Federal Retirement Thrift Invesment Board

[hessian]

I'd suggest, organize a boycott of the L-Funds. My opinion of them has always been that they are counterproductive anyway!

They have G and F mixed in wih stocks - have some options that are pure stock funds, for cripes sakes!
(Folks can always maintain other amounts like G & F if and/or when they desire those.)
VR

 

[jayhawker]

Really the bottom line in all of this is that the TSP does not, and I will repeat it, DOES NOT want members moving their money around. A "once every 2 weeks" trade restriction is one more than the old system. The only difference is that you can pick the day it transfers instead of waiting till the 1st of the month. TSP should adopt Ron Popeil's Showtime Rotisserie Cooker slogan of "Just set it and forget it!" That's really what TSP wants.

Of course, if they do implement said trade restrictions, we - as a group - could trade within the rules and gig them at the same time. All we'd need is a guide (Ebb?) to give us a specific day to move all our money to the I Fund and a specific day to get out. Seems we could do that twice a month with the last move out going to the G. Would that be wrong of us?

 

[pogo]

She claims that they can not determine a fee because trading cost differ from trade to trade. Guess they never heard of averaging.

I wonder how much the trading cost differ from trade to trade and if they are not telling us something.

I will note that she said she talk to several participant that are very upset. I was one of them.

She said the L Funds are "set up to to trade that way" meaning daily and that all trades including the L Fund are "rolled up into one order and handed to Barclay".

Now, what happens when L Fund participation exceeds frequent trader participation? Do they decrease the daily to a weekly rebalance?

there is so much information out there i am starting to get confuse(that's what they want) but i swear the board said(i could be wrong) that they trade the L-funds first with what the g-f-c-s-and i funds have for sell/buy, example say the l-funds has 200,000 shares to sell and say the L-funds2040 need 200,000 they would buy in house first ,now she said in the radio report that they group all the funds together (buy/sell) and give it to barclay to sell/buy on the open market. it's my gut feeling that someone is not telling the truth.

 

[Show-me]

pogo,
You're right, they are not telling the whole truth just what they want you to hear. Cross trades are trades that are made one for one and cost nothing, but who is to say it is the L Funds that take priority for cross trades.

 

[tspgo_com]

Hey, TSPGO-

Can you add this to the news list?

From Federal News Radio-
TSP Board taking heat over new limits:
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?sid=1308389&nid=250

Everybody should hear this one- an interview by Tracy Ray last week. We've had a lot of success in gathering signatures, and Tracy is fighting back. We need to keep up the pressure.

Listen, and then comment here.

Thanks

Done!

Thanks.

 

[wv-girl]

Done!

Thanks.

Sounds to me that Ms Ray is saying we should be happy with the current rate of return "if we were to leave our $ alone" and ride out the dips. And how again has our trading "hurt" non-traders? Funny there is no mention about throwing away the Millions spent on putting the current no ift limits system in place. I want my money back that they are just throwing away. Perhaps we should demand a refund.

 

[Miss_Piggy]

I was thinking (no it didn't hurt)..But I'm CSRS (no funds matching, it's all my money) and I wonder if I could roll all the way out of the TSP into something else without any problems?..Basically take my money and run..to hell with TSP.inc

Any suggestions or comments?

Well, I’m in FERS and my TSP account equals a higher percentage of my retirement monies than for those in CSRS. However, I’ve asked but have never received any reassuring or understandable explanations re the wisdom of rolling over my TSP funds to some other type of management, such as Charles Schwab, Fidelity, Ameri-Trade, money market accounts, or IRAs. As of today it is my understanding that nobody, but nobody, has access to anything similar to the G Fund for investing, but Federal Employees. The G Fund allows us, federal employees, to invest in the stock market at the same time allowing us to seek shelter in the G Fund when the market is in crisis or is in a downfall.
PS I welcome any comments or critiques of my current understanding of the value of the G Fund.

 

[James48843]

Just a little comment here:

To everyone- we are doing a good job. This is a long-haul fight, not an overnight fght. Be prepared to move when and where appropriate. We're up and going, so that is good. We are speaking with a unified voice. And that is good. We are making them pay attention. And that is very good.

Here are some victories, and we need to celebrate victories:

1. They are changing their story from time to time. They are reading this website, and seeing what we are talking about. That means they consider us to be REAL. And that is good. They are recognizing that something is up. They never had this kind of response before, so they are going to get an earful, I'm sure, when the ETAC meets with them tomorrow. I hope the ETAC does not rubber stamp everything, but rather makes them lay out all the reasons why they want to do what they want to do, and I hope the ETAC demands that they provide other alternatives.


2. They are reacting to our reaction. We've gotten over TWO THOUSAND signatures on petitions in the course of two weeks. That's not a bad start at all. It's not where we need to be, YET. But it's a beginning. If each person who signs, asks two other people to sign, we'll have a LOT of signatures before long. Remember, they started this battle the week of thanksgiving- a time when a lot of employees are gone, and we've already been able to muster our minutemen (and minutewomen) to the cause, and we're growing, and fighting back. That is a positive you cannot imagine.

3. Making a change like this doesn't happen overnight. Neither will the battle against this be won overnight. It will be won in the hearts and minds of federal employees everywhere, who hear about the unjust curtailment of freedom, and sign up to actually do something about it. They are being mobilized from coast to coast, and around the world.

And that, my fellow federal employees, my countrymen, is, for us, a sweet victory.

The "300 TSPARTANS", holding off the advancing foe.

We, the 300.

We will become 3,000.

Then we become 30,0000;

then 300,000.

Celebrate our victories.

 

[James48843]

I saw this on another site, and it deserves to be posted here:


Re: FRTIB Gets Feedback on IFT Restrictions
Posted by: "Sarah" sarah_oz

Date: Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:10 am ((PST))

When they offered the TSP no one complained.

When they increased transfers from 2 to 4 per year no one complained.

When they increased transfers from 4 to 12 per year no one complained.

When they increased the number of funds no one complained.

When they increased transfers from 12 to daily, no one complained.

Decreasing from daily to 2 per month is roughly a 90% restriction on
trading.

FRTIB would have a better sell if they told people exactly what they
would get for this, like a 5% better return. But they can't. It also seems hypocritical when the L funds involve daily transfers.



================================================


(note: What will they get for this? they can't answer. They hope to reduce the amount of trading. If they did, it would be an extra $ 1 to $2 per YEAR in return to shareholders. ).

 

[Show-me]

Here is what the Mr. Long and Ms. Ray are not telling. While the total number for "trading costs" looks huge as a total amount, spread it out over 3.8 million participants and it cost the same as a pack of cigarettes for the entire YEAR.

Much less than $4 PER PERSON PER YEAR in shared trading cost. Take the total amount of money spent on "trading cost" and divide by 3.8 million participants. Now subtract the "trading cost" not associated with the frequent traders and the number is much less than $4 per person per YEAR.

Total trading cost for year to end of September is $14.4 million divided by 3.8 million participants and then subtract out the L Fund daily rebalancing and what Ms. Ray calls normal interfund transfers.

 

[DrFaustus]

Here is what the Mr. Long and Ms. Ray are not telling. While the total number for "trading costs" looks huge as a total amount, spread it out over 3.8 million participants and it cost the same as a pack of cigarettes for the entire YEAR.

I think there's something else they aren't telling us. They praise the TSP because it is a low-cost system. But why is it a low cost system? Simply this: the vast majority of its members are not managing their accounts. I'd be willing to wager you that a good percentage (33%, perhaps more) have their money in the G fund and have NEVER made an IFT. I'd be willing to wager further that a good percentage of the membership is not even AWARE that 1/3 (perhaps more) of their retirement is wrapped up in the TSP.

