PDA

View Full Version : To TSP Members - RESTRICTED ACCOUNTS



Braveheart
04-03-2008, 05:26 PM
First of all I spoke to a Government Official and off the record he stated the letter regarding the FRTIB dated March 13, 2008 (Thursday) did not give anyone the proper 30 DAY NOTICE as most Government Agencies Require. Most members would not receive the Certified Letter until (Monday) March 17, 2008. This would give that person 10 Business Days of Notice.

The second part of your case is when an Official Notice of Action is sent by both Certified and First Class Mail therefore there is no question the Official Notice was Properly Mailed and Received but the FRTIB made that second mistake. If you signed for it then they have that record to clear that 1 part but... They have no proof you received the letter unless it was returned to sender. They never mailed a 1st class letter with it and Mr. Long is quoted everywhere stating letters were sent Certified Mail that is it. If it's refused the Letter will be marked refused which would hurt your case in that it was as if you knew the contents of the letter. If the letter was returned to sender "Unclaimed" time expired you have a case.

If they were in Court one would question what was the rush of March 31, 2008. April 12, 2008 would be 30 days and that would be the Official 30th day.

Take this information and use it !!!

troxel
04-03-2008, 07:50 PM
First of all I spoke to a Government Official and off the record he stated the letter regarding the FRTIB dated March 13, 2008 (Thursday) did not give anyone the proper 30 DAY NOTICE as most Government Agencies Require. Most members would not receive the Certified Letter until (Monday) March 17, 2008. This would give that person 10 Business Days of Notice.


The quick timing is notable. After receiving my lock-out letter I was outraged because I felt i was in good-faith following their requirements of 2 ETF's and then unlimited into G. I talked to TSP and they looked at my trades and _agreed_ they did not know why I was locked out and suggest I call the board.

I called the board they informed me that there are two policies - 1) interim and 2) final. However, this was never ever clearly delineated in their warning letter, in the FAQ or the interim policy PDF link on the TSP website. I showed this to Kevin at the board and all he could do was stutter and agree that it was not clear and suggested I send in a letter explaining this.

I also explained to Kevin that even the folks at TSP were confused. If the people responsible for customer service are confused on the policy how do they expect the customer not to be confused!

Further I asked Kevin what is the logic behind two subtly different policies - he had no answer and didn't know why.

I responded immediately with a letter, I have not heard anything back - meanwhile I am locked out.

They have very quickly responded to implementing lock-out software, but not to addressing the question that they did not unambiguously define the rules. Since they are requiring communications to be via letters they simply did not allow sufficient time for objections to be heard.

RAE
04-03-2008, 08:17 PM
The quick timing is notable. After receiving my lock-out letter I was outraged because I felt i was in good-faith following their requirements of 2 ETF's and then unlimited into G. I talked to TSP and they looked at my trades and _agreed_ they did not know why I was locked out and suggest I call the board.

I called the board they informed me that there are two policies - 1) interim and 2) final. However, this was never ever clearly delineated in their warning letter, in the FAQ or the interim policy PDF link on the TSP website. I showed this to Kevin at the board and all he could do was stutter and agree that it was not clear and suggested I send in a letter explaining this.

I also explained to Kevin that even the folks at TSP were confused. If the people responsible for customer service are confused on the policy how do they expect the customer not to be confused!

Further I asked Kevin what is the logic behind two subtly different policies - he had no answer and didn't know why.

I responded immediately with a letter, I have not heard anything back - meanwhile I am locked out.

They have very quickly responded to implementing lock-out software, but not to addressing the question that they did not unambiguously define the rules. Since they are requiring communications to be via letters they simply did not allow sufficient time for objections to be heard.

Troxel - you are right, they have mishandled this whole process, and people like you have an excellent argument for getting this whole thing halted until they can straighten out the mess. If you have not yet contacted your Congressmen and told them your story, I urge you to do so, as your situation is a classic example of how FRTIBs arrogance and misguided policies have harmed people that are just trying to follow the proposed rules. Even for folks that chose to NOT abide by the threats in their warning letter (like me), they STILL cannot legally implement restrictions against us until the comment period is over and a final decision on the proposal is made, but they chose to do it anyway. But your situation is a clear case where they have messed up in a big way, without any doubt..........all you need is a Congressman to make an inquiry on your behalf, and we should be able to get this thing stopped.

