TSP board to limit interfund transfers

I found this summary of what CFR's are - it may apply to what we are doing here (see DennisFAA's post below, with the TSP CFR's). As you can see, CFR's have the full force and effect of the law they are intended to implement. Further, proposed new CFR's must be published in the Federal Register, and include a public comment period, before they are finalized. Soooooo......I think the FRTIB may have exceeded their authority by effectively changing this CFR, without going through the proper process (and they clearly changed the CFR related to interfund transfers........the language is very clear that there shall be no limit on IFT's).

I think this is something we can use to our advantage. I am highlighting it in all of the letters I am sending out.
_____________________________________________________________

Code of Federal Regulations


Regulations are created and used by executive agencies to "clarify" the intent and scope of federal statutes, which an agency is charged with administrating or enforcing. Statutes are the actual laws passed by Congress; regulations are the "who, what, when, where, and how" involved in administrating and/or enforcing the statute.
Modern History
As the New Deal unfolded in the early 1930's and Congress began to increase both the number of agencies and the scope of the authority of those agencies, the agencies began promulgating voluminous regulations. There was no mechanism for publishing, codifying, accessing or updating these regulations. There was considerable confusion about which regulations were in effect at any given time. In several 1934 Supreme Court cases involving administrative law violations, difficulty in keeping abreast of the current body of administrative law became obvious. Neither the defendants nor the government correctly understood which regulations were currently in effect. In response, Congress passed the Federal Register Act (ch. 417, 49 Stat. 500 (1935)). The Act mandates the daily publication of the Federal Register, whose purpose is to serve as a central repository of the publication of all newly adopted rules and regulations. Furthermore, publication in this periodical is constructive notice to all who may be affected by a regulation.
Although the Federal Register was helpful in notifying the government and people of changes and additions to federal regulations, the regulations were still not codified. Congress amended the Federal Register Act in 1937 to require codification and subject access to the regulations through publication in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The first CFR was published in 1939.
The purpose of the CFR was/is to provide a system of categorization whereby all the regulations promulgated [created] by a federal department or agency on a given subject can be located and tied to the corresponding statute. The CFR does an admirable job of providing that service.
As stated in the opening paragraph, regulations are intended to elaborate on the working details of a statute. It is beyond Congress' ability to be experts in every field concerning which it may be called upon to legislate. The US Supreme Court has referred to the text of Congressional legislation as "the broad language of the statute", which often times requires more detail to be properly placed into effect. These "details" are found in the "implementing regulations" promulgated by the agencies that must administrate and/or enforce a statute. Federal agencies are charged with faithful implementation and enforcement of the laws [statutes] through the regulations they promulgate. Although properly speaking, regulations are not law, rules and regulations have the full force and effect of the law.
[Editor's Note - It should be noted that federal statutes, as well as their associated regulations, only have force and effect upon those persons who are properly within federal jurisdiction, and has no force or effect upon anyone else. See the section, Federal Jurisdiction, within this website for more information on federal jurisdictional limitations.] In 1946 the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was passed clarifying the process of making regulation, allowing for greater accessibility and participation by all citizens. The APA required the publication in the Federal Register of all proposed rule changes and a period for public comment. Proposed and final regulations that have general applicability and legal effect are required to be published in the Federal Register. The administrative regulation-making process requires that proposed regulations be published and that a comment period be provided. When the comment period closes, the agency may finalize the regulation. Once the regulation becomes final, it is published again in the Federal Register and then codified into the Code of Federal Regulations.
 
TSP supposedly says they are hearing very few comments from TSP participants about this proposed new IFT restriction, on the Thriftline (implying that everyone is just fine with it). Well, that's not surprising, because you have to call or FAX a comment in.......there is no way to e-mail TSP or the FRTIB that I could find. Anyway, I wanted to post the TSP FAX number here. I urge folks to flood them with FAX's expressing your opinion about this change. I sent mine today.

Fax Number: 1-866-817-5023

Mailing Address: Thrift Savings Plan
P.O. Box 385021
Birmingham, AL 35238
 
"My personal suggestion is that everyone call their Senators and Congress Person. "

Contact my Senator, Hell she too busy running for Pres and the other one, who knows what he's doing. But I already sent letters to both and to our new Congresswoman. Lets see how far that goes!! But I have got to tell you, I am SO Glad that they are looking out for me and watching that I don’t hurt my self by hitting the wrong button.. I must admit I am one of the dreaded 3000 or was it 2018. Oh Well..

I don't really have any experience with this, but it might also be helpful to engage the "services" of the many wonderful lobbying organizations of whom many of us are probably constutuents. For those of us in the military, there's MOAA, AUSA, etc. And of course the whole gamut of retiree associations, particularly AARP. Any others that anyone else can think of that might fight for our "cause"?
 
