TSP board to limit interfund transfers

[James48843]

We need to ORGANIZE!

When the French government tries to screw the middle class, the middle class fights back. We need a March on Washington!

A TSPTALK MARCH ON WASHINGTON- DON"T SCREW WITH THE TSP!

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE

SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THE EARTH!


O-R-G-A-N-I-Z-E!

 

[James48843]

Do Not Accept This Blindly.


Fight Back!

 

[fabijo]

According to this, from the September meeting minutes, each fund's expenses year-to-date (September), were .01% - exactly the same as the L Funds:

http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/MM-2007Sep-Att1.pdf

Look at the table on the bottom of the first page.

 

[Talltimber]

Barclay's handle our I fund no? They didn't list any restriction on their public funds in the memo, how come they want to limit our trades?

When is the next Board meeting? It would be fun to return the letter to them in person, and let them know what we think. That would save a stamp and all.

http://www.frtib.gov/index.htmll

http://www.frtib.gov/FOIA/index.html

These clowns seem to be hiding from their customers.

 

[pogo]

They are just trying to maintain parity with private industry. No organization should be exempt - trading mutual funds is taboo, especially in a fiduciary type account. I have rules to follow when I do trading in the Mrs. FRS account affiliated with the State of Florida - it's no big deal to someone that is future oriented with an expanded time horizon. I had planned to start trading in the spring on a limited basis and these caps fit nicely. So I will not be complaining, sorry folks.

i trade my wife's account with the private industry(their rules) and her account is up 10.5 percent this year and my account is up 18.53 percent (with tsp rules) which one is better birch. you better start complaining--sorry birch

 

[troxel]

Re: TSP board limits frequent fund transfers

"The board also will send letters to the 3,000 frequent traders in December telling them to cut back on their transfers. If they don’t, the board will take away their abilities to trade online, and they will have to physically mail in their transfers.

“Those 3,000 people will not be happy, and they will complain, some of them very loudly,” Executive Director Gregory Long said. “But the board’s job is to take care of all participants, and this is clearly in their best interests.”

The TSP will install the twice-monthly restrictions into its software by March or April. Frequent traders who ignore warnings and lose their online trading privileges will regain them when the restrictions are up and running."

While other fund service providers strive to develop more efficient mechanisms and increase flexibility, TSP takes a step backward.

This is fundamental economic theory however, the range and quality of services will suffer if:

1. The service providers function within a noncompetitive environment

2. The constituency has no real representation

 

[ayla]

This decision wreaks of incompetence.

Remember this is the same board that voted to use SSN as a login id when other government organizations such as NASA understood (in the early 90's) that we needed to have a separate numeric key for tracking electronically.

I'm all for fighting this but if we are successful, it will still probably take years for the TSP board to have a "change of heart" (as it did with their finally learning that SSN logins were a bad idea).

As someone who is retired and 62 years old, I would like to know what other options are out there. Seems like if we can find the best competition and support that group, then that will be one of the best ways to fight this edict especially for those of us who can more easily withdraw our money

I'm one of those who agrees that charging for trades is a reasonable thing to do (above some limit) but I'm guessing that this will take quite a few dollars for them to modify their system to do this. Again, won't happen quick.

Can't withdraw all my funds at first because of tax bite. I'm thinking that there appear to be equivalents to the TSP funds in the non-TSP world. Which are best? What online brokers (or fund managers?) have the cheapest and/or most optimum rules? Would like to hear about plans others may be thinking about (like some have already mentioned.)

 

[James48843]

Exactly.

And limiting trades does not solve the "problem". The issue they bring up is strictly the Fair Value issue with the I fund. Even after they institute limits, there will still be exactly the same Fair Value issue with the I fund, only now people will not be able trade as much.

If the FV is really a problem, they could simply execute the "I" trades at night, when the I markets were open, and do them at the real time costs. That would entail only delaying the posting of the "I" fund price until 2 a.m the next morning, when the European markets would open. zzzzzzzzzthe computer could still calculate the price correctly, and update the account balances, and be ready to go by the 9:30 am. market opening in new york.

This plan of theirs stinks.

 

[Show-me]

Think not thing, oops. lol Dang spelling!

 

[The_Technician]

Here's the funny thing, doesn't the government make more tax money (at withdrawal) when we make more TSP retirement money ???

Then it's to their benefit for us to make more money. I think the TSP board has taken an apple out of the mouth of the Government.

:blink:

 

[James48843]

We MUST O-R-G-A-N-I-Z-E and march on their next meeting. We must tell them face to face that they are wrong, and that there are other alternatives which CAN solve the "problem", if there is one, but this is not it.

Who is with me?

 

[Show-me]

James,

I'm with ya we do need to O-R-G-A-N-I-Z-E, but the travel expense will be a factor for me. One income family with limited resources and the Holidays coming up.

 

[Jonathan]

Your TSP account was designed as a fiduciary account. That means the many need to be protected from their own undoing. Making only two trades a month is plenty to make extra money - there is plenty of time to trade over a 12 month period.

If your strategy is buying-and-holding blindly regardless of what the market is actually doing, then I agree with you. For most of us, it's not. This isn't "extra money" we're talking about -- it's retirement.

For my part, I object to the use of the term "day traders". It's simply not possible to "day trade" with the TSP -- IFT's aren't processed that fast.

Sounds to me like someone didn't think through (or add up) the possible ramifications when they set up the TSP IFT system.

 

[Mudpie]

I would rather pull my money out of TSP, than to watch my account disappear with only two trades per month. Why doesn't TSP start off by surveying TSP participants for possible solutions? I would pay $5.00 a trade and stay with TSP, or $7.00 a trade and jump ship to a discount house. Either way it's TAX DEDUCTABLE! Idiots!

TSP is chasing people away...and their money. lol

 

[TTMartin]

If they are still sending out snail mail replies, I can see why it costs too much. I definately can see a $1.00 fee for snail mail reply. We as users can help the situation by entering an email address when we request an interfund transfer.

 

[Show-me]

By the way welcome to the mb Mudpie and TTMartin.

 

[fedgolfer]

i'm for unlimited trading in TSP... but maybe we could all live with 5 or 6trades a month if it came down to a comprimise. Or, They need to give us more funds to chose from if they're comparing TSP to Vanguard and the likes.

 

[Skip]

I think 2 trades a month is not enough, If they are going to limit it ,4 trades
with the option to move to g or f not counting as a trade would be better..

 

[fabijo]

Another point to note in anyone's letter to their Congress person is how the I Fund is the one that is costing the most. It is also the one that sometimes makes money on trades because of Barclays' Fair Valuation adjustments. So, it could be argued that the "day traders" are already paying a fee for their actions.

 

[jayhawker]

i'm for unlimited trading in TSP... but maybe we could all live with 5 or 6trades a month if it came down to a comprimise. Or, They need to give us more funds to chose from if they're comparing TSP to Vanguard and the likes.

I'm not willing to negotiate the number of trades. Period!

This proposal is total BS! These people can't come up with a better solution to their perceived problem than this proposal??? Are they incompetent??? I agree with Tom, there something else afoot here.

If the I Fund is generating most of the increased trading costs, then limit the number of trades in that fund... or eliminate it altogether. If you can't "trade" it - what the hell good is it?