Just got this from the TSP

[Asylum]

http://www.tsp.gov/forms/index-highlights.html

Note the Apr 2008 featured item:



Limits to Interfund Transfers Will Save Participants Money

Limits to Interfund Transfers Will Save Participants Money

Last year, it became clear that a small number of TSP investors were making frequent interfund transfers. They were “timing the market,” requesting interfund transfers in reaction to, or in anticipation of, short term market conditions. Upon careful review, we determined that this activity was harming other TSP participants via transaction costs and greater risk of performance deviations from the TSP funds’ benchmarks.

These actions are affecting everyone invested in the funds. For example, in 2007 alone, transaction costs caused all long-term investors in the I Fund to earn 0.06 percent less than they otherwise would have. This expense is in addition to the .015 percent administrative costs charged to all of the TSP funds.

To resolve this problem, the Board has proposed a regulation that would limit participants to two interfund transfers per month, with subsequent unlimited transfers only to the G Fund. We hope this action will curb market timing, while still allowing participants to periodically rebalance their accounts and retain the “safe haven” of the G Fund when concerned about risk. Based on current participant behavior, we have determined that these limits impact very few TSP participants. (In fact, our review of data for 2007 shows that more than 99 percent of TSP participants requested 12 or fewer interfund transfers over the entire year.) This small change will save money for all participants because transaction expenses and certain other costs will decrease as the result of the proposed restrictions.

We have published the proposed regulation in the Federal Register and have links to it on our Web site. Once we have evaluated any comments we receive, we will make a final decision regarding the approach to be taken, and we will announce it on the TSP Web site. For more information about the proposed limitations, click on “Information about Interfund Transfer Restrictions” at the top of the TSP Web site’s Home page. You will find a set of Questions and Answers about interfund transfer activity, a relevant November 6, 2007 memorandum to the TSP’s Board members, and an accompanying presentation.

As the TSP’s Executive Director, Gregory T. Long, wrote in a letter mailed to all TSP participants in February, “We feel strongly that the detrimental effects of frequent trading on fund performance must be dealt with and encourage you to read the materials we have made available so you understand why we are pursuing the proposed regulations.”

[JTH]

Yea I just skimmed through it. What a bunch of Asshats. Some of their explanations make zero sense....

It's my money, get your damm hands off of it!!!

[James48843]

Amazing.

They put this out the day that the comment period closes.

And they identify, for the very first time, the amount of dollars invovled- citing 0.06% return on the "I" fund,

FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ALL TRADING COSTS FOR THE WHOLE YEAR- INCLUDING BUYING AND SELLING COSTS FOR EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THE 225 TIMES EACH YEAR THAT EACH L FUND, OF 600,000 MEMBERS, IS REBALANCED, AND EACH PAY PERIOD WHEN SOMEONE MAKES A DEPOSIT.

That tells me they are saying frequent traders MAY be responsible for somewhere on the order of 0.01% of the I fund costs. (Which last year, were a TOTAL of 16 million for the entire year).

However, they FAIL TO MENTION that the costs for the "S" fund FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR were a little over a NEGATIVE FOUR MILLION, which means the frequent traders actually HELPED those who were in the "S" fund long term.

I'll have to go check and see what the total number of dollars held in the "S fund account was at the end of year, so that I can write something about how each "S" fund holder got EXTRA MONEY because of those who trade.

[FundSurfer]

I'd like to see how they calculated the 0.06% figure. They have already shown they don't really understand the numbers. Who knows what assumptions they may have made.

[James48843]

they're 0.06% number is from the $16 million in costs over the course of the entire year for trading all I fund, january through december .

That 16 million was offset by 4 million in PROFITS GAINED by trading in the S fund over the year, and the costs for C and F were actually tiny over the year when you average everything out.

[qibovin]

To TSP: I want to know EXACTLY what the TOTAL costs were PER PARTICIPANT PER YEAR so I can deduct them as INVESTMENT EXPENSES on my Income Tax Return (1040). .06 per participant and .015 per participant tells me nothing. Those are percentages of what - the whole TSP, my account, the individual funds, WHAT?

From the FRTIB comments in the Federal Registry:
“it is impossible to correctly assign the exact costs to those who are making interfund transfers.”
That's the reason they gave for not even considering the "fee" option for interfund transfers. No further explanation on why or how hard they actually tried before making this superlative declaration.
Then, it appears they are immune to legal challenge anyhow...

[Braveheart]

SEE YA IN COURT ALL OF THE FRTIB -

YOU LIED TO CONGRESS - THE PRESS - THE 3.9 MILLION MEMBERS - ONCE YOU MAILED THOSE LETTERS THAT IS MAIL FRAUD. THAT WILL TRIGGER AN INVESTIGATION AND YES THE PENALTY IS JAIL. HOW ABOUT THIS CASE.....

In a surprising admission from the witness stand, Patrick R. Bennett, who stands accused of orchestrating one of the biggest financial frauds in American history, said yesterday that he had lied under oath and conspired to thwart a Federal investigation into his company, the Bennett Funding Group of Syracuse.
Mr. Bennett was testifying in his own defense in Federal District Court in Manhattan, where he has been on trial for two months on charges that he defrauded hundreds of investors and banks of roughly $700 million. His lawyers said the day's admissions did not affect Mr. Bennett's plea of not guilty to the more serious allegations in the case, including dozens of charges of securities fraud, money laundering and mail fraud.
Mr. Bennett was chief financial officer of Bennett Funding, which purported to be in the business of financing leases of office equipment like copiers and faxes; it also invested in hotels and various gambling businesses. But prosecutors contend that the company was fooling investors into believing that they were making a profit while it diverted the money to themselves.
About 10,000 people, many of them from New York and New Jersey and most of them retirees looking for a safe place to put their money, invested in Bennett Funding before the company collapsed in 1996.
In what lawyers watching the trial called a highly unusual admission, Mr. Bennett said that he had lied to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which began its investigation in 1993, looking into his company's financial statements and some of the securities it sold to investors. He fabricated documents and persuaded those who helped him to lie to investigators, too, he said.
''What I just admitted to was wrong, and I realize it was wrong,'' Mr. Bennett said. ''I'll explain some reasons, what went on, but it was a very bad thing to do.''
The admission by Mr. Bennett, who was flushed and teary eyed, also prompted tears from his wife, Gwen, who was sitting in the front row of the courtroom. With her were her parents and siblings, as well as her father-in-law, Edmund T. Bennett, who founded the Bennett Funding Group but has not been charged in the case. Chief Judge Thomas P. Griesa called a short recess to allow Mr. Bennett to compose himself.
When his testimony resumed, Mr. Bennett, responding to questions from his lawyer, David B. Levitt, said his reason for lying about his activities was not an intention to hide any fraudulent activities. Rather, he said, he had lied and fabricated documents to give the impression that his company had sound business practices.
He did not think that investigators would believe the truth, that he had done business ''with not much more than a handshake and a couple of documents,'' he said.
Several other people, including Mr. Bennett's brother Michael, have already pleaded guilty to charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Mr. Bennett's unusual admission concluded what had been a day of mostly dry testimony, which Mr. Bennett delivered in a gravelly monotone. His testimony was expected to continue today, when prosecutors are also likely to begin their cross-examination.
Describing himself early as a ''country bumpkin'' with little education or business experience whose company grew too quickly, Mr. Bennett said that he had relied on others for legal and accounting advice. He now recognized, he said, that the company had had poor controls.
His lawyer, Mr. Levitt, continued to raise questions about Kenneth Kasarjian, an associate of Mr. Bennett's who has already pleaded guilty to criminal charges and testified against Mr. Bennett. The prosecution presented 31 witnesses, and jurors received nine volumes of exhibits relating to Mr. Bennett's complex financial transactions.
Although the Bennett case has angered investors, who have been known to demand his blood at public meetings, few of them have attended the trial. Only one, who declined to give his name but said he had lost money investing with the Bennetts, appeared yesterday.
Other observers at the trial included lawyers from the Securities and Exchange Commission, a lawyer who is supervising Mr. Bennett's personal bankruptcy, and a lawyer for Richard C. Breeden, the former chairman of the commission who is serving as court-appointed trustee for the bankrupt Bennett companies and is trying to recover money for investors.
Mr. Bennett himself helped with that effort yesterday, his lawyers said, by turning over to prosecutors 1.2 million shares of a company called Equivest, which is a public company owned mostly by the Bennett enterprises. At yesterday's market price, the shares are worth more than $6.5 million. Mr. Bennett happened to find the shares while going through a box, his lawyer said.
The shares are to be turned over to Mr. Breeden, who has said he intends to sell them to the public.

