PDA

View Full Version : What YOU can do to fight back - IFT limit



Pages : [1] 2 3

James48843
11-23-2007, 10:56 PM
This thread is a thread for things YOU can do to fight back against the proposal to limit IFT trades. Here you can post ideas, as well as specific phone numbers, fax numbers, and/or e-mail addresses to make YOUR voice heard about this attack on freedom.


I'll try and go clip a few of the important numbers and post here. If you have contacts/numbers to post in this thread, please do so. However, please keep the ideas flowing in the TSP NEWS thread, and this will be the consolidation of the contact info thread.

thanks

James48843
11-23-2007, 11:03 PM
1. Call this phone number and register your displeasure with their move to limit IFT's to only two per month. Tell them it is a bad idea, and there are better ways to deal with the problem of missing their FV call and having it cost money. Tell them you JUST SAY NO.

When you dial in to the main switchboard, you MAY get bumped into voice mail to leave a message. Please be kind in the message you leave, but be firm.

Then, send also a FAX. Any local KINKOs or STAPLES store, or a MAILBOX ETC has a fax machine if you can't do it from hom.

The main phone number at TSP Thrift Board is:

Tel: 202-942-1630

FAX: 202-942-1676




Light up their phone lines!

Show-me
11-24-2007, 12:12 AM
http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/images/ced.gif (http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/main.html)

http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html

James48843
11-24-2007, 12:49 AM
Thanks.


Also - here is the information about two members of the Employee Thrift Advisory Board.

The chairman is Sauber, and vice-chairman is Brown.

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 (http://www.nffe.org)
Phone: (202) 216-4420
Fax: (202) 898-1861


James Sauber
National Association of Letter Carriers
100 Indiana Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001-2144
USA

Website: www.nalc.org (http://www.nalc.org/)
Phone: (202) 393-4695
+++
I called both numbers today, and both offices were closed, but I managed to clock my way through their phone mail systems and leave a message on their voicemails.

I encourage EVERYONE to also do the same. Phone them up, then leave a message on the voice mail. And, next week, call again.

THIS IS A FULL COURT PRESS- DO YOUR PART. COMMUNICATE YOUR DISPLEASURE WITH THESE DRACONIAN RESTRICTIONS.

There are dozens of things TSP could do BESIDES invoking these types of restrictions, that would solve the issue they are talking about. Their proposed "solution" does not solve the issue. Read more here and learn the facts for yourself, and then TAKE ACTION. We need to all work TOGETHER!

12%ayear
11-26-2007, 12:46 PM
I'm working on it.

Check back tomorrow- we've got some things in the works.
Great!! Keep up the good work James. Someone has to lead the thread into the pathway for freeTSPtrade.

James48843
11-26-2007, 04:36 PM
Second: We're starting a website and an organization devoted to protecting the interests of TSP Shareholders.

The website will be a clearing house of information, education for share holders, and eventually a tool to help lobby for TSP shareholder rights. There are now 3.8 MILLION of us, and we don't have a single entity yet to protect OUR interests. Only a Thrift Board that thinks they can think for us, and a weak council of members that have no direct lobbying capability. We need to add horsepower to the mix.

We will be asking for support for that TSP Share Holder's Organization website when it gets up and running.

Charter members are needed- I'd like to ask everyone to PM me and help with a small donation soon to help get the site up and running. I'm only talking on the order of a couple bucks each- to pay for the website initially. If you can help, great. if not, that's ok too. We'll need to mobilize support on the ground as well with phone call people and Washington people who can walk over and talk to people as well. For all of this, we'll need each person's help and commitment to make a difference.

YOU can make a difference.

Stay tuned. We're fighting back.

Show-me
11-26-2007, 05:39 PM
I call the Thriftline to start and the answer I got from the "customer service" gal was "Market timing is illegal" to which I professed that "Most investor market time, the guys you see on TV at the different stock exchanges time several times a day. How can that be illegal?" All I got was silence.

Then I spoke to the supervisor and she was just a clueless, but she did tell me that the "Board is considering other options". She claimed that Mutual Funds limit there folks to two trade and charge for any over that.

She finally recommended I contact the "Board", which I will do tomorrow.

James48843
11-26-2007, 07:42 PM
We're showing more that 90% opposed to restricting where people can move their money.

Do they not understand how this curtails the freedom of the individual?


Weigh in! Go Vote!

Buffalo_Nickle
11-26-2007, 08:56 PM
Thanks Barney..# 1885

GUCHI
11-27-2007, 09:28 AM
what kills me is that i have been a tsper since the beginning. and i held in the G fund for years, until i learned a little on my own. i just found tsptalk about 2 years ago and thought this is exactly what govt employees needed. we never ever had any guidance on what where or how to manage our accounts. tsptalk was a blessing. and now they want to step up to the plate and tell us how to manage our accounts. where were they 20 years ago ?????? i'm sure many feel like i do, i just wanted to remind folks how things were. thanks to all on tsptalk.

qibovin
11-27-2007, 10:00 AM
5. Contact lobbying organizations that might be sympathetic to "the cause." Some I can think of are AARP, Military Officer Assoc. of America (MOAA), Assoc. of the US Army (AUSA), etc.

cpchri1
11-27-2007, 10:52 AM
"(b) Limit. There is no limit on the number of contribution allocations or interfund transfer requests that may be made by a participant. [70 FR 32208, June 1, 2005]" I went and looked that up. Here is the link:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-10870.pdf

One thing is this is the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Final Rule. The Board cannot legally and arbitarily change a rule unless they follow the rule making process which require public comment through the Federal Register. I would point this out in any correspondance sent to congressional staff.

Talltimber
11-27-2007, 02:25 PM
Now Paladin, a lawsuit would be unseemly during an election year. Please be kind to our benevolent leaders, $350 eh? Let's see who signs the 3,000 letters, that should leave a mark.

fedgolfer
11-27-2007, 04:28 PM
Thanks Paladin. I'd love to sue those SOBs on the Board too. Although they're not stealing like the Enron execs... they are meddling with the free will of honest government and military employees, along with money that is not rightfully theirs, nor within the rules of the CFR.

At the very least, those mighty 3000 should be grandfathered in and allowed unlimited trades... and $10,000,000 each for pain and suffering.

This is madness... THIS.... IS..... SPARTA!!!

Barney
11-27-2007, 04:29 PM
I'm wondering whether TSP might reconsider their position if it became evident that they could be facing a slew of these pesky private lawsuits scattered throughout all 11 circuits of the federal courts. ;)


This would be a text book class action law suit.

Mike
11-27-2007, 05:22 PM
If you sue the TSP Board, aren't you in effect suing the federal government?

If true, that would mean damages are paid by taxpayers. I don't like the sound of that.

nnuut
11-27-2007, 05:26 PM
If you sue the TSP Board, aren't you in effect suing the federal government?

If true, that would mean damages are paid by taxpayers. I don't like the sound of that.
It's OK Mike you have PLENTY of Money!!:laugh: Sue the bast$$ds!!:nuts:

Wasaki
11-27-2007, 05:56 PM
If you sue the TSP Board, aren't you in effect suing the federal government?

If true, that would mean damages are paid by taxpayers. I don't like the sound of that.

Think of it like this: of all the taxpayer money that is frivolously spent, with this at least there is taxpayer money being spent for a cause you support and will be affected by.

tsptalk
11-27-2007, 06:41 PM
It’s interesting the way their (TSP) arguments go around in circles…

From Jim's article:

First…
Most people who try to play the markets are reactive, Miles said.
For example, many sold off their international stock fund investments in the wake of world crises such as Israel’s invasion last year of Lebanon or large sell-offs at foreign stock markets.
That’s a mistake, Miles said. By fleeing from a market experiencing turbulence, investors will miss out on the inevitable “bounce back.”

Then…
Limiting transfers to twice a month is more flexible than most mutual fund groups allow, Ray said. 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. This is intended to give investors an option if they have already used their two monthly transfers and become frightened about market activity.

If they are going to protect us from ourselves, they better take care of this one too.

Do they or don’t they want people selling weakness? :rolleyes:

James48843
11-27-2007, 10:54 PM
Thanks.


Here is the information about two members of the Employee Thrift Advisory Board.

The chairman is Sauber, and vice-chairman is Brown.

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 faxes.

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 (http://www.nffe.org)
Phone: (202) 216-4420
Fax: (202) 898-1861


James Sauber
National Association of Letter Carriers
100 Indiana Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001-2144
USA

Website: www.nalc.org (http://www.nalc.org/)
Phone: (202) 393-4695
+++
I called both numbers, and both offices were closed, but I managed to clock my way through their phone mail systems and leave a message on their voicemails.

I encourage EVERYONE to also do the same. Phone them up, then leave a message on the voice mail. And, next week, call again.

THIS IS A FULL COURT PRESS- DO YOUR PART. COMMUNICATE YOUR DISPLEASURE WITH THESE DRACONIAN RESTRICTIONS.




Can anyone help identify the other individuals on the council?

And their phone numbers?

Not just the organization involved, but the actual names of the individual people,

and their phone numbers.



Thank in advance for your detective work.

Hint: start with this: Google Employee Thrift Advisory Board

There are 14 members.

We've got the phone numbers of two of the 14.

We need the names and phone numbers of the other 12.

YOU- get active. Help in the search.

Help be a "TSPTALK DETECTIVE".

Then post the info here.

thanks

ekatteng
11-28-2007, 12:10 AM
The board president is the one who appoint those members... we really do not have an independent voice... we need the National Association of Federal Retires and the Union Coalition of the Federal Employees to help us on the fight just like they doing the NSPS payment for performance system... I am also for as many legal class actions as possible once we start receiving letter of restriction in December... :mad:


Can anyone help identify the other individuals on the council?

And their phone numbers?

Not just the organization involved, but the actual names of the individual people,

and their phone numbers.



Thank in advance for your detective work.

Hint: start with this: Google Employee Thrift Advisory Board

There are 14 members.

We've got the phone numbers of two of the 14.

We need the names and phone numbers of the other 12.

YOU- get active. Help in the search.

Help be a "TSPTALK DETECTIVE".

Then post the info here.

thanks

ekatteng
11-28-2007, 12:20 AM
Tom, I suggest to centralize all our comunication and efforts here...



It’s interesting the way their (TSP) arguments go around in circles…

From Jim's article:

First…
Most people who try to play the markets are reactive, Miles said.
For example, many sold off their international stock fund investments in the wake of world crises such as Israel’s invasion last year of Lebanon or large sell-offs at foreign stock markets.
That’s a mistake, Miles said. By fleeing from a market experiencing turbulence, investors will miss out on the inevitable “bounce back.”

Then…
Limiting transfers to twice a month is more flexible than most mutual fund groups allow, Ray said. 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. This is intended to give investors an option if they have already used their two monthly transfers and become frightened about market activity.

If they are going to protect us from ourselves, they better take care of this one too.

Do they or don’t they want people selling weakness? :rolleyes:

Show-me
11-28-2007, 08:38 AM
3000 Tspartans,

Send this to your elected officials to identify the Employee Thrift Advisory Board and post the results here or send them to me. I just sent a note to my EO's to get some action going. KISS

I am a TSP participant and a Federal employee and need to identify the members of the Employee Thrift Advisory Board. Will you help me? There is no web site or much information on the web. They are a 14 member board with no information on who they are or how to contact them. Please help.
Thank you.

Show-me
11-28-2007, 09:23 AM
I am finding it worded as a Employee Thrift Advisory Council also.

Show-me
11-28-2007, 09:50 AM
FRTIB phone 202-942-1660

I called the above number and the receptionist said the Dave Toro handles external affairs and he will call me back. I will update after I hear something.

We may need to do a mass calling on this number to get their attention.

Stand by.

Wasaki
11-28-2007, 09:50 AM
I made a buddy of mine aware of this who works for Congress on the Hill. I'll see if i can get him fired up about it so maybe he can mention it to some big wigs. I will be writing some letters here soon too when I get a chance later in the week. All this information is great, keep up the good work!

FundSurfer
11-28-2007, 11:52 AM
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

Board Members
Andrew M. Saul, of New York (Chairman). Since 1986, Mr. Saul has been a General Partner in Saul Partners, L.P., New York City. In addition, he served as Chairman of the board for Caché, Inc., from 1993 to 2000. Previously, he was an Executive Vice President, 1968-80, and then President, 1980-85, for Brooks Fashion Stores, Inc. From 1985-86, he was President of BR Investors. Mr. Saul is a trustee for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Sarah Neuman Nursing Home, Westchester, New York, and the United Jewish Appeal Federation, New York City. He is also Commissioner, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City, and is on the Board of Overseers for Wharton School of Finance, University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Saul received his B.S. (1968) from Wharton School of Finance. He was born in New York City in 1946, and currently resides in the New York area with his wife, Denise. They have two daughters.

THOMAS A. FINK, of Alaska. Mr. Fink has been semi-retired since mid-1994 after having served six years as Mayor of Anchorage. He has primarily been a life insurance salesman since 1958. Mr. Fink also spent eight years in the State Legislature, including two as speaker. He was born in Peoria, Illinois, in 1928 and has a B.S. from Bradley University (1950), a J.D. from the University of Illinois Law School (1952), and a CLU from the American College of Life Underwriters (1963). He wrote a weekly column on issues of the day in a local paper between 1975 and 2001. Mr. Fink has lived in Anchorage with his wife, Pat, since 1952. They have 11 grown children.

Gordon J. Whiting, of New York. Mr. Whiting is a Managing Director of Angelo, Gordon & Co., a leading investment management firm specializing in non-traditional assets, which he joined in 2004. Previously, he was an Executive Director of W. P. Carey & Co. LLC (NYSE: WPC), which he joined in 1993. He was also the President of Corporate Associates 14, Incorporated, one of it's publicly-held, non-traded real estate investment trusts that invest in commercial and industrial properties. Prior to that Mr. Whiting founded an import/export company based in Hong Kong. Mr. Whiting serves on the Cornell University Council and the Board of United Neighbors of East Midtown, Inc., is the Treasurer of the Camp Fire Conservation Fund, Inc., and is an Eagle Scout. He received a B.S. in Business Management and Marketing from Cornell University and an M.B.A. from the Columbia University with a concentration in Finance. He was born in Bronxville, New York, in 1965, and currently resides in Manhattan with his wife, Cornelia.

Alejandro M. Sanchez, of Florida. Mr. Sanchez is the Chief Executive Officer of the Florida Bankers Association (FBA). He serves as one of the fiduciaries for the FBA pension plan. He has served on the boards of several non-profit organizations in Florida. He currently serves on the Board of Florida Tax Watch, and is a member of the Florida Bar. He served almost five years in the United States Air Force from 1976-81. Mr. Sanchez graduated from Troy State University (B.S., 1981) and the University of Iowa (J.D., 1983). Mr. Sanchez practiced law with the law firm of Sinclair Louis in Miami from 1984-1986, served as Inspector General and General Counsel for the Florida Department of Commerce from 1987-1988, and was Senior Corporate Counsel for GTE Information Services in Tampa from 1989-1993. He joined the FBA in 1993 and was named CEO in 1998. He was born in Havana, Cuba, on January 12, 1958, and currently resides in Florida with his wife, Mercedes, and their two children.

TERRENCE A. DUFFY, of Illinois. Mr. Duffy was elected Chairman of the Board of Chicago Mercantile Holdings Inc. (CME Holdings) and Chairman of the Board of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME) in April 2002. He was Vice Chairman of the Board of CME Holdings, Inc. from its formation in August 2001 and of the Board of CME from 1998 to April 2002. He has been President of TDA Trading, Inc. since 1981. He has been a CME member since 1981 and a Board member since 1995. As the company’s Vice Chairman, Duffy served on the executive, compensation, nominating, strategic planning, and regulatory oversight committees. In 2002, he was appointed by President Bush to serve on a National Saver Summit on Retirement Savings. In 2004, Mr. Duffy was appointed to the Board of Directors of World Business Chicago, the Board of Regents for Mercy Home for Boys and Girls, and the Advisory Council for the Graham School of Management of Saint Xavier University. He is also a member of the Economic Club of Chicago, the Executives’ Club of Chicago, and the Chicago Committee of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Duffy attended the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, studying business administration. He was recognized as one of the top 100 Irish Business Leaders by Irish America Magazine in 2003 and 2004. A Chicago native, Mr. Duffy and his wife have two children.

Executive Director
GREGORY T. LONG, of Washington, D.C. Greg is the Executive Director of the FRTIB, the Federal Agency that administers the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). In this role, Greg serves as the Chief Executive Officer and managing fiduciary of the TSP. The TSP services 3.7 million current and former Federal employees and Uniformed Service members with over $200 billion in assets, making it the largest defined contribution plan in the world. Prior to his appointment as Executive Director, Greg was the FRTIB’s Director of Product Development, where he was responsible for the Agency’s strategic planning functions and its development of new services and products that promote beneficial savings behavior. Additionally, Greg managed all research efforts to understand the attitudes and investment behavior of TSP participants.
Before joining the FRTIB, Greg spent seven years with CitiStreet, where he served as the Director of Marketing for the American Bar Association Retirement Funds. In that position, he oversaw all marketing, sales, and product development activity for a program that provides 401(k) services to over 4,000 law firms nationwide. Prior to CitiStreet, Greg spent six years with Putnam Investments, most recently as the Regional 401(k) Director in the southeast U.S. Greg was born in Boston in 1967 and is a graduate of St. Anselm College in Manchester, NH. He plans to live in the Washington, D.C., area with his wife, Laura, and their son.

FundSurfer
11-28-2007, 11:57 AM
http://www.tsp.gov/features/chapter01.html#sub3

They can all be reached at

Address: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
1250 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-3952



Staff will probably forward them all communication.

Show-me
11-28-2007, 12:15 PM
Or you can call 202-942-1660 to get FRTIB direct.

I'm still waiting on my call back from FRTIB about who the 15 members are on the Employee Thrift Advisory Counsel.

Show-me
11-28-2007, 03:11 PM
Results!!!

List of members. Call them, write them, email them!

https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/form_members.asp

Home page.

https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/CommitteeMenu.asp

Show-me
11-28-2007, 03:16 PM
I will add that Dave Toro at FRTIB was very helpful. Thanks Dave!

Also, he informed me that there is a period before proposed changes are made permanent that you are allowed to voice your concern. We need to speak up quickly. I will try to find the time line.

crhuss
11-28-2007, 03:29 PM
Today is Nov. 28 at 1:30 mountain time. I called Rick Brown's office. His secretary said my call was only the second call received concerning the issue of limiting IFT. If we want this thing to work, we ALL have to take action. Otherwise, we'll all get what we don't want. :(:worried:

Show-me
11-28-2007, 03:30 PM
OK the links do not work. Here is where you need to go.

https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp

Click "Committees Search"

In the field "Search for Committee by Name or Number" type "Employee Thrift Advisory Council" then click members.

Apparently I can not paste links to the actual pages. Sorry.

FundSurfer
11-28-2007, 04:20 PM
I did not see a way to contact them. If you find a contact number or address and you post it?

Show-me
11-28-2007, 05:27 PM
I'm working on it and will get back to ya when I have them all.

As far as the time line goes there is not one set in motion as of now, but it is HIGHLY recommended that letters be sent to the FRTIB before the changes take place. We need to send letters to the 15 members of the ETAC too. I WILL find the contact info. on them, but first I have to pick my son up from school. See ya.

Mr. Andrew M. Saul
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
1250 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-3952

RAE
11-28-2007, 07:10 PM
I did not see a way to contact them. If you find a contact number or address and you post it?

Guys........just scroll back a page or two on this thread and you will find a lot of the info. you are looking for! This is something I posted there a few days ago. It gives contact info. for the chairman and vice-chairman of the ETAC. If you have time to contact all 15 members of ETAC, great.....but at least contact these two gentlemen and let them know how you feel. I have sent snail-mail letters to both of them, and also e-mailed Brown:
__________________________________________________ ____________

Here is the information about two members of the Employee Thrift Advisory Board.

The chairman is Sauber, and vice-chairman is Brown.

The ETAC is a 15-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 faxes.

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 (http://www.nffe.org/)
Phone: (202) 216-4420
Fax: (202) 898-1861


James Sauber
National Association of Letter Carriers
100 Indiana Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001-2144
USA

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

RAE
11-28-2007, 07:21 PM
I was reading through the GAO audit of TSP today (from June, 2007), and found this interesting quote in it, from Greg Long, Executive Director of teh FRTIB. It just reinforces what we have found in many other sources.....the administrative expenses of the TSP are very low now, and getting lower as time goes on and assets increase. Therefore, their claim that expenses have increased greatly due to frequent IFT's by a small number of TSP participants is BOGUS! If you need a quote from Long to include in your letter(s), consider using this one:
__________________________________________________ ______________

"We concur with the use of benchmarking of costs in appropriate situations. The Agency is always mindful of its responsibility to ensure prudent use of TSP resources. In fact, as the report notes, overall TSP administrative costs, which include all Agency expenditures, compare extremely favorably with private sector 401(k) plans, which we view as the most appropriate benchmark. TSP total administrative costs, including all record keeping and staff costs, as well as investment costs, were only three basis points in 2006. This is far lower than the reported costs of any other 401(k) plan (the report cites an average of 75 basis points) and is in fact several times less than the reported investment expenses alone for the cheapest 401(k) plans."

Show-me
11-28-2007, 07:25 PM
National Association of Postal Supervisors
Louis Atkins, Executive Vice President
1727 King Street, Suite 400
Alexandria, VA 22314-2753
Phone (703) 836-9660
Fax (703) 836-9665

National Treasury Employee Union
Collen Kelley, National President
1750 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
(202) 572-5500

Uniformed Services use:
The Department of Defense
Attn: Colonel Adrienne Fraser-Darling, USMC
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-1400
Note: No solid address yet, but this is close. I will work on it some more.


National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO
James Sauber, Research Director
100 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2144
(202) 393-4695 or (800) 424-5186 for NALC Retirement Dept.


American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO
Myke Reid, Director Legislative Dept.
1300 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20005

(202) 842-4210

NARFE National Headquarters
Richard Ostergren
606 N. Washington ST.
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (703) 838-7760 Fax (703) 838-7785

National Association of Government Employees
John Albanese
159 Burgin Parkway
Quincy, MA 02169

617-376-0220
toll free: 866-412-7762
Fax
Executive Office: 617-472-7566
Legal Department: 617-376-0285
Membership Department: 617-376-0469
Communications Department: 617-984-5695

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO
Susan Thomas
80 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

(202) 737-8700
comments@afge.org (comments@afge.org)

National League of Postmasters
Charles W. Mapa, President
5904 Richmond Hwy, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22303-1864

O: (703) 329-4550
F: (703) 329-0466
E-Mail: cmapa@postmasters.org (cmapa@postmasters.org)

Federal Managers Association
Darryl Perkinson, President
1641 Prince St.
Alexandria, VA
22314-2818

Phone: (703) 683-8700
Fax: (703) 683-8707
E-Mail: DarrylFMA@cox.net (DarrylFMA@cox.net)

National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association
Clifford Dailing, Secretary-Treasurer
1630 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-3467
703-684-5545

National Association of Postmasters of the United States
Dale Goff, President
8 Herbert Street
Alexandria, VA 22305-2600
Voice: 703-683-9027
Fax: 703-683-6820
General e-mail: napusinfo@napus.org (napusinfo@napus.org)
Note: It has the contact name listed as Oscar Goff, but Dale Goff is the President.

