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

[nsurf9]

The way I see it, besides a few more IFTs before a potential world depression, is if the Board and Director bought a tonn of gold with our money and retired with it to some 3rd world country, we couldn't do a thing about it, but maybe sue so ancillary fiduciary.

 

[Show-me]

I spoke to Tracy Ray and Greg Long about allowing us to buy additional IFT like a ScotTrade account. They would not hear of it they wanted to eliminated unlimited IFT because the rest of the members were paying for it and that was not fair. That and they believed it was driving up costs. They based their plan on private sector funds, ETAC was a bunch of sheep that just followed Long and Ray.

 

[nsurf9]

This is not about what the Board wants. Its about what Federal District Court will order. The key is the Board had a duty to estimate the cost of and IFT to members and offer them at a reasonable price, so it wouldn't amount to additional costs to other members, but it wrongfully refused and, thereby, denied any above the 2 IFTs per month.

 

[Show-me]

This is not about what the Board wants. Its about what Federal District Court will order. The key is the Board had a duty to estimate the cost of and IFT to members and offer them at a reasonable price, so it wouldn't amount to additional costs to other members, but it wrongfully refused and, thereby, denied any above the 2 IFTs per month.

You got my vote! Sound like a great angle to pursue because all they did was shut us down and lock us out. We gave our opinions and they took the weight of those that said nothing over ours because the buy and holder should not have to pay for our trading.

 

[nnuut]

Cool nsurf9. then I want back the 12 grand I lost during 9/11, we only had one IFT then I got out at the bottom and couldn't get back in for a month, the market rebounded so after losing 12K I got back in and lost another 5K! Then 2008 came!

 

[nsurf9]

This is worth repeating.

A TSP participant can bring suite againt the Board and the Executive Director of the TSP.
And, I believe an class action for injunctive relief 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, reform, or seek specific performance of the 2008 IFT rule.

The excerpts, below, are 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

 

[alevin]

You can count me in, nsurf. I was a lot more active about IFTs when I started following one of the currently paid services (back before it went to paid), which was of course right before they shut us down. I did well with account that year (relative to my track record since then).

 

[nsurf9]

Merry Christmas!
In sections B and C, below, you will note that the Board and the Executive Director continue to not be immune from suit by members.
Jurisdiction is in the United District Court.

5 USC CHAPTER 84 - FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM 01/07/2011
8477. Fiduciary responsibilities; liability and penalties.
(2) No civil action may be maintained against any fiduciary with
respect to the responsibilities, liabilities, and penalties
authorized or provided for in this section except in accordance
with paragraphs (3) and (4).
(3) A civil action may be brought in the district courts of the
United States -
(A) by the Secretary of Labor against any fiduciary other than
a Member of the Board or the Executive Director of the Board -
(i) to determine and enforce a liability under paragraph
(1)(A);
(ii) to collect any civil penalty under paragraph (1)(B);
(iii) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any
provision of subsection (b) or (c);
(iv) to obtain any other appropriate equitable relief to
redress a violation of any such provision; or
(v) to enjoin any act or practice which violates subsection
(g)(2) or (h) of section 8472 of this title;

(B) by any participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary against any
fiduciary -
(i) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any
provision of subsection (b) or (c);
(ii) to obtain any other appropriate equitable relief to
redress a violation of any such provision;
(iii) to enjoin any act or practice which violates subsection
(g)(2) or (h) of section 8472 of this title; or

(C) by any participant or beneficiary -
(i) to recover benefits of such participant or beneficiary
under the provisions of subchapter III of this chapter, to
enforce any right of such participant or beneficiary under such
provisions, or to clarify any such right to future benefits
under such provisions; or
(ii) to enforce any claim otherwise cognizable under sections
1346(b) and 2671 through 2680 of title 28, provided that the
remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b)
and 2672 of title 28 for damages for injury or loss of property
caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any
fiduciary while acting within the scope of his duties or
employment shall be exclusive of any other civil action or
proceeding by the participant or beneficiary for recovery of
money by reason of the same subject matter against the
fiduciary (or the estate of such fiduciary) whose act or
omission gave rise to such action or proceeding, whether or not
such action or proceeding is based on an alleged violation of
subsection (b) or (c).

(7)(A) The district courts of the United States shall have
exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions under this subsection.

 

[nnuut]

I hope you're a Damn lawyer! Because I myself have no access to many of the referenced documents and have no idea if they set presidence over the requirements of the listed. I you are digging deep that's good, but unless your take into consideration everything one paragraph means nothing.
section 8472 of this title;
sections 1346(b) and 2671 through 2680 of title 28
sections 1346(b)and 2672 of title 28
sections 1346(b)
and 2672 of title 28 for damages for injury or loss of property
caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any
fiduciary while acting within the scope of his duties or
employment shall be exclusive of any other civil action or
proceeding by the participant or beneficiary for recovery of
money by reason of the same subject matter against the
fiduciary (or the estate of such fiduciary) whose act or
omission gave rise to such action or proceeding, whether or not
such action or proceeding is based on an alleged violation of
subsection (b) or (c).
Keep up the GOOD WORK!

 

[nsurf9]

The only section we need is this one.

(ii) to obtain any other appropriate equitable relief to
redress a violation of any such provision;

Equitable relief includes injunctive relief, i.e. recission, reformation, specific performance of the 2008 IFT restriction rule.

Section 8478 sets out appointments, lengths of terms, general fiduciary duties, etc. With respect to Title 28, it's irrelevant, as we won't get money. Just reform the 2008 rule. We are close to 50 "I'm in's." I'll see if I can get an appointment with the Rose attornies soon. Also, perhaps I can enlist the help Steve Loosey (sic) of Federal Times, perhaps we can get some real help and money, if the regular TSPers would at least like to have the option be active and protect their retirement, especially, if the Board and Director coughs-up the price/cost of an IFT between all the funds, but the I fund - - making the cost of an IFT the fund, nothing to the fund.

