-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com
-
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
coolhand's Account Talk
- Thread starter coolhand
- Start date
CountryBoy
Well-known member
I was expecting a little more reaction or discussion about the potential of this happening. Is this much ado about nothing or are folks here just accepting this as the inevitable and there is not much we can do to protect our retirement money.
WIND_HUNTER
Member
I would like to know more about this...Has this been done before, Anyone know?
CountryBoy
Well-known member
Thanks WorkFE,
Our choices sure are limited, so I guess the best thing, is as you said, just keep an eye on it.
Frixxxx
Moderator
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ..._seizes_pension_funds_to_pay_debts_Whos_next/
In the article is this link that shows Argentina is doing this.
They've been in turmoil since the 80's....It is extreme and we need to be vigilant.
ch
I saw this, it is a disgrace. As I posted in another group, all I can think of to do about this is to write my congressman/senators and also bring it up with the union (or bargaining unit, etc) I am in. But I have already written my congressman a few times about other stuff and have never heard back so I suspect the above actions may be of no use. The politicos are probably counting up their kickbacks already and dont want to be bothered by some pesky citizen!
WIND_HUNTER
Member
So, if our money is in stocks, they can force us to the G -fund? This does not seem right, but then again, not a whole lot seems right these days...:suspicious:
Frixxxx
Moderator
It is the funds (bonds, stocks, etc) that are getting raped. If we were Argentina, there would be no G Fund. It would have already been emptied. Basically, it would be like President Obama going into Fidelity Invesments and making a withdrawal from the Magellan Fund. Probably write I.O.U. in pretty little, congress-approved script. And then use it to fund SEIU or ACORN.....sorry, I got to stop.....Hopefully, I painted the picture of what is happening down there!
Not in the US. I personally think the article is way overblown.
If you are retiring or retired it is not good to have your retirement savings in high risk investments. Annuities and other steady stream funds provide a greater income stability and hedge against market downturns. Encouraging a more secure retirement is not a bad thing.
Our G-fund is invested in treasuries (government debt) as is Social Security. Since we are running budget deficits, the government needs to borrow or else the government stops working and can't pay us or fund our retirement accounts nor match our TSP contributions. So it would not be a good thing if the government couldn't sell its debts (by selling treasuries). So stability in the treasury market is a good thing.
It is possible that we the people (overall) are overinvested in equities and have our retirement funds at too much risk. The issue behind this could be an effort to protect the economy and retirees from future speculative bubbles and financial crises. That would help us all out.
grandma
Well-known member
Emphasis mine.
This is quite interesting - considering that only a few years ago TSP invested millions, including mailing EACH one of us a CD-rom to encourage (stronger word than encourage, please) government employees to get their money out of G and Into the stocks via the `L' funds.
And didn't the tspboard initiate the `two ifts/month' ruling to try to keep us IN the funds?
Seems like if their end goal is to have our monies available for the government to dip into (uninvited) they would let us have the IFTs to increase the pots...
-or have I misunderstood what you are posting?
Elgallo
Member
burrocrat
Well-known member
Account diversification may be the best defense to avoid the damage possible mandatory annuities could do.
I no longer contribute more than 5% (to get the match) in TSP. The rest goes into a ROTH IRA, since this is after-tax money supposedly I could take it out anytime without penalty. Also after 5 years or age 59.5 the earnings should also be tax-free, but I suppose since it is a 'benefit' they've provided I suppose they could put their hooks in that part of it (pull a Chavez). Regular brokerage accounts should never be subject to a annuity requirement.
By retirement age, if they require a percentage of TSP/traditional IRA to go to an annuity, then at least that would only affect a portion of my funds intended for retirement. It's likely that I would put part of it in cash equivalent holdings anyway, then would just go more aggressive with the remaining amounts in other accounts to maintain desired allocation.
I don't like the idea of being forced to purchase 'insurance' which gaurantees profits and commissions for the seller. First automobile, next health care, then retirement. Oh what a slippery slope.
I no longer contribute more than 5% (to get the match) in TSP. The rest goes into a ROTH IRA, since this is after-tax money supposedly I could take it out anytime without penalty. Also after 5 years or age 59.5 the earnings should also be tax-free, but I suppose since it is a 'benefit' they've provided I suppose they could put their hooks in that part of it (pull a Chavez). Regular brokerage accounts should never be subject to a annuity requirement.
By retirement age, if they require a percentage of TSP/traditional IRA to go to an annuity, then at least that would only affect a portion of my funds intended for retirement. It's likely that I would put part of it in cash equivalent holdings anyway, then would just go more aggressive with the remaining amounts in other accounts to maintain desired allocation.
I don't like the idea of being forced to purchase 'insurance' which gaurantees profits and commissions for the seller. First automobile, next health care, then retirement. Oh what a slippery slope.
coolhand
Well-known member
Frixxxx
Moderator
HAHA, If you get those types of posts.....you can always PM me!:laugh:I posted something that I decided against posting. Nothing you did.
