What YOU can do to fight back - IFT limit

....... I asked a number of questions, all of them to get clarification on most of the issues you raised in your letter.......
[/SIZE]

These kind of responses are extremely deceptive from people who represent other people.

He asked questions to get clarification. He did not ask questions to debate, argue, or seek change or suggest change.

This might be an example.
ETAC Member : "What exactly do you mean by 2 trades a month, is it 24 a year?"

FRTIB: "Yes that what it averages to."

ETAC Member: "Oh OK I just wanted to clarify that. Thanks." "And 1 more thing if I may,
Is it true that these 3000 tsp traders are really driving up the cost for all members or can it be related to something else?"

FRTIB: "Yes its true and it is not anything else."

ETAC Member: "Well that clears alot up for me. Thank you for your clarification. I have no other issues that need to be clarified at this time."

The truth is he didn't make any waves. But wanted to "appear" like he addressed concerns.

Getting clarification can be done by the monkeys. It only means that you don't understand something.
 
Here is an important fact that needs to be addressed by our letters.

TSP officials keep referring to the so called 3,000 account holders that are driving up trading cost. I would say that most of these members are nearing retirement and now are actively managing their accounts. I believe I read that most of these accounts are over $300,000.

TSP says the L funds re-balancing is a small fraction of the overall trading cost. Move forward in time 20 years from now, the L funds will be a bigger trading cost then the 3,000 members are now. Were talking over 500,000 account holders are in the L funds. This number will grow along with their account balances, especially if they restrict our number of IFT's. What will TSP officials do then?

Something to ponder.
 
Paladin,
You do indeed have a way with words. I too will be using your well put arguements in my contacts with those around me not yet aware of the TSP's proposal.
 
One would think that Barclay's is large enough to secure the # of shares needed for high volume trades without too much trouble. Just another way to make $.
Just another way for the brokers to stick it to you.

Brokers will tell you just enough to get you to open an account. Conspiracy theorist here. ALOT of money on the table here.
 
FYI.

Total trading cost of the C, S, I, and F Fund from January through September is $14,382,000. The trading cost spread out to each TSP participant would be $3.78 so far this year.

Put that in your emails to ETAC.
 
Last edited:
FYI.

Total trading cost of the C, S, I, and F Fund from January through September is $14,382,000. The trading cost spread out to each TSP participant would be $3.78 so far this year.
 
Last edited:
For information, I received a fairly lengthy and candid e-mail reply from Jim Sauber this evening already. In his reply, he noted that the quote attritibuted to him was taken somewhat out of context (just a partial quote out of a much longer statement he made, apparently). He also indicated that there was a very good discussion at the meeting of various positions on this matter, and that ETAC asked for more time to study the issue, and has NOT taken a position on the FRTIB proposal at this time. He went on to say that the Board presented data showing the number of frequent
traders has increased from 146 in 2004 to more than 3,000 this year. It
also reported that trading costs are not related to the number of trades
per say, but the dollar volume of the trades. He went on to say that he will review all of the data presented and will consult with NALC's leadership before taking a position on behalf of NALC. Finally, he said that there will be a formal rule-making process in the months ahead when the
Board issues proposed regulations in the Federal Register. He said that ETAC may or may not take a collective position -- every organization has a right to make its own decision. He urges those of us concerned about this issue to contract the union or employee
association that represents your agency to convey your views.

I still wish that ETAC would conduct their own independent, comprehensive review of data on TSP expenses and trading costs (rather than simply reviewing the limited and incomplete data provided to them by FRTIB), but I do find his reply to be forthright, and at least somewhat encouraging. Folks, we need to continue to write to the members of ETAC and express our views......Mr. Sauber and others are looking for that kind of input right now. I think one of the main points we should make is that even if there is a perceived problem with trading costs, there MUST be other reasonable options to consider that would address this....such as a reasonable fee per trade (beyond 2 or so per month). The argument by FRTIB and Tracey Ray that imposing such a trading fee would be "cumbersome" and that it would have to be in the thousands of dollars per trade is simply nonsense, and I think we can demonstrate that with the data we now have.

Don't give up the ship folks, this battle has a long way to go yet. Write to the ETAC reps while they are studying this issue!!

One would think that Barclay's is large enough to secure the # of shares needed for high volume trades without too much trouble. Just another way to make $.
Just another way for the brokers to stick it to you.
 
If I miss any questions directed to me please be forgiving as I have been following a lot of rabbit trails.

I think the GAO need to get involve in a more specific study of the "Trading Cost of TSP Compared to Private Industry". Perhaps this could explain how the second largest retirement plan in the world can not get a better deal in executing trades.
 
This is not encouraging, but it's NOT over, folks. FRTIB still has to attempt to formally change the CFR's, which currently say that "there is no limit on interfund transfers" (and that IFT's may be made through the Thriftline or through the TSP website). They will have to post this proposed change in the Fed. Register, and open a comment period on the proposal, and then consider the comments before announcing a final decision. If we remain united and FLOOD them with comments opposing the change, it's not going to be easy to justify following through with it. Many TSP participants are not even aware of thsi proposal and will not comment, so if those of us who are opposed to this DO comment in large numbers, I am confident that opposition to this proposal will greatly outweigh those that comment in favor of it. So, hang in there, this is a long battle, as James says.

I also think there are potential legal problems for them if they do send out the threatening letters to the 3,000 so-called frequent traders BEFORE they finalize this change in the CFR's. Think about it........warning us to stop doing something that is currently well within the rules governing IFT's, or we will be slapped with additional restrictions, before the rules are actually changed? The attorneys in our group will love that one, I'm sure.

I just e-mailed Mr. James Sauber and told him that I am extremely disappointed that he did not stand up for the rights of TSP members to manage our retirement funds, and that I'm also disappointed he chose to believe everything that FRTIB said about this, rather than doing his own independent research. I hope that others will do the same.

For information, I received a fairly lengthy and candid e-mail reply from Jim Sauber this evening already. In his reply, he noted that the quote attritibuted to him was taken somewhat out of context (just a partial quote out of a much longer statement he made, apparently). He also indicated that there was a very good discussion at the meeting of various positions on this matter, and that ETAC asked for more time to study the issue, and has NOT taken a position on the FRTIB proposal at this time. He went on to say that the Board presented data showing the number of frequent
traders has increased from 146 in 2004 to more than 3,000 this year. It
also reported that trading costs are not related to the number of trades
per say, but the dollar volume of the trades. He went on to say that he will review all of the data presented and will consult with NALC's leadership before taking a position on behalf of NALC. Finally, he said that there will be a formal rule-making process in the months ahead when the
Board issues proposed regulations in the Federal Register. He said that ETAC may or may not take a collective position -- every organization has a right to make its own decision. He urges those of us concerned about this issue to contract the union or employee
association that represents your agency to convey your views.

I still wish that ETAC would conduct their own independent, comprehensive review of data on TSP expenses and trading costs (rather than simply reviewing the limited and incomplete data provided to them by FRTIB), but I do find his reply to be forthright, and at least somewhat encouraging. Folks, we need to continue to write to the members of ETAC and express our views......Mr. Sauber and others are looking for that kind of input right now. I think one of the main points we should make is that even if there is a perceived problem with trading costs, there MUST be other reasonable options to consider that would address this....such as a reasonable fee per trade (beyond 2 or so per month). The argument by FRTIB and Tracey Ray that imposing such a trading fee would be "cumbersome" and that it would have to be in the thousands of dollars per trade is simply nonsense, and I think we can demonstrate that with the data we now have.

Don't give up the ship folks, this battle has a long way to go yet. Write to the ETAC reps while they are studying this issue!!
 
I did the same. In fact, I emailed 12 separate members of the ETAC to express my disappointment in them (and re-attached my letter for them to READ again). I'll let you know if I hear back from any of them.

Chairman Sauber apparently ended the meeting with the Thrift Board by stating that he wanted to take the matter back to union leaders for more study. This is at least a step in the right direction. Now, STUDY IT instead of just taking the Thrift Board at their evil word like a bunch of kindergarten children!

The main point that I emphasized in this latest email was the following:

We are all for getting at the TRUTH, and yet the Thrift Board is simply NOT being truthful about how much these sweeping changes will save each TSP member. They are using fuzzy math to impress upon you that transaction expenses rose from $6.7 million in 2005 to $15 million in 2006. However, they ignore that the TSP itself is growing at the rate of $40 billion per year, and that the $15 million transaction cost represents only $3.95 per person per year, or a penny a day per account!
PaLadin i'm sorry i used your information here and put it on the (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121902443.htlm) i was so impress with your comments and seeing those other statements on that site i just started typing your ideas please pardon my ignorances.
 
I think this is really the bottom line. Would the 3 million non-frequent trading TSP members sell the freedom, the option, of unlimited transfers for $3.95/year?

They are using fuzzy math to impress upon you that transaction expenses rose from $6.7 million in 2005 to $15 million in 2006. However, they ignore that the TSP itself is growing at the rate of $40 billion per year, and that the $15 million transaction cost represents only $3.95 per person per year, or a penny a day per account! [/SIZE][/INDENT]
 
Question:
If the TSP takes all of the L-Fund Rebalances and submits them in one large buy, WHY can't they do the same thing with the Member's IFTs on a daily basis and Save Money on their IFTs??????:cool: If it works for the "L" funds it will work for our IFTs, might take longer, but I don't care!!
They think we're STUPID right?:mad:
 
James
urock.gif
 
Too-Frequent Traders?

[SIZE=-1]By Stephen Barr[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Thursday, December 20, 2007; D04[/SIZE]

J im Pratt, who works for the Federal Aviation Administration in Michigan, has made 28 stock and bond trades this year 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."

