to reduce THEIR cost by giving us TSP. They realized that they could wash their hands of this and blame the employee if they didn't save. WELL, MR. GOVT, Thank you for giving me the right to take my destiny into my own hands. Let me take care of it or reinstate a freakin pension plan that mirrors the last one. OK?:cool:

Show-me
11-20-2007, 01:20 PM
SENATE APPROVES COLLINS’ BILL TO GIVE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MORE FLEXIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO RETIREMENT FUNDS
Thrift Savings Plan Open Elections Act Would Make “Open Seasons” Year-Round for Employees WASHINGTON, DC -- The U.S. Senate today unanimously approved Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Susan Collins’ (R-ME) legislation (S. 2479) to provide federal employees with maximum flexibility to tailor their investment decisions by eliminating the current restrictions on when employee contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) can begin or be modified.

“Allowing employees to join the Thrift Savings Plan or to make other changes when they choose -- not just during two yearly “open enrollment” periods -- will give employees more control over their investment decisions,” said Senator Collins.

Since its inception in 1987, the TSP has provided federal employees with the opportunity to participate in a retirement savings plan similar to the 401(k) plans offered by many private companies. Under current law, newly hired employees can sign up to contribute to the TSP during an initial 60-day eligibility period. If an employee chooses not to make an election during that time, he or she must wait until an “open season,” or biannually designated period, to do so. If an employee stops contributing to the TSP outside of an open season, he or she must wait until the second open season after contributions stop before contributions can resume.

Open seasons were practical when TSP was first created because the program lacked the administrative capability to quickly enroll participants and to implement investment elections on a real-time basis. With introduction of the automatic record-keeping system, however, the program has outgrown its existing framework.

Senator Collins’ legislation, the Thrift Savings Plan Open Elections Act of 2004, has the support of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, the Federal Managers Association, and the Senior Executives Association.

See anything we can use in this old press release? I do.:D Jayhawker found it before me.

Show-me
11-20-2007, 01:22 PM
It was the Employee Thrift Advisory Council that recommended a fee be charged for taking out a TSP loan. Maybe they would be willing to take the same stance rather than restrict the number of IFT's. The ETAC represents us.

Bingo! We found a new best friend! :D

Send a carbon copy of your letters to them.

camper65
11-20-2007, 01:25 PM
Please Note, Collins is my senator. My union rep has work with and for her.
Says he can get me an appointment.

(MMmmmm, I'm thinking about it!)

Show-me
11-20-2007, 01:33 PM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00008473----000-.html

This is how the council is made up.

Guest2
11-20-2007, 01:48 PM
Let'm Know

http://www.tsp.gov/curinfo/feedback.html

Spaf
11-20-2007, 01:49 PM
I've been with the "Government" for 28+ years. Often as it is, someone tries to screw with the retirement system; raises, time in service, social security, TSP, whatever.
We send troops to war without adequate protection; body armor, vehicle armor, etc.
I'd better take my Moderators Hat off!
Cause I'm tired of this stuff!
Who said "ask not what what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" They must have not seen the military cemeteries that crisscross our country and other foreign battlefields.
Who said "We don't have any troops in Cambodia!" I looked at my map and guess where I was!.....Fiiggen Liar!
I guess I'm just tired of how "Government Employees" seem to get the "short end of the stick"
Maybe TSPTalk should have a special thread devoted to anti-government-employee folks.
I don't mind shooting the bad guys, done that before. But on homeland if convicted you get 3-square meals, TV, a bed, and you don't have to pay taxes.............. Na..I'd miss my dog!

troxel
11-20-2007, 01:50 PM
Two questions come to mind.
1. Can we transfer our entire TSP to a private broker, such as AG Edwards if we still are working?
2. If we can, would we have to wait until 59 1/2 to withdraw. Now we can the year we turn 55 if retired?

Any response would be appreciated.

The best weapon would be to put these clowns out of business.

I don't think so. That would be interesting to have private enterprise competing in terms of service and price for this function.

Guest2
11-20-2007, 01:53 PM
I've been with the "Government" for 28+ years. Often as it is, someone tries to screw with the retirement system; raises, time in service, social security, TSP, whatever.
We send troops to war without adequate protection; body armor, vehicle armor, etc.
I'd better take my Moderators Hat off!
Cause I'm tired of this stuff!
Who said "ask not what what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" They must have not seen the military cemeteries that crisscross our country and other foreign battlefields.
Who said "We don't have any troops in Cambodia!" I looked at my map and guess where I was!.....Fiiggen Liar!
I guess I'm just tired of how "Government Employees" seem to get the "short end of the stick"
Maybe TSPTalk should have a special thread devoted to anti-government-employee folks.
I wouldn't mind shoting them, done that before. Besides if convicted you get 3-square meals, TV, a bed, and you don't have to pay taxes. Na..I'd miss my dog!

Trust Me My Friend, No Pets Allowed.

camper65
11-20-2007, 02:00 PM
I don't think so. That would be interesting to have private enterprise competing in terms of service and price for this function.
Service, YEA! Now your talking, what we get now s--kS!

BorderCopper
11-20-2007, 02:24 PM
I was horrified to learn from the associated Govexec article that there were 2018 investors who traded into the I Fund on October 19 amounting to $371M and three days later the same 2018 investors traded $391M out of the I Fund. How dare these 2018 government workers run out with a profit of $9.9K in three days...such audacity!

Well that is some fuzzy math going on. If we....um I mean those exact 2018 traders traded into the I Fund with $371M on the 19th @$25.13 per share and went three trading days to the 24th closing @ $25.32 per share before trading out, I am not understanding how that equates to $391M. Try playing with those numbers for that whole week and its still fuzzy math.

Once again we have another entity deciding that we should all be restricted from bettering ourselves in the same manner that the "professionals" do for the L Funds (which apparently costs nothing to make daily adjustments) for the greater good i.e. looking out for those that pay ZERO attention to their investments and are satisfied with taking whatever is there when they retire.

One Mad Migra Fed (2nd day trader)

jayhawker
11-20-2007, 02:28 PM
I was horrified to learn from the associated Govexec article that there were 323 investors who traded into the I Fund on October 19 amounting to $371M and three days later the same 2018 investors traded $391M out of the I Fund.

Do these dates correllate to moves by the EbbTracker? Seriously, do they?

FUTURESTRADER
11-20-2007, 02:30 PM
I was horrified to learn from the associated Govexec article that there were 323 investors who traded into the I Fund on October 19 amounting to $371M and three days later the same 2018 investors traded $391M out of the I Fund. How dare these 2018 government workers run out with a profit of $9.9K in three days...such audacity!

Well that is some fuzzy math going on. If we....um I mean those exact 2018 traders traded into the I Fund with $371M on the 19th @$25.13 per share and went three trading days to the 24th closing @ $25.32 per share before trading out, I am not understanding how that equates to $391M. Try playing with those numbers for that whole week and its still fuzzy math.

Once again we have another entity deciding that we should all be restricted from bettering ourselves in the same manner that the "professionals" do for the L Funds (which apparently costs nothing to make daily adjustments) for the greater good i.e. looking out for those that pay ZERO attention to their investments and are satisfied with taking whatever is there when they retire.

One Mad Migra Fed (2nd day trader)

that's about 1% gain in 5 days...borrowing from another site "and these 2018 need to be protected from themselves?"

CountryBoy
11-20-2007, 02:37 PM
Well, I've written both my Senators and Congressman and even Senator Collins, explaining how the TSP Board is trying to over ride here successful legislation.

I also sent a letter to Losey. I did this after letting the heat of anger die to just a slow burn, so as to come across not so half witted and ready to start shooting. :nuts:

I used some of my own words, but I also liberally plagarised from many of the well said comments presented by our many members. Apologies to those that I may have offended.

Now if we could just get Andrew Saul in a room to explain the situation, I'd feel so much better. :D

Lets hope for the best. This may work out yet. I'd be happy with 4 moves per month. I had to raise Tom 1 move. :)


CB

kam
11-20-2007, 02:41 PM
beautiful....more like this, we may have a chance...thank you, kam

Thanks FUTURESTRADER. Following up on my last post, an article in the NY Times, November 17, 2007, has the Executive Director of the Federal Retirement TSP Board, Andrew M. Saul receiving campaign contributions for his run against Rep. Hall in NY State that "could conflict with state ethics rules barring state employees and members of unpaid boards, ..., from taking donations from companies or individuals seeking to do business with their agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/nyregion/17mta.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The next step would be to look at filings with the FEC (Federal Elections Commission) and find any TSP related contributors to Mr. Saul's Congressional Campaign.

sugarandspice
11-20-2007, 02:57 PM
SENATE APPROVES COLLINS’ BILL TO GIVE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MORE FLEXIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO RETIREMENT FUNDS
The U.S. Senate today unanimously approved Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Susan Collins’ (R-ME) legislation (S. 2479) to provide federal employees with maximum flexibility to tailor their investment decisions by eliminating the current restrictions on when employee contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) can begin or be modified.

[/SIZE]

Maximum flexibility! We will not have this with IFT restrictions.

Show-me
11-20-2007, 03:01 PM
I missed that one s&s!

oreo
11-20-2007, 03:33 PM
This is his website:
http://www.andrewsaul.com/

FUTURESTRADER
11-20-2007, 03:52 PM
Sorry, I forgot who posted this, but this guy gives financial advisors a bad name..or worse name. He says people can't successfully day trade "on their own"!! What a blatant ploy to drum up business. He goes on to say he never met a daytrader who kept track of his/her returns compared to the S&P.

I stopped listening after that. Sounds like he just fell off the back of the "cheap suit and financial advisor certificate for $10" truck.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/emedia/99825.mp3

DrFaustus
11-20-2007, 04:19 PM
Do these dates correllate to moves by the EbbTracker? Seriously, do they?

Yes, they do

kam
11-20-2007, 04:22 PM
Sorry, I forgot who posted this, but this guy gives financial advisors a bad name..or worse name. He says people can't successfully day trade "on their own"!! What a blatant ploy to drum up business. He goes on to say he never met a daytrader who kept track of his/her returns compared to the S&P.

I stopped listening after that. Sounds like he just fell off the back of the "cheap suit and financial advisor certificate for $10" truck.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/emedia/99825.mp3

Interesting. This man, Andrew Saul seems to be the biggest part of the problem, from my perspective - possibly including supporting members of his cast on the Board. I've looked up his political campaign contributors - looks like 70% Investors. Most have Park Avenue, Upper East Side addresses. This is sickening. The B&H strategy of investing - it is not a buy and hold world anymore. Somehow, I doubt his investor friends are buying and holding.


http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00434167/294753/sa/ALL

tsptalk
11-20-2007, 04:26 PM
I don't know if this was posted or not... just in case...

TSP Board Members

http://www.tsptalk.com/images/tsp-board-members.pdf

Skidude78
11-20-2007, 04:26 PM
http://www.frtib.gov/personnel/FRTIB-SES-07-002A.pdf


Looks like there is a vacancy for TSP planning. All you Washington DCers get your application in we need some good people working for TSP.

robo
11-20-2007, 05:10 PM
I posted a copy of my letter from 2006. I blanked out some stuff. I was not happy to get this letter. My money was stuck in the Market and I could not move it electronically. Talk about Ticked Off!!!!


Dear Robo


On May 28, 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released their final rule RIN 3235-AI99 addressing excessive trading involving open-end mutual fund companies and variable annuity insurance companies.

Because of this ruling (and subsequent action brought against open-end mutual fund companies and insurance companies selling variable annuities), pension plan providers offering variable account programs had to comply with the SEC ruling. Initially using a manual system, we tried to manage this particular issue with limited success. It was not until late 2005 that we were able to implement a more accurate program to track frequent trading. That is why in January 2006, our program revealed activity in your accounts that is in conflict with the SEC rule.

During January you requested ( xxx ) balance transfers in your CAP/RSF accounts. Frequent, large or short-term transfers among subaccounts, such as those associated with "market timing" transactions, can adversely affect the funds and the returns which impacts all participants. Such transfers may dilute the value of fund shares and interfere with the efficient management of the Funds' portfolios, and increase brokerage and administrative costs of the Funds. To protect participants and the funds from potentially harmful trading activity, the CUBS Trustees in conjuction with CUNA Mutual Insurance Society, (Plan Sponser) and the Fund Custodian (Marshall&Illsley), have implemented certain market timing policies and procedures.

These policies and procedures apply to the recent transfers in your account. To minimize the market timing impact on all participants, your telephone/fax/internet transfer requests for your accounts are being suspended until June 1, 2006. You may continue to request transfers in writing through the U.S. mail or overnight delivery addressed to M&I Retirement Services__________, Appleton, Wi.

We understand that you may wish to periodically transfer money among subaccounts. Please contact our Retiement Investment and Planning Unit if you would like to discuss investment options or if you have any questions regarding this information. We can be contacted at 1-xxx-999-8786, option 3. Our business hours are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Central time.



William E. Barnes
Senior Pension Consultant, Regional Manager
Employee Benefit Products, CUNA Mutual Group
UB 4 2+4
(xxx)231-7695

pogo
11-20-2007, 05:38 PM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00008473----000-.html

This is how the council is made up. i was wrong about how important the union are in this case. i talk to my higher ups and hopefully i can get the rep. e-mail that is on the council for the american postal workers union. lets bang this person with e-mail

Desperado
11-20-2007, 05:48 PM
Hmmm....doesn't look like this recent change will affect my investing strategy negatively at all. In fact, it seems to me that the savings they get from not letting you all trade 20 times a month will be passed on to me with a lower expense ratio. I think I'll send a letter to thank the board.

Seriously though, TSPtalk.com traders will likely have the exact same AVERAGE return trading 4 times a month (2 out of G fund, 2 back in) as they had trading 20 times a month. Don't forget the lesson of the monkeys. While you personally MIGHT have some market timing skill (but are probably just lucky that year), there are just as many who are unskilled (or more likely just unlucky) that on average you do no better than buying and holding.

As of 11/16 holding 20% each (a truly know-nothing portfolio) had returned 6.73%. Those of you who were tracked all year had a high return of 18.95% and a low of -8.12% (holy shiza Tom, all 5 funds are positive and you're down 8%? How is that less risky than buying and holding again?). 44 are beating the know-nothing portfolio and 46 are trailing it. Seems like an awful lot of effort to just get the same average return as just going 20% each. But hey, knock yourselves out writing your congressman. They probably used your returns as evidence that people didn't get any benefit from being able to trade on a daily basis. If they did, I'd have to say I agree with them.

FUTURESTRADER
11-20-2007, 06:45 PM
hey desperate-odd-o, long time no see. We missed you....with every bullet so far :)

Show-me
11-20-2007, 07:18 PM
Just sent a note to my Craft Director.

fabijo
11-20-2007, 07:44 PM
Desperado! :)

How ya doin? Did you have any idea the amount of influence you would have on this board? I can't believe the amount of monkey talk, monkey avatars, monkey sigs, and monkey programming that have been done since you compared us to dart throwing monkeys last year.

Ron_Mundekis
11-20-2007, 07:49 PM
Recall this artical bellow. It seems to me that the real goal behind this move by the board is to create more long term investors to absorbed the expected market loses during our impending recession and beyond.

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=fundsNews&storyID=2007-11-19T090015Z_01_NOA929805_RTRUKOC_0_ECONOMY-US-CREDIT.xml

U.S. could face $2 trillion lending shock
Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:00 AM GMT143
Email This Article | Print This Article | RSS
[-] Text [+]

LONDON (Reuters) - The impact of the U.S. mortgage market crisis on the underlying economy could be "dramatic" as leveraged investors may need to scale back lending by up to $2 trillion (1 trillion pounds), according to investment bank Goldman Sachs.

In a report dated November 15, Goldman's chief U.S. economist Jan Hatzius said a "back-of-the-envelope" estimate of credit losses on outstanding mortgages, based on past default experience, was around $400 billion.

But unlike stock market losses, which are typically absorbed by "long-only" investors, this mortgage-related hit is mostly borne by leveraged investors such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge funds and government-sponsored enterprises.

FUTURESTRADER
11-20-2007, 07:59 PM
they've borrowed against social security and the G fund. They can't let the G fund (latest slush fund) get out of their control.

Show-me
11-20-2007, 08:17 PM
bQR6ghC-jPE&feature=related

GuilRL
11-20-2007, 08:18 PM
OK TSP Board here is the one question for you:

If everyone stops trading, how much money will we all receive for not trading? And I do mean daily, not monthly, or quarterly or semi annually?

Second question: Why is stopping or limiting the trading of those who own the money so important?

Answer these questions, and get your dirty paws off of my money.:mad:

FUTURESTRADER
11-20-2007, 08:34 PM
ahhh....show-me...i think you captured the poor tormented soul's true demon...he's afraid to let anyone love him...desperado..a case for steadygain

James48843
11-20-2007, 08:53 PM
Andrew Saul Congressional Campaign office phone number:

Phone
(914) 232-SAUL (7285)


Let's give them a call tomorrow.

Babo
11-20-2007, 09:32 PM
Hmmm....doesn't look like this recent change will affect my investing strategy negatively at all. In fact, it seems to me that the savings they get from not letting you all trade 20 times a month will be passed on to me with a lower expense ratio. I think I'll send a letter to thank the board.

Seriously though, TSPtalk.com traders will likely have the exact same AVERAGE return trading 4 times a month (2 out of G fund, 2 back in) as they had trading 20 times a month. Don't forget the lesson of the monkeys. While you personally MIGHT have some market timing skill (but are probably just lucky that year), there are just as many who are unskilled (or more likely just unlucky) that on average you do no better than buying and holding.

As of 11/16 holding 20% each (a truly know-nothing portfolio) had returned 6.73%. Those of you who were tracked all year had a high return of 18.95% and a low of -8.12% (holy shiza Tom, all 5 funds are positive and you're down 8%? How is that less risky than buying and holding again?). 44 are beating the know-nothing portfolio and 46 are trailing it. Seems like an awful lot of effort to just get the same average return as just going 20% each. But hey, knock yourselves out writing your congressman. They probably used your returns as evidence that people didn't get any benefit from being able to trade on a daily basis. If they did, I'd have to say I agree with them.


If the underlying rationale for 3000 individual tsp traders was, on average, random, we would "likely" not be having this discussion. In fact, if this were true, the TSP board wouldn't "likely" need to execute major transactions on a daily basis to balance funds (that is except for the folks in the L funds).

I for one would rather be a monkey out of the cage than a human in one, any day of the week (and especially when the VXO is hitting 10 to 30+).

Please keep the monkeys free.....let them eat bananas made of gold, or dirt, as the case may be. If the $4/year this costs the "sheep" is too much, they are myopic beyond belief. Half of those 3 million some odd TSP'ers probably spent more than that on their latte and biscotti this morning anyway....you wanna talk about irrational...now that's irrational!

NASAguy
11-20-2007, 10:01 PM
I'm not quite sure how much of this is just talk and how much is real. I see the article, but the limits for transfers are specifically addressed in the law that governs the TSP. Therefore, I'm not sure the Board can just change the rules as stated in the article.

Here is a link to the code: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14feb20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/janqtr/5cfr1601.32.htm

See the last few lines.

fabijo
11-20-2007, 11:25 PM
I'm not quite sure how much of this is just talk and how much is real. I see the article, but the limits for transfers are specifically addressed in the law that governs the TSP. Therefore, I'm not sure the Board can just change the rules as stated in the article.

Here is a link to the code: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14feb20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/janqtr/5cfr1601.32.htm

See the last few lines.

Thanks for the link, NASAguy. I believe someone else posted it here or elsewhere, but it's good to have a reminder. So far, the letter we read was a recommendation and not necessarily something that will be implemented. We haven't read Greg Long's reply to the letter, if there is one. But, there is some discussion going on speculating that Saul Andrew is involved in this fiasco. For all we know, he could be trying to change the CFR.

For those who haven't read the section of the Code of Federal Regulations, here it is:


Limit. There is no limit on the number of contribution
allocations or interfund transfer requests that may be made by a
participant.

fabijo
11-20-2007, 11:33 PM
Check this out from Andrew Saul's campaign site. He mentions his activities with the TSP along with reducing fraud and waste:


Reducing Fraud and Waste – My time in the public and private sector has provided me with the experience necessary to help eliminate fraud, reduce waste and increase productivity in government. I have brought two failing companies back from the edge of bankruptcy; as Chairman of the federal retirement system, I brought new efficiency to the administration of the retirement funds of millions of government employees, translating into millions of dollars in savings. I know that with hard work and dedication we can reduce the fraud and waste that plagues our federal government. This will help us cut taxes, reduce spending and move towards eliminating the national debt.

kaitlinsnana
11-20-2007, 11:39 PM
I think I'll just keep quiet on this matter.

Good idea -- since this is just play money to you and you're already a millionaire and two trades a month works for you. Very good plan to sit this one out.

Gail

fabijo
11-20-2007, 11:42 PM
And here's some more crap from his site:


Andrew, after U.S. Senate confirmation in 2002, serves as Chairman of the Federal Thrift Investment Board. As Chairman, Andrew manages the retirement funds for most federal employees, including Military Personnel and Postal Service employees. Andrew’s accomplishments with the Federal Thrift Investment Board include cutting operating expenses by over $20 million while helping to grow the plan by over $2.5 billion a month. When Andrew began as Chairman, the fund was valued at $98 billion, under his leadership he has grown the fund to $225 billion. It is the largest retirement fund in the United States of America, providing retirement security for more than 3.7 million participants.

And what is he talking about, "grown the fund to $225 billion???" How did he grow it?? I thought people's deposits combined with fund returns grew it. Between 3 million participants, that kind of growth equates to $42,333.33 per person from 2002 to 2007. So, in 5 years, each person merely added less than $8500 a year to their account - maybe even less since some of that could be agency matching. And none of that includes the percentage gains of any of the funds.

Talltimber
11-21-2007, 12:12 AM
What ever happened to less regulation and free capitol markets? Oh wait, that doesn't apply to the working middle class. Silly me, what would I do with a nice new car and a fancy house anyway?

GGal
11-21-2007, 12:40 AM
I think God is trying to tell us something.

More and more people are doing without basic necessities in this country......it is the holiday season, a time for sharing, a time for concern about each other......and all we can do is whine about our # of transfers allowed.....I wonder, have we gotten greedy.....

I don't have a good feeling about this.

But please forgive me, I'm from the South, and guilt is an important part of my heritage.

GGAL

udvare
11-21-2007, 05:57 AM
Typical government!
We have a successful program that is becoming popular and is being utitized. What is the response of the Bureaucrats? Lets stop it!
How dare those people do this! They are dangerous and need to be protected from themselves.

And there are people who think we should socialize our medicine. Do you want this type of thinking governing your health!?

Wrngway
11-21-2007, 06:22 AM
More and more people are doing without basic necessities in this country......it is the holiday season, a time for sharing, a time for concern about each other......and all we can do is whine about our # of transfers allowed.....I wonder, have we gotten greedy.....



GGAL...you're right in that we shouldn't lose perspective of what really matters in life, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. If, God forbid, I'm not around later in life to take care of my family, I want them to have some financial security. Practically speaking, trading limits do not help.

This from a Southern/Yankee hybrid...from Maryland no less...:p

kam
11-21-2007, 08:40 AM
Typical government!
We have a successful program that is becoming popular and is being utitized. What is the response of the Bureaucrats? Lets stop it!
How dare those people do this! They are dangerous and need to be protected from themselves.

And there are people who think we should socialize our medicine. Do you want this type of thinking governing your health!?

I disagree with your premise. The current Executive Director of the TSP, "these people," would be one for privatizing Social Security (another successful program that is "popular and being utilized"), and given his political profile, would also, no doubt, be against "socialized medicine." He's a political appointee of Bush.

FUTURESTRADER
11-21-2007, 08:51 AM
And here's some more crap from his site:



And what is he talking about, "grown the fund to $225 billion???" How did he grow it?? I thought people's deposits combined with fund returns grew it. Between 3 million participants, that kind of growth equates to $42,333.33 per person from 2002 to 2007. So, in 5 years, each person merely added less than $8500 a year to their account - maybe even less since some of that could be agency matching. And none of that includes the percentage gains of any of the funds.

and the participants, as they become more educated, will withdraw the bulk of their funds for a better serviced IRA at least with more options.

Hardcorps
11-21-2007, 08:57 AM
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1296249&nid=250
I posted one yesterday, here's another.

Skidude78
11-21-2007, 09:43 AM
I did some research on the Calpers retirement plan to see what their policy was on interfund transfers. It's similar to what we have now. Once a day by a deadline. The limit is once a day. They don't seem to have any problems with it. I also noticed that they offer the option of SMA (self managed account) where you can use a contract brokerage and manage your own account. I think that's the direction that TSP needs to go. Why don't we have any utility funds or natural resource funds? I say fire the whole board and start from scratch, it would be an improvement.

kam
11-21-2007, 10:20 AM
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1296249&nid=250
I posted one yesterday, here's another.


This is very informative.

1) It's all about cost - (nothing about "accidently hitting a button")

2) 0.08% cost of trading I fund

3) 2 - 3 thousand people doing this

4) The I want to protect you from yourself speech - "not the purpose of changing this, but an outcome will be to protect those traders, blah blah"

5) Looked at fees, but a) expenses come from market impact and hard to charge b) expenses from buy and sale side and c) would hurt infrequent traders - penalize those people Then why not charge for trades after a fixed amount per month?

6) Not unusual to have trade restrictions - Vanguard makes participants wait 60 day before repurchasing any one fund.

7) Take affect March or April of next year. Do they need to change the CFR then?

8) In the interim, (the board) "got permission (FROM WHOM????<< Anybody know?) to implement a temporary restriction" - will send letters to those 3000, "in the meantime, can IFT, but by mail only." Every trade?? Or after the 2 per month?? Not stated.

5) Not much feedback coming in on their Thriftline. Where is this?

NASAguy
11-21-2007, 10:43 AM
The contact information is located here: http://www.tsp.gov/features/def_ch1-TSP-service-office.html

I only see phone and fax numbers. I intend on faxing a letter to them today.

kam
11-21-2007, 10:45 AM
My personal suggestion is that everyone call their Senators and Congress Person. If you have a Senator on the Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs or the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, it is even more urgent you contact one of them.

Senate Members:

http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index.cfm?Fuseaction=About.Membership


House of Representative Members:


http://oversight.house.gov/about/members.asp


They would have to change, or have changed, the CFR 1601.32 to have limitations to trades implemented:

(b) Limit. There is no limit on the number of contribution
allocations or interfund transfer requests that may be made by a
participant


Personally, (see previous message), I would like to know who gave the TSP Executive Board "permission" to implement the interim strategy from December to the March/April date of implementation.

ayla
11-21-2007, 11:11 AM
Hmmm....doesn't look like this recent change will affect my investing strategy negatively at all. In fact, it seems to me that the savings they get from not letting you all trade 20 times a month will be passed on to me with a lower expense ratio. I think I'll send a letter to thank the board.

Seriously though, TSPtalk.com traders will likely have the exact same AVERAGE return trading 4 times a month (2 out of G fund, 2 back in) as they had trading 20 times a month. Don't forget the lesson of the monkeys. While you personally MIGHT have some market timing skill (but are probably just lucky that year), there are just as many who are unskilled (or more likely just unlucky) that on average you do no better than buying and holding.

As of 11/16 holding 20% each (a truly know-nothing portfolio) had returned 6.73%. Those of you who were tracked all year had a high return of 18.95% and a low of -8.12% (holy shiza Tom, all 5 funds are positive and you're down 8%? How is that less risky than buying and holding again?). 44 are beating the know-nothing portfolio and 46 are trailing it. Seems like an awful lot of effort to just get the same average return as just going 20% each. But hey, knock yourselves out writing your congressman. They probably used your returns as evidence that people didn't get any benefit from being able to trade on a daily basis. If they did, I'd have to say I agree with them.

Do you really not understand the definition of a "learning curve"? or "education" or "training"? I have learned a tremendous amount and currently have a pretty good strategy as reflected in some back testing (doesn't show yet, takes time to have a good record).

Don't you realize that most of us (though not all) are new to trading? When developing strategies, there are going to be mistakes of course. I hope you don't have any children. If you do, they will grow up to be cripples because of your philosophy that if one makes a mistake, they should immediately put themselves in the hands of experts without trying to figure out how to solve the problem themselves.

My signature says it all.

Elgallo
11-21-2007, 02:19 PM
Someone said it earlier, an I agree completly, allow us to contribute BOTH the employee AND employeer bi weekly contributions to a private brokerage of our choice. Takes care of the problem immediatly I would say.

This will never happen because as it is an issue of THEM wanting to control OUR money, and imposing inane restrictions such as this, and there are others I could cite. Such as; why do I have to wait 6 months after I payoff a TSP loan before I can again, now get this, borrow my own damn money!

When you retire, you can only redefine once a year the amout of YOUR money you can withdraw! How bout dat! Then they turn around and FORCE your to take minimum distributions at age 70.5. Go figure, government CONTROL think at it's finest!

In retirement we need to insist on the ability reallocate distributions at will, anytime. Again it's OUR money!

k2ds
11-21-2007, 02:20 PM
"My personal suggestion is that everyone call their Senators and Congress Person. "

Contact my Senator, Hell she too busy running for Pres and the other one, who knows what he's doing. But I already sent letters to both and to our new Congresswoman. Lets see how far that goes!! But I have got to tell you, I am SO Glad that they are looking out for me and watching that I don’t hurt my self by hitting the wrong button.. I must admit I am one of the dreaded 3000 or was it 2018. Oh Well..

RAE
11-21-2007, 02:57 PM
I found this summary of what CFR's are - it may apply to what we are doing here (see DennisFAA's post below, with the TSP CFR's). As you can see, CFR's have the full force and effect of the law they are intended to implement. Further, proposed new CFR's must be published in the Federal Register, and include a public comment period, before they are finalized. Soooooo......I think the FRTIB may have exceeded their authority by effectively changing this CFR, without going through the proper process (and they clearly changed the CFR related to interfund transfers........the language is very clear that there shall be no limit on IFT's).

I think this is something we can use to our advantage. I am highlighting it in all of the letters I am sending out.
__________________________________________________ ___________

Code of Federal Regulations


Regulations are created and used by executive agencies to "clarify" the intent and scope of federal statutes, which an agency is charged with administrating or enforcing. Statutes are the actual laws passed by Congress; regulations are the "who, what, when, where, and how" involved in administrating and/or enforcing the statute.
Modern History
As the New Deal unfolded in the early 1930's and Congress began to increase both the number of agencies and the scope of the authority of those agencies, the agencies began promulgating voluminous regulations. There was no mechanism for publishing, codifying, accessing or updating these regulations. There was considerable confusion about which regulations were in effect at any given time. In several 1934 Supreme Court cases involving administrative law violations, difficulty in keeping abreast of the current body of administrative law became obvious. Neither the defendants nor the government correctly understood which regulations were currently in effect. In response, Congress passed the Federal Register Act (ch. 417, 49 Stat. 500 (1935)). The Act mandates the daily publication of the Federal Register, whose purpose is to serve as a central repository of the publication of all newly adopted rules and regulations. Furthermore, publication in this periodical is constructive notice to all who may be affected by a regulation.
Although the Federal Register was helpful in notifying the government and people of changes and additions to federal regulations, the regulations were still not codified. Congress amended the Federal Register Act in 1937 to require codification and subject access to the regulations through publication in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The first CFR was published in 1939.
The purpose of the CFR was/is to provide a system of categorization whereby all the regulations promulgated [created] by a federal department or agency on a given subject can be located and tied to the corresponding statute. The CFR does an admirable job of providing that service.
As stated in the opening paragraph, regulations are intended to elaborate on the working details of a statute. It is beyond Congress' ability to be experts in every field concerning which it may be called upon to legislate. The US Supreme Court has referred to the text of Congressional legislation as "the broad language of the statute", which often times requires more detail to be properly placed into effect. These "details" are found in the "implementing regulations" promulgated by the agencies that must administrate and/or enforce a statute. Federal agencies are charged with faithful implementation and enforcement of the laws [statutes] through the regulations they promulgate. Although properly speaking, regulations are not law, rules and regulations have the full force and effect of the law.
[Editor's Note - It should be noted that federal statutes, as well as their associated regulations, only have force and effect upon those persons who are properly within federal jurisdiction, and has no force or effect upon anyone else. See the section, Federal Jurisdiction (http://www.originalintent.org/edu/federaljur.php), within this website for more information on federal jurisdictional limitations.] In 1946 the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was passed clarifying the process of making regulation, allowing for greater accessibility and participation by all citizens. The APA required the publication in the Federal Register of all proposed rule changes and a period for public comment. Proposed and final regulations that have general applicability and legal effect are required to be published in the Federal Register. The administrative regulation-making process requires that proposed regulations be published and that a comment period be provided. When the comment period closes, the agency may finalize the regulation. Once the regulation becomes final, it is published again in the Federal Register and then codified into the Code of Federal Regulations.

RAE
11-21-2007, 03:04 PM
TSP supposedly says they are hearing very few comments from TSP participants about this proposed new IFT restriction, on the Thriftline (implying that everyone is just fine with it). Well, that's not surprising, because you have to call or FAX a comment in.......there is no way to e-mail TSP or the FRTIB that I could find. Anyway, I wanted to post the TSP FAX number here. I urge folks to flood them with FAX's expressing your opinion about this change. I sent mine today.

Fax Number: 1-866-817-5023

Mailing Address: Thrift Savings Plan
P.O. Box 385021
Birmingham, AL 35238

qibovin
11-21-2007, 03:42 PM
"My personal suggestion is that everyone call their Senators and Congress Person. "

Contact my Senator, Hell she too busy running for Pres and the other one, who knows what he's doing. But I already sent letters to both and to our new Congresswoman. Lets see how far that goes!! But I have got to tell you, I am SO Glad that they are looking out for me and watching that I don’t hurt my self by hitting the wrong button.. I must admit I am one of the dreaded 3000 or was it 2018. Oh Well..

I don't really have any experience with this, but it might also be helpful to engage the "services" of the many wonderful lobbying organizations of whom many of us are probably constutuents. For those of us in the military, there's MOAA, AUSA, etc. And of course the whole gamut of retiree associations, particularly AARP. Any others that anyone else can think of that might fight for our "cause"?

Talltimber
11-21-2007, 03:47 PM
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1296249&nid=250
I posted one yesterday, here's another.
Sounds just like the softball questions FEMA asked itself.

She did mention no one was calling regarding these changes


http://tsp.gov/forms/tsplf09.pdf
http://tsp.gov/curinfo/contact.html
http://tsp.gov/features/def_ch1-TSP-service-office.html

k2ds
11-21-2007, 04:25 PM
TSP supposedly says they are hearing very few comments from TSP participants about this proposed new IFT restriction, on the Thriftline (implying that everyone is just fine with it). Well, that's not surprising, because you have to call or FAX a comment in.......there is no way to e-mail TSP or the FRTIB that I could find. Anyway, I wanted to post the TSP FAX number here. I urge folks to flood them with FAX's expressing your opinion about this change. I sent mine today.

Fax Number: 1-866-817-5023

Mailing Address: Thrift Savings Plan
P.O. Box 385021
Birmingham, AL 35238


I think we should ALL fax them a copy of 5CFR1601.32 along with our comments.
That way they know we know what were talking about!! And eat up their fax paper. Opps! More $$$..

James48843
11-21-2007, 05:14 PM
Call this thrift line and complain.

Call Andrew Saul's campaing office (He's the head of TSP, and also is running for Congress in New York as a republican) and complain.

Saul's campaign office number is:Phone (914) 232-SAUL (7285)

NOTE: NEWSFLASH: SAUL DROPS OUT OF CONGRESSIONAL RACE: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/nyregion/21saul.html?ex=1353387600&en=215c61922e1c9ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

FUTURESTRADER
11-21-2007, 06:45 PM
Call this thrift line and complain.

Call Andrew Saul's campaing office (He's the head of TSP, and also is running for Congress in New York as a republican) and complain.

Saul's campaign office number is:Phone (914) 232-SAUL (7285)

NOTE: NEWSFLASH: SAUL DROPS OUT OF CONGRESSIONAL RACE: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/nyregion/21saul.html?ex=1353387600&en=215c61922e1c9ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

doesn't want any digging into his 'affairs'

oreo
11-21-2007, 06:58 PM
I have a question - is the issue of fair value unrelated to the ift issue. These articles mention 3000 people as being the cause of the problem but don't mention fv as a possible cause. Is the calculation of fair value unrelated to the cost of trading or does it just equal out?

James48843
11-21-2007, 08:34 PM
TSP supposedly says they are hearing very few comments from TSP participants about this proposed new IFT restriction, on the Thriftline (implying that everyone is just fine with it). Well, that's not surprising, because you have to call or FAX a comment in.......there is no way to e-mail TSP or the FRTIB that I could find. Anyway, I wanted to post the TSP FAX number here. I urge folks to flood them with FAX's expressing your opinion about this change. I sent mine today.

Fax Number: 1-866-817-5023

Mailing Address: Thrift Savings Plan
P.O. Box 385021
Birmingham, AL 35238

Thank you RAE for posting that. MAIL, CALL, AND FAX AN OBJECTION!

I am going to get everyone at my Thanksgiving Dinner tommorrow to write a note, and then I'm going to fax them all, inidividually, on Friday from Kinko's to the Thriftline FAX, and try and get a fax number for the actual board.

(Thanksgiving is at my house tomorrow. I've only got one 18 pound turkey, so don't you all show up at my house at once, or I'll be overwhelmed).


DON'T GIVE UP WITHOUT A FIGHT!

THEY HAVE TO DO A C-F-R CHANGE IN ORDER TO DO THIS, AND I FOR ONE AND GOING TO FIGHT LIKE HECK ALL THE WAY- KICKING AND SCREAMING. ITS MY MONEY- NOT THEIRS- AND THEY WILL HAVE TO PRY THIS KEYBOARD FROM MY COLD, DEAD FINGERS TO GET ME TO GO ALONG WITH SUCH A STUPID IDEA!


CALL MY UNION BROTHERS, AND GET THEM IN THE FIGHT.

CALL MY ALPHABET ORGANIZATIONS, AND GET THEM IN THE FIGHT.

CALL MY CONGRESS CRITTERS, AND GET THEM IN THE FIGHT.

CALL MY CHIPS EVERYWHERE- AND GET THEM ALL IN THE FIGHT.

DON'T LET THEM DO THIS TO YOU!!!!

RAE
11-21-2007, 08:37 PM
Kam - Levin (Mich) is my senator, and he's also on the Senate Govt. Affairs Committee. I wrote him a long letter today, and requested a reply. If I hear back from him, I'll post his reply here. I specifically asked him to look into the issue of the FRTIB changing the CFR's (re. IFT's) without following proper process for doing so.

James48843
11-21-2007, 08:39 PM
I have a question - is the issue of fair value unrelated to the ift issue. These articles mention 3000 people as being the cause of the problem but don't mention fv as a possible cause. Is the calculation of fair value unrelated to the cost of trading or does it just equal out?


FV is a part of the issue, but not all the issue. the other part of the issue is the guy who wrote the analisys thinks we should not be moving in and out, and that those kind of moves cause commissions to be paid, and they have to hold the funds for three days before the trades clear, so they cost more than a simple buy and hold.

Go back near the beginning of this thread, and there is a link to the "proposal" paper written there. That document spells it out.

kam
11-21-2007, 08:43 PM
Kam - Levin (Mich) is my senator, and he's also on the Senate Govt. Affairs Committee. I wrote him a long letter today, and requested a reply. If I hear back from him, I'll post his reply here. I specifically asked him to look into the issue of the FRTIB changing the CFR's (re. IFT's) without following proper process for doing so.

Great! He was my first choice to telephone, but no one answered!! I discovered little help from out-of-state legislators, so I'm glad he is yours to haggle with. He's a good guy and definitely for the little guy. I was hoping Steny Hoyer (2nd in charge of the House) would be on one of the Committees, as he is very good to Federal Employees. Anybody from Maryland??

My Congressman's aide told me that the TSP can change CFRs with changes in Statutes, but they still have to have a public comment period, i.e. they can do what they want without Congress, unless Congress passes a statute protecting our right to trade. In my limited understanding of this, though, a CFR is suppose to be an agency interpretation of a Statute, so there must be something in the law about the flexibility employees should have in trading in their TSPs. Any ideas?

James48843
11-21-2007, 08:45 PM
Note: Limiting trades to two per month does not solve their issue. today only 3,000 people are making trades of more than 4 or 5 per month. That's 3,000 out of 3,000,000 who are holders of TSP funds. What they are really worried about is what happens when the other 2,997,000 figure it out.



I can think of SEVERAL solutions if the problem is the FV and the liquidity of the I fund.

1. They can simply charge us $5 each for more than 2 per month. I'd pay that.

2. Or they can process the "I" price one day later, thereby elmininating the FV factor if they don't set the "I" price until noon the next day, on that one fund.

3. Or they can simply give us real-time trading for the "C", "S", "F" and "G", and give us a one-day delay on the "I", which allows for open markets overnight. That would solve the problem as well.

Or I am sure there are a NUMBER of other options they can do- besides this stupid limit idea.

James48843
11-21-2007, 08:47 PM
Does anybody have the reference of Senator Snow's law which gave us the current system? I saw clips posted earlier in this thread, and I want to research what the law actually said. Does anyone have the Public Law number?

nnuut
11-21-2007, 09:01 PM
I think they should learn how to do the FV calculations correctly or pay it out of their profits!!! RATFINKS!:mad:
2652

oreo
11-21-2007, 09:04 PM
FV is a part of the issue, but not all the issue. the other part of the issue is the guy who wrote the analisys thinks we should not be moving in and out, and that those kind of moves cause commissions to be paid, and they have to hold the funds for three days before the trades clear, so they cost more than a simple buy and hold.

Go back near the beginning of this thread, and there is a link to the "proposal" paper written there. That document spells it out.

James,

Thank you very much for responding. I keep reading about the "unfair values" and was wondering whether these costs were also contributing to these cost increases.

I also had another thought. Don't the congress people and their staffs contribute to the same tsp and wouldn't this affect some of them personally as well. I mean, don't they have civil servants working for them that might be impacted by this as well? It seems to me that this should just as personally important to congress and their staffs as it is to us. Just a thought.

RAE
11-21-2007, 09:17 PM
James and Kam - I believe this is the title and number of the law which originally set up the TSP:

(2) Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-335, 100 Stat. 514 (1986) (codified at 5 U.S.C. [section][section] 8431-8840 (2000)).

I believe that the CFR's that we have been discussing, though, came about in 2005, when some of the changes to the operation of the TSP that we are now familar with, were implemented (no open seasons, no limit on IFT's, etc). It is not uncommon for CFR's to be revised periodically, such as was done in 2005, to reflect changes in implementation of a statute, as long as those changes are still within the parameters or the original statute. The thing is, in 2005 they had to go through the formal procedure of posting those proposed changes to the Federal Register, accepting comments, and then posting the final change as a new CFR (which they did). The difference now (in my view, anyway) is that they are proposing to make another change to the CFR's, without going through that required procedure. That is the way I see it, anyway - anyone have an attorney friend familiar with CFR's that can review this for us and give us an opinion?

GGal
11-21-2007, 09:40 PM
With 22 moves in September, October and November, I guess I'm on the BAD list.

And I would have done better in that time if I had just held.

So evidently I do need protection from myself.

GGAL

oreo
11-21-2007, 09:58 PM
doesn't want any digging into his 'affairs'

His website is now shut down. The only thing posted on his page is:



Saul Steps Down as Candidate in New York's 19th Congressional District "I want to thank everyone who has been supportive of this campaign, and under different circumstances I know we would have been successful. I am truly touched at the overwhelming support I've received from my family, friends and the residents of the 19th Congressional District throughout this process."

kam
11-21-2007, 10:03 PM
James and Kam - I believe this is the title and number of the law which originally set up the TSP:

(2) Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-335, 100 Stat. 514 (1986) (codified at 5 U.S.C. [section][section] 8431-8840 (2000)).

I believe that the CFR's that we have been discussing, though, came about in 2005, when some of the changes to the operation of the TSP that we are now familar with, were implemented (no open seasons, no limit on IFT's, etc). It is not uncommon for CFR's to be revised periodically, such as was done in 2005, to reflect changes in implementation of a statute, as long as those changes are still within the parameters or the original statute. The thing is, in 2005 they had to go through the formal procedure of posting those proposed changes to the Federal Register, accepting comments, and then posting the final change as a new CFR (which they did). The difference now (in my view, anyway) is that they are proposing to make another change to the CFR's, without going through that required procedure. That is the way I see it, anyway - anyone have an attorney friend familiar with CFR's that can review this for us and give us an opinion?

I'm not directly addressing your question, but in their eyes, they probably think they aren't changing anything, really, until March or April of 2008.

In one of the mp3's posted above, Fednewsline?, an unidentified woman, who sounded as if she was a TSP board member, said "they got permission" to implement the interim restrictions to the 3000 of us, if we continue to abuse IFT (i.e. greater than two for month, or whatever they warn us to in our special letters) and then punishing us by having to do it by mail if we abuse that warning by going over the limit.

So:

1) WHO gave them permission for this interim solution? This seems like a very important question to answer for the interim

2) They aren't really restricting "us" on the number of trades until "March or April", but are using the throw-up-barriers method in the meantime, "with permission." Also, there was no discussion about CFR's causing them to wait until March and April to fully implement the restriction. That's how long it would take them, according to her, to make the necessary bookeeping changes, programming, etc., changes.

Talltimber
11-21-2007, 10:28 PM
Is it OK to be a TSP board member and a partisan politician (democratic, GOP, independent, whatever). Seems like federal employees get dismissed for that quite regularly.

I hope the letter is suitable for framing.

Lets find out who that spokesperson was. I have observed fake news interviews and they carry the same softball tone of voice. The latest being the infamous FEMA interview on how well thing went in the California wildfires. "Do you think FEMA did a good job?"

Where can we contribute to a class action suit?

James48843
11-21-2007, 10:42 PM
RAE:

There was a more recent change than that public law- the change was in a bill sponsored by Maine Senator Olypia Snow, and allowed the end of "open seasons", and also daily trading. I think it was in 2003 or 2004, but not sure exactly. That is the law I am looking for. Will keep searching.

You re right- it is illegal for them to change a CFR without doing a federal register notice, and soliciting public comment.

But then again, torture is illegal too, and this TSP board IS a majority appointed by our current President.

Thanks for the help.

RAE
11-21-2007, 10:43 PM
You're right, Kam, they haven't actually changed anything yet, but in order to have a change effective in March, they would still need to start the formal process of publishing this proposed change in the Fed. Register, starting the formal comment period, etc. (this stuff takes time) - and I see no indication that they are planning to do any of that (at least there was no mention of it in anything they have put out so far). As a minimum, we should all keep the pressure on and monitor them to see if they do this stuff or not.

I agree with you that we need to find out who gave them "permission" to even take the interim steps they plan to take. Whoever that is, I have a feeling someone is exceeding their authority here, and bypassing the normal process again.

We need a senator or congressman, or perhaps a Union rep., to help us dig into this and get some answers. I also wrote to the chairman and vice-chairman of the Employee Thrift Advisory Council (ETAC) today - Sauber (Letter Carriers Union) and Brown (NFFE). Paladin had posted earlier that the FRTIB needs to run these proposed changes by the ETAC before they are approved. So, you would think that these guys would be interested in hearing from their membership as to how we feel about these proposed changes. I can post the addresses for these gentlemen in another post if folks are interested, or you can easily find them by doing a Google search.

James48843
11-21-2007, 10:45 PM
Here is a post Griffin posted, and should also be posted in this thread:

From Griffin:
================================================== ==

The following excerpts are drawn from the FRTIB meeting minutes and I think they shed light on what the FRTIB is thinking and their motivation behind setting the maximum.

I didn't include the text that reveals that the TSP purchases the I-fund share the next morning AFTER they do the FV. The expectation is that by applying the FV correctly, they priced the fund for the actual cost they are going to pay the following day, and if they mess it up - the participants pay the price.

Here's a link to the full text:

http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/minutes-board-member-meetings_2007Aug.pdf (http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/minutes-board-member-meetings_2007Aug.pdf)

http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/minutes-board-member-meetings_2007Sep.pdf (http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/minutes-board-member-meetings_2007Sep.pdf)

Compare what they said in August in pink to what they said in September in pink and then do the same for the blue sentances. Finally check out what they said in red.

FRTIB Minutes August 20

She noted that the tracking error for the I Fund was 89 basis points because it was fair valued on July 31st. The year-to-date tracking error for the small-mid cap fund was 18 basis points due to the fund's sampling technique. The I Fund is only down 77 basis points year-to-date rather than 89 basis points due to the Fund's tax benefits.

Year-to-date trading costs for the I Fund are only $3 million compared to $13 million for all of last year. Last Thursday, $730 million was transferred out of the I Fund. The overseas markets opened down on Friday and the trades were executed at these lower prices. Consequently, transaction costs for that one day were $9.5 million. We also had $307 million in transfers out of the S Fund and $404 million out of the C Fund. This compares to March 5th, our biggest day of interfund activity, where we had a $862 million transferred out of the I Fund, $421 million out of the S Fund, and $440 million out of the C-Fund.

FRTIB Minutes September 17

In August, $3.2 billion was traded in the I Fund which is second only to March, when $3.4 billion was traded. For the year, $14 billion has been traded in the I Fund, which is a 50 percent increase over the amount traded in the same period last year. The trading cost associated with the I Fund in August were 33 basis points, which resulted in $10.5 million being charged to plan participants.

August was the first month of interfund transfer activity out of the L funds: $36 million was transferred out of the 2040 Fund, and $17 million was transferred out of the 2020 Fund. On the other hand, $5 million was transferred into the income fund. This reflects a pattern similar to the other funds. That is, when the markets are turbulent, participants switch from equity funds to income funds. With the L funds, participants switch from the most aggressive L Funds to the most conservative L Funds. Chairman Saul remarked that this was important because it shows that this is a plan of individual choice. Our role is to educate the participants but not to advise them. The participants must make the decisions they are comfortable with. Chairman Saul then asked about fund performance during the month of September.

If I am not mistaken, what they are saying is that the costs to the participants that they are using to justify the two IFT transfer - are NOT fees applied by Barclay's but ARE the costs to participants for those that IFT on a day when TSP messes up their FV guesstimation process. So if they screw up the FV - it's not a big deal if no one transferred, but because these big FV's occur on critical volatile days, if they help those that moved out, then it hurt those that stayed in. That's why the want to limit us on our IFTs. However, as you can see from their own text, the big costs come on these critical days so limiting us to two IFTs is probably going to have little effect on their problem.

Let me know if you think I have this is right - because I thought the 15 million they were referring to in their statement was a fee being leveled by Barclay. If I have this wrong, I want to know.
__________________
Griffin's Account (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=2396&page=12), Griffin's Account Talk (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=2455&page=60)
'Houston, we've had a problem. We've had a main B bus undervolt.', James Lovell

James48843
11-21-2007, 10:47 PM
...I also wrote to the chairman and vice-chairman of the Employee Thrift Advisory Council (ETAC) today - Sauber (Letter Carriers Union) and Brown (NFFE). Paladin had posted earlier that the FRTIB needs to run these proposed changes by the ETAC before they are approved. So, you would think that these guys would be interested in hearing from their membership as to how we feel about these proposed changes. I can post the addresses for these gentlemen in another post if folks are interested, or you can easily find them by doing a Google search.

Please post their names, addresses, and phone/fax numbers if you can find them. We need that info here, to help locate info in one place.

thanks

James48843
11-21-2007, 11:31 PM
Someone brought up a VERY interesting point.

Saul is a Presidential Appointee.

Can you say "Hatch Act"?

It is applicable?

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/)


NEW YORK 19th:

Andrew Marshall Saul (R)

Raised: $782,060
Spent: $330,023
Cash on hand: $452,036

Last Report: 9/30/2007 http://www.opensecrets.org/races/img/spacer.gif


PACs:$0-
Individuals:$681,738(87%)
Candidate:$100,000(13%)
Other:$322(0%)

James48843
11-21-2007, 11:42 PM
Telephone and FAX numbers for the main office of the Thrift Investment Board:

Tel: 202-942-1630
FAX: 202-942-1676

I highly suggest we light up the switchboard starting on Friday, and fill up the fax machine.

JUST SAY NO!

James48843
11-22-2007, 12:21 AM
Originally Posted by RAE http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=133713#post133713)
James and Kam - I believe this is the title and number of the law which originally set up the TSP:

(2) Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-335, 100 Stat. 514 (1986) (codified at 5 U.S.C. [section][section] 8431-8840 (2000)).

Regarding the actual law:

I found what I was looking for.

The law WAS changed in the 106th congress, and again in the 107th, but neither change specifically referred to the new record keeping system allowing daily trades. That must have been done simply by Executive Director and Board action, then a change to the CFR. The U.S.C. does not contain any specific references to daily trades. In fact, the U.S.C. says we must have at least two times PER YEAR the ability to move funds.

The CFR is now the only thing which requires daily trading with no limit, so we'll have to do a full-court press on the Federal Register Notice when it comes out, and get lawmakers involved to try and get the law changed as well.

Talltimber
11-22-2007, 02:14 AM
Friday will be a good day for my first ever call to TSP.

troxel
11-22-2007, 02:28 AM
One question: Is there TSP constituency (ie participant) representation on the board? If not why not?

FordMan
11-22-2007, 07:30 AM
Who's money is it anyway? I trade (one of the 3000?) by moving in increments of 5-10% which unfortunately generates frequent trades, but it is NOT a day trading strategy. I emailed the system to CAUSEY and explained that I try to capture the long term up or down trends when the market is moving (sorry EBB). I consider this a conservative strategy that has now been handcuffed. I've been harmed, who do I sue? Something's truly rotten in Denmark?

FordMan
11-22-2007, 07:33 AM
My first thought is, when I'm eligible to retire I'll show them by transferring my $600K to Merrill Lynch or Schwab. But then i wondered, isn't that possibly what's at work here? Brokers see all these retiring hoardes of FEDS with huge TSP accounts, AND THEY WANT THE ACTION? By making our plan worse, theirs just got comparatively BETTER!

RAE
11-22-2007, 08:08 AM
Here is the contact information for the chairman (Sauber) and vice-chairman (Brown) of the Employee Thrift Advisory Council. The ETAC is a 14-member group, consisting of union and management representatives, that advises the FRTIB on matters related to the TSP. Gregory Long, Executive Director of FRTIB, was quoted as saying they (FRTIB) would need to discuss the proposed IFT restrictions with ETAC before it was finalized. Therefore, I think we really need to flood these two gentlemen with our calls and e-mails!

Richard Brown, President

National Federation of Federal Employees (mhtml:{ABDDF5BF-759C-41AF-8C3F-6EBDEA6CA1DF}mid://00000423/!x-usc:http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/CompanyDetail.aspx?CompanyID=46613962&cs=QFCx0XKh0)

805 15Th Street , NW Suite 500 ,
Washington, DC 20005
USA
Website: www.nffe.org (mhtml:{ABDDF5BF-759C-41AF-8C3F-6EBDEA6CA1DF}mid://00000423/!x-usc:http://www.nffe.org/)Phone: (202) 216-4420Fax: (202) 898-1861


James Sauber
National Association of Letter Carriers
100 Indiana Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001-2144
USA http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/mhtml:{ABDDF5BF-759C-41AF-8C3F-6EBDEA6CA1DF}mid://00000423/!x-usc:http://www.zoominfo.com/images/zoominfo/icons/show_map.gif (mhtml:{ABDDF5BF-759C-41AF-8C3F-6EBDEA6CA1DF}mid://00000423/!x-usc:http://maps.ask.com/maps?a=100 Indiana Avenue NW , Washington, DC 20001-2144, USA)

Website: www.nalc.org (http://www.nalc.org)
Phone: (202) 393-4695

airlift
11-22-2007, 10:36 AM
To all of you good people in this website:

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!

On a very serious note, I am convinced that we are on the right track and that we should be able to overturn any preliminary administrative decision to control daily trades. Provided, that a concerted and intensive effort is maintained. The procedures for approval and implementation of a Federal Regulation have already been explained here. There is still time to overturn and reach a favorable alternative to a total ban on daily IFTs. Raise Hell Guys, TIME and the LAW are on our side!:)

kam
11-22-2007, 11:52 AM
Is it OK to be a TSP board member and a partisan politician (democratic, GOP, independent, whatever). Seems like federal employees get dismissed for that quite regularly.

I hope the letter is suitable for framing.

Lets find out who that spokesperson was. I have observed fake news interviews and they carry the same softball tone of voice. The latest being the infamous FEMA interview on how well thing went in the California wildfires. "Do you think FEMA did a good job?"

Where can we contribute to a class action suit?


Tracey Ray is responsible for the second mp3, though her introduction is not in the recording.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=364&sid=1296071

TSP Tweaks

Some changes are coming to yourThrift Savings Plan! Tracey Ray, the Director of Investments at the TSP, tells us about the board's decision to limit the number of interfund trades that people can make per month. Click here for the interview.

The interview:
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/emedia/99888.wma

Talltimber
11-22-2007, 12:06 PM
Going from 2 trades a year to unlimited trades was an improvement. It was imperfect, and the board and staff FAILED to foresee the consequences of the move. (These are the same guys who know better than us how to handle our money according to them, that steams me every time).

Going to 2 trades a month would not be an improvement and should not be done. (At this point never mind the lousy way they went about it and the arrogant wrongheadedness of their thinking, we can address that also).

The thing to do is improve the system. WE HAVE A PAID BOARD AND STAFF TO DO THIS. When they built the existing system they had no idea that someone would actually use it, It take a little thought to see that might happen.

The action of the TSP board and TSP staff required is this:
Determine the faults of the current system
Consider alternate systems
Determine the benefits and disadvantages to the individual TSP member of each alternative.
Determine the benefits and disadvantages to the TSP members as a whole of each alternative.

Consider the legal and ethical ramifications of each alternative.
Get feedback from TSP's customers; the TSP share holder.

Follow the proper channels and execute the best option.

This early December sneak attack on our retiremnt savings is beyond the pale. Please lets make the system better, or leave it alone.

I am looking forward to better performance and service from the TSP board and staff in the future. The future board members the president appoints and new TSP Staff management team have a great opportunity to build a world leading organization.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Hardcorps
11-22-2007, 01:38 PM
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=133773
From tsp.gov site.If you want read whole thing.Follow these instructions[link will not come up.
Go to Tsp.gov site
Click on What's new
Click on press releases
Click year 2007
Click last entry[Results of survey]
Go to page 43.

Talltimber
11-22-2007, 03:47 PM
Thanks Hardcorps, good link. What I see missing is a differing adnim/management charge for each fund. No doubt G and F cost less to operate than Ls, C and S which is less than I. They are all charged 4 mills.

Each fund should have a different cost of ownership.

Also if you trade often the account costs more to admin/manage, so a trading cost should be incorporated.

TSP is buying new powerful computers so the necessary calculating power has been purchased.

FordMan
11-22-2007, 04:54 PM
Im curious what the unions will think of this move. It seems they have been mysteriously absent from all this conversation.

Haven't you been following the Mike CAUSEY columns? I've posted frequently on this subject but have been shouted down by those who think that active trading is somehow illegal, immoral or fattening.

They think WE have an entitlement mentality while I think it's pretty obvious that THEY are the ones causing the harm.

Let's face it, scams are nothing new on Wall Street, and this is just the latest version---aimed square at Fed Emps.

Personally, I think legal action may be necessary, and oh man, there goes any cost savings the TSP Board promised.

FordMan
11-22-2007, 04:58 PM
MOST importantly, it's MY money. How come nobody seems to care what I think? It appears that the decisions were made, not for a cost savings, but to punish those who might be turbocharging/accelerating their returns. What's un-American about using the brains G-d gave us? Besides, I, solely, am the one taking ALL of the risk.



Haven't you been following the Mike CAUSEY columns? I've posted frequently on this subject but have been shouted down by those who think that active trading is somehow illegal, immoral or fattening.

They think WE have an entitlement mentality while I think it's pretty obvious that THEY are the ones causing the harm.

Let's face it, scams are nothing new on Wall Street, and this is just the latest version---aimed square at Fed Emps.

Personally, I think legal action may be necessary, and oh man, there goes any cost savings the TSP Board promised.

FordMan
11-22-2007, 06:11 PM
Three Issues here as I see it.

This is another trash the middle-class movement. When the national trend is to totally eliminate pensions, force people into mandatory 401k savings, and with talk about eliminating Social Security looming, the government is simultaneously tying the hands of those effected, the middle-class, to manage their monies.

Who said Bush wasn’t talented? Bush added 3 new positions to manage the TSP at the beginning of his Presidency – they have successfully done his bidding.

Perhaps Lou Dobbs can help us.

I'm not sure it's all Bush. Look at what's happening with Citibank (Robert Rubin & Company), and all the subprime billionssss writedowns. I'm guessing it's Wall Street doing a COUP D'ETAT on our TSP funds. They want our money locked in so we can't go against their trades. C'mon we only have FIVE funds to choose fund. I'm guessing this WILL be the new model for ALL 401Ks. Remember PALM, anyone??

FordMan
11-22-2007, 07:07 PM
I did some research on the Calpers retirement plan to see what their policy was on interfund transfers. It's similar to what we have now. Once a day by a deadline. The limit is once a day. They don't seem to have any problems with it. I also noticed that they offer the option of SMA (self managed account) where you can use a contract brokerage and manage your own account. I think that's the direction that TSP needs to go. Why don't we have any utility funds or natural resource funds? I say fire the whole board and start from scratch, it would be an improvement.


I second the motion for a CALPERS plan! Self directed with individual stocks may be the best way to go. Heck, my TSP is big enough to create my own mutual fund!

FordMan
11-22-2007, 07:19 PM
Is it OK to be a TSP board member and a partisan politician (democratic, GOP, independent, whatever). Seems like federal employees get dismissed for that quite regularly.

I hope the letter is suitable for framing.

Lets find out who that spokesperson was. I have observed fake news interviews and they carry the same softball tone of voice. The latest being the infamous FEMA interview on how well thing went in the California wildfires. "Do you think FEMA did a good job?"

Where can we contribute to a class action suit?



I wonder if we can file some type of SEC complaint or ? This sounds like the type of scam that Elliot Spitzer used to go after when he was NY State attorney general. Do you think that "3000 Letter" will be sufficient to gain a share of the eventual lawsuit settlement, in say about 2017? I'm guessing it might be worth about $50K.

k2ds
11-23-2007, 12:14 PM
Tell me this doesn't put the big squeeze on active members of this website - the related paysites here will not be happy with some serious changes to be afoot.

That's a good point. What will happen with the paysites on here if this does go through??

James48843
11-23-2007, 12:49 PM
Pay sites will be harmed. Another reason to JUST SAY NO.

A "substantial amount of small businesses will be adversly affected". Everybody should say that when they have an open comment period in the federal register. And EVERYBODY should submit a letter for comment.

Be prepared- start writing down your thoughts now for submittal when the open comment period comes.

Talltimber
11-23-2007, 02:07 PM
They don't have a program set up to charge fees, that would take a year. So the only option is no change at this time.

Charging fees would actually see annuals cost go down for people how move funds rarely or never.
Cost now: 4 mils a year,
Cost with fees: 3.2mils a year plus some fraction of a mil per trade, if the I fund cost more to trade the millage would be different.

So far 2/3 say fees or no change

FordMan
11-23-2007, 03:55 PM
Shouldn't we throw up a bone in an effort to maybe get unlimited transfers by voting for unlimited transfers with fees? Show we are willing to compromise, not that it will do any good.


Throw a bone? Now's not the time for that. What have they thrown at my largest asset? A spear. I'm guessing their attack will cost me $50,000 over the next ten years. Do you usually throw car salemen bones too? (BTW- A bone is what a dog gets for behaving)

FordMan
11-23-2007, 04:30 PM
Pay sites will be harmed. Another reason to JUST SAY NO.

A "substantial amount of small businesses will be adversly affected". Everybody should say that when they have an open comment period in the federal register. And EVERYBODY should submit a letter for comment.

Be prepared- start writing down your thoughts now for submittal when the open comment period comes.


Frankly, I'm not concerned with the pay sites' earnings. I'm concerned about my TSP earnings. Is this message board and www.tsptalk.com (http://www.tsptalk.com) dependent on the pay sites?

jayhawker
11-23-2007, 04:48 PM
Frankly, I'm not concerned with the pay sites' earnings. I'm concerned about my TSP earnings. Is this message board and www.tsptalk.com (http://www.tsptalk.com) dependent on the pay sites?

Not you and not me. But if I was collecting $15 bucks a month from over 2000 people I'd sure be concerned!!! :worried:

FUTURESTRADER
11-23-2007, 05:06 PM
Throw a bone? Now's not the time for that. What have they thrown at my largest asset? A spear. I'm guessing their attack will cost me $50,000 over the next ten years. Do you usually throw car salemen bones too? (BTW- A bone is what a dog gets for behaving)

I'm just suggesting we show good faith so that when they slam the door in our faces and we get the error message that says, "can not perform transfer, two monthly transfers allotment exceeded" we can say...well, we tried. I'll likely keep paying ebb until then.