2 IFT maximum - 19 November proposition

To all of you good people in this website:

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!


On a very serious note, I am convinced that we are on the right track and that we should be able to overturn any preliminary administrative decision to control daily trades. Provided, that a concerted and intensive effort is maintained. The procedures for approval and implementation of a Federal Regulation have already been explained here. There is still time to overturn and reach a favorable alternative to a total ban on daily IFTs. Raise Hell Guys, TIME and the LAW are on our side!:)
 
This is on the TSP site under 2006 TSP participant survey released Jan.2007.I think this sums it up they are going to add more elections,but are blaming the 3,000 so called day traders.



If the FRTIB decides to add a new fund this may lead to other changes that might effect
participants’ attitudes about the benefit of adding these funds. Survey participants were
told that adding new funds may require the TSP to establish restrictions on the number of
interfund transfers participants can make and/or the amount participants can invest in
some funds and asked to evaluate the impact of these potential restrictions on whether
they believe adding funds will benefit TSP participants. Among participants who agree
that offering a wider selection of investment options would make the TSP a better
program, only 28 percent of respondents would not change their opinion if restrictions
were required, while 14 percent would definitely change their mind and a plurality might
depending on how the restrictions were imposed (see Figure 35). Amongst those who
disagreed that adding investment options would make the TSP a better program, only 22
percent would change their opinion if restrictions were required, compared to a total of
42 percent who do not think new funds should be added or who would not change their
opinion.
 
Sorry link will not come up.
Go to TSP.GOV SITE
Click what's new
Then click press releases
Then click year 2007
Then on last entry click results of survey
Go to page 43[whole thing is a long read]
 
Did I see or hear that the frequent 'trading' costs are .08% to ALL account holders? I.e, $240 a year on $300,000 account. If that's the case, then I can understand the concern of those who don't trade frequently. But I doubt very seriously if the annual cost will decrease once they institute 2 monthly IFTs. In fact, just the opposite, they'll keep the 08% AND charge an additional .08% to 'upgrade' the system. LOL...isn't that the way the gov't works? Make an effort to spend your entire budget or the next cycle you won't get as much because you apparently didn't need it all since you didn't spend it all in the previous cycle.
 
O...M....G....!!!

Griffin, you nailed it. Others as well. It's the FV. The board has knee jerked and I don't think they really understand the problem. They are calling I-fund missed fair valuations trading cost. It isn't trading cost. If you remember back at the end of February, the system got overloaded following the big down day. 3000 people do NOT overload the system trading out of the I-fund. On that day, most people moved the wrong day and the FV put money into the coffers not out. That got reversed in May, again in June, again in August, again in October. Does anybody else see a problem with the TSP board's solution? 3000 people are not the problem. The board is punishing the 3000 in an effort to solve a problem they don't understand. Could 3000 ring up a 10 million trading bill? $3333 per person seems pretty steep.

We need to compose a well written letter to send to our congressmen. That is a start. I'm on leave and won't be able to check back till Wednesday. I only had time to read one thread, I'm glad I made it this one. We need to see the math. Does the board have to abide by FOIA?
 
O...M....G....!!!

Griffin, you nailed it. Others as well. It's the FV. The board has knee jerked and I don't think they really understand the problem. They are calling I-fund missed fair valuations trading cost. It isn't trading cost. If you remember back at the end of February, the system got overloaded following the big down day. 3000 people do NOT overload the system trading out of the I-fund. On that day, most people moved the wrong day and the FV put money into the coffers not out. That got reversed in May, again in June, again in August, again in October. Does anybody else see a problem with the TSP board's solution? 3000 people are not the problem. The board is punishing the 3000 in an effort to solve a problem they don't understand. Could 3000 ring up a 10 million trading bill? $3333 per person seems pretty steep.

We need to compose a well written letter to send to our congressmen. That is a start. I'm on leave and won't be able to check back till Wednesday. I only had time to read one thread, I'm glad I made it this one. We need to see the math. Does the board have to abide by FOIA?

Yes, you nailed it on the head. Limiting trades to two per month is not going to fix their problem. One good downturn with a half-million people trading 20 billion dollars, and a poor FV call, will make $25 million charges pale in comparison.

the answer is not limiting trades, it's getting rid of the fair value calculation.

if they didn't set the price at 7 pm., and instead waited until 7 a.m. the next morning to set the I fund price, they eliminate the FV factor,and still have time to updates everybody's accounts by 9 or 9:30 a.m. that morning. It now only takes about an hour to run the update for all 3 million accounts, vs. it used to take all night with slower computers.

We need to make this solution clear to the TSP Board, and start talking about it everywhere as the correct solution, instead of limiting trades.
 
Jim,

That's a really good point - by limiting the IFT's they could end up concentrating the IFTs on the most volatile days and increasing the damage of their FV mistakes.

Yes, you nailed it on the head. Limiting trades to two per month is not going to fix their problem. One good downturn with a half-million people trading 20 billion dollars, and a poor FV call, will make $25 million charges pale in comparison.
 
So how do we get them to listen to us?

How do we get the sea change necessary to fix this?

That is the question.
 
So how do we get them to listen to us?

How do we get the sea change necessary to fix this?

That is the question.

If we are certain that the way they determine "fair value" is the real problem here (as opposed to frequent trading), I think the thing we need to do is to put together a 1-2 page summary of why this is so. This has to be brief and also straightforward enough so that the average Congressman/Union rep/etc. can read it and understand it in 5-10 minutes. Ideally, it should give one or two examples (using actual dates and how the I fund was priced that day by Barclay's, including +/- FV), and how this caused the TSP to incur additional costs on that trading day. We should also include a proposal for how this problem can be "fixed" (James had a good suggestion about not pricing the I fund until the following morning). Anyone willing to take on a first draft of something like this? James, Griffin, and a few others seem to have the best grasp on this....perhaps you guys could take a first shot at it? Once we get something like this, we can all use it as an enclosure and source of talking points for future contacts with folks that may have some influence on how this proposal fares in the end. I am thinking that the ETAC (Employee Thrift Advisory Council) may be the key group to "educate" about this, since FRTIB intends to meet with them at some point in the near future to discuss the IFT restriction proposal before it is finalized. If the ETAC opposes it, I don't think it is going anywhere fast. If we can get this summary prepared by monday morning, someone could FAX it to both James Sauber (ETAC chairman) and Richard Brown (ETAC vice-chair), and then get them on the phone early this week sometime to discuss it. I think that is what is needed here.........get the facts in the hands of the folks that have some influence over the final decision, and make sure they understand it, and will support us when the time comes.
 
I wonder if the unions would be able to represent us legally.

http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=Representation

The AFGE Legal Rights Attorney Program & How to Seek Assistance


The AFGE Legal Rights Attorney Program (“LRA Program”) in the General Counsel’s Office (GCO) provides attorney representation in cases brought by AFGE Councils and Locals on behalf of members. The LRA Program offers free attorney representation to Councils and Locals for meritorious administrative cases (such as arbitrations and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) appeals or other appeals to review boards) where both back pay and attorney’s fees are available.

In order to provide a better understanding of the LRA Program, this information is divided into three parts. First, we explain the referral and evaluation process for Councils and Locals that wish to obtain the services of a Legal Rights Attorney, as well as the responsibilities of a Council or Local which obtains LRA Program assistance. Second, we describe the relevant criteria used by GCO in evaluating referred cases. Third, we briefly outline reasons why the LRA Program is beneficial for Councils and Locals. Questions may be directed to GCO at 202-639-6424.
 
One of the problems with Union representation (and I'm a mid-level Union rep) is that government wide regulations are normally outside the scope of bargaining. Unions have a voice and role, but the ETAC as a much bigger and better voice, and a legal role here that Unions alone don't have.

Griffin, how about you and I work on that one to two page summary of the problem, how the thrift board's solution actually could make the situation worse, and then how our suggestion of changing the time of the annoucement of the I fund value would eliminate the problem.

If we can work on that together tomorrow, and have a draft ready by tomorrow night, we can use that as our fact sheet, and start sending it out.

I also have been thinking about starting an organization in response. Perhaps it could be called the "TSP Shareholder's Alliance" or something like that. I could then get a website and get all this information up there, and start collecting e-mail addresses of supporters- and then try to go to the December meeting of the Board, and ask to get on their agenda.

Can you help us out, Griffin, with a short two-page or less begining fact sheet?
 
