What YOU can do to fight back - IFT limit

[Show-me]

I have read the FRTIB minutes and the Fund Performance reports. I found that the Fund that Ms. Ray quotes in her report, the I Fund, had the highest "trading cost" month in August a very volatile month for everyone. The second highest "trading month" was February also a "flight to safety period" for the equities. The last week of February and the first week of March were volatile and the F funds highest month of "trading cost" was March.

That shows me that it is much more than just the 3000 causing higher "trading cost" during months of volatility.

I would like to know the total number of participant that made interfund transfers the month of August.

I would also like to know what portion of the L funds are in the "trading cost".

I find the report incomplete because it does not report the total number of interfund transfers per month by all participants and the exact impact of the L Fund re-balancing per month.

 

[ayla]

I really liked this response by Dave (Dave are you on this board? if so, great job!) at http://www.fedsmith.com/article/comment/1431/start/28/


Its All About Freedom
Service Rep
Social Security Admin
Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:33 PM


Your column was excellent and timely, and I would bet that you are right about the rules saving TSP participants from themselves.
But that's how freedom gets whittled away year after year. Other people think they know what's best for other people - and sometimes they do. But that's no excuse to take their freedom away and make choices for them.
Freedom is defined by having choices. The more choices, the more freedom. Less choices - less freedom.

True freedom is the freedom to be stupid. You can teach us, as you are doing very well, but in the end, we must make the choice - or we are not free.

Dave E.

 

[sugarandspice]

Who would be in favor of removing the I fund from TSP investment since it seems to be causing the "problem." In exchange we keep the current system of IFT's.

 

[DrFaustus]

I would be in favor of that. But, to be honest, I think this is a done deal.

 

[James48843]

I would be in favor of that. But, to be honest, I think this is a done deal.

Oh, Doctor F, have faith!

That may have been their first battle plan.

But now we are executing an effective counter-attack, using logic, reason, passion, and the facts. We have, today, gone over one thousand signatures saying they are wrong. We are growing.

And don't you know, no battle plan survives first contact with the opposition? :cheesy:

 

[James48843]

Just for some inspiration, here is what was added to the petition signatures (http://tspshareholder.org, then click sign petition) just in the last half hour:

=========================================

Dec 10, 2007, Randy Stertzbach , Ohio

# 1,144:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , Arizona
Do not take away my financial freedom. I'd rather pay for the trade if trade costs are the only problem.

# 1,143:
Dec 10, 2007, Michael Jones , Texas

# 1,142:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , Florida
For several years I chose to contribute the maximum allowed into my TSP retirement account. I didn't have too. I did this knowing TSP gave me the ability to invest in the TSP fund(s)of my choice and rebalance as I saw fit...daily. Now TSP tells me I can do this only twice a month. Thats right, twice a month, TSP is now telling me I can control MY retirement investment only twice a month! This is bait-and-switch. TSP now has MY money and now tells me I can no longer control it...except twice a month. TSP - this is wrong and you know it...bait-and-switch.

# 1,141:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , California
This is my retirement. Please allow me to manage it. Two trades per month is not enough for me to effectively manage it.

# 1,140:
Dec 10, 2007, Nicholas Loux , Georgia
Rather than impose trading limits on the TSP, I would like to see a limit buy/sell capability added to these accounts. Sincerely, Nick Loux

# 1,139:
Dec 10, 2007, Mark Goldstein , Virginia

# 1,138:
Dec 10, 2007, Ernest Searcy , North Carolina
Two trades per month is too restrictive for an active duty military member to properly manage his/her TSP account. I would support a minimum of 4 transfers a month. I would also be in favor of paying a small fee for IFTs over the base number in order to cover IFT costs.

# 1,137:
Dec 10, 2007, Paul Wheeler , Texas
I am very dissapointed you have decided to make a decision like this without input from those who have the most to gain and the most to loose.

# 1,136:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , New Jersey
We should have our own choice of handling our own IFT transfer. If handling fee is required for frequent transfer, then $1 per IFT over 2 transfer limit per month is reasonable and I have no problem with that.


# 1,135:
Dec 10, 2007, Michael Ackerman , Pennsylvania
Instead of limiting our trading ability, you should be giving us more flexability to do our interfund transfers.

# 1,134:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , Minnesota
Two trades per month is far too restrictive for a Federal employee trying to properly manage his/her hard-earned money. I could probably live with two trades per WEEK. In lieu of limiting trades, I would be in favor of imposing a small fee (say five dollars) for making an IFT.



# 1,133:
Dec 10, 2007, James Prichett , Alaska
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of higher returns, if I feel so emboldened.


