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

[nasa1974]

The last posted minutes from the FRTIB was September 2011. The minutes are usually posted the third week of the previous month (September meeting minutes posted in October). They are almost a month late for October's minutes (due in or around 11/20) and should be posting the November meeting minutes next week. The Board generally meets between the 15th and the 20th of each month.

 

[nsurf9]

http://www.archive.org/details/gov.house.ogr.fw.20110727
House Oversight The Thrift Savings Plan: Helping Federal Employees Achieve Retirement Security (July 27, 2011)

NASA, I knew you'ld remember the Barclay's whining event.

The above link is great stuff. These are the main players live and their current concerns, as of July 27, 2011 - Gregory Long, Exec. Director of TSP; Clifford D. Dailing, Chairman, ETAC, and Joseph Beadoin, Pres, NARFEA. And their house of representative audience - Dennis A. Ross (Florida) Chairman and Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts, Ranking Member, et. al.

Get to know them "first hand," their stance, concerns, read-between-the-lines; and who might help to show the cleavage to drive our (the owners) effort to regain a reasonable measure to be proactive with out own money.

Lots of issues: fund maintenance cost of 25 cents per $1000 invested; no or low return and protection and suspension of G fund; make G whole with back interest; Roth; mutual fund window thru TSP (Long drags his heals stating "paternalistic concern" and Lynch replying external (private) fees can be driven down and Plan needs the diversity (Long and they'll never do it)); attracting/keeping participants.

The meeting is entitled "The Thrift Savings Plan: Helping Federal Employees Achieve Retirement Security"

Witnesses: Mr. Gregory T. Long, Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board; Mr. Clifford D. Dailing, Chairman, Employee Thrift Advisory Council; Mr. Joseph A. Beaudoin, President, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. Video provided by U.S. House of Representatives


House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia.
Dennis A. Ross, Florida, Chairman
Justin Amash, Michigan, Vice Chair
Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Connie Mack IV, Florida
Tim Walberg, Michigan
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina

Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts, Ranking Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia
Gerry Connolly, Virginia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois

 

[nsurf9]

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03400.pdf

DOL Oversight and Thrift Savings Plan Accountability, April 2003

Also, great stuff. History law of TSP formation, Secretary of Labor oversight (and lack thereof), fiduciary responsibility (and immunity for the TSP Chairman and Board); Presidential appointment of TSP Board; and 4-year term; Jurisdiction, and past venue (Federal District Court of Appeals (DC); Department of Justice role, etc.

I’m still thinking like this is the injunction ticket and/or argument to Lynch, Dawling, and/or Beaudoin

(1) The Board was not forthcoming on the cost of an IFT and effectively subrogated members’ option to pay for an F, C and S fund IFT and straight-jacketing members’ an ability to reasonably protect their retirement;
(2) That the Board’s bonuses were, in 2008 and now, based on low administrative costs, instead of genuinely protecting and enhancing its beneficiary/members’ retirement, immediately before the worst financial recession/depressing since the Great Depression, which amounted to billion of dollar of losses to its members; and,
(3) That, today, its members are additionally faced a G fund that accrues little or no interest; and continue to risk losses, with no ability to proactively manage their retirement in a atmosphere of even greater, unprecedented market volatility and potentially even greater losses.

 

[nsurf9]

I STILL BELIEVE BECAUSE ITS KNOW ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

I'll find and post the independent survey, done by TSP. My recollection was that it didn't ask the salient question, "What you agree to more IFTs than the present 2 IFTs, if a member paid for the IFT and it cost nothin to the Plan or IFT(s).

Also, I recall another survey I'll need to post, I believe by FedSmith, where an overwhelming number of member said yes to such a question.

It occurs to me that it would be helpful to have a elected representative member(s) of, or from, both both TSP Talk and TSP Fantasy. Tom, James, NASA, Bquat, Coolhand, ExtremeWX, me, anybody will do, with the right message, as our respresentative(s). Does anybody know how many Federal Government employees that would be?

