What YOU can do to fight back - IFT limit

[James48843]

For the faint of heart- I would ask that you stand with us. Don't become resigned, for there is no reason to. We, all of us, have lots of work in the days ahead.

Those who went before us laid the ground work, and it is up to us--you, me, your fellow workers, your friends, ALL OF US-- to carry on and move forward.

Someone posted earlier today a link to Fedweek. They seemed to hail the Fedweek note as some kind of defeat. Hardly. If you read it, you will see that all Fedweek has done *(which, by the way, is the ultimate in lazy journalism) is re-post what had already been posted on the TSP website some three weeks ago. Old news. From before the major counter=punch of trying to open people's eyes.

We are making a dent. I would point you to listen to the link from Tom Trabucco, TSP's external guy, in his radio interview on December 18- where he SAYS they are looking at options, open to listening to other ideas, and yes, there is a LOT OF NOISE being made. I hardly think they had any idea that we would be in the strong position we are.

Let's take stock of where we are. We have a Thirft Board who issued a hesitant sounding proposal- that authorized the Exec to make people make MAIL trades if they don't stop. But they were so unsure that they made their proposal contingent on the ETAC allowing it. Fine. That just put the ETAC into the unenviable position of making the decision for them. And, by the way, opening up the ETAC members to some personal liability in the matter. I'll explain that later.

But what is significant is that they are willing to listen to other ideas. Good. We have some other ideas. And they are better than the ideas they have so far. So we just need to open the dialog and starting talking in the world of ideas.

An idea is a powerful thing.

 

[Rod]

James, its called reality. I think you need a dose of cold water to wake you up or perhaps some smelling salt..lol However;I do give you a pat on the back for trying and along with all of us who did our duty to try to stop it.

Whatever "duty" anyone did or does should not and cannot stop until our desired result is obtained.

 

[RAE]

James, its called reality. I think you need a dose of cold water to wake you up or perhaps some smelling salt..lol However;I do give you a pat on the back for trying and along with all of us who did our duty to try to stop it.

To the folks that continue to post that this is a "done deal" - you have a
right to your opinion, but please understand that many of us are
continuing this battle on many fronts. As James says, there is a long,
long way to go yet. We are still a ful FOUR MONTHS away from April, when
FRTIB has said they would like to implement these new IFT restrictions (and
April is probably optimistic on their part). A lot of things can happen in
4 months time. For one thing, anidoc and others have pointed out that the
Fed. Register Notice they've issued recently is fatally flawed in at least
a couple ways, if not more (no comment period specifified, and no criteria
given for determining who is a "frequent trader"). Many of us have sent
FAXes to them, pointing out these flaws, and requesting that the Notice be
withdrawn. My opinion is that they will realize they must withdraw this
Notice. They will do that because they understand that for them proceed
with the process, based on a flawed FR notice (that they knew about) would
just set them up for big problems later. And this Notice is just the very
first step they have to take to make this happen..........there are many
other steps to come, each of which provides an opportunity for us to
comment/protest. Also, as James says, FRTIB is beginning to hint that
they will consider "other alternatives" to the 2-IFT per month proposed
limit. This change of heart came grudgingly, and is clearly due to the
heat some of us have put on them to date. So, when respected members of
this community post that this is a "done deal", it only serves to
discourage other members from continuing this battle with us. If you truly
believe that it is a "done deal" - that's fine, you have a right to your
opinion - but please don't make it harder for the rest of us (including the
2200 that have signed the petition) to continue this fight! James has
done a TREMENDOUS amount of work on this already, and we certainly don't
need to make things more difficult for him (and many others) in the weeks
and months ahead. I happen to believe there is a very good chance that the
2-IFT limit will never be imposed, but it will take a lot of positive
effort from a lot of folks to make that happen. Thanks for listening!!

DON'T GIVE UP THE FIGHT, WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS!!

 

[GuilRL]

"(b) Limit. There is no limit on the number of contribution allocations or interfund transfer requests that may be made by a participant. [70 FR 32208, June 1, 2005]" I went and looked that up. Here is the link:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-10870.pdf

One thing is this is the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Final Rule. The Board cannot legally and arbitarily change a rule unless they follow the rule making process which require public comment through the Federal Register. I would point this out in any correspondance sent to congressional staff.

