-
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!
NSurf9 Account Talk
- Thread starter nsurf9
- Start date
You sure did; I found it. Fell on my A$$. DCA From here. 
nsurf9
Member
Never in my dreams would I have considered a +4%+ a bad day, except today, after a -9% loss yesterday.
Just for the record, the highest possible share total, if you did everything right with unlimited IFTs, in September and October, would be $9.63, positive (without today). Just a thought.
Just for the record, the highest possible share total, if you did everything right with unlimited IFTs, in September and October, would be $9.63, positive (without today). Just a thought.
NS9, Nice to see you still have a sense of humor.
Yep! Yesterday was my biggest one day loss ever.
Birchtree
Well-known member
Every bull market in history , and a many good intermediate advances, have been launched with a buying stampede that included one or more 9 to 1 up days - we have three so far in the last 30 days. Someone said we may be entering a cyclical bull move inside a secular bear market - I believe we just finished a cyclical bear move inside a secular bull market.
Corepuncher
Well-known member
A bull market would be nice, but too bad it will be a S$*T market instead. Glory days are OVER...at least for another 10-20 years is all.
nsurf9
Member
Re: NSurf9 Account Talk - Secretary of Labor Demand
My new years resolution is to have this served on the Secretary of the Department of Labor and the attorney for the TSP as soon as possible- Friday would be nice. I would like to have an attorney's help on this, if you know one - else I will tighten it up and serve them the demand. If the Secretary of Labor does nothing, presumably, the United States District Court will have jurisdiction - he too will likely be a Federal employee with a TSP account.
Demand to Rescind and/or Reform Thrift Savings Plan’s
April 1, 2008 Rule that Limits Interfund Transfers to Two Per Month
The Board’s April 1, 2008 IFT rule and concerted actions have effectively served to remove members’ ability to be proactive with their retirement funds, subverted assessment of the true cost of an IFT; and have clearly and wrongly engaged in advice that has encouraged and systematically fastened its members to a buy-and-hold strategy, immediately prior to the worst financial losses in the United States and world markets since the Great Depression of 1929-1933.
Congress delegated the Secretary of the Department of Labor both equitable injunctive relief and specific performance authority and duty to provide immediate relief in this matter under Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA).
Under that authority, and as a Thrift Saving Plan (TSP) beneficiary and member-owner with substantial personal investment and significant in the interest of the Thrift Saving Plan fund itself, I hereby demand that the Secretary of the Department of Labor temporarily and immediately rescind and/or reform the April 1, 2008 IFT limit and return the IFT limit to a number that preserves the status quo of the prior system (one IFT per business day), but also curbs reasonably genuine cost defrayment and abuse to the fund.
Prior to the January 1, 2008, members moved their retirement funds on this very same computer based internet system that is being used today. The site and program was paid for by members’ at their considerable expense and developed several years ago – to enable members to do just the opposite of what the April 1 rule restricts – allow members the ability to move their money, if necessary, each business day.
After January 1, 2008, the TSP Board (Board), under a fiduciary duty to curb defrayment to the fund, warned that it would watch and remove members’ internet privileges to effect IFTs if they made more than three IFTs during the months of January or February, 2008. Some members make more than three IFTs during those months and their privilege to make IFT were, in fact, sanctioned. That saction lasted until April 1 and relegated those members to the very time consuming processing of making IFT requests by U.S. mail.
On April 1, 2008, the TSP Board formally established its new “two IFTs per month” rule and went on to also reprogrammed the TSP internet based site (TSP.gov) to follow rule, with “unlimited transfers” back to the G-fund – a safe harbor fund. The Board’s April 1, 2008 decision, thereby, drastically cut the number of IFTs permitted to TSP members from 20 to only two per month.
Whereas, under Board’s prior IFT rule, members could freely move their funds once each day and thereby capture profits, adjust between funds, and avoid loss. And, further, as most members are not financial experts, allowed even novice members to correct mistakes, without the penalty.
