NSurf9 Account Talk

Sort by newest Sort by date
nnuut said:
I want another Mug even if I don't win!:laugh:
Click to expand...

Mods aren't eligible, see rule #11
neener_neener.gif
 
pmcint01 said:
Seems like this article has some pretty damning evidence AGAINST our position, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Not really they are not telling the whole story. Anyone can skew the data if you have complete control of the data released.

The Agency's analysis has demonstrated that fewer than 1 percent of TSP
participants are engaging in this activity to the detriment of more
than 99 percent of participants who are long-term investors (those who
requested 12 or fewer IFTs in calendar year 2007).
Click to expand...

Of the people that requested 12 or fewer IFTs, how many made two or more per month. Instead of a calendar year analysis, I want a calendar month analysis. Then I want a cost per trade or a cost per $1000, $10000 or $100000 block.
 
Two things we might want to consider or think about.
1) If "Congress established the Thrift Savings Fund as a long-term, passive investment". Then how can the FRTIB force all new hires to be participants of the TSP. New hires should join because the want to, not be forced to join then request out.
2) Maybe we should find out why the FRTIB gave us unlimited IFT's in the first place and what was the reasoning behind it.
 
IF YOU WANT MORE IFTs PER MONTH, AND ARE WILLING TO DONATE TO A LEGAL FUND FOR THAT PURPOSE, PLEASE POST "I'm in" TO THIS THREAD.
Perhaps we will be able say to our grandchildren . . . sometimes you just got to take a stand - and know that you have, infact, walked the talk.

The “I’m In” total just passed 60. I'm still putting all a packet together for the attorneys, but we are closing quickly in on 100. I know thanks is unnecessary, but you certainly have my appreciation.

#54 dannyboy 01/30/12
#55 pmcint01 01/30/12
#56 dawg51 01/30/12
#57 Cathy57 01/30/12
#58 SkyPlot 01/31/12
#59 Cybernaut 01/31/12
#60 SWAVET 01/31/12
#61 remark 02/01/12

http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/253.cfm

I’m still re-reading and digesting the TSP Board’s above published response to dissenting comments to the 2008 IFT Rule restrictions.

The chilling effect of having so very few IFTs is still, in my opinion, however, frankly ridiculous.

Today’s financial world is a venue of milliseconds. A brokerage platform for a fund the sheer size of the TSP fund should be able to easily facilitate making the time delay and money differences of an individual member’s transfer (and thousands of them, for that matter), a non-issue. And, the TSP fund's charter mandate of maintining a correlation and track of specific funds, should easily be maintained.

It is crystal clear to everyone that the lack of an IFTs, that should cost only 10s of dollars, should not potentially cost members tens of thousands of dollar in losses and/or of lost profits. If so, then the system is flawed and certainly does not serve its trust beneficiaries, us, its members. And, under the 2008 rule, it does needlessly cost thousands. I have, in fact, experienced these losses many times, firsthand, and as recently as this last month of January.

I am re-posting the TSP Board’s published and inviting more comment.

The one trump card of an injunction effort is . . . then, just let me opt out. Members keep their TSP account open for future contributions and be subject,
from that point on, to the Board’s 2008 rule. But, we would demand to be able to roll-over every dime that is currently in our individual account, into a self-directed, tax deferred IRA, or other financial vehicle, where we have the freedom to take a reasonably and active degree of responsibility of our retirement.
 
Last edited:
nasa1974 said:
Two things we might want to consider or think about.
1) If "Congress established the Thrift Savings Fund as a long-term, passive investment". Then how can the FRTIB force all new hires to be participants of the TSP. New hires should join because the want to, not be forced to join then request out.
2) Maybe we should find out why the FRTIB gave us unlimited IFT's in the first place and what was the reasoning behind it.
Click to expand...

My though is, the new hires get an automatic 1% contribution for free. With respect to the FRTIB giving us unlimited IFTs, I not sure they did intended it - the contract programmer just did it and FRTIB didn't realize the implications. But, the fact is that was the system and
attribute we relied on when members put literally billions of dollar into their funds, additional to the matching agency funds.
 
Last edited:
nsurf9 said:
http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/253.cfm
Click to expand...

Practitioners visit a Web site in order to compare notes and calculations to assist each other in the execution of this scheme. They congregate at a message board which they have aptly titled ``G Fund Payday.' Indeed, like ghost workers, these individuals only show up in the G Fund on the days when their calculations show that G Fund shares will increase in value. With a finite amount of earnings to be allocated, these individuals unquestionably dilute G Fund value at the expense of long-term investors.
Click to expand...

LOLZ. That's how I found this site actually. :D
I can't believe the way they paint non-buy-and-holder's. It's pathetic really, but you have to make it "us vs. them" to get people on your side. Anyone I talk to about having more control of their TSP at work gives me the "costs are too high if we get more IFT" BS. None of them actually look into it, actually consider it. Oh well.
I also don't understand their point in that answer about those who buy in and out of the G fund diluting it's value. It's a set value no matter how many are invested, correct? Doesn't this mean those who get in and out quickly aren't causing any harm to those who are holding?
 
They seem to make many statements on why it is bad for the other 99% Buy and Hold people, but never seem to give the detailed backup data to support them. Can't we do a FOIA request to get some of this information? You don't need a lawyer to do that.

