View Poll Results: Should the IFT rule be changed?

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    21 100.00%
  • No

    0 0%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 25

Thread: IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?

  1. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    6,547

    Default Re: IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?

    Guilty.

    Quote Originally Posted by nasa1974 View Post
    I know a few folks that got the cease and desist letter, or feel the full wrath of the government. How many of us actually did a daily IFT back then? I think the most I did was 5 in one month. What I did do for almost a year was the >1% move which averaged about every other day.
    Weatherweenie's Account Talk
    Expected retirement date: November 2023

  2.  
  3. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    6,944

    Default Re: IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?

    Guilty - 10 moves in a month for fair value on the I Fund.....wow what a year I had......
    Quote Originally Posted by nasa1974 View Post
    I know a few folks that got the cease and desist letter, or feel the full wrath of the government. How many of us actually did a daily IFT back then? I think the most I did was 5 in one month. What I did do for almost a year was the >1% move which averaged about every other day.
    THIS IS WHERE I WOULD PUT SOMETHING TO REPRESENT MY THINKING, BUT THEN THEY SHOW UP!
    Tracker =
    100%- I Fund

  4.  
  5. #15

    Default Re: IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?

    Quote Originally Posted by nasa1974 View Post
    There isn't a specific rule.

    One of our past members kind of had the idea and I ran with it to see what would happen. Basically it is a re-balance of all your funds between .01% and .09%. Your first two moves are your normal IFT allowance, after that you can do the re-balance between funds every day if you want. It really works out every other day. I know I wrote something up about the >1% move but I will have to try and find it.
    https://www.tsptalk.com/mb/members-a...tml#post244338
    Rules:
    - Trade what you see, not what you believe
    - Don't put stuff in your signature that a Mod doesn't like

    "Government exists to protect all people’s rights, not some people’s feelings." - A. Barton Hinkle

    Great Tools:
    http://www.CreditKarma.com
    http://www.Mint.com
    http://www.SaveUp.com/r/nmJ

  6.  
  7. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    9,801

    Default Re: IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?

    Thanks RMI for finding the thread.
    May the force be with us.

  8.  
  9. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    9,801

    Default Re: IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?

    Some corrections. It's <1%, I always confuse < & > and it is .01% to .99%.

    Thanks again to RMI for finding the 2009 thread.
    May the force be with us.

  10.  
  11. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,786

    Default Re: IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?

    I think it should be. As others said, I don't mind paying a fee for a transaction. In a lot of cases, it could save you a ton of cash.

    Look at today for instance, I sold a TNA and FAS position for a small gain (stopped out at +1% on both), but if I was forced to hold, it would have been a near double digit percentage loss on both positions. Possibly more than that, since with the IFT delay, I'd be forced to hold both today and till the end of tomorrow, if I were to request an IFT now.

    I'd rather pay $10 for 2 transactions than lose 3-4% of my account any day.
    I trade based on volume + price action. Price action alone only tells half the story.


  12.  
  13. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,617

    Default Re: IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?

    So I just completed the poll question above. 100% of the people want the IFT rule to be changed and 0% of the people do not. That tells me that the rule will never be changed because the folks want it.

    Could you imagine if everyone had to play by the same rules as we do...
    I pride myself on the fact that I will never have a cheesy "uplifting" quote in my signature block...Ever!

  14.  
  15. #20

    Default Re: IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?

    Quote Originally Posted by RazorCat View Post
    There was a period where I would move in and out of I fund to other funds a couple times a week if I recall correctly. That was quite a while back, but I remember it being a very profitable couple of years.
    Yes it was hugely profitable because of the I fund being so heavily invested in the Nikki/Japan stocks. I remember if Nikki was rocking then you got in before 12pm almost certainly the next day the I fund would pop! There was suppose to be some kind of balance/mechanism there to ensure folks couldn't capitalize on that anomaly but man i know i sure did. Once the changed kick in, well that was it couldn't make easy money anymore. The rule should be changed...all this hype about making the tsp more aligned with other investing options...well where in the world is there a trading portal that only allows 2 trades a month! Total BS we've called them on it; they know it! You mean to tell me a $4.95 trading fee wouldn't offset the increased cost incurred of trades over the 2 monthly minimum...PLEASE!

  16.  
  17. #21

    Default Re: IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?

    James48843 did some great work many years ago when these limits were implemented, showing that costs were actually going down after they went to unlimited transactions. It was because Barclays at the time (bought out by Blackrock) was actually good at what they did. Here's an old post he made...

    https://www.tsptalk.com/mb/tsp-talk-...tml#post150145

    Quote Originally Posted by James48843 View Post
    Net Expense (2007 is YTD through December)
    Ratios· Total G F C S I L Inc. L2010 L2020 L2030 L2040
    2000 .05% .05% .07% .06% - - · - - · -
    2001 .06% .06% .06% .06% .05% .05% · - . - -
    2002 .06% .06% .06% .07% .07% .07% · - - · ·
    2003 .10% .10% .10% .10% .10% .10% - . - · ·
    2004 .06% .06% .05% .06% .06% .06% · - . - ·
    2005 .05% .04% .04% .05% .05% .05% .01% .02% .02% .02% .02%
    2006 .03% .03% .03% .03% .03% .03% .03% .03% .03% .03% .03%
    2007 .02% .02% .02% .02% .02% .01% .02% .02% .02% .02% .02%
    ·


    The net expense ratios are the administrative expenses charged to TSP participants per dollar invested in the respective funds after offsettng gross administrative expenses with account forfeitures and loan fees.
    Better alignment...

    Net Expense (2007 is YTD through December)
    Total G F C S I L-INC L2010 L2020 L2030 L2040
    2000 0.05% 0.05% 0.07% 0.06% n/a
    2001 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.05% 0.05% n/a
    2002 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% n/a
    2003 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% n/a
    2004 0.06% 0.06% 0.05% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% n/a
    2005 0.05% 0.04% 0.04% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02%
    2006 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03%
    2007 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02%

  18.  
  19. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    13,674
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?

    Sorry I am on the road and can’t get to my data to post the most recent numbers, but the costs today are MUCH higher administrative expenses then back when we had unlimited trades.

    I will try and get to a computer next week, and post up the most recent administrative expense figures.


    Sent from my iPhone using TSP Talk Forums

  20.  
  21. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    13,674
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?

    I just checked.

    For 2018, the annual administrative expense for all of the TSP funds was 0.041% per $1,000 invested.

    That is exactly DOUBLE the administrative cost as it was in the years when we had unlimited trades. (2006 and 2007 is when we had unlimited trades, and many of us did three or four trades in a month at times.)

    This figure is found on the Annual TSP statement form available when you log into your account.


    Sent from my iPhone using TSP Talk Forums

  22.  
  23. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boiled Peanut, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    59,338

    Default Re: IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?

    Damn Crooks! crooks.gif
    11/13/2019
    CRUDE Oil =
    $57.12 +$.32

  24.  
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
SPY (C Fund) (delayed)
IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?
(Stockcharts.com Real-time)
DWCPF (S Fund) (delayed)
IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?
(Stockcharts.com Real-time)
EFA (I Fund) (delayed)
IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?
(Stockcharts.com Real-time)
AGG (F Fund) (delayed)
IFT RULE - SHOULD IT BE CHANGED?
(Stockcharts.com Real-time)