Although the Board’s has a fiduciary duty to limit administrative costs, the April 1 rule that limits IFTs to two per month is so overly restrictive that it substantially and unreasonably:
1. subjects the entire TSP fund itself and members’ individual retirement funds to unreasonable risk of loss by removing members’ abilities to move their funds;
2. severely limits their ability to increase retirement fund profits by removing members’ abilities to move their funds;
3. severely limits adjustments during the month between funds by removing members’ abilities to move their funds; and
4. effectively, destroys all members’ ability to be effectively proactive with their TSP retirement funds.
Further, the TSP Board implemented the April 1, 2008 rule:
1. without informing its members the true cost of an IFT, when the Board had a fiduciary duty to so, and, instead evaded any assessment by citing that the cost was too complicated to calculate and/or that an IFT would likely be too expensive for members to pay;
2. without consensus of its members, when many members voiced opposition (see FedSmith survey of 2000 TSP members on October, 2007, below);
3. after members had already contributed approximately a quarter of a trillion dollars of their own money and benefits to their TSP accounts; and
4. locked its members into this radically changed system until members reach the minimum age of 55 years, by law, without any option for them to “opt out” to a different retirement vehicle; and moreover
The TSP Board members are fiduciaries of the TSP fund, under FERSA and all other laws and acts prior to FERSA since the creation of the TSP. The cost of an IFT and the duty to so inform its TSP members of such cost is a fiduciary duty. Instead of discharging that duty of care, the Board was not forthcoming as to an IFT cost and did inform its members of such cost. And, instead, cited that the cost of an IFT was too difficult to calculate or would be very expensive and went on to do as it deemed fit, without any membership consensus; with a naïve, if not arrogant disregard as to the potential risk of loss and loss of profits to its members and the trust fund res itself, and went on to imposed its April 1, 2008 IFT limit. It thereby precluded its members from even the opportunity to pay for, themselves, the small administrative costs engendered an IFT that might defray the fund in what has in fact become the worst financial six months since 1933 and the Great Depression.
Further, the Board may have violated its duty of loyalty to the TSP fund and its members on the side of a metric that it is rewarded, monetarily, and makes its management look good. That is, low administrative costs – an amount totaling in the ten of millions of dollars, without consideration for the potential loss or gain to the fund itself – a loss now totaling several tens of billions of dollars.
Therein lays the problem, the Board saves $10 to $50 cost per IFT, which members could have paid for, if given the opportunity and so advised - - and members loose half of their retirement because they are heavily restricted from moving their money. In so doing, the Board has financially advised and catastrophically ensured enormous losses to the TSP fund by wrongfully, unreasonably and needlessly precluding its members a reasonable number of IFTs per month – that, they could have paid, themselves
Further, the Board could have easily obtained the consensus of what members wanted as it has a robust, fully functioning internet site – that, in fact, members paid for. Further, it has the correspondence or internet addresses, or both, for every single TSP fund member. Instead of gaining consensus, the Board forced members into a buy-and-hold strategy in the name of curbing excess administrative costs, which were already low and trending even remarkably lower.
FedSmith.com published an article http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1367/) based on a survey of 2000 TSP members. It is titled, Trading TSP Funds: Should There Be a Fee When Investors Trade? The survey was done well before the April 1, 2008 rule was put into effect. Set out below is an except from the survey:
Monday, September 17, 2007
Over 2000 readers responded. Here is a quick summary of the results:
Should the TSP charge a fee for interfund transfers?
Yes: 23%
No: 65%
not sure: 12%
Should the TSP limit the number of interfund transfers an investor can make in a year?
Yes: 25%
No: 70%
not sure: 5%
Would you favor a system under which a small number of interfund transfers could be made per year but charging a higher fee when trades exceed this preset limit?
Yes: 49%
No: 46%
not sure: 5%
Under the April 1, 2008 IFT rule, members must now carefully balance expending their two allocated monthly transfers - that should cost very little - with that of protecting the their whole TSP retirement fund. Although the Board has never cited how much an IFT costs, the cost for members in the current financial market for an IFT has become more valuable than thousands dollars of their entire retirement and members IFT requests will literally be refused by the TSP internet-based electronic transfer system for the balance of the month. Some members will forego moving their funds into the safety of the G-fund and end up sustain losses day after day to protect their single last IFT. If they go ahead and move out of the equity indexes, assuming they already moved once, they will be lock out of potential profits for several weeks. Further, where a member’s IFT request is not outright refused by the computer system, their decisions to move into or out any index fund, altogether, is chilled by the restrictiveness of the rule itself.