Great Post! Note that the FR reference does not state that we trade..... they use the correct terminology and state that we have no limit to interfund transfers.

The origin of the word trading seems to be coming from the TSP board, via Ms Tracey Ray. She is using this term out of ignorance or to instill a falsity. If you all let them continue to use their terms, they will have power over you, because you will subject to them.

Get it straight.... we do not trade, we do interfund transfers.

 

[GuilRL]

yes I do....With the new rules, it will be a step better. Oh well. We can create a good return.

You say better? Are you joking, or do you honestly believe that others will swallow your opinion of better?

Perhaps you want to digress 100 years too, for better?

I sincerely become very saddened of those others who relinquish their rights and priviledges we have toiled to acquire for the betterment of all our lives. This country needs to stand by its improvements, not digress in them. If you are willing to give up your rights, you may do so, but do not think for one minute that I will relinquish mine as readily as you do. We have defined benefits, and I will fight to keep them too. I feel a great sadness that you are willing to just give up yours.

 

[GuilRL]

It's not over until Tracey A. Ray sings.

View attachment 2962

We all need to petition that the entire Board, and including Ms Tracy Ray be vehemently fired, and be replaced with servants to our needs!

 

[GuilRL]

Fedweek is only reprinting, word for word, what the Thrift Board posted last month.
TSP posted it here: http://tsp.gov/faq/faq14.html

There is nothing new in the fedweek page.

My, my 12%- yee need some faith.

Have courage.

Have a little stamina.

Nothing is a done deal yet.

I disagree. Fedweek ran an opinion poll late last year, and they not only originally gave their opinions, but also thwarted the opinions they received. I know this because I provided them with my opinion, and they did not publish my opinions simply becuase I totally disagreed with them. As far as I am concerned, FEDWEEK is a biased reporting newletter that has no integrity in my honest opinion.

I may be rude at times, but I am deadly honest.
IF you want the deadly truth, just ask me. Just beware of the strenght of it if you cannot handle it.

Last but not least ---- when are some people here going to learn that we do not do trading with our interfund transfers? I keep hearing this over and over and over. Get it straight, we do not do trading, we do interfund transfers. If you cannot get it straight, the enemy via the TSP Board will soon acknowledge based on your vernacular that you are doing trading and should be subject to fees for their Xmas bonuses!

Darn it! When will they ever learn?

 

[James48843]

James;

Someone needs to take the lead on planning the fund raising for the class action law suit in Federal District Court.
Bruce

Are you volunteering to take the lead?




By the way- think of it this way---

This is NOT a done deal. Here is why:

TSP Board is doing this because they perceive this is a problem, (tracey told them it is), and they perceive this is a solution (tracey told them it was.).

First of all, it's not. And second of all, this isn't a solution that will remedy what they (Tracey) precevies is an issue.

They have said they are open to looking at any ideas.
(see the audio link in the last TSPSHAREHOLDER.ORG newsletter )

So the point is to convince them :

1. There is not really a problem, if they actually do the math.

2. There are other alternatives which will meet goals better than this alternative.

If you can do that, you can succeed. -- With a win-win out of the deal.

And yes, one person makes a difference.

Ghandi freed a continent when he held the moral high ground.

Rosa Parks changed the world when she stood up for her rights-- and held the moral high ground.

Same with this. We hold the moral high ground, and simply need to find solutions that work for everyone.

And yes, there are such solutions.

Have faith.

 

[JonesH2O]

FAX OR SNAIL-MAIL HANDWRITTEN LETTERS. E MAILS ARE PRETTY MUCH IGNORED AND LOST IN THE SHUFFLE. THEY GET HUNDREDS OF THEM DAILY.

It will be interesting to see if they address the points in out faxes, emails, and letters at some point and if they get enough complaints to modify their initial process on future interfund transfers. However, if the FRTIB and ETAC decisions are pre-wired to implement these measures, they will, regardless of comments. It may take a law suit in Federal District Court to bring out the heavy handed tactics of the FRTIB.