 

[nnuut]

As I remember the main problem to them was losing money on the "I" fund due to the time lag between our IFTs and the close of the fund. They (Barcays) estimated the next days returns and when their estimates were off the loss in the funds doubled or tripled causing the overhead cost to spike. We suggested that the TSP (Barcays) use the next day numbers (07:00 AM) numbers instead, neutralizing the problem, but NOOOOOO they would not even consider the change!

 

[nsurf9]

Nnut, thanks for constructive insite. I'm happy just to find a cause of action thru the board and director's immunity. Now, to show the fudicary violations and a make a case for the injunction. Not a small order. I'd like to put thoughts together with others knowledgeable on the issues. I'm considering calling the elder Rose attorney and answering his question of what we want - restoration of a reasonable degree of conrol of TSP members own retirement money before the 2008 IFT restrictions. The idea is to get the attorney to give us show us a plan for a winning case and l'll find a way to get the fee and appeal to his prior federal employment sympathies.

 

[nsurf9]

Writing to the Board, ETAC, and the Executive Director will get you no where (or less), as was demonstrated by James' effort back in 2009. The Executive Director and Board already have immunity from all monitary damages it may cause, intentional or otherwise, which is untenable, and 3 million apathetic or clueless TSP participant/members.

The only way, that I can see, is for us to stand-up, demonstrated that we own our own money, and take legal action.

Will don't need millions of members to agree, just a good attorney and a judge that has common sense, else our money and the fund will be sitting prey that continues to be run over with whatever the TSP management sees fit for itself, then for us.

 

[nsurf9]

I will be putting a phone call in to Mr. Clifford Dailing, Chairman, Employees’ Thrift Advisory Council today, 12/29, at 2pm to get his thoughs.

The theme will be straight forward, the effect of an IFT, at a number of more than 2 per month, can be made to cost nothing to the fund. The TSP fiduciaries had a duty to assess the cost of an IFT in 2008, but continue to subverted it all together by stating that the cost of an IFT could not be calculated.
It then went on to effect an 2008 IFT rule as restrictive as possible, after its members paid approximately $41 million dollars to do just the opposite.

The current restriction leaves its members with no margin for making an error and severely and needlessly chills a member from expending even a single IFT, effectively locking them into losses when the market goes down and precluding them from gains when it goes up. Moreover is needlessly distroys a member's willingness to be proactive with their retirement by all but distroying their ability to move.

Any thoughs, comments?


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

 

[nsurf9]

I spoke to Mr. Clifford Dailing, Chairman, Employees’ Thrift Advisory Council, today, 12/29. He listen patiently to my concerns and suggested that I write Mr. Steven Galling, he's the representative for Uniform Services part of the Council.

In other words, try what James attempted - after being flatly ignored, even with a 4,000-signature petition. It would seem that the only way, if there is one, is to bring an injunction for the fiduciary violation, as we won't need a mass of millions, just the attorney's fee.

My next conversation should be with the Rose attornies - even if its without a retainer in hand.

 

[FAB1]

If its the governmint its crooked. if there is money laying around they'll steal some.

 

[FAB1]

Well is this headed anywhere? I for one think you can talk to you're blue in the face to the TSP board and they
are going to do absolutely ZILCH, because they don't have to! Now taking real Legal Action - THAT would get their attention and
getting the media involved would be the icing on the cake. Call the newspapers and television stations, show them that we mean
business!

I dont think these Bored dudes will want to be seen as despotic control freaks. Only Bad Guys would be preventing Fed employees from being able to trade freely in the market (with their own money). The TSP Bored has never had this issue in the limelight and its all been pretty private. Some one ought to put up a dedicated website too - publishing the facts and the logic that supports our more than reasonable requests.

I think with some real pressure on them they will quickly capitulate, so far we have really done nothing to twist their collective arms
and remember small special interest groups have historically made huge headway where the goobermint is concerned.

 

[Show-me]

First you have to get them to admit they are wrong................ROFLMAO.

Second you will have to get them to document why we need to change back to the old system or increase the number of IFT.

Then you will need to change the CFR, I think.

They will not do this willingly, you will need to twist arms and ETAC is in lock step with them because they are a bunch of people that are there as figure heads.

Get the lawyers. I'm in for $100, more if needed. Only money and lawyers will change this. Be ready for a fight too, Tracy Ray is a ........... and will not budge even if she is wrong.

 

[nsurf9]

Thanks, Showme. Fortunately, I probably don't know I've got us or myself into, but we're on! We do out number them. I had my own personal conservation with Tracy Ray, it was silence after I ask her why the TSP wasn't forthcoming with the price of an IFT. If we can get what amounts to a positive memorandum of law on the issue, the idea is to then seek the press and make, if possible, the clueless TSP participant masses, clueful, I believe we have a chance.

Right now, the chink in the armor seems to be not figuring out the price of an IFT for us and not giving us the opportunity to pay for it and some way to opt out. I will be putting all the law together that I can find for the Roses this next week and get an appointment, hopefully with both of them. Also, consult a long time attorney friend of mine, and a past partner of my father's, whom is now a president of a Virginia county bar association for consult of the Roses and framing the donation trust. I wish Benjamin Franklin was here.

 

[nsurf9]

Fab1, if we can get what amounts to a favorable/successful memorandum of law as to reasonable, equitable relief, and do start putting a case together, I'll contact Steve Loosey at Federal Times to cover the effort and whatever press venues we can muster. Steve published an editorial I wrote on the issue back in 2008. Perhaps he'd like a follow-up.