When I was a Fed, I can remember my coworkers going to retirement classes. You weren't EVEN ELIGIBLE to go to these if you weren't within 5 years of retirement. Its that way in private industry as well. You should have to attend a retirement class within your first year of employment if your company offers a 401(k) type of plan - it's the only way to get enough time in the system to make compounding really start to work for you.

 

[Show-me]

I want a piece of that bet! That is why the Board developed the L Funds and wanted to change the default to the L funds, to force people out of the G Fund.

I think there's something else they aren't telling us. They praise the TSP because it is a low-cost system. But why is it a low cost system? Simply this: the vast majority of its members are not managing their accounts. I'd be willing to wager you that a good percentage (33%, perhaps more) have their money in the G fund and have NEVER made an IFT. I'd be willing to wager further that a good percentage of the membership is not even AWARE that 1/3 (perhaps more) of their retirement is wrapped up in the TSP.

When I was a Fed, I can remember my coworkers going to retirement classes. You weren't EVEN ELIGIBLE to go to these if you weren't within 5 years of retirement. Its that way in private industry as well. You should have to attend a retirement class within your first year of employment if your company offers a 401(k) type of plan - it's the only way to get enough time in the system to make compounding really start to work for you.

 

[CountryBoy]

There are 2 of us in our section that actively manage our TSP fund, thru TSP Talk. The remainder either aren't even in the TSP, Buy and Hold or just put it in G. But to a person, when they were made aware of the Board reducing our transfers back to 2 per month, they were upset. Whether they were upset enough to go to the sites we recommended and write their federal political hacks, who knows, but I have a feeling that Barclays and the Board have no idea of the backlash this is going to cause when everyone becomes aware of it, if our office is any indication.

And as someone else mentioned, wait for another 20 to 30 years, when the vast najority will be in the Lfunds. Transfer costs will go up then and they just take away more options. Something underhanded is going on and of course we're the last to know and the first to be screwed.

Merry Christmas All,
CB

 

[James48843]

Here are some extracts out of the December Board meeting for you to digest:


Mr. Long then provided the Board members with a sample
complaint from a participant regarding the proposed interfund
transfer restrictions as well as a sample response. He reminded
the Board members that, when they asked him if there was any
downside to the proposed restrictions, he had stated that we
would have complaints from the small number of TSP participants
who are engaged in frequent trading. Mr. Sanchez commented on a
newspaper article he had read regarding the proposed restrictions.
He noted that the article's author seemed to understand
why we are proposing the restrictions. That is, the TSP was intended
to be a long-term retirement savings plan and the actions
of a few participants are adversely affecting all participants.

Mr. Fink asked how many letters had the Agency received and how
many were from members of Congress. Mr. Trabucco responded that
we have received twelve letters and none were from a member of
Congress. Mr. Sanchez asked whether all the letters were complaints
and was told that ten of the writers were opposed to the
proposed restrictions and two were in favor of the proposed restrictions.
Chairman Saul remarked that Agency staff had his
total support on this matter. The TSP was meant to be a long term
retirement plan. The Board has a fiduciary duty to keep it
as such and to act solely in the interest of all participants
and beneficiaries. The proposed restrictions are consistent
with these objectives.


Looks like they told the board there were only 12 people who sent in letters before the December meeting. What do you think?

 

[James48843]

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.

 

[qibovin]

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.

So this chart tells me that all the fund expenses, percentage-wise, were cheaper in 2007 than they have ever been in all previous years, and of these, the I funds was the very cheapest of all, percentage-wise; and it is about this fund, in particular, that the FRTIB is in an uproar over. Am I missing something?

 

[Elgallo]

I was plannng to "activly manage" my TSP in retirment. This change does NOT help that one iota!

When I retire it sure looks as if I will be transferring my entire TSP to Fidelity. BTW Fidelity does not charge a fee for retirement accounts. Interesting huh?