-
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
History
- Thread starter James48843
- Start date
Hallatauer
Member
+1 for above
luv2read
Active member
Barclays vs TSP members managing - and this explains it perfectly.
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=161994&postcount=632
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=161994&postcount=632
sdouglas3
Member
James, no need for the apoligies to the board. Sometimes when you try to bring ideas to light. The most powerful people still can't see the forest for the trees with their ego's in the way. I appreciate your writings and opinions and agree with you!
I really feel the TSP IFT limits has to do Barclays. The issue is trading your TSP account with and against Barclays. We have figured how to make money by trading the funds instead of buying and holding. After a while, more and more TSP members will increase trading because they want their own accounts to grow faster as well. And they will see that accounts grow faster than the buy and hold crowd. "Which in my mind is a capitalistic and right thing to do, and power to the TSP members to make money for thier accounts." However, the TSP funds are not set up for both Barclays and the TSP members to trade at the same time. Meaning, this could cause a unraveling/shortage/unbalanced effect of either Barclays or the TSP members accounts. Barclays has x amount of money to support their trading activities but not enough to carry everyone in the TSP to trade. Barclays hedges their trades with other trades and options so they do not lose any money while making a market for the TSP. And because of this Barclays will have to take on extra risk if more and more people continue to trade their accounts. This is not what Barclays signed up for. Barclays is there to ensure that trades are executed but not to hedge more and more as TSP members continue to trade daily in the funds. But, I also feel the TSP deserves the right to make money in a capitalistic way just like anyone else in America does. JMO
Steve
I really feel the TSP IFT limits has to do Barclays. The issue is trading your TSP account with and against Barclays. We have figured how to make money by trading the funds instead of buying and holding. After a while, more and more TSP members will increase trading because they want their own accounts to grow faster as well. And they will see that accounts grow faster than the buy and hold crowd. "Which in my mind is a capitalistic and right thing to do, and power to the TSP members to make money for thier accounts." However, the TSP funds are not set up for both Barclays and the TSP members to trade at the same time. Meaning, this could cause a unraveling/shortage/unbalanced effect of either Barclays or the TSP members accounts. Barclays has x amount of money to support their trading activities but not enough to carry everyone in the TSP to trade. Barclays hedges their trades with other trades and options so they do not lose any money while making a market for the TSP. And because of this Barclays will have to take on extra risk if more and more people continue to trade their accounts. This is not what Barclays signed up for. Barclays is there to ensure that trades are executed but not to hedge more and more as TSP members continue to trade daily in the funds. But, I also feel the TSP deserves the right to make money in a capitalistic way just like anyone else in America does. JMO
Steve
Sunnyskies
Member
Could it be that the lower ranks in the military are so underpaid, and overstressed with family problems (as in recurring remote assignments) that they cannot afford a TSP contribution?
Silverbird
Well-known member
If they offered a matching fund program to the military, it would be a no-brainer for personell to at least contribute up to that percentage.
Miss_Piggy
Member
James...
CountryBoy
Well-known member
Well said James,
But I'm afraid it fell on deaf ears and they weren't willing to even listen. The old saying "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my mind all made up", is very apropro in this situation.
This is proof that the powerful have no interest in hearing any different POV's. It's a sad day and it's even sadder that they don't even realize what they have done, but then those in that position think they know better. Socialism is alive and well and it calls itself Progessive and will not tolerate dissenting POV's. They speak a good game of tolerance, but only if you march goosestep with their thinking.
CB
But I'm afraid it fell on deaf ears and they weren't willing to even listen. The old saying "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my mind all made up", is very apropro in this situation.
This is proof that the powerful have no interest in hearing any different POV's. It's a sad day and it's even sadder that they don't even realize what they have done, but then those in that position think they know better. Socialism is alive and well and it calls itself Progessive and will not tolerate dissenting POV's. They speak a good game of tolerance, but only if you march goosestep with their thinking.