Where the TSP was, in my opinion, among the best of government benefits available to United States federal employees and was and exemplary in attracting employment, it has now, instead, cost some members approximately half of their entire TSP retirement.
Effectively, the Board has straitjacketed members’ ability to profit and avoid loss – all in an effort to save the TSP fund a relatively small administrative fee - which members would likely gladly pay for.
My new years resolution is to have this served on the Secretary of the Department of Labor and the attorney for the TSP as soon as possible- Friday would be nice. I would like to have an attorney's help on this, if you know one - else I will tighten it up and serve them the demand. If the Secretary of Labor does nothing, presumably, the United States District Court will have jurisdiction - he too will likely be a Federal employee with a TSP account.
Demand to Rescind and/or Reform Thrift Savings Plan’s
April 1, 2008 Rule that Limits Interfund Transfers to Two Per Month
The Board’s April 1, 2008 IFT rule and concerted actions have effectively served to remove members’ ability to be proactive with their retirement funds, subverted assessment of the true cost of an IFT; and have clearly and wrongly engaged in advice that has encouraged and systematically fastened its members to a buy-and-hold strategy, immediately prior to the worst financial losses in the United States and world markets since the Great Depression of 1929-1933.
Congress delegated the Secretary of the Department of Labor both equitable injunctive relief and specific performance authority and duty to provide immediate relief in this matter under Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA).
Under that authority, and as a Thrift Saving Plan (TSP) beneficiary and member-owner with substantial personal investment and significant in the interest of the Thrift Saving Plan fund itself, I hereby demand that the Secretary of the Department of Labor temporarily and immediately rescind and/or reform the April 1, 2008 IFT limit and return the IFT limit to a number that preserves the status quo of the prior system (one IFT per business day), but also curbs reasonably genuine cost defrayment and abuse to the fund.
Prior to the January 1, 2008, members moved their retirement funds on this very same computer based internet system that is being used today. The site and program was paid for by members’ at their considerable expense and developed several years ago – to enable members to do just the opposite of what the April 1 rule restricts – allow members the ability to move their money, if necessary, each business day.
After January 1, 2008, the TSP Board (Board), under a fiduciary duty to curb defrayment to the fund, warned that it would watch and remove members’ internet privileges to effect IFTs if they made more than three IFTs during the months of January or February, 2008. Some members make more than three IFTs during those months and their privilege to make IFT were, in fact, sanctioned. That saction lasted until April 1 and relegated those members to the very time consuming processing of making IFT requests by U.S. mail.
On April 1, 2008, the TSP Board formally established its new “two IFTs per month” rule and went on to also reprogrammed the TSP internet based site (TSP.gov) to follow rule, with “unlimited transfers” back to the G-fund – a safe harbor fund. The Board’s April 1, 2008 decision, thereby, drastically cut the number of IFTs permitted to TSP members from 20 to only two per month.
Whereas, under Board’s prior IFT rule, members could freely move their funds once each day and thereby capture profits, adjust between funds, and avoid loss. And, further, as most members are not financial experts, allowed even novice members to correct mistakes, without the penalty.
Although the Board’s has a fiduciary duty to limit administrative costs, the April 1 rule that limits IFTs to two per month is so overly restrictive that it substantially and unreasonably:
1. subjects the entire TSP fund itself and members’ individual retirement funds to unreasonable risk of loss by removing members’ abilities to move their funds;
2. severely limits their ability to increase retirement fund profits by removing members’ abilities to move their funds;
3. severely limits adjustments during the month between funds by removing members’ abilities to move their funds; and
4. effectively, destroys all members’ ability to be effectively proactive with their TSP retirement funds.
Further, the TSP Board implemented the April 1, 2008 rule:
1. without informing its members the true cost of an IFT, when the Board had a fiduciary duty to so, and, instead evaded any assessment by citing that the cost was too complicated to calculate and/or that an IFT would likely be too expensive for members to pay;
2. without consensus of its members, when many members voiced opposition (see FedSmith survey of 2000 TSP members on October, 2007, below);
3. after members had already contributed approximately a quarter of a trillion dollars of their own money and benefits to their TSP accounts; and
4. locked its members into this radically changed system until members reach the minimum age of 55 years, by law, without any option for them to “opt out” to a different retirement vehicle; and moreover
The TSP Board members are fiduciaries of the TSP fund, under FERSA and all other laws and acts prior to FERSA since the creation of the TSP. The cost of an IFT and the duty to so inform its TSP members of such cost is a fiduciary duty. Instead of discharging that duty of care, the Board was not forthcoming as to an IFT cost and did inform its members of such cost. And, instead, cited that the cost of an IFT was too difficult to calculate or would be very expensive and went on to do as it deemed fit, without any membership consensus; with a naïve, if not arrogant disregard as to the potential risk of loss and loss of profits to its members and the trust fund res itself, and went on to imposed its April 1, 2008 IFT limit. It thereby precluded its members from even the opportunity to pay for, themselves, the small administrative costs engendered an IFT that might defray the fund in what has in fact become the worst financial six months since 1933 and the Great Depression.
Further, the Board may have violated its duty of loyalty to the TSP fund and its members on the side of a metric that it is rewarded, monetarily, and makes its management look good. That is, low administrative costs – an amount totaling in the ten of millions of dollars, without consideration for the potential loss or gain to the fund itself – a loss now totaling several tens of billions of dollars.
Therein lays the problem, the Board saves $10 to $50 cost per IFT, which members could have paid for, if given the opportunity and so advised - - and members loose half of their retirement because they are heavily restricted from moving their money. In so doing, the Board has financially advised and catastrophically ensured enormous losses to the TSP fund by wrongfully, unreasonably and needlessly precluding its members a reasonable number of IFTs per month – that, they could have paid, themselves
Further, the Board could have easily obtained the consensus of what members wanted as it has a robust, fully functioning internet site – that, in fact, members paid for. Further, it has the correspondence or internet addresses, or both, for every single TSP fund member. Instead of gaining consensus, the Board forced members into a buy-and-hold strategy in the name of curbing excess administrative costs, which were already low and trending even remarkably lower.
FedSmith.com published an article http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1367/) based on a survey of 2000 TSP members. It is titled, Trading TSP Funds: Should There Be a Fee When Investors Trade? The survey was done well before the April 1, 2008 rule was put into effect. Set out below is an except from the survey:
Monday, September 17, 2007
Over 2000 readers responded. Here is a quick summary of the results:
Should the TSP charge a fee for interfund transfers?
Yes: 23%
No: 65%
not sure: 12%
Should the TSP limit the number of interfund transfers an investor can make in a year?
Yes: 25%
No: 70%
not sure: 5%
Would you favor a system under which a small number of interfund transfers could be made per year but charging a higher fee when trades exceed this preset limit?
Yes: 49%
No: 46%
not sure: 5%
Under the April 1, 2008 IFT rule, members must now carefully balance expending their two allocated monthly transfers - that should cost very little - with that of protecting the their whole TSP retirement fund. Although the Board has never cited how much an IFT costs, the cost for members in the current financial market for an IFT has become more valuable than thousands dollars of their entire retirement and members IFT requests will literally be refused by the TSP internet-based electronic transfer system for the balance of the month. Some members will forego moving their funds into the safety of the G-fund and end up sustain losses day after day to protect their single last IFT. If they go ahead and move out of the equity indexes, assuming they already moved once, they will be lock out of potential profits for several weeks. Further, where a member’s IFT request is not outright refused by the computer system, their decisions to move into or out any index fund, altogether, is chilled by the restrictiveness of the rule itself.
Where the TSP was, in my opinion, among the best of government benefits available to United States federal employees and was and exemplary in attracting employment, it has now, instead, cost some members approximately half of their entire TSP retirement.
