My money, our TSP fund, and the 2008 TSP IFT Rule.

[nsurf9]

The purpose of this thread is get a professional legal opinion and pursue a successful Injunction or Reformation of the TSP 2008 Rule that limits member to only 2 IFTs per month.

If we don't start some where, we will forever be no where. nsurf9

 

[jkenjohnson]

The purpose of this thread is get a professional legal opinion and pursue a successful Injunction or Reformation of the TSP 2008 Rule that limits member to only 2 IFTs per month.

If we don't start some where, we will forever be no where. nsurf9

I already tried a couple of times to get the Board to change and failed both times.

 

[Warrenlm]

There was a major effort back in 2008 and a thread around here discussing it. The results of the effort, and the prospects for another effort succeeding, should be in it. Anyone better at search than I am?

 

[Bquat]

There was a major effort back in 2008 and a thread around here discussing it. The results of the effort, and the prospects for another effort succeeding, should be in it. Anyone better at search than I am?

I think James was running that and we had more than 3000 signed up.

 

[nsurf9]

Thanks for responding. Did anyone retain an attorney and seek an injunction?

I recall also looking into the issue in about the 2008 time-frame. I spoke to Ms Ray and asked why the Board was not forthcoming as to the cost of an IFT for all the funds - with no response. I also spoke two people at the Department of Labor, if I remember correctly, that they have oversight over the Board, but was told it was limited.
I even had the Federal Times publish an article regarding the severe limitations of the rule..

However, I don't remember anyone really getting what amounts to a memorandum of law regarding an injunction of the 2008 rule. I will start looking back thru the posts, but I don't believe its there. I believe everyone was just beating around the bush with surveys, compaints to advisory board, etc, but no legal action.

The problem I see for the Board, and the ray of hope of TSP members, is that the Board was not forthcoming, as a fiductiary, with the cost of an IFT. It clouded the I fund different exchange rates, trading at different times of the day, with easily ascertainable costs of the other equity funds' pooling and settlement costs. The F, C, and S fund, should have been broken out from the I fund problem. Additionally, the TSP Board and its employees get bonuses for low administrative costs, even when its to its beneficiary detriment.

The bigger issue, moreover, is TSP members exercising control over its own fund.

 

[nnuut]

Seems like Deja vu all over again?
I agree with you 100%

 

[nsurf9]

The difference between now and then is now I.believe we have a good attorney to pursue the matter

 

[nsurf9]

Jkenj - What was the form of your efforts?

 

[James48843]

There is no legal recourse. The board is empowered by law to write the rules.

Of course, we could a go to the next meeting as "Occupy FTRIB", and try to convince them to listen to us that way.


MIC CHECK!

 

[nsurf9]

I recall from my own research, redress for fiduciary violations lies with, if I recall correctly, with the Department of Labor. Do recall the law on that issue? If the rule is, in fact, a violation of fiduciary relationship, there is recourse.

 

[WorkFE]

If, after 25 years, you have $300K in your TSP and you contributed 100% (Highly unlikely) of that money between your contributions and the match, thats a problem. It is nothing more than an overgrown piggy bank with someone helping you save. There are no earnings.
I assure you, someone is making a ton off of those investments. (Blackrock)
I must admit though that most people are upset because of the last few years economic conditions. I could be wrong but it seems TSP Talks registration steam rolled after 2008. I have not been around since the beginning though.

 

[nada]

you said it rejoinder. I'm with you on this issue! this arrangement needs to be changed. and also, why does IFT have to be done before noon, markets are closed not until 4? It seems tsp board doesn't want to see its members doing well financially.

folks, below is the address of the TSP board. please spare a few moment of your time to write a few lines to the board on the current IFT rule. we need to form a collective voice, so the issue can get on the board meeting agenda.


FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD
1250 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20005

[it's some board. doesn't even have an email address in this information superhighway age to communicate with its members].


Also, below is the monthly meeting minutes of the board. they even had a bill to introduce a mutual fund into TSP, but it was voted down. we don't need any more financial products. all we need is making TSP operated better. get rid of that IFT limit or at least the 12 o'clock deadline !!!!

http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/minutes.html

 

[nsurf9]

POST ALL RELATED TSP IFT LAW RESEARCH LINKS ON THIS THREAD. (CFR, US Code, case law, Federal Registry, Advisory Counsil, etc.)

