TSP Warning Letters

[Hallatauer]

The big point is why should anyone be restricted when they are following the rules? If they change the rules, fine, I'll abide by them, but to limit my access to transfer my funds when I haven't broken the rules... that's simply wrong.

Have costs gone up? Probably but I wonder how much is due to the L Funds and that they are trying to protect their baby by blaming someone else.

If the problem is the I Fund and the charges induces by Barclays, why not restrict transfers into and out of just the I Fund? Heck, I can use the C/S Funds instead. Maybe not as big a gain in the long run but it will suffice. And why not negotiate with Barclays on changing the way they are compensated for deciding UV (Unfair Value) and clicking a few buttons?

And Steadygain... Until they can show the numbers and how, if at ally, the transfering of funds have negatively affected other members, then there is no reson to punish those who choose to actively manage their funds. If the actions of many IFT's has a negative affect, prove it! And then change the rules. I'll gladly abide by them. Until then, hands off MY money!

 

[FUTURESTRADER]

News flash-

I called the Thrift Line today, and asked for them to send me 250 blank TSP-50 forms.

The girl who answered said "You don't need that, you can go on-line, or call the thrift line.".

I said I was talking about for when the Thrift Board takes away the right to use the internet and/or the thrift line. She suddenly got quiet. I asked her again to send me 250 blank forms. She said "You'll have to get them from your personnel office".

I told her I did not have a "personnel office". That I am a retired Army Officer (true), and that I wanted her to send me 250 blank TSP-50 forms.

She then revealed that they did not have ANY TSP-50 forms at the Thrift Line.

So I called the Thrift Board office in D.C.

And I asked the gentleman there to send me 250 blank TSP-50 forms. So that I could be properly prepared. He took my name and number, and said someone would get back to me.

At around 4 o'clock I got a phone call back from them. They said "You aren't on the list, so you don't need any forms". I told them I may not yet be on the list, but I am a Union rep and that I wanted to have a stock in hand, since it appears that the Thrift Line says THEY HAVE NO BLANK TSP-50 forms available.

That didn't go over well. The gentleman then said he was just a low level peon (his words, not mine) that was told to call me back and tell me that my name was not on the list, so I shouldn't worry about it. And that 99.9% of people will not be affected. I told him I planned to help the 0.1% of people who ARE affected sue the pants off every person who is involved in this effort- so they better either send me the 250 blank copies of TSP-50 form, or I would be doing a press release in the morning, stating that tjhe Thrift Board is unprepared to execute the threat against shareholders. He hung up on me.

There you have it.

There are NO TSP-50 forms out there. TSP doesn't have any mail in forms.

This could get REAL interesting, real soon.

holy cow, that's amazing. Sounds like Mr Long is running the TSP the same way he ran his floundering company.

 

[Steadygain]

There is no one I respect more than you; and that is so opposite of how I felt in the recent past. My sincerest gratitude for explaining this situation so fully - especially on my post. I am deeply honored.

Please know that over the years I have personally been responsible for many sweeping changes that have have saved "The System" millions of dollars. When I took control of the Employee Health/Occupational Health Department for the State of NC it was easy to see how much waste was involved with faulty policies and these faulty policies were the root of all the waste. So I changed the policies - not to burn the employees - but to create the foundation by which the Occupational Health Department was designed to operate. In all truthfulness it was not so much me changing policies, but much more eliminating many that had crept in over the years that should never had been there to begin with.

And I have continued with this mindset over the years; always looking for ways to maximize quality care by implementing stronger foundations - so everyone knows how to smoothy proceed.

I have used numerous financial institutions over the years for a wide variety of investments and often traded on a frequent basis. I was always charged for "buying" and for "selling" - a percentage of the total amount invested. I was shocked to find the ITFs without any charge involved; and they subsequently became numerous and frequent. I saw this as an obvious oversight by which the TSP Operated - and took full advantage of it as long as I could. I am amazed it took them so long to see this. If I were at the top I would not offer free trades (even 2/month); instead I would tack on a standard charge and let everyone trade as often as they wanted. I would stress "OUR TSP OPERATION" has been faulty and we are now bringing our operation in line with every other Sound Financial Institution.