I am sending an email to stephen losey at the moment, but I think I could get into that tomorrow morning.

One of the problems with Union representation (and I'm a mid-level Union rep) is that government wide regulations are normally outside the scope of bargaining. Unions have a voice and role, but the ETAC as a much bigger and better voice, and a legal role here that Unions alone don't have.

Griffin, how about you and I work on that one to two page summary of the problem, how the thrift board's solution actually could make the situation worse, and then how our suggestion of changing the time of the annoucement of the I fund value would eliminate the problem.

If we can work on that together tomorrow, and have a draft ready by tomorrow night, we can use that as our fact sheet, and start sending it out.

I also have been thinking about starting an organization in response. Perhaps it could be called the "TSP Shareholder's Alliance" or something like that. I could then get a website and get all this information up there, and start collecting e-mail addresses of supporters- and then try to go to the December meeting of the Board, and ask to get on their agenda.

Can you help us out, Griffin, with a short two-page or less begining fact sheet?
 
Good. I sent an email to Losey earlier this evening outlining the same thing- the proposed solution can only make matters worse, and our solutions solves the problem entirely.

I have plans for the morning- church- but will be back on-line in the afternoon tomorrow. We can work on it then.

Have a good night-

Jim
 
So how do we get them to listen to us?

How do we get the sea change necessary to fix this?

That is the question.


Unless you can get the SEC to change the regulation they will not be listening. They are within the guidelines of the regulation. These folks have a legal department and you can bet they checked with them before taking action. Good Luck!


Comments/Guidlines from the SEC Rule:

Mutual funds that invest in overseas securities markets are particularly vulnerable to market timers who may take advantage of time zone differences between the foreign markets on which international funds' portfolio securities trade and the U.S. markets which generally determine the time as of which NAV is calculated ("time-zone arbitrage"). For example, a market timer may purchase shares of a mutual fund that invests in overseas markets based on events occurring after foreign market closing prices are established, but before the fund's NAV calculation, that are likely to result in higher prices in foreign markets the following day. The market timer would redeem the fund's shares the next day when the fund's share price would reflect the increased prices in foreign markets, for a quick profit at the expense of long-term fund shareholders. Market timing opportunities are not limited to international funds. Mutual funds that invest in small-cap securities and other types of investments which are not frequently traded, including high-yield bonds, also can be the targets of market timers.12

Market timing itself is not illegal. However, market timing may dilute the value of long-term shareholders' interests in a mutual fund if the fund calculates NAV using closing prices that are no longer accurate. Dilution may occur, for example, if fund shares are overpriced because redeeming shareholders will receive a windfall at the expense of the shareholders that remain in the fund. Similarly, dilution may occur when a fund sells its shares at a price lower than its NAV.13

Market timing also may harm shareholders because it may cause mutual funds to manage their portfolios in a disadvantageous manner. For example, a mutual fund's investment adviser may maintain a larger percentage of its assets in cash or may be forced to liquidate certain portfolio securities prematurely to meet higher levels of redemptions due to market timing. This is particularly true for mutual funds that invest primarily in foreign or emerging market securities, which are often thinly traded. Mutual funds also may incur increased brokerage and administrative costs related to the frequent purchases and redemptions associated with market timing.

In order to discourage market timers, many mutual funds have developed policies and procedures with respect to frequent purchases and redemptions of fund shares. Some mutual funds disclose in their prospectuses that they do not permit market timing, and many mutual funds have taken steps to discourage market timing. These steps may include, for example:

Imposing redemption or exchange fees on shares that are redeemed or exchanged within a certain time period following their purchase;

Restricting exchange privileges, for example, by restricting exchange requests submitted through a particular medium, such as telephone or facsimile transmission, or received after a certain time of day, or by delaying both the redemption and purchase sides of an exchange;

Restricting frequent trading, for example by limiting the total number of exchanges that an investor may make within a certain time period, or by limiting the number of "round trip" transactions where an investor purchases shares of a fund, exchanges those shares for shares of a different fund, and then exchanges back into the originally purchased fund;

Delaying the payment of the proceeds from the redemption of fund shares for up to seven days;14 and

Identifying market timers and restricting their trading privileges or expelling them from the fund.
While many mutual funds disclose in their prospectuses that they discourage market timing, many do not identify with specificity the frequency or type of trading that they consider to be problematic, or the specific steps that they will take to ensure that market timing trades are detected and prevented. Other mutual funds disclose specifically the number of trades that they consider to be problematic and the steps that they take to prevent and detect market timing. Item 7(c) of Form N-1A requires mutual funds to disclose in their prospectuses procedures for redeeming the fund's shares, including any restrictions on redemptions; any redemption charges, including how these charges will be collected and under what circumstances the charges will be waived; and the circumstances, if any, under which the fund may delay honoring a request for redemption for a certain time after a shareholder's investment.15 Item 8(a)(2) of Form N-1A requires a description of exchange privileges, which may be provided in the prospectus or the Statement of Additional Information ("SAI").16 Item 3 of Form N-1A requires a mutual fund to include any exchange fee or redemption fee in the fee table of its prospectus.17

Other aspects of mutual fund policies and procedures to deter market timing are not explicitly required to be disclosed, however. For example, our registration forms do not explicitly require funds to describe with specificity the circumstances under which restrictions on frequent purchases and redemptions will not be imposed, or the terms of arrangements with particular investors pursuant to which frequent purchases and redemptions are permitted.18

We believe that it may be useful to require mutual funds to describe with specificity the restrictions they place on frequent purchases and redemptions and the circumstances and arrangements under which the restrictions are not imposed. These additional disclosure requirements would enable investors to better assess a mutual fund's risks, policies, and procedures in this area, and to determine if a fund's policies and procedures are in line with their expectations.

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/33-8343.htm#IA
 
Unless you can get the SEC to change the regulation they will not be listening. They are within the guidelines of the regulation. These folks have a legal department and you can bet they checked with them before taking action. Good Luck!

Comments/Guidlines from the SEC Rule:

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/33-8343.htm#IA

Legal departments are like most organizations - they tend to focus on what they are good at. The right's of their particpants may not be something that they are pro's at -

You posted good info - but it's dealing with "managed funds" and the abuses that ocurr. TSP is not managed and we are far from being "abusive timers". TSP is a unique entity and one that most people probably would not get into unless they were force to, or were able to time - keep in mind Bush's national TSP program got shot down as the 401K of America because of it's weaknesses.

From the beginning:

Millions of individual American investors hold shares of open-end management investment companies ("mutual funds"), relying on these funds for their retirements, their children's educations, and their other basic financial needs.2 The tremendous growth of mutual funds reflects the trust that investors have placed in funds and the regulatory protections provided by the federal securities laws.

Recent allegations regarding late trading and abusive market timing, however, point to instances where it appears that some in the mutual fund industry, and some intermediaries that sell fund shares, have lost sight of their obligations to investors.3 These allegations relate to abuses in at least three areas:
  • "Late trading," the practice of placing orders to buy or redeem mutual fund shares after 4:00 p.m., Eastern time, as of which most funds calculate their net asset value ("NAV"), but receiving the price based on the 4:00 p.m. NAV;
  • Abuses related to "market timing," including the alleged overriding of stated market timing policies by fund executives to benefit large investors at the expense of small investors, or to benefit the fund's investment adviser; and
  • The selective disclosure by some fund managers of their funds' portfolio holdings in order to curry favor with large investors.
The Commission is extremely concerned by the abuses that have surfaced in the mutual fund industry, and we have taken vigorous enforcement action where abuses have been uncovered.4 We also believe, however, that regulatory reforms are necessary to help prevent such abuses from recurring in the future. The Commission is proposing a package of rule amendments intended to address abuses that have surfaced in the areas of late trading, market timing, and selective disclosure. In this release, we are proposing disclosure reforms intended to shed more light on market timing and selective disclosure of portfolio holdings. In a second release, we are proposing amendments that would require that an order to purchase or redeem redeemable securities of a registered investment companybe received by the company, its designated transfer agent, or a registered securities clearing agency by the time that the fund establishes for calculating its NAV in order to receive that day's price. In addition, we are publishing a release adopting rules requiring registered investment companies and investment advisers to adopt and implement written compliance policies and procedures, review those policies and procedures annually, and designate a chief compliance officer responsible for their administration.
 
Just want to give a big Thanks to all those who are taking the Bull by the Horns with this issue.
 
Back
Top