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 ITF'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.


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,
 
icon1.gif
Re: TSP Transfer Fees and/or Transaction Limit Discussion
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?
 
After reviewing all these issues and making a few calls I am convinced now that the only way we are going to stop this or reverse it is with Congressional intervention and a law suit in federal district court when they "sanction" someone with mail only transfers. May end up being a class action law suit but I think there will be no choice soon. Maybe if Mr. Long and Ms. Ray are sued personally for violating the USC when they impose these sanctions we will see some results. All though they have some protections, their liability is not unlimited if they break the law. Tough shield to crack but certainly one strategy I could (will) employ if I have to file suit. IF I wasn't so far away from D.C. I would start collectiing money for the lawyer.

Love the discussion on trading versus transfers. With today looking like it will be a down day, it could be a good day to transfer some money out of G to C or I. Can't do that reblancing anymore affter January 7th.

They can rebalance their L funds everyday but I can't. Nasty policy.

Just let us all OPT OUT to an IRA! Problem solved!
 
Last edited:
After reviewing all these issues and making a few calls I am convinced now that the only way we are going to stop this or reverse it is with Congressional intervention and a law suit in federal district court when they "sanction" someone with mail only transfers. May end up being a class action law suit but I think there will be no choice soon. Maybe if Mr. Long and Ms. Ray are sued personally for violating the USC when they impose these sanctions we will see some results. All though they have some protections, their liability is not unlimited if they break the law. Tough shield to crack but certainly one strategy I could (will) employ if I have to file suit. IF I wasn't so far away from D.C. I would start collectiing money for the lawyer.

Love the discussion on trading versus transfers. With today looking like it will be a down day, it could be a good day to transfer some money out of G to C or I. Can't do that reblancing anymore affter January 7th.

They can rebalance their L funds everyday but I can't. Nasty policy.

Just let us all OPT OUT to an IRA! Problem solved!

As for OPT OUT to IRA- that is EXACTLY what they want everyone to do.

The bankers are chomping at the bit for a chance to get fees off thousands of TSP holders to move to private banking /investment accounts. If you were Vanguard, and your buddy was Mr. Saul (Who, by the way, held investment interests related to Barclays, according to his confirmation hearing filings), wouldn't you pressure them into doing something that would make a nice $400 million in accounts suddenly appear?

Think about that for a minute.

What a set up. Republicans feeling that they are about to go out of power, how do you get the most money out of the deal while you still hold the executive branch?

When they asked Notorius bank robber Willie Sutton why he robbed banks, his answer was : "Because that is where the money is".
Citation: http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/sutton/sutton.htm

So, if you are a republican banker, having made hundreds of thousands in donations to the republican party, and in exchange got yourself appointed to the TSP Thrift Board, a plan that contains more than 230 BILLION dolalrs in assets, what can you do? You can figure out a way to drive millions OUT of the TSP and INTO your clutches, and the clutches of your friends.

(Ok- so I am a conspiracy theorist as well :cheesy:).


And if you file a lawsuit, the Justice Department is supposed to intervene and defend them.

Which could get really, really interesting.

Because every Justice Department attorney who showed up to defend them in Court could be challenged as to their impartiallity in the case.

I can see it now....

Judge: Who is the attorney for the Defendants?

Justice Attorney: I am, your honor. I am a Justice Department Attorney, and we ask to substitute the United States as defendant instead of the named Thrift Board members and the Executive Director and Chief Investment Advisor of the TSP.

Our attorney: Your Honor, we object to this attorney.

Judge: On what grounds?

Our Attorney: On the grounds that the Attorney has a conflict of interest. He himself holds a TSP account, and therefore cannot be impartial in this action.

Judge: (Federal judge, mind you) So having a TSP account means you can't work on this case without bias?

Our Attorney: That would be our argument, your honor. The allegation in this case is that the defendant's actions adversely affected the TSP share holders. Anyone that holds a TSP account should not be representing one side or the other.

Judge: I see your point. In fact, I have a TSP account. (pause). I hereby order that all Justice department lawyers who hold TSP accounts will have to recuse themselves from this case.....and I have to recuse myself from this case as well(Gavel Bang...)
 
Last edited:
icon1.gif
Re: TSP Transfer Fees and/or Transaction Limit Discussion
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?

Hi Airlift,

I do not think (I would hope not) that there is any reason for not receiving a return receipt. I know that in my office, Federal Register actions are sent to a mail box set-up for each action. When the messages are read (could be by one person or many), the user is given the option of "allowing" a return receipt to be send to the sender. As long as your message (Airlift) and Hessian's wasn't rejected, then it is safe to "assume" that the message was received. Now, whether or not, it was read, that's a whole other matter. I suggested messages to Mr. David Rostker of OMB be sent to both email addresses, just in case.
 
I talked with one member of the ETAC. There is concern about these very short-time frames in the rulemakings.....we will see what happens. Keep trying!
 
Any word on the number of comments the FRTIB has received on their proposed interim rule?

I faxed my comments/opposition. I hope they get over 2,000 opposition comment faxes and letters.

Maybe they will begin to understand that they have started a bigger fight than they realized.

Excellent discussion on the need for possible legal action. Count me in if it comes to that.
 
Here is a draft letter for you all to respond to comments on the Federal Register notice. I recommend firing all of the Agency's Board members and the Executive Director and also conducting a Federal investigation. I have already faxed this letter, and suggest you all do the same. In addition, I have also written to my Congressman in the Senate to start an investigation.

I am all for a class action lawsuit against the TSP board as of now. I want them to feel pain from all sides for what they think they want to do.

Here is the letter: Make sure you all copy it, place the date you fax it in, and make sure you sign it on the bottom with your personal name, address, and phone number. You have a few days left to do it, do not hesitate.
-------------------------

Date


Mr. Thomas K. Emswiler
General Counsel
Federal Retirement Board
Fax: 202-942-1676

Dear Mr. Emswiler:

This letter is in protest of the notice in Federal Register dated December 27, 2007 Volume 72, number 247, Rules and Regulations, page 73251-73252 stating that the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (aka the Agency) is amending its interfund transfer regulation to provide their Executive Director to adopt a policy of setting limits on the number of interfund transfer requests.

This letter is to inform you that I protest and request that the Agency not be given the right to amend its interfund transfer policy, and likewise this protest also extends to giving the Executive Director of the Agency any right to adopt any policy of setting limits on the number of interfund transfer requests.

I request that as a TSP participant whose life savings are at risk by the Agency, and at the hands of the Executive Director, that the entire Agency including the Executive Director be fired, and be replaced at the earliest date with one that is more serving to the needs of the TSP participants who they work for. The Executive Director has no right to limit anyone’s rights including mine to invest their life savings as they need to. The Agency is backwards and violates my rights to manage my own hard earned money, and for this they are a risk to me and to every TSP participant. The agency in its decision to post this in the Federal Register exemplifies that they are not managing their assigned TSP fiduciary duties prudently or responsibly and are in addition squandering and wasting millions of dollars previously spent in enabling TSP participants to be capable of managing their own money via electronic means.

One further request is that the Executive Director be investigated on competency, rationale, and motives, as there seems to be more than just a superficial motive on wanting to limit TSP participant’s rights to manage their own money.

Sincerely,



Your name and address and phone number here.
 
Last edited:
I just sent the fax.

Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 17:54:01 -0600 (CST)


Dear Keith Renfro,

Your 1-page fax to Mr. Thomas K. Emswiler at 2029421676 has been sent successfully.
(Page count does not include the cover page.)


Thank you
FaxZero.com
 
FAX FAX FAX FAX FAX FAX FAX! CAN'T BE REJECTED! AND YOU GET A RECEIPT!!!

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285

Very good find Anidoc! You can also send it by snail mail to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.
 
FEDERAL DIARY: Thrift Savings Plan hopes to slow down frequent traders

By STEPHEN BARR http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/425682.html

