TSP board to limit interfund transfers

[Wrngway]

This raises the question:

If the interval market action moves your 50C/50S allocation to 49.9C/50.1S, will this resultant move INTO the C fund, if you try 10G/50C/40S be allowed as a third and subsequent move "to the G"?

I doubt it. In that case you may have to go 11G/49C/50S.

 

[Silverbird]

New data is out on the TSP FTRIB electronic reading room.

...the first glance shows they did a special "fair valuation" on Janaury 31 and again on February 29th, and clipped money from those who were trading that day, turning almost a million dollars in profits from those who bailed out, and missing the index by 211 basis points in the process. The FV clipping allowed Barclays to steal almost a million dollars from you- $969,796 to be exact, making the numbers show that trading in the I fund GAINED for those who remained in the fund an extra $969,796 profit. That's right- the I fund trading costs were NEGATIVE for the month- but the index itself missed by 211 basis points in the process.

Ooookay. I guess to get around the shell game, don't trade I on the last trading day of the month? Or am I being far too simplistic?

 

[jlpost]

Perhaps this question should have its own thread, but I don't know how to start one. If so, then feel free to start one.

Given that TSP has so severly limited our control over our accounts, is there any reason for a CSRS employee to continue to contribute to the TSP? Seems a CSRS employee might be better off to start an IRA or ROTH IRA where they have some control?

Is there any benefit I don't see to continuing with TSP?

 

[luv2read]

IMO, no. I'm FERS. I've reduced my contributions to matching only. I plan to max out my Roth with what I was putting in TSP, and put the rest into a brokerage account.

As soon as I'm eligible, I'm withdrawing all of it and putting it in brokerage accounts. If I was CSRS, I probably would stop contributing. This is strictly what I would do based on my own situation. You must make your own decision based on your situation and goals, not mine.

Parents are both retired CSRS with TSP accounts. They are in the process of withdrawing all the funds and placing elsewhere where they have more control.

 

[Birchtree]

Gents,

Having more control is not always the best answer. Think in terms of reduced fees and the ability to dollar cost average. The DCA process allows one to buy shares on a scheduled basis no matter what the price - that's when corrections are so sweet. I cherish every purchase I make in the C fund under $16.00 because I buy more shares for the longer term. It's the number of shares you've accumulated over the years that will make you feel reasonably comfortable in retirement. I've ridden every correction over the years and my tugboat account (TSP) keeps on growing and I don't worry about suffering a temporary devaluation because I know the future will change once again to the stampeding bullish side and I'll have to pay more for my shares until I retire. Trust me when I tell you that two IFTs a month are plenty for control if you can fathom a longer term perspective - don't fear the future use it to your advantage.

 

[James48843]

Perhaps this question should have its own thread, but I don't know how to start one. If so, then feel free to start one.

Given that TSP has so severly limited our control over our accounts, is there any reason for a CSRS employee to continue to contribute to the TSP? Seems a CSRS employee might be better off to start an IRA or ROTH IRA where they have some control?

Is there any benefit I don't see to continuing with TSP?

At the risk of being labeled a "conspiricay theorist", I'd say that what you have just pointed out is EXACTLY what those with the money WANT you to do.

The bankers of the world have gathered together, decided that the 260+ billion in TSP funds is a juicy target, and conspired together to find ways to drive you away from the TSP, and into the arms of the investment bankers of the world.

They WANT you to cut ties to the TSP, and move all your money to them.

THAT is why they are limiting trades. To enrich themselves on YOUR money.

 

[tsptalk]

That is a little too far fetched for me. I'm not sure all this hoopla is to get a few hundred, maybe 1000 disgrutled folks to move out of the TSP based on this rule change. That's all that will make a move in my opinion. After all, according to the TSP, instead of thousands, only a few hundred actually sent in comments to the federal register. The other 3.8 million folks are happy in their own private Idaho.

 

[fabijo]

The bankers of the world have gathered together, decided that the 260+ billion in TSP funds is a juicy target, and conspired together to find ways to drive you away from the TSP, and into the arms of the investment bankers of the world.

Hmmm. 260 billion is not that much for the world banks. The past few months have had billions of dollars injected into the markets by the central banks.

 

[luv2read]

Hmmm. 260 billion is not that much for the world banks. The past few months have had billions of dollars injected into the markets by the central banks.

Barclays controls it anyway.

 

[James48843]

Hmmm. 260 billion is not that much for the world banks. The past few months have had billions of dollars injected into the markets by the central banks.

260 billion here.

580 billion there. (Cost so far for Iraq).


Pretty soon we'll be talking REAL money

 

[luv2read]

260 billion here.

580 billion there. (Cost so far for Iraq).


Pretty soon we'll be talking REAL money

a few million here, a few billion there, pretty soon a trillion...and old macdonald will be laughing all the way to the bank depositing his biofuel profits. The only good thing to come out of this fiasco is the recovery of the american farms. Bad side...at the expense of the environment and food supply. It takes more energy to make biofuels than it does to make gasoline, not to mention all the fertilizers polluting.