 

[James48843]

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.go...://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0709/070109p2.htm

Does that make it clear enough for you?

I had the signatures of 4,000 + TSP shareholders behind me. Submitted to the TSP management (Mr. Long) for the Notice of Proposed rule making. Those signatures were blown off completely by Mr. Long and company.

And I had a website, TSPSHAREHOLDER.ORG, where I laid out the costs and the harm that would be done to shareholders by limiting trades. My calculations proved correct. AFTER they limited trades, the costs went UP, not down.

And I shared that information with several members of the ETAC at the time.

And the head guy. Richard Brown.

And shortly afterwards, before anything could be put on an agenda, ...THE HEAD OF THE ETAC's BODY was found.

Now do you get it?

The 1% (Actually, the 0.01%) at the top do not want you to be able to move your money.

THEY are Barclays, and Black Rock, and the ones who control the strings.

 

[RealMoneyIssues]

Leave it alone. You just don't get it.

Let me lay it out so that it is clearer for you---

Before the current ETAC President was in place, there was another ETAC President.

The previous ETAC president and I passed e-mail traffic back and forth, regarding the issue of Barclays, the slush fund, and trading limits.

Shortly thereafter, the ETAC president's body was found, dead in his apartment, at age 47.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0709/070109p2.htm

Does that make it clear enough for you?

I had the signatures of 4,000 + TSP shareholders behind me. Submitted to the TSP management (Mr. Long) for the Notice of Proposed rule making. Those signatures were blown off completely by Mr. Long and company.

And I had a website, TSPSHAREHOLDER.ORG, where I laid out the costs and the harm that would be done to shareholders by limiting trades. My calculations proved correct. AFTER they limited trades, the costs went UP, not down.

And I shared that information with several members of the ETAC at the time.

And the head guy. Richard Brown.

And shortly afterwards, before anything could be put on an agenda, ...THE HEAD OF THE ETAC's BODY was found.

Now do you get it?

The 1% (Actually, the 0.01%) at the top do not want you to be able to move your money.

THEY are Barclays, and Black Rock, and the ones who control the strings.

Wow, that is some serious conspiracy theory...

 

[Show-me]

Just remember who has the deepest pockets.

 

[nsurf9]

Leave it alone. You just don't get it.

Let me lay it out so that it is clearer for you---

Before the current ETAC President was in place, there was another ETAC President.

The previous ETAC president and I passed e-mail traffic back and forth, regarding the issue of Barclays, the slush fund, and trading limits.

Shortly thereafter, the ETAC president's body was found, dead in his apartment, at age 47.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0709/070109p2.htm


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/07/nffe_president_richard_brown_d.html

Richard N. Brown, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, had more than just TSP IFT transfer limits on the table, there was also NSPS (the "pay for performance" answer to the GS pay scale), and he isn't the only union leader MIA. I haven't found a cause of death - just "unknown causes" and "no comment" Arlington county. I must say this 47 year old man's death seems, on first blush, suspect. But, my answer is 3-plus million Federal Employees should not be diswayed from laying claim and taking authority and responsibililty for what was, is, and what will always rightfully be theirs.

Excerpt from Washington Post article:

In recent days, Ault said Brown had expressed strong concerns that the Obama administration had yet to end the controversial National Security Personnel System. The two planned to meet next week with other federal union leaders to update their strategy to lobby against the program.

Brown appeared last week at a Defense Business Board meeting on NSPS. The pay-for-performance operation used to measure the work of approximately 211,000 Defense Department civilians has vocal critics and few defenders.

"Defense workers have already made up their minds on NSPS. They want it gone once and for all," Brown told the board. "I agree with this assessment. I believe that NSPS is unsalvageable and the best possible course of action is full repeal."

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

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!

Didn't you try to meet with the FRTIB when they were still considering the rule? I know I contributed a few bucks to the fight back then.