Anyway, James - you present yourself very well and I wholly support what you represent. I feel the biggest problem here is the TSP Board's lack of accepting responsibility - HERE THE STRESS SHOULD BE "WE WERE WRONG" and it is not the fault of the frequent traders - IT WAS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY OUR OVERSIGHT and now we are correcting it. But they want to blast "the 3000" which only makes things worse. The 3000 would never have been my focus as they only point to the underlying problem - I think you're right James; there are a lot of idiots up there throwing out the wrong information - making this mess a whole lot worse.

 

[Christopher]

News flash-

I called the Thrift Line today, and asked for them to send me 250 blank TSP-50 forms...they did not have ANY TSP-50 forms at the Thrift Line.

So I called the Thrift Board office in D.C...He hung up on me.

There you have it.

There are NO TSP-50 forms out there. TSP doesn't have any mail in forms.

This could get REAL interesting, real soon.

Nice job on the spirited effort and follow through.

 

[James48843]

...I have used numerous financial institutions over the years for a wide variety of investments and often traded on a frequent basis. I was always charged for "buying" and for "selling" - a percentage of the total amount invested. [/COLOR]I was shocked to find the ITFs without any charge involved; and they subsequently became numerous and frequent. I saw this as an obvious oversight by which the TSP Operated - and took full advantage of it as long as I could. I am amazed it took them so long to see this. If I were at the top I would not offer free trades (even 2/month); instead I would tack on a standard charge and let everyone trade as often as they wanted. I would stress "OUR TSP OPERATION" has been faulty and we are now bringing our operation in line with every other Sound Financial Institution.

Fact: The TSP "earns" roughly 12 million in income from the loan fees they imposed a couple years back. The stated purpose of the fee, as described at the time, was to reduce the number of loans being taken out. The object WASN'T to prevent loans from being taken out- it was intentionally to discourage people from taking loans, because the result would be lower earnings for the people in the long run. Now it "earns" more than $12 million a year in income for the TSP.

Fact: Millions are also "earned" in "abandoned accounts". If a person seperates from federal service, and they have not yet become vested, the agency matching money doesn't go back to the Agency it came from. Instead, it goes to the TSP, for use as they see fit. A nice, stady income for the TSP. I don't remember the number right off-hand, but it is in the millions each year. For it, the TSP doesn't have to do anything.

Fact: Recently, the TSP has sent out a letter, and more than 200,000 of them came back. The TSP simply doesn't know where they are. It turns out that if someone leaves the federal service, and doesn't tell the TSP where they are, then the account simply grows on it's own, with no end in sight. You see, Congress forgot one simple thing. People die. Eventually. And if no one claims the account, well, if it were a bank, the money would end up going to the state.

But it's not a bank. And the TSP doesn't know what to do. There are litterly MILLIONS of dollars now sitting idle in accounts- where the person is very likely dead. But since no one reported the death, the TSP is unable to do anything to track the heirs down. Not being able to find over 200,000 of your customers SHOULD be a big deal to this board. But it's not. Instead, they want to waste time trying to curtail the legal transfers of their own members.

Should they impose a small fee for an IFT? I have no problem with that approach, IF it would solve any issue.

The problem is that they have NOT identified an issue that needs to be solved. They themselves have said they can't calculate a cost assoicated with interfund transfers. They want to "social engineer' a solution to a problem that does not exist. THAT is what I have a problem with.

But they are not willing to look at ideas.

I've thrown out several-

1. A small IFT fee, on the order of $10 per move, would generate on the order of $24 million per year . No one would be unhappy with that, if it were necessary to balance a budget. The truth is, however, that the actual taxpayer costs of administering the TSP (2007 budget around 75 million appropriated, compared to over 90 million appropriatated in the 2001-02 time frame). A small IFT fee would be easy to implement. But they are not even looking at that.

