Pardon me - I see your point. But whoever has the information, get it together - get names - make a record, and get it to the authorities soon. You will have protection, and there isn't much of jack that FRTIB is going to be able to do to you, or influence the oversight authorities of OSC, OIG, and (if necessary) OHA (which will come into play if there is a retaliation of some kind). They can try to get people to lie or clam up, or even spoliate evidence, but a strange thing about the truth is that it doesn't change because of a lie. Bottom line - unlimited IFT's need to stay, at least until an independent audit is done - which I believe will let it be permanently; what FRTIB is saying about the cost is utter nonsense. Going to 2 IFT's/month in this age is like going to Jurassic Park.
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com
-
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
div>
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!What YOU can do to fight back - IFT limit
- Thread starter James48843
- Start date
James48843
TSP Talk Royalty
- Reaction score
- 630
Point of the day today:
Anybody who has not seen the dialog on the Washington Post Stephan Barr dialog today, it's posted here: (will insert the URL in one moment, got to go fetch it).
Here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/16/DI2008031602297.html
This was a small skirmish. Barr belives the TSP Board. But more than one person chimed in that there is more to the story, and Barr should go look. During that Dialog I e-mailed a longer (and wrote- Stephan, you don't have to post this- but, here are the hard numbers, here are some facts, yadayada) version to him. At the same time I was writing, a number of brave TSPTALKERS also wrote in, and for them I am very, very grateful. What it did was show that there is more to the story. It planted doubt in his mind. And will most likely make him look into it more. I will send him data each day.
Here is what Sun Tzu says about quick lightning strikes on the opponent:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them.
24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
you are not expected.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thirft Board will not expect hard questions from Barr, but they will be getting some in the days ahead. This is only possible because today, a host of TSPTALKERS weighed in during the once-a-week live feed, and posted their thoughts.
thank you to everyone who chipped in. Every little bit helps. every time a voice is added OUTSIDE THIS MESSAGE BOARD to bring daylight to the situation, our position gains strength.
In the last three days, we gained 11 , 22, and 14 signatures on our petition, respecticely. Not a lot, but better than the 3 per day we were running for a while.
If every day each signer can talk one more person into signing, we'll continue to grow.
James48843
TSP Talk Royalty
- Reaction score
- 630
Here is the full discussion that took place today on Stephan Barr's live blog at noon. He does this once per week, wednesdays at noon eastern time.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the Washington Post:
Detroit: Mr. Barr: The Thrift Board says they are limiting interfund transfers because of costs, but the costs of the TSP are one sixtieth of what a private sector mutual fund would be, and only the I fund has had any costs at all. When I asked them "how much this new limit would save the TSP," they sent me a fax that said they didn't know. Why won't you dig deeper into the TSP interfund transfer issue and report the facts about TSP costs, how they compare, and what the Thrift Board is doing in taking away employee rights?
(Post responded
washingtonpost.com: Thrift Savings Plan Crackdown Is Working (Post, March 18)
Stephen Barr: The TSP has explained its rationale in several documents and meetings. It's important to note that the Employee Advisory Council for the TSP, made up of leading federal and postal unions and management associations, has checked out the TSP restriction on trading and apparently has given it a green light. At the board's last meeting, TSP officials indicated that they had not received any push back from members of Congress, either.
I urge you to read the March 10 Federal Register notice on the new trading policy. It includes this statement:
"Market times are forcing the fund manager to take extraordinary measures to mitigate the adverse impact of an investment behavior for which the TSP was not designed. These extraordinary measures generate costs borne by all participants and adversely affect the plan manager's ability to precisely replicate the performance of the selected indexes."
What questions would you ask to challenge that statement?
_______________________
_______________________
_______________________
Re: TSP: I'm a mathematician and my first question about statements that TSP costs are going up is, show us. Publish months of transaction numbers and TSP costs to show a relationship between interfund transfers and costs to the TSP. Is that too difficult for TSP to provide?
Stephen Barr: TSP appears to object to the costs associated with rapid-fire frequent trading, especially from participants who are swinging $250,000 plus between funds.
The Federal Register notice that justifies the new trading restriction says that frequent trading increases transaction costs, including commissions paid to brokers, transfer taxes, the need for more money in futures and foregone interest. TSP also raises the issue of market impact, noting that market times wishing to eliminate their exposure in the I Fund because of possible market losses due to world events could leave the other 99 percent of participants holding the bag on
total losses in the I Fund.
The notice does not provide an analysis of how much costs go up as a result of such trading.
_______________________
Silverdale, Wash.: Hi Steve. Given that TSP costs were lower in 2007 than in 2006, and given that the TSP Board hasn't said how much these new limits on interfund transfers are going to save the overall fund per person, when do you plan to report on the real numbers involved?
Stephen Barr: Send me an e-mail with a question or two that would bring precision to the cost issue, please. Thanks.
_______________________
Pensacola, Fla.: TSP is cutting the number of potential IFTs from about 20 a month to two a month. Presently it cost each TSP participate about $4.00 per year for this transfer ability. How much of my $4.00 per year can I expect to save by giving up my potential to do an IFT on any trading day?
Stephen Barr: Help me on the math here. If each interfund transfer costs $4, and there are 3.8 million investors in the TSP, then I guess a lot of money can be saved with this restriction, right?
_______________________
Washington: I favor the new TSP restrictions. If people want do to active market trading, they are free to invest in privately run accounts. Why should my costs be raised because of the actions of a few people?
Stephen Barr: That seems to be a chief issue for the TSP board.
_______________________
_______________________
Vienna, Va.:"I favor the new TSP restrictions. If people want do to active market trading, they are free to invest in privately run accounts. Why should my costs be raised because of the actions of a few people?" Hear hear! I do not want you to think that everyone out there is complaining about this change.
Stephen Barr: Thanks, Vienna.
_______________________
Re: TSP: I'm a financial economist with two masters degrees in finance. My TSP is in L-2040 and I never move it. Why? Because I have many years until retirement, and as I near retirement the money is auto-rebalanced for me -- and I also know that trying to "time" the market will, more times than not, hurt me. Heck, many co-workers were out of the market yesterday. As the famous infomercial about that rotating oven says "set it and forget it."
Stephen Barr: A good point. Some data collected several years ago showed that if an investor was out of the stock market for as little as two or three days when stocks soared, then they had lost out for the whole year. The lifecycle funds are a nice invention, since they rebalance to reduce risk as you near retirement. Best of luck!
_______________________
Manassas, Va.: As you seem to be receiving (and taking) lots of input from folks that are against the TSP trade restrictions, let me just weigh in on the opposing side. TSP was not set up for this kind of activity, regardless of costs. If you don't like the restrictions, then go play the market outside of TSP. Simple as that. And, while you are demanding data, how about we also have data gathered on when all of these transactions are made, from what computers, so we can calculate lost productivity at work? Perhaps we can then subtract that amount from traders' paychecks.
Stephen Barr: Thanks for that feedback!
_______________________
_______________________
Pensacola, Fla.: In the below question, The TSP costs of $4.00 are for a full year per each participant, not per IFT. Please readdress. Thanks.
"Pensacola, Fla.: TSP is cutting the number of potential IFTs from about 20 a month to two a month. Presently it cost each TSP participate about $4.00 per year for this transfer ability. How much of my $4.00 per year can I expect to save by giving up my potential to do an IFT on any trading day?
"Stephen Barr: Help me on the math here. If each interfund transfer costs $4, and there are 3.8 million investors in the TSP, then I guess a lot of money can be saved with this restriction, right?"
Stephen Barr: Well, the TSP reads the law authorizing its creation as a mandate to always drive down costs. So, is $4 per person the right cost to bear, or can it increase, or should it be lower?
It's clear to those of you in this discussion that I don't have any great insights to offer on TSP costs vs. trading restrictions. But I'll keep trying.
_______________________
Once again, we've run out of time. Thanks to all who joined in this discussion--great questions and excellent feedback. I hope you find this transcript as informative as I do! See you back here at noon next Wednesday.
_______________________
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties
You have some points, but may I beg to differ - as the idea of cost/IFT makes me
:
I'll take my unlimited trades, and keep my $10. I'm not paying no $10 per ITF for these simple index funds; there's a ton of funds that don't charge like that as long as you keep it in the family; why tf should I even consider doing that with TSP? This is not a cost per trade issue, its a cost of maintaining a system to allow unlimited transfers between a very small family of index funds, when and if needed, by a group of employees. I won't do it. If you want to get creative, let me take all my money out, and put it in Fidelity or Vanguard where I have some real choice. I suspect the consequence of that option, if we had it, would be the elimination of TSP.
Look, there's a ton of people that would agree with you. Especially those people who ITF once a decade, if ever, just letting it ride in C fund no matter what. The last 3 people who I asked to sign the petition said "Oh, I don't even wanna look at my TSP.....". All this cost/trade idea is going to do is encourage people who don't watch their TSP, to look even less at it. Trades will go down, active management will go down, and on average, employees lose. Alot of employees. I don't think it should cost that much for this very limited service, and I am not in favor of it.
As to the S&P, the afterhours on the spyders and q's are down for the second straight day.....so I'm foaming at the mouth....ready to strike with my bloated boodle of very well performing F (closing in on 2yr hi's) and temporary G for another opportunity.Last edited:
Aviator_Guy
Analyst
- Reaction score
- 11
However, we need to be realistic, that if we also offer, as an alternative, a flat $10 fee per IFT, that that proposal cannot be overlooked. A flat $10 fee would generate $28 MILLION dollars- far more than the costs involved. Those who never trade would pay nothing. Those who IFT a lot would pay more than those who IFT nothing.
Great Post James!!!
$10.00 per IFT??? I agree with you, except I would gladly pay $100.00 per IFT as long as I could have unlimited IFT’s. You mentioned your account went up 12K yesterday, mine went up 16K. YTD, I also reduced my IFT’s and it’s really going to be tough and it will cost my retirement fund in a negative way.
I read an interesting article by Scott Burns on the TSP. The article was written about a year ago and he stated it’s a model 401K plan. The TSP board is taking us back to what we had in the 1980’s, basically one IFT per month!!! Anyway, I really enjoyed reading your post and agree with you 100%.
Braveheart
Analyst
- Reaction score
- 12
However, we need to be realistic, that if we also offer, as an alternative, a flat $10 fee per IFT, that that proposal cannot be overlooked. A flat $10 fee would generate $28 MILLION dollars- far more than the costs involved. Those who never trade would pay nothing. Those who IFT a lot would pay more than those who IFT nothing.
Great Post James!!!
$10.00 per IFT??? I agree with you, except I would gladly pay $100.00 per IFT as long as I could have unlimited IFT’s. You mentioned your account went up 12K yesterday, mine went up 16K. YTD, I also reduced my IFT’s and it’s really going to be tough and it will cost my retirement fund in a negative way.
I read an interesting article by Scott Burns on the TSP. The article was written about a year ago and he stated it’s a model 401K plan. The TSP board is taking us back to what we had in the 1980’s, basically one IFT per month!!! Anyway, I really enjoyed reading your post and agree with you 100%.
No No No that is nuts no one in their right mind suggest we pay per IFT. I stated last month that the TSP was going to look for that but I didn't make a trade for 17 years then I want all that money back for not making an IFT see how that works both ways. It was a given right and they the TSP need money PLEASE they lost 100 Million of our money on waste.
They want to save money then start with the removal of the TSP Board. How about the members have a say in who we want on the Board ? What makes anyone of them qualified except they knew someone and was appointed to that position. I want to know why the L Funds are in place when they can't be used since they are not set up or managed properly.
You never concede or give up a right that we earned so we must be UNITED the FETSP wants a DIVIDED group and then their real agenda is missed and you will lose more rights. We are only as strong as our weakest link and if Mr. Long had his way he would say no IFT's and you have an option to pay for them... Sorry but this is a Thrift Retirement Savings Plan not a Retirement Donation Plan.Last edited:we already have unlimited ITF's, why accept less?
I need to go home - but I am going to second Braveheart's motion to remain solid on the purpose:
unlimited ITF's
no costs/trade
The TSP sold a bill of goods then changed the rules. I put in my maximum catchup contribution last year and this in expectation of being able to manage my money. This money has to perform and I need the ability to make unlimited ITF's (or not, as I so choose), to make it perform.
The facts are on our side. There is no need to negotiate truth with the TSP anymore than a bar of soap; neither will listen.Re: we already have unlimited ITF's, why accept less?
Is that bar of soap as in Steven Barr?I got a new one. If TSP thinks they should be compared to a mutual fund company - well, maybe they should give us the option of taking all of our money and putting it with whatever mutual fund company I choose instead of them. So I contacted Fidelity, which has what is it - 1,400 NTF's (no transaction-fee funds) - to see what their limits are (none stated on the web prospectus). I told them I'm a Federal employee, one of 4 million with assets of 230 billion in TSP, and ummmm, yahhh, I'm personally not real happy with the new presto/chango TSP restrictions, and looking for somewhere else to put my money.
I included TSP's crap they put out comparing themselves to mutual fund restrictions - I copied it and sent it to them, asked them to verify what restrictions they have on their NTF's (if any), and maybe we can do business. I will let you know if I hear anything.
Who needs the TSP?:toung:Re: we already have unlimited ITF's, why accept less?
I agree with amoeba and braveheart. Proposing a fee per IFT (such as $10) basically negates our argument that there is no need to restrict IFTs or charge fees of any kind, because overall TSP costs have gone DOWN in recent years, not up. Why would I agree to pay $10/IFT when it is now only costing each TSP participant less than 4 bucks/year for unlimited IFTs? (and probably less than that next year, as costs continue to trend downward). Nope, I say we stick to our guns (and the truth), and not make any concessions here, when none are needed. They have not proven their case that there is any problem here that needs addressing through changes in the IFT rules.
hessian
Analyst
- Reaction score
- 23
Why won't someone just file a lawsuit? Just file it? Simple, cheap. Just do it to tie up the final decision in the courts?
What is the difficulty??
Winning isn't as important as getting "certified letters" started - back at them!!! - it will get the fear of God back into their cold-blooded souls.
- they'll also start realizing their costs in making a defense!!
Simply hiring a lawyer to make the legal filing doesn't cost that much! - just someone make 1 / file yours!
Ask your lawyer what else might be tried/filed!
IMO, "comments" will do NOTHING!!
nnuut
Moderator | TSP Talk Royalty
- Reaction score
- 210
If it is that easy, why don't you file one?
hessian
Analyst
- Reaction score
- 23
Hessian, just as with the AMS lawsuit, costs to fight a lawsuit against FRTIB will be paid by OUR TSP fund. FRTIB Board members are not, by law, personally liable for costs and we can't get any money out of them. WE will be paying THEIR lawyers to fight OURSELVES.
Filing for a temporary injunction to tie things up might work, and this has been said before. You will have to show how the proposed rule will injure you, or "the class." Why don't you take that on? Just a suggestion. I'm sure you will get plenty of support from other MB members.
IMO, forget about suing for "damages". Just file for treatment different from other TSP members! - after all nothing the "3000" did was contrary to any law! Anybody can file a lawsuit - don't need a lawyer - don't even need to fight the case - just filing it, stops the implementation/finalization - by burden of proof being then on them the explain their reasons to the judge - we just sit back and watch!!
IMO, I think to have affirmative grounds to sue, whomever, will actually have to have been blocked/electronically.
-Without this the court/judge could say refusal to IFT has been voluntary/merely complied via their request.
Currently, I don't have standing to file a lawsuit.
- so far I've held to their "requested" 3/mo limit (hurts bigtime).
My point is, as yet I haven't gotten the certified letter/electronic block.I have been pursuing the Union angle with several emails, etc as I assume others have been. Our Union has a representative on the ETAC Board. We received the following letter from Coleen Kelley our NTEU President.
March 24, 2008
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Chapter Presidents and Legislative Coordinators
RE: NTEU Comments on Thrift Board Regulations
SUMMARY: NTEU has submitted comments to the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board regarding its March 10 submission to the Federal Register proposing to amend the interfund transfer regulations to limit the number of interfund transfer requests to two per month.
On March 19, 2008, I sent the attached letter to the General Counsel at the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, asking that the proposed regulations not be enacted. As I noted in my letter, the problems caused by those participants who were engaged in daily trading appears to have been greatly reduced by the actions of the Board so far. Numbers provided by the Board to the Employee Thrift Advisory Council members (ETAC), of which NTEU is a member, show that daily trades have been significantly reduced – the largest number in January was 40,000. The largest number in February was a little over 11,000.
I urged the Board to leave unrestricted the number of trades available per month, but to keep an eye on frequent trading so we can control it and put restrictions in when, and if, they become necessary. I suggested that, if restrictions do become necessary, a revised policy of two free trades per month coupled with a fee imposed on subsequent trades would be a more equitable solution. In addition, at any time participants could transfer to the G Fund at no charge.
If you have any questions on this subject, please call Cathy Ball in the Legislation Department at 202-572-5500, ext.8067.
Colleen M. Kelley
National President
Attachment
NTEU The National Treasury Employees Union
March 19,2008
Mr. Thomas K. Emswiler
General Counsel
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
1250 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Emswiler:
Please accept the following comments fiom the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) in
regard to the regulations published on March 10,2008, proposing to amend the interfund transfer
regulations to limit the number of interfund transfer requests to two per month.
NTEU continues to believe that while maintaining low costs for participants is critical, going from
the present unrestricted number of transfers to a restricted number of transfers is unnecessary at this time.
The Board itself states that the change will affect "a very small number of TSP participants" (see proposed
TSP solution in the regulations). Less Draconian methods adopted by the Board - letters to participants
and publicity about the costs of 3,000 participants trading frequently - has resulted in what appears to be
an almost 72 percent reduction in the amount of daily trades (letter to the Employee Thrift Advisory
Council, March 7,2008.) Those 547 participants who persist in "daily trading" and have chosen to ignore
the consequences of their actions are being dealt with already in a letter to be sent at the end of March.
I propose that we make no changes at this time. As was stated in the regulations, "the hallmark of
the TSP is simplicity." I agree. We should keep it simple. It seems to us that the problem has been greatly
reduced and may be completely resolved in the near future. If for some reason, the Board feels it is
necessary to act now to change the system, then NTEU proposes a revision to the Board's plan: allow two
transfers per month and after two transfers (if other than to the G Fund), attach a fee for servicing the
transfer. While it may be "impossib1e to correctly assign the exact costs," we can follow the leads of other
such funds in arriving at a figure. In addition, we would need to make
clear that at any time participants could transfer to the G Fund at no charge. We agree that the safe harbor
of the G Fund must always be available.
In conclusion, it appears that the Board has done its usual excellent work in addressing what could
have been a serious problem. Certainly it is prudent to watch this area, and if we find that frequent trading
harms the Fund in the future, we can talk about putting some restrictions in place. I do not think this action
is called for at the present time. ci ,&
Colleen M. Kelley
National President
cc: ETAC Members
1750 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 572-5500
While this response isn't perfect (i.e. with regard to the 547 being penalized unfairly) it appears to be a step in the right direction!Last edited:
James48843
TSP Talk Royalty
- Reaction score
- 630
Thank you Scout for that update.
I met with Cathy Ball, at the Legislative person at NTEU, in my trip three weeks ago to to Washington.
She gets it. And it appears she successfully gave this message to Colleen, who has filed this with the comments.
Let's hope all other Unions out there begin to "get it".
Folks- I said it before, and I'll say it again.
Drop whatever you are doing today, and do TWO THINGS.
1. If you are represented by a Union, ANY UNION, call their Washington D.C. office today, and ask to speak with whoever is their legislative person. Demand that the Union fight against TSP interfund transfer limits. Tell them it's not necessary, and you feel this will harm employees. Lay out the case for them that it's just not right, and THEY need to do everything they can to stop it.
2. Write a note, a letter, a few words. Whatever you can, and FAX it today to the Thrift Board. The fax phone number is at the bottom of this message. There are sample draft letters in this thread if you need help writing what to say. Print out a darn TSPSHAREHOLDER.ORG newsletter, and fax that to them too. Tell them that you are a shareholder, you are opposed, and you want them to withdraw their proposal.
And then, do it again tomorrow.
And then, do it again the day after that.
We only have until April 9th to stop this train- and ...
YES....WE.......CAN....!
IF YOU HELP!Last edited:
James48843
TSP Talk Royalty
- Reaction score
- 630
That's part of the issue. You won't get away from the three day settlement issue no matter what you do- that is simply Barclays following generally accepted SEC rules for settlement- that those whom barclays trades with have to deal with the three day rule because they are bound by it.
that is why Barclays had to ask for an overall increase in the Float, as reported in the previous minutes (i think it was december's minutes, but I could be wrong, when Barclays asked to increase the float from 750 million to 950 million, or something along those lines).
Reducing the amount of float is what the TSP Board wants to do, because sitting in "float" status does nothing but earn T bill rate interest, rather than use the power of the markets.
That gets us back to the first choices again.
1. Change I fund's calcualtion time to 7a.m. the next morning, thereby reducing approximately 70% of the IFT costs associated with I.
I initially thought this was a great idea. And then I started thinking ...
If you change the calculation time of the FV to 7am the next morning, when would you update member balances? Ideally, you want to do this around midnight, so you'd have to have the FV in hand by then.
James48843
TSP Talk Royalty
- Reaction score
- 630
You mean in the real TSP accounts?
You could move the update balance on the accounts to between between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. each day. You'd know your balance shortly after 8 a.m.
It now takes less than 30 minutes to actually perform the 3.8 million
acocunt updates. TSP doesn't do it now at 7 pm., they don't run the update until about midnight to 1 a.m., and then they don't release the server for public use until around 2 a.m., many days it's not until later. Sometimes they forget to bump it back on line until the morning shift comes in around 7 a.m. There are multiple servers, that tie to one another. There is a command prompt that must be done manually to tell all of them to sync and come back up on-line in the morning.
When accounts were valued once per month, it took about a full day to do. (late 80's, early 90's.)
Back when they first did daily valuation, it took a little over four hours to run the computers and make all the calculations.
Now it takes less than 30 minutes to run 3.8 million accounts, do a verification program, and then release the info into "production" mode.
When they do the next computer upgrade in 2009 or 2010, I expect we'll be down to minutes.
With the technology they have right now, if they do the I fund value calculation at 7.a.m. the next morning, you'll be able to see your account balance by 8 or 8:30 at the latest, there will be no longer a need for "Fair Value" calculations, and the cists associated with I fund transactions would be reduced by around 70%.
I don't mind not seeing what my account balance is, if I have hours before the noon cutoff to determine whether or not to place an order. Besides, personally, I usually know at least a couple of days beforehand when we are approaching a point that I would want to make a shift. I always would still have enough time to either get to a computer, or, in worst case, call in on the thriftline and make a move before the noon cutoff. Even with a 7 a.m. valuation, you still would get at least four hours to look at your position, and decide if you need to move.Similar threads
