What YOU can do to fight back - IFT limit

Sort by newest Sort by date
CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE: I just spoke with a staff member in my Congresswoman's office. Here's what he shared with me:

- Senator Collins is currently (3:00 EST) being briefed by the TSP reps. Her staff will have some indication of the Senator's view of this after the briefing is over.

- He spoke with the Oversight Committee (Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia).
* The Majority members (Dems) are quite satisfied with the actions the TSP Board is taking. They aren't interested in the facts.
* The Minority group (Rep) are in a "wait and see" mode.
BLUF: No one is doing anything to slow down or interfere.

- I raised the issue of the potential violation of Federal Code due to the TSP Board already limiting interfund transfers for those "frequent offenders". He will attempt to get a ruling from counsel on this matter.
**I'M PUSHING FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. IT'S NOT EASY**:mad:

His advice was for us to contact the sub-committe members directly.:notrust:
Danny K. Davis, Chairman
Kenny Marchant, Ranking Member

Anyone in MAINE should contact Senator Collins office IMMEDIATELY!! by phone, e-mail, fax, any and all means possible. This appears to be our best possible foot-in-the-door on this issue.

I'll keep you posted as I get more info.
 
So is there a politician - or a candidate - who is going to fight for us? Or are these different degrees of lip service?

I have my doubts about that branch of government right now; might have better luck with independent oversight at this point (OIG,OSC).

Basic question for the audience: Is this Long fella actually responsible for this - or is he carrying someone else's torch - the WA post biop had him as 40 yo in office for 6 months?
 
Last edited:
TSPinWV said:
CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE: I just spoke with a staff member in my Congresswoman's office. Here's what he shared with me:

- Senator Collins is currently (3:00 EST) being briefed by the TSP reps. Her staff will have some indication of the Senator's view of this after the briefing is over.

- He spoke with the Oversight Committee (Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia).
* The Majority members (Dems) are quite satisfied with the actions the TSP Board is taking. They aren't interested in the facts.
* The Minority group (Rep) are in a "wait and see" mode.
BLUF: No one is doing anything to slow down or interfere.

- I raised the issue of the potential violation of Federal Code due to the TSP Board already limiting interfund transfers for those "frequent offenders". He will attempt to get a ruling from counsel on this matter.
**I'M PUSHING FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. IT'S NOT EASY**:mad:

His advice was for us to contact the sub-committe members directly.:notrust:
Danny K. Davis, Chairman
Kenny Marchant, Ranking Member

Anyone in MAINE should contact Senator Collins office IMMEDIATELY!! by phone, e-mail, fax, any and all means possible. This appears to be our best possible foot-in-the-door on this issue.

I'll keep you posted as I get more info.
Click to expand...

Senator Collins would not be briefed by the TSP Reps who are they ? She would have to call for an immediate Hearing of the TSP and her Committee they stalled on her before and ignored Congress so if she was contacted by anyone or if her office contacted anyone of the TSP then it would not be on the record. There is no way Senator Collins would take a briefing from the TSP since she exposed them in 2003 and 2004 and found them QUILTY of WASTE AND ABUSE. All that is stated would be/must be on the record in a hearing. This involves 4 MILLION EMPLOYEES there is no way she would take that on without a Hearing. I would re-check that staff member. That is waaay to much responsibility to put on the word of a staff member.
 
amoeba said:
Basic question for the audience: Is this Long fella actually responsible for this - or is he carrying someone else's torch - the WA post biop had him as 40 yo in office for 6 months?
Click to expand...

The problem is not fundementally Long. It's Tracey Ray, the Chief Investment Officer, who came from Maryland State Pension office (where they didn't sell, they only bought stocks), and her inabiltiy to see real costs compared to industry, and her inability to hear the people who were telling her that there isn't a problem.

The ETAC member sub for Colleen Kelly told me she had-took Ray to the TIAA CREF rep she used to know, and they talked for an hour- but when Ray wrote up the meeting minutes, and gave it to the board, Ray only wrote the points that supported her position, not the point that the TIAA CREF rep was making- that there is no problem with costs, and that TSP should be happy to have costs so low.

Long is not, in my opinion, culpable, except to the extent that he has failed to recongize the flaws in Ray's logic and data. For that, he is on the hotseat because he is the head guy.

But the real issues are:

1. Ray is wrong
2. The ETAC goes along with whatever the Board wants, without being fully engaged and looking into the data themselves,
3. The Board is wrong, in that it is going along with Ray without really looking into the data themselves,
4. There is no mechanism to communicate with the Thirft Board members themselves,
5. There is no mechanism for those who are NOT members of the direct ETAC groups to be able to have input into policy.

And that, my friends, is where we are today.
 