I'm still in the fight James and I know "Nothing is a done deal yet."

 

[brucemh]

James;

I also thank you for all your efforts. But it does appear that the FRTIB is going to try to ram their restrictions through regardless of opposition comments. And it also appears that our Congressional representatives are really not interested in this issue yet.

Someone needs to take the lead on planning the fund raising for the class action law suit in Federal District Court. Heavy handed tatics by the FRTIB may help our case. I'm afraid that until there is a raging lawsuit going on, Congressional representatives may not be interested.

Bruce

 

[12%ayear]

Fedweek is only reprinting, word for word, what the Thrift Board posted last month.
TSP posted it here: http://tsp.gov/faq/faq14.html

There is nothing new in the fedweek page.

My, my 12%- yee need some faith.

Have courage.

Have a little stamina.

Nothing is a done deal yet.

James, its called reality. I think you need a dose of cold water to wake you up or perhaps some smelling salt..lol However;I do give you a pat on the back for trying and along with all of us who did our duty to try to stop it.

 

[hessian]

DOLLARS….and SENSE. ( or…Dad, will you please check my math?)

James, consider the following, posted yesterday, re:
Re: Hot off the press from Fedweek - initially posted by 12%.

Examine the statement (that "Barney" pointed out - it is VERY unusual:

"...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"!

Why say this? - what is behind this statement? The ONLY thing I can figure is that in this Fund maintains our short-term, U.S. Treasury Securities! What is the problem with our short-term, U.S Treasury Securities - that should have been alledgedly, "specially issued to the TSP"?

Could the problem be - that "our TSP" Treasuries have been "borrowed," and "used," and "sold" to keep the U.S budget afloat? Are they, or have they been sold like mad to OSM-buyers to maintain our economy? :notrust:

-- In other words, could the REAL concern be - there isn't enough of these to go around, they haven't been specially maintained and "issued" as specifically identified by law, to be "issued to the TSP" - therefore they are NOT AVAILABLE for us to IFT into, and out of, on the same frequent basis as previously??? :suspicious:

Might the whole I-Fund/Barclay's debacle be a misdirect? That its really the Treasuries/G-Fund that's the problem??

 

[JonesH2O]

I sent via webmail to Senator Hutchison and Senator Cornyn and Representative Culberson from Texas. Only Senator Cornyn sent back a reply:


Thank you for contacting me regarding the government employee's Thrift Savings Plan. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this matter.

The Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is a defined contribution plan similar to a 401(k), and is governed by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. Recently, the Board announced its intention to reign in escalating transaction costs by limiting trading fund transfers to twice a month. The Board still maintains flexibility within the TSP by not charging fees to investors for fund transfers, and this new rule does not apply to the low-risk G fund.

I understand the importance of improving our pension system, and I support efforts to strengthen 401(k) plans and employee stock ownership plans without implementing undue regulation. You may be certain that I will keep your views in mind should relevant legislation come before the full Senate. Thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

==========================
Here's what I sent via their website (plagiarized from Paladin's questions plus some other stuff):

Reference:
[Federal Register: December 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 247)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 73251-73252]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27de07-1]

Dear Sir:

The TSP(Thrift Service Plan) Board deserves a very poor grade for their past communication with TSP participants and their public affairs effort. But now things have gotten worse because they are demonstrating deceit and arrogance by posting this Federal Register notice [see reference above } during the Christmas-New Year's holiday week, and trying to make the Rule effective on Jan. 7th, a clear attempt to sneak it through before most Federal employees even realize what is going on. The attitude is..."we know what is best for you, and we don't really want any comments on this that disagree with us".

This is very poor behaviour they are demonstrating in continued contacts with the ETAC (Employee Thrift Advisory Council), Congress, and others. Even if they are right and there is a problem with trading costs (which they have not proven), the way they have approached this whole situation displays a shocking degree of callousness and arrogance. This type of behavior alone shows that we clearly need new leadership at FRTIB (Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board).

Bottom line:
please support efforts to eliminate or at least delay implementation of this rule that will restrict TSP trading limits. The federal register notice says this will only affect federal employees. This is wrong. It will affect retirees, U.S. Military service members, as well. And it will affect their spouses and families.