Senior Executives Association
Richard Strombotne
820 First Street N.E.
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20002

(202) 927-7000

National Federation of Federal Employees
Richard Brown, President
805 15th Street, NW Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005

202-216-4420 (main) · 202-898-1861 (fax)

Federally Employed Women
Sharon Roydes, Treasurer
1666 K Street, N.W. Suite 440
Washington, DC 20006

Phone: (202) 898-0994
Email: roydes@sbcglobal.net

James48843
11-28-2007, 08:10 PM
Thank you for the full list.

FOLKS- These are the 14 people who can stan up to the Thrift Board, and tell them to change their minds.


I want you to print out that list- and carry it in your wallet.

Each day until the Thrift Board changes its mind, I want you to call at least two people on that list of 14 people.

And the message I want you to tell them is: This is a wrong action. It's our money, not the Thrift Boards money. What they are trying to impose is wrong, and you want this person to work on your behalf to fix the wrong that over 80% of the voters in the federal employee poll believe is wrong. It is wrong to limit trades. It is a Fair Value problem, not a trading problem, an even if they did slam the door on your ability to manage your own account, the costs still will continue- this isn't the solution.

Send that message every day to just two people on that list.

Again. And again. And again.

Thanks

James48843
11-28-2007, 08:15 PM
Today is Nov. 28 at 1:30 mountain time. I called Rick Brown's office. His secretary said my call was only the second call received concerning the issue of limiting IFT. If we want this thing to work, we ALL have to take action. Otherwise, we'll all get what we don't want. :(:worried:

Only one other person has called Rick Brown, a member of the body that stands between us and the change?


Rick Brown is the presidnet of the advisory council:

National Federation of Federal Employees
Richard Brown, President
805 15th Street, NW Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005

202-216-4420 (main)


I called over the weekend, and left a message by punching my way through to his voicemail. And now he's only gotten two phone calls?


ARISE TSPers, ARISE! CALL HIM!!!


While you are dailing-

Have you called your Congressman yet?

As crhuss points out- Congress listens when people are calling, and right now people are not calling.

Don't rely on someone else to do it for you. YOU need to pick up the phone and call your congressman.
Do it at lunch today.
Do it tomorrow.
Just do it.

RAE
11-28-2007, 08:28 PM
I agree with James that phone calls to as many ETAC members as possible are most effective, but if you can't or won't call, AT LEAST e-mail the chairman (James Sauber) and the vice-chairman (Richard Brown) of ETAC and let them know how you feel!!. It is CRITICAL that these gentlemen hear from us! Ask them to reply to your e-mail and let you know whether they will help fight these outrageous restrictions on our rights or not....and if not, why not??. And if you don't hear back from them within a few days, e-mail them again! Everyone can do this, it just takes a few minutes.

There are many sample letters and other good posts in this thread that can be plagerized for the content of your e-mails, if that saves time for you.

Richard Brown, President, NFFE
RBrown@NFFE.org

James Sauber, Research Director, NALC
JSauber@NALC.org

yeskevin
11-29-2007, 12:24 AM
As much as I do not like this policy change, I fully agree with it. We can't have it both ways. TSP has by far the lowest fees of any 401k! 6 bp is an amazingly low fund fee. Most TSP funds fees are less than half of even Vanguard, and Vanguard is quite strict concerning trading activity. You can't expect to have a fund fee of 6 basis points, and allow unlimited trading. Each of you look at your account balance, mutiple it by 6bp, and see how little in fees you are charged. TSP must either increase fees or decrease costs (curb the trading activity). Like it or not, the vast majority of TSP investors do not actively trade their accounts, and only periodically reallocate. And any poll in this regard will be biased, as those who don't trade have little incentive to participate in the poll. Why should they be required to pay higher fees to subsidize our activity? Therefore, the only answer that makes sense to me is for TSP to institute a "pay to play". If you want to actively trade, you must pay a commission type fee for trades above their threshold. If the TSP board feels this is too much hassle, we are out of luck. Instead of active trading we will be relegated to tactical asset allocation discussions.

Show-me
11-29-2007, 12:34 AM
yeskevin,

I certainly respect your opinion, but a vast majority of TSP investors are not getting their matching funds or even holding a diverse allocation.

They, the TSP board, had to change the rules and make the L fund a default spot to get TSP investors "in" the market. Saving them from themselves once again.

There are other options instead of limiting IFT to two a month.

yeskevin
11-29-2007, 01:13 AM
Well again, the point is the same. In your example those participants do not trade (naively sit in G). Therefore, TSP is able to cover their costs on those accounts. Contrast that with active traders with expenses far exceeding management fees on the account. Me, I entered trades on 15 days in November. There is no way a 6 bp fee is enough to cover the costs I generated. I feel I must deal with facts as they are, not the way I want them to be. If my active trading costs exceed the management fees, is it reasonable to expect TSP to allow me to continue? I would like the answer to be yes. However, I know the world does not operate for my benefit.

The point of my initial post was to point out we need alternative solutions when we contact the decision makers rather than clamoring for status quo. I feel 6bp fund fees and unlimited trading was way too much of a good thing. In my view, expecting that policy to remain is unrealistic.

FundSurfer
11-29-2007, 08:57 AM
I called over the weekend, and left a message by punching my way through to his voicemail. And now he's only gotten two phone calls?


I did the same thing. Left a voice message.

Show-me
11-29-2007, 09:27 AM
Well again, the point is the same. In your example those participants do not trade (naively sit in G). Therefore, TSP is able to cover their costs on those accounts. Contrast that with active traders with expenses far exceeding management fees on the account. Me, I entered trades on 15 days in November. There is no way a 6 bp fee is enough to cover the costs I generated. I feel I must deal with facts as they are, not the way I want them to be. If my active trading costs exceed the management fees, is it reasonable to expect TSP to allow me to continue? I would like the answer to be yes. However, I know the world does not operate for my benefit.

The point of my initial post was to point out we need alternative solutions when we contact the decision makers rather than clamoring for status quo. I feel 6bp fund fees and unlimited trading was way too much of a good thing. In my view, expecting that policy to remain is unrealistic.

Exactly, we need a alternative solution. I appreciate your comments. Thank you!

Show-me
11-29-2007, 09:30 AM
Only one other person has called Rick Brown, a member of the body that stands between us and the change?


Rick Brown is the presidnet of the advisory council:

National Federation of Federal Employees
Richard Brown, President
805 15th Street, NW Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005

202-216-4420 (main)


I called over the weekend, and left a message by punching my way through to his voicemail. And now he's only gotten two phone calls?


ARISE TSPers, ARISE! CALL HIM!!!


While you are dailing-

Have you called your Congressman yet?

As crhuss points out- Congress listens when people are calling, and right now people are not calling.

Don't rely on someone else to do it for you. YOU need to pick up the phone and call your congressman.
Do it at lunch today.
Do it tomorrow.
Just do it.

bump

Show-me
11-29-2007, 09:36 AM
Just called both. Everyone make the call.


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 (http://www.nffe.org/)
Phone: (202) 216-4420
Fax: (202) 898-1861


James Sauber
National Association of Letter Carriers
100 Indiana Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001-2144
USA

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

ayla
11-29-2007, 09:40 AM
If my active trading costs exceed the management fees, is it reasonable to expect TSP to allow me to continue? I would like the answer to be yes. However, I know the world does not operate for my benefit.


Your humility is admirable but you are missing the fact that TSP recently (within the past six months) was boasting about how efficient the system was and how cost effective. How they had more money than ever and were over budgeted. I will look for the info (bet they've deleted it from their web site. May need to search here at tsptalk) but the point is that many of us are not so quick to accept this and are cynical that there is something else behind this change of heart.

If a system is efficient and working well for the users, that doesn't mean those users should need to pay what users pay for other non-efficient systems in the private sector. That seems to be one of their main arguments.

I personally believe there SHOULD be extra fees of some kind. I would be happy to pay $500 per year for unlimited trading. That should be enough initially to get the changes made and should be a clear statement that one is VERY serious about trading frequently.

Show-me
11-29-2007, 09:43 AM
My first reply back!!! Let's get the message out!

Mr.*****,

As a member of the board I have been limited on the number of TSP meetings I have been able to attend due to scheduling conflicts. I am attending the next meeting and I will include your concerns with my remarks.

Respectfully,
Charley Mapa
President
National League of Postmasters


703-329-4550

-----Original Message-----



Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:43 PM
To: Mapa, Charles W.
Subject: [SPAM] TSP limits
Importance: Low


Dear Mr. Mapa,

I am not at all happy with the new policy that the FRTIB is proposing to implement. Not only are they trying to limit the number of interfund transfers permanently, they plan to punish anyone who exceeds the temporary limits. In the interim they plan to lock them out of electronic transfers if they exceed the 2 transfer maximum and only allowing mailed transfers. They are sending letters to the 3000 frequent traders to let them know in advance.

This is totally unacceptable because the real reason seems to be the managers of the funds inability to guess the Fair Valuation of the I fund correctly. That is what is really driving the cost up. How about posting the fund prices the next morning and eliminating the Fair Valuation.

I hope that as a member of the Employee Thrift Advisory Board you will protect the freedom to have "no limit on the number of contribution allocation or interfund transfer requests that may be made by a participant" as per Title 5 Chapter VI Part 1601 Subpart D Sec. 1601.32.b.

Title 5 Chapter VI Part 1601 Sec 1601.22 states that I "may make an interfund transfer using the TSP Web site or the ThriftLine". Punishing a individual for making more than two transfers by making them only use the mail would seem to be against the CFR.

Thank you for your time.

poolman
11-29-2007, 09:50 AM
Your humility is admirable but you are missing the fact that TSP recently (within the past six months) was boasting about how efficient the system was and how cost effective. How they had more money than ever and were underbudgeted. I will look for the info (bet they've deleted it from their web site. May need to search here at tsptalk) but the point is that many of us are not so quick to accept this and are cynical that there is something else behind this change of heart.

If a system is efficient and working well for the users, that doesn't mean those users should need to pay what users pay for other non-efficient systems in the private sector. That seems to be one of their main arguments.

I personally believe there SHOULD be extra fees of some kind. I would be happy to pay $500 per year for unlimited trading. That should be enough initially to get the changes made and should be a clear statement that one is VERY serious about trading frequently.


http://rapidshare.com/files/69007477/iagree.gif

ayla
11-29-2007, 10:34 AM
I found the article that summarizes my point earlier about the apparent cost-effectiveness of TSP administration.

from: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=35042&dcn=e_gvet
(dated sept 18, 2006)

Please note particularly the part where it says:

"Costs for this transition left the TSP $3.9 million in excess of its budget for record-keeping. Savings in other areas, including personnel and communications to participants, offset the spending, allowing for the overall $6 million surplus.

TSP officials expect the trend of decreasing costs to continue."

yeskevin
11-29-2007, 10:55 AM
[QUOTE=DennisFAA;135160][COLOR=black]First of all...I'm sick and tired of would-be know it alls..Comparing the Government Employee's TSP to an outside private industry 401K or Vanguard’s plan, or whatever other damn retirement plan...blah,Blah,blah. Quit the the damn GOV and move to the private sector if you like the way they charge a fee for service so much!!...OUR TSP is suppose to be like none other and so it should be as the original rules for trading limits stated...

It’s the perogative of the government to amend a program which does not make fiscal sense. They can change tax rates, increase SS retirement age, reduce benefits, etc. Where did TSP indicate they can not amend our plan when we enrolled? Or that we are entitled to a superior plan verses the private sector? For that matter, most of us enrolled under the "original rules for trading limits" the antiquated system of mailing trades once a month. You are making opinions and using them as a statement of fact. I feel it is relevant to compare our plan to the lowest fee providers in the industry. I don't wan't this to change to be instituted. However, I realize this may be an instance where the minority yields to the majority.

Viva_La_Migra
11-29-2007, 11:53 AM
Here is what I sent to my Union representative on the advisory council.

Dear Susan Thomas,

I am an active trader in the Thrift Savings Plan, and I am very upset about the recent move to restrict interfund transfers (IFT) to two per month. It is my money, it is my retirement, and I want to maximize my investment! The Lifecycle funds are not working! They are barely outperforming CD Interest rates, and those funds are adjusted each day by “professional” money managers. If I can do better making my own allocations, what is the problem?

I am asking for an audit of all accounts in the TSP! I want to see proof of their expenses and where these expenses came from. 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.

If what I’ve read lately regarding the Board’s rationale for the IFT limitation, then the total cost to all 3.8 million TSP participants is only about $4.00 per year per person. It’s a small price to pay if it means I can miss market downturns and outperform the so called professional fund managers. Indeed, I have made transfers this year that have made me $1500.00 in one day, but I have also lost the same amount making an untimely transfer. This could happen whether I make frequent transfers, or adopt the “buy and hold” strategy the FRTIB wants us to use. Once again, it’s my money!

As my representative on the advisory council, I would like you to advocate for no limitation on interfund transfers. Thank you for your assistance.

jellobrains
11-29-2007, 01:39 PM
So maybe I missed it, but where exactly is the evidence that transaction fees are increasing???

Show-me
11-29-2007, 01:56 PM
I just got a e-mail that they are the Chair is trying to set up a mid-Dec. meeting of the ETAC. The are aware of us but we need to keep the pressure on until we know the outcome of the meeting.

oreo
11-29-2007, 02:17 PM
I just got a e-mail that they are the Chair is trying to set up a mid-Dec. meeting of the ETAC. The are aware of us but we need to keep the pressure on until we know the outcome of the meeting.

I think that is what they are saying in this article:

http://www.governmentexecutive.com/dailyfed/1107/112907pb.htm

Long said TSP will discuss the trading restrictions with the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, which consists of labor unions and other federal employee groups, before moving forward. Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said Tuesday that the council is in the process of planning a meeting to discuss the proposal.
"I'm open to the idea that there's a problem and seeing what a viable solution is," Kelley said. "I'm sure we can find a way to fix the problem without penalizing the federal employees in the plan."

Show-me
11-30-2007, 08:26 AM
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5204 (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5204)


http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5193 (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5193)


Friends,

If you would, please visit the above link and call or write a few in not all of the persons on the list. They are hearing our voice, but if we slack off they will too. Even if you just leave a voice message after hour to the person that is on the Council. Most cell phone are free after 9 pm so call and leave a message for the person on the council.

A meeting is being planed for Mid-December and they will be getting organized about what they need to ask the FRTIB. We need to help them with that.


I get the impression that the Employee Thrift Advisory Council has been a token council in the past and this may be a real big test for them in opposing the FRTIB. We need to let them know how we feel so that they are in the right frame of mind.

All you have to say on the voice message is " I am strongly opposed to the 2 interfund transfer limits that the FRTIB is trying to implement. I want NO LIMITS!!! I also think a closer look needs to be taken at the I fund Fair Valuation first."


O something like this, "As my representative on the advisory council, I would like you to advocate for no limitation on interfund transfers. Thank you for your assistance."

RAE
11-30-2007, 03:29 PM
Ralph Smith of FedSmith.com just put out another article on the proposed IFT restrictions today. Here is the link:

http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1434/

I just posted a comment to his article and told him to go back and do some real research on what the actual and projected expenses of the TSP are, instead of just quoting the nonsense they put out in their press releases. Mr. Smith wants to perpetuate the myth that 3,000 traders are causing a huge surge in expenses, when that is BOGUS! As we have previously discussed here, the Sept. 2007 Meeting Minutes of FRTIB and numerous other sources all indicate that TSP expenses are low, and getting lower!! We are down to about 2 basis points now (as contrasted to 10 basis points 5 years ago), and Greg Long, Exec. Director of FRTIB, projects that they will decrease further over the next few years, as TSP assets increase (they are increasing now at the rate of about $2 billion/month). All of this information is readily available, yet Mr. Smith takes the lazy approach and simply passes on the B.S. that he reads in the TSP press releases. I suggest everyone write to him and set him straight!!!

ayla
11-30-2007, 05:02 PM
subject: Roadmap for contacting congressmen and senators

Contacting your senator couldn't be easier at:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm


Contacting your representative couldn't be easier at:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

DO IT NOW!

I have learned that because of the extensive filtering that is done for postal mail sent to our senators and representatives, it can take a month of so for them to get postal mail. When I called, the individuals I spoke with at the senators office indicated they much preferred email and more specifically that we use the web contact form available.

So this is a lot easier than having to pick up pen and paper and write (heaven forbid) a hardcopy mail message. PLEASE take the time to let them know you are interested. There have been candidate letters written here. I am one of those who would be happy to pay some fee if they would continue to allow unlimited transfers so that is included in one I chose.

Below are the comments I left with my congressmen (copied from the tsptalk web site at http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5204) except with minor changes since I am retired and also that this was going to congressmen and not to the TSP board. (Do we have a list of TSP board email addresses yet, or their names?)

I also added a short paragraph about the tentative meeting planned for mid-December. This hopefully might expedite the attention this message gets.

=============

Below is the message I left. There is a limit of 10,000 characters for all of the above and this message below fit with lots of room to spare (no attachments, they advise).

--- <starts here>---
I have learned of the intention by the Thrift Savings Plan Board to impose a restriction on Thrift Savings Plan(TSP) trading activity, specifically limiting participants to no more than two (2) transfers per month. An article was published in the Washington Post on November 20th about a meeting on November 19th of the TSP board where this was voted on. 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 recently retired 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, they 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 maintaining an 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 they give further consideration to not imposing restrictions on TSP trading activity.

More specifically, it is my understanding that the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, which consists of labor unions and other federal employee groups will tentatively have a chance to submit comments to a meeting being planned for mid-December (I'm concerned about attendance - not a good schedule for effective information gathering.) No date yet. Any help you can provide in supporting my position at this meeting would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Viva_La_Migra
11-30-2007, 06:43 PM
Ralph Smith of FedSmith.com just put out another article on the proposed IFT restrictions today. Here is the link:

http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1434/

I just posted a comment to his article and told him to go back and do some real research on what the actual and projected expenses of the TSP are, instead of just quoting the nonsense they put out in their press releases. Mr. Smith wants to perpetuate the myth that 3,000 traders are causing a huge surge in expenses, when that is BOGUS! As we have previously discussed here, the Sept. 2007 Meeting Minutes of FRTIB and numerous other sources all indicate that TSP expenses are low, and getting lower!! We are down to about 2 basis points now (as contrasted to 10 basis points 5 years ago), and Greg Long, Exec. Director of FRTIB, projects that they will decrease further over the next few years, as TSP assets increase (they are increasing now at the rate of about $2 billion/month). All of this information is readily available, yet Mr. Smith takes the lazy approach and simply passes on the B.S. that he reads in the TSP press releases. I suggest everyone write to him and set him straight!!!

I didn't see your comments, but I submitted a post of my own. Here is what I submitted:

"The reason people like me move funds around frequently, is because we want to build up our retirement funds. Our retirement system relies too much on Social Security, which I believe will not be there when I retire. I have twenty years to go until my mandatory retirement age (I'm 6c covered), and I want to maximize my retirement.

There are other ways to deal with this issue than limiting the number of trades per month. For example, one of the biggest problems with the I fund is the Fair Valuation. The TSP Managers right now have to guess what the price will be at the closing of the overseas markets, which doesn't happen until well after the closing of the US Market. Lately, the market has been too volatile, and the Managers are guessing wrong, which drives up costs. Why don't they simply show the price the next morning, when all of the markets have closed for the day?

Oh, we are not day traders. We are active traders! There is a BIG difference!"

Wrngway
11-30-2007, 07:22 PM
Ralph Smith of FedSmith.com just put out another article on the proposed IFT restrictions today. Here is the link:

http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1434/

Yup, that guy is something else. Here is the response I made to the previous article:

I noticed you pulled some prices and did a little research for the days sited as examples for participants trading into and out of the I-Fund. You then go on to state the closing price on October 31 to demonstrate the profit that would have been made if the investors had maintained their shares in the I-Fund.

I took a look back at that price and those since. I couldn't help but notice that you chose the highest closing price since that time on 31 October. If you want to lend more credence to your article, you might want to keep from cherry picking data to present your case. You may even want to present an objective viewpoint in your articles as opposed to parroting back anything supporting your position.

Show-me
11-30-2007, 10:49 PM
Alright kids we need to put the pressure on. I talked to Myke Reid the APWU ETAC rep. and he said I was his second call. That is weak! Call'em all, leave a message, write a email.

United States Postal Service folks, we are the largest represented group. Get the word out to our co-workers. Here are the contacts, call them ALL even if you are not affiliated directly with each organization.

ETAC is planning a meeting mid-December and we need them to hear our voices loud and clear.

National Association of Postmasters of the United States
Dale Goff, President
8 Herbert Street
Alexandria, VA 22305-2600

Voice: 703-683-9027
Fax: 703-683-6820
General e-mail: napusinfo@napus.org (napusinfo@napus.org)

American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO
Myke Reid, Director Legislative Dept.
1300 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20005

(202) 842-4210

National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO
James Sauber, Research Director and
Chairman of ETAC
100 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2144

JSauber@NALC.org (JSauber@NALC.org)
(202) 393-4695 or (800) 424-5186 for NALC Retirement Dept.

National Association of Postal Supervisors
Louis Atkins, Executive Vice President
1727 King Street, Suite 400
Alexandria, VA 22314-2753

Phone (703) 836-9660
Fax (703) 836-9665

National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association
Clifford Dailing, Secretary-Treasurer
1630 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-3467

703-684-5545

NewBee
12-01-2007, 02:06 PM
I just read the newest article on FedSmith and admittedly, I don't quite understand the chart that the TSP provided to Mr. Smith.

I have tried to go through the FRTIB FOIA Electronic Reading Room (http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/index.html), but there's a lot of stuff on there. Has anyone gone through all of the links and seen the information that Mr. Smith is quoting and referencing in the article?

Or did the TSP Board provide this information to him only? If so, is it possible to FOIA all of that communication (emails from TSP to Mr. Smith)? Or perhaps just FOIA all the charts and data the TSP compiled to date on transaction costs.

For one, I would like to see the chart expanded beyond the Aug. 15 - OCt. 31 timeframe along with a good explanation of the chart.

