The TSP Board Lost our MONEY !!!

[Braveheart]

There is no doubt there was no plan or proposal ever. The FRTIB is trying to recover our losses and they are doing this very quietly and it may take years to recover. That is why they need to limit the IFT's to 2 per month because it became to difficult to Manage 3.8 million accounts with transfers every day. The FRTIB wants to slow this TSP fund to a grinding halt.

Why do you think they froze over 500 accounts it wasn't from excess trading they had to stop and freeze that money immediately and now they can slowly freeze all of the money. This is bigger than Barclays who are a major part of this problem Every other Financial Company Worldwide made poor and high risk investments does anyone actually believe this group was smart enough to keep our money secure yet they lost $ millions on a computer program and just updated a system spending $ millions more for trading and security. Why would you the FRTIB need to upgrade a system when they made plans to downgrade the product ? That was a question a well known Wall Street Investment Firm asked. The elite investment groups took huge losses and hits from every direction and somehow the TSP lucked out ???

That question is something I read about before and then I was asked this question - the TSP had plans in place to upgrade their system and last year something went wrong either they lost a huge amount of money in bad investments or our funds are being used for an emergency and that would also explain why Congress and the Senate were mute on this issue.

Then I was asked this question - what does a Trial Lawyer do best ?? Their job is to deflect anything and everything so their client is found not quilty. "If the glove don't fit you must aquit." The FRTIB played the shell game and told everyone and anyone there was a group abusing the system making frequent trades and this cost the TSP a large sum of money but that was proven to be false.

The FRTIB had the press identify these members as day traders yet everyone 3.8 $ million members could trade every day of the week if they wanted and that was the FRTIB rules and regulations. Then there was this alleged proposal but it was a sham and an ambush of abuse of power. Not one member would have a say because last year the FRTIB was going under and that is why they want all new Military to automatically be assigned to the TSP because they need the money to balance the losses that are being kept quiet - very quiet. The FRTIB would not even take $10 per trade requests that tells you how deep this problem is. They want to stop trading and $10 is nothing if you lost BILLIONS they want to bring the TSP to a grinding halt.

 

[Braveheart]

There is no doubt there was no plan or proposal ever. The FRTIB is trying to recover our losses and they are doing this very quietly and it may take years to recover. That is why they need to limit the IFT's to 2 per month because it became to difficult to Manage 3.8 million accounts with transfers every day. The FRTIB wants to slow this TSP fund to a grinding halt.

Why do you think they froze over 500 accounts it wasn't from excess trading they had to stop and freeze that money immediately and now they can slowly freeze all of the money. This is bigger than Barclays who are a major part of this problem Every other Financial Company Worldwide made poor and high risk investments does anyone actually believe this group was smart enough to keep our money secure yet they lost $ millions on a computer program and just updated a system spending $ millions more for trading and security. Why would you the FRTIB need to upgrade a system when they made plans to downgrade the product ? That was a question a well known Wall Street Investment Firm asked. The elite investment groups took huge losses and hits from every direction and somehow the TSP lucked out ???

That question is something I read about before and then I was asked this question - the TSP had plans in place to upgrade their system and last year something went wrong either they lost a huge amount of money in bad investments or our funds are being used for an emergency and that would also explain why Congress and the Senate were mute on this issue.

Then I was asked this question - what does a Trial Lawyer do best ?? Their job is to deflect anything and everything so their client is found not quilty. "If the glove don't fit you must aquit." The FRTIB played the shell game and told everyone and anyone there was a group abusing the system making frequent trades and this cost the TSP a large sum of money but that was proven to be false.

The FRTIB had the press identify these members as day traders yet everyone 3.8 $ million members could trade every day of the week if they wanted and that was the FRTIB rules and regulations. Then there was this alleged proposal but it was a sham and an ambush of abuse of power. Not one member would have a say because last year the FRTIB was going under and that is why they want all new Military to automatically be assigned to the TSP because they need the money to balance the losses that are being kept quiet - very quiet. The FRTIB would not even take $10 per trade requests that tells you how deep this problem is. They want to stop trading and $10 is nothing if you lost BILLIONS they want to bring the TSP to a grinding halt.

Lawmakers are expected to move forward with legislation this week that would enroll new service members in the Thrift Savings Plan automatically.
Under draft legislation prepared by the board that oversees the retirement savings plan, new military service members and new or rehired civilians would have 3 percent of their basic pay automatically contributed to one of the TSP’s L Funds as soon as they begin work, unless they specifically decline to participate. Members would have 90 days to opt out and receive a full refund.
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, which oversees TSP, will make its case for automatic enrollment to the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on the federal work force, Postal Service and the District of Columbia on April 29.
The subcommittee’s Web site said its chairman, Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., likely will introduce the bill and the subcommittee will vote on it after the board’s testimony.
The board is seeking automatic enrollments to encourage young people to start saving for their retirements early.
The Pentagon has not decided whether it supports automatic TSP enrollment for new military service personnel. If defense officials oppose the plan, the board would remove the troops from its proposal, said Tom Trabucco, the board’s legislative director.
Unlike civilian federal employees enrolled in the Federal Employees Retirement System, military personnel get no matching funds for their TSP contributions. And that is one reason the Pentagon may decide against it, Trabucco said.

 

[Guest2]

The Government needs to do a better job of educating young feds,
instead of mandating them. Automatic enrollment should come with
an automatic 1% contribution from the gov't for everyone. It did for
me, it should for military too. That 1% started the ball rolling for many
high end contributors. Geeez, to mandate 3% of my pay at that age
would be nothing more then a tax (kinda like "The New Social Security")

Does sun shine any where near their heads ?:suspicious:

 

[Wrngway]

I thought the mandate would be for the standard 1% that the Govt. puts into your account. Personally, I think new employees should put 5% in to get the matching funds, but that's a decision for each individual to make.

I suppose they'd let people opt out from the beginning, right? So that the default is to enroll, and they'd have to state that they do not want to.

 

[Silverbird]

Lawmakers are expected to move forward with legislation this week that would enroll new service members in the Thrift Savings Plan automatically.

The Pentagon has not decided whether it supports automatic TSP enrollment for new military service personnel. If defense officials oppose the plan, the board would remove the troops from its proposal, said Tom Trabucco, the board’s legislative director.

Unlike civilian federal employees enrolled in the Federal Employees Retirement System, military personnel get no matching funds for their TSP contributions. And that is one reason the Pentagon may decide against it, Trabucco said.

What? Locked in a 401(k) type of retirement with no matching and any money stuck in their before you figure out what's happening stuck until age 59 1/2 unless you leave federal/military service?? Madness. I know that there are a lot of less restrictive plans out there if military servicemen want to start saving for retirement.

It's one thing with us civilians, some of us unable to invest in certain individual stocks due to possible inside information gained or influence on policy with said company (for instance, I can't invest in any companies in a specific type of high tech), and we get matching funds for the first 5% (otherwise known as it's a no brainer to take free money). But unless the military at least gets matching, forced TSP "enrollment" is just jailing 3% of their pay into a retirement plan not of their choosing.

 

[luv2read]

I thought the mandate would be for the standard 1% that the Govt. puts into your account. Personally, I think new employees should put 5% in to get the matching funds, but that's a decision for each individual to make.

I suppose they'd let people opt out from the beginning, right? So that the default is to enroll, and they'd have to state that they do not want to.

If the default is enrolled, then it should be that way for FEGLI as well.

 

[Silverbird]

Ugh, don't say that on FEGLI....please don't give them any ideas.

 

[Silverbird]

Ugh, another thought. If you joined the Govt now you would be invested automatically in L2040...yeeek!!! New employees are going to think the invisible hand picked their pockets. It should be Lincome.

 

[JTH]

Maybe this is all the new Social Security program designed to supplement the current failed program.

 

[Silverbird]

Maybe this is all the new Social Security program designed to supplement the current failed program.

Sure there's already a call for a new program just like the program the Federal Government gets -- what they aren't saying is they have to get the Federal Government one to "sit" and "fetch" on command first.

 

[luv2read]

I don't think they have the right to risk our money at all. That should be a matter of choice. Automatic enrollment, maybe, but in G. They are taking it too far with this L Fund business. At least this is going to force them to educate employees as they have been required to do BY LAW since 1986 and never have. But they probably will just tell them "OK, you're FERS. This % of your salary goes to SS, this% goes to TSP, and the government automatically matches up to this % SS and 5% TSP." Probably won't even tell them they can opt out of the assigned fund, reduce their contribution or opt out of TSP altogether.

 

[Silverbird]

I agree that G makes more sense. Ok, over time it doesn't keep up with inflation. But exposing new workers to investment risk without asking is not going to go over well, especially if they take substantial losses and then find out they can't take their money out, especially when most likely they don't have any idea how to make an informed decision on changing their investments out of the losing proposition.

Helloooo! Seen the L2040 chart recently, TSP? Equity fun stole the matching funds, perhaps? You are supposed to present a program that helps workers save for their retirement, not lose it!

 

[Braveheart]

Barclays Top COO resigns the same day TSP restrictions in place !!!

Barclays executive to leave over wrangles

By Jane Croft and Peter Thal Larsen
Thursday May 1 2008 14:10
continued from previous page
Mr Idzik's resignation will further fuel concerns about the charged relationship between Mr Varley and Bob Diamond, Barclays' president and the powerful head of its investment banking and fund management divisions.
He has told colleagues he is stepping down because the changes he helped make to the bank's senior management and corporate structure are largely complete. Barclays is expected to confirm his departure on Friday, although he is not expected to leave until later in the year.
His decision has also been influenced by the bank's failure to win control of ABN Amro, the Dutch bank, which would have represented a significant integration challenge. He will not be replaced as chief operating officer.
However, Mr Idzik - who declined to comment - has also grown frustrated at the complex wrangling in Barclays' upper ranks, in particular the tension between Mr Varley and Mr Diamond.
Mr Idzik, 47, was seen as a powerful unifying force within Barclays and had acted as something of a peacemaker in the past, according to one person familiar with the situation.
Barclays has been beset with speculation about tensions between the two men ever since Mr Diamond lost out to Mr Varley in the race to take over as chief executive in 2003.
But executives have repeatedly sought to play down the rivalry, pointing out that Mr Varley and Mr Diamond have worked closely together for many years. Barclays declined to comment.
Mr Idzik, a former management consultant with Booz Allen & Hamilton, joined Barclays Capital in 1999, before Mr Varley appointed him chief operating officer in 2004.
He has been a colourful and sometimes controversial figure since arriving at Barclays' headquarters. He once jumped over the security gate at the entrance after the July 7 bombings in London to test the bank's security guards and has been known to berate staff who carry items with competitors' logos.
Last week Barclays refused to rule out a rights issue, but stressed it had a range of options to strengthen its capital.
Several analysts have predicted that the bank, which wrote off £1.7bn last year, will have to take substantial additional provisions in its Barclays Capital division. The bank is due to update investors on its performance on May 15.
Rival banks HBOS and Royal Bank of Scotland have taken heavy writedowns on the value of complex debts securities, which has raised questions about whether Barclays will also have to take large writedowns through its profit and loss account.