SteelSaving said:
LOLZ. That's how I found this site actually. :D
I can't believe the way they paint non-buy-and-holder's. It's pathetic really, but you have to make it "us vs. them" to get people on your side. Anyone I talk to about having more control of their TSP at work gives me the "costs are too high if we get more IFT" BS. None of them actually look into it, actually consider it. Oh well.
I also don't understand their point in that answer about those who buy in and out of the G fund diluting it's value. It's a set value no matter how many are invested, correct? Doesn't this mean those who get in and out quickly aren't causing any harm to those who are holding?
Click to expand...
 
Nsurf9,

This might be a longshot but would it be possible to ask for people that have money in the TSP but aren't military or government employee to still contribute to it? There's a deadline to remove your money from the TSP once you get out of the military and I'm past that deadline. I really would like to be able to contribute to this.
 
The required minimum distribution kicks in at 701/2 - so you should be able to hold your TSP account until the cows come home. Who knows, you might end up with a federal job at some point.
 
jean.elmelki said:
Nsurf9,

This might be a longshot but would it be possible to ask for people that have money in the TSP but aren't military or government employee to still contribute to it? There's a deadline to remove your money from the TSP once you get out of the military and I'm past that deadline. I really would like to be able to contribute to this.
Click to expand...

jean.elmelki, check the following: "You will also not be able to make new contributions or take loans from your old TSP account."

http://themilitarywallet.com/tsp-leave-military-civil-service/
 
NSurf9. I"m in. I wrote compelling letters to the TSP board members in 2008, and was actually threatened and eventually locked out of my account for several months for doing more EFTs than the board deemed "necessary" because I was deemed to be a threat to the system, and in non-compliance with their decision. This was before the software was changed to limit IFTs, but after they came out with the "ruling". I thought that was illegal to block me from using my TSP account, but aparently they can do whatever they want. I was willing to suffer the consequenses, to make the point that they will have to take extreme measures to block us (and they were willing to). I lost money I could have made with the IFTs, but was glad to stand up for my rights for as long as possible. The problem with limiting the IFTs, is that people like me, who will move, tend to move all their money on one day, where, before, I would move 5% or 10% each day to slowly move in and out of the funds. their contention, is they couldn't handle the large one day moves. it would be interesting to see if it is worse now or better, now that we have limited access to our accounts. I"m glad to hear that there are others out there who are not happy with the restrictions and are willing to do something about it. Having a laywer involved will just rack up costs, and make him rich, so we probably need to be careful about hiring him on a contingency basis on any profit that comes out of the settlement.
 
NASAedStevens said:
NSurf9. I"m in. I"m glad to hear that there are others out there who are not happy with the restrictions and are willing to do something about it. Having a laywer involved will just rack up costs, and make him rich, so we probably need to be careful about hiring him on a contingency basis on any profit that comes out of the settlement.
Click to expand...

NASAedStevens, you are our Apollo #62. I sure would feel better with a 100 commitments before consulting the Rose attorneys.

Back in 2008, the TSP Board's restriction actually allowed 3 IFTs. I hit 4 and they sanctioned me also. I did, however, get it lifted until the computer inforced the new rule.

After reading The Federal Employees' Retirement Act (link below), my first obvious impression is a lot has changed since then. First, we're getting next to nothing from the G fund ('til 2014?) and we're required to expose our retirement to more risk in equities to make up the difference. In 1986 most stock was ordered and/held in paper shares. Today, stocks are bought and sold in milliseconds at a fraction of the effective cost of 1986 in E-Trade, AmeriTrade, etc. We paid $41 million for just such an internet based system for TSP, but were permitted just one additional IFT.

The question then becomes, why can our internet based system and our brokerage make fund delution and time delay issues a non-issue for a reasonble fee.

The Department of Justice is their duly appointed counsel - which should be no cost to the TSP. I would hope a judge and its TSP members could hold them to that cost savings avenue. A settlement for monitary damages is unlikely as although the Exec Director and Board are exempt, I not sure the fund itself would not be somehow liable, if it weren't for the problem that profits and/or losses (damags) will likely be shown to be speculative and would not receive any award. Additionally, that it is unlikely we'll receive a monitary awarded, our case would be likely be an hourly arrangement paid solely out of the legal fund, instead of contingency arangement.


http://www.soa.org/library/research...y-of-actuaries/1988/january/tsa88v40pt119.pdf
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NewsFeeder
Here's why you may get a smaller pay raise next year
Replies
0
Views
118
NewsFeeder
NewsFeeder
NewsFeeder
Job seekers are sour on the cooling labor market
Replies
0
Views
115
NewsFeeder
NewsFeeder
NewsFeeder
Major global chip equipment makers' China revenue share has doubled since U.S. impose
Replies
0
Views
154
NewsFeeder
NewsFeeder
TommyIV
  • Article Article
TSP Talk Weekly Wrap Up - Opportunistic Investors
Replies
0
Views
88
TommyIV
TommyIV
TommyIV
  • Article Article
TSP Talk AutoTracker - Up 14% for November and Clinging to the S-fund
Replies
0
Views
322
TommyIV
TommyIV
Back
Top