What YOU can do to fight back - IFT limit

I followed up with a friend of mine who is a union rep where I work. Here is his discouraging response:


Keep faxing!

NTEU????

That's Colleen Kelley, the ONLY ETAC memeber who spoke up against the limits at the last ETAC meeting.

Please tell your Rep that NTEU is the ONLY Union which is asking hard questions, and not buying their song and dance automatically, and NEEDS to put up the fight for the other 3.5 million employees out here!
 
Don't get me wrong, I like not having restriction's on how many trades we can make per month, But I remember when you had to make your IFT over the phone and it became effective at the end of the month, and If I remember correctly you had to do it by the 15'Th of the month. 45 Day Lag period possible.

Anybody remember those Day's? he he he

It will be O.K.
yes I do....With the new rules, it will be a step better. Oh well. We can create a good return. :D
 
Don't get me wrong, I like not having restriction's on how many trades we can make per month, But I remember when you had to make your IFT over the phone and it became effective at the end of the month, and If I remember correctly you had to do it by the 15'Th of the month. 45 Day Lag period possible.

Anybody remember those Day's? he he he

It will be O.K.
 
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
 
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:
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Back
Top