CB
Show-me
Well-known member
Your not qualified, educated, experience, or in the inner circle of political friends. Your opinion in not welcome and more of a annoyance to them than anything. I've seen managers like that. Don't make any more work for me than I have already or I will make you pay. Even if it IS a good idea it was not mine and you are making me look bad. You are a Surf, underling, and a nobody and his Majesty wants you to stay in your place and class.
Sorry for your troubles James.
I got my TSP statement this week and notice that the dilution of the total return was .06 or $60 per $100,000 TSP balance. What a joke.
Get the matching fund, max the Roth, then fill the TSP and hope the King does not rob it to fix the governments spending problems.
Sorry for your troubles James.
I got my TSP statement this week and notice that the dilution of the total return was .06 or $60 per $100,000 TSP balance. What a joke.
Get the matching fund, max the Roth, then fill the TSP and hope the King does not rob it to fix the governments spending problems.
James48843
Well-known member
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12).
This week, I had to live through "an interesting time." Seems certain employees over at the FTRIB were very angry with me.
In some of my writings, I have called into question the decisions of certain powerful people. I have printed, under a pseudoname, key statistical data and monetary facts that questioned the need to impose limits on the freedom of individuals. I, and many others, using pseudonames have offered ideas that would solve issues- but that appears to only have enraged the powerful.
To anyone to whom I may have offended, I apologize. That was not the intent, and if that is how it was taken, then it was a mistake, and I am at fault. I'm sorry.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States itself—Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal.
That tradition is alive and well online; indeed, anonymity has been crucial to the growth of the Internet as a forum for speech, ideas, and innovative thought.
Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may simply be shy about speaking publicly, or worried about social or economic retaliation from their communities or employers based on their views. By using pseudonyms, these speakers can obtain a measure of protection against that retaliation.
Predictably, some individuals, and some governments don’t like being the target of criticism and commentary. That’s why the growth of anonymous speech online has been met by a surge of retaliation based on online speech, subpoenas seeking the identities of the speakers, or even attemtps to use force to silence voices.
If anyone in particular was offended, then I apoligize. I never meant to call into question the job qualifications of any particular Senior Executive Service employee. In fact, I agree that member is qualified to hold the job that person holds. My words were incorrectly chosen. Sometimes words hurt- and for that, I am sorry.
I was angry at what appeared to me to be a group that has not listened to, nor provided enough dialog with, the very people whom have entrusted their entire life savings to them.
And then changed rules, without sitting down and actually having a dialog with those among whom the rules were changing.
It is easy to throw stones.
It is sometime much harder to become open to new ideas.
The internet provides a way to collaborate, and to innovate, far above any power to innovate in human history. No small group of employees anywhere could possibly innovate on the scale that the internet now allows. And innovation has been key in human history in our ability to rise above and make new strides in the human endevor.
Last night, I heard a radio commentary talking about innovation. I'm not sure if it was on the BBC, or NPR, but it talked about what happens when you get non-traditional groups of people into a room, put them onto a task, and let them come up with ideas and innovation.
When you want to truely come up with innovation, and take things to a new level, you don't put only people who know each other's limitations into a room. Instead, you put people together who have totally different perspectives on things, and then put the problem out on the floor for ideas and discussion. And what results is innovation, rather than simply tweeking "that's how we've always done it".
Here is an example:
The TSP wants to increase the number of military members. But they don't know what drives military members.
Here is a tip for you TSP-
Set up a chat room, forms some teams, and let's talk about it. You will find that for less than 50K, you can probably double the number of Military TSP holders. Why? Because we--Me, people like me, and yes, PEOPLE NOT LIKE ME-- could tell you 30 ways to reach out that you haven't tried-- in fact you haven't even thought of. Pespectives you haven't even considered- because they are outside of the normal range of thought or approaches you have.
Oh- wait. There already IS SUCH A PLACE FOR INNOVATION.
Instead of fighting free speech, and attempting to intimidate your critics into silence, I would put forth and advance the thought that you might be better off to reach out to those critics, and bring them onto YOUR team.
Task them with the goals YOU are trying to achieve, and then ask THEM to come up with ideas and innovative thoughts on how to do things better. Give them the task to bring you ideas to make your product better.
Think about it.
You will be better off if you open yourselves to new, innovative ideas.
And then so will your customers be better off at the results.
It's a proven way to innovate.
And it's what a new generation of people- globally- is all about.
Think about it.
This week, I had to live through "an interesting time." Seems certain employees over at the FTRIB were very angry with me.
In some of my writings, I have called into question the decisions of certain powerful people. I have printed, under a pseudoname, key statistical data and monetary facts that questioned the need to impose limits on the freedom of individuals. I, and many others, using pseudonames have offered ideas that would solve issues- but that appears to only have enraged the powerful.
To anyone to whom I may have offended, I apologize. That was not the intent, and if that is how it was taken, then it was a mistake, and I am at fault. I'm sorry.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States itself—Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal.
That tradition is alive and well online; indeed, anonymity has been crucial to the growth of the Internet as a forum for speech, ideas, and innovative thought.
Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may simply be shy about speaking publicly, or worried about social or economic retaliation from their communities or employers based on their views. By using pseudonyms, these speakers can obtain a measure of protection against that retaliation.
Predictably, some individuals, and some governments don’t like being the target of criticism and commentary. That’s why the growth of anonymous speech online has been met by a surge of retaliation based on online speech, subpoenas seeking the identities of the speakers, or even attemtps to use force to silence voices.
If anyone in particular was offended, then I apoligize. I never meant to call into question the job qualifications of any particular Senior Executive Service employee. In fact, I agree that member is qualified to hold the job that person holds. My words were incorrectly chosen. Sometimes words hurt- and for that, I am sorry.
I was angry at what appeared to me to be a group that has not listened to, nor provided enough dialog with, the very people whom have entrusted their entire life savings to them.
And then changed rules, without sitting down and actually having a dialog with those among whom the rules were changing.
It is easy to throw stones.
It is sometime much harder to become open to new ideas.
The internet provides a way to collaborate, and to innovate, far above any power to innovate in human history. No small group of employees anywhere could possibly innovate on the scale that the internet now allows. And innovation has been key in human history in our ability to rise above and make new strides in the human endevor.
Last night, I heard a radio commentary talking about innovation. I'm not sure if it was on the BBC, or NPR, but it talked about what happens when you get non-traditional groups of people into a room, put them onto a task, and let them come up with ideas and innovation.
When you want to truely come up with innovation, and take things to a new level, you don't put only people who know each other's limitations into a room. Instead, you put people together who have totally different perspectives on things, and then put the problem out on the floor for ideas and discussion. And what results is innovation, rather than simply tweeking "that's how we've always done it".
Here is an example:
The TSP wants to increase the number of military members. But they don't know what drives military members.
Here is a tip for you TSP-
Set up a chat room, forms some teams, and let's talk about it. You will find that for less than 50K, you can probably double the number of Military TSP holders. Why? Because we--Me, people like me, and yes, PEOPLE NOT LIKE ME-- could tell you 30 ways to reach out that you haven't tried-- in fact you haven't even thought of. Pespectives you haven't even considered- because they are outside of the normal range of thought or approaches you have.
Oh- wait. There already IS SUCH A PLACE FOR INNOVATION.
Instead of fighting free speech, and attempting to intimidate your critics into silence, I would put forth and advance the thought that you might be better off to reach out to those critics, and bring them onto YOUR team.
Task them with the goals YOU are trying to achieve, and then ask THEM to come up with ideas and innovative thoughts on how to do things better. Give them the task to bring you ideas to make your product better.
Think about it.
You will be better off if you open yourselves to new, innovative ideas.
And then so will your customers be better off at the results.
It's a proven way to innovate.
And it's what a new generation of people- globally- is all about.
Think about it.
Similar threads
