What YOU can do to fight back - IFT limit

[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.

 

[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withdrawn.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!!

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[James48843]

Just for the sake of history, I would point you to read this- where Govexec.com very clearly pointed in May of 2001, that is WAS the government's intent to allow a person to control his/her own destiny. To those who say the government never intended you to move your allocations, read this from May 1, 2001, where they talk about the month they added the S and I funds, and how TSP was moving to become more like a 401(k), as CONGRESS INTENDED, and that this would probably mean more people would be in control of their own allocations are moving money.

Remember, this is from the year 2001:

http://govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/features/0501/0501s1.htm

read that.

 

[Show-me]

Amen!!!

 

[James48843]

I have a mission. I am looking for a few volunteers.

I need a few volunteers who are federal employees, currently employed, who belong to bargaining units represented by the following Unions:


National Federation of Federal Employees

National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association
.
American Federation of Government Employees, (AFGE)

National Association of Government Employees

American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO

National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO

National Treasury Employee Union



Grade or position does not matter.

You don't have to be a dues-paying member, although that is preferred.
You do, however, have to in a bargaining unit represented by one of the above labor organziations which is certified as your Chapter 71 Labor Representative.

If you are, and you would like to take part in a mission, please PM me for more information. It won't cost you a dime, but it will take a little bit of time. And you will learn some interesting things in the process.

Thanks

Looking forward to hearing from you.

 

[RPM]

I just sent the letters to my 2 senators and Representative. If nothing else, they'll be aware of the issue!

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

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

Well said!

Does anyone have Tracey Ray's direct email? I want to send her an email letting her know that I have reduced my contributions to TSP by half, because of her actions to restrict my ability to transfer funds. That $3,000 or so per year may not be much in the grand scheme of the TSP, but I bet they will change their tune if more people did the same thing!

Also, over 2000 people signed the petition. If they also donate Just $10.00 to tspshareholder.org, they will further help the cause. So far, I have given $45.00 and I will give more with each pay check. If your Union isn't doing anything on this issue, then take the dues money you send them and place it with people who WILL work to protect your right to actively manage your retirement!

I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Here is a good story on fees in the private sector.

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/moneyhappy/59697;_ylt=AuEAkoCg5cGJaIKRosQK7Bi7YWsA

I don't think it will be unreasonable for Congress to take an interest in our situation, especially since the TSP does not disclose the amount of fees each TSP Shareholder paid out of their account! I've looked at my past quarterly statements and I don't see fees disclosed anywhere! I didn't think we paid any fees, until the FRTIB started this IFT limitation! I'm sure I'm not the only one that was in the dark. I think that fees should be disclosed in our statements, don't you?

 

[lochaven]

I just sent the letters to my 2 senators and Representative. If nothing else, they'll be aware of the issue!

Good Idea, I live in a military city and will do the same. Thanks.

 

[Art2007]

If you are a DOD employee contact the DOD rep. COL Fraser-Darling will listen and does respond. Remember, DOD is one of the biggest organizations, so she is an important memeber of ETAC!

 

[Art2007]

FOR Viva La Migra. As reguested

tracey.ray@tsp.gov

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

FOR Viva La Migra. As reguested

tracey.ray@tsp.gov

Muchas gracias, amigo.

 

[GuilRL]

I'm posting this report again because it's another bit of relevant history showing what Congress and FRTIB intended. Notice in particular FRTIB's justification for creating the L Funds and the terminology used - they do not call it TRADING. And I think we should all be writing directly to our Congressmen (if you haven't already) as well as the House and Senate oversight committees about the GAO recommendations, and include this clip with our more current information as posted in the TSPSHAREHOLDER.ORG Newsletter.

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-07-611

“DOL is not required to submit its audit reports directly to Congress, and Congress has not asked DOL to share its audit findings on a regular basis through hearings or meetings with committee staff. Consequently, Congress may be unaware of concerns DOL may have. In a 2003 report, we noted that there have been times when DOL has had issues of concern with FRTIB outside of its audit findings. We recommended that Congress consider amending FERSA to require DOL to establish a formal process by which the Secretary of Labor can report to Congress areas of critical concern about the actions of the Executive Director and Board members, but no changes have yet been made.