2. A limit of no more than $100,000 per day move per person. That would work much better if the issue is the amount in each day's swing. Only those with large accounts would be affected, and then they still would be able to move substantial sums over a number of days. Very little harm in doing that. But they are not willing to hear of such things.

3. A "per year" rather than a "per month" limit- for the volatile times like we've just been through would be better than what they have proposed.
Again, no takers from the Thrift Board.


OUR TSP is not faulty. It is operating EXACTLY as Congress intended.

If there is a problem- fine. Let's get it out in the open, and talk about it, and ask for possible solutions. That's not what is going on. What is going on is PURE SOCIAL ENGINEERING- Tracey Ray wanting everyone else to follow HER theory of how to make money.

And THAT, my friend, is why I will use every breath I have to bring the gleeming glare of daylight to the situation- to bring along everyone else I can in this battle.

The war has only just begun. It ain't over by a long shot.

 

[tsptalk]

Well said. If a limit or a fee is imposed in the end, it better come with a better IFT deadline. If they are trying to mimic the rules of other institutions, they shouldn't be able to cherry pick only the rules that they think benefit them.

 

[alevin]

It's so very obvious they are just muddling their way along, haven't a clue what the implications are. The language they use in their communiques-"may" vs. "will". The person writing these things is an inexperienced fed or a contractor that doesn't get it that nuances have legal consequences. If they mean "will" they darn well better say "will" in writing, instead of "may" if they expect it to be defensible when challenged. :notrust:

Aside from that, I ran across something this afternoon when searching for TSP-50 on the web. It should make retired military sit up and go to war faster than anyone else, if they push the warning letter issue. The TSP hardcopy TSP-50 and other forms (even if you can find one) are only to be used by civilians and ACTIVE military, per the site below, which is a TSP.gov page. Retired military are not allowed to use the forms, I have no idea why (because no access to a personnel office to process?).

http://http://www.tsp.gov/uniserv/forms/index.html

 

[Steadygain]

James,
A recent post said everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I disagree with that as I believe anyone giving an opinion without knowing the FACTS and without really having a thorough grounding in the subject matter is not qualified to make an opinion. If they do give one it will only make them look like an idiot - as my first post did.

I am so impressed with the extent of your knowledge and your ability to solidly deliver the facts. Your information means everything to me and without it I have no idea what is really going on. If I could make any wish at this moment - it would be to put you in charge and make whatever changes you feel are needed to make the TSP operate correctly and get all the horse s### out as soon as possible. You would have my total and full backing on any and every decision - because I am thoroughly convinced any decison you make is based on a comprehensive understanding of what's involved.

James, if you would send me a PM on how I can help I will do what I can. Your past few posts are absolutely amazing - and I have been "in the dark" and therefore incapable of understanding or giving a valid opinion.

Sincerely,
Steadygain (Rick)

 

[Callme_CO]

I'm voting for president. Seriously since neither side can put up anybody with a brain, i figure it's my job to vote for one. will have one vote for presidency

 

[pogo]

It's so very obvious they are just muddling their way along, haven't a clue what the implications are. The language they use in their communiques-"may" vs. "will". The person writing these things is an inexperienced fed or a contractor that doesn't get it that nuances have legal consequences. If they mean "will" they darn well better say "will" in writing, instead of "may" if they expect it to be defensible when challenged. :notrust:

Aside from that, I ran across something this afternoon when searching for TSP-50 on the web. It should make retired military sit up and go to war faster than anyone else, if they push the warning letter issue. The TSP hardcopy TSP-50 and other forms (even if you can find one) are only to be used by civilians and ACTIVE military, per the site below, which is a TSP.gov page. Retired military are not allowed to use the forms, I have no idea why (because no access to a personnel office to process?).

http://http://www.tsp.gov/uniserv/forms/index.html

Participants may use Form TSP-50 to request TSP contribution allocations and/or interfund transfers. Unlike many other TSP documents, Form TSP-50 is not available from this Web site because the form was designed to be read by an optical scanner; if it were downloaded from the Web, this might not be possible. However, employees are encouraged to use the more efficient electronic media, on this Web site, to request investment changes. this is what it says on our website

 

[James48843]

Steadygain, take a look at this thread:

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5162

That is one of the threads where we talk about what can be done to fight back.