TSPinWV said:
CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE: I just spoke with a staff member in my Congresswoman's office. Here's what he shared with me:

- Senator Collins is currently (3:00 EST) being briefed by the TSP reps. Her staff will have some indication of the Senator's view of this after the briefing is over.

- He spoke with the Oversight Committee (Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia).
* The Majority members (Dems) are quite satisfied with the actions the TSP Board is taking. They aren't interested in the facts.
* The Minority group (Rep) are in a "wait and see" mode.
BLUF: No one is doing anything to slow down or interfere.

- I raised the issue of the potential violation of Federal Code due to the TSP Board already limiting interfund transfers for those "frequent offenders". He will attempt to get a ruling from counsel on this matter.
**I'M PUSHING FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. IT'S NOT EASY**:mad:

His advice was for us to contact the sub-committe members directly.:notrust:
Danny K. Davis, Chairman
Kenny Marchant, Ranking Member

Anyone in MAINE should contact Senator Collins office IMMEDIATELY!! by phone, e-mail, fax, any and all means possible. This appears to be our best possible foot-in-the-door on this issue.

I'll keep you posted as I get more info.
Click to expand...

The Oversite Committee is on Break from 3/17/08 - 3/28/08 which means they were gone on 3/14/08 so I wonder who this man spoke to I question that and would prefer the exact names for all I know someone from the TSP could post this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Senator Collins would not be briefed by the TSP Reps who are they ? She would have to call for an immediate Hearing of the TSP and her Committee they stalled on her before and ignored Congress so if she was contacted by anyone or if her office contacted anyone of the TSP then it would not be on the record. There is no way Senator Collins would take a briefing from the TSP since she exposed them in 2003 and 2004 and found them QUILTY of WASTE AND ABUSE. All that is stated would be/must be on the record in a hearing. This involves 4 MILLION EMPLOYEES there is no way she would take that on without a Hearing. I would re-check that staff member. That is waaay to much responsibility to put on the word of a staff member.

Democrats
Republicans
  • Rep. Tom Davis, Virginia, Ranking Minority Member
  • Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana
  • Rep. Christopher Shays, Connecticut
  • Rep. John M. McHugh, New York
  • Rep. John L. Mica, Florida
  • Rep. Mark E. Souder, Indiana
  • Rep. Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
  • Rep. Chris Cannon, Utah
  • Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
  • Rep. Michael Turner, Ohio
  • Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California
  • Rep. Kenny Marchant, Texas
  • Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, Georgia
  • Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina
  • Rep. Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
  • Rep. Brian Bilbray, California
  • Rep. Bill Sali, Idaho
  • Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio
 
Last edited:
TSPinWV said:
CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE: I just spoke with a staff member in my Congresswoman's office. Here's what he shared with me:

- Senator Collins is currently (3:00 EST) being briefed by the TSP reps. Her staff will have some indication of the Senator's view of this after the briefing is over.

- He spoke with the Oversight Committee (Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia).
* The Majority members (Dems) are quite satisfied with the actions the TSP Board is taking. They aren't interested in the facts.
* The Minority group (Rep) are in a "wait and see" mode.
BLUF: No one is doing anything to slow down or interfere.

- I raised the issue of the potential violation of Federal Code due to the TSP Board already limiting interfund transfers for those "frequent offenders". He will attempt to get a ruling from counsel on this matter.
**I'M PUSHING FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. IT'S NOT EASY**:mad:

His advice was for us to contact the sub-committe members directly.:notrust:
Danny K. Davis, Chairman
Kenny Marchant, Ranking Member

Anyone in MAINE should contact Senator Collins office IMMEDIATELY!! by phone, e-mail, fax, any and all means possible. This appears to be our best possible foot-in-the-door on this issue.

I'll keep you posted as I get more info.
Click to expand...

Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia

Jurisdiction includes federal employee issues, non-appropriation municipal affairs of the District of Columbia, and the Postal Service, including post office namings, holidays, and celebrations.
Majority
Danny K. Davis, Chairman
Eleanor Holmes Norton
John P. Sarbanes
Elijah E. Cummings
Dennis J. Kucinich
Wm. Lacy Clay
Stephen F. Lynch

Minority
Kenny Marchant, Ranking Member
John M. McHugh
John L. Mica
Darrell E. Issa
Jim Jordan
 
Well I'm 42 and retiring from the military. I'm currently re-employed as a curricuum designer with a company provided 401. TSP allows me the option to leave it in, pull it all out, or pull a fixed amount out provided I leave in $1000.00. By pulling it out I get penalized 20% off the top, however, being in the lower income tax bracket I get most all of my money back at the end of the year anyhow. I'll just take my lump sum minus 20% and pay off a loan or two.
 
Please don't even mention EEO Complaints there isn't anyone who would take this case and win. The only action is a Legal Action not a Descrimination Case. They take years and what would be the descrimination ? The targeted group have a Legal Case but not until the TSP actually does freeze their accounts. Right now they are simple threats and as a group you have a solid case once they treat you differently.

Don't even mention the EEO process it really would only give them a laugh. You would have to prove in an Age Descrimination Case that there was no one except you that was targeted. Question #1. Were there any other similarity situated individuals who are your age that made trades? You can't prove that but as a GROUP All of You Have a Class Action Lawsuit the day it begins. Now one of the 600 will have to step up and I suggest you hire the same Law Office that took on the USPS and won I believe 40 Million could be more just don't have time to check.

Document everything from all the Newspaper Articles to everything you know about Mr. Long. Myself I would hire a Private Investigator and look into the entire Board and all their information for the past 7 years. Yup that would include the folks in Chicago and their ties to the TSP. The No Bid Contracts given to a Computer Company that wasted Millions things like that send people to jail. Mess and laugh at 4 Million Employees and watch how fast you fall. Look a Spitzer in NYC everyone has their day for some it's sooner than later.
 
anidoc said:
Since they are obviously targeting a group that keeps growing, maybe they are using the names on the petition. This may discourage people from signing since if they aren't restricted to snail mail yet, they don't want to risk it by signing and perhaps bringing attention to themselves.
Click to expand...

No, they are NOT using the names on the petition to send letters to.

The original letters sent out where those people identified in the period of November, December and January, who had made three or more moves each month. Those are the people who got the original letters.

I myself only moved twice in December, and therefore did not receive a letter.

When I talked to the TSP office in February, I asked how come I didn't get
a letter- and was told that the only people who were going to get restricted were those who previously got a letter and then continued moving three times or more a month- and that since my name was not on the list, I should not worry about getting a letter- they are only going after those who moved in Nov, Dec and January.

Sign today- as they are not adding anyone to the list based on signing the petition.
 
Braveheart said:
James can you lock the Hillary Clinton thread. The link has to be the same for their access and move it up a bit. They got the entire report and have the thread and this link. That is why the link can't change for access but not posting

http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=5650
Click to expand...

No. I have edit rights to delete words from posts, if necessary, but I don't have edit rights on that particular thread to lock the thread.

Sorry.

Try Tom. (tsptalk).
 
Note:

Stephan Barr at the Washington Post is doing a live Q&A right now at: (CLIPPED THE URL. THANKS- It's been done).

You might want to drift over there, and ask him "Since costs were lower in 2007 than 2006, and since the TSP Board hasn't said how much these new limits are going to save the overall fund per person, when do you plan to report on the real numbers involved?"

Or something to that affect.

Please be nice.
 
Last edited:
Results are in....:mad:

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?
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?
 
I notice Stephen Barr when asked the below question, managed to read it as $4 per IFT instead of $4 per year! Wonder if most TSPers have this same mis-belief.

"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?"
 
anidoc said:
Well did Pensacola correct him???:D
Click to expand...

somebody did, and Mr Barr sheepishly admitted essentially that he didn't have a good handle on the facts.

The fact is that it's $4 for each account holder to have the ability to have unlimited transfers. $4 x 3.5 million accounts is $14 million. Tracey Ray and company can then tout they saved the taxpayer $14 million, looks good on the ol' resume. Though there will still be a charge for the 3 IFTs per month scenario. Probably $3.50. <Still shaking my head ruefully>
 
Yes Pensacola did correct him! See below>>>>
---------------------------------------------

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.
 
Don't have any insights, eh? I'm just a mouthpiece? Hello, I work for the Washington Post and I didn't check my facts? Aren't the "costs" the heart of the argument? At least we finally met a reporter who tells the truth -- on some obscure blog Q and A.
 
FUTURESTRADER said:
somebody did, and Mr Barr sheepishly admitted essentially that he didn't have a good handle on the facts.

The fact is that it's $4 for each account holder to have the ability to have unlimited transfers. $4 x 3.5 million accounts is $14 million. Tracey Ray and company can then tout they saved the taxpayer $14 million, looks good on the ol' resume. Though there will still be a charge for the 3 IFTs per month scenario. Probably $3.50. <Still shaking my head ruefully>
Click to expand...


OK - look - as much as I do it, I think petitions, newsmen, and politicians at this point are getting us nowhere.

However, there may be something close enuf to prima facie evidence of misrepresentation to congress for the OIG/OSC to stop this at least temporarily, and in James48843's earlier post about misrepresentation of meeting proceedings. If there is misrepresentation for personal gain (i.e., to show cost savings that don't exist and thereby get promoted, or as a kickback to save costs to Barclay's), then let's summarize it. Let's have some names, dates, times, places. Summarize the case, and maybe one or more of us can file something. