TSP Transfer Fees and/or Transaction Limit Discussion

I am confused as to where Mr Causey even got his Fed employees would welcome a IFT fee. That's like saying I want my bank to charge me ATM fees. uuhhhh...... what???

The administrative costs are close to nil so I view this as a tax to discourage IFT's. Odd that a republican administration would want to impose fees after trying to open SS accounts to investing. Very contradictory.

If they need to imose a fee to cover costs of IFT's then come out with what the cost is. Also include what it costs to constantly rebalance the L Funds and charge a fee for those invested in the L Funds for those transactions also.

</rant off>
 
That is why it is important to request email confirmations instead :).

The accounting and trades are electronic and automatic, so the expenses are actually minimal and inevitable as the system must run and be maintained used or not.

In addition, the daily rebalancing of the L fund are just another series of IFT's done by TSP for the individual, rather than the individual doing it themselves. Therefore, wether personal IFT's or L fund IFT's, it's essentially the same and equivalent, and if there is an expense incurred by IFT's, we are already being charged for those using the L funds.

To justify charging to do your own IFT rather than opting for the L funds would be difficult, as changing an item in the CFR is not something easily done.

I concur... all of my transactions/confirmations are automated and I wonder the justification for such an idea.
 
Here's what I perceive to be the situation.

Outsiders with an interest for their own profit, or motivation for their own profit, are looking at the huge amounts in our TSP coffers and just can't wait to get their hands on our money. As a result, they are promoting lies of deception to instigate an issue which does not exist, to try to cajole the ignorant majority among us to agree to fee trades that should not be started. What is apparent is that those trying to question whether TSP trades should be fee'd or not are outsiders. I believe that these outsiders are delving in matters relating to defined benefits we as Federal Employees have, and if we let them have their way we will lose these benefits.

I think that Congress and we as benefactors of our well deserved and well earned defined benefits should give these outsiders what they deserve --- an emphatic NO! Further, we need to be mindful that thieves and profiteers are trying to instigate issues only because they will benefit from us, like leeches.

We need to make it clear to all outsiders that do not contribute to the TSP funds that they do not pay for what we pay to have our benefits continue, and that they should get out of our kitchen and stay out of matters they have not right to be in, or even a right to express an opinion on.


BINGO
 
icon1.gif
Re: What YOU can do to fight back - IFT limit
Guys,

Below I quoted Jones' letter which I consider important to stop or at least slow down the intended mandatory curtailment of IFT's. I haven't seen much enthusiasm expressed with Jones' actions but I think it is a practical solution based on the current requirements. Please read and act upon it!

P.S. I also adopted the text with my signature and sent an email to DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov with the written comments contained in the letter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesH2O
I just faxed and mailed the following. I borrowed some from folks who provided comments earlier in this thread (thank you) and added a few more of my own.

Dear Mr. Emswiler,

These comments refer to the Interim rule published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2007 (72 FR 73251).

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), a general notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register. This subsection does not apply when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The reasons listed in the preamble of this action do not show good cause for an Interim rule or emergency action. Therefore, this action is not exempt from the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), after notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose. This action does not give the public an opportunity to participate in any future rule making; one that presents a public record of comments and agency responses that are submitted with this action.

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT

This action states in the Classification section: I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. They will affect only employees of the Federal Government. Employees of the Federal Government are not small businesses or small organizations, so they can be certified as not having a significant economic impact. However, retiree's of the Federal Government, former federal employees (who have chosen to keep their money in the TSP) and small business who provide investment counseling to TSP shareholders are small entities and small business entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, this action will have a significant economic impact on those entities.

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

This action states in the Classification section: I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Pursuant to 5 CFR Ch. III Part 1320.3 Definitions - For the purposes of this definition of ‘‘ten or more persons,'' ‘‘persons'' does not include employees of the respondent acting within the scope of their employment, contractors engaged by a respondent for the purpose of complying with the collection of information, or current employees of the Federal government (including military reservists and members of the National Guard while on active duty) when acting within the scope of their employment. Therefore, retirees of the Federal Government and former federal employees, are not exempt from Paperwork Reduction Act.

Currently, § 1601.22 of the TSP regulations state participants may make an interfund transfer using the TSP Web site or the ThriftLine, or by completing and filing (mailing) the appropriate paper TSP form. The action would change the current voluntary method of requesting an interfund transfer, to a mandatory requirement to request interfund transfers by mail. Paperwork Reduction Act rules are clear on voluntary vs. mandatory requirements: Conversion from voluntary to mandatory information collection would be considered a substantive modification of the existing requirement, even though the number of responses and burden hours may not change. Therefore, this action is not exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

For the above reasons, I request that the Interim Rule be withdrawn. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this action.