bohammer
04-16-2008, 10:54 AM
I am also locked out.Does anyone know the time table on when this mess will be over?I am sitting in the g fund and missed the big rally early April.My family missed out on over 10,000$ in one day!Today is the 16th and we will miss out of another big gain!I wish they would quit protecting me from myself,my retirement can't afford it.With the 2 itf s a month,how much money is that going to in my account each year?I don't want to pay a fee for itfs that will just put more of my money in someone elses pocket.

weatherweenie
04-16-2008, 12:11 PM
In theory, the new system/restrictions are to be in place 'no sooner' than May 1st. I'm not sure if they've specified the year, or not. :notrust:


I am also locked out.Does anyone know the time table on when this mess will be over?I am sitting in the g fund and missed the big rally early April.My family missed out on over 10,000$ in one day!Today is the 16th and we will miss out of another big gain!I wish they would quit protecting me from myself,my retirement can't afford it.With the 2 itf s a month,how much money is that going to in my account each year?I don't want to pay a fee for itfs that will just put more of my money in someone elses pocket.

qibovin
04-16-2008, 12:46 PM
Thanks, it will all be used.

All good points as well, and these will also be used.Used for what?

weatherweenie
04-16-2008, 02:25 PM
In theory, the new system/restrictions are to be in place 'no sooner' than May 1st. I'm not sure if they've specified the year, or not. :notrust:

In the spirit of fairness, they did specify the year, 2008, but did state 'no sooner than May 1, 2008.'

Asylum
04-16-2008, 04:08 PM
Perhaps y'all should check out this website:

http://www.sueeasy.com/


On its Web site, Mountain View, Calif.-based SueEasy says its "primary concern is for you to register a genuine complaint or grievance as quickly and as simply as possible."

12%ayear
04-16-2008, 04:59 PM
spoke to a lovely customer service rep from the TSP. Very helpful indeed. Here is some updated news FWIW. You can now fax in your TSP-50. The Fax number is 866-817-5023. I mailed in my TSP-50 to enter the S Fund and it still was not received. This week it cost me over 7000 dollars from just waiting. This is very sad. I am still stuck in the G Fund. Also she told me they are aiming for the new rules to go into effect May/June. To be honest with everyone, I rather have my 3 EFTs including the last one to be the G Fund then to handle my trading this way. Trading with the TSP-50 is like playing the lottery. My luck ,when they receive and post my transfer to the S Fund, the market will be in a bad mood. I never seen anything more crazy than the way this is handled and I have been a trader since 1987 on my own. At the very least TSP should of punished us my giving us the 3 EFTs per month while we wait for the new rules to kick in. Another note..Appealing with Mr. Long, she told me it will take up to 30 days for him to respond. By the time this happens the new rules will be into effect. SAD

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/misc/progress.gif

camper65
04-16-2008, 05:04 PM
FYI (To repeat.)
Sent TSP-50 in on Tue. (Last week) express/return receipt.
Was received on Wed.
Was posted Sat. morning.
lost $1800 while it sat on someone's desk!

12%ayear
04-16-2008, 05:38 PM
FYI (To repeat.)
Sent TSP-50 in on Tue. (Last week) express/return receipt.
Was received on Wed.
Was posted Sat. morning.
lost $1800 while it sat on someone's desk!
they are telling me it can take up to 14 business days.

camper65
04-16-2008, 05:44 PM
simply saying thats what it was. I'm sure they will take up to 14 days if they have a mind to.

Braveheart
04-17-2008, 12:29 AM
The tide is turning - Look at these comments

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0408/041008pb.htm (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0408/041008pb.htm)

Fair TradeBy Brittany R. Ballenstedt bballenstedt@govexec.com (bballenstedt@govexec.com) April 10, 2008

"TSP Legislative Director Thomas Trabucco said on Tuesday that officials will not consider comments or establish final rules until the comment period is over. "I expect it will be at least a few days until we have something to say," he said."
Look at that quote from Director Thomas Trabucco - the FRTIB has no established rules yet targeted a specific group. Froze their accounts, forced members to mail the IFT's wasting more time and money. The FRTIB is throwing bricks and lives in a glass house. The same group wasted how many millions Mr. Trabucco since 2000 possibly close to 100 Million and the brick throwers of the FRTIB are quilty in this matter. They spent $300,000 mailing letters about saving money. Audit, Audit, Audit...Congressional Investigation and the DOL must get involved. They are out of control. The track record in 2003 was $36 Million wasted and the Senate took them on. A woman who is relentless from Maine Senator Susan Collins demanded accountability and look what she uncovered. Time for the same news outlets the FRTIB uses to sell their bogus information to investigate the messenger. A good place to begin would be a Freedom of Information Request. If you want the facts you won't get it for this crew. Please get the fair and balanced real facts.