And then browse http://tspshareholder.org , where we expand the ideas on what exactly is happening, and what can be done to resist.


Again, if there were competent people in D.C. running this show, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unfortunately, we have a group of folks who don't know the first thing about managing billions of dollars, in charge of setting the rules. We have a group of Thirft Board members who consider this their part-time job, and only listen to the rantings of a "Chief Investment Office" who has no experience dealing with the federal TSP system before now; and an ETAC board who meets twice per year for sheet cake and cookies, with no knowledge of international finance. Sure, they both take their jobs seriously, but they haven't the first clue as to what they are doing, what their mission is, and who it is they are supposed to protect.

Sorry, but it really bugs me not to have competent people examining the rules when you are talking about a 235 BILLION dollar set of assets.

 

[Steadygain]

Thanks James,
Will get it done tomorrow. You got my word; and half of this is out of respect for you (and all those who really did their homework to understand and appreciate all that's involved). Your last sentiments are very much in line with how I view this matter and the other half is out to let them know it.

Thanks again for all the info and for helping me to take the stand I'm taking. Thanks for putting up with me too, and again I'm sorry about the previous misunderstanding.

 

[Hallatauer]

I am so impressed with the extent of your knowledge and your ability to solidly deliver the facts. Your information means everything to me and without it I have no idea what is really going on. If I could make any wish at this moment - it would be to put you in charge and make whatever changes you feel are needed to make the TSP operate correctly and get all the horse s### out as soon as possible. You would have my total and full backing on any and every decision - because I am thoroughly convinced any decison you make is based on a comprehensive understanding of what's involved.

Well said!

 

[Rod]

If nominated, I will not run.

If elected, I will not serve.

Old soldiers like me don't die. They simply fade away.

But while alive, and breathing, and while I still have the energy and ability to click a mouse, I will only "not ask what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country."

I like it.

Praying for you.

 

[hessian]

There seems to be some confusion, from the letters we got, on the number of IFTs "allowed" per month:

To clarify:

I rec'd the letter - in it it states you are allowed - two "account rebalancing" IFTs, +/PLUS, "unlimited IFTs to the G-Fund!"

I think its clear, in reading this: that its "allowing" us a possible maximum number of 5 IFTs in a month -NOT 3 as I keep hearing folks say!

While I agree this still sucks, saying 3 is the limit is just INCORRECT! (for example, if the 1st and last IFTs were moves to all "G" - the other 1 to all "G" being in between the two "account rebalances" = 5 total).

Most months though, would most often likely be 4 IFTs (or less) -depending on number needed

 

[FUTURESTRADER]

Where is the 5 comming from? As I see it, you could be 100 C, then do 20 IFTs @ 5% in to G. (20 trading days avg/month)

 

[James48843]

There seems to be some confusion, from the letters we got, on the number of IFTs "allowed" per month:

To clarify:

I rec'd the letter - in it it states you are allowed - two "account rebalancing" IFTs, +/PLUS, "unlimited IFTs to the G-Fund!"

I think its clear, in reading this: that its "allowing" us a possible maximum number of 5 IFTs in a month -NOT 3 as I keep hearing folks say!

While I agree this still sucks, saying 3 is the limit is just INCORRECT! (for example, if the 1st and last IFTs were moves to all "G" - the other 1 to all "G" being in between the two "account rebalances" = 5 total).

Most months though, would most often likely be 4 IFTs (or less) -depending on number needed

I am afraid that it is useless to try and understand what their proposed requirements are. They can't even make that clear to TSP shareholders, and they have NOT published any clear definitions of their proposed rules.