TSP supposedly says they are hearing very few comments from TSP participants about this proposed new IFT restriction, on the Thriftline (implying that everyone is just fine with it). Well, that's not surprising, because you have to call or FAX a comment in.......there is no way to e-mail TSP or the FRTIB that I could find. Anyway, I wanted to post the TSP FAX number here. I urge folks to flood them with FAX's expressing your opinion about this change. I sent mine today.

Fax Number: 1-866-817-5023

Mailing Address: Thrift Savings Plan
P.O. Box 385021
Birmingham, AL 35238


I think we should ALL fax them a copy of 5CFR1601.32 along with our comments.
That way they know we know what were talking about!! And eat up their fax paper. Opps! More $$$..
 
Last edited:
I have a question - is the issue of fair value unrelated to the ift issue. These articles mention 3000 people as being the cause of the problem but don't mention fv as a possible cause. Is the calculation of fair value unrelated to the cost of trading or does it just equal out?
 
TSP supposedly says they are hearing very few comments from TSP participants about this proposed new IFT restriction, on the Thriftline (implying that everyone is just fine with it). Well, that's not surprising, because you have to call or FAX a comment in.......there is no way to e-mail TSP or the FRTIB that I could find. Anyway, I wanted to post the TSP FAX number here. I urge folks to flood them with FAX's expressing your opinion about this change. I sent mine today.

Fax Number: 1-866-817-5023

Mailing Address: Thrift Savings Plan
P.O. Box 385021
Birmingham, AL 35238

Thank you RAE for posting that. MAIL, CALL, AND FAX AN OBJECTION!

I am going to get everyone at my Thanksgiving Dinner tommorrow to write a note, and then I'm going to fax them all, inidividually, on Friday from Kinko's to the Thriftline FAX, and try and get a fax number for the actual board.

(Thanksgiving is at my house tomorrow. I've only got one 18 pound turkey, so don't you all show up at my house at once, or I'll be overwhelmed).


DON'T GIVE UP WITHOUT A FIGHT!

THEY HAVE TO DO A C-F-R CHANGE IN ORDER TO DO THIS, AND I FOR ONE AND GOING TO FIGHT LIKE HECK ALL THE WAY- KICKING AND SCREAMING. ITS MY MONEY- NOT THEIRS- AND THEY WILL HAVE TO PRY THIS KEYBOARD FROM MY COLD, DEAD FINGERS TO GET ME TO GO ALONG WITH SUCH A STUPID IDEA!


CALL MY UNION BROTHERS, AND GET THEM IN THE FIGHT.

CALL MY ALPHABET ORGANIZATIONS, AND GET THEM IN THE FIGHT.

CALL MY CONGRESS CRITTERS, AND GET THEM IN THE FIGHT.

CALL MY CHIPS EVERYWHERE- AND GET THEM ALL IN THE FIGHT.

DON'T LET THEM DO THIS TO YOU!!!!
 
Kam - Levin (Mich) is my senator, and he's also on the Senate Govt. Affairs Committee. I wrote him a long letter today, and requested a reply. If I hear back from him, I'll post his reply here. I specifically asked him to look into the issue of the FRTIB changing the CFR's (re. IFT's) without following proper process for doing so.
 
I have a question - is the issue of fair value unrelated to the ift issue. These articles mention 3000 people as being the cause of the problem but don't mention fv as a possible cause. Is the calculation of fair value unrelated to the cost of trading or does it just equal out?


FV is a part of the issue, but not all the issue. the other part of the issue is the guy who wrote the analisys thinks we should not be moving in and out, and that those kind of moves cause commissions to be paid, and they have to hold the funds for three days before the trades clear, so they cost more than a simple buy and hold.

Go back near the beginning of this thread, and there is a link to the "proposal" paper written there. That document spells it out.
 
Kam - Levin (Mich) is my senator, and he's also on the Senate Govt. Affairs Committee. I wrote him a long letter today, and requested a reply. If I hear back from him, I'll post his reply here. I specifically asked him to look into the issue of the FRTIB changing the CFR's (re. IFT's) without following proper process for doing so.

Great! He was my first choice to telephone, but no one answered!! I discovered little help from out-of-state legislators, so I'm glad he is yours to haggle with. He's a good guy and definitely for the little guy. I was hoping Steny Hoyer (2nd in charge of the House) would be on one of the Committees, as he is very good to Federal Employees. Anybody from Maryland??

My Congressman's aide told me that the TSP can change CFRs with changes in Statutes, but they still have to have a public comment period, i.e. they can do what they want without Congress, unless Congress passes a statute protecting our right to trade. In my limited understanding of this, though, a CFR is suppose to be an agency interpretation of a Statute, so there must be something in the law about the flexibility employees should have in trading in their TSPs. Any ideas?
 
Note: Limiting trades to two per month does not solve their issue. today only 3,000 people are making trades of more than 4 or 5 per month. That's 3,000 out of 3,000,000 who are holders of TSP funds. What they are really worried about is what happens when the other 2,997,000 figure it out.



I can think of SEVERAL solutions if the problem is the FV and the liquidity of the I fund.

1. They can simply charge us $5 each for more than 2 per month. I'd pay that.

2. Or they can process the "I" price one day later, thereby elmininating the FV factor if they don't set the "I" price until noon the next day, on that one fund.

3. Or they can simply give us real-time trading for the "C", "S", "F" and "G", and give us a one-day delay on the "I", which allows for open markets overnight. That would solve the problem as well.

Or I am sure there are a NUMBER of other options they can do- besides this stupid limit idea.
 
Does anybody have the reference of Senator Snow's law which gave us the current system? I saw clips posted earlier in this thread, and I want to research what the law actually said. Does anyone have the Public Law number?
 
FV is a part of the issue, but not all the issue. the other part of the issue is the guy who wrote the analisys thinks we should not be moving in and out, and that those kind of moves cause commissions to be paid, and they have to hold the funds for three days before the trades clear, so they cost more than a simple buy and hold.

Go back near the beginning of this thread, and there is a link to the "proposal" paper written there. That document spells it out.

James,

Thank you very much for responding. I keep reading about the "unfair values" and was wondering whether these costs were also contributing to these cost increases.

I also had another thought. Don't the congress people and their staffs contribute to the same tsp and wouldn't this affect some of them personally as well. I mean, don't they have civil servants working for them that might be impacted by this as well? It seems to me that this should just as personally important to congress and their staffs as it is to us. Just a thought.
 
James and Kam - I believe this is the title and number of the law which originally set up the TSP:

(2) Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-335, 100 Stat. 514 (1986) (codified at 5 U.S.C. [section][section] 8431-8840 (2000)).

I believe that the CFR's that we have been discussing, though, came about in 2005, when some of the changes to the operation of the TSP that we are now familar with, were implemented (no open seasons, no limit on IFT's, etc). It is not uncommon for CFR's to be revised periodically, such as was done in 2005, to reflect changes in implementation of a statute, as long as those changes are still within the parameters or the original statute. The thing is, in 2005 they had to go through the formal procedure of posting those proposed changes to the Federal Register, accepting comments, and then posting the final change as a new CFR (which they did). The difference now (in my view, anyway) is that they are proposing to make another change to the CFR's, without going through that required procedure. That is the way I see it, anyway - anyone have an attorney friend familiar with CFR's that can review this for us and give us an opinion?
 
With 22 moves in September, October and November, I guess I'm on the BAD list.

And I would have done better in that time if I had just held.

So evidently I do need protection from myself.

GGAL
 
doesn't want any digging into his 'affairs'

His website is now shut down. The only thing posted on his page is:



Saul Steps Down as Candidate in New York's 19th Congressional District "I want to thank everyone who has been supportive of this campaign, and under different circumstances I know we would have been successful. I am truly touched at the overwhelming support I've received from my family, friends and the residents of the 19th Congressional District throughout this process."
 
James and Kam - I believe this is the title and number of the law which originally set up the TSP:

(2) Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-335, 100 Stat. 514 (1986) (codified at 5 U.S.C. [section][section] 8431-8840 (2000)).

I believe that the CFR's that we have been discussing, though, came about in 2005, when some of the changes to the operation of the TSP that we are now familar with, were implemented (no open seasons, no limit on IFT's, etc). It is not uncommon for CFR's to be revised periodically, such as was done in 2005, to reflect changes in implementation of a statute, as long as those changes are still within the parameters or the original statute. The thing is, in 2005 they had to go through the formal procedure of posting those proposed changes to the Federal Register, accepting comments, and then posting the final change as a new CFR (which they did). The difference now (in my view, anyway) is that they are proposing to make another change to the CFR's, without going through that required procedure. That is the way I see it, anyway - anyone have an attorney friend familiar with CFR's that can review this for us and give us an opinion?

I'm not directly addressing your question, but in their eyes, they probably think they aren't changing anything, really, until March or April of 2008.

In one of the mp3's posted above, Fednewsline?, an unidentified woman, who sounded as if she was a TSP board member, said "they got permission" to implement the interim restrictions to the 3000 of us, if we continue to abuse IFT (i.e. greater than two for month, or whatever they warn us to in our special letters) and then punishing us by having to do it by mail if we abuse that warning by going over the limit.

So:

1) WHO gave them permission for this interim solution? This seems like a very important question to answer for the interim

2) They aren't really restricting "us" on the number of trades until "March or April", but are using the throw-up-barriers method in the meantime, "with permission." Also, there was no discussion about CFR's causing them to wait until March and April to fully implement the restriction. That's how long it would take them, according to her, to make the necessary bookeeping changes, programming, etc., changes.
 
Back
Top