Sincerely,


progress.gif
 
Airlift,
I just fired off the same letter as yours (to DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov), also signed, only making I addition to yours, adding: "...unnecessary, contrary to the public interest, nor is this within the original, stated intent of the TSP as being a savings and investment Plan.

(At this point I figure that more voices can only help the cause.)
VR
God bless James, and may He bless us all that have worked so hard at this!
 
Hessian,

I do not have any other address. Guys, it seems that Mr. David Rostker of OMB has given instructions to reject some of our incoming e-mail.

I can assure you that I was able to receive a return receipt, but Hessian coul not. Below you can see the automatic return receipt I got last Saturday:


"The original message was received at Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:47:46 GMT from smtp.vzwmail.net [66.174.76.25]

----- The following addresses had successful delivery notifications ----- <David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov> (relayed to non-DSN-aware mailer)

----- Transcript of session follows ----- <David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov>... relayed; expect no further notifications"


Does anyone else have a clue why, or to the intentions of not allowing an electronic return receipt?
 
Here are the comment I got from one of my letters.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for sending me your comments about the proposal by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) to reimpose limits on the numbers of free interfund transfers within the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). I received comments from many people and am sending this one message to all since I will not be able to reply to each one individually.
Some of the people sending messages were under the impression that the Employees Thrift Advisory Council (ETAC) on which I serve has approval authority over proposals made by the FRTIB. That is not the case. As the name indicates, the ETAC members provide advice to the FRTIB and its Executive Director, Greg Long. At the ETAC meeting held Wednesday, December 19, 2007, the members discussed the proposals for limiting interfund transfers within the TSP after receiving a briefing by Tracey Ray, Chief Investment Officer, FRTIB.
Executive Director Long reminded the ETAC members that the FRTIB had not yet issued a formal proposal, that after publication of the proposal in the Federal register, possibly in January 2008, interested parties would have 30 days in which to submit comments. After considering the comments, the FRTIB would decide what action to take.
One of the pieces of information provided by Ms. Ray impressed me greatly. She reported that on Friday, October 19, 2007, about $271 million was transferred into the I-Fund by 2018 participants. On the following October 24, 2007, $291 million was transferred out by those participants. Thus they had a total profit of about $20 million in those five days. On the average, those 2018 participants had about $10,000 in profits at no cost to themselves. The transaction costs were borne by the other 3.8 million TSP account holders.
I reported on the ETAC meeting by email to Carol Bonosaro, President of the Senior Executives Association, shortly afterward. I expressed my concern about a different kind of trading scenario that would be very costly to the TSP. If participants in the I-fund withdrew a large amount before 4 pm on a Friday, a time after the international markets are closed, and some unexpected event occurred over the weekend to cause a large drop in international stock markets, the TSP would take a large loss in assets, not just a transaction cost. You can use your imagination about the diversity of possible events that could cause a large drop in international stock markets over a weekend.
Whether you oppose or support the idea of limiting interfund transfers in the TSP, I urge you to take the opportunity to send your comments on whatever specific proposal comes from the FRTIB.
Happy New Year.
Dick Strombotne
ETAC member
SEA nominee
_________________________________________________________________________________
 
Here are the comment I got from one of my letters.
_________________________________________________________________________________

One of the pieces of information provided by Ms. Ray impressed me greatly. She reported that on Friday, October 19, 2007, about $271 million was transferred into the I-Fund by 2018 participants. On the following October 24, 2007, $291 million was transferred out by those participants. Thus they had a total profit of about $20 million in those five days. On the average, those 2018 participants had about $10,000 in profits at no cost to themselves. The transaction costs were borne by the other 3.8 million TSP account holders.

Happy New Year.
Dick Strombotne
ETAC member
SEA nominee
_________________________________________________________________________________

What a bunch of IDIOTS! 10/19 was a huge down day that marked a temporary bottom, which included a -22 cents FV. The market rallied the following week. Everybody that was in the market that week made money, not just the 2018 traders. How dare we try to enhance our retirement fund? I can't stand stupid people sitting in a position of power.
 
What a bunch of IDIOTS! 10/19 was a huge down day that marked a temporary bottom, which included a -22 cents FV. The market rallied the following week. Everybody that was in the market that week made money, not just the 2018 traders. How dare we try to enhance our retirement fund? I can't stand stupid people sitting in a position of power.