DrFaustus
12-01-2007, 11:41 PM
Just read through Ralph Smith's article on the TSP traders. One paragraph in particular struck me as peculiar:

"To meet the requirements of the several thousand people who are frequently buying and selling their shares in the I fund, the TSP has to keep money available. In plain English, this means that the millions of dollars required on a given day with a rapidly changing market are kept in reserve. That means that, because of the frequent trading activity, the vast majority of TSP investors are getting a smaller return because less money is invested on their behalf."

Now, call me an idiot ... but what does the phrase "...TSP has to keep money available" mean? Is he saying that my balance in the TSP is not readily available for me to invest at will? And, if not, where the heck is it???

pogo
12-02-2007, 12:22 AM
i tried to explain to my 14 year old son what is going on with them restricting my movements in the tsp fund. he response was for me to get everyone to move everyday for two weeks in protest. then i told him he would not get his 20.00 dollars allowance then. he said bad idea---but something to think about. BUST THIER AS*

pogo
12-02-2007, 12:49 AM
Alright kids we need to put the pressure on. I talked to Myke Reid the APWU ETAC rep. and he said I was his second call. That is weak! Call'em all, leave a message, write a email.

United States Postal Service folks, we are the largest represented group. Get the word out to our co-workers. Here are the contacts, call them ALL even if you are not affiliated directly with each organization.

ETAC is planning a meeting mid-December and we need them to hear our voices loud and clear.




American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO
Myke Reid, Director Legislative Dept.
1300 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20005

(202) 842-4210



[/B]mike reid and steve a. albanese has the same phone number and fax'x their fax's is (202) 682-2528 give him hell

ekatteng
12-02-2007, 02:27 AM
LET'S MADE THE ONE FRONT AND LOUD VOICE OF THE TSP SHARE HOLDERS AT TSPSHAREHOLDER.ORG...
LET'S BE UNITED AND SYNERGIZE ALL OUR EFFORTS AND RESOURCES AT TSPSHAREHOLDER ORGANIZATION....
LET'S CLAIM OUR TSP RIGHTS AND OWENERSHIP OF OUR RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND ACCOUNTS...
LET'S HELP THE TSP BOARD TO SERVE AND SEEK THE WELLBEING OF THE
TSP SHARE HOLDERS... :mad:

airlift
12-02-2007, 07:49 AM
I modified your text and sent the following to Ralph Smith:

"Please go back and do some research on what the actual and projected expenses of the TSP are, instead of just quoting the misleading information put out in somer press releases. Mr. Smith, you seem to want to perpetuate the myth that 3,000 traders are causing a huge surge in expenses, when that is not substantiated! As has been previously discussed here, the Sept. 2007 Meeting Minutes of FRTIB and numerous other sources all indicate that TSP expenses are low, and getting lower!! We are down to about 2 basis points now (as contrasted to 10 basis points 5 years ago), and Greg Long, Exec. Director of FRTIB, projects that they will decrease further over the next few years, as TSP assets increase (they are increasing now at the rate of about $2 billion/month). Mr. Smith, all of this information is readily available. Please double check your sources."


Ralph Smith of FedSmith.com just put out another article on the proposed IFT restrictions today. Here is the link:

http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1434/

I just posted a comment to his article and told him to go back and do some real research on what the actual and projected expenses of the TSP are, instead of just quoting the nonsense they put out in their press releases. Mr. Smith wants to perpetuate the myth that 3,000 traders are causing a huge surge in expenses, when that is BOGUS! As we have previously discussed here, the Sept. 2007 Meeting Minutes of FRTIB and numerous other sources all indicate that TSP expenses are low, and getting lower!! We are down to about 2 basis points now (as contrasted to 10 basis points 5 years ago), and Greg Long, Exec. Director of FRTIB, projects that they will decrease further over the next few years, as TSP assets increase (they are increasing now at the rate of about $2 billion/month). All of this information is readily available, yet Mr. Smith takes the lazy approach and simply passes on the B.S. that he reads in the TSP press releases. I suggest everyone write to him and set him straight!!!

Show-me
12-02-2007, 12:52 PM
Here is a draft I plan to send out in the morning. Please tell me what you think I need to improve it as well as grammar, punctuation, and the whole nine yards. TIA

The FRTIB is planning to imposing interfund transfer restrictions without consent from the participants or the ETAC. These restrictions are in opposition of the Code of Federal Regulation guide lines. They are listed at the end of this brief. As my advocate I want the FRTIB to rescind their decision to impose limits on TSP trades, including the decision to send threatening letters to selected TSP members.

Market impact and fair valuation are the underlying problems cause by the contractual requirement of BGI, Barkley Global Investment, by TSP. That requirement is to settle our trades by the end of each trading day and it be reflected in the share price even though the standard for the market is that it takes 3 days to settle trades.

I can only assume that the “trading cost” referenced in each FRTIB meeting minutes attachments are caused by these unrealistic contractual requirements and mass flight to safety during very volatile months.

For example, trading cost of the I Fund Jan. to Sept. 2007 is $12,240,419. One month stands out, August with $10,522,348 or 32.7 basis point in trading cost. Other months that stand out are February and April with $4,198,802 or 24.3 basis points and $1,489,043 or 11.8 basis points, respectively.

August as a whole was a very volatile month and I would venture to guess that more than just the “3000 frequent traders” made interfund transfers that month. More like a flight to safety after the sub prime news started to come out.

The last week in February was also very volatile, erasing all gains for the entire month in a few days. April would seem to be an anomaly at this point as it was not as volatile as the other two months.

The two most volatile months had the largest “trading cost” and they exceed the YTD total. That would tell me that much more than the “3000” were trading those months and the fact is that the policies and contract for clearing our trades through BGI need to be address more than the number of interfund transfers done by a fraction of participants.

Large moves when the market is volatile causes BGI to delay complete payment of those large trades. This is diluting the fund return also, so it is not JUST frequent trading of the I fund, but the shell game that BGI has to play by buying futures contracts because the contractual requirements to settle IFT daily even thought they are restricted to a 3 day settlement period.

There are a number of solutions to solve these problems.
1. Use indicies or ETF’s that follow TSP fund exactly so that they easier to trade on the open market.
2. Stop fair valuation by posting share prices the morning of the following day.
3. Limit trade in the I Fund only using the 3 day rule for trades to settle.



1. TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL CHAPTER VI--FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD PART 1601_PARTICIPANTS' CHOICES OF TSP FUNDS--Table of Contents Subpart D_Contribution Allocations and Interfund Transfer Requests Sec. 1601.32 Timing and posting dates.
(b) Limit. There is no limit on the number of contribution allocations or interfund transfer requests that may be made by a participant.
2. TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL CHAPTER VI--FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD PART 1601_PARTICIPANTS' CHOICES OF TSP FUNDS--Table of Contents Subpart C_Redistributing Participants' Existing Account Balances (Interfund Transfers) Sec. 1601.22 Methods of requesting an interfund transfer.
(a) Participants may make an interfund transfer using the TSP Web site or the ThriftLine, or by completing and filing the appropriate paper TSP form with the TSP record keeper in accordance with the form's instructions. The following rules apply to an interfund transfer request:

James48843
12-02-2007, 02:40 PM
Who is the audience for this letter?

ekatteng
12-02-2007, 02:45 PM
Dr Faustus, with all my respect I think our money is not readily available for us to invest at will. Perhaps they need to be move from the G to I Funds and since it takes sometimes they seems to claim they need to keep millions of dollars on hands... Perhaps the solutions would be to have our money on cash and not on the G fund... Goverment seems to made loans to Social Security and also to TSP if I not mistaken... They borrow money from our TSP in the past... Not to good feelings... Please continue posting your reflexions and sharing your findings with us. Thanks... :)


Just read through Ralph Smith's article on the TSP traders. One paragraph in particular struck me as peculiar:

"To meet the requirements of the several thousand people who are frequently buying and selling their shares in the I fund, the TSP has to keep money available. In plain English, this means that the millions of dollars required on a given day with a rapidly changing market are kept in reserve. That means that, because of the frequent trading activity, the vast majority of TSP investors are getting a smaller return because less money is invested on their behalf."

Now, call me an idiot ... but what does the phrase "...TSP has to keep money available" mean? Is he saying that my balance in the TSP is not readily available for me to invest at will? And, if not, where the heck is it???

ekatteng
12-02-2007, 02:50 PM
Dr Faustus, with all my respect I think our money is not readily available for us to invest at will. Perhaps they need to be move from the G to I Funds and since it takes sometimes they seems to claim they need to keep millions of dollars on hands... Perhaps the solutions would be to have our money on cash and not on the G fund... Goverment seems to made loans to Social Security and also to TSP if I not mistaken... They borrow money from our TSP in the past... Not to good feelings... Please continue posting your reflexions and sharing your findings with us. Thanks... :)


Just read through Ralph Smith's article on the TSP traders. One paragraph in particular struck me as peculiar:

"To meet the requirements of the several thousand people who are frequently buying and selling their shares in the I fund, the TSP has to keep money available. In plain English, this means that the millions of dollars required on a given day with a rapidly changing market are kept in reserve. That means that, because of the frequent trading activity, the vast majority of TSP investors are getting a smaller return because less money is invested on their behalf."

Now, call me an idiot ... but what does the phrase "...TSP has to keep money available" mean? Is he saying that my balance in the TSP is not readily available for me to invest at will? And, if not, where the heck is it???

RAE
12-02-2007, 02:50 PM
Show-me: I made a few edits to your very good draft letter below. See what you think: RAE


Here is a draft I plan to send out in the morning. Please tell me what you think I need to improve it as well as grammar, punctuation, and the whole nine yards. TIA
__________________________________________________ _____________________

The FRTIB is planning to imposing interfund transfer restrictions without consent from TSP participants or the ETAC. These restrictions are in conflict with the Code of Federal Regulations which govern operation of the TSP. The applicable CFR's are listed at the end of this brief. As my advocate on the ETAC, I hope you will insist that the FRTIB rescind their decision to impose limits on TSP trades, including the decision to send threatening letters to selected TSP members.

I believe that market impact and the way "fair valuation" in the I fund is calculated, is the underlying cause for the problems cited by FRTIB. The FRTIB requires Barclay's Global Investors (BGI) to settle our trades by the end of each trading day and that the new value be reflected in the daily share price, even though the standard for the market is that it takes 3 days to settle trades.

I can only assume that the “trading cost” referenced in each FRTIB meeting minutes attachments are caused by these unrealistic contractual requirements and mass flight to safety by many TSP account holders, during very volatile periods.

For example, trading cost for the I Fund during the period Jan. to Sept. 2007 is $12,240,419. One month stands out - August - with $10,522,348 or 32.7 basis point in trading cost. Other months that stand out are February and April with $4,198,802 or 24.3 basis points and $1,489,043 or 11.8 basis points, respectively.

August as a whole was a very volatile month and I would venture to guess that more than just the “3000 frequent traders” made interfund transfers that month. A more reasonable explanation for high trading costs that month is that there was a "flight to safety" by a much larger number of TSP members, after the sub prime news started to come out.

The last week in February was also very volatile, erasing all gains for the entire month in a few days. April would seem to be an anomaly at this point as it was not as volatile as the other two months.

The two most volatile months had the largest “trading cost” and they exceed the YTD total. That would tell me that much more than the “3000” were trading during those months. The fact is that the policies and contract for clearing our trades through BGI need to be addressed, more than the number of interfund transfers done by a small fraction of participants.

Large moves when the market is volatile causes BGI to delay complete payment of those large trades. This is diluting the fund return also, so it is not JUST frequent trading of the I fund, but the shell game that BGI has to play by buying futures contracts, because of the contractual requirements to settle IFT by 6 pm each evening.

There are a number of possible solutions to solve these problems.
1. Use indicies or ETF’s that follow TSP fund exactly so that they easier to trade on the open market.
2. Stop fair valuation by posting share prices the morning of the following day.
3. Limit trade in the I Fund only using the 3 day rule for trades to settle.

As my advocate on ETAC, I hope that you will raise these points when ETAC meets with FRTIB in December. If any of what I have said is not clear, please contact me at your earliest convenience, at _________. I would be happy to discuss this issue with you further. It is very important that ETAC not simply be a "rubber stamp" for this ill-advised proposal by FRTIB, which could adversely affect the ability of many federal employees to protect and manage their hard-gained TSP retirement funds.

Sincerely,

XXXXX



1. TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL CHAPTER VI--FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD PART 1601_PARTICIPANTS' CHOICES OF TSP FUNDS--Table of Contents Subpart D_Contribution Allocations and Interfund Transfer Requests Sec. 1601.32 Timing and posting dates.
(b) Limit. There is no limit on the number of contribution allocations or interfund transfer requests that may be made by a participant.
2. TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL CHAPTER VI--FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD PART 1601_PARTICIPANTS' CHOICES OF TSP FUNDS--Table of Contents Subpart C_Redistributing Participants' Existing Account Balances (Interfund Transfers) Sec. 1601.22 Methods of requesting an interfund transfer.
(a) Participants may make an interfund transfer using the TSP Web site or the ThriftLine, or by completing and filing the appropriate paper TSP form with the TSP record keeper in accordance with the form's instructions. The following rules apply to an interfund transfer request:

RAE
12-02-2007, 02:55 PM
Who is the audience for this letter?

Show-Me: I assumed the audience for your letter was your Union rep. on the ETAC (since you mentioned "my advocate"). If that is not the case, and the letter is intended for someone else, then there would need to be some wording changes to my draft.

Good luck, I think it is a good letter. Some of what you include may be difficult for the average person (non-investor) to understand, which is why I added the part about having them call you to discuss it further, if they needed clarification.

Show-me
12-02-2007, 03:05 PM
It is intended for anyone on the ETAC and I would not think Union affiliation should be required. Adjust it as you see fit, I appreciate any input, additions, and corrections.

Show-me
12-02-2007, 03:07 PM
I am sending a copy to several if not all of the ETAC members, but it was primarily for my Union Council member.

James48843
12-02-2007, 05:46 PM
It is intended for anyone on the ETAC and I would not think Union affiliation should be required. Adjust it as you see fit, I appreciate any input, additions, and corrections.

OK- you had me worried for a minute there. I am one of those people who can't stand it when someone from "the government" goes into acronyms that no one understands.

Some easy rules of thumb:

1. Keep the acronyms down, always spell them out in the first reference, before using them again.

2. Even th ETAC has admitted they never have done anything real before, although they have the power to influence the Board, they have not ever had to before, so this is going to be a first for all of them.

3. I doubt any members of the ETAC know what a fair value is. Remember that- they are nealry all TSP shareholders, who are themselves probably just as likely to be buy and hold G funders, who haven't had a clue to things until now. So you have to be easy on them.

4. Always write like you are writing to explain the problem to a brand new- off the street GS-5, and you can't go wrong. If you start slowly, and bring them up to speed over time, they will understand anything. But you can't start at nuclear science with them- you have to bring them along until you both have a mutal frame of referance to work from, build their trust and understanding, before making the "Ask" of what you want them to do on your behalf.

They have to be able to envision what you are talking about, before you ask them to move the FV settlement time until 6 a.m. the next morning. They don't know what a FV means, or what impact it is having. And they don't know if $900 million in the three-day settlement timeframe is big or small. They know the Board thinks it's big. No one has yet told them that it's small by comparison- remember, the actual funds in the "I" has grown tremendously over the last couple years, so it's no big deal that Barclays would want to increase the pool at the same time. Nor do they know that Barclays got permission in August to use covered calls to increase performance. That tidbit needs to be explained in detail as well, so that the ETAC can put what it happening into proper perspective.

5. We are doing well. We have their (ETAC) attention, and they now know that the ETAC is not a rubber stamp body. While they all might not understand every detail just yet, they do know that something is up, and that they have to get up to speed quickly before the next meeting.

The key will be where will they get their information from? Will it only be from the Board, or will they take the time to learn from us our side as well. A good leader will seek out those other viewpoints to hear alternatives. we need to make contact with these people to ensure they know we are available to talk to them about our perspective.

Things to think about.

Note:

Celebrate small victories. We are now getting the Thrift Board to react to our reaction. (The newly posted FAQ pages).

That is a win for us, and we need to acknowledge the win.

Information is powerful.

Truth is powerful.

Facts are powerful.

YOU are powerful. Each and every one of YOU, who are taking up the pencil and paper, and dialing the phone, are exercising the power you have within you, and, collectively, the power that all of us have together, to make a difference.





(http://www.TSPSHAREHOLDER.ORG - Feel the power)

Show-me
12-02-2007, 06:04 PM
Will do and thank you!

James48843
12-03-2007, 05:26 AM
Here is an idea:


Unlimited trades.


Fee of $10 per trade.


If it works for Ameritrade, etc, why is it so hard for TSP Board to simply issue a flat fee?

James48843
12-03-2007, 05:38 AM
From the Ameritade Website:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++
Stocks: Internet

You pay only $9.99 per Internet equity trade – market or limit. See how we compare. Whether it's 100 shares or 10,000 shares, you still pay only $9.99 per Internet equity trade!

Internet Equities

TD AMERITRADE---1,000 shares----$9.99
Schwab-----------1,000 shares---$12.95
Fidelity------------1,000 shares---$19.95
E*Trade------------1,000 shares---$9.99

Barney
12-03-2007, 07:11 AM
From the Ameritade Website:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++
Stocks: Internet

You pay only $9.99 per Internet equity trade – market or limit. See how we compare. Whether it's 100 shares or 10,000 shares, you still pay only $9.99 per Internet equity trade!


Would Sharebuilders $4 per trade fit in there?

Show-me
12-03-2007, 07:21 AM
Scottrade $7 per trade.

07Harley
12-03-2007, 09:59 AM
This is what I sent to my congressional reps.




Honorable ________ and staff,

I am a Federal employee, a disabled veteran, a conservative and I voted for you in the last election.

I have learned of the intention by the new Thrift Savings Plan Board to impose a restriction on Thrift Savings Plan(TSP) trading activity, specifically limiting participants to no more than two (2) transfers per month. This restriction if implemented would be in direct conflict with current Federal Regulations. Specifically FR 32208, June 1, 2005 paragraph 1601.32(b) “There is no limit on the number of contribution allocations or interfund transfer requests that may be made by a participant.”

I believe imposing any interfund transfer limits will have a serious, negative impact on my ability to re-allocate my funds and maximize my retirement account, which in turn will lower my quality of life in retirement.

As my elected representative in Washington, I sincerely request that your office take the appropriate actions necessary to preserve my rights and abilities to manage my personal retirement account, in accordance with the current existing Federal Regulations. “No limit on the number of interfund transfers”.

Thank You,
Sincerely,

RAE
12-03-2007, 05:30 PM
I got an e-mail reply back today from one of the ETAC members that I had written to (first reply I've received). It is from Mr. Dale Goff, of NAPUS. I expressed my displeasure with the recent proposal to restrict IFT's and asked him to oppose it at the upcoming meeting between ETAC and FRTIB. His reply was brief, but encouraging:



I agree and at our meeting on the 19th I will bring forward your concerns and the many others that have emailed me.


Dale Goff

airlift
12-03-2007, 08:11 PM
I would settle for that! :) Only if we can't get $6 dollar trades!.


Here is an idea:


Unlimited trades.


Fee of $10 per trade.


If it works for Ameritrade, etc, why is it so hard for TSP Board to simply issue a flat fee?

Show-me
12-03-2007, 08:12 PM
I got a email and a phone call, but I know we need more to call the Employee Thrift Advisory Council. The are our advocates!!! Please call, email, or fax.

Show-me
12-03-2007, 09:54 PM
FedSmith posted another proFRTIB article to which I wrote:

That is because 99% or 3,762,000 of participants are not managing their account actively. That leave only 1% or 38,000 that do. Not even close to the 3000 mentioned by the FRTIB or 0.079%.

The same 99% or 3,762,000 of participant do not know who the Employee Thrift Advisory Council is, what they do, or how to contact them. Do you? Wait, that number is probably closer to 99.9999%.

A extremely large number of the same 99% or 3,762,000 probably do not even look at their accounts and rebalance yearly as recommended by any financial adviser.

If those 99% or 3,762,000 want to sit on their butts doing nothing, let them, but do not hinder my ability to make investment choices.

Frixxxx
12-04-2007, 09:20 AM
....
If those 99% or 3,762,000 want to sit on their butts doing nothing, let them, but do not hinder my ability to make investment choices.
:cool:

I'm back...thanks for the contact lists and information Show-me. I agree 100%. I have twenty years left to build my account and move from the meek to the independently wealthy. If I wait for someone to do it for me, I may be at thirty years.:cool:

Show-me
12-04-2007, 10:19 PM
www.tspshareholder.org (http://www.tspshareholder.org)

Quote form tsp.gov Q&A:

"After receiving input from the employee unions, organizations, and others, we plan to place limits on interfund transfers early in 2008. The process of establishing limits will include normal public rule-making under the Administrative Procedures Act. Proposed regulations will be published in the Federal Register and comments will be welcome."

Comments anyone? I have a list of people that may not want to hear them, but will have to listen to them. ;)

I propose the December 17 we do a mass call, fax, and email to all Employee Thrift Advisory Council(ETAC) members. Light'em up two days before the meeting so that it is fresh in their minds that we want the FRTIB to not limit us to two interfund transfers and talk about alternatives.

Show-me
12-04-2007, 10:21 PM
Remember to tell all your coworkers about it too and tell them about www.tspshareholder.org (http://www.tspshareholder.org). Spread the word!

Thank you!!! :D:D:D:D

Show-me
12-04-2007, 10:28 PM
And if you have not call yet do not wait until the 17th. Call now and then we all call on December 17.

cptkirk333
12-05-2007, 08:47 AM
I asked this several times - not in this forum - but still have not received a reply. Hard data is what I want. What is the cost of transactions, broken down, prior to the L funds and then after the L funds. If I'm not mistaken 2006 was when the L funds came into existence. The comments of the funds transactions being low in 2006 would probably be for a prior to 2006 time. So now all of a sudden a jump in cost for transactions - presuming say the time period of 1/2 of 2006 and 2007? Where is the data to pinpoint the cause in the jump? I want data TSP and of course none forth coming.

yeskevin
12-05-2007, 05:51 PM
IMHO, comparing L funds to active trading is not really the same animal. The L fund expenses are institionalized, automated, and anticipated by Barclay’s ( I believe they are the fund managers). Likewise, I do not believe the funds are re-allocated on a daily basis, as is the potential for an IFT.

At the end of the day Barclays is a for profit firm. The Board has worked hard to both reduce fees and improve our platform over the years. Surely, The Board fears active trading is a threat to those fees. Having negotiated such low fees, I am sure the board does not want Barclays, et al to walk or renegotiate higher fees at the conclusion of the contract period. I personally believe The Board is attempting to act in our best interests. Likewise, they are the decision makers. This is not a democracy. And even if it was, the vast majority of TSP investors would choose low fees over active trading. We can fault them for being naive. However, as I am reminded each election, naive votes count as much as informed votes.