Also, the proposed "Interim Rule" also does not meet the legal requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, in that there is NO EMERGENCY, and this "Interim Rule" violates 5 USC section 553.

Also, they have not given the legally required 30 day comment period and notice of proposed rule making;

There are MANY questions that have not been answered. Filing of this proposal at this time is an obvious attempt for the TSP board to avoid congressional oversight. Please don't let them succeed.

Everyone is trying to get to the TRUTH of this matter and to understand the real motivations behind the FRTIB's (Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board) proposal. However, the proposal itself raises some serious questions which the FRTIB has yet to answer: I would appreciate your help in supporting a delay in implementation.

As a minimum, there need to be an independent audit to answer questions below:

* How can 3,000 traders out of 3.8 million enrollees be responsible for driving up transaction costs when the L-Funds held by 543,213 members have to be rebalanced EVERY SINGLE DAY?
* Does the alleged rise in transaction costs reflect the fact that the TSP itself is growing by $40 billion each year?
* How much of the transaction cost is related to Barclays' inaccurate estimation of the Fair Value (FV) for the I-Fund?
* Why is the FRTIB so determined to enact such TSP-unfriendly restrictions when the transaction cost they are worrying about amounts to only $3.95 per person per year, or a penny a day per account?
* Why doesn't an independent auditor review the overall TSP expenses, consider alternatives, and make recommendations prior to the enactment of such drastic changes to the TSP program?
* If the majority of transaction expenses are in the I-Fund, then why not address the I-Fund problem and leave the other funds alone? There is absolutely no reason to restrict interfund transfers in the C, S, F and G funds since the FRTIB has already stated that these funds are not the source of the alleged problem!
* Why can't Barclays find a better way to make the I-Fund transactions at a lower cost? Why can't these be made in a single batch transaction like they do with the daily rebalancing of the L-Funds?
* Why can't a nominal fixed fee in the order of $10 per trade be charged for any excessive transactions? The discount brokerages are able to charge $7 per trade regardless of the number of shares traded, and yet the FRTIB says that it will cost TSP members thousands of dollars for a single interfund transfer? This simply does not make any sense!
* Why did the FRTIB propose an arbitrary limit of 2 trades per month instead of perhaps 5 trades per month which might be easier for TSP enrollees to accept? Again, where is their cost justification?
* Why is there not more concern about the fact that millions of dollars have been spent to enable TSP Shareholders to have a daily access to their accounts. Perhaps more caution and more study should be done to make sure it is smart to throw this investment away.

As you can see, there are many complex questions that need to be examined and understood before the FRTIB undertakes major changes to the TSP program. These complex financial considerations should be addressed by an independent auditing agency, as this is the only way that all parties concerned (FRTIB, ETAC, TSP enrollees, Congress, etc.) will have confidence that the issue of TSP transaction costs has been fully investigated and understood, and that all reasonable alternatives have been evaluated for the benefit of TSP enrollees and the management of their retirement accounts.

Sincerely,

Very good letter Ayla and Paladin for your questions. I just sent a similar letter (email) using many of your points to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Senator John F. Kerry, and Representative John F. Tierney.

 

[Show-me]

Has anyone heard from any of their Congressmen?

My people have not even acknowledged my e-mails (2) and I am very disappointed. I sent them the first or second day this all started.

 

[James48843]

DOLLARS….and SENSE.
( or…Dad, will you please check my math?)

When the Thrift Board was discussing limits to the ability to reallocate your money, the key reason they cited was costs. According to the TSP Thrift Board, allowing all you pesky TSP share holders to move your money around was just too darn expensive!

They went on a P.R. campaign to convince the public that moving money around costs the average TSP BUY AND HOLD share holder millions of dollars. Any many were fooled into thinking this is the case.

In fact, most major media outlets didn’t question a thing. They simply reprinted the material the Thrift Board put on their website, and called for limits to be imposed. It appears many others simply are taking the word of the Board, without looking into the data for themselves.

Of course, they were not looking at the whole picture.

The math tells a much different story.

Now, my 11-year old son is working through sixth-grade math.

Last month we worked together on multiplying and dividing fractions, and are working our way through decimals right now. It’s been a while since I found the common denominator, and I haven’t had to multiply big numbers by decimals in some time.

But it refreshed my memory banks quite a bit, and gave me an opportunity to run the numbers over on the Federal Thrift Board’s website through some pretty extensive analysis. Webite electronic reading room at: http://www.frtib.gov/ . You can find the minutes and data for each month there.

That’s right, I, like many others, took the time to actually look at the data, and crunch the numbers. And here is what I found:

The Thrift Board separates two kinds of dollar values. One is being called “Tracking Error”, and the other is called “Trading Costs”. Both contribute to the bottom line of what kind of return the TSP Shareholder received in his/her funds.

Tracking error is really a misnomer. It isn’t an error. It’s actually the difference between what the Index does for the month, and what the TSP Share performance comes out. If the TSP share doesn’t do as well as the Index, then it’s a cost. If the TSP share does BETTER than the index, then it’s cash gravy that goes to the shareholder’s account.

In order to properly understand the costs and benefits, you have to count BOTH tracking error, and trading costs when talking about trading funds.

It is, in part, the trading costs that make up part of the expenses we’re talking about. But the trading costs are only part of the story, and here is where the Thrift Board is wrong in their math.

In October, 2007, it is true that more people moved money between the I fund and the G fund that the same period a year ago. In fact, the amount moved between funds went from about a half-a-billion dollars being moved, to over 4 billion dollars being moved. Remember, over all, the amount of money in all the TSP funds grew from 97 billion dollars in 2002, to over 235 billion dollars by 2007.

The 2006 Year to Date through October 06, trading costs for the I fund accounted for 4.1 basis points for the month, and 10.7 basis points, or about $11 million dollars for the 10 months up to that point.

But by October of 2007, when the dollar amount being traded doubled, trading costs accounted for only 3 basis points for the month, and 5.8 basis points for the year to date in costs. That’s about a 47% DECREASE in costs.

Pretty good, if you ask me.

If the story ended right there, I’d say the TSP was pretty dog-gone successful in managing costs. To most people, a 47% decrease in costs on a 130% increase in volume is a good thing.

But here is the kicker to the story.

You have to also include the “tracking error” when you find out whether TSP Participants are better off, or worse off, then before.

For the I fund, the one that the Thrift Board is most concerned about, the Tracking Error works like this:

Each Day, the seller, Barclays, puts a price on the shares. Sometimes Barclays misses by a penny or two. Sometimes a little more. If they are too conservative, anyone selling that day loses the pennies. The TRADER loses the pennies. If they are too liberal, they make an extra penny or two on the sale.

Is "tracking error" bad? Not at all. The word "Error" throws most people for a loop. All it means is that Barclays didn't guess exactly rigth. Who pays for "tracking error"? The person who bailed out of the fund. Who benefits from "tracking error?" The person who is in the fund. They get to pick up the penny.

Now, someone who is simply buying and holding gets their penny added back in the next day. It's like nothing ever happened from their account. Barclays corrects the error by paying out the extra penny to anyone who is in the I fund that next day. So it’s no sweat for buy-and-holders. But an active investor who sells could lose the pennies.

Who gets the pennies the active investor loses? The buy-and-holders, that’s who. They get to split the pot of extra money that is then repaid the next day by Barclays. They are the ones who benefit from "tracking error."

If someone sells shares, and looses the penny, well, they take the loss and move on. The Buy-and-Holder benefits.

In October 2006, this tracking error led to an extra 1 basis point being added to the buy-and-holder’s funds.

But in October, 2007, because of the eight fold increase in moving money around, the tracking error accounted for 56 basis points—in the favor of those who “buy-and-hold.” Those pennies taken from the people who moved their money added up pretty good. Having 4 billion dollars move into and out of the I fund during the course of the month resulted in a lot more of those little pennies being picked up by the people who sat tight and watched it rain pennies from heaven. That's $130 MILLION added to I fund account holders in October alone.

In short, “trading” is very good for the buy-and-hold crowd.