I just want to highlight something here for all of you on the above excellent post.

We as participants to the TSP do not do "trading", as I have pointed out several times. We do interfund transfers. Now this brings up the question, so who does trading with the TSP funds?

The reality is, the FRTIB are the ones that do trading with our TSP money in the private sector as I undertand it, in case you have not discovered this reality. If anything they were investigated for this very fact in 2003 to make sure they were doing it legitimately and to protect our TSP funds, and are overseen supposedly by the DOL and Congress.

The question to ask in view of the above is: If there have been excessive trading cost escalations, it has been as a result of the FRTIB not the TSP participants. So then, how much money have the TSP participants lost, and why are we being placed in a double jeopardy situation by the FRTIB for trading costs that they are responsible for, and not allowing us the freedom we are entitled to in our defined benefits?


I hope I have not twisted this too much, that is not my intent, but that is something to ask the FRTIB about in case no one else has thought about it.

Just my two cents again.

 

[Weather_n_Leather]

I know everyone has been discussing the proposed IFT limits. I have also seen several different alternatives to the limits.

On average, I have not requested many IFTs in a given month or year. So Ihave no real problem with some type of limit. However, any limits have to be reasonable.

Once or twice a month is not enough as I have requested more than that on a few occasions. The proposal of 24 times a year seems much better to me.

I have seen a few pre-written letters against the proposed limits on this site and others. I guess I need to take one of these letters, modify it and send it to the powers that can make a difference.

One last thing: I have some knowledge how TSP works. But I am unsure of this:

Is there any way the individuals that made so many IFTs can be singled out ...so any "costs" related to all of their IFTs could be "charged" to them...instead of everyone in the system?

Thanks for your time.

 

[Show-me]

One last thing: I have some knowledge how TSP works. But I am unsure of this:

Is there any way the individuals that made so many IFTs can be singled out ...so any "costs" related to all of their IFTs could be "charged" to them...instead of everyone in the system?

Thanks for your time.

Welcome the mb! Yes, but they do not want to.

 

[Rod]

Is there any way the individuals that made so many IFTs can be singled out ...so any "costs" related to all of their IFTs could be "charged" to them...instead of everyone in the system?

Thanks for your time.

They already know who the individuals are and will be sending out letters within a few months "warning" them.

But there're not going to take the time to revamp their system towards those individuals- as Show-me pointed out.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Here is the email I sent to Tracey Ray. It's short, sweet, and to the point.

[FONT=&quot]Dear Ms. Ray,

I wanted to take this opportunity to let you know that I recently changed the amount of money I contribute to my TSP account from 10% to 5%. Were it not for the agency matching of funds, I would have stopped putting any money into that account. The reason I have decided to do this is because of your proposal to limit my ability to actively manage my account. I will take this 5% and place it into a Roth Individual Retirement Account that will allow me to actively manage my funds. I understand that I will have to pay taxes on the 5%, along with a laundry list of fees depending on the investment firm I choose to deposit my funds, but at least I will have the ability to take an active role in my own retirement. I do not believe your proposal will end up saving TSP Shareholders any money. In fact, I believe you will end up costing Shareholders money, by reducing their ability to buy in to the market when it turns around again.

I hope you decide not to follow through on the limitation proposal. Whether this decision is reached through listening to the wishes of the Shareholders, or as a result of litigation or Congressional pressure, it matters none to me. I just want to be able to maximize my retirement nest egg.

[/FONT]

 

[airlift]

Therefore, we can still do daily IFT's, perhaps until March or April, without being penalized?

They already know who the individuals are and will be sending out letters within a few months "warning" them.

But there're not going to take the time to revamp their system towards those individuals- as Show-me pointed out.