# 1,132:
Dec 10, 2007, Thomas Shoaf , New Mexico

# 1,131:
Dec 10, 2007, Darrin Watkins , Texas

# 1,130:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , Utah
TSP is my retirement fund and I should beable to manage it anyway that I feel I need to. I would be willing to pay a small fee to be able to moves my funds when needed.

# 1,129:
Dec 10, 2007, Berkie Harris , Colorado
TSP participants should be allowed to make their own choices. If the expenses are to high then charge a fee for extra trades.

# 1,128:
Dec 10, 2007, James Wood , Michigan

# 1,127:
Dec 10, 2007, Anonymous , Virginia
If you are going to limit trades then allow us to take our money to a fund that allows trading without charging a fee. Two trades a month is not enough to safeguard monies, at least 4 a month.

# 1,126:
Dec 10, 2007, Fernando Santana , Montana
I have been contributing to my TSP account for several years now and I believe that if allowed to manage my own account I can make the decisions needed to help it grow. I am in favor of paying for the transactions to offset any cost. Thank you for listening.
================================================

That inspires one to fight for your rights.

Life.


Liberty.

And the pursuit of higher returns, if I feel so emboldened.

Thank you James Prichett, of Alaska- You are a true American!

Go read the comments people are making. It is heartwarming!

 

[FundSurfer]

http://www.tsp.gov/faq/faq14.html

The board presentation, likely what they will use to show the ETAC, is going to be very convincing. (See link above)

What is the best counter arguement?

The best that I can come up with is to not limit th flexibility of the whole due to the actions of a few. Find another way to solve the problem. Consider a fee for excessive transfer (likely to be the 2% of value idea) or some sort of frequent trader curbing method, or ....

I do think more data is needed, for example:

How many people have traded more than twice in one month? If a lot then the limits should be reconsidered.

What is the cost of the FV/"market impact" versus the actual trading cost? If the FV cost is the largest cost, as Ms. Rae says, then fix the FV problem by moving closing price computation to next morning.

I'd rather see an annual limit on number of trades rather than monthly limit.

Consider making these suggestions as you call ETAC members.

Other ideas?

 

[nnuut]

2% of VALUE! I hope everyone understands how much that is?
Am I wrong or for instance you trade $100,000 to the "I" fund does that mean you pay $2,000 to move to the "I"? View attachment 2792

 

[weatherweenie]

2% of VALUE! I hope everyone understands how much that is?
Am I wrong or for instance you trade $100,000 to the "I" fund does that mean you pay $2,000 to move to the "I"?

Yeah, that's a bit steep.

 

[fedgolfer]

... what bugs me is that that 2% charge is the most expensive transfer charge for Vanguard and probably for the other IB's he compared TSP to. You can go from Vanguard's money market to about 60 other funds at their 4pm deadline. You're restricted for 90 days to re-enter that fund, but you have 60 or more to choose from that you can transfer into by the next business day (no settlement period). Greg Long is just picking examples to fit his arguement while avoiding the fact that other retirement vehicles are much more flexible and liquid. The only people that buy his arguement are the ones that don't know the rules and regs in TSP versus IRAs & 401k's -- people that are stuck in the dark ages about investing and swing trading. His points of comparison have so many holes.

The hate is growing. I want to sue the crap out of every single one of them.

 

[nnuut]

I think a good B$$CH SLAP is more appropriate!:nuts:
NO, I take that back, very crude and darn right wrong, I apologize.:embarrest:
We can bargain but not with people that don't think we have any say so in the future workings of OUR retirement plan. They should at least listen to our side with an open mind!

 

[wv-girl]

... what bugs me is that that 2% charge is the most expensive transfer charge for Vanguard and probably for the other IB's he compared TSP to. You can go from Vanguard's money market to about 60 other funds at their 4pm deadline. You're restricted for 90 days to re-enter that fund, but you have 60 or more to choose from that you can transfer into by the next business day (no settlement period). Greg Long is just picking examples to fit his arguement while avoiding the fact that other retirement vehicles are much more flexible and liquid. The only people that buy his arguement are the ones that don't know the rules and regs in TSP versus IRAs & 401k's -- people that are stuck in the dark ages about investing and swing trading. His points of comparison have so many holes.

The hate is growing. I want to sue the crap out of every single one of them.

Sounds like its a done deal by reading FS link to the tsp
http://www.tsp.gov/faq/faq14.html
I think they tried to defend most of what we have talked about here on the message boards. Spys!!!
When reading some of the comments on fedsmith most are outraged at frequent trades that cost "them" money. "They don't want to pay for our trades". If they took the time to really look at what is going on instead of being sheep, they would realize that:
1. I think nnutt figured that the "cost" of 1.2m lost in dividends equalled to approx. $4.00 per person per year.(something like that) (NNutt was that you or James?) I guess they can't afford it
2. That cost would rise anyway with the number of participants increasing plus the amount of $ being saved bi-weekly.(duh, Ray Charles could see that):nuts:
3. The 3,000 people trading must have the majority of the money in their accounts(by day-trading) to be able to make a dent in the billions that tsp holds(yeah right):blink:.
4. That our intelligence was put in question(to keep us from hitting the wrong button). That shows what he thinks of the participants of tsp:cheesy:

Anyway, getting angrier myself. Does it show?

 

[nnuut]

Sounds like its a done deal by reading FS link to the tsp
http://www.tsp.gov/faq/faq14.html
I think they tried to defend most of what we have talked about here on the message boards. Spys!!!
When reading some of the comments on fedsmith most are outraged at frequent trades that cost "them" money. "They don't want to pay for our trades". If they took the time to really look at what is going on instead of being sheep, they would realize that:
1. I think nnutt figured that the "cost" of 1.2m lost in dividends equalled to approx. $4.00 per person per year.(something like that) (NNutt was that you or James?) I guess they can't afford it
2. That cost would rise anyway with the number of participants increasing plus the amount of $ being saved bi-weekly.(duh, Ray Charles could see that)
3. The 3,000 people trading must have the majority of the money in their accounts(by day-trading) to be able to make a dent in the billions that tsp holds(yeah right):blink:.
4. That our intelligence was put in question(to keep us from hitting the wrong button). That shows what he thinks of the participants of tsp:cheesy:

Anyway, getting angrier myself. Does it show?

I think it was James! And a portion of that $4 was generated by other then Frequent Traders at a time of extreme volatility in the markets. It's a setup folks!! Be like me, I never lose my temper!!:laugh::laugh:

 

[wv-girl]

I think it was James! And a portion of that $4 was generated by other then Frequent Traders at a time of extreme volatility in the markets. It's a setup folks!! Be like me, I never lose my temper!!:laugh::laugh:

My temper is not lost..I know right where it is. We need to dig deeper..to find the real agenda. Been in the govt long enuf to realize that the left hand never knows what the right hand is doing. Until its done. Follow the $. Maybe we will find that 1.2m..ya never know

 

[whitemingo]

I wonder what kind of bonuses the board is getting this year? Does it add up to 1.2 something or other?

 

[fedgolfer]

As another option, why can't TSP just go with a money market fund, AGG, and ETFs of SPY, DWCP, and EFA? Allow current employees a one-time rollover into a brokerage account of our choosing. Make us pay a comparable fee as the private sector? That would save TSP participant costs in the long run, because we could do it through a conduit that is purely electonic driven and wouldn't require as many TSP employees or salaries by the Thrift Board.

I think as TSP participants we should have an elected official on the Board as well, maybe more. I think we should vote and approve of their salaries and any TSP employee salary. I think every current Board member should recuse themselves and be ordered to give full disclosure of any equity holdings in conjuncion to AGG, the S&P 500, Wilshire 4500 and the EAFE. We are entitled to know that their choices in our TSP funds are not involved with the Board's personal motives.

 

[nnuut]

I've a headache!
View attachment 2793

 

[fedgolfer]

Does anyone have a relative or friend at a high level in a large investment bank? I'm sure if we informed them that there is a large group of unhappy TSP participants, they could create a fund or comparable vehicle for us -- and more importantly, some leverage on powerful ears. The idea may get lauged at but its worth a try.

If they think its worth the trouble and potential $$$, I'm sure they could get Congress to move or at least get a competing contract in there. If we can find a voice more powerful than ours (like a large investment bank that can claim they're for the rights and freedoms of investors), i'm sure in the long run they could make far greater progress than the wealthiest, most powerful 3000 TSP "traders". It would be a way of getting potentially more than 3000 high net worth investors to roll over into their hands. I think the Board would be more willing to comprimise if they knew there existence could be challenged.

I have some buddies from college that work for some IBs but they're not board room execs -- worth asking though. On the low end, if there are 3000 traders x a minimum of $100,000 per account, they're looking at an issue worth exploring.

 

[wv-girl]

I've a headache!
View attachment 2793

Maybe you shouldn't have watched that youtube video twice. Once was enuf.:nuts:

 

[FogSailing]

It's more than ridiculous....it's worthy of a class action suit...

FS