Yes, it cost $13 million in trading costs through the month of October 2007. And as a result, the Buy-and-Hold crowd MADE $130 million dollars that month, for doing nothing more than sitting in their "I" fund. For the year to date, "I" funders have picked up $216 MILLION in pennies from those who have reallocated money.


I explained it to my 11-year old son, and he checked Dad’s math. We have a common denomiator- we agree that the $13 million dollar investment in trading costs was a pretty good one, seeing as it returned over 16 times as much back in just ten months, to the ones who are just sitting in the I fund.

It’s too bad the Thrift Board doesn’t see the benefit in allowing people to control their own money. Especially since it not only allows them to control their own financial future, but it also contributes significantly to the bottom line for everyone else.

Moving money doesn’t cost the 3.8 million shareholders money.

They benefit from it, without having to do a thing. The math proves it.

And even my 11-year old thinks that’s a good deal.

 

[ayla]

Has anyone heard from any of their Congressmen?

I sent via webmail to Senator Hutchison and Senator Cornyn and Representative Culberson from Texas. Only Senator Cornyn sent back a reply:


Thank you for contacting me regarding the government employee's Thrift Savings Plan. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this matter.

The Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is a defined contribution plan similar to a 401(k), and is governed by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. Recently, the Board announced its intention to reign in escalating transaction costs by limiting trading fund transfers to twice a month. The Board still maintains flexibility within the TSP by not charging fees to investors for fund transfers, and this new rule does not apply to the low-risk G fund.

I understand the importance of improving our pension system, and I support efforts to strengthen 401(k) plans and employee stock ownership plans without implementing undue regulation. You may be certain that I will keep your views in mind should relevant legislation come before the full Senate. Thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

==========================
Here's what I sent via their website (plagiarized from Paladin's questions plus some other stuff):

Reference:
[Federal Register: December 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 247)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 73251-73252]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27de07-1]

Dear Sir:

The TSP(Thrift Service Plan) Board deserves a very poor grade for their past communication with TSP participants and their public affairs effort. But now things have gotten worse because they are demonstrating deceit and arrogance by posting this Federal Register notice [see reference above } during the Christmas-New Year's holiday week, and trying to make the Rule effective on Jan. 7th, a clear attempt to sneak it through before most Federal employees even realize what is going on. The attitude is..."we know what is best for you, and we don't really want any comments on this that disagree with us".

This is very poor behaviour they are demonstrating in continued contacts with the ETAC (Employee Thrift Advisory Council), Congress, and others. Even if they are right and there is a problem with trading costs (which they have not proven), the way they have approached this whole situation displays a shocking degree of callousness and arrogance. This type of behavior alone shows that we clearly need new leadership at FRTIB (Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board).

Bottom line:
please support efforts to eliminate or at least delay implementation of this rule that will restrict TSP trading limits. The federal register notice says this will only affect federal employees. This is wrong. It will affect retirees, U.S. Military service members, as well. And it will affect their spouses and families.

Also, the proposed "Interim Rule" also does not meet the legal requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, in that there is NO EMERGENCY, and this "Interim Rule" violates 5 USC section 553.

Also, they have not given the legally required 30 day comment period and notice of proposed rule making;

There are MANY questions that have not been answered. Filing of this proposal at this time is an obvious attempt for the TSP board to avoid congressional oversight. Please don't let them succeed.

Everyone is trying to get to the TRUTH of this matter and to understand the real motivations behind the FRTIB's (Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board) proposal. However, the proposal itself raises some serious questions which the FRTIB has yet to answer: I would appreciate your help in supporting a delay in implementation.

As a minimum, there need to be an independent audit to answer questions below:

* How can 3,000 traders out of 3.8 million enrollees be responsible for driving up transaction costs when the L-Funds held by 543,213 members have to be rebalanced EVERY SINGLE DAY?
* Does the alleged rise in transaction costs reflect the fact that the TSP itself is growing by $40 billion each year?
* How much of the transaction cost is related to Barclays' inaccurate estimation of the Fair Value (FV) for the I-Fund?
* Why is the FRTIB so determined to enact such TSP-unfriendly restrictions when the transaction cost they are worrying about amounts to only $3.95 per person per year, or a penny a day per account?
* Why doesn't an independent auditor review the overall TSP expenses, consider alternatives, and make recommendations prior to the enactment of such drastic changes to the TSP program?
* If the majority of transaction expenses are in the I-Fund, then why not address the I-Fund problem and leave the other funds alone? There is absolutely no reason to restrict interfund transfers in the C, S, F and G funds since the FRTIB has already stated that these funds are not the source of the alleged problem!
* Why can't Barclays find a better way to make the I-Fund transactions at a lower cost? Why can't these be made in a single batch transaction like they do with the daily rebalancing of the L-Funds?
* Why can't a nominal fixed fee in the order of $10 per trade be charged for any excessive transactions? The discount brokerages are able to charge $7 per trade regardless of the number of shares traded, and yet the FRTIB says that it will cost TSP members thousands of dollars for a single interfund transfer? This simply does not make any sense!
* Why did the FRTIB propose an arbitrary limit of 2 trades per month instead of perhaps 5 trades per month which might be easier for TSP enrollees to accept? Again, where is their cost justification?
* Why is there not more concern about the fact that millions of dollars have been spent to enable TSP Shareholders to have a daily access to their accounts. Perhaps more caution and more study should be done to make sure it is smart to throw this investment away.

As you can see, there are many complex questions that need to be examined and understood before the FRTIB undertakes major changes to the TSP program. These complex financial considerations should be addressed by an independent auditing agency, as this is the only way that all parties concerned (FRTIB, ETAC, TSP enrollees, Congress, etc.) will have confidence that the issue of TSP transaction costs has been fully investigated and understood, and that all reasonable alternatives have been evaluated for the benefit of TSP enrollees and the management of their retirement accounts.

Sincerely,

 

[James48843]

We're looking for membes especially who work in the DC area, in order to hand-carry some things in the future to some offices and drop them off.

Kind of like special "TSP Shareholder Ambassador" to do some legwork in and around D.C. No experience necessary. We'll guide you for everything you need to know.

If you are interested in helping be the "legs", we need your help.

Send me a PM, tell me where you are *(agency, and where in DC you are physically located in) and I'll add you to a special e-mail list to receive messages, and "asks".


We're looking forward to hearing from you.

Thanks

 

[James48843]

Fedweek is only reprinting, word for word, what the Thrift Board posted last month.
TSP posted it here: http://tsp.gov/faq/faq14.html

There is nothing new in the fedweek page.

My, my 12%- yee need some faith.

Have courage.

Have a little stamina.

Nothing is a done deal yet.

 

[GuilRL]

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

As I remember Fedweek is the one that started this thing about trades. They are in cahoots with the bankers or have a vested interest with someone who is financing them somehow. I do not trust Fedweek, and will never read their blogs again. I hope everyone here does the same, and puts them out of business.

 

[James48843]

HOORAY PALADIN FOR STAYING POSITIVE! Don't give up, don't give in. The notice restricting trades has yet to be posted. Congress has NOT approved the current proposed change allowing FRTIB to send out letters notifying "frequent traders" (whatever that means) to stop and forcing them to "trade" by mail if they don't stop. FRTIB wants this implemented 1/7, the day Congress returns to session..do they really think it will be approved in a single day? The notice is illegal for all of the various reasons we have stated, but the most glaring are failure to give sufficient notice and to state the comment period. The issue of the PRA has yet to be addressed. Would transfers by mail violate the intention of the PRA? I would think so. If the intent is not to punish "frequent traders" but to cut costs, why transfers by mail and not by fax or phone? How do transfers by mail cut the supposed "increased costs" of daily "trading" by a small minority of members? Transfers by mail will increase costs. It costs at least $25 to process a piece of paper, not to mention the cost of mailing by the TSP member, whether by snail-mail or FEDEX. I've included these questions in my numerous correspondences. We need to pursue this and not just say "it's over" until we have heard from Congress, the law-giving body that created TSP and FRTIB.

Congress doesn't require that they approve this change. This change can be done by the Thrift Board without Congress's approval. Congress can stop it if they want, but if they don't hear from it's voters, I don't think they will even know it's happening until after people's rights are taken away.