-
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. -
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
-
20% Off Annual Premium Subscriptions!*
Ends Jan 18... Click Here For More Information
* For new or current subscribers -
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
Intrepid_Timer's PUBLIC Account Talk
- Thread starter Intrepid_Timer
- Start date
James created a whole website for us back when the limits were being sprung on it (tspshareholder.org), and I think he had about 4000 signatures if I remember correctly. The TSP does not care what we want.
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=159565#post159565
Last edited:
GEW
Member
If this is a impossible task, then let us pay for the extra cost that they are so worried about. Any IFTs after the limit will cost extra!
Steel_Magnolia
Member
And all they would have to say is that the bookwork would be too expensive to make it feasible for the few who want to trade.
We're really not trying to be downers here. It's just that we've heard it so many times from them.
GEW
Member
Will... they did put some extra work giving us less to work with.
Anything is possible. Did anybody mention paying for extra IFTs?
If a transfer is taken after the limit, the system would automatically deduct the amount from our account. (It's a way for them to make some extra money...Wouldn't any business listen for ways to improve on profits?
burrocrat
Well-known member
a good way to get attention their attention to the issue would be for everyone who wants more IFT's to just keep making them each month everytime they want to in excess of two. the TSP will obviously not execute the transaction, probably also consume computing resources and maybe generate a print response on each denied transaction.
if enough do it, it might reach critical mass and be more expensive to deny all the extra moves rather than let them just go through.
i'm sure if you do this repeatedly you will get their attention. i tried it for a while but got not personal response. but if 600+ did it too...
even the folks who don't trade that often or prefer to sit in G until the mayans come back could support the effort in the interest of trading freedom. just move 1% on the first day of the month to L income and on the 2nd day move it back out. then rinse and repeat about 20 more times until you get fresh trades when the calendar rolls over.
i gaurandamtee you it would get some attention to the matter, careful what you ask for.
when they start sending out the nasty letters then just play dumb (that's easy for me) and ask for a better explanation because you don't understand what they tole you.
polygamists call it bleeding the beast.
if enough do it, it might reach critical mass and be more expensive to deny all the extra moves rather than let them just go through.
i'm sure if you do this repeatedly you will get their attention. i tried it for a while but got not personal response. but if 600+ did it too...
even the folks who don't trade that often or prefer to sit in G until the mayans come back could support the effort in the interest of trading freedom. just move 1% on the first day of the month to L income and on the 2nd day move it back out. then rinse and repeat about 20 more times until you get fresh trades when the calendar rolls over.
i gaurandamtee you it would get some attention to the matter, careful what you ask for.
when they start sending out the nasty letters then just play dumb (that's easy for me) and ask for a better explanation because you don't understand what they tole you.
polygamists call it bleeding the beast.
RealMoneyIssues
Well-known member
WorkFE
Well-known member
It's not really all the boards attention you would need to grab. What makes managing these funds so enticing is the constant in flow of cash. Unfortunately we would have to hurt ourselves to grab enough attention for anyone to listen.
The board takes more direction from Blackrock (or whoever it is now) than us. I would say that if a significant number of employees were to all of a sudden stop contributing and started putting into their IRA's for a while they would want to know then what they could do to bring you back.
JMO- I would not recommend it though.
The board takes more direction from Blackrock (or whoever it is now) than us. I would say that if a significant number of employees were to all of a sudden stop contributing and started putting into their IRA's for a while they would want to know then what they could do to bring you back.
JMO- I would not recommend it though.
grandma
Well-known member
Ahh, better leave the Mayan Admirers out of it - as I recall, there were quite a few who responded not only with no interest in our defense of moving our monies, but some were nearly aggressive in stating they were For-The-Restrictions -
What is the `rinse & repeat'? is that the `attempt to transfer but denied' action?
The request to not count going to G is the one that may be more actionable to `them' - all they'd have to do is delete the `G' count in their program, right?
burrocrat
Well-known member
oh man, that's twice as good.
if we quit contributing and perform multiple repeated invalid IFT's all month long then that's got to get some action right?
burrocrat
Well-known member
so you're saying we push for more, but settle for less? hey, that's a good idea too, bound to be better off than we are now no matter what they settle on.
Bquat
Well-known member
It would have to be in unison because the ones that tried to do it before were restricted to snail mail a month or two.
Scrappy
Member
Burro, I think you finally got it.
The reason we only get two IFT's is really because gubmint workers would all be analyzing investment/trading systems and "day" trading from work all day if we had any more IFT's.
It was a real problem for OPM. If a person was successful day trading and made big money for a couple years with TSP, they could claim qualifications/skills for a new job series they were looking to get a job in.
0530-Cash Processing Clerk
0500-Accounting Budget & Finance
0505-Financial Program Specialist
0503-Financial Clerk Assistant
0570-Financial Institution Examiner
1160-Financial Analyst
0512-Internal Revenue Agent
1169-Internal Revenue Officer
Intrepid_Timer
Well-known member
Funny!! :laugh:
Gumby
Active member
That is so true :nuts:
FAB1
Well-known member
Bingo! I think you would have to take it court, anybody tried that yet?
Also I really dont think they care so much about the frequency of your trades as much as where your money stays. You can make as many >1% moves as you like... In fact, I hope to be the record holder in 2011!! :toung:
It seems to me the current restrictions on ITFs are aimed at getting TSPers to hug the G fund.
My two cents.
JTH
Well-known member
I think you would have to take it court, anybody tried that yet?
Also I really dont think they care so much about the frequency of your trades as much as where your money stays. You can make as many >1% moves as you like... In fact, I hope to be the record holder in 2011!! :toung:
It seems to me the current restrictions on ITFs are aimed at getting TSPers to hug the G fund.
My two cents.
Double bingo +1 Take control of your own destiny!
Similar threads
