TSP board to limit interfund transfers

[Scout333]

Also,had you dug into their accounting records, as I have done, you would see that one of the larger expenses recently was a contract for preparation and distribution of an educational DVD, which was mailed to all 3.8 million TSP participants. Did we really need this expense, and who authorized it, and why?


RAE

Rae, Excellent point re. types of expenses included in the $ 15 million of transaction costs. I haven't been keeping up so forgive me if this has been discussed previously. Does anyone know if the costs for upgrades in server and computer capacity are included in the $ 15.0 million of transaction costs? If I recall correctly, I read an article a year or so ago that the expected costs were to be in the $ 6 - 8 million range. This capital investment could explain the sharp increase in costs in a one year period. If so, the entire basis for the limitation in transaction argument is false! Government accounting tends to account for capital expenditures in the year the money is spent instead of spreading them over the time periods that they benefit. Rae, Have you looked at the detail enough to be able to tell if the capital costs are included?

 

[ayla]

I read/scanned the September minutes and thought that the server upgrades were being planned. But perhaps that is an implementation plan and they have already been bought (and hence already included in their expenditures).

I read the September minutes and I believe that was what it said. The link is: http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/index.html You can't click on this from TSPtalk web site. you need to cut and paste this link to your browser and go directly else you will be routed only to the home page at frtb.gov (at least that was what happened to me). The minutes are down a bit in a pull down list.

I believe it has already been mentioned but isn't the federal employee TSP benefit as we know it also a benefit for congressmen as well? If so, then that is definitely in our favor as far as keeping the TSP board from putting limits on IFTs. That means they will feel the crunch as well, right? Hope they will.

 

[nnuut]

Sharing an email I received....

I think the Form Letter is a great Idea. Would be better if we had about 5 different letters that say the same thing in a different way. That way even Lurkers can help. They might be the rest of "The 3000"? Wish we could send 50,000 Form letters! Let them know we are a force to be reckoned with. I know we are working on it, go 2Jims and Griff and the rest of you people!
nnuutView attachment 2699

 

[RAE]

I read/scanned the September minutes and thought that the server upgrades were being planned. But perhaps that is an implementation plan and they have already been bought (and hence already included in their expenditures).

I read the September minutes and I believe that was what it said. The link is: http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/index.html You can't click on this from TSPtalk web site. you need to cut and paste this link to your browser and go directly else you will be routed only to the home page at frtb.gov (at least that was what happened to me). The minutes are down a bit in a pull down list.

I believe it has already been mentioned but isn't the federal employee TSP benefit as we know it also a benefit for congressmen as well? If so, then that is definitely in our favor as far as keeping the TSP board from putting limits on IFTs. That means they will feel the crunch as well, right? Hope they will.

Thanks for posting the link to the Sept. FRTIB Meeting Minutes, Ayla. I reviewed them just now also. Some interesting things I picked out of them:

- Actual expense ratios for managing the TSP for the last 5 years are as follows: FY03 - 10 basis points; FY04 - 6 basis points; FY05 - 4 basis points; FY06 - 3 basis points; FY 07 (projected) - 2 basis points.

- TSP overall operating expenses for the last 5 years: FY03 - 92.6 mil; FY04 - 100.9 mil; FY05 - 94.9 mil; FY06 - 83.4 mil; FY07 83.9 mil

- assests in the TSP are increasing at the rate of about $2 billion/month

- Exec. Dir. Long stated that "as assets increase, the expense ratio will continue to fall"

- the minutes also state: "when the markets are turbulent, participants switch from equity funds to income funds. With the L funds, participants switch from the most aggressive L funds to the most conservative L funds. Chairman Saul remarked that this was important because it shows that this is a plan of individual choice. Our role is to educate participants, but not to advise them. The participants must make the decisions they are most comfortable with" _______________________________________________________________

Do the above numbers and statements indicate to you that TSP has a big problem with increasing expenses? Quite to the contrary, expense ratios are declining, if anything! And the 83.9 mil total expense in FY07 included costs for production and distribution of an educational DVD to all 3.8 million TSP participants, as I recall.

I see NOTHING in these notes to indicate that there is a big problem with escalating costs due to frequent IFT's. They are planning a major (15.2 mil) acquisition of new computer equipment in FY08/09, and a lot of the discussion at the end of the minutes centered around that, and other costs for design of a new website, costs for increased communication/education of TSP participants, etc.. They are projecting increased budgets for FY08 and FY09 due to these anticipated expenses.

The bottom line - expense ratios are DECREASING, there is NO BIG PROBLEM with escalating costs due to more frequent IFT's. And this is as of Sept, 07 - just 2 months ago!

Cite these numbers (and statements) when you communicate with your congressmen/union reps and others about the proposed new IFT restrictions!!

 

[nnuut]

RAE
GOOD HUNTING this info is the kind of data we can use aganist the Creaps that are blaming all of these problems on US "THE 3,000". Make sure that, Griffin, Show_me and the rest of the leaders read this!!! If you don't I will!
Thanks
Norman

 

[Talltimber]

So delaying it by mail is letting us freely trade?

 

[James48843]

If they aren't limiting the number of trades, just expecting us to use mail I guess I could send them a letter asking them to put my funds in I fund on odd dated trading days and in G fund on even dated trading days until further notice, that would just be one stamp.

NowTHAT's Funny!

(rolling on the ground laughing on that one!)

 

[nnuut]

If they aren't limiting the number of trades, just expecting us to use mail I guess I could send them a letter asking them to put my funds in I fund on odd dated trading days and in G fund on even dated trading days until further notice, that would just be one stamp.

Sorry, but the way I understand it is that if you violate the restrictions they will block your internet transactions and you will have to submit your IFTS by mail, WITH the same restrictions!

 

[troxel]

I've sued 15-20 companies in Federal Court (and settled each case out of court), but I'm not familiar with this area of law. I would think that a class action would be the way to go, with TSPTalk members constituting a significant portion of the damaged class. Perhaps someone should contact an attorney who specializes in this aspect of law (whatever aspect that is) and get a read as to whether we might have a decent case. Come to think of it, caymanbrac12 is a Florida attorney and perhaps he could make some contacts and lead the charge if he was willing.

I would contribute to such an action.

It is sad that this appears to be the only avenue to having our concerns heard. Has TSP ever conducted a survey or solicited input to understand what their customer (members) want in the form of services and expenses?

As a member it is frustrating that, other then posting on this forum, there is no way to provide input to this autocratic uncompetitive system.

 

[James48843]

Haws TSP conducted a survey? yes. Go to the thrift board website and see the results. I'll see if I can find the link to the survey results.

What TSP'ers wanted? Hint: the daily trade sruvey quesiton results were positve for continuning trades, not negative.

 

[fabijo]

- Actual expense ratios for managing the TSP for the last 5 years are as follows: FY03 - 10 basis points; FY04 - 6 basis points; FY05 - 4 basis points; FY06 - 3 basis points; FY 07 (projected) - 2 basis points.

RAE, here is a nice chart showing their expense ratios. It is part of Attachment 1 of the September meeting minutes. I made it a jpg to make it easier to share.

 

[ekatteng]

Thank you fabijo... That confirm the huge cost of all the L funds and all the daily IFTs of the half million everyday...

RAE, here is a nice chart showing their expense ratios. It is part of Attachment 1 of the September meeting minutes. I made it a jpg to make it easier to share.

 

[fabijo]

Haws TSP conducted a survey? yes. Go to the thrift board website and see the results. I'll see if I can find the link to the survey results.

What TSP'ers wanted? Hint: the daily trade sruvey quesiton results were positve for continuning trades, not negative.

I checked it out, but I couldn't find any question on daily trades. The one closest to it is the question about the ease of making administrative changes. It showed that 84% of the respondents are satisfied with their ability to make changes to their accounts.

 

[Tempest]

I haven't met an INTERNET poll you couldn't vote more then twice.

In the end everyone is going to get to do all the IFT's they want; but it will cost you. Doesn't matter if you are a market-timer or a buy-hold type. [Beware of divide and conquer . If I have to explain that to you how that can be used; your already toast.]

Somebody just has to make a call to their media contact and you'll get some piece on how 'Feds get to trade for free while everyone else who isn't a Fed has to pay'. Yeah that's something that will get the public behind you if you are a TSP trader. And we know the public just love us Feds and our fantastic 401(K) plan.

Do I really have to write the lead for you on that hit piece.

Yeah somebody like Cavuto or Dobbs; Fair and balanced and an ice-pick (or more likely an ax) from out of the shadows.

In the end it will be presented as a compromise so nobody loses face and there are no hard feelings. 'Everybody wins!' I'm Okay, Your Okay. A Win Win (INSERT 'smiley' gif here. ]

You get to trade. But you'll have to pay. That was the objective from the beginning. Shrewd.

Battlefield was recce and prepped before the war.

Oh yeah if I read from one more Fed about wanting to privatize something the Federal Government is running I will hunt you down and throw you in a volcano or haunt your ****ing *** after I die.

 

[James48843]

Battlefield was recce and prepped before the war.

No battle plan survives first contact intact.

Oh yeah if I read from one more Fed about wanting to privatize something the Federal Government is running I will hunt you down and throw you in a volcano or haunt your ****ing *** after I die.

AMEN.



* Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend; march swiftly to places where you are not expected.

 

[Tempest]

I was a Union Steward to.
And there trying to drag me back in.

 

[Talltimber]

Don't you just hate it when a few individuals just do their own thing and screw up a perfectly good planned and centrally controlled economy?

 

[ayla]

O.K. guys. I'm a bit overwhelmed. I need a shortcut to a nicely written (probably not too wordy but still effective) response to this plan by the TSP board to limit IFTs.

I want to send it to TSP board members and congressmen and maybe the ACLU and the Federal Employees union (but I'm not sure who that is yet), etc. and also make it available to other Federal employees I personally know.

Anyway, can we have a "sticky" that sends people directly to such a nicely written response? I'm sure it would be better (maybe) if we all wrote something different but I want to get the quantity first. Maybe if I have time, I will send some followups that I write myself (though stickies for followups would be good too.)

I've never been much of a writer. I've seen some candidates here. Anyone have an idea what they think is the most effective and can that be posted in a place we can get too easily, i.e. not in one of these long threads about the problem?

Apologies if this has already posted, just let me know where it is (and I will post a link periodically in this thread for anyone who comes later and has the same problem I'm having right now.)

Thanks in advance.

 

[qibovin]

A system to charge a transaction fee is likely to be much cheaper and easier to implement than a system to monitor and block members from making "too many" transactions, sending letters, and inputting the transactions sent by mail. It's a sure bet that costs will be much higher than this year's $ 15.0 million!

I believe I saw a previous post implying that the mail-in process was not a breach of the "no limit to transactions" policy because it was merely altering the way in which transactions are done. This tells me that daily transactions will remain possible, so what good does that do? How does that reduce costs?

I say that everyone who gets a "letter" submit a snail mail request for IFT on a daily basis until they are so overwhelmed by correspondence that they have to relent. Many systems (Ebb, Ekatung (?sp), G-penny) predict several days in advance, so might still be somewhat effective by mail, but even without that--just for effect--we could all submit 1% IFTs just to $¢®€ω with them like they're $¢®€ωing with us.

 

[qibovin]

Does anyone know if the THRIFTLine automated phone system will remain available to those of us "cut off"?