Now this really ticks me off

[CountryBoy]

Sorry if this has already been posted. :mad:

http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1472/

Like we're just playing a big game. It's effective today. Man I'm pissed.

CB

[ChemEng]

And so it begins...

[hessian]

Do they have the authority to just issue "interim regulations" as they "feel like it? [or] "regulation to be published in the Federal Register." (I thought they were calling it an "Interim Rule," - which is it?) But regardless - [There has to be specific legal AND congressional authority for this]!
Without this, anyone could, say, I issue an "Interim regulation" or, issue notice in the "Federal Register", for anything! [I hereby prohibit sleeping between the hours of 9:00PM and 5:00 AM, because I find it wasteful of productivity!] What?

"The new interim regulation is effective today, January 7, 2008."
Anyone recieve notice of this date beforehand?

[Rod]

Pertaining to the blog following the article... Judging by all the comments, the majority of those folks are IGNORANT.

[nnuut]

I really think it is the result of creative editing on the part of our friend Mr. Smith!:cool:

[Viva_La_Migra]

Pertaining to the blog following the article... Judging by all the comments, there majority of those folks are IGNORANT.

I responded to some of the comments on the blog. We'll see if FEDSMITH allows my comments to be read. I'm betting that he wants to control the discussion and won't allow mine to show up. I basically told them that they were all mushrooms eating up the dung fed to them by the FRTIB. I told them that I am doing to same thing that the L funds are doing, but I'm getting better returns.

[hessian]

Rod,
Ignorant bloggers - absolutely! (if not TR cultists)!

Nnutt,
Creative editing, possibly. I'd sure like to see the actual "FR Regulation" - that Smith refers to!!

I think we all need to know with absolute certainty, whether the limits are now imposed - and that TSP is no longer going to allow us to maintain our own money as an Investment Plan - as initially specified.

Thanks both.
I'm sure we all hope Smith's article its not accurate!
VR

[RAE]

And so it begins...

Although FRTIB said in their Fed. Register notice that the proposed effective date (for implementing the new rule allowing them to send warning letters to about 3,000 "frequent traders) was Jan. 7th, I don't believe it can actually be implemented until they post another notice in the Fed. Register, publishing the Final Rule. When they do that, I believe they need to disclose what comments they received on the proposed rule, and a response to those comments. Anidoc, is this how you understand the process to work? If so,we should be looking for another notice in the Fed. Register, with the Final Rule.

Here's the kicker, though: they clearly violated at least one of the requirements for posting notices when they made this Dec. 27 posting. The regs require that every notice must specify a comment period, and they failed to do that.
Several of us pointed that out to them, in the comments we submitted on the interim rule. Therefore, if they do not withdraw or at least amend this
notice to correct that error, any subsequent decisions they make that are based upon this Interim Rule will not hold up, if challenged.
I am almost hoping they do NOT withdraw or amend it, because if they don't, we can challenge the validity of any Final Rule on the IFT restrictions later (as being a product of a flawed process, which they knew was flawed), and we will prevail.

I'm waiting to see what their next move is............

[350zCommTech]

Pertaining to the blog following the article... Judging by all the comments, there majority of those folks are IGNORANT.


I like the comment from the guy complaining about how we frequent traders cost him .08%.:laugh:

I would like to ask him how much he lose last Friday.:rolleyes:

I think that once we are in a full blown bear market, like in 2001, these folks will have a change of heart. Besides, the markets are always looking for bagholders. These people are perfect for that.

[Rod]

I guarantee the majority of those folks (not all) couldn't even tell you their current allocation.

And that one blogger who said that if we wanted to "trade" we should take it to the "stock market".

Guess (s)he doesn't realize what the C, S, and I funds are!:rolleyes:

Like I had said... IGNORANT!

[hessian]

It would be great if we could educate Mr. Smith. Then he, in turn, could provide at least a rudimentary explanation of what the different types of Investing are.

Spaf explained this well today in Griffin's AcctTalk:
- "There are several type of trades: [I]Position, Swing, and Day."

[For those that made such ignorant comments, Mr. Smith should explain for them - that we are NOT:
"Day traders [These folks] take on the most risk, trade as a full-time business, and trade [intra-]day". They never hold a position in a security overnight!"

Our efforts, by comparison: try to secure optimal Positions, or Allocations / mix of Funds (often by dollar-cost-averaging investing) - in hopes to maximize our Account's profit is all.

[Quote:]
Originally Posted by anidoc http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=141397#post141397)
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, DO NOT CALL INTERFUND TRANSFERS - DAY TRADING! :confused:

[James48843]

I am working on educating Mr. Smith.

Patience, please.

In the meantime, please feel free to go over to FEDSMITH.COM and tell the commentors to question the math, and find out for themselves. And please do so RESPECTFULLY.

This is a long-term struggle. One small step at a time.

By the way- now would be a good time to kick a few in to the Chip-in account over at tspshareholder.org. Part of educating Mr. Smith will be to become one of his advertisers. That is a bit costly, but will be worth the investment if he starts to actually look at the data. I'm working on that now. He also reaches another 37,000 federal employees with his newsletter. If we can reach those people with facts, rather than with one-sidedness, we'll make some progress.

Thanks

[ChemEng]

I'm waiting to see what their next move is............

This is certainly the first move. If no one calls their balk, then they have clear sailing. If someone bites, then they shrug it off as just being another inaccurate leak.

[GGal]

The new interim regulation is effective today, January 7, 2008.

[nnuut]

Although FRTIB said in their Fed. Register notice that the proposed effective date (for implementing the new rule allowing them to send warning letters to about 3,000 "frequent traders) was Jan. 7th, I don't believe it can actually be implemented until they post another notice in the Fed. Register, publishing the Final Rule. When they do that, I believe they need to disclose what comments they received on the proposed rule, and a response to those comments. Anidoc, is this how you understand the process to work? If so,we should be looking for another notice in the Fed. Register, with the Final Rule.

Here's the kicker, though: they clearly violated at least one of the requirements for posting notices when they made this Dec. 27 posting. The regs require that every notice must specify a comment period, and they failed to do that.
Several of us pointed that out to them, in the comments we submitted on the interim rule. Therefore, if they do not withdraw or at least amend this
notice to correct that error, any subsequent decisions they make that are based upon this Interim Rule will not hold up, if challenged.
I am almost hoping they do NOT withdraw or amend it, because if they don't, we can challenge the validity of any Final Rule on the IFT restrictions later (as being a product of a flawed process, which they knew was flawed), and we will prevail.

I'm waiting to see what their next move is............
AND get BACK PAY!

[GuilRL]

I am working on educating Mr. Smith.

Patience, please.

In the meantime, please feel free to go over to FEDSMITH.COM and tell the commentors to question the math, and find out for themselves. And please do so RESPECTFULLY.



Jim:

I applaud your patience! Personally I have no time for them again. I vowed never to go to read anything that FedSmith publishes again, as a result of what I perceive to be flawed reporting.

I think that you cannot make a horse drink water, even after you have led them to it, and this is what I perceive to be the case with them. May others also recognize my opinion of them for themselves.

[hessian]

All,
Really good perspectives. The difficult thing for us (those of us less involved in the "challenge" process) - is not understanding the strategy.
I'll opine, that I also question, the tactic of giving Mr. Smith money (as advertising) in order to have him pass on accurate facts (as GuilRL suggests) - but that's just another person's opinion. I'm more-than-willing to send in money to a "Chip-in account," but personally I know what lawyers charge these days!

I do agree with having patience (as they do seem to have "shot themselves". Now that the "Interim Rule" date has passed, as RAE expressed, I need to "see what their next move is" - it will likely be VERY soon!

I'd suggest we all need to know when something/anything happens to any of us on this Message Board...
(a TSP e-account lock-out?, an official letter? etc.)?
Do we have any way to know?
How many folks have already gone past the limits for the month?
Do we ignore the above "Rule", and continue as usual?
-Just respectfully, wondering, how should we continue now? :)