UNION YES Posted April 15, 2008 5:47 PM

I just gotta say this. For those who call multiple IFT's "day trading" need to get a better education and try to understand that the fight isn't over 2,3,4 IFT's. The fight is over "Your Right" to do so and not to be snowed into believing false or distorted information. That is the true fight. Stop with the labels, its not "day trading" and wake up to the truth before it bites you in your wallet. Thank You For Your Time !

Squalebear Posted April 15, 2008 3:35 PM
Kath,
Just because a few posters use the same language doesn't necessarily mean that it's a form letter. I frequently cut/paste from several comments so as to accurately capture ideas word-for-word, and then add my own to it. If you read the two "twisted the data" posts you will see that this is the case, they are not identical form letters signed by different folks. You are correct, however, in that there is a "network" of TSP members fighting these limits, and we are using petitions, form letters, and all other legal methods to do so - as opposed to the illegal snail mail restrictions imposed by FRTIB on 500+ TSP shareholders. Penalizing someone for following existing law and not complying with a PROPOSED change that isn't even on the books yet? Does that sound legal?

fedworker Posted April 15, 2008 2:04 PM
The TSP funds are not stocks, bonds, or commodities; they are essentially mutual funds and not designed for "Day Trading".
If all these folks are so interested in playing Day-Trader with their retirement security, then why don't they change their TSP contribution to the minimum required to maintain full agency-matching (or less if they are feeling particularly unwise), and transfer their balance into the L-Fund that matches their desired level of risk. They could then direct the funds they free up into an E-Trade account or the like.
Those accounts are better suited for this purpose and will ultimately give them more flexibility while not impacting the bottom line of those of us who prefer to look at the long term rather than chasing the market day to day. Plus, their TSP account could then become a more conservatively invested retirement source that could help offset some of the inherent dangers of day trading.

CF Posted April 15, 2008 12:50 PM
The TSP is not set up for "day trading", and while most people like to try and beat the market, they will not. However, there are a few different alternative strategies considering the 2 intrafund transfers per month. You could change your allocation for each paycheck so that you are dollar cost averaging into differernt % of funds each paycheck. Also, another thing I have found successful was transferring in bulk to a safety net (G fund) while there was a lot of negativity and slowly buying back into the C, S, and I funds with a transfer. Last summer I sold my C, S, and I funds into the G fund and I have slowly bought back in at different points when the funds were 10-15% below where I sold. One of the reasons we are able to have the lowest expense ratio of any investment in the country is because of regulations and restrictions. You either get 2 transfers per month or have to pay higher transaction costs, can't have your cake and eat it too!

Chris Posted April 15, 2008 9:37 AM
Intelligence Officer by Day, Day Trader by Day
It's about time the TSP stopped the practice of government workers using their accounts for day trading. Lets call it what it is!
It's bad enough that we have people day trading with their private IRAs or stocks online. I've got a friend who works in intelligence who told me that he worked with a guy who resigned to become a day trader. How all of a sudden was he able to do that? Anyone with brains would figure out that he was able to do this because for years he was practicing day trading while on the government payroll. After all this, from what I heard he failed as a day trader and the government hired him back. If he had desk job that didn't mean much then I would understand, but if he's an intelligence officer shouldn't he have more important things to do than be a day trader while being paid by the government? It's a joke!

Claudia Posted April 14, 2008 8:12 AM
For FERS participants, TSP is our retirement system. The TSP system was intended to allow us to control our risk. It is impossible to do so in market conditions such as those that currently exist with only two IFTs per month.
It also seems absurd that we all have to pay to do a daily rebalancing (read transfers) of all of the money in the L funds. Yet, the costs of participants making three or four IFTs in a month from time to time is a big deal?
In the end it does not matter, because FRTIB appears to have already reached its decision to proceed with this rule regardless of TSP participant comments.
Shame on FRTIB!

Scott Posted April 10, 2008 6:34 PM
The average costs to TSP Participants went down from $4.13 per participant in 2006 to $3.55 in 2007. This isn't per interfund transfer, this is per YEAR! Costs per shareholder are going DOWN! What is the problem again?
The FRTIB cites the I fund as the main source of trade costs. Many have offered a simple solution: do not report the share price until 0700 hours the next day. That takes away the fair valuation and allows Barclays to set an actual price for the I fund, rather than guess what the price will be and make us all pay the difference for their wrong guesses.
There are better ways to bring down the costs of our plan. Truth be told, the costs as they are right now are not so bad compared to the private sector. The limitations are not necessary.

Randy Posted April 10, 2008 4:45 PM
The "twisted the data" postings here show that the TSP board is not the only form letter initiator. The "smart" "free traders" have established their own action network. I put my money into the Thrift SAVINGS Plan to for my retirement but now fear I must move my SAVINGS away from uncontrolled "frequent trade activity" by frantic, fanatic, gambling traders "who choose to manage their TSP accounts." I have other mutual funds where there are reasonable controls and higher management fees. I have bank accounts and credit cards that "change the rules" and inform me in the mail with the current statement. Where does "free trading" go from here? The future TSP may have enough funds to influence market swings, a simple tip to the "smart" network, a little insider-type trading to "make their accounts grow" "following the existing rules" to be sure, what's the harm? After all "the TSP funds are our money."

Kath Posted April 10, 2008 4:16 PM
I retired early a little over 8 months ago. The reason I was able to do so was my TSP investments. I made more then $100,000 in profit in the last 24 months. The reason I was able to do that was to be able to trade-sometimes even daily. I evaluated the market every morning. Had I still been involved with the old rules-where we could trade once a month-I would not have been very sucessful. Had I been able to make more than one trade per day-I'd be a millionare. You can't time the market with 2 trades a month! You will loose unless you are satisfied with the G Fund, very safe, but without any real profits when adjusted for inflation.

candace carrera Posted April 10, 2008 1:31 PM
I'm all for keeping the TSP's costs to a mimimum, and limiting the number of trades allowed is one important way to do that. I find it amazing that 24 trades per year is not enough for some feds.

Guest2
04-17-2008, 03:14 AM
They actually published my comments, how nice of them !
Glad I didn't curse or anything. Uuummmmmm, no I'm not ! :blink:

12%ayear
04-17-2008, 05:40 AM
This is so unjust and a total scam. I thought our Founding Fathers fought for our rights. Capitalism ended on April 1st, the biggest April Fools Prank was on us. Thanks TSP for turning into a Dictatorship. They cost me close to $10,000 after yesterdays huge gain.

Asylum
04-17-2008, 08:40 AM
until one of the locked out tsper's files a lawsuit, or gets a judge to enact a temporary injunction, nothing is going to happen i'm, afraid.

bohammer
04-17-2008, 10:19 AM
missed out on at least 8000$ yeasterday.Total=18,000 since April 1.But I got 2 cents in the G fund#@#?!!!!

12%ayear
04-17-2008, 05:26 PM
missed out on at least 8000$ yeasterday.Total=18,000 since April 1.But I got 2 cents in the G fund#@#?!!!!
I feel your pain. Same here. Sad that we are outside the ice cream store while everyone gets to enjoy the flavors. TSP is looking at lawsuits.

Braveheart
04-17-2008, 07:45 PM
Look at the quote below and the part I identified in bold. Please tell me why would someone write that comment unless it was Mr. Long & Co. of the FRTIB. Notice the writing this isn't a reply post it is a post asking questions every which way. WHO ARE THEY ASKING QUESTIONS TO !!! My quess is a plant by the FRTIB read this post OUT LOUD and ask yourself would any informed member be so dumb but smart enough to mention REBALLANCE. I don't know if using the word abusers is sarcastic or deliberate. This person mentions they are not a frequest trader so why the need to reply to something that should have no impact on them. We'll have to ask Mr. Long and his pals that one.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0408/041008pb.htm (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0408/041008pb.htm)

Let say they set it at 2 trades per month; what does this mean to me? Perhaps someone can help my understanding... Suppose, I reballance my accounts on the 2nd day of a month and with money in each of the five funds (not the L's) this means money shifts in/out of each fund to adjust percentages. Will this be 1, 4 or 5 trades (into the G fund is free, but not out)? Then, in week 3, I see an opportunity in two funds that should increase in value because of economic trends (for ex. the S & I funds) and I expect the F fund will do poorly. I then reballance to move some money from G & F into S & I (with a stable position in C). Is this 1, 2 or 4 trades I have made? To emphasize this point - in the last week of the month, I recognize that the C Fund will likely underperform the other funds and I decide to reballance to redistribute my C fund. Is this 1 more trade or 2? It will not matter because under the new rules I have exceeded ny "2" trades & I must wait until next month... How will the Board determine how to count the trades? Have I used my two "events" as 2 trades or 9 trades??? Would my third "trading event" be prohibited - even though I am certainly NOT a frequent trader? Who is to say how & when they will change what gets counted (or not counted) as a trade? This is a solution without a problem... We are debating the trading impact on costs which range on the order of $5-10 a YEAR per PERSON. While I believe that people should not abuse the system - I fail to see how the above senareo would do that. I am only exercising the responsibility which the system has placed on me - to be accountable & responsible for the success of my own retirement accounts. There are other viable and far less draconian measures which can be taken. (By the way, rarely used, limiting transaction abusers to paper transactions is a FULLY LEGAL and APPROVED measure). Devil in the Details Posted April 17, 2008 10:26 AM

Guest2
04-18-2008, 10:31 AM
Let say they set it at 2 trades per month; what does this mean to me? Perhaps someone can help my understanding... Suppose, I reballance my accounts on the 2nd day of a month and with money in each of the five funds (not the L's) this means money shifts in/out of each fund to adjust percentages. Will this be 1, 4 or 5 trades (into the G fund is free, but not out)? Then, in week 3, I see an opportunity in two funds that should increase in value because of economic trends (for ex. the S & I funds) and I expect the F fund will do poorly. I then reballance to move some money from G & F into S & I (with a stable position in C). Is this 1, 2 or 4 trades I have made? To emphasize this point - in the last week of the month, I recognize that the C Fund will likely underperform the other funds and I decide to reballance to redistribute my C fund. Is this 1 more trade or 2? It will not matter because under the new rules I have exceeded ny "2" trades & I must wait until next month... How will the Board determine how to count the trades? Have I used my two "events" as 2 trades or 9 trades??? Would my third "trading event" be prohibited - even though I am certainly NOT a frequent trader? Who is to say how & when they will change what gets counted (or not counted) as a trade? This is a solution without a problem... We are debating the trading impact on costs which range on the order of $5-10 a YEAR per PERSON. While I believe that people should not abuse the system - I fail to see how the above senareo would do that. I am only exercising the responsibility which the system has placed on me - to be accountable & responsible for the success of my own retirement accounts. There are other viable and far less draconian measures which can be taken. (By the way, rarely used, limiting transaction abusers to paper transactions is a FULLY LEGAL and APPROVED measure). Devil in the Details Posted April 17, 2008 10:26 AM

I felt the same thing Braveheart, I entered a comment last night which
kinda addresses your highlited (red) quote. I wonder if they'll publish it.
I'll let you know if they do. If you see something, let me know too.
;)

qibovin
04-18-2008, 10:38 AM
limiting transaction abusers to paper transactions is a FULLY LEGAL and APPROVED measure I resent being referred to as an abuser when I was playing by the rules that currently existed (still exist for some?). Of course, if I am an "abuser," then I must be addicted-->I'm a victim of the overly liberal system set up by TSP in the first place. Oh the pain and suffering I've endured! I need help. I'm an innocent victim of FRTIB's evil conspriracy. Thank you for remedying this terrible addiction, FRTIB. But the snail mail trades just aren't covering the withdrawal symptoms.:sick:

Asylum
04-18-2008, 02:33 PM
1601.32 Timing and Posting Dates
1601.22 Methods of requesting an interfund transferPlease show me where you are citing these from.

:)

grandma
04-19-2008, 09:07 AM
It is a puzzle to me how members can read the information you guys have spent months gathering, and then respond with some of the preceding comments. It seems obvious that these `anti-ers' have not read your
analysis's, that they are simply responding to what they've heard or been told elsewhere. Should we even give any rapt or involved attention until they are able to dispute each of your points with provable facts - except for a response of the famous `bump'? (including the # of the `bump to'). There seems to be an intelligence factor here that allows input from sludge sources.
This link came today from a weekly I get - it may not be totally relevant to our situation, but we have all read of the stretches that have been effective in our Superb Court system.........:D
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/401k-holders-get-right-sue/story.aspx?guid=%7B1BFB12AF%2D815C%2D4177%2DAC69%2 DEFEA889E8C76%7D

weatherweenie
04-19-2008, 09:27 AM
You can't fix stupid!

Then again, saying something like that might get me chastised from the like of Mr Long et al. :rolleyes:


It is a puzzle to me how members can read the information you guys have spent months gathering, and then respond with some of the preceding comments. It seems obvious that these `anti-ers' have not read your
analysis's, that they are simply responding to what they've heard or been told elsewhere.

Asylum
04-19-2008, 10:21 AM
I noticed that you have to log in to look at this Message Board now... that's a great first step.

:)

Braveheart
04-19-2008, 06:46 PM
I resent being referred to as an abuser when I was playing by the rules that currently existed (still exist for some?). Of course, if I am an "abuser," then I must be addicted-->I'm a victim of the overly liberal system set up by TSP in the first place. Oh the pain and suffering I've endured! I need help. I'm an innocent victim of FRTIB's evil conspriracy. Thank you for remedying this terrible addiction, FRTIB. But the snail mail trades just aren't covering the withdrawal symptoms.:sick:

Just so you know those aren't my words they are a quote from http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0408/041008pb.htm (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0408/041008pb.htm) you should read it completely I really believe the person Devil in the Details who used those words in that post is probably Mr. Long or someone from the FRTIB. They were posted on 4/17/2008 There are other viable and far less draconian measures which can be taken. (By the way, rarely used, limiting transaction abusers to paper transactions is a FULLY LEGAL and APPROVED measure). Devil in the Details Posted April 17, 2008 10:26 AM

Gaetaone
04-22-2008, 12:23 PM
Has anyone sent in a fax that went through yet? Just wondering how long to expect. I sent in a snail mail on the 9th that has yet to go through. I think it's punishment for participating in the process. I'd like to FOIA all correspondence relating to all of this....

John

grandma
04-22-2008, 03:29 PM
Quote from Stephen Barr's Washington Post article this morning:
"In the unlikely event that Barclays ever fell into bankruptcy, Grossman said that trust and regulatory laws shield TSP assets from creditors. Asked by Alejandro M. Sanchez, a board member from Florida, if TSP assets were "locked in a room" and kept separate from other assets managed by Barclays, Grossman said yes."

Grossman just failed to mention that they are locked up tight so that the
participants can't get any transfers made!

McDuck
04-22-2008, 05:29 PM
I noticed that you have to log in to look at this Message Board now... that's a great first step.

I agree. That's a good move.

luv2read
04-22-2008, 08:29 PM
Quote from Stephen Barr's Washington Post article this morning:
"In the unlikely event that Barclays ever fell into bankruptcy, Grossman said that trust and regulatory laws shield TSP assets from creditors. Asked by Alejandro M. Sanchez, a board member from Florida, if TSP assets were "locked in a room" and kept separate from other assets managed by Barclays, Grossman said yes."

Grossman just failed to mention that they are locked up tight so that the
participants can't get any transfers made!
BGI is a UK company, not a USA firm. Our trust and regulatory laws probably don't apply....:worried:

I could be wrong, but judging from website information, their US interests appear to be subbed out to ishares.


For more insight into our investment philosophy and to find out about our Total Performance Management approach, you can check out our main corporate website (http://www.barclaysglobal.com/).

http://www.barclaysglobal.com/about/contact_bgi/index.jhtml?pn=ab

Scout333
04-23-2008, 08:45 AM
TSP automatic enrollment, fund transfer restrictions move forward

By Alyssa Rosenberg arosenberg@govexec.com April 21, 2008

"Long and TSP Director of External Affairs Thomas Trabucco said Congress also is moving forward on a proposal to automatically enroll federal employees in the TSP.
Senate staffers delivered to TSP officials an automatic enrollment bill and Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Federal Workforce Subcommittee, sent the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board a letter saying he will hold an April 29 hearing on the issue, Trabucco said.

"The realities are, this is inertia at work," Long said, observing that TSP enrollment would stagnate without automatic enrollment. He pointed out that other retirement plans already are adopting the practice to increase participation rates. "
__________________

Just an idea, Mr. Long and the TSP Board seem to really want to implement this "automatic enrollment" idea. Contact our union representatives, Congressmen, etc. to consider offering support for this proposal in exchange for removing TSP restrictions. Logically, the two proposals being pursued by the TSP Board are diametrically opposed to each other. i.e. We want everyone automatically enrolled but we are going to restrict your ability to control "your" money. Totally ridiculous! Contact your unions and ask that they pursue this option. At least offer comments at the 4-29-2008 hearing proposed by Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Federal Workforce Subcommittee.