Barclays is not an Ameritrade. I am not sure an intuitional investment firm even has the automated platform to charge for trades, etc. Intuitional firms make their money from management fees, while Ameritrade’s bread and butter is trading fees. Two entirely separate business models. To develop such a platform, it would need to be paid exclusively by the small percentage of active traders. These costs would be in the $100’s per each trade, not $10. We must be flexible, and realize we must shoulder our own costs. Therefore, I propose another alternative for us to consider. Instead of charging for individual trades, TSP enrollees who wish to have the ability to make multiple trades must prepay a set fee each month or quarter. Realistically, this fee could be well over $100 a month. However, it overcomes the platform issue I have read is a concern. And the fees could come directly out of our pay checks, which also removes the hurdle of trying to automate the withdraw of funds from our 401k accounts to cover trade fees.

RAE
12-05-2007, 06:33 PM
IMHO, comparing L funds to active trading is not really the same animal. The L fund expenses are institionalized, automated, and anticipated by Barclay’s ( I believe they are the fund managers). Likewise, I do not believe the funds are re-allocated on a daily basis, as is the potential for an IFT.



From www.tsp.gov (http://www.tsp.gov):

"The L funds are rebalanced to their target allocations each business day"

kaitlinsnana
12-05-2007, 09:45 PM
This is great news! Dale is on our side, and now we need to quickly bring the others around prior to the next meeting on 19 December. The ETAC has the power to stop this nonsense.

Where are the member addresses. Looks like you've unearthed a possible advocate. Good man.

Are the individual names and addresses listed on this site?

Gail

ekatteng
12-05-2007, 10:53 PM
IF the TSP board implements the the rule of just once a month round trip (two inter-fund transfers per month), I may borrow $50,000 to the TSP and open an account at Charles Schwab or Fidelity or Ameri-Trade to be able to perform as many IFT's as need it to maximize opportunities from the EFA (iShares) moves.

If everyone does the same, you may imaging the lesson for the TSP Board.

We will be withdrawing almost 200 billions... I doubt they could effort it.

Show-me
12-06-2007, 07:26 AM
Where are the member addresses. Looks like you've unearthed a possible advocate. Good man.

Are the individual names and addresses listed on this site?

Gail

Look at me signature and click on the link in it. It will take you to the list.

weatherweenie
12-06-2007, 10:38 AM
I don't know if they'll do anything, but I emailed the National Weather Service Employee Organization(NWSEO), NWS union, in an effort to get them on board with this fight.

Show-me
12-06-2007, 10:46 PM
Go to www.tspshareholder.com (http://www.tspshareholder.com) and sign up for the email list. Thank you for all that contributed and a very special thanks to James for all the hard work and time spent of making our voices heard.

One contact a day we all contact.

Todays email:
Our first ETAC member we'd like you to contact is:

Federally Employed Women
Sharon Roydes, Treasurer
1666 K Street, N.W. Suite 440
Washington, DC 20006

Phone: (202) 898-0994

Give her a call, and tell her you are opposed to limits on TSP trades. Tell her what a two trade limit would mean to you. Keep it short, but to the point. Then ASK her to vote no on the two-trade limit.

Please pick up the phone and make the call.

Each day, we will be featuring a different ETAC member. Our goal is to ensure they ALL hear our message- Just say no to TSP Trading limits.

jeburnside
12-07-2007, 04:48 AM
I met with Congressman Cliff Stearns (R, Florida)representative yesterday and discussed the current situation regarding TSP. She is a TSP contributor also and was unaware of the most recent events. She expressed that she plans to discuss it with Congressman Stearns and right the wrong that is being planned.

Jimmy

SkyPilot
12-07-2007, 08:46 AM
Been gone for a bit, and was shocked by the TSP proposal to limit trades this way. I have sent my emails and made the phone calls. Have you?

For those interested, will post regarding my recent mission to Ukraine soon.

Good to be home :)

FundSurfer
12-07-2007, 10:23 AM
I'm changing my tactics somewhat and suggest others do the same.

If you have viewed the Frequent Trading memo (http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/references/FrequentTrading.pdf)that Tracey Ray sent to the FRTIB Director, you will know that they have already addressed many of our arguements against making changes. Tracey Ray has done a very good job of laying out the problem. She will certainly beable to convince those who do not understand what is going on very well that she has documented a problem.

I have decided to concentrate on convincing ETAC members that yes something needs to be done but that trading limits is not the answer. The problem is with the "Market Impact" aspect of the I-fund. This impact caused by OSM being closed when closing prices for the day are set. (We all understand this to be the FV problem.) I am embracing James' suggestion to move the time that closing prices are determined from end of day 5 pm to 8 am the next morning. In this manner we will be able to address the major cost associated with trading cost but still allow members flexibility to trade more than twice a month.

Those of you who are making the L-fund arguement have already had that concern addressed in the memo. You can argue that cost have not gone up, they will be very convincing to the contrary. The best solution is to give an alternative that will achieve reduced cost and preserve trading flexibility.

We can't stick our head in the sand and convince them there is really not problem. We'll loose since we will not be able to counter their arguements in person. I think that we actually were getting too good at timing the FV. Several people were getting very good at making good FV decisions. Over time the FV should even out but that is a very hard concept to get across in a 5 minute phone conversation or couple paragraph letter.

My letter is as follows:

Dear *****,

Recently the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) voted to limit TSP interfund transfers to 2 trades per month. I am not at all happy with the new policy that the FRTIB is proposing to implement. The reason given by the board is to reduce cost of frequent traders who drive up cost of trading associated with the I-fund. This cost of trading is not actually the cost of buying and selling stock, but rather cost associated with international markets being closed when daily fund prices are set and fund managers having to guess at the opening prices of international stocks for the following day. If the guess is off, any +/- amount has to be made up as trading cost or market impact. Recent market volatility has made this occur on a regular basis over the last several months and several bad guesses in a row and we have a large trading cost bill. Over time this +/- should even out. The limit on number of trades is totally unacceptable because the real reason for increased cost is the managers of the funds inability to guess the Fair Valuation of the I-fund correctly. That is what is really driving the cost up. A better solution would be to post the fund closing prices the next morning after overseas markets have opened. This would eliminate the major cost identified by FRTIB and yet preserve trading flexibility for members.The board thinks that the cost is associated with “3000” frequent traders. In February, many more than 3000 people jammed the TSP phone lines moving their money as a reaction to a market drop. That day there was a big FV that turned out to be a bad guess. 3000 people don’t jam phone banks set up for tens of thousands of people. Market volatility will be when even the infrequent trader (right or wrong) will request an interfund transfer. Limiting trades to 2 trades per month will NOT solve this problem.I hope that as a member of the Employee Thrift Advisory Board you will protect the freedom to have "no limit on the number of contribution allocation or interfund transfer requests that may be made by a participant" as per Title 5 Chapter VI Part 1601 Subpart D Sec. 1601.32.b.Title 5 Chapter VI Part 1601 Sec 1601.22 states that I "may make an interfund transfer using the TSP Web site or the ThriftLine". Punishing a individual for making more than two transfers by making them only use the mail would seem to be against the CFR.

There should be another solution to the frequent trader problem other than limiting the number of monthly trades that everyone can make.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,



*******

Rod
12-07-2007, 10:57 AM
Been gone for a bit, and was shocked by the TSP proposal to limit trades this way.

Same here...

Perhaps we're not leaving them enough $$$ in (G) to borrow from.;)

It boils down to their "greed" which has been disguised by their "concern" for the shareholder.

Rod
12-07-2007, 10:58 AM
I met with Congressman Cliff Stearns (R, Florida)representative yesterday and discussed the current situation regarding TSP. She is a TSP contributor also and was unaware of the most recent events. She expressed that she plans to discuss it with Congressman Stearns and right the wrong that is being planned.

Jimmy

Thank you for bringing it to her attention!

tsptalk
12-07-2007, 06:28 PM
Todays email:
Our first ETAC member we'd like you to contact is:

Federally Employed Women
Sharon Roydes, Treasurer
1666 K Street, N.W. Suite 440
Washington, DC 20006

Phone: (202) 898-0994

Give her a call, and tell her you are opposed to limits on TSP trades. Tell her what a two trade limit would mean to you. Keep it short, but to the point. Then ASK her to vote no on the two-trade limit.
I made the call today. I just got a voicemail and left a brief, but decsriptive message.

Thanks for posting the contacts!

Viva_La_Migra
12-07-2007, 08:52 PM
I made the call today. I just got a voicemail and left a brief, but decsriptive message.

Thanks for posting the contacts!
I left a voicemail as well.

ayla
12-07-2007, 09:00 PM
Totally apathetic political person that I am (though I do have opinions, I rarely do anything to advance their cause), I made the call also and left a message on their answering machine. Very simple and easy thanks to the info you have provided. Thanks.

wv-girl
12-07-2007, 10:27 PM
Speaking of opinions, has everyone voted on the petition yet?
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/reverse-the-decision-to-limit-tsp-interfund-transfers
Last look there were 300.

wv-girl
12-07-2007, 11:07 PM
I'm changing my tactics somewhat and suggest others do the same.

If you have viewed the Frequent Trading memo (http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/references/FrequentTrading.pdf)that Tracey Ray sent to the FRTIB Director, you will know that they have already addressed many of our arguements against making changes. Tracey Ray has done a very good job of laying out the problem. She will certainly beable to convince those who do not understand what is going on very well that she has documented a problem.

I have decided to concentrate on convincing ETAC members that yes something needs to be done but that trading limits is not the answer. The problem is with the "Market Impact" aspect of the I-fund. This impact caused by OSM being closed when closing prices for the day are set. (We all understand this to be the FV problem.) I am embracing James' suggestion to move the time that closing prices are determined from end of day 5 pm to 8 am the next morning. In this manner we will be able to address the major cost associated with trading cost but still allow members flexibility to trade more than twice a month.

Those of you who are making the L-fund arguement have already had that concern addressed in the memo. You can argue that cost have not gone up, they will be very convincing to the contrary. The best solution is to give an alternative that will achieve reduced cost and preserve trading flexibility.

We can't stick our head in the sand and convince them there is really not problem. We'll loose since we will not be able to counter their arguements in person. I think that we actually were getting too good at timing the FV. Several people were getting very good at making good FV decisions. Over time the FV should even out but that is a very hard concept to get across in a 5 minute phone conversation or couple paragraph letter.

My letter is as follows:

Dear *****,

Recently the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) voted to limit TSP interfund transfers to 2 trades per month. I am not at all happy with the new policy that the FRTIB is proposing to implement. The reason given by the board is to reduce cost of frequent traders who drive up cost of trading associated with the I-fund. This cost of trading is not actually the cost of buying and selling stock, but rather cost associated with international markets being closed when daily fund prices are set and fund managers having to guess at the opening prices of international stocks for the following day. If the guess is off, any +/- amount has to be made up as trading cost or market impact. Recent market volatility has made this occur on a regular basis over the last several months and several bad guesses in a row and we have a large trading cost bill. Over time this +/- should even out. The limit on number of trades is totally unacceptable because the real reason for increased cost is the managers of the funds inability to guess the Fair Valuation of the I-fund correctly. That is what is really driving the cost up. A better solution would be to post the fund closing prices the next morning after overseas markets have opened. This would eliminate the major cost identified by FRTIB and yet preserve trading flexibility for members.The board thinks that the cost is associated with “3000” frequent traders. In February, many more than 3000 people jammed the TSP phone lines moving their money as a reaction to a market drop. That day there was a big FV that turned out to be a bad guess. 3000 people don’t jam phone banks set up for tens of thousands of people. Market volatility will be when even the infrequent trader (right or wrong) will request an interfund transfer. Limiting trades to 2 trades per month will NOT solve this problem.I hope that as a member of the Employee Thrift Advisory Board you will protect the freedom to have "no limit on the number of contribution allocation or interfund transfer requests that may be made by a participant" as per Title 5 Chapter VI Part 1601 Subpart D Sec. 1601.32.b.Title 5 Chapter VI Part 1601 Sec 1601.22 states that I "may make an interfund transfer using the TSP Web site or the ThriftLine". Punishing a individual for making more than two transfers by making them only use the mail would seem to be against the CFR.

There should be another solution to the frequent trader problem other than limiting the number of monthly trades that everyone can make.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,



*******
Good response. But in my re-read of the memo, I could not help but think that this problem (rising cost)would have happened anyway due to the increase in participation in the tsp--frequent trading or not. Tracey Ray points out the current I fund agreement with Barclays is to provide next day settlement of up to $40 million. Any amt over that could take up to three days. It seems to me that a new contract or company should be considered since Barclays is taking advantage of that clause.(Holding the $ while benefiting from it). What do you think?

tsptalk
12-08-2007, 12:08 AM
I'm passing along these comments I received from "Anonymous".


The TSP lobby needs a specific goal in order to
succeed long term, like "putting a man on the moon by
the end of this decade" (Kennedy), or "read my lips,
no new taxes" (Bush I). Only a dynamic new vision will
catalyze massive support among government employees
for a major change in the TSP Board.

The problem is "no taxation without representation".
The fees, and their management, are the "tax". The
"without represenation" is that no governement
employees are on the TSP Board as full members with
voting rights, full access to all financial
information and a yearly salary as board members.

I suggest that the TSP Lobby's politically oriented
visionary dyanmic goal be to enact legislation to have
three elected government employees on the TSP Board as
full members.

From the TSP Lobby site, the three groups represented
are Union, Non-union and online investors (market
timers) who are also government employees. So at the
beginning of each U.S. Presidential term, three
government employees, one from each group, is voted on
using the governement's TSP web site, where the "one
vote, one person" rule can be electronically enforced.


TSP Board government employee candidates would put up
their own web site. Two months before the Presidential
election, the TSP site would list, in random order,
links to the candidates web sites (by category). All
TSP participants have access to the web. So all voting
can be done via the web.

"No taxation without representation". That is the
ticket to success for the new TSP Lobby, in my
opinion.

Just a suggestion.

ayla
12-08-2007, 12:51 AM
Fundsurfer -

In case you're not aware, if you are mailing your memo using regular postal mail, you need to know there is a major post office logjam in Washington D.C. because of the filtering for threatening letters (and anthrax if I remember correctly or whatever that chemical is that is a major health risk)

I know for a fact that it takes about a month for a letter to get thru for congressmen according to the receptionist I spoke with for Senator Kay Hutchison.

Most senators/congressmen have a means on their website for you to send them 10000 characters in an email message. I'm not sure about the ETAC committee members. Good luck.

The content of your memo sounds very good to me. Thanks for sharing that.

I also very much liked the suggestion from "anonymous" about "no taxation without representation" that Tom posted about. I hope something comes from it.
--A


I'm changing my tactics somewhat and suggest others do the same.

If you have viewed the Frequent Trading memo (http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/references/FrequentTrading.pdf)that Tracey Ray sent to the FRTIB Director, you will know that they have already addressed many of our arguements against making changes. Tracey Ray has done a very good job of laying out the problem. She will certainly beable to convince those who do not understand what is going on very well that she has documented a problem.

I have decided to concentrate on convincing ETAC members that yes something needs to be done but that trading limits is not the answer. The problem is with the "Market Impact" aspect of the I-fund. This impact caused by OSM being closed when closing prices for the day are set. (We all understand this to be the FV problem.) I am embracing James' suggestion to move the time that closing prices are determined from end of day 5 pm to 8 am the next morning. In this manner we will be able to address the major cost associated with trading cost but still allow members flexibility to trade more than twice a month.

Those of you who are making the L-fund arguement have already had that concern addressed in the memo. You can argue that cost have not gone up, they will be very convincing to the contrary. The best solution is to give an alternative that will achieve reduced cost and preserve trading flexibility.

We can't stick our head in the sand and convince them there is really not problem. We'll loose since we will not be able to counter their arguements in person. I think that we actually were getting too good at timing the FV. Several people were getting very good at making good FV decisions. Over time the FV should even out but that is a very hard concept to get across in a 5 minute phone conversation or couple paragraph letter.

My letter is as follows:

Dear *****,

Recently the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) voted to limit TSP interfund transfers to 2 trades per month. I am not at all happy with the new policy that the FRTIB is proposing to implement. The reason given by the board is to reduce cost of frequent traders who drive up cost of trading associated with the I-fund. This cost of trading is not actually the cost of buying and selling stock, but rather cost associated with international markets being closed when daily fund prices are set and fund managers having to guess at the opening prices of international stocks for the following day. If the guess is off, any +/- amount has to be made up as trading cost or market impact. Recent market volatility has made this occur on a regular basis over the last several months and several bad guesses in a row and we have a large trading cost bill. Over time this +/- should even out. The limit on number of trades is totally unacceptable because the real reason for increased cost is the managers of the funds inability to guess the Fair Valuation of the I-fund correctly. That is what is really driving the cost up. A better solution would be to post the fund closing prices the next morning after overseas markets have opened. This would eliminate the major cost identified by FRTIB and yet preserve trading flexibility for members.The board thinks that the cost is associated with “3000” frequent traders. In February, many more than 3000 people jammed the TSP phone lines moving their money as a reaction to a market drop. That day there was a big FV that turned out to be a bad guess. 3000 people don’t jam phone banks set up for tens of thousands of people. Market volatility will be when even the infrequent trader (right or wrong) will request an interfund transfer. Limiting trades to 2 trades per month will NOT solve this problem.I hope that as a member of the Employee Thrift Advisory Board you will protect the freedom to have "no limit on the number of contribution allocation or interfund transfer requests that may be made by a participant" as per Title 5 Chapter VI Part 1601 Subpart D Sec. 1601.32.b.Title 5 Chapter VI Part 1601 Sec 1601.22 states that I "may make an interfund transfer using the TSP Web site or the ThriftLine". Punishing a individual for making more than two transfers by making them only use the mail would seem to be against the CFR.

There should be another solution to the frequent trader problem other than limiting the number of monthly trades that everyone can make.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,



*******

12%ayear
12-08-2007, 05:25 AM
Spread the word. I am lobbying very hard and calling everyday. Remember it is your hard earned money and future on the line. I hope they charge a small fee so they will not gripe again in the future.

airlift
12-08-2007, 08:16 AM
I just signed the petition. Great idea!

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: 12%ayear's Account Talk
Spread the word. I am lobbying very hard and calling everyday. Remember it is your hard earned money and future on the line. I hope they charge a small fee so they will not gripe again in the future.
__________________
http://www.tspshareholder.org/ spread the word
__________________
http://www.tspshareholder.org/

airlift
12-08-2007, 08:34 AM
Good to see you back!:)


Been gone for a bit, and was shocked by the TSP proposal to limit trades this way. I have sent my emails and made the phone calls. Have you?

For those interested, will post regarding my recent mission to Ukraine soon.

Good to be home :)

James48843
12-08-2007, 01:49 PM
We're now over 425 signatures on the petition, but we need a LOT more. Spread the word at work on Monday, and let's pump that baby up.

Sign it here:

http://tspshareholder.org

Sign the petition!

Thanks

DrFaustus
12-09-2007, 08:45 PM
Something just occured to me.

The TSP has 3,500,000 members. The TSP Board wants to implement a drastic reduction in the number of trades allowed by each member because 3000 of its members are actively engaged in managing their retirement accounts.

Now, 3000 is less than 1/10 of 1 percent of 3,500,000. What is the TSP Board going to do if, God forbid, 1 percent of its members begin to actively manage their accounts?

There is something seriously wrong here.

nnuut
12-09-2007, 09:13 PM
Like, Catch 22!:cool: They see it's catching on and they want to Nip it in the Bud!:worried: When they should be changing the system.

FundSurfer
12-10-2007, 07:31 AM
Fundsurfer -

In case you're not aware, if you are mailing your memo using regular postal mail, you need to know there is a major post office logjam in Washington D.C. because of the filtering for threatening letters (and anthrax if I remember correctly or whatever that chemical is that is a major health risk)

I know for a fact that it takes about a month for a letter to get thru for congressmen according to the receptionist I spoke with for Senator Kay Hutchison.

Most senators/congressmen have a means on their website for you to send them 10000 characters in an email message. I'm not sure about the ETAC committee members. Good luck.

The content of your memo sounds very good to me. Thanks for sharing that.

I also very much liked the suggestion from "anonymous" about "no taxation without representation" that Tom posted about. I hope something comes from it.
--A
I sent this to the ETAC members, so hopefully it will not get delayed. I've e-mailed my congressmen but don't expect this to get anywhere with congress. Our only hope there is that a staff member that looks at the e-mail takes an interest.

FundSurfer
12-10-2007, 07:46 AM
...in my re-read of the memo, I could not help but think that this problem (rising cost)would have happened anyway due to the increase in participation in the tsp--frequent trading or not....

EXACTY! The biggest +/- "market impact" occurs when there are big market moves. Those are days when a lot of people move their money.


Tracey Ray points out the current I fund agreement with Barclays is to provide next day settlement of up to $40 million. Any amt over that could take up to three days. It seems to me that a new contract or company should be considered since Barclays is taking advantage of that clause.(Holding the $ while benefiting from it). What do you think?

I think the contract will be renegotiated, but that will take time. It is a very lucrative contract. For the amount of money we are talking about, we ought to beable to get Barclays to determine price at 8 am instead of 5 pm.

Show-me
12-10-2007, 08:07 AM
I have read the FRTIB minutes and the Fund Performance reports. I found that the Fund that Ms. Ray quotes in her report, the I Fund, had the highest "trading cost" month in August a very volatile month for everyone. The second highest "trading month" was February also a "flight to safety period" for the equities. The last week of February and the first week of March were volatile and the F funds highest month of "trading cost" was March.

That shows me that it is much more than just the 3000 causing higher "trading cost" during months of volatility.

I would like to know the total number of participant that made interfund transfers the month of August.

I would also like to know what portion of the L funds are in the "trading cost".

I find the report incomplete because it does not report the total number of interfund transfers per month by all participants and the exact impact of the L Fund re-balancing per month.

ayla
12-10-2007, 03:06 PM
I really liked this response by Dave (Dave are you on this board? if so, great job!) at http://www.fedsmith.com/article/comment/1431/start/28/


Its All About Freedom
Service Rep
Social Security Admin
Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:33 PM


Your column was excellent and timely, and I would bet that you are right about the rules saving TSP participants from themselves.
But that's how freedom gets whittled away year after year. Other people think they know what's best for other people - and sometimes they do. But that's no excuse to take their freedom away and make choices for them.
Freedom is defined by having choices. The more choices, the more freedom. Less choices - less freedom.

True freedom is the freedom to be stupid. You can teach us, as you are doing very well, but in the end, we must make the choice - or we are not free.

Dave E.

sugarandspice
12-10-2007, 04:05 PM
Who would be in favor of removing the I fund from TSP investment since it seems to be causing the "problem." In exchange we keep the current system of IFT's.

DrFaustus
12-10-2007, 05:48 PM
I would be in favor of that. But, to be honest, I think this is a done deal. :(

James48843
12-10-2007, 06:28 PM
I would be in favor of that. But, to be honest, I think this is a done deal. :(


Oh, Doctor F, have faith!

That may have been their first battle plan.

But now we are executing an effective counter-attack, using logic, reason, passion, and the facts. We have, today, gone over one thousand signatures saying they are wrong. We are growing.

And don't you know, no battle plan survives first contact with the opposition? :cheesy:

James48843
12-10-2007, 06:36 PM
Just for some inspiration, here is what was added to the petition signatures (http://tspshareholder.org, then click sign petition) just in the last half hour:

=========================================

Dec 10, 2007, Randy Stertzbach , Ohio

# 1,144:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , Arizona
Do not take away my financial freedom. I'd rather pay for the trade if trade costs are the only problem.

# 1,143:
Dec 10, 2007, Michael Jones , Texas

# 1,142:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , Florida
For several years I chose to contribute the maximum allowed into my TSP retirement account. I didn't have too. I did this knowing TSP gave me the ability to invest in the TSP fund(s)of my choice and rebalance as I saw fit...daily. Now TSP tells me I can do this only twice a month. Thats right, twice a month, TSP is now telling me I can control MY retirement investment only twice a month! This is bait-and-switch. TSP now has MY money and now tells me I can no longer control it...except twice a month. TSP - this is wrong and you know it...bait-and-switch.

# 1,141:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , California
This is my retirement. Please allow me to manage it. Two trades per month is not enough for me to effectively manage it.

# 1,140:
Dec 10, 2007, Nicholas Loux , Georgia
Rather than impose trading limits on the TSP, I would like to see a limit buy/sell capability added to these accounts. Sincerely, Nick Loux

# 1,139:
Dec 10, 2007, Mark Goldstein , Virginia

# 1,138:
Dec 10, 2007, Ernest Searcy , North Carolina
Two trades per month is too restrictive for an active duty military member to properly manage his/her TSP account. I would support a minimum of 4 transfers a month. I would also be in favor of paying a small fee for IFTs over the base number in order to cover IFT costs.

# 1,137:
Dec 10, 2007, Paul Wheeler , Texas
I am very dissapointed you have decided to make a decision like this without input from those who have the most to gain and the most to loose.

# 1,136:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , New Jersey
We should have our own choice of handling our own IFT transfer. If handling fee is required for frequent transfer, then $1 per IFT over 2 transfer limit per month is reasonable and I have no problem with that.


# 1,135:
Dec 10, 2007, Michael Ackerman , Pennsylvania
Instead of limiting our trading ability, you should be giving us more flexability to do our interfund transfers.

# 1,134:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , Minnesota
Two trades per month is far too restrictive for a Federal employee trying to properly manage his/her hard-earned money. I could probably live with two trades per WEEK. In lieu of limiting trades, I would be in favor of imposing a small fee (say five dollars) for making an IFT.



# 1,133:
Dec 10, 2007, James Prichett , Alaska
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of higher returns, if I feel so emboldened.


# 1,132:
Dec 10, 2007, Thomas Shoaf , New Mexico

# 1,131:
Dec 10, 2007, Darrin Watkins , Texas

# 1,130:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , Utah
TSP is my retirement fund and I should beable to manage it anyway that I feel I need to. I would be willing to pay a small fee to be able to moves my funds when needed.

# 1,129:
Dec 10, 2007, Berkie Harris , Colorado
TSP participants should be allowed to make their own choices. If the expenses are to high then charge a fee for extra trades.

# 1,128:
Dec 10, 2007, James Wood , Michigan

# 1,127:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , Virginia
If you are going to limit trades then allow us to take our money to a fund that allows trading without charging a fee. Two trades a month is not enough to safeguard monies, at least 4 a month.

# 1,126:
Dec 10, 2007, Fernando Santana , Montana
I have been contributing to my TSP account for several years now and I believe that if allowed to manage my own account I can make the decisions needed to help it grow. I am in favor of paying for the transactions to offset any cost. Thank you for listening.
================================================

That inspires one to fight for your rights.

Life.


Liberty.

And the pursuit of higher returns, if I feel so emboldened.

Thank you James Prichett, of Alaska- You are a true American!

Go read the comments people are making. It is heartwarming!

FundSurfer
12-10-2007, 09:04 PM
http://www.tsp.gov/faq/faq14.html

The board presentation, likely what they will use to show the ETAC, is going to be very convincing. (See link above)

What is the best counter arguement?

The best that I can come up with is to not limit th flexibility of the whole due to the actions of a few. Find another way to solve the problem. Consider a fee for excessive transfer (likely to be the 2% of value idea) or some sort of frequent trader curbing method, or ....

I do think more data is needed, for example:

How many people have traded more than twice in one month? If a lot then the limits should be reconsidered.

What is the cost of the FV/"market impact" versus the actual trading cost? If the FV cost is the largest cost, as Ms. Rae says, then fix the FV problem by moving closing price computation to next morning.

I'd rather see an annual limit on number of trades rather than monthly limit.

Consider making these suggestions as you call ETAC members.

Other ideas?

nnuut
12-10-2007, 09:11 PM
2% of VALUE! I hope everyone understands how much that is?
Am I wrong or for instance you trade $100,000 to the "I" fund does that mean you pay $2,000 to move to the "I"?:confused: 2792

weatherweenie
12-10-2007, 09:31 PM
2% of VALUE! I hope everyone understands how much that is?
Am I wrong or for instance you trade $100,000 to the "I" fund does that mean you pay $2,000 to move to the "I"?

Yeah, that's a bit steep.

fedgolfer
12-10-2007, 10:06 PM
... what bugs me is that that 2% charge is the most expensive transfer charge for Vanguard and probably for the other IB's he compared TSP to. You can go from Vanguard's money market to about 60 other funds at their 4pm deadline. You're restricted for 90 days to re-enter that fund, but you have 60 or more to choose from that you can transfer into by the next business day (no settlement period). Greg Long is just picking examples to fit his arguement while avoiding the fact that other retirement vehicles are much more flexible and liquid. The only people that buy his arguement are the ones that don't know the rules and regs in TSP versus IRAs & 401k's -- people that are stuck in the dark ages about investing and swing trading. His points of comparison have so many holes.

The hate is growing. I want to sue the crap out of every single one of them.

nnuut
12-10-2007, 10:33 PM
I think a good B$$CH SLAP is more appropriate!:nuts:
NO, I take that back, very crude and darn right wrong, I apologize.:embarrest:
We can bargain but not with people that don't think we have any say so in the future workings of OUR retirement plan. They should at least listen to our side with an open mind!:cool:

wv-girl
12-10-2007, 10:41 PM
... what bugs me is that that 2% charge is the most expensive transfer charge for Vanguard and probably for the other IB's he compared TSP to. You can go from Vanguard's money market to about 60 other funds at their 4pm deadline. You're restricted for 90 days to re-enter that fund, but you have 60 or more to choose from that you can transfer into by the next business day (no settlement period). Greg Long is just picking examples to fit his arguement while avoiding the fact that other retirement vehicles are much more flexible and liquid. The only people that buy his arguement are the ones that don't know the rules and regs in TSP versus IRAs & 401k's -- people that are stuck in the dark ages about investing and swing trading. His points of comparison have so many holes.

The hate is growing. I want to sue the crap out of every single one of them.

Sounds like its a done deal by reading FS link to the tsp
http://www.tsp.gov/faq/faq14.html
I think they tried to defend most of what we have talked about here on the message boards. Spys!!!
When reading some of the comments on fedsmith most are outraged at frequent trades that cost "them" money. "They don't want to pay for our trades". If they took the time to really look at what is going on instead of being sheep, they would realize that:
1. I think nnutt figured that the "cost" of 1.2m lost in dividends equalled to approx. $4.00 per person per year.(something like that) (NNutt was that you or James?) I guess they can't afford it :D
2. That cost would rise anyway with the number of participants increasing plus the amount of $ being saved bi-weekly.(duh, Ray Charles could see that):nuts:
3. The 3,000 people trading must have the majority of the money in their accounts(by day-trading) to be able to make a dent in the billions that tsp holds(yeah right):blink:.
4. That our intelligence was put in question(to keep us from hitting the wrong button). That shows what he thinks of the participants of tsp:cheesy:

Anyway, getting angrier myself. Does it show?

nnuut
12-10-2007, 10:47 PM
Sounds like its a done deal by reading FS link to the tsp
http://www.tsp.gov/faq/faq14.html
I think they tried to defend most of what we have talked about here on the message boards. Spys!!!
When reading some of the comments on fedsmith most are outraged at frequent trades that cost "them" money. "They don't want to pay for our trades". If they took the time to really look at what is going on instead of being sheep, they would realize that:
1. I think nnutt figured that the "cost" of 1.2m lost in dividends equalled to approx. $4.00 per person per year.(something like that) (NNutt was that you or James?) I guess they can't afford it
2. That cost would rise anyway with the number of participants increasing plus the amount of $ being saved bi-weekly.(duh, Ray Charles could see that)
3. The 3,000 people trading must have the majority of the money in their accounts(by day-trading) to be able to make a dent in the billions that tsp holds(yeah right):blink:.
4. That our intelligence was put in question(to keep us from hitting the wrong button). That shows what he thinks of the participants of tsp:cheesy:

Anyway, getting angrier myself. Does it show?
I think it was James! And a portion of that $4 was generated by other then Frequent Traders at a time of extreme volatility in the markets. It's a setup folks!! Be like me, I never lose my temper!!:laugh::laugh:

wv-girl
12-10-2007, 11:03 PM
I think it was James! And a portion of that $4 was generated by other then Frequent Traders at a time of extreme volatility in the markets. It's a setup folks!! Be like me, I never lose my temper!!:laugh::laugh:
My temper is not lost..I know right where it is. We need to dig deeper..to find the real agenda. Been in the govt long enuf to realize that the left hand never knows what the right hand is doing. Until its done. Follow the $. Maybe we will find that 1.2m..ya never know:D

whitemingo
12-10-2007, 11:07 PM
I wonder what kind of bonuses the board is getting this year? Does it add up to 1.2 something or other?

fedgolfer
12-10-2007, 11:07 PM
As another option, why can't TSP just go with a money market fund, AGG, and ETFs of SPY, DWCP, and EFA? Allow current employees a one-time rollover into a brokerage account of our choosing. Make us pay a comparable fee as the private sector? That would save TSP participant costs in the long run, because we could do it through a conduit that is purely electonic driven and wouldn't require as many TSP employees or salaries by the Thrift Board.

I think as TSP participants we should have an elected official on the Board as well, maybe more. I think we should vote and approve of their salaries and any TSP employee salary. I think every current Board member should recuse themselves and be ordered to give full disclosure of any equity holdings in conjuncion to AGG, the S&P 500, Wilshire 4500 and the EAFE. We are entitled to know that their choices in our TSP funds are not involved with the Board's personal motives.

nnuut
12-10-2007, 11:08 PM
I've a headache!:(
2793

fedgolfer
12-10-2007, 11:16 PM
Does anyone have a relative or friend at a high level in a large investment bank? I'm sure if we informed them that there is a large group of unhappy TSP participants, they could create a fund or comparable vehicle for us -- and more importantly, some leverage on powerful ears. The idea may get lauged at but its worth a try.

If they think its worth the trouble and potential $$$, I'm sure they could get Congress to move or at least get a competing contract in there. If we can find a voice more powerful than ours (like a large investment bank that can claim they're for the rights and freedoms of investors), i'm sure in the long run they could make far greater progress than the wealthiest, most powerful 3000 TSP "traders". It would be a way of getting potentially more than 3000 high net worth investors to roll over into their hands. I think the Board would be more willing to comprimise if they knew there existence could be challenged.

I have some buddies from college that work for some IBs but they're not board room execs -- worth asking though. On the low end, if there are 3000 traders x a minimum of $100,000 per account, they're looking at an issue worth exploring.

wv-girl
12-10-2007, 11:33 PM
I've a headache!:(
2793


Maybe you shouldn't have watched that youtube video twice. Once was enuf.:nuts:

FogSailing
12-11-2007, 12:23 AM
It's more than ridiculous....it's worthy of a class action suit...

FS

Spaf
12-11-2007, 12:24 AM
Fed,

You pose a good question for us that trade.
Right now TSP is the best for my tax deferred retirement account.
HOWEVER, If the 2-trade rule goes into effect and it hurts my bottom line, I'll just roll it over into an account with my internet broker.

Fidelity lost my business and so might TSP......:rolleyes:

Spaf



As another option, why can't TSP just go with a money market fund, AGG, and ETFs of SPY, DWCP, and EFA? Allow current employees a one-time rollover into a brokerage account of our choosing. Make us pay a comparable fee as the private sector? That would save TSP participant costs in the long run, because we could do it through a conduit that is purely electonic driven and wouldn't require as many TSP employees or salaries by the Thrift Board.

I think as TSP participants we should have an elected official on the Board as well, maybe more. I think we should vote and approve of their salaries and any TSP employee salary. I think every current Board member should recuse themselves and be ordered to give full disclosure of any equity holdings in conjuncion to AGG, the S&P 500, Wilshire 4500 and the EAFE. We are entitled to know that their choices in our TSP funds are not involved with the Board's personal motives.

James48843
12-11-2007, 12:31 AM
Note- and this is very important for everyone to remember-

1. Regarding this 2% figure. That number is being thrown in the air incorrectly.

The SEC guidelines say that a MUTUAL fund, which WE ARE NOT, can charge a fee, or limit trades, or both. In the category of fees, the SEC guidelines say a MUTUAL FUND, which WE ARE NOT, can charge their expenses- UP TO 2%, to enable trades. There is NOTHING which requires a fee on the order of 2%, it says UP TO 2%.

If our costs are trades last year were 16 million, on trading of XXX(We don't know the whole number) BILLIONS dollars over the course of the year, then the expense is tiny. It is FRACTIONS of 1%, not 2% in costs.

TSP has not released the data, as far as I can tell, of the total dollar figure of the amount traded. Only then can anyone hazard a guess on what it costs to make a trade.

WARNING- don't get suckered into thinking that 2% is a good deal to allow you to trade. It's not. It ahs no reflection whatsoever on the actual cost.


2. There are 3.8 million TSP members. The total costs for trading this year are estimated to reach $24 MILLION. If they restrict trades to twice per month, there will STILL be a lot of people trading those twice per month. And the L funds contribute to the amount of shares changing hands, and will continue to do so. The total costs of roughly 4 million members, for the trading done last year, cost, TOTAL, just 16 million dollars, or about $4 PER PERSON. Trades WILL CONTINUE under their new system, just not as many, so let's say it's $3 instead of 4.

They are proposing to limit trades to save a buck a person. Yet they spend more than that just on sending out paper statements once per year.

James48843
12-11-2007, 12:32 AM
Fed,

You pose a good question for us that trade.
Right now TSP is the best for my tax deferred retirement account.
HOWEVER, If the 2-trade rule goes into effect and it hurts my bottom line, I'll just roll it over into an account with my internet broker.

Fidelity lost my business and so might TSP......:rolleyes:

Spaf

Yes, Spaf,
You can do that- you're retired.

I'm not.

I can't move my money to an outside broker, unless I quit my job. I'm not quite ready to do that.

tsptalk
12-11-2007, 12:34 AM
While not giving in, I still say they would have very little argument to giving us 24 to 36 trades per year rather than the 2 or 3 limit per month. Same bananas - and we would just have to use them responsibly as the market dictates. I think I can live that.

James48843
12-11-2007, 01:09 AM
Sun Tzu, modern times:

1. Never negotiate with yourself.

2. Take the high ground, make the enemy come to you. When he reaches you, you will be refreshed, and he will be exausted from the long march.

Spaf
12-11-2007, 01:20 AM
James,

You can do this manually, put a minimal amount in TSP and the rest with a internet broker.
However, you need to anlyize your bottom line on which aproach would serve you best





Yes, Spaf,
You can do that- you're retired.

I'm not.

I can't move my money to an outside broker, unless I quit my job. I'm not quite ready to do that.

DrFaustus
12-11-2007, 09:17 AM
I just reread the faq on the tsp.gov site and saw something I hadn't before ...

The TSP is going to count a move to the G fund as a part of your 2 move limit. So, within a month, if I were to move from the G to the S and then back to the G ... that's my two moves for the month. Or, I can move from the G to the S and then to the I, and that's my two moves (but I can still move to the G fund if I get nervous).

What a rip-off. That's an even more serious limitation than what they were allowing before daily valuation.

weatherweenie
12-11-2007, 09:23 AM
I just reread the faq on the tsp.gov site and saw something I hadn't before ...

The TSP is going to count a move to the G fund as a part of your 2 move limit. So, within a month, if I were to move from the G to the S and then back to the G ... that's my two moves for the month. Or, I can move from the G to the S and then to the I, and that's my two moves (but I can still move to the G fund if I get nervous).

Yeah, I'm confused about that.

They seem to imply if you've made your 2 moves in a month, and are in the market, you can move to the G fund w/o penalty.

Wasaki
12-11-2007, 10:50 AM
#1,274 Dec 11, 2007, Frank Allds, Wisconsin
Your new plan would force tsp shareholders to buy in all at once instead of averaging into a particular fund. This is dangerous and unfair.I never thought of this. Alot of us who do trade often times do put all our money in one fund so it isn't a big deal to us. Now to force everybody to have to do that if they want to make an ift isn't right either. Or is this off track? I have only heard if you want to transfer from S to G that is one for the month. I haven't heard if you want to transfer from C/S/I to F/G that it counts as one.

sugarandspice
12-11-2007, 12:17 PM
December coming up to the half way point.....No one got the letter yet? Tom should give a prize for 1st letter posted. I think after the uproar this is causing TSP may be rewording it to cover their a$$.

James48843
12-11-2007, 12:41 PM
Yeah, I'm confused about that.

They seem to imply if you've made your 2 moves in a month, and are in the market, you can move to the G fund w/o penalty.

The problem with that theory is that if you bail out because the market is going down, you are locked into G until the next month. Should the market go down 15% in one month (which can happen), and then you bail, on say, the third of the month, you are prevented from catching any of the rebound until the next month.

Provided that they are talking calendar month. They haven't said yet whether they intend calendar month, or 30-day period.

It almost assures that ANYONE who trades will locked with a much bigger loss, than had they not traded at all. The only way you can move in a down market is to the sidelines, but cannot come back.

FUTURESTRADER
12-11-2007, 02:03 PM
I never thought of this. Alot of us who do trade often times do put all our money in one fund so it isn't a big deal to us. Now to force everybody to have to do that if they want to make an ift isn't right either. Or is this off track? I have only heard if you want to transfer from S to G that is one for the month. I haven't heard if you want to transfer from C/S/I to F/G that it counts as one.

I'm speculating that one DAY'S worth of transfers will be considered 1 transfer. I.e., 50S, 50I to 25G, 25F, 25S, 25I on the same day would be considered 1 transfer. Unlike a 'trade' where you would be charged for selling 50S (1 comission), 50I (1 comission), and buying 25G, (1 comission), 25F (1 comission) 25S, (1 comission), 25I (1 comission). 6 comissions ttl.

nnuut
12-11-2007, 06:36 PM
Received this response from one of my Senators today.:o
http://www.isakson.senate.gov/graphics/header02.gif (http://www.isakson.senate.gov/)





Dear Mr. Chesnut:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board decision on inter-fund transfers with in Thrift Savings Plans. I appreciate your comments and am glad to have the opportunity to respond.

As you know, the Thrift Savings Plan is a retirement savings vehicle for civilians who are, or previously were, employed by the United States Government and for members of the uniformed services. The Thrift Savings Plan was designed to resemble a 401(k) with a limited number of low-fee savings options. The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board is the independent Government agency responsible for managing the Thrift Savings Plan. I understand your frustration regarding the board's decision to impose new restrictions on inter-fund transfers. Currently, there is no legislation regarding this specific issue. Should such legislation come before me in the Senate, I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.




Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my web site at
http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm (http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm)

James48843
12-11-2007, 10:56 PM
well, at least he's honest in saying that their is no legislation.

Perhaps when the Thrift Board wants to submit legislative changes to allow for the "L" funds rather than the "G' fund as being the default fund (Which I personally support), we'll attempt to tack on in conference a requirement that all trades be free and unlimited, and we'll make that a contingent item and change in law.

James48843
12-11-2007, 11:00 PM
James,

You can do this manually, put a minimal amount in TSP and the rest with a internet broker.
However, you need to anlyize your bottom line on which aproach would serve you best

I'm not talking about NEW money, I know I can place that elsewhere.

I'm talking about the money I have been investing and growing for the last 16 years. THAT's the money, now locked up in TSP, that I cannot move out of TSP unless I seperate from my job.

Which may not be a bad alternative. Quit, move the TSP, then get rehired. Risky, and not easy to do, but then again, perhaps I can find a sympathic manager somewhere....

James48843
12-12-2007, 12:56 AM
I was reading through the GAO audit of TSP today (from June, 2007), and found this interesting quote in it, from Greg Long, Executive Director of teh FRTIB. It just reinforces what we have found in many other sources.....the administrative expenses of the TSP are very low now, and getting lower as time goes on and assets increase. Therefore, their claim that expenses have increased greatly due to frequent IFT's by a small number of TSP participants is BOGUS! If you need a quote from Long to include in your letter(s), consider using this one:
__________________________________________________ ______________

"We concur with the use of benchmarking of costs in appropriate situations. The Agency is always mindful of its responsibility to ensure prudent use of TSP resources. In fact, as the report notes, overall TSP administrative costs, which include all Agency expenditures, compare extremely favorably with private sector 401(k) plans, which we view as the most appropriate benchmark. TSP total administrative costs, including all record keeping and staff costs, as well as investment costs, were only three basis points in 2006. This is far lower than the reported costs of any other 401(k) plan (the report cites an average of 75 basis points) and is in fact several times less than the reported investment expenses alone for the cheapest 401(k) plans."

This is a good one. I'm going to use that one again.

Don't know yet exactly where, or with whom, but it is a good one worth saving.

jazzy
12-12-2007, 09:00 AM
I am opposed to these new restrictions, and I have written the FRTIB about my opposition and I have questioned its authority to make these restrictions. In addition, I have asked my two US senators for support in this matter as well as the NEA. These restrictions are in opposition to what we FERS people have always been told, even by the President: " You have the freedom to manage your retirement fund as you see fit."

weatherweenie
12-12-2007, 10:33 AM
Hopefully it won't backfire, but seems I got the attention of our region's HQ regarding a mass email I sent out. The region contacted my boss's boss to find out if I had sent out Spam. I told them/him, no I sent this out because I figured most of the TSP participants out there aren't aware that the TSP board is planning on restricting participants.