 

[nnuut]

Is this the LAST CHANCE??

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss]3. TSP Proposals Getting an Airing[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss]

The House federal workforce subcommittee this week is holding a fairly rare oversight hearing on the TSP, focusing on a legislative proposal the program made last year that would require a default personal contribution of 3 percent of salary for newly hired employees and investment in the lifecycle fund most suited to the person’s age—unless, in each case, the individual makes a different choice. The proposal was made because newly hired employees traditionally have been slow to begin investing their own money in the TSP, losing out on government matching contributions although still receiving the automatic 1 percent contribution; overall, about a sixth of FERS employees make no personal contributions. The current default fund is the TSP’s most conservative, the government securities G fund, and many employees apparently just leave the money there without considering whether that is the proper fund for them. The hearing also could be the vehicle for debate over the changed interfund transfer policy, as well as the issues of creating new investment funds and a "Roth" option.
http://www.fedweek.com/content/ci/fw.php​

[/FONT]



[/FONT]

 

[luv2read]

Yeah, see this post. The hearing was 4/29. Too bad none of US had enough advance notice to arrange to be there.:suspicious:

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=162623&postcount=1

 

[FordMan]

Wouldn’t it be nice if this whole thing blow up in the boards face?
By that I mean, we beat this thing and they are forced to stop their BS but because of all the hoopla they started those in the plan who have never been active for one reason or another were to start and the 3000 grow to 30,000 or 50,000.

I surveyed some friends and their pension funds are doing the same thing, except most of their funds are mutuals and not indexed. So why is TSP board piggybacking this strategy that many 401ks are pursuing? I think it's Wall Street vs. Middle Class America. On a simple level they're making are plan less desireable so that retiring baby boomers will rollover into an IRA. On a more devious level, they're freezing a huge percentage of institutional funds so that they can manipulate the rest. Sounds like something a SOROS-type would love. Lock us into our funds while the market trades sideways for 15 years. What a crock!

 

[luv2read]

I surveyed some friends and their pension funds are doing the same thing, except most of their funds are mutuals and not indexed. So why is TSP board piggybacking this strategy that many 401ks are pursuing? I think it's Wall Street vs. Middle Class America. On a simple level they're making are plan less desireable so that retiring baby boomers will rollover into an IRA. On a more devious level, they're freezing a huge percentage of institutional funds so that they can manipulate the rest. Sounds like something a SOROS-type would love. Lock us into our funds while the market trades sideways for 15 years. What a crock!

That was one of the comments submitted. FRTIB compares TSP to mutual funds, index funds, and 401k's....whichever scenario fits what they are trying to justify at the moment. The point is that TSP is NONE of those, SEC rules don't apply to it but DO apply to Barclays, which is the fund manager. FRTIB suggested, and Congress decided, that daily valuation and daily IFT's were a good idea. Now, not.

 

[Gaetaone]

Humor or irony....

Was watching the movie Major League.. The owner wanted to move the team so she sold/traded all of her best players in order to make the team fail. Seems like they want to take the bat out of our hands and they've taken their best shot. Like the end of the movie, we can and will win in the long term. We'll use the current rules to maximize our profits and who knows, maybe win the team back down the road.

John

 

[Miss_Piggy]

Question

Has anyone heard that there are no IFT limits for moving in and out of the Life Cycle Funds (L Funds)?
It seemed to be a quote by Edward A. Zurndorfer of the Federal Digest/Daily - but I'm not sure at all cause I didn't have a direct link.

 

[luv2read]

Re: Question

Has anyone heard that there are no IFT limits for moving in and out of the Life Cycle Funds (L Funds)?
It seemed to be a quote by Edward A. Zurndorfer of the Federal Digest/Daily - but I'm not sure at all cause I didn't have a direct link.

Not true. He's probably been misquoted. If not, he must mean Barclays which is still able to rebalance the L funds daily.

IFT's to G fund are the only IFT's that are unlimited.

Zurndorfer is moderator of this website, BTW, which is another great source for us FEDS.

http://community.federalsoup.com/4/OpenTopic

http://community.federalsoup.com/4/OpenTopic?a=frm&s=4944011921&f=6984011031

 

[Miss_Piggy]

Thanks, luv2read...

 

[FUTURESTRADER]

Re: Question

luv2read Re: Question

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Piggy
Has anyone heard that there are no IFT limits for moving in and out of the Life Cycle Funds (L Funds)?
It seemed to be a quote by Edward A. Zurndorfer of the Federal Digest/Daily - but I'm not sure at all cause I didn't have a direct link.

Not true. He's probably been misquoted. If not, he must mean Barclays which is still able to rebalance the L funds daily.

IFT's to G fund are the only IFT's that are unlimited.

Zurndorfer is moderator of this website, BTW, which is another great source for us FEDS.

Luv is correct. I just tried to xfer to 100% L2040, which would be my third IFT for the month, and got the red lettered error message, "...only to G"