The Washington Post


Jim Pratt, who works for the Federal Aviation Administration in Michigan, made 28 stock and bond trades in 2007 through his Thrift Savings Plan account. With the trades, Pratt hopes to build a big nest egg for retirement.
“I know my own experience, my own level of comfort with risk,” he said. “I should be able to place the money where it works for me. If I guess wrong, I have to live with the consequences.”
In November, the thrift plan board voted to crack down on government employees who try to beat the stock market by jumping in and out of savings plan funds every few days, saying “frequent traders” are driving up plan costs and eroding returns for other participants.
The proposal would limit participants to two trades a month, although employees who think they made an investment mistake would be allowed to move their money into the plan’s risk-free government securities fund.
Pratt objects to the proposal, saying: “The TSP is taking away the freedom to manage your own retirement fund.” He has launched an Internet-based campaign at www.tspshareholder.org to stir opposition to trading limits.
The campaign, which has drawn about 2,200 signatures on a petition, urges federal employees to call and write the thrift program and the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, a group of unions and management associations that represent employee interests.
The council met before Christmas, and some of the union and management association representatives said they had received several e-mails objecting to the TSP’s plan. The council meeting was called by James W. Sauber, council chairman and chief of staff to the National Association of Letter Carriers, to learn about the proposed trading curbs.
TSP executive director Gregory T. Long, TSP chief investment officer Tracey A. Ray and external affairs director Tom Trabucco briefed the council and took questions.
Ray said about 3,000 thrift plan members with large accounts are moving in and out of the market quickly, trading large amounts of dollars that drive up the plan’s costs. The board’s research showed that participants stepped up transfers among the plan’s five funds about two years ago, she said.
For example, Ray said, on Oct. 19, federal employees transferred $371 million into the international stock fund, and on Oct. 24 took $391 million out of it. The transactions were made by 2,018 employees, and 323 traded $250,000 or more.
The thrift plan also found that these 323 employees made 18 trades in a 40-day period, with one person trading more than $1 million back and forth a number of times.
Such trading, with large dollar volumes, has led to higher broker fees and other transaction costs, especially in the international fund, Ray said.
Twenty years ago, Congress designed the program, a 401(k)-type plan, on the theory that employees would buy and hold stocks and bonds for the long term as a supplement to their pensions. But the Internet allows employees to more easily track stock markets, swap advice on Web sites, and file a buy or sell order from a TSP fund each morning of the workweek.
 
I just faxed my letter to Mr. Emswiller using the form that JonesH20 provided with the added comment of :
Personal Loss
I expect to retire in 10-12 years. To have my TSP account reach a sum of money that would provide a retirement comparable to my level of income now requires that I get a return of greater than 17% a year. This does not seem possible with a restriction on number of IFT's per month.

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

Even with Ebb's losses this last quarter, he beat that level of return. I feel confident that by listening you all of you and haveing the freedom to move as needed, as often as needed, that I will be real happy come retirement. Thanks for your hard work and shareing.
 
I followed up with a friend of mine who is a union rep where I work. Here is his discouraging response:
I did check into this, and anything involved with the retirement system is off limits for the NTEU. They have no authority or contractual rights in these matters. Apparently the upper echelon of the NTEU is aware if the issue.

Keep faxing!
 
I just received this response back (finally) from the Military Officer Association of America (MOAA):
Dear Qibovin (not really),



Thanks for you inquiry about upcoming TSP changes. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I’ve just returned from the holidays. MOAA doesn’t think that these are unreasonable restrictions, given similar restrictions imposed on other plans. We checked with our company, Vanguard, and they place even greater restrictions on their accounts. We’ve also looked at some of the other major plans across the country and limiting transfers to 2 per month is the most generous limitation we could find.



I hope this addresses your concerns, even it if wasn’t what you hoped to hear.

Sincerely,

Cassidy Scott Vreeland
Legislative Issues Manager, Government Relations
Military Officers Association of America (MOAA)
201 N Washington St, Alexandria, VA 22314-2539
(800) 234-6622 FAX (703) 838 8173
www.moaa.org

One Powerful Voice.® For every officer at every stage of life and career.
 
DAMN IT! This is not like any other plan. Can you understand that? It is a defined benefit for Federal workers who can contribute to the TSP. Will you get a grip on it?

Seems to me that if you want to volunteer your rights, you may do so. However, do not jeapardize my rights or my defined benefits will you?

Also, do not call it trading will you? It is not even close. Seems like some people here are blind. You need to educate yourself.

:mad: Obviously this message is directed to Mr Vreeland, not gibovin.

PS: When you say that you checked with Vanguard, it makes me real nervous. Looks like Vanguard would love to get into our money, and you would be perfectly happy. Arrrggggh!!!!! Seems like you let in the fox into the chicken house, and I really feel for the officers you represent, get a grip will you?
 
Last edited:
Hate to say this...IMO..its over.... http://www.fedweek.com/content/hfi/showpage1.php?title=2008-01-02
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
 
Back
Top