Effectively, the Board has straitjacketed members’ ability to profit and avoid loss – all in an effort to save the TSP fund a relatively small administrative fee - which members would likely gladly pay for.
nsurf9
Member
Re: NSurf9 Account Talk - Sec labor #2
Under the prior rule, with only a little flexibility in IFTs, if proactive, one can dramatically enhance their profits and effectively mitigate their losses. I say this from experience. From January 23 to April 1 of this year, I decided to become informed, vigilant and proactive in my own retirement and it profited greatly though that period, by approximately 22.8%, or close to 100% APR in one year, on four monthly IFT moves. That was six times what the highest TSP equity index fund was yielding. In fact, G and F fund were close to zero and the C, S and I index funds were negative or just beyond breaking even.
It was the volatility of that market, coupled with only a little more freedom of movement, or IFTs, that allowed me to ratchet-up my returns. It has been the new rule that has destroyed 25 percent of it.
Being relegated only the two IFTs per month allowed in the 4th quarter’s financial turmoil allowed its incremental implosion to rob me of my of 25% retirement, because if I used an IFT back to safety, I would not be able to move back into the equity indexes. The lack of an IFT, which I would have gladly pay for, unreasonable and unnecessary chilled my decision to expend my remaining IFT to move back to the safety of the G fund to protect my ability to profit for the remainder of the month, effectively holding me, day-by-day, into heavy losses. My year to date return is now approximately minus 25 percent - and I consider myself one of the lucky ones. As noted above, some members have lost half of everything that they contributed and that the Government contributed on their behalf; and, and all the profits they made in the past. And, it’s not a paper loss, it’s a cash loss. And it’s now all gone!
Further, in concert with the Board’s restrictive two IFTs per month rule, the Board’s has also engaged in a public course of conduct to advised members to continue to investment into a buy-and-hold financial strategy philosophy, as cited in TSP Director October 8, 2008 letter that is posted on the TSP internet site.
And eventually, when the financial markets do recover, the same IFT restrictions imposed by the new IFT rule will preclude members from profits due to same chilling effect and straight jacketing it had on avoiding losses in the 4th quarter of 2008.
Moreover, every dollar that has been invested in TSP has been placed there, in trust, by its members – all United States federal Government employees, and they are, therefore, are its equitable (real) owners. The legal trustee title of the members of the Board is only a formality, but with the duties of a fiduciary to the real owners; and, should it be found that any of the Board’s members have caused any unreasonable loss to the fund; or a material breach of his or her fiduciary duties, he, she, or they should so removed.
Time is very much of the essence. I ask the Secretary of Department of Labor take action and respond as soon as is practicable, as time is very much of the essences.
Up to now, my only solace is that the TSP Board has strictly followed their own ill-advised strategy with their own retirement and financial investments.
Under the prior rule, with only a little flexibility in IFTs, if proactive, one can dramatically enhance their profits and effectively mitigate their losses. I say this from experience. From January 23 to April 1 of this year, I decided to become informed, vigilant and proactive in my own retirement and it profited greatly though that period, by approximately 22.8%, or close to 100% APR in one year, on four monthly IFT moves. That was six times what the highest TSP equity index fund was yielding. In fact, G and F fund were close to zero and the C, S and I index funds were negative or just beyond breaking even.
It was the volatility of that market, coupled with only a little more freedom of movement, or IFTs, that allowed me to ratchet-up my returns. It has been the new rule that has destroyed 25 percent of it.
Being relegated only the two IFTs per month allowed in the 4th quarter’s financial turmoil allowed its incremental implosion to rob me of my of 25% retirement, because if I used an IFT back to safety, I would not be able to move back into the equity indexes. The lack of an IFT, which I would have gladly pay for, unreasonable and unnecessary chilled my decision to expend my remaining IFT to move back to the safety of the G fund to protect my ability to profit for the remainder of the month, effectively holding me, day-by-day, into heavy losses. My year to date return is now approximately minus 25 percent - and I consider myself one of the lucky ones. As noted above, some members have lost half of everything that they contributed and that the Government contributed on their behalf; and, and all the profits they made in the past. And, it’s not a paper loss, it’s a cash loss. And it’s now all gone!
Further, in concert with the Board’s restrictive two IFTs per month rule, the Board’s has also engaged in a public course of conduct to advised members to continue to investment into a buy-and-hold financial strategy philosophy, as cited in TSP Director October 8, 2008 letter that is posted on the TSP internet site.