This is what I sent out:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/reverse-the-decision-to-limit-tsp- (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/reverse-the-decision-to-limit-tsp-)
interfund-transfers

The TSP board is planning on limiting your ability to move your TSP
money. Whether you actively manage your TSP account, or not, revoking
this freedom is wrong. Help stop this action by signing the petition.
Feel free to send this email to others you may know that have money in
the TSP.

Thanks for your support

weatherweenie
12-12-2007, 10:39 AM
here's a reply to my email: All,
The TSP was never meant to be a day trading account, but many have been
using it as such since we gained the ability to adjust our accounts at
any time. Every time a TSP participant switches funds, that adds to the
administrative cost of the TSP, and therefore reduces the net gain on
all participants TSP accounts. In essence, the TSP community is
subsidizing trades for a small number of participants who feel the need
to try and beat the market. I believe this is why the TSP board wants to
reduce the number of intrafund transfers to 2 per month, with the
ability to place all of your account into the G fund at any time. This
seems reasonable to me given the original purpose of the TSP, a long
term savings plan. If TSP participants feel the need to be able to make
more than a couple of trades per month, then there are avenues available
to do this. One would be to reduce your TSP contributions and place that
extra money into one of the several day trade accounts available online.
Then you could trade to your heart's content without driving up the
administration costs in the TSP for the rest of us. Please take the time
to read the information regarding this topic on the TSP website. Just my
two cents.
Scott Rudge
NWS Rapid City.

weatherweenie
12-12-2007, 11:05 AM
more reply to my email: After reading Scott Rudge's reply to you, there's not a way in the world
that I'd be signing a petition. Also, I question your use of government
e-mail. The whole matter of TSP reducing the ability to change is also
best discussed by the union.

Well said Mr. Rudge! Thanks for this message. I want to also add that
in my opinion, part of the reason the stock market is so jittery is
because of the actions of "day traders". If a person happens to want to
use the TSP to day trade and try to outdo the market, that is an unwise
practice. I learned long ago in private investing that trying to time
and beat the market is a losing battle - I eventually lost a lot. I am
now content with just letting the market do what it is going to do,
because retirement is 10 to 15 years away.
Derek Frey/ NWS Hastings

Viva_La_Migra
12-12-2007, 11:38 AM
more reply to my email: After reading Scott Rudge's reply to you, there's not a way in the world
that I'd be signing a petition. Also, I question your use of government
e-mail. The whole matter of TSP reducing the ability to change is also
best discussed by the union.

Well said Mr. Rudge! Thanks for this message. I want to also add that
in my opinion, part of the reason the stock market is so jittery is
because of the actions of "day traders". If a person happens to want to
use the TSP to day trade and try to outdo the market, that is an unwise
practice. I learned long ago in private investing that trying to time
and beat the market is a losing battle - I eventually lost a lot. I am
now content with just letting the market do what it is going to do,
because retirement is 10 to 15 years away.
Derek Frey/ NWS Hastings
I'm sorry you work with such sheeple!:laugh:

weatherweenie
12-12-2007, 01:29 PM
Interesting replies that I have received from a regionwide email that I sent out regarding the proposed TSP restrictions. I received ONE positive reply. The rest were negative, along the lines of 'those darn daytraders!'

I hope it was a joke, but one reply was, 'what is this TSP that you're talking about?'

TRAFFIC_DOG
12-12-2007, 02:13 PM
Sadly, I'm not feeling good about staving off these changes.

I understand the sheep with small balances not giving a flip or even harbouring a perverse jealousy towards those who might be benefiting from skills and opportunity which they may not have.

Having over 600k now, my system is to lighten up, using several IFT's when my indicators show overbought. I also work back in over several IFT's.

Many days I am equally happy to see either red or green at the end of the day.
What could be a better system for restful nights?

I am limiting my exposure to a 2000-2003 scenario in a huge way, while also out performing buy and hold during up years.

I am happy... and a am securing my retirement and providing for my family's future in a responsible way.......

Shame on the TSP board to take this away!
Shame on the small minded to delight in my future loss...............

jellobrains
12-12-2007, 02:33 PM
Well after they shove the trade limits down our throats I'll be very anxious to see at the end of next year how all this MONEY they'll be saving will impact my account. Something like $2 a year.............:notrust:

James48843
12-13-2007, 11:46 AM
Have you signed the petition yet?

Have you gotten your co-workers to sign yet?

Visit http://tspshareholder.org and add your name to the list.

Thanks

James48843
12-13-2007, 05:50 PM
Visit "the sandbox" for today's find.

I dug all day through pages and pages of Thrift Board meeting notes, and found a heck of a gold nugget.

See this thread, post #32 and below:

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=137906

TRAFFIC_DOG
12-15-2007, 10:57 AM
Here's an angle I think we can push if we can't stop the train.

They need to let us make a one time, in service, transfer from our TSP to a qualified self directed IRA. The amount would be up to but not more than all employee contributions in excess of the 5% required to get max gov't matching, from the day the current rules w/daily valuations were put into effect until said transfer is completed.

They are changing the rules mid-stream.
These new rule are an effective penalty.
Acknowlege this penalty with this appropriate redress.

James48843
12-15-2007, 01:55 PM
It's an idea to consider. We've got several ideas floating right now. We plan to do a survey this weekend and see what people want to do, which ones have the broadest support and which ones have less support. The one thing we do know is that there appears to be universal opposition to just flat out limits.

If you have signed up for the TSPSHAREHOLDER.ORG newsletter, you'll get one of the surveys later this weekend. We're still working on the language. I encourage anyone who wants to participate to sign up for the newsletter at http://tspshareholder.org

Plus- we now have the first four TSPSHAREHOLDER newsletters on-line, for anyone who wants to view.

We're fighting back. Will you join us?

Thanks

RAE
12-15-2007, 07:57 PM
Visit "the sandbox" for today's find.

I dug all day through pages and pages of Thrift Board meeting notes, and found a heck of a gold nugget.

See this thread, post #32 and below:

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=137906

James - this is indeed valuable information - great find! I assume you don't mind if some of us include this information (basically verbatim) in our letters and e-mails to the ETAC members? ETAC meets with FRTIB on Dec. 19th, so I think it's critical that we get this information in the hands of as many ETAC members as possible before then. Thanks again for all your hard work on this......

nnuut
12-16-2007, 10:52 AM
Great letter Paladin, you have a gift, must be a Lawyer? Keep up the GREAT WORK!!:D
Norman

Show-me
12-16-2007, 10:52 AM
Just sent this one out:

Just a reminder that I oppose the changes that the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) is trying to impose to the TSP plan and the need for better access through the internet to the Employee Thrift Advisory Board.

I believe a large majority of participants are not aware this is happening. I feel these changes will limit my ability to make investment decisions during market volatility.

I get the impression the FRTIB would like for us to all blindly allocate to one of the L Funds and never look at our TSP plan again. A L Fund that “rebalances daily”. I oppose that. The FRTIB has changed the default fund from the G Fund to the age appropriate L Fund in an attempt to save new participants from themselves and these interfund transfer limits are along the same line of thinking.

I have studied the FRTIB meeting minutes and found a correlation to market volatility and the months that have the highest “trading cost”. During volatile months participants move in a “flight to safety” in order to preserve capital. Limiting us to 2 interfund transfer a month will not stop that “flight to safety” and will limit us from getting back into the market after the volatility settles down.

A error or omission in Ms. Tracy Ray’s report was brought to my attention that in one graph interfund transfers was represented but not the “daily rebalancing” of the L Fund. The L Fund participation is growing and as it does so does the dollar amount of “daily rebalancing”. That cost money, but is not represented in her report.

The L Fund Investment Balances have increased from $7,895,00 and 214,779 participants on 12/31/2005 to $22,840,000 and 543,213 participants on 9/30/2007.
A increase of over two times the number of participants and over three times the L Fund Investment Balance. A balance that is rebalanced “daily”.

If they can rebalance the L Funds daily, they can let me rebalance my account more the twice a month.

In summary, while the trading costs has went up, so has the total number of participant, account balances, and the number of participants becoming more active in managing their retirement. The FRTIB needs to catch up with the current times and the fact that with the “internet age” TSP participant are become more informed investors.
While the FRTIB would like to push the L Fund down everyone’s throat and they waged a massive and expensive marketing campaign for it, they have not actively contacted all participants about these new massive “restrictions” they want to impose or investigated all alternatives.

Please oppose these restrictions and find a better way.

Show-me
12-16-2007, 10:54 AM
This is the big push, December 19 is the ETAC meeting. Copy and paste the letter or just write. "I am opposed to TSP interfund transfer limits. I want it to stay as is."

Check out www.tspshareholder.org (http://www.tspshareholder.org) and call the folks on the Contact List (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5193).

tsptalk
12-16-2007, 04:55 PM
Thanks Show-me -

I just sent a copy to all of those who had an email address posted on your list.

tsptalk
12-16-2007, 04:56 PM
Here is the letter that I sent via certified mail to James Sauber and Richard Brown, and then emailed & faxed to all the members of the ETAC. I hope this addressed most of our arguments. I will post the letter in 2 parts due to its length.

Dear Mr. Sauber...
Nice job Paladin!

DrFaustus
12-17-2007, 08:54 AM
Anyone have any idea when we will know the outcome of the Dec 19th meeting?

oreo
12-17-2007, 09:40 PM
http://www.governmentexecutive.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38858&dcn=todaysnews

TSP officials hear from participants on interfund restrictions
By Brittany R. Ballenstedt bballenstedt@govexec.com (bballenstedt@govexec.com) December 17, 2007

Thrift Savings Plan officials said Monday they were receiving both positive and negative feedback on a new proposal to limit the number of interfund transfers that participants can conduct each month.
Officials overseeing the 401(k)-style plan said so far the TSP has received two letters in favor of and 10 letters opposed to interfund transfer restrictions (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1107/112907pb.htm). They pointed specifically to a letter sent Nov. 27 by one participant, who opposed the plan's taking away the rights of participants to "protect their investments."
"Please let me control my money," the TSP member wrote. "If cost is an issue, charge participants when they move their money from one investment vehicle to another."
Officials said at a regular board meeting (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1107/111907b1.htm) last month that they would begin allowing participants only two interfund transfers per month in April 2008. Thereafter, additional transfers would be allowed only into the government securities fund.
The change is a result of a recent analysis by TSP officials on the impact of trading activity on fund management and transaction expenses. Officials studied the fund with the highest costs, the International fund, and found that in September and October, the average daily trade was $224 million, far above the daily trades of $49 million in 2006 and $27 million in 2005.
Officials highlighted additional evidence of the impact of frequent trading at Monday's meeting, noting that more than $25 billion has been traded out of the I Fund in the past 12 months, resulting in trading costs of nearly $16 million.
"As far as I'm concerned, you have my total support," said Andrew Saul, chairman of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. "This is a savings account; this is a retirement account, and it is the board's [duty] to make sure nothing can derail the fact that this is a long-term plan."
On Wednesday, TSP officials will meet with the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, which consists of labor unions and other federal employee groups, to discuss the restrictions. The proposal also will be published in the Federal Register and open to public comment before moving forward, said TSP Executive Director Gregory Long.
Meanwhile, TSP officials also said they are experiencing some challenges in phone center support, largely due to the introduction of new account numbers to replace Social Security numbers. Since October, the plan is receiving about 15,000 calls per day, up from its usual 9,000, according to Pamela Jeanne Moran, TSP's director of participant services.
Moran said one of the plan's priorities for 2008 is to establish a customizable user identification for participants. "That will make a whole lot of folks happy because they will now be able to memorize their user ID," she said.
Additionally, Legislative Director Thomas Trabucco said TSP officials are scheduled to meet with Senate and House committee staff Monday afternoon to discuss potential legislation that would allow automatic employee enrollment and change the default fund for indecisive investors.
Trabucco noted that committee staffers are particularly concerned with the automatic enrollment proposal, largely because of its associated cost implications. While the Congressional Budget Office has not submitted an official estimate, Trabucco said an unofficial accounting indicates the proposal could cost hundreds of millions of dollars, largely because more federal employees would be deferring some of their salary from their taxable income.
"This would have a significant revenue expense to the Treasury," Trabucco said. "With that in mind, we're sitting down with staff to come to an agreement on language and what it means."

James48843
12-17-2007, 10:44 PM
The article says: "Officials overseeing the 401(k)-style plan said so far the TSP has received two letters in favor of and 10 letters opposed".

Only ten letters opposed? We have over 2,000 signatures on the petition so far.

We need to publish a FAX number for the Thrift Board, and get everyone to start faxing a copy of their letter there as well.

Show-me, do you have the Thrift Board's fax number handy?

Show-me
12-17-2007, 10:53 PM
How about the Executive Director?

Mr. Gregory T. Long Executive Director

glong@tsp.gov

Phone 202.942.1601

Fax 202.639.4428

Show-me
12-17-2007, 10:54 PM
How about General Council?

Comments may be sent to Thomas K. Emswiler, General Counsel,
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 1250 H Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Agency's Fax number is (202) 942-1676

Show-me
12-17-2007, 10:54 PM
Which reminds me I need to send out a email to Greg Long.

Show-me
12-17-2007, 11:07 PM
[quote=oreo;138417]http://www.governmentexecutive.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38858&dcn=todaysnews

TSP officials hear from participants on interfund restrictions
By Brittany R. Ballenstedt bballenstedt@govexec.com (bballenstedt@govexec.com) December 17, 2007

Thrift Savings Plan officials said Monday they were receiving both positive and negative feedback on a new proposal to limit the number of interfund transfers that participants can conduct each month.
Officials overseeing the 401(k)-style plan said so far the TSP has received two letters in favor of and 10 letters opposed to interfund transfer restrictions (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1107/112907pb.htm). They pointed specifically to a letter sent Nov. 27 by one participant, who opposed the plan's taking away the rights of participants to "protect their investments."
"Please let me control my money," the TSP member wrote. "If cost is an issue, charge participants when they move their money from one investment vehicle to another."[quote]

My response in the comments section. I'm feeling like a fight tonight.

Goes to show you how oblivious most TSP participants are to the changes the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) are trying to impose. TSP participants do not have any input because they do not even know who the Employee Thrift Advisory Council (ETAC) members are or how to contact them. How about a web site with a contact list ETAC. What a great way to make TSP changes without the participants knowing they are happening. How about doing a marketing campaign similar to when the L Funds were rolled out before the Board makes any changes to TSP policy or procedures. Maybe they don’t want everyone to know. How much is the daily rebalancing of the L Funds costing participants? Don’t tell me nothing, I know better.

tsptalk
12-17-2007, 11:42 PM
The problem is, their arguments seem so reasonable to those who don't care about, or don't follow their TSP account. ["We are trying to save the TSP money so your returns are higher" (as long as the traders' returns aren't higher).]
It's tough to argue that point with Joe Sixpack who sees us as people scarfing up their money. We know it's not about that.

If you look at the Ebbchart system, probably the most active account we track, it has more than tripled the return of every L-fund in 2007. How can they take that away from someone willing to do the work?

James48843
12-18-2007, 01:17 AM
Tracy Ray did another interview with Federal Radio last week:
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?sid=1308389&nid=250

Show-me
12-18-2007, 10:52 AM
anidoc,
BINGO! FERS will fail if people do not get active in their retirement planning with TSP. How nice that the politicians get a nice 1.7% per service year for themselves and other high stess jobs that do deserve it, but the rest of use get 1% for our FERS retirement.

Baby boomer will be the test subjects.

oreo
12-18-2007, 11:11 AM
I don't know how good this site is, but I thought it was interesting and might help people to contact their representatives. It seems to do a lot of the legwork for you.

http://committeecaller.com/

CommitteeCaller.com (http://www.committeecaller.com/) is a site that allows one person to target an entire congressional committee over the phone. The web application utilizes the open source Asterisk PBX (http://www.digium.com/) system to connect you to every senator or house member on a particular committee. No more digging around the 'net entering zip-codes to retrieve phone numbers of representatives -- CommitteeCaller.com automates the tedium of repetitively dialing your favorite politicians.

Select a committee, enter in your phone number and click "Put me in touch with democracy!" and you'll be called by our system and sequentially patched through to the front office of each member on that committee. You can even rate how each call went -- information that will enable us to rank representatives on how accountable and responsive they are to their constituents.

For more information about how Committee Caller works, click here (http://asterisk.itp.tsoa.nyu.edu/~fcb211/committeecaller/more.php).

To begin, follow these steps:

<LI $included="null">Select the committee you wish to target on the left. <LI $included="null">Enter your phone number below. <LI $included="null">Press 'Put me in touch with democracy!' <LI $included="null">Wait for Committee Caller's automated voice application to call you. <LI $included="null">Pick up the phone and wait for Committee Caller to ask you to press 1 to begin calling.
Stay on after each representative hangs up to rate each call and move on to the next member of the committee.Once connected Committee Caller will tell you which representive you are calling, who their legislative director or chief of staff is, and what district they represent. At any point you can use the * to hang up the call and move on to the next one. After each call you will have the opportunity to rate how your call went.

Aspiration
12-18-2007, 11:29 AM
I've sent my e-mails now. The basic format was:

"Dear Mr. Long,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the FRTIB's decision to begin a push to impose IFT transfer limits on TSP participants. Please leave the program (and its respective IFT transfer limitations) as it is.

Respectfully,"

Hopefully they will take the hint. This is very annoying that they are crippling our ability to manage our own risk since they have no problem using our TSP money to pay for L fund rebalancing and advice!

Aspiration
12-18-2007, 11:30 AM
And thanks to Show-me, James, and TSP Talk for their efforts to respond to this problem and educate others about it!

Asp

jayhawker
12-18-2007, 11:40 AM
The quote of the day at govexec.com (http://www.govexec.com/):

"Please let me control my money."

A Thrift Savings Plan participant, pleading with the TSP Board not to place restrictions on interfund transfers (http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38858&dcn=todaysnews).

:)

tsptalk
12-18-2007, 11:49 AM
Someone emailed me this to share...



If you are againts the new proposed TSP Interfund transfer limitations, you might consider sending a message to ETAC members expressing your concerns. ETAC is meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) so time is of the essence. The message might be something like the one suggested below the "Suggested Message Body", below. A list of email addresses of the ETAC members are also provided below. You could send one message to the list, or send separate messages to each member.

Email addresses (highlight and copy into the address field of your message)
napshq@naps.org (blocked::mailto:napshq@naps.org); nteu-pr@nteu.org (blocked::mailto:nteu-pr@nteu.org); JSauber@NALC.org (blocked::mailto:JSauber@NALC.org); mreid@apwu.org (blocked::mailto:mreid@apwu.org); nattreas@narfe.org (blocked::mailto:nattreas@narfe.org); comments@afge.org (blocked::mailto:comments@afge.org); cmapa@postmasters.org (blocked::mailto:cmapa@postmasters.org); DarrylFMA@cox.net (blocked::mailto:DarrylFMA@cox.net); napusinfo@napus.org (blocked::mailto:napusinfo@napus.org); RLStrombotne@ieee.org (blocked::mailto:RLStrombotne@ieee.org); RBrown@NFFE.org (blocked::mailto:RBrown@NFFE.org); roydes@sbcglobal.net (roydes@sbcglobal.net)


Suggested Message body
----------------------------------------------------
Re: Meeting of the ETAC (Employee Thrift Advisory Board)

Please DO NOT vote for the interfund transfer limitations in the TSP. We need the flexibility. Thank you for your support.

(Your name)
TSP participant

wv-girl
12-18-2007, 11:59 AM
Done...thanks for sharing.

James48843
12-18-2007, 12:58 PM
"Additionally, Legislative Director Thomas Trabucco said TSP officials are scheduled to meet with Senate and House committee staff Monday afternoon to discuss potential legislation that would allow automatic employee enrollment and change the default fund for indecisive investors.
Trabucco noted that committee staffers are particularly concerned with the automatic enrollment proposal, largely because of its associated cost implications. While the Congressional Budget Office has not submitted an official estimate, Trabucco said an unofficial accounting indicates the proposal could cost hundreds of millions of dollars, largely because more federal employees would be deferring some of their salary from their taxable income.



Call for information and help:

Can anyone help identify who are the staffers he talks about? Which Seante and House staffers deal with this issue? Which EXACT committe is Trabucco meeeting with? If we know the right committee, we may be able to track down the names of the right staffers.

Thanks for anyone who can help answer that question.

James48843
12-18-2007, 01:03 PM
And another call for information.

All you amatuer slueths out there, here is a chance to use your detective skills.

There are five members of the Thrift Board listed. What we need is axact contact information, e-mail, fax, and phone, for these people (for a future use).

If you can find any of them, we're looking for work, not home, data.

Here are the Thrift Board members:


Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

Board Members
Andrew M. Saul, of New York (Chairman). Since 1986, Mr. Saul has been a General Partner in Saul Partners, L.P., New York City. In addition, he served as Chairman of the board for Caché, Inc., from 1993 to 2000. Previously, he was an Executive Vice President, 1968-80, and then President, 1980-85, for Brooks Fashion Stores, Inc. From 1985-86, he was President of BR Investors. Mr. Saul is a trustee for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Sarah Neuman Nursing Home, Westchester, New York, and the United Jewish Appeal Federation, New York City. He is also Commissioner, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City, and is on the Board of Overseers for Wharton School of Finance, University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Saul received his B.S. (1968) from Wharton School of Finance. He was born in New York City in 1946, and currently resides in the New York area with his wife, Denise. They have two daughters.

THOMAS A. FINK, of Alaska. Mr. Fink has been semi-retired since mid-1994 after having served six years as Mayor of Anchorage. He has primarily been a life insurance salesman since 1958. Mr. Fink also spent eight years in the State Legislature, including two as speaker. He was born in Peoria, Illinois, in 1928 and has a B.S. from Bradley University (1950), a J.D. from the University of Illinois Law School (1952), and a CLU from the American College of Life Underwriters (1963). He wrote a weekly column on issues of the day in a local paper between 1975 and 2001. Mr. Fink has lived in Anchorage with his wife, Pat, since 1952. They have 11 grown children.

Gordon J. WhitinG, of New York. Mr. Whiting is a Managing Director of Angelo, Gordon & Co., a leading investment management firm specializing in non-traditional assets, which he joined in 2004. Previously, he was an Executive Director of W. P. Carey & Co. LLC (NYSE: WPC), which he joined in 1993. He was also the President of Corporate Associates 14, Incorporated, one of it's publicly-held, non-traded real estate investment trusts that invest in commercial and industrial properties. Prior to that Mr. Whiting founded an import/export company based in Hong Kong. Mr. Whiting serves on the Cornell University Council and the Board of United Neighbors of East Midtown, Inc., is the Treasurer of the Camp Fire Conservation Fund, Inc., and is an Eagle Scout. He received a B.S. in Business Management and Marketing from Cornell University and an M.B.A. from the Columbia University with a concentration in Finance. He was born in Bronxville, New York, in 1965, and currently resides in Manhattan with his wife, Cornelia.