[The HalfBreed]

I don't see what "THAT" has to do with "THIS".

I suspect that the Thrift Board will have their way, regardless of the Posts here..........

[Braveheart]

I don't see what "THAT" has to do with "THIS".

I suspect that the Thrift Board will have their way, regardless of the Posts here..........

What dat has ta do wit dis is dat is a case to compare what happens when you lie, mail more than one letter based upon a lie, make false misleading statements, cost people millions..... see below to win a case you need to follow every misleading word.

LIED TO CONGRESS - THE PRESS - THE 3.9 MILLION MEMBERS - ONCE THE FRTIB MAILED THOSE LETTERS THAT IS MAIL FRAUD BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT BASED UPON FACTUAL INFORMATION.

The Mail Fraud Statute and Its Use

There are countless illegal schemes that violate the nation’s first consumer protection law—the Mail Fraud Statute, enacted in 1872. The statute is the most effective fraud enforcement weapon and U.S. Postal Inspectors have been using it for over 100 years. Last year, Postal Inspectors investigated 3,355 fraud cases and our analysts prepared more than 84,000 letters in response to mail fraud complaints. In 2002 Postal Inspectors arrested 1,634 mail fraud offenders, and 1,453 were convicted. As a result of these investigations, there was more than $2 billion in court-ordered and voluntary restitution.

In response, in 1872 Congress enacted legislation relating to the Post Office Department and the use of the mail to conduct certain fraudulent enterprises. The newly enacted law was used against schemes involving the sale of worthless securities and prize contests sent through the mail. By 1896, the statute was expanded to include mailed advertisements that misrepresented the expected investment return on bonds available for purchase. As the 19th century drew to a close, the mail fraud statute had established itself as the weapon of choice in attacking the fraud schemes of the day.

By the late 1960s, the mail fraud statute became a key weapon in the war against organized crime. Organized crime strike forces in U.S. cities brought successful prosecutions against mobsters. Postal Inspectors joined these strike forces and participated in successful multi-agency investigations and prosecutions. Through the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, mail fraud was considered a racketeering activity and a RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) predicate.

Postal Inspectors have investigated a myriad of complex and noteworthy cases ranging from the swindles of the past like the Ponzi scheme to new twists on old scams, from investments to health care, all of which are now offered through telemarketers and over the Internet.

The language of the mail fraud statute remained unchanged for 100 years. It wasn’t until 1994 that Congress expanded and enhanced the statute as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, inserting new language into Section 1341 that reads “or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier.” Con artists who try to circumvent the mail by using private interstate couriers are no longer exempt from the law, as the 1994 Crime Bill amended the mail fraud statute to include them. The mail fraud statute can now be used for items sent through the U.S. Mail, as well as FedEx, UPS or other interstate carriers and couriers.

[Fivetears]

Our government is going to ignore, hide, dispel and otherwise aid, assist, and cover up billions in banking write-downs, foreclosure losses, homeless figures, jobless figures, failed Structured Investment Vehicles, Wall Street Gambling and related other Sub-Prime lending scheme losses. They have demonstrated an even lesser concern for monopolistic corporate mergers, BS corporate profit figures, big oil ripping off the USA, inflation and our crumbling dollar value.

BH, what make's you think the FRTIB & the TSP is of any larger concern for our government? Really? Help me out with this. The federal government could give a $h!t less about the federal employee, and what he or she want's to do with their 401K.

I think we've been told to "shut up and color."

At least, that's what this says IMO:
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.p...23&postcount=1

[Guest2]

I think we've been told to "shut up and color."

They told me too,,,,, 5tears, you got a red crayon I can use, Im drawing my portfolio ?

[Fivetears]

Yeah, I just got a brand new box of red ones COB Friday; I used mine all up. I got some green ones I'm not using.

They told me too,,,,, 5tears, you got a red crayon I can use, Im drawing my portfolio ?