What YOU can do to fight back - IFT limit

[James48843]

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...)

 

[Art2007]

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!

 

[airlift]

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?

 

[airlift]

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,

 

[Rod]

Thank you.

Very nicely put.

I'd say!

 

[James48843]

Thank you.

Very nicely put.

 

[GuilRL]

Here are some of my opinions in bold for all of you to consider.

1.) First of all, for those of you who are thinking that we should be charged a fee like they do at Vanguard or Magellan, or others in the private sector, you people are just giving into the demands of those who seek to dominate you. Why should we pay fees, our TSP was a defined benefit and we earn it, and if you all want to hand in your rights and defined benefits, lets do it on a one on one basis, and you all who want to, can donate it voluntarily. DON'T SPEAK FOR ME ON higher fees or on any fee!

2.) As for charging any kind of fee, if it ever came to this, just make sure that we all get the same service that you would get in the private sector for executing a trade guaranteed at a guaranteed price at the instant demanded. Then, if I wanted to trade several times a day, the trade should be executed at the moment I dictate that it be done at, and if I sell, and buy several times in one day that would be my option. Furthermore, if it ever came to this, I would love to deduct the cost of my trades off of my income tax.

I am so sick and tired of hearing some of you giving into relinquishing any rights (your rights and my rights) on our defined benefits! That is what they want, and if you give into them, they will only begin to control you one step at a time, until you have none.

3.) Do not call it Trading, as this is not an accurate use of the word when reallocating your money. If it were a TRADE, it would be like a stock trade. Seems to me, we have some people calling it trading, only because those that want to control our reallocation rights such. They are using this term to further their gains. Do not let them use the term TRADE or that we are TRADING, as it is not accurate. Please get this straight into your heads.

If you don't like this message, think of it as me trying to save you and me from yourself later.

 

[James48843]

If you are represented by a Union or Association who is on the ETAC, OR a Union that is NOT on the ETAC, and want to add your union or association leadership to the e-mailing list for TSPSHAREHOLDER newslettes and alerts, then I highly suggest you take one of the newsletters and "forward it to a friend" command at the bottom of the newsletter.

P.S. test the e-mail first, and see if it works. I'm finding that a lot of the e-mail addresses listed on webpages for union leaders are dead addresses. Send them an e-mail and ask them if it is ok to send them information about the pending IFT restrictions, and ask what e-mail to send it to, and then, when they reply, hit the "forward to a friend" button.

Thanks

 

[Show-me]

Contact Infor for APWU or Postal folks.

I just send a note to my Union and to PostalReporter.com to post something, anything about the changes FRTIB are trying to sneak through.

Here is contact info for PostalReporter: http://www.postalreporter.com/about_site.htm

List of APWU Officers: http://www.apwu.org/about/directory-officers050310.htm

APWU webmaster: http://www.apwu.org/webmaster.htm

 

[James48843]

Attention all Postal People:

It looks like at least one of the ETAC members at least got his organization to post something on their website- The National Associaton of Postal Supervisors has put Tracey Ray's November 6th memo on their website at: http://www.naps.org/index.shtml

Perhaps you postal people can contact your supervisors, and get them to write in in opposition, and also send them copies of the latest newsletters from tspshareholder.org.

Fight Back. Get Informed. Tell YOUR UNION To vote NO!

Thanks

 

[Show-me]

tom if i copy and paste a letter from the website and put it on faxzero do i have to put .doc or pdf in the box i'm not sure

Just cut and paste it to the box provided and it will work. The .doc and .pdf is if you have it in a file and use the small "browser" window to download it.

Go get'em pogo!

 

[pogo]

I faxed mine to Thomas K. Emswiler at 202.942.1676. Was that correct? Thanks.

http://faxzero.com/

tom if i copy and paste a letter from the website and put it on faxzero do i have to put .doc or pdf in the box i'm not sure

 

[James48843]

Thanks for thinking of me, but I only have dial-up, so I can't watch videos.

Perhaps another time.....

(My new year's resolution is to try and get DSL- I have been too far out in the boonies in the past. The last couple years, I check around and looked for high speed options, without success.

I've been trying to get DSL, but I've always been too far from the central office. I hear they are building infrastructer closer these days...maybe 2008 will be the year I can go HIGH SPEED!)

 

[hessian]

Hessian:
Thanks for that note. I'll be sure to investigate further and read the whole report. And think about it for a bit- and your angle. Very nice - I hadn't seen that.
But it makes sense.
later
\Cya

Just read you were a reservist, I thought of you, your post, with this video...
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=158754&page=2

Also, another for your collection...
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?page=2&displayContent=83744#alphaBottom

Overall, its a pretty cool website.
Appreciate your continuing hard work and efforts.
VR

 

[James48843]

Hessian:

Thanks for that note. I'll be sure to investigate further and read the whole report. And think about it for a bit- and your angle. Very nice - I hadn't seen that.

But it makes sense.
later

\Cya

 

[hessian]

In America, when the law is wrong, what do you do?
Change the law.
(Let me think about that one for a bit....)

Hi James,
Question: When does the 2-trade limit take effect? -Others might be interested too!!

Show-referencesd the following in his AcctTalk (its a bit old but I thought you might get some ideas from it):
Federal Pensions: DOL Oversight and Thrift Savings Plan Accountability GAO-03-400 April 23, 2003 (sic)...
"The Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is a retirement savings - and investment plan - for federal employees, governed by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (the TSP Board). Recent events relating to the TSP Board's contract to upgrade TSP's record keeping system have raised questions about the management of the TSP. In light of the TSP Board's actions relating to the record keeping system and the recent submission of the TSP Board's legislative proposal that would enhance its independence, Congressional requesters asked us to examine federal oversight of the TSP Board. Specifically, our objectives were to (1) describe the Department of Labor's (DOL) oversight authority, under the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA) and (2) determine the actions DOL has taken in exercising its authority over TSP.
DOL is charged under FERSA with establishing an audit program of TSP and its operations. The audit program is to ensure that TSP assets have been reasonably safeguarded and that appropriate steps have been taken by TSP fiduciaries to comply with FERSA. If DOL finds that the Executive Director or TSP Board members have breached their fiduciary responsibilities, under FERSA, DOL cannot take legal action.

IMHO, Tthe TSP Board is bucking their primary responsibility of TSP being a Retirement "Investment Plan" (not just a savings Plan). I'd recommend DOL to re-audit TSP and its operations.

Also likely should keep pressure on to seek new laws be enacted if needed to ensure the original intent of TSP is being implemented - primarily that IFT limits cannot be imposed, because this is contrary to original intent, that being - an investment Plan).
--at least up to 8 IFTs/month should be allowed, for TSP to work as an investment plan!

PS Just FYI, I'm a Navy civilian, & I work in DC. Not saying I know how this stuff works, but I observe alot - mostly difunction, but also see some on how things get done too. Anyway, look me up if ever in town.
VR Until then, I think you'll enjoy this... http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=73719&page=110

 

[James48843]

Congress makes the laws and has oversight. However, the Board is politically appointed rather than nominated and elected by the membership, and the Board IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE. It's in the law. Go figure.:nuts:

In America, when the law is wrong, what do you do?

Change the law.

(Let me think about that one for a bit....)

 

[Show-me]

Congress makes the laws and has oversight. However, the Board is politically appointed rather than nominated and elected by the membership, and the Board IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE. It's in the law. Go figure.:nuts:

A rhetorical question to provoke participants. hee hee My evil plan worked. Thank you anidoc!

Newsflash: The November Board minutes were published last night on the FRTIB website's electronic reading room.

At first glance, something HUGE stands out in October's data.

Yes, there was a lot of trading in the I fund in October.

And guess what?

The trading didn't COST TSP shareholders. No. Because of various Fair Value errors, the TSP came out AHEAD- ON TOP-- once again. This time by 56 basis points.

That right folks- because of TSP Trading in the I fund, the I fund holders CAME OUT AHEAD BY 56 BASIS POINTS!!!!


It didn't COST someone who was a buy and holder- THEY benefited by 56 basis points from the trading in October.

How about THEM apples? ? ?

James,

These proposed changes to limit the number of interfund transfers has shed a enormous light on the lack of oversight, accountability, and customer service issues. Maybe we should send a letter to Ms. Ray and Mr. Long thanking them for showing us how vulnerable and customer unfriendly TSP really is. I can't wait for Congress to get back to work!

 

[James48843]

I brought it up to folks in my office and they immediately went on the offensive accusing us of "running of fees"- classic TSP Board propaganda.

If only they KNEW the potential earnings with their TSP- I tried to explain.

One can only TRY and lead a horse to water...

Newsflash: The November Board minutes were published last night on the FRTIB website's electronic reading room.

At first glance, something HUGE stands out in October's data.

Yes, there was a lot of trading in the I fund in October.

And guess what?

The trading didn't COST TSP shareholders. No. Because of various Fair Value errors, the TSP came out AHEAD- ON TOP-- once again. This time by 56 basis points.

That right folks- because of TSP Trading in the I fund, the I fund holders CAME OUT AHEAD BY 56 BASIS POINTS!!!!


It didn't COST someone who was a buy and holder- THEY benefited by 56 basis points from the trading in October.

How about THEM apples? ? ?

 

[Show-me]

So I have to ask the question. If the DOL has no power over FRTIB and ETAC has no power over FRTIB, who is accountable? The more we are learning the more this really stinks bad.