AlejandroM. Sanchez, of Florida. Mr. Sanchez is the Chief Executive Officer of the Florida Bankers Association (FBA). He serves as one of the fiduciaries for the FBA pension plan. He has served on the boards of several non-profit organizations in Florida. He currently serves on the Board of Florida Tax Watch, and is a member of the Florida Bar. He served almost five years in the United States Air Force from 1976-81. Mr. Sanchez graduated from Troy State University (B.S., 1981) and the University of Iowa (J.D., 1983). Mr. Sanchez practiced law with the law firm of Sinclair Louis in Miami from 1984-1986, served as Inspector General and General Counsel for the Florida Department of Commerce from 1987-1988, and was Senior Corporate Counsel for GTE Information Services in Tampa from 1989-1993. He joined the FBA in 1993 and was named CEO in 1998. He was born in Havana, Cuba, on January 12, 1958, and currently resides in Florida with his wife, Mercedes, and their two children.

TERRENCEA. DUFFY, of Illinois. Mr. Duffy was elected Chairman of the Board of Chicago Mercantile Holdings Inc. (CME Holdings) and Chairman of the Board of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME) in April 2002. He was Vice Chairman of the Board of CME Holdings, Inc. from its formation in August 2001 and of the Board of CME from 1998 to April 2002. He has been President of TDA Trading, Inc. since 1981. He has been a CME member since 1981 and a Board member since 1995. As the company’s Vice Chairman, Duffy served on the executive, compensation, nominating, strategic planning, and regulatory oversight committees. In 2002, he was appointed by President Bush to serve on a National Saver Summit on Retirement Savings. In 2004, Mr. Duffy was appointed to the Board of Directors of World Business Chicago, the Board of Regents for Mercy Home for Boys and Girls, and the Advisory Council for the Graham School of Management of Saint Xavier University. He is also a member of the Economic Club of Chicago, the Executives’ Club of Chicago, and the Chicago Committee of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Duffy attended the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, studying business administration. He was recognized as one of the top 100 Irish Business Leaders by Irish America Magazine in 2003 and 2004. A Chicago native, Mr. Duffy and his wife have two children.

FundSurfer
12-18-2007, 01:55 PM
https://www.floridabankers.com/StaticPages/Contact_FBA.aspx

Sanchez contact info

James48843
12-18-2007, 03:30 PM
Ooo. Your good.

Thank you.

RAE
12-18-2007, 06:43 PM
Call for information and help:

Can anyone help identify who are the staffers he talks about? Which Seante and House staffers deal with this issue? Which EXACT committe is Trabucco meeeting with? If we know the right committee, we may be able to track down the names of the right staffers.

Thanks for anyone who can help answer that question.

Senator Carl Levin is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Govt. Affairs - here is their website

http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Subcommittees.Home&SubcommitteeID=11&Initials=PSI

I've written to Levin once already about this, and he never replied (and he is my senator, I live in Michigan).

RAE
12-18-2007, 07:05 PM
I had written to FRTIB Exec. Director Greg Long about 3 weeks ago, and just received a reply from him yesterday. Basically, it's nothing we haven't heard already. He says that trading costs are seperate from administrative expenses, and that trading costs are rising because of frequent trading by a small number of TSP members, and that they have to do something about it. He seemed unwilling to acknowledge any of the points I raised in my letter. About the only thing he did acknowledge was that the Code of Fed. Regulations does currently allow unlimited IFT's, that that they would have to go through the formal process to change that (post a notice to the fed. register, accept comments, respond to the comments, etc.). So, we need to watch closely for when they do this, AND FLOOD THEM WITH COMMENTS OPPOSING THIS CHANGE.

I also received a brief e-mail reply yesterday from Jim Sauber of the ETAC, saying that he would raise my concerns in the meeting with FRTIB tomorrow.

Show-me
12-18-2007, 07:39 PM
What I find interesting is that I have not heard from either of my elected representatives.

Miss_Piggy
12-18-2007, 08:10 PM
Call for information and help:

Can anyone help identify who are the staffers he talks about? Which Seante and House staffers deal with this issue? Which EXACT committe is Trabucco meeeting with? If we know the right committee, we may be able to track down the names of the right staffers.

Thanks for anyone who can help answer that question.
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security (FMBIS). List of Members:
http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Subcommittees.Home&SubcommitteeID=9&Initials=FMBIS

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. List of Members:
http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=About.Membership

Last Hearings were in ’03 and ’04 re FRTIB/TSP
http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Search.Home&searchtext=FRTIB&x=19&y=7

This is very interesting – the 7/04 Investigative Letter from Senator Collins into Review of the Contract Between AMS and FRTIB (http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/040707frtib.pdf) http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/040707frtib.pdf (http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/040707frtib.pdf)


The only thing I’m not clear on is that in ‘03 and ‘04 The Committee on Government Affairs, Chaired by Senator Collins handled the investigations into the FRTIB. It seems however that the issues of FRTIB fall under the Subcommittee’s purview. I say go to the top first, the Committee on Government Affairs, Lieberman and Collins since Senator Collins handled the investigations in '04.

Miss_Piggy
12-18-2007, 08:49 PM
PS I'll look for the contact info, teles, fax, addresses if you decide who and/or these are the congressmen you want to contact.

Show-me
12-18-2007, 08:59 PM
anidoc,

I have bookmarked your excellent find for future reference and YES this is a big deal. I plan to contact ETAC about this but want to wait and fight one battle at a time. I feel we control the battle field at this point and I do not want to spread our limited resourses, James, to thin.

Right now we need to STOP the FRTIB from plowing through these Interfund Transfer (IT) restrictions.

We need to get the word out about www.tspshareholder.org (http://www.tspshareholder.org) to all of our TSP friends. I hate to be a "pump monkey", but this is the first and only TSP advocate we have right now. ETAC has been in the shadows since before 1987 and we are making advances in getting them public.


This is from the GAO report on the FRTIB audit. I know I've already posted it, but I really think this is an important point that we have not stressed enough. It might not hurt our cause to include it in our letters. We're simply doing on our own what the L funds were developed to do, and we're doing it better.

“In 2005, FRTIB introduced Lifecycle funds without an amendment to FERSA because it determined that the Lifecycle funds are combinations of the five existing funds tailored to different time horizons for withdrawal. FRTIB developed these funds partly based on its analysis of inefficient participant behavior whereby participants were not periodically shifting, or rebalancing, their investment portfolio or diversifying their balances among the five funds, which the Lifecycle funds would do automatically for the participant."

Show-me
12-18-2007, 09:18 PM
And, I have given both anidoc and Miss Piggy much deserved reputation. Thank you for your time and work. That is what we need a network of TSP participants learning about how our retirement work.

Summary:

FRTIB can pretty much do what every they want as long as no one speaks up. And, even if you speak up they can do what they want.
There are 3.8 million TSP participants and Greg Long has gotten 10 comments about the IT limits. Boy that is weak.
Basically no oversight by the DOL or the Subcommittees that are suppose to keep tabs on TSP. The GAO has made some mighty fine remarks in their report about what a loose ship TSP is and they are not even close to industy standards in reporting and they want to use 401k industry standard on IT.
FRTIB are a bunch of good ol boyz that are Presidential appointees that are protected by law from being held responsible for bad decisions. Golden parachute.

James48843
12-18-2007, 11:48 PM
Thanks Miss Piggy for your work. It is very valuable, and will be in the future.

Right now, we have to do what we can when opportunities arise to hold the high ground in cyberspace.

I would recommend to everyone to visit this website:
http://govexec.com/dailyfed/1207/121707b1.htm

And then do two things:

1. Make a comment in favor of NO LIMITS in the comments section.

2. Email the article to a friend. When enough of you do that, it shows up as a "most emailed article" , and sits with higher visibility for more days. And allows more people to comment on it.

Just a recommendation.

Keep your eye out for news places around the net where they are talking about the limits. IF you see one, post it in this tread. TSPGO is compiling a listing of news articles. We need to get our side of the story in print. If we see an article, I'll work to contact the author and ask for him/her to give equal time.

We have a long way to go, but we CAN win this.

Wasaki
12-19-2007, 09:49 AM
I sent out emails to all members this morning. Already heard from Jim Sauber, "Thanks for your message, I will convey your views to the Board."

FUTURESTRADER
12-19-2007, 06:20 PM
You'd think they'd be a little apologetic or admit that they made a mistake at least, for instituting the unlimted trade policy in the first place. And spending all those millions of OUR money to integrate the system. You ALSO think they'd be DECENT enough to let us use the system we paid for, at least UNTIL it's paid for!! <shaking my head ruefully>

Miss_Piggy
12-19-2007, 07:31 PM
We just got worked over by most of ETAC.....
Here is some insight into the function of the ETAC: A report that elaborates on how the TSP and ETAC should be doing Customer Service Surveys but won't (though the report is a little old 1/05).

Abstract:
TSP managers are also responsible for gathering participant feedback through the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, as required by FERSA. However, while some ETAC representatives provide TSP managers with feedback on draft TSP publications, legislative initiatives, and other issues, ETAC representatives do not systemically solicit feedback from their constituents. Some ETAC representatives may receive sporadic feedback from participants, but ETAC does not conduct surveys of plan participants. As a result, TSP managers are dependent on call center representatives or agency coordinators to forward any feedback they receive from participants. Also, the executive director of ETAC said that TSP participants might be more likely to raise customer service issues with their local representatives, such as union representatives, rather than elevate issues to the national level. Therefore, the extent to which participants within the represented agencies and employee organizations provide feedback to their ETAC representative is unclear. Page 16

FEDERAL THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN: Customer Service Practices Adopted by Private Sector Plan Managers Should Be Considered 1/05 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0538.pdf (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0538.pdf)

07Harley
12-19-2007, 09:38 PM
The squeaky wheel gets the oil! We are not squeaking loud enough or often enough! We have to tie up their e-mail, their telephones and their time to the point that they will give us what we are demanding just to make us go away. It has to be massive enough to get the point across that we are not going away until we get what we want. It has to involve all of them from the top all the way down to the call center reps. They have to spend more time listening to us complain and object to the changes than doing their normal routine. We have them greatly out numbered and we need to use our numbers against them till their phone lines start to smoke!

Show-me
12-19-2007, 10:27 PM
My comments to the govexec.com article here http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38885&sid=2

"We felt the two trades a month allows flexibility for everyone and the ability for everyone to go into the G Fund if they get scared," Ray said. "A percentage fee is certainly an option, but we felt that would hurt the nonfrequent traders."

"Nonfrequent traders" would not trade that often or be charged a fee if we go to 2 free trades and a fee for anything beyond that.

Why is it costing TSP so much to execute trades while the brokerage houses do it so much cheaper? Who is making the extra money on the trades? Barclay?

Come on this is the second largest plan in the WORLD and we don't have some "power" to get cheaper trades. Time to renegotiate our contract with Barclay, update the TSP system, and remove the FRTIB to include Mr. Long, Ms. Ray, and possibly the so called advocates on the ETAC.

Were is the ETAC contact list? Were is web access to them? What is their phone number? Who do I call and can they make a difference?

Why are political appointees on the FRTIB and what did they do to get there? Were is the oversight by Congress and the DOL? Why do the FRTIB sight industry standards that are two trades or less a month but ignore the GAO-05-38 report advising better "Customer Service Practices Adopted by Private Sector Plan Managers"?

Something stinks to high heaven and it ain't the "3000 frequent traders".

James48843
12-20-2007, 05:26 AM
Washington Post today-

Stephen Barr reports on the Federal Page:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902443.html


Time to weigh in with comments, and urge people to:
1. Come sign the petition, and
2. Tell their Union to tell the ETAC Board to oppose limits, and instead find another way!

James48843
12-20-2007, 05:29 AM
Too-Frequent Traders?

By Stephen Barr
Thursday, December 20, 2007; D04

J im Pratt, who works for the Federal Aviation Administration in Michigan, has made 28 stock and bond trades this year through his Thrift Savings Plan account. With the trades, Pratt hopes to build a big nest egg for retirement.

"I know my own experience, my own level of comfort with risk," he said. "I should be able to place the money where it works for me. If I guess wrong, I have to live with the consequences."

Last month, the TSP board voted to crack down on government employees who try to beat the stock market by jumping in and out of TSP funds every few days, saying that the "frequent traders" are driving up plan costs and eroding returns for other participants.

The TSP proposal would limit participants to two trades a month, although employees who think they had made an investment mistake would be allowed to move their money into the plan's risk-free government securities fund.

Pratt objects to the proposal, saying, "The TSP is taking away the freedom to manage your own retirement fund." He has launched an Internet-based campaign ( http://www.tspshareholder.org (http://www.tspshareholder.org/)) to stir opposition to trading limits.

The campaign, which has drawn about 2,200 signatures on a petition, urges federal employees to call and write the TSP and the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, a group of unions and management associations that represent employee interests.
The council met yesterday, and some of the union and management association representatives said they had received several e-mails objecting to the TSP's plan. The council meeting was called by James W. Sauber, council chairman and chief of staff to the National Association of Letter Carriers, to learn about the proposed trading curbs.

Gregory T. Long, the TSP executive director, Tracey A. Ray, TSP's chief investment officer, and Tom Trabucco, the external affairs director, briefed the council and took questions.

Ray said about 3,000 TSP members with large accounts are moving in and out of the market quickly, trading large amounts of dollars that drive up the plan's costs. The board's research showed that participants stepped up transfers among the TSP's five funds about two years ago, she said.

For example, Ray said, on Oct. 19, federal employees transferred $371 million into the TSP's international stock fund, and on Oct. 24 took $391 million out of it. The transactions were made by 2,018 employees, and 323 traded $250,000 or more.
The TSP also found that these 323 employees made 18 trades in a 40-day period, with one person trading more than $1 million back and forth a number of times.
Such trading, with large dollar volumes, has led to higher broker fees and other transaction costs, especially in the international fund, Ray said.

Twenty years ago, Congress designed the TSP, a 401(k)-type plan, on the theory that employees would buy and hold stocks and bonds for the long term as a supplement to their pensions. But the Internet allows employees to more easily track stock markets, swap advice on Web sites and file a buy or sell order from a TSP fund each morning of the workweek.

Several union representatives on the council said they had not heard any complaints about the proposed limits from their members, but Catherine A. Ball of the National Treasury Employees Union said employees at the Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. had voiced concerns about trading limits.

Ball and others suggested that frequent traders might be willing to pay fees on additional transactions, but Long said the staff had opted against fees as too cumbersome to administer.

Ray noted that a 2 percent fee, used by some mutual funds, would have cost the 323 employees who were active traders in October a minimum of $5,000. She also noted that it is common among mutual funds to limit the number of stock trades by investors.

After a lengthy discussion, Sauber said he wanted to take the matter back to his union leaders for more study, and suggested that the council could weigh in with a recommendation next year, before the TSP moves ahead with publishing a proposal rule to impose trading limits.

The advisory council did not object to a TSP request to send letters to frequent traders, asking them to stop or to only make fund transfers through the mail, rather than the Internet.

"This is a retirement fund, not a day-trading account," said Richard N. Brown, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees.



(Note: Sounds like Richard N. Brown needs to hear from his membership. Anyone a member of National Federation of Federal Employees? If so, they need to hear from you! Here is the National Federation of Federal Employees contact number:

Richard Brown
National President
(202) 216-4448 (office)
(202) 898-1865 (fax)

Miss_Piggy
12-20-2007, 09:39 AM
James http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj217/mptsp/smileys/congrats/urock.gif

12%ayear
12-20-2007, 11:16 AM
Tracey Ray, chief investment officer of the TSP, said that under such a plan, a small fee of $8 or $9 wouldn't begin to offset trading costs. Instead, some participants might have to be charged thousands of dollars in fees, depending on the amount and size of their trades http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1207/121907b2.htm

nnuut
12-20-2007, 11:59 AM
Question:
If the TSP takes all of the L-Fund Rebalances and submits them in one large buy, WHY can't they do the same thing with the Member's IFTs on a daily basis and Save Money on their IFTs??????:cool: If it works for the "L" funds it will work for our IFTs, might take longer, but I don't care!!
They think we're STUPID right?:mad:

FUTURESTRADER
12-20-2007, 03:12 PM
I think this is really the bottom line. Would the 3 million non-frequent trading TSP members sell the freedom, the option, of unlimited transfers for $3.95/year?


They are using fuzzy math to impress upon you that transaction expenses rose from $6.7 million in 2005 to $15 million in 2006. However, they ignore that the TSP itself is growing at the rate of $40 billion per year, and that the $15 million transaction cost represents only $3.95 per person per year, or a penny a day per account! [/SIZE][/INDENT]

pogo
12-20-2007, 07:07 PM
I did the same. In fact, I emailed 12 separate members of the ETAC to express my disappointment in them (and re-attached my letter for them to READ again). I'll let you know if I hear back from any of them.

Chairman Sauber apparently ended the meeting with the Thrift Board by stating that he wanted to take the matter back to union leaders for more study. This is at least a step in the right direction. Now, STUDY IT instead of just taking the Thrift Board at their evil word like a bunch of kindergarten children!

The main point that I emphasized in this latest email was the following:


We are all for getting at the TRUTH, and yet the Thrift Board is simply NOT being truthful about how much these sweeping changes will save each TSP member. They are using fuzzy math to impress upon you that transaction expenses rose from $6.7 million in 2005 to $15 million in 2006. However, they ignore that the TSP itself is growing at the rate of $40 billion per year, and that the $15 million transaction cost represents only $3.95 per person per year, or a penny a day per account! PaLadin i'm sorry i used your information here and put it on the (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121902443.htlm) i was so impress with your comments and seeing those other statements on that site i just started typing your ideas please pardon my ignorances.

RAE
12-20-2007, 08:49 PM
This is not encouraging, but it's NOT over, folks. FRTIB still has to attempt to formally change the CFR's, which currently say that "there is no limit on interfund transfers" (and that IFT's may be made through the Thriftline or through the TSP website). They will have to post this proposed change in the Fed. Register, and open a comment period on the proposal, and then consider the comments before announcing a final decision. If we remain united and FLOOD them with comments opposing the change, it's not going to be easy to justify following through with it. Many TSP participants are not even aware of thsi proposal and will not comment, so if those of us who are opposed to this DO comment in large numbers, I am confident that opposition to this proposal will greatly outweigh those that comment in favor of it. So, hang in there, this is a long battle, as James says.

I also think there are potential legal problems for them if they do send out the threatening letters to the 3,000 so-called frequent traders BEFORE they finalize this change in the CFR's. Think about it........warning us to stop doing something that is currently well within the rules governing IFT's, or we will be slapped with additional restrictions, before the rules are actually changed? The attorneys in our group will love that one, I'm sure.

I just e-mailed Mr. James Sauber and told him that I am extremely disappointed that he did not stand up for the rights of TSP members to manage our retirement funds, and that I'm also disappointed he chose to believe everything that FRTIB said about this, rather than doing his own independent research. I hope that others will do the same.

For information, I received a fairly lengthy and candid e-mail reply from Jim Sauber this evening already. In his reply, he noted that the quote attritibuted to him was taken somewhat out of context (just a partial quote out of a much longer statement he made, apparently). He also indicated that there was a very good discussion at the meeting of various positions on this matter, and that ETAC asked for more time to study the issue, and has NOT taken a position on the FRTIB proposal at this time. He went on to say that the Board presented data showing the number of frequent
traders has increased from 146 in 2004 to more than 3,000 this year. It
also reported that trading costs are not related to the number of trades
per say, but the dollar volume of the trades. He went on to say that he will review all of the data presented and will consult with NALC's leadership before taking a position on behalf of NALC. Finally, he said that there will be a formal rule-making process in the months ahead when the
Board issues proposed regulations in the Federal Register. He said that ETAC may or may not take a collective position -- every organization has a right to make its own decision. He urges those of us concerned about this issue to contract the union or employee
association that represents your agency to convey your views.

I still wish that ETAC would conduct their own independent, comprehensive review of data on TSP expenses and trading costs (rather than simply reviewing the limited and incomplete data provided to them by FRTIB), but I do find his reply to be forthright, and at least somewhat encouraging. Folks, we need to continue to write to the members of ETAC and express our views......Mr. Sauber and others are looking for that kind of input right now. I think one of the main points we should make is that even if there is a perceived problem with trading costs, there MUST be other reasonable options to consider that would address this....such as a reasonable fee per trade (beyond 2 or so per month). The argument by FRTIB and Tracey Ray that imposing such a trading fee would be "cumbersome" and that it would have to be in the thousands of dollars per trade is simply nonsense, and I think we can demonstrate that with the data we now have.

Don't give up the ship folks, this battle has a long way to go yet. Write to the ETAC reps while they are studying this issue!!

Show-me
12-20-2007, 09:07 PM
If I miss any questions directed to me please be forgiving as I have been following a lot of rabbit trails.

I think the GAO need to get involve in a more specific study of the "Trading Cost of TSP Compared to Private Industry". Perhaps this could explain how the second largest retirement plan in the world can not get a better deal in executing trades.

wv-girl
12-20-2007, 09:09 PM
For information, I received a fairly lengthy and candid e-mail reply from Jim Sauber this evening already. In his reply, he noted that the quote attritibuted to him was taken somewhat out of context (just a partial quote out of a much longer statement he made, apparently). He also indicated that there was a very good discussion at the meeting of various positions on this matter, and that ETAC asked for more time to study the issue, and has NOT taken a position on the FRTIB proposal at this time. He went on to say that the Board presented data showing the number of frequent
traders has increased from 146 in 2004 to more than 3,000 this year. It
also reported that trading costs are not related to the number of trades
per say, but the dollar volume of the trades. He went on to say that he will review all of the data presented and will consult with NALC's leadership before taking a position on behalf of NALC. Finally, he said that there will be a formal rule-making process in the months ahead when the
Board issues proposed regulations in the Federal Register. He said that ETAC may or may not take a collective position -- every organization has a right to make its own decision. He urges those of us concerned about this issue to contract the union or employee
association that represents your agency to convey your views.

I still wish that ETAC would conduct their own independent, comprehensive review of data on TSP expenses and trading costs (rather than simply reviewing the limited and incomplete data provided to them by FRTIB), but I do find his reply to be forthright, and at least somewhat encouraging. Folks, we need to continue to write to the members of ETAC and express our views......Mr. Sauber and others are looking for that kind of input right now. I think one of the main points we should make is that even if there is a perceived problem with trading costs, there MUST be other reasonable options to consider that would address this....such as a reasonable fee per trade (beyond 2 or so per month). The argument by FRTIB and Tracey Ray that imposing such a trading fee would be "cumbersome" and that it would have to be in the thousands of dollars per trade is simply nonsense, and I think we can demonstrate that with the data we now have.

Don't give up the ship folks, this battle has a long way to go yet. Write to the ETAC reps while they are studying this issue!!

One would think that Barclay's is large enough to secure the # of shares needed for high volume trades without too much trouble. Just another way to make $.
Just another way for the brokers to stick it to you.

Show-me
12-20-2007, 09:24 PM
FYI.

Total trading cost of the C, S, I, and F Fund from January through September is $14,382,000. The trading cost spread out to each TSP participant would be $3.78 so far this year.

Show-me
12-20-2007, 09:27 PM
FYI.

Total trading cost of the C, S, I, and F Fund from January through September is $14,382,000. The trading cost spread out to each TSP participant would be $3.78 so far this year.

Put that in your emails to ETAC.

FUTURESTRADER
12-20-2007, 11:08 PM
One would think that Barclay's is large enough to secure the # of shares needed for high volume trades without too much trouble. Just another way to make $.
Just another way for the brokers to stick it to you.

Brokers will tell you just enough to get you to open an account. Conspiracy theorist here. ALOT of money on the table here.

Show-me
12-21-2007, 06:23 AM
Paladin,
You're good with the spoken word. Keep on hammering away!!!

Wildboar53
12-21-2007, 10:04 AM
Paladin,

You do indeed have a way with words. I too will be using your well put arguements in my contacts with those around me not yet aware of the TSP's proposal.

ATCJeff
12-21-2007, 10:31 AM
Here is an important fact that needs to be addressed by our letters.

TSP officials keep referring to the so called 3,000 account holders that are driving up trading cost. I would say that most of these members are nearing retirement and now are actively managing their accounts. I believe I read that most of these accounts are over $300,000.

TSP says the L funds re-balancing is a small fraction of the overall trading cost. Move forward in time 20 years from now, the L funds will be a bigger trading cost then the 3,000 members are now. Were talking over 500,000 account holders are in the L funds. This number will grow along with their account balances, especially if they restrict our number of IFT's. What will TSP officials do then?

Something to ponder.

sugarandspice
12-21-2007, 11:54 AM
....... I asked a number of questions, all of them to get clarification on most of the issues you raised in your letter.......
[/SIZE]

These kind of responses are extremely deceptive from people who represent other people.

He asked questions to get clarification. He did not ask questions to debate, argue, or seek change or suggest change.

This might be an example.
ETAC Member : "What exactly do you mean by 2 trades a month, is it 24 a year?"

FRTIB: "Yes that what it averages to."

ETAC Member: "Oh OK I just wanted to clarify that. Thanks." "And 1 more thing if I may,
Is it true that these 3000 tsp traders are really driving up the cost for all members or can it be related to something else?"

FRTIB: "Yes its true and it is not anything else."

ETAC Member: "Well that clears alot up for me. Thank you for your clarification. I have no other issues that need to be clarified at this time."

The truth is he didn't make any waves. But wanted to "appear" like he addressed concerns.

Getting clarification can be done by the monkeys. It only means that you don't understand something.

pogo
12-21-2007, 06:11 PM
Here's another response that I received from a different ETAC member:

The outcome and final regulations as to the changes being proposed by the TSP Board have not come to a conclusion as you indicate. Mr. Long was asked to prepare the language to be submitted to the Federal Register and provide it to the ETAC for comment and recommended changes. There was no motion or action taken by the ETAC at our meeting yesterday.

I have taken time to review all e-mails I have received on this issue including yours. It is my duty to represent all of the members of the TSP of which there are close to four million. I respect your right to speak out but I also feel that your interpretation of yesterday's meeting is incorrect. Several board members have exchanged ideas and options since yesterday's meeting. While we will have an opportunity to revise the proposal being made the public will also have a comment period when filed on the Federal Register.

Yesterday we received a lot of data and we heard a lot of options. I will continue to examine all the data I receive and in the end I will support what I think will be the best solution for every TSP member.

Have a great Christmas season and New Year! And please understand that it is my duty to represent to the best of my ability with the information I obtain to make a good decision for all TSP members.
i would love to see the information that he gets from the thrift board. is there a way to get that infromation in a reasonable amount of time

wv-girl
12-21-2007, 07:09 PM
Here's another response that I received from a different ETAC member:

The outcome and final regulations as to the changes being proposed by the TSP Board have not come to a conclusion as you indicate. Mr. Long was asked to prepare the language to be submitted to the Federal Register and provide it to the ETAC for comment and recommended changes. There was no motion or action taken by the ETAC at our meeting yesterday.

I have taken time to review all e-mails I have received on this issue including yours. It is my duty to represent all of the members of the TSP of which there are close to four million. I respect your right to speak out but I also feel that your interpretation of yesterday's meeting is incorrect. Several board members have exchanged ideas and options since yesterday's meeting. While we will have an opportunity to revise the proposal being made the public will also have a comment period when filed on the Federal Register.

Yesterday we received a lot of data and we heard a lot of options. I will continue to examine all the data I receive and in the end I will support what I think will be the best solution for every TSP member.

Have a great Christmas season and New Year! And please understand that it is my duty to represent to the best of my ability with the information I obtain to make a good decision for all TSP members.

Please 'splain the procedure of the Federal Register? Am I to understand that ONLY comments can be made? What good does that do? Seems that by the time it is published it will be too late?
tia

Miss_Piggy
12-21-2007, 07:48 PM
Please 'splain the procedure of the Federal Register? Am I to understand that ONLY comments can be made? What good does that do? Seems that by the time it is published it will be too late?
tia
Not to suggest it is all an easy process to understand but check this site for a beginning understanding. Basically when the TSP Board decides what course of action they want to take they will publish it as a Proposed Rule (PR) and those affected will have time to submit their comments/criticisms before the PR is adopted as a Final Rule (FR).

How can the public participate in rulemaking?
Citizens have a right to express their views before an agency adopts final rules Each Federal Register document tells you:

Whether comments are requested
How, when and where to comment Writing effective comments?

Type neatly and cite rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading; FR cite)
Include your name and address
Follow directions—agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or label comments with CFR parts or section numbers
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/tutorial/online-html.html#public

wv-girl
12-21-2007, 08:08 PM
Not to suggest it is all an easy process to understand but check this site for a beginning understanding. Basically when the TSP Board decides what course of action they want to take they will publish it as a Proposed Rule (PR) and those affected will have time to submit their comments/criticisms before the PR is adopted as a Final Rule (FR).

How can the public participate in rulemaking?
Citizens have a right to express their views before an agency adopts final rules Each Federal Register document tells you:

Whether comments are requested
How, when and where to comment Writing effective comments?

Type neatly and cite rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading; FR cite)
Include your name and address
Follow directions—agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or label comments with CFR parts or section numbers
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/tutorial/online-html.html#public

Thanks for the info(I think). But the real question remains.. does the public suggestions/comments acutally affect the pr outcom? At the very least can it be delayed? Do they really consider our opinions before rubber stamping it? Has there ever been a case where there was such major opposition that a pr was actually dropped?

Miss_Piggy
12-21-2007, 08:53 PM
...Has there ever been a case where there was such major opposition that a pr was actually dropped?
Beyond my scope of knowledge.

Show-me
12-21-2007, 08:53 PM
There is a 60 day comment period and we need to flood them with comments during that time. No waiting until the last minute. Details will come out in the Annual Statement for TSP.

Stoplight
12-22-2007, 07:13 PM
Thanks for the info(I think). But the real question remains.. does the public suggestions/comments acutally affect the pr outcom? At the very least can it be delayed? Do they really consider our opinions before rubber stamping it? Has there ever been a case where there was such major opposition that a pr was actually dropped?

WV-Girl, Miss Piggy, and all,

Having been involved in some Agency rule-making in the past, I may have something to contribute here (cause it’s certainly not my investing prowess ! :))

First, my disclaimers :
1. I’ve only been involved on the fringes, usually from just the technical side....never been deeply involved by being one of the "inside the Beltway"-types.

2. Every Agency does things a little different....my experience may not match how the Board does their rule making.

Anyway, here are my comments :

For a good basic review of the rule making process, as well as current and past rule making, there is a good gov’t site here : www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/) Check out the FAQ under "How to Use This Site" for basic info on the process, etc.

It’s not mandatory that an Agency use this site, but many do....I see the FRTIB (Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board) DOES have many items posted...you can do a search on "FRTIB" to see ‘em

The Bad News :

Although every comment should be addressed, very rarely (if ever !) do individual comments to the docket carry much weight. Usually, all the comments that come in and raise the same issue on the proposal are lumped together, and addressed with one response....volume/number of responses making a point doesn’t seem to matter. That one response is usually targeted to support the rule making’s conclusion...which makes sense (if you think about it objectively), since the "goal" is to refute the point, not address the number of responses !

Lawyers control the process (surprise, surprise !) The "wordsmithing" is unbelievable !

The Good News

The web site noted above has an alert notification one can sign up for, so we should be able to find out when the FRTIB posts their proposal (assuming they use the site this time !) Also, comments to the docket can be submitted on-line, making it easier for us to submit our concerns.

A typical rule making affects an Agency’s area of operation, and thus generate a relatively small number of responses.....since the changes by the FRTIB affect ALL Fed employees, and retirees, I can see a boatload of comments to the docket coming in (BUT....see above !)

In my experience, comments from organizations (like the ETAC, unions, etc) have more impact than individual comments.

All rule-making that I’ve been involved with has had to go through OMB for "approval" or sign off...that may be another avenue to make us heard, by contacting OMB...just a guess, though.


This is a political process ! The FRTIB is a "political" body... IMHO, one question from a Congress member (House or Senate) is worth way more than either an individual comment OR an organizational comment ! The point being....while it’s great to contact the FRTIB or the reps on the ETAC, you might also consider contacting your elected rep to Congress....particularly in those areas that have a large number of Fed employees, like Maryland and Virginia (and who seem to be particularly sensitive when they start dorking around with Fed employees !) Also, when the head of an Agency is a political appointee, and they are questioned by Congress, they become much more sensitive to which way the political wind is blowing....and may "sit" on the rule-making until the crap blows over, or kill it altogether....

Anyway, I hope this helps.....

Stoplight...

pogo
12-22-2007, 07:20 PM
thanks stoplight if you see us going the wrong way feel free to jump in or continue to investigate the problen we are having with the thrift board. again thanks

Art2007
12-24-2007, 10:33 AM
What we can do to fight back:

1. You can take the last newsletter (very informative) at www.tspshareholder.org (http://www.tspshareholder.org) and send it to every federal employee you know.

2. We need to write our Senators and Congressmen, but ESPECIALLY the ones on the following committees that have direct oversight on TSP:

a. Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia

b. House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia

The members for the Senate Subcommitte are: Daniel K. Akaka Chairman (D-HI) George V. Voinovich Ranking Member (R-OH) Carl Levin (D-MI) Ted Stevens (R-AK) Thomas R. Carper (D-DE) Tom Coburn (R-OK) Mark L. Pryor (D-AR) John Warner (R-VA) Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA)

The members of the House Subcommittee are: Danny K. Davis, Chairman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John P. Sarbanes, Elijah E. Cummings, Dennis J.Kucinich, Wm. Lacy Clay, Stephen F. Lynch, Kenny Marchant, John M. McHugh John L. Mica, Darrell E. Issa, Jim Jordan

The Senate members all accept email from anyone. The House members only accept email from the zip codes they serve. But a short letter with a copy of the most recent newsletter attached would be very helpful.

RAE
12-24-2007, 11:28 AM
WV-Girl, Miss Piggy, and all,


For a good basic review of the rule making process, as well as current and past rule making, there is a good gov’t site here : www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/) Check out the FAQ under "How to Use This Site" for basic info on the process, etc.


The Good News

The web site noted above has an alert notification one can sign up for, so we should be able to find out when the FRTIB posts their proposal (assuming they use the site this time !) Also, comments to the docket can be submitted on-line, making it easier for us to submit our concerns.


Stoplight...

Stoplight - I went to the www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) website and attempted to set up an e-mail notification for any proposed rule postings by FRTIB....but was unable to figure out how to do it. When you click on "e-mail notifications", it takes you to a narrative that explains what that means, but no instructions on how to actually set it up!! Can you help? I think it is very important that many of us get set up for this, so that we know as soon as FRTIB posts something related to the IFT restriction proposed rule. Thanks.

ayla
12-24-2007, 02:23 PM
I registered for some type of notification - not sure though because it isn't clear whether I've registered for all pertinent FRTIB notifications or just the one I clicked on.

I went to: http://www.regulations.gov

Next, I did a search for FRTIB

Next, I found the little icon that looks like an envelope.

Next, I clicked on the envelope icon and got a screen requesting my email and which type of notices I wanted. I clicked all of them (referring to FRTIB).

Now the real confusion lies in the fact that there is a little envelope icon by every single event such as "sunshine act" (which I don't care about). I found an entry for "Meetings: Employee Thrift Advisory Council " even though it was dated for 2006 and clicked on the "envelope Icon" close by. Then filled in the form and checked all boxes and clicked on "submit".

My intuition tells me that because I check all boxes, that will cover everything and not just the initial box for "meetings" that I clicked but there is no guarantee that this is remotely like an intuitive process.

Got a notice on the screen that I would be emailed something in order to complete my registration. That was 15 minutes ago and I haven't been emailed anything yet so this isn't an "instantaneous" process. I'll post if I get something.

tinyrul:
http://tinyurl.com/yt97on

Url with embedded carriage return in case the tiny URL above expires:

http://www.regulations.gov/
fdmspublic/component/main?main=Notification&d=FRTIB-2006-000

Stoplight
12-24-2007, 09:14 PM
There is a 60 day comment period and we need to flood them with comments during that time. No waiting until the last minute. Details will come out in the Annual Statement for TSP.


Show-me: Not sure where you got the info that it'll be a 60 day comment period.....in my experience, it can be 30....it can be 90....or whatever the Agency decides ! It's like a personnel vacancy announcement where the Agency already has someone picked....they advertise it for the bare minimum, and hope nobody with a "veteran's preference" applies :mad:

Also, "flood them with comments" can be easily addressed if the "flood" all says the same thing (see my other post !)

Thanks for the work you do !

Stoplight...

Stoplight
12-24-2007, 09:26 PM
thanks stoplight if you see us going the wrong way feel free to jump in or continue to investigate the problen we are having with the thrift board. again thanks

Thanks for the kind words, pogo ! I'm certainly NOT someone to provide advice to "us" on which way to go with this ! All I can do is provide my experience to the discussion, and collectively, we do what we think needs to be done :)

The beauty of this MB is that we DO have many folks with a wealth of knowledge, in a ton of different areas, from many different agencies....AND they are willing to share with the rest of us ! I'm just happy to kick in what little I can !

Stoplight...

Stoplight
12-24-2007, 09:32 PM
Art2007,

Great post ! As I noted, it's a political process, and you've given us good concrete names to target, as well as our local reps !

....oh, and by the way.....welcome to the Board :D !

Stoplight...

Show-me
12-24-2007, 09:41 PM
Art2007,

Welcome from me also. Nice post.

Stoplight
12-24-2007, 09:53 PM
Stoplight - I went to the www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) website and attempted to set up an e-mail notification for any proposed rule postings by FRTIB....but was unable to figure out how to do it. When you click on "e-mail notifications", it takes you to a narrative that explains what that means, but no instructions on how to actually set it up!! Can you help? I think it is very important that many of us get set up for this, so that we know as soon as FRTIB posts something related to the IFT restriction proposed rule. Thanks.

RAE,

Sorry....I guess it's a case of me posting my note before I actually checked out how to do it, and did it myself ! :confused:

I see what you're saying....see below !

[quote=ayla;139374]I registered for some type of notification - not sure though because it isn't clear whether I've registered for all pertinent FRTIB notifications or just the one I clicked on.

I went to: http://www.regulations.gov

Next, I did a search for FRTIB

Next, I found the little icon that looks like an envelope.

Next, I clicked on the envelope icon and got a screen requesting my email and which type of notices I wanted. I clicked all of them (referring to FRTIB).

Now the real confusion lies in the fact that there is a little envelope icon by every single event such as "sunshine act" (which I don't care about). I found an entry for "Meetings: Employee Thrift Advisory Council " even though it was dated for 2006 and clicked on the "envelope Icon" close by. Then filled in the form and checked all boxes and clicked on "submit".

My intuition tells me that because I check all boxes, that will cover everything and not just the initial box for "meetings" that I clicked but there is no guarantee that this is remotely like an intuitive process.

Got a notice on the screen that I would be emailed something in order to complete my registration. That was 15 minutes ago and I haven't been emailed anything yet so this isn't an "instantaneous" process. I'll post if I get something.



Ayla,

Thanks for the note on what you did....I followed along through your steps, and I think I see what's happening....

It appears that the web site's "email notification" is for when you want to be notified, by email, when anything new is posted to a SPECIFIC DOCKET NUMBER. BUT....each "action" by the FRTIB will probably have a different docket number, so this won't work for what we need !

I THINK what we need to sign up for, is the "RSS Feed", but I'm old and gray, and I'm not sure how to do this :) ! I'll post a "help" request in another forum, and see if some of these young, computer-literate folks here on the MB can help us out :D I suspect it means, though, that we MAY have to wade through every agency's postings, until we see the one we want ! Once the FRTIB's announcement is out, and a specific docket number is established, then we can use the "email notification" feature to keep up to date.....make sense ????

Stoplight...

07Harley
12-25-2007, 10:38 AM
This is a portion of what they submitted on Sep 7th, 2007 With a cut off date of Sep 21st, 2007 for comments. (2 weeks for comments)



SUMMARY: The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (Agency) is
amending its regulations to reflect the Agency's use of account numbers
in place of Social Security numbers as the primary way of identifying
participants' TSP accounts as well as the replacement of the Personal
Identification Numbers (PINs) with passwords to enter the Account
Access portion of the TSP Web site. These changes represent enhanced
security measures for the TSP.

DATES: This rule is effective October 1, 2007, without further action,
unless adverse comment is received by September 21, 2007. If adverse
comment is received, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal of the
rule in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to Thomas K. Emswiler, General Counsel,
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 1250 H Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Agency's Fax number is (202) 942-1676.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Graziano on (202) 942-1660.

Art2007
12-26-2007, 04:48 AM
Folks:

If you want to register your displeasure with TSP limits, you can make comments to Congress directly to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform @ http://oversight.house.gov/contact/.

If we could get everyone to do this it would be very helpful!

Art2007
12-26-2007, 05:06 AM
Does anyone know the mothly or daily costs of TSP reblancing all the L Funds vs. the I fund? Would be very interesting to know!

Art2007
12-26-2007, 05:27 AM
The 2006 contractor study of the TSP funds said this:

"The costs of administering the TSP’s investment options are well below industry average at less than 0.05%. Investment fees for most other plans range from 0.50% to 0.80%. We rarely observe total investment fees below 0.45% for participant defined contribution plans."

So what is their problem? Leave the limits as they are!

07Harley
12-26-2007, 10:50 AM
The October Minutes of the FRTIB board meeting shows at the bottom of page 1 of attachment 1 that all fund costs have been going down each
year by an equal percentage. (including the I-fund)


http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/minutes-board-member-meetings_2007Oct.pdf

Randal
12-26-2007, 12:00 PM
It seems as though the folks at TSP have already made up their minds regarding the amount of TSP transactions one can make. My concern is for the individual's that pay for the premium services and how it will effect their transactions and limit the amount of return.

James48843
12-26-2007, 02:22 PM
It seems as though the folks at TSP have already made up their minds regarding the amount of TSP transactions one can make. My concern is for the individual's that pay for the premium services and how it will effect their transactions and limit the amount of return.


Never give in. Period. Never give up. Period.

There is NO LIMIT imposed at this time, and it is up to US to change the future.

We CAN change the future.

Never, never, never, never, never give in.


P.S.- Last newsletter was good.

The next newsletter will be better. It's got hotlinks to audio quotes from TSP staff, and you can tell they are beginning to feel the heat.

Never, never, never, never, never, never give up.

Winston Churchill said that. And he was right.

Art2007
12-26-2007, 03:51 PM
My wife and I spent two hours writing our Senators and Congressmen, but more importantly, we wrote the Senate and House subcommittees who have oversight of the TSP and demanded subcommittee hearings.

When the Board starts getting inquiries from Congress and hears about possible hearings, we may get their attention. You may recall a few years back that TSP was hammered over management in these same committees!

I posted the committees and and their members in an earlier post.

We intend to write them again in 3 weeks time with different points. We limit are letter to 1 page.

If anybody has a the name, fax, email, address of Ms. Ray and also the external affairs guy, post it, I will write them also!

ayla
12-26-2007, 04:10 PM
FYI - When I talked to my senator's office (Senator Hutchison) a month or so ago (when this started), the person said they definitely preferred email. The web has a form for most of their offices that you type in directly (don't need their email address), limit of 10,000 characters if I remember right, the form will tell you when your limit is up.

You can still send mail thru the post office but because of the Anthrax scare, the person I talked to said it takes almost a month for them to get any hardcopy mail because of the requirements for all the mail to be inspected thoroughly.


My wife and I spent two hours writing our Senators and Congressmen, but more importantly, we wrote the Senate and House subcommittees who have oversight of the TSP and demanded subcommittee hearings.

When the Board starts getting inquiries from Congress and hears about possible hearings, we may get their attention. You may recall a few years back that TSP was hammered over management in these same committees!

I posted the committees and and their members in an earlier post.

We intend to write them again in 3 weeks time with different points. We limit are letter to 1 page.

If anybody has a the name, fax, email, address of Ms. Ray and also the external affairs guy, post it, I will write them also!

nnuut
12-26-2007, 04:35 PM
Never give in. Period. Never give up. Period.

There is NO LIMIT imposed at this time, and it is up to US to change the future.

We CAN change the future.

Never, never, never, never, never give in.


P.S.- Last newsletter was good.

The next newsletter will be better. It's got hotlinks to audio quotes from TSP staff, and you can tell they are beginning to feel the heat.

Never, never, never, never, never, never give up.

Winston Churchill said that. And he was right.

James, just read the Dec. 26 Newsletter. RIGHT ON THE MONEY!! Excellent work, if I was a TSP Member and knew nothing about the PROBLEM with the Proposed rule change I definitely would be on our side after reading the Newsletter. Keep up the good work. Like my Dad used to say, when you're RIGHT you're RIGHT, NEVER GIVE UP!!! A PIT BULL mindset!
Norman:nuts: