350Z's I Fund Thread JAN 08

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by newest Sort by date
The key is just what James has been talking about. The buy and holders who have a piece of the I fund will get a nice windfall gain tomorrow, but they don't realize it's happening - nor does the TSP put 2 and 2 together to see that the $16 million in fees is peanuts compared to this.
 
oreo said:
Maybe this is a stupid question but if, hypothetically, a large number of people have been scared off by the board's threats and have stopped IFTing in and out of the I fund, would this affect Barclays bottom line and, if so, could this cause a change in the way they determine their FV?

Just wanted to put this out there as a possibility.
Click to expand...

Show-me said:
They are on to ya! Don't think I am kidding.
Click to expand...

Yup, I'm sure Tracy Ray(Desperato?) and Barclay knows about this site. The timing of the TSP board's decision and Barclay's strange FV is suspicious.
 
tsptalk said:
The key is just what James has been talking about. The buy and holders who have a piece of the I fund will get a nice windfall gain tomorrow, but they don't realize it's happening - nor does the TSP put 2 and 2 together to see that the $16 million in fees is peanuts compared to this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, somebody should enlighten FedSmith about the difference between a .08% trading cost/year and a 3% drop in the S fund in one day.
 
ayla said:
I agree about keeping the price estimates down somewhat. With the volatility, it is so hard to predict now anyway. Thanks 350Z but I was wondering if you somehow could be targeted, perhaps they could figure out who you were, based on your IFTs. You DID seem to be on the wrong end of the FV's for a while there on a pretty consistent basis though can't say I've examined it that carefully. Call me a conspiracy theorist...
Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me about my bad days in 2007...:)

Seriously, I doubt that they know who I am and were targeting my IFTs. On the other hand, I've told a lot of people about this site and the I fund thread. It's possible I guess.

As I've said before, they might just be trying to make people think that it's impossible to predict FVs. Remember how consistent FVs used to be? They used to be either .50% or a full 1% added or subtracted from the I fund price.

For example, after yesterday's FV, I examined the charts and figured how they came up with a 26 cents -FV. I'm pretty sure of that method because I've seen that particular one used before. So, for today, I used the same method that was used yesterday, but Barclay decided to surprise me. Today's lack of a +FV makes absolutely no sense.

Perhaps they're just using monkeys to throw darts at a board to pick out which FV method to use for a particular day.:D
 
tsptalk said:
The ebbchart was in the I-fund today and will be in G tomorrow - that's what happened. They are waiting. Ahh, the buy and holders who want us to stop trading, will benefit again. They just don't know it. :rolleyes: Ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...

So, they (Barclays) are seeing a large amount of money leaving the I fund, so instead of losing money on a +FV, they just don't do one ? I also moved out and I didn't see to many people moving into the I.

Isn't this illegal ? Can we write somebody about this ?

Could the rise in the dollar have anything to do with this ?
 
MR_BOOOOM said:
So, they (Barclays) are seeing a large amount of money leaving the I fund, so instead of losing money on a +FV, they just don't do one ? I also moved out and I didn't see to many people moving into the I.

Isn't this illegal ? Can we write somebody about this ?

Could the rise in the dollar have anything to do with this ?
Click to expand...

Yes, it should be illegal.

No, the dollar did not rise enough to cancel the +FV. It only amounted to maybe -2 cents for the I fund.
 
Show-me said:
Check this article out. Finally someone for us controlling our own money.

http://www.tsptalk.com/tspcorner/archive/tspcorner010808.html
Click to expand...

To an extent, although he says that 2 trades per month is sufficient. As I am not a TSP "day trader", I do not plan on ever flipping my accounts back and forth very frequently. However, during times of high market volatility, a sufficient number of trades is needed. As this is a subjective number, my own preference would be to limit the number of trades (free) to 4 per month or else charge everyone a reasonable fee for each and every trade (no free ones, but with no trading limits).
 
presskh said:
To an extent, although he says that 2 trades per month is sufficient. As I am not a TSP "day trader", I do not plan on ever flipping my accounts back and forth very frequently. However, during times of high market volatility, a sufficient number of trades is needed. As this is a subjective number, my own preference would be to limit the number of trades (free) to 4 per month or else charge everyone a reasonable fee for each and every trade (no free ones, but with no trading limits).
Click to expand...


I was just thinking about that. I can certainly live with 4/month. How the heck did they come up with 2/month? How do you go from one a day to only 2/month?:rolleyes:
 
Show-me said:
Check this article out. Finally someone for us controlling our own money.
http://www.tsptalk.com/tspcorner/archive/tspcorner010808.html
Click to expand...

Apologies Show-me, but respectully: Everyone should go look at http://www.fedsmith.com/ right now - today's main page -front and center, the 1st article (3rd bullet, read: "Winner and Losers:") -its dated, from Nov, but still -right there it is - main page, 1st article, smack, dead, -front & center!
This guy Smith is no friend!:notrust:
VR

PS -agree, 4 would be better than 2!
 
I knew this was on the horizon two years ago - they want to establish parity with the private sector. Everyone else in the nation is forced by SEC regulation to conform - we should not be treated any differently. Sorry about that position. This only deals with fiduciary type mutual funds. Learn it before you churn it and we will all simply be forced to have a longer term perspective - it will work just fine.
 
hessian said:
Apologies Show-me, but respectully: Everyone should go look at http://www.fedsmith.com/ right now - today's main page -front and center, the 1st article (3rd bullet, read: "Winner and Losers:") -its dated, from Nov, but still -right there it is - main page, 1st article, smack, dead, -front & center!
This guy Smith is no friend!:notrust:
VR
Click to expand...

Done and I post a rather lengthy comment. Hope it gets posted.
 
Birchtree said:
I knew this was on the horizon two years ago - they want to establish parity with the private sector. Everyone else in the nation is forced by SEC regulation to conform - we should not be treated any differently. Sorry about that position. This only deals with fiduciary type mutual funds. Learn it before you churn it and we will all simply be forced to have a longer term perspective - it will work just fine.
Click to expand...

What ever! They want parity in one area but not in customer service and accountability. Read the GAO reports. What private sector board is immune from legal action? FRTIB does what it wants because they have a special "get out of jail free" card. TSP is under the DOL but the Board is not accountable to them or has to accept their recommendations or the recommendations of the GAO. It is a double standard and we are NOT private sector, a 401k, or a mutual fund. :toung: :D
 
tsptalk said:
The key is just what James has been talking about. The buy and holders who have a piece of the I fund will get a nice windfall gain tomorrow, but they don't realize it's happening - nor does the TSP put 2 and 2 together to see that the $16 million in fees is peanuts compared to this.
Click to expand...

It's not $16 million in fees, by the way. In October, the last month they showed data on, the month's fees for ALL $ 4 BILLION traded was just one million, three hundred sixteen thousand, seven hundred eighty six dollars. ($1,316,786).

And for that, the "Churning" allowed Barclays to shave off ONE HUNRDRED FIXTY THREE MILLION, THREE HUNDRES THOUSAND DOLLARS- ( $153.3 million) in "Fair Value" pennies taken away from those who trade, and given to those to buy and hold.

Net gain for buy-and-holders- about $151 million after ALL expenses were taken into account.


Note: My bet is that today, Barclays DID know exactly how much to expect Ebb's followers to move, and when they would do it. By doing what they did today, intentionally, they just soaked up all those FV pennies from heaven.

Intentionally.

It's not illegal. But it's also done in a way that takes advantage of knowing how much money you are going to need to redeem a day or two into the future, and where the market is today, and allows you to spring into action (at Barclays) some trading strategies that simply make you go "Hmmm...."

Wait until you read the next newsletter- by the way. This is small peanuts compared to what Barclays dreamed up for the "S" fund.

Hint: Can you say covered calls?

Stay tuned for the next issue of TSPSHAREHOLDER.ORG, as we expose Barclay's new modus operandi- where they got an exemption from SEC Rules, and I don't even know if TSP knows about it---.


This one will be goooood....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

TommyIV
  • Article Article
TSP Talk AutoTracker - Up 14% for November and Clinging to the S-fund
Replies
0
Views
298
TommyIV
TommyIV
V
Valleymd blog (the international question)
Replies
2
Views
148
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
New TSP L-fund
Replies
1
Views
7K
JTH
JTH
tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk - Where is the October volatility?
Replies
0
Views
198
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk - The bulls are back
Replies
0
Views
126
tsptalk
tsptalk
Back
Top