I don't want even a good attorney just taking our money and removing our one good chance at this!

Nada, thanks for the link to the Board minutes.

Please post any and all collective legal research on this thread. If there is a way, we will shead light on it, even if its "Occupy FTRIB Street."

Any body up for writing a letter to President Obama - he and Congress are considering forcing federal employees to contribute more to the TPS.

This thread has drawn impressive attention already, not doubt because we, here, are proactive and many of us have enjoyed the freedom, AFTER we TSP members paid a lot of money for just such a internet based IFT system, to make a reasonable number of IFTs.

 

[Khotso]

Some questions: Who appoints and how is the board appointed? Are there any employees on the board? Have the federal unions taken this issue up?

 

[SteelSaving]

Any body up for writing a letter to President Obama - he and Congress are considering forcing federal employees to contribute more to the TPS.

You mean how much we put in or reducing how much they are willing to match?
They can't force us to put money in TSP; if they somehow are able to, then I would strongly believe that they will turn it into another fund to raid and give us IOU's in return. Why can't politicians see past yesterday?

 

[nsurf9]

Perhaps Mr. Dailing, effectively our representative, might meet with key members of TSP Talk, TSP Fantasy and their attorney, representing several thousand Federal employees and TSP members? He's right in Alexandria, phone number is provided.

Clifford Dailing, chairman of the Employee Thrift Advisory Council(ETAC).

"ETAC is a federal advisory committee established by the Federal EmployeesRetirement System Act of 1986 to give a voice to the participants in the operations."

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/SUBCOS/727 pslp tsp/Dailing Testimony Final.pdf

 

[dannyboy]

There is no legal recourse. The board is empowered by law to write the rules.

Of course, we could a go to the next meeting as "Occupy FTRIB", and try to convince them to listen to us that way.


MIC CHECK!

My (mis-understanding?) of that whole scene was that there was a big loss taken by Blackrock, or those in charge, at the time, on people doing these huge 100% in and out daily swings to the I fund. Which had the largest swings in value and thus the largest gains. I think the time lapse in between. If TSP people really want their multi-trade restored maybe look into them eliminating or restricting the I fund? :suspicious:
db

 

[nsurf9]

Yes, the I fund heavy trading at the time precipitated the limitation along with a few genuinely frequent traders and barclay's whining.

 

[nasa1974]

You mean how much we put in or reducing how much they are willing to match?
They can't force us to put money in TSP; if they somehow are able to, then I would strongly believe that they will turn it into another fund to raid and give us IOU's in return. Why can't politicians see past yesterday?

You're right we cannot be forced to put money into our TSP accounts. But remember that TSP is 1/3rd of your retirement if you are FERS. So why not get your matching funds. If you are FERS, unless you have a better way to set up a retirement fund, why not take advantage of TSP. In case you didn't know, all new hires are automatically put into TSP. I would have to go back and look which fund they are being put in, it is either G or one of the L funds.

 

[nasa1974]

My (mis-understanding?) of that whole scene was that there was a big loss taken by Blackrock, or those in charge, at the time, on people doing these huge 100% in and out daily swings to the I fund. Which had the largest swings in value and thus the largest gains. I think the time lapse in between. If TSP people really want their multi-trade restored maybe look into them eliminating or restricting the I fund? :suspicious:
db

It wasn't Blackrock it was Barclays also known as BGI. Blackrock bought out Barclays in 2009. We discussed this in depth back then. Check the link below. There are more posts that discussed this but it they are spread out over weeks before and after this link.
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?5743-nasa1974-s-Account-Talk&p=169246#post169246

It wasn't a loss of funds but darn near. The large movement in and out of the I fund by some members caused Barclays to almost not cover the trading for that time period which would have caused all kinds of problems. I would have to dig deeper into my posts to dredge up all the information.

From the FRTIB meeting minutes this is the first mention of Blackrock and Barclays that I found. http://www.frtib.gov/pdf/minutes/2009Jun.pdf I might have missed an earlier reference.

This was a tough time for this forum.