 

[James48843]

Didn't you try to meet with the FRTIB when they were still considering the rule? I know I contributed a few bucks to the fight back then.

I traveled to D.C. and met with members of the ETAC. Provided several members of the ETAC with hard data and copies of the petitions.


and thanks for the donation.

 

[nsurf9]

I traveled to D.C. and met with members of the ETAC. Provided several members of the ETAC with hard data and copies of the petitions.


and thanks for the donation.

James, as you may know, I was pretty frustrated and hot under the collar about that time, also. However, I did not know of the extent of your efforts. And, unfortunately, I feel a 2008 de javu again, and again needlessless find myself with no ability to protect my TSP account. To you and those that donated and helped with that effort, have my sincere thanks. nsurf9

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

I traveled to D.C. and met with members of the ETAC. Provided several members of the ETAC with hard data and copies of the petitions.


and thanks for the donation.

I wish I could have contributed more than I did. Though we didn't prevail, I thought you did an outstanding job representing those of us who actively manage our accounts. I'm prepared to donate again, if need be.

 

[nnuut]

I wish I could have contributed more than I did. Though we didn't prevail, I thought you did an outstanding job representing those of us who actively manage our accounts. I'm prepared to donate again, if need be.

Me too!

 

[SteelSaving]

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.

I think you are missing my point. I was responding to a post that said Obama and Congress will force us to contribute more into TSP. My reply was that I don't know how they could force that so my belief is they would "force" it by reducing matching contributions. Now, if they could force it, why would they? It may benefit the country WAY down the line by leaving retirees better off to care for them selves monitarily, but I've never known the federal government to have any sort of foresight. So that leaves me to believe they want to do with the TSP as they did with Social Security. Start pulling from it and leaving IOU's that the current work force has to fill for the current retirees.

At this point, of course I know that the more I put in, the more I will have at retirement. But I have to wonder why DC would try to FORCE me to put more in. Suspicious cap is on. :suspicious:

BTW, funds for new hirees are put in the G fund.

 

[James48843]

I think you are missing my point. I was responding to a post that said Obama and Congress will force us to contribute more into TSP. My reply was that I don't know how they could force that so my belief is they would "force" it by reducing matching contributions. Now, if they could force it, why would they? It may benefit the country WAY down the line by leaving retirees better off to care for them selves monitarily, but I've never known the federal government to have any sort of foresight. So that leaves me to believe they want to do with the TSP as they did with Social Security. Start pulling from it and leaving IOU's that the current work force has to fill for the current retirees.

At this point, of course I know that the more I put in, the more I will have at retirement. But I have to wonder why DC would try to FORCE me to put more in. Suspicious cap is on. :suspicious:

BTW, funds for new hirees are put in the G fund.

Ok, back up. Back WAYYYYY up.

The bill in Congress today (House Version), is not going to require people to contribute more to TSP.

The bill in Congress today (House version) IS going to require employees to contribute more to their FERS pension.


Today, employees pay 0.8% of their salary into the FERS pension account. When they retire, they get back their contribution, plus their Agency puts in money, and that's how FERS is funded.


Under this bill, employees no longer will pay 0.8% into FERS, but rather will pay a LOT more. It would up the employee contribution to 2.3% of their pay (for standard FERS employees), and 2.8% of their pay for the law enforcement early out people.



That would be the same as a pay cut in your take home pay.


That's what was being talked about- not a forced TSP.

 

[James48843]

But wait- there's MORE.

(Cue Ronco pocket fisherman theme...)

You also get a WHOLE NEW set of rules for employees hired after December, 2012.

You get: Instead of FERS contribution going from 0.8% to 2.3%, employees hired after December 2012 will have to pay 4%.


And instead of getting 1% for each year of service, those who are hired after Dec 2012 will only get 0.7% for each year of service.

Meaning a 30-year career FERS employee's pension will be: PAY IN 4%, get out 21% instead of 30% for a 30 year career.