I would argue that no one should try and interpret what the Board intends, because any attempt to interpret rules which have not been set are wrong. One interpretation is that you could move stocks twice, (say, 50% C, 50% S, and then 60% C and 40% S, and then have an unlimited number of little moves towards G.--- 59%C 40% S 1% G; 50% c 40% s, 10% g; 40% c, 40% s, 20% g, ETC, ETC, ETC), and still meet their rules.

The problem is their proposal is not clear, and since it's not clear, there is not much gained in anyone speculating what the rule is going to be.

The fact is that today there is no rule other than "unlimited interfund transfers".

Instead of trying to figure out what they mean here, perhaps the best thing is to set down a number of scenarios, and call them up and ask them what is suggested by them as THEIR idea of acceptable reallocations of YOUR MONEY.

Think about that for a minute. That is what we are talking about- what allocations THEY think YOU should be able to do.

 

[nnuut]

There are no multi IFTs to the "G" allowed! Read the beloww a transfer to the "G" counts just like a transfer to the other funds. They need to change that wording.!:

Q2. What are the new restrictions on interfund transfers?
The Thrift Savings Plan will implement restrictions on the number of interfund transfers a participant can make per month in order to curb frequent trading and its associated costs to TSP participants. However, the TSP does want to provide the opportunity for participants to rebalance their accounts and to permit unrestricted access to the Government Securities Investment (G) Fund. Accordingly, the restrictions would be as follows:
Participants can make two (2) interfund transfers per calendar month. After that, they may only move money from the Fixed Income Index Investment (F) Fund, the Common Stock Index Investment (C) Fund, the Small Capitalization Stock Index Investment (S) Fund, the International Stock Index Investment (I) Fund, and the L Funds to the G Fund.
We will count the interfund transfer based on its process date, not the date the interfund transfer was requested.
If your first or second interfund transfer in a month moves money only to the G Fund, it still counts toward your two (2) interfund transfers per month limit.
http://www.tsp.gov/faq/faq14.html#sub2

 

[DrFaustus]

There are no multi IFTs to the "G" allowed! Read the beloww a transfer to the "G" counts just like a transfer to the other funds. They need to change that wording.!:

Q2. What are the new restrictions on interfund transfers?
The Thrift Savings Plan will implement restrictions on the number of interfund transfers a participant can make per month in order to curb frequent trading and its associated costs to TSP participants. However, the TSP does want to provide the opportunity for participants to rebalance their accounts and to permit unrestricted access to the Government Securities Investment (G) Fund. Accordingly, the restrictions would be as follows:
Participants can make two (2) interfund transfers per calendar month. After that, they may only move money from the Fixed Income Index Investment (F) Fund, the Common Stock Index Investment (C) Fund, the Small Capitalization Stock Index Investment (S) Fund, the International Stock Index Investment (I) Fund, and the L Funds to the G Fund.
We will count the interfund transfer based on its process date, not the date the interfund transfer was requested.
If your first or second interfund transfer in a month moves money only to the G Fund, it still counts toward your two (2) interfund transfers per month limit.

Well, yes there are. After you reach your limit (2 or 3 moves now, it's unclear), you can still shift funds into G. But once they're in the G fund, you can't get them back out.

So, under the two-move limit, you can go from
X to S to F to G to G to G to G .... or
X to S to G to G to G to G ....

Maybe we should rename the G fund to be the 'Q' fund (for Quicksand) ...

 

[nnuut]

Well, yes there are. After you reach your limit (2 or 3 moves now, it's unclear), you can still shift funds into G. But once they're in the G fund, you can't get them back out.

So, under the two-move limit, you can go from
X to S to F to G to G to G to G .... or
X to S to G to G to G to G ....

Maybe we should rename the G fund to be the 'Q' fund (for Quicksand) ...

OK, if that's so it's good. Why don't those all knowing administrators at a TSP explain that MORE CLEARLY? Yes you can get stuck in the "G". I have been enlightened, Thanks.