And eventually, when the financial markets do recover, the same IFT restrictions imposed by the new IFT rule will preclude members from profits due to same chilling effect and straight jacketing it had on avoiding losses in the 4th quarter of 2008.
Moreover, every dollar that has been invested in TSP has been placed there, in trust, by its members – all United States federal Government employees, and they are, therefore, are its equitable (real) owners. The legal trustee title of the members of the Board is only a formality, but with the duties of a fiduciary to the real owners; and, should it be found that any of the Board’s members have caused any unreasonable loss to the fund; or a material breach of his or her fiduciary duties, he, she, or they should so removed.
Time is very much of the essence. I ask the Secretary of Department of Labor take action and respond as soon as is practicable, as time is very much of the essences.
Up to now, my only solace is that the TSP Board has strictly followed their own ill-advised strategy with their own retirement and financial investments.
nsurf, Sent you a PM. Letter looks good. This is a link to one of my posts that talks about the November meeting minutes.
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=200791&postcount=314
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=200791&postcount=314
RonUSPSretired
Member
Re: NSurf9 Account Talk - Sec labor #2
I seem to remember that our shareholder group that was originally fighting these changes demonstrated that the administrative costs were actually much less than the long and the board claimed. Which clearly demonstrated the changes were unneccessary. I think it might be helpful also to try to get a copy of your proposal into the hands of someone in the incoming administration so it doesn't get lost in the change over to Obama"s crew. I hope he kicks the whole TSP board and administrators out!!
I seem to remember that our shareholder group that was originally fighting these changes demonstrated that the administrative costs were actually much less than the long and the board claimed. Which clearly demonstrated the changes were unneccessary. I think it might be helpful also to try to get a copy of your proposal into the hands of someone in the incoming administration so it doesn't get lost in the change over to Obama"s crew. I hope he kicks the whole TSP board and administrators out!!
nsurf9
Member
Nasa - Thanks, that sets out the Secretary of Labor's oversight and exclusive legal jurisdiction with the US Federal District Court. Presumably, a participant can bring an action on their own like a derivitative suit against a corporation's board.
United States Code § 8477. Fiduciary responsibilities; liability and penalties
United States Code § 8477. Fiduciary responsibilities; liability and penalties
nsurf9
Member
My 75%S/ 25% equity move rational is based on a mirror image behavior trend I've been watching from the trip down from 10/08. Lately, the trend back upwards has, however, become somewhat disorted and elongated. Cycles have been ~ 9 - 10 days a part at high points. The mirroring is most clear when looking at the C fund.
I hoping that the market will calculate-in today what will surely be ugly-to-hideous Dec Sales data that will release tomorrow. I was hoping for 9%-10% drop in total from 1/7/09, then get in. I think my buy-in point has change as the hi/low trough is narrowing. Then on the following day, hopefully, some healing from the CPI and other inflation data, will release the following day - Wedesday. I'll hold on as long as posible thru January, but I'll pull the plug back to G without hesitation.
I hoping that the market will calculate-in today what will surely be ugly-to-hideous Dec Sales data that will release tomorrow. I was hoping for 9%-10% drop in total from 1/7/09, then get in. I think my buy-in point has change as the hi/low trough is narrowing. Then on the following day, hopefully, some healing from the CPI and other inflation data, will release the following day - Wedesday. I'll hold on as long as posible thru January, but I'll pull the plug back to G without hesitation.
nsurf9
Member
I guess the market factored in "ugly and hideous" sales data, but not "OH FU@%!!!." Earning are also going down hard. Day's not over though, perhaps greed will rescue things a bit.
Really bites that, although you clearly and plainly see a potential 3% snow bank of a problem directly in your path, but you can't make a turn around it - YOU DON'T HAVE A 20-BUCK IFT.
Really bites that, although you clearly and plainly see a potential 3% snow bank of a problem directly in your path, but you can't make a turn around it - YOU DON'T HAVE A 20-BUCK IFT.
nsurf9
Member
IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE IFT LIMIT, I MAY NEED YOUR HELP - I NOT KNOW SURE HOW YET - PERHAPS SOME DONATIONS OR SOME LETTER WRITING. I'LL LET YOU KNOW. IN THE MEAN TIME, LET ME KNOW IF WANT TO BE ON BOARD TO CHANGING THE IFT LIMITS BACK TO SOMETHING REASONABLE.
I am currently working with an attorney in DC to try and rescind/reform the IFT limit to a more reasonable number than the current 2 IFTs per month. I send him my demand letter setting out the difficulties that the limit places up us; and, the possible fiduciary violations upon which the April 1 was effected. United States Code Title 5, Section 8477 sets out parties who can bring a civil action, where etc. Briefly, Secretary of Labor can bring an action, but not against the Executive Director and the Board. Participants, however, can bring a civil action against both. A $80 billion class action is not in the cards, but rescinding the IFT limit until a third party can review the true cost of an IFT and, if too expensive, discern why the costs are too complicated or too high for members to pay is resolved.
My first blush impression is that, if a successful action injunction is ordered, attorney expenses and courts costs may be recovered (it would likely come out of to total of our TSP fund)
I'll re-post my demand letter after my attorney edits it. But as a quick review, it is based on the TSP Board effecting the April 1, 2008 rule limiting IFTs to 2-per-month:
** without consensus of participants; in mid-stream - after participants invested approximately 1/3 trillion dollars;
** without informing participants what an IFT should cost and not thereby offering members a chance to pay for it;
** without giving participants an option to "opt out" to another retirement investment vehicle; and
** unfairly locking participants in the radically changed April 1, 2008 system until they reach a minimum of 55 years of age.
No matter what, I plan to send my demand letter to at least Secretary of Labor and the TSP Board. And, possible the President of US, as the TSP is an independent agency of the Executive Branch; the representatives of the TSP Advisory Counsel; and perhaps a few newspapers.
The attorney Joshua Rose in DC is a nich attorney that came as a good referral. He has significant experience, settlements and judgments in employment retirement area. Rose expressed interest after reading my demand letter. I'm not sure what avenue and strategy he has in mind yet, but his initial question was "they make an offer to you to pay for an IFT."
I am currently working with an attorney in DC to try and rescind/reform the IFT limit to a more reasonable number than the current 2 IFTs per month. I send him my demand letter setting out the difficulties that the limit places up us; and, the possible fiduciary violations upon which the April 1 was effected. United States Code Title 5, Section 8477 sets out parties who can bring a civil action, where etc. Briefly, Secretary of Labor can bring an action, but not against the Executive Director and the Board. Participants, however, can bring a civil action against both. A $80 billion class action is not in the cards, but rescinding the IFT limit until a third party can review the true cost of an IFT and, if too expensive, discern why the costs are too complicated or too high for members to pay is resolved.
My first blush impression is that, if a successful action injunction is ordered, attorney expenses and courts costs may be recovered (it would likely come out of to total of our TSP fund)
I'll re-post my demand letter after my attorney edits it. But as a quick review, it is based on the TSP Board effecting the April 1, 2008 rule limiting IFTs to 2-per-month:
** without consensus of participants; in mid-stream - after participants invested approximately 1/3 trillion dollars;
** without informing participants what an IFT should cost and not thereby offering members a chance to pay for it;
** without giving participants an option to "opt out" to another retirement investment vehicle; and
** unfairly locking participants in the radically changed April 1, 2008 system until they reach a minimum of 55 years of age.
No matter what, I plan to send my demand letter to at least Secretary of Labor and the TSP Board. And, possible the President of US, as the TSP is an independent agency of the Executive Branch; the representatives of the TSP Advisory Counsel; and perhaps a few newspapers.
The attorney Joshua Rose in DC is a nich attorney that came as a good referral. He has significant experience, settlements and judgments in employment retirement area. Rose expressed interest after reading my demand letter. I'm not sure what avenue and strategy he has in mind yet, but his initial question was "they make an offer to you to pay for an IFT."
Last edited:
I'm in. It would be nice to recover some of our losses but honestly I would not be looking for money from a class action. Bottom line would be to allow us to manage our accounts better. More IFT's and a trade time closer to 4pm EST (this would allow anyone west of the Rockies a reasonable time frame).
They timed the 2 per restriction perfectly didn't they?
Similar threads