Details:

the legislation would introduce a new retirement structure for employees hired after December 31, 2012 with less than five years of credible service for retirement purposes. The employee contribution to FERS would increase from 0.8% to 4% of salary, an increase of 3.2 percent over current law. The employee contribution for special occupational groups and Members of Congress is also increased by a total of 3.2%, from 1.3% to 4.5%. Under existing law, the employer contribution equals the normal retirement cost reduced by the employee contribution.

The new retirement structure would also change the FERS pension formula salary base for all retirees to the highest-five years’ average salary. Existing CSRS and FERS employees remain subject to a highest-three years’ average salary base.

The FERS pension formula multiplier for basic retirees would also change to 0.7% points, instead of 1% (or 1.1% with 20 or more years of service). Employees in special occupational groups are subject to a proportional adjustment to the multiplier (0.3 percentage points lower than current law).

More:
http://www.fedsmith.com/article/3212/house-bill-would-extend-pay-freeze.html

 

[SteelSaving]

Ok, back up. Back WAYYYYY up.

The bill in Congress today (House Version), is not going to require people to contribute more to TSP.

The bill in Congress today (House version) IS going to require employees to contribute more to their FERS pension.


Today, employees pay 0.8% of their salary into the FERS pension account. When they retire, they get back their contribution, plus their Agency puts in money, and that's how FERS is funded.


Under this bill, employees no longer will pay 0.8% into FERS, but rather will pay a LOT more. It would up the employee contribution to 2.3% of their pay (for standard FERS employees), and 2.8% of their pay for the law enforcement early out people.



That would be the same as a pay cut in your take home pay.


That's what was being talked about- not a forced TSP.

D'oh. That makes more sense. I think the poster I was quoting back in page 2 may have been confused.
Yeah, what a load of dung. Nothing like doing that on top of a pay freeze for a few more years.

Again, I have to ask, what good is giving tax breaks to the rich while raising the taxes of the middle class? Ok, so the rich have more money to create more jobs and services for a middle class that can no longer afford them... Doesn't make sense.
And this is coming from a staunch conservative.

 

[nsurf9]

I believe an class action injunction of the 2008 IFT limit is open. See the Lebowitz *** section below. Any thoughts? This would not be a signed petition to request, this would be a U.S. District court order to rescind or reform the 2008 IFT rule.

From “The Thrift Savings Plan: Putting Customers First? Hearing before the Committee on Government Reform – House of Representatives, One Hundred Eights Congress, First Session, July 24, 2003. Serial No. 108-71 - TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman


Mr. Lebowitz, thanks for being with us.
Mr. LEBOWITZ. Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Alan Lebowitz; I’m Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Program Operations of the U.S. Department of Labor’s
Employee Benefits Security Administration [EBSA].

As in ERISA, the Secretary has broad authority to investigate
and audit the activities of the Board and other Plan fiduciaries.
When FERSA was enacted in 1986, the Secretary had the power
to bring civil actions against the Plan’s fiduciaries for breaches of
their fiduciary responsibilities. This changed in 1988, when Congress
amended the act and specifically precluded suits by the Secretary
against the Board’s members and Executive Director.
********Though Plan participants and other fund fiduciaries retain the
right to sue Board members, the amendments do not permit any
claims for monetary recovery against these individuals. *****The 1988
amendments treat actions against the Board for recovery of losses
to the fund as tort actions against the United States, which are defended
by the Attorney General; however, nothing prevents the Department
from bringing an action for recovery against other TSP

 

[nsurf9]

Interesting reply from Josh Rose, Esq. (the son of David Rose, Esq.), back in 2008, or 2009 to me was, that there may be an action if the Board did not offer its members an option to purchase and IFT. I'll find the specific law here, or where or how Lebowitz refers to participants' retaining the right to sue the Board for injunctive action or specific performance equity action, and take it to the Roses.

 

[Show-me]

It seems like you have a fire in your belly, wish I could help but you're working above my pay grade.