How about writing her and setting her in her place??? :)
 
One of the pieces of information provided by Ms. Ray impressed me greatly. She reported that on Friday, October 19, 2007, about $271 million was transferred into the I-Fund by 2018 participants. On the following October 24, 2007, $291 million was transferred out by those participants. Thus they had a total profit of about $20 million in those five days. On the average, those 2018 participants had about $10,000 in profits at no cost to themselves. The transaction costs were borne by the other 3.8 million TSP account holders.

Happy New Year.
Dick Strombotne
ETAC member
SEA nominee
Here James' perfect response to that excuse... http://tspshareholder.org/newsletters/Vol2_No2.html
 
Here are the comment I got from one of my letters.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for sending me your comments about the proposal by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) to reimpose limits on the numbers of free interfund transfers within the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). I received comments from many people and am sending this one message to all since I will not be able to reply to each one individually.
Some of the people sending messages were under the impression that the Employees Thrift Advisory Council (ETAC) on which I serve has approval authority over proposals made by the FRTIB. That is not the case. As the name indicates, the ETAC members provide advice to the FRTIB and its Executive Director, Greg Long. At the ETAC meeting held Wednesday, December 19, 2007, the members discussed the proposals for limiting interfund transfers within the TSP after receiving a briefing by Tracey Ray, Chief Investment Officer, FRTIB.
Executive Director Long reminded the ETAC members that the FRTIB had not yet issued a formal proposal, that after publication of the proposal in the Federal register, possibly in January 2008, interested parties would have 30 days in which to submit comments. After considering the comments, the FRTIB would decide what action to take.
One of the pieces of information provided by Ms. Ray impressed me greatly. She reported that on Friday, October 19, 2007, about $271 million was transferred into the I-Fund by 2018 participants. On the following October 24, 2007, $291 million was transferred out by those participants. Thus they had a total profit of about $20 million in those five days. On the average, those 2018 participants had about $10,000 in profits at no cost to themselves. The transaction costs were borne by the other 3.8 million TSP account holders.
I reported on the ETAC meeting by email to Carol Bonosaro, President of the Senior Executives Association, shortly afterward. I expressed my concern about a different kind of trading scenario that would be very costly to the TSP. If participants in the I-fund withdrew a large amount before 4 pm on a Friday, a time after the international markets are closed, and some unexpected event occurred over the weekend to cause a large drop in international stock markets, the TSP would take a large loss in assets, not just a transaction cost. You can use your imagination about the diversity of possible events that could cause a large drop in international stock markets over a weekend.
Whether you oppose or support the idea of limiting interfund transfers in the TSP, I urge you to take the opportunity to send your comments on whatever specific proposal comes from the FRTIB.
Happy New Year.
Dick Strombotne
ETAC member
SEA nominee
_________________________________________________________________________________

What is an "SEA nominee"? Would this affect his point of view on whether he wants to make waves or not?
 
What is an "SEA nominee"? Would this affect his point of view on whether he wants to make waves or not?


SEA nominee= Senior Executive Association.

He is the SINGLE person who is on the ETAC to represent all of the Senior Executives now serving in our United States Government.

Scarey, isn't it?

"Dick" in fact isn't a current Senior Executive at all. He's a retiree, who happens to be head of the Gaithersberg, Maryland chpater of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association.

http://www.mdnarfe.org/


At least I'll give him credit for responding. None of the other ETAC members I've written have responded yet.
 
Last edited:
Hi James,
You may know ALL this already, but FYI, just to ensure our best foot is forwaard... I've worked in DC for 15 years. In past, I've twice weekly, briefed DASNs, rubbed noses many times with SES'ers, once briefed the #2 in USMC, and once The 5-star ops Admiral at PACFLT.
My point is this: folks at this level, only catch "sound-bites". You gotta' put everything into "sound-bites, or it just passes right-on-by them!

Like I said , you probably aready know all this, but just to ensure our best foot is forward, best suggestion I can give is: To put the "conclusions" right-up-front (that we need to make). Make those "conclusions" as "bullets," - if they need more -they will then ask - then have those backup responses "at-ready," as facts, that prove our point(s).

The website should do this too - just in case they go there for further info.
VR ;)
VR
 
This may be naive of me, but could the transfer fee problem be alleviated if the tsp limits daily transfers only to the L Funds? Here's my (naive) rationale: since they readjust the percentages of G F C S and I in each of these L funds on a daily basis, significant dollar amounts are being shuffled around anyway. Why not let us shuffle amongst the funds in the process.

This would at least give us the chance to move back and forth between the aggressive and conservative L fund mixes.
 
Back
Top