Last month, the TSP board voted to crack down on government employees who try to beat the stock market by jumping in and out of TSP funds every few days, saying that the "frequent traders" are driving up plan costs and eroding returns for other participants.

The TSP proposal would limit participants to two trades a month, although employees who think they had 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 ( http://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 TSP and the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, a group of unions and management associations that represent employee interests.
The council met yesterday, 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.

Gregory T. Long, the TSP executive director, Tracey A. Ray, TSP's chief investment officer, and Tom Trabucco, the external affairs director, briefed the council and took questions.

Ray said about 3,000 TSP 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 TSP's five funds about two years ago, she said.

For example, Ray said, on Oct. 19, federal employees transferred $371 million into the TSP's 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 TSP 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 TSP, 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.

Several union representatives on the council said they had not heard any complaints about the proposed limits from their members, but Catherine A. Ball of the National Treasury Employees Union said employees at the Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. had voiced concerns about trading limits.

Ball and others suggested that frequent traders might be willing to pay fees on additional transactions, but Long said the staff had opted against fees as too cumbersome to administer.

Ray noted that a 2 percent fee, used by some mutual funds, would have cost the 323 employees who were active traders in October a minimum of $5,000. She also noted that it is common among mutual funds to limit the number of stock trades by investors.

After a lengthy discussion, Sauber said he wanted to take the matter back to his union leaders for more study, and suggested that the council could weigh in with a recommendation next year, before the TSP moves ahead with publishing a proposal rule to impose trading limits.

The advisory council did not object to a TSP request to send letters to frequent traders, asking them to stop or to only make fund transfers through the mail, rather than the Internet.

"This is a retirement fund, not a day-trading account," said Richard N. Brown, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees.



(Note: Sounds like Richard N. Brown needs to hear from his membership. Anyone a member of National Federation of Federal Employees? If so, they need to hear from you! Here is the National Federation of Federal Employees contact number:

Richard Brown
National President
(202) 216-4448 (office)
(202) 898-1865 (fax)
 
My comments to the govexec.com article here http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38885&sid=2

"We felt the two trades a month allows flexibility for everyone and the ability for everyone to go into the G Fund if they get scared," Ray said. "A percentage fee is certainly an option, but we felt that would hurt the nonfrequent traders."

"Nonfrequent traders" would not trade that often or be charged a fee if we go to 2 free trades and a fee for anything beyond that.

Why is it costing TSP so much to execute trades while the brokerage houses do it so much cheaper? Who is making the extra money on the trades? Barclay?

Come on this is the second largest plan in the WORLD and we don't have some "power" to get cheaper trades. Time to renegotiate our contract with Barclay, update the TSP system, and remove the FRTIB to include Mr. Long, Ms. Ray, and possibly the so called advocates on the ETAC.

Were is the ETAC contact list? Were is web access to them? What is their phone number? Who do I call and can they make a difference?

Why are political appointees on the FRTIB and what did they do to get there? Were is the oversight by Congress and the DOL? Why do the FRTIB sight industry standards that are two trades or less a month but ignore the GAO-05-38 report advising better "Customer Service Practices Adopted by Private Sector Plan Managers"?

Something stinks to high heaven and it ain't the "3000 frequent traders".
 
The squeaky wheel gets the oil! We are not squeaking loud enough or often enough! We have to tie up their e-mail, their telephones and their time to the point that they will give us what we are demanding just to make us go away. It has to be massive enough to get the point across that we are not going away until we get what we want. It has to involve all of them from the top all the way down to the call center reps. They have to spend more time listening to us complain and object to the changes than doing their normal routine. We have them greatly out numbered and we need to use our numbers against them till their phone lines start to smoke!
 
We just got worked over by most of ETAC.....
Here is some insight into the function of the ETAC: A report that elaborates on how the TSP and ETAC should be doing Customer Service Surveys but won't (though the report is a little old 1/05).

Abstract:
TSP managers are also responsible for gathering participant feedback through the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, as required by FERSA. However, while some ETAC representatives provide TSP managers with feedback on draft TSP publications, legislative initiatives, and other issues, ETAC representatives do not systemically solicit feedback from their constituents. Some ETAC representatives may receive sporadic feedback from participants, but ETAC does not conduct surveys of plan participants. As a result, TSP managers are dependent on call center representatives or agency coordinators to forward any feedback they receive from participants. Also, the executive director of ETAC said that TSP participants might be more likely to raise customer service issues with their local representatives, such as union representatives, rather than elevate issues to the national level. Therefore, the extent to which participants within the represented agencies and employee organizations provide feedback to their ETAC representative is unclear. Page 16

FEDERAL THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN: Customer Service Practices Adopted by Private Sector Plan Managers Should Be Considered 1/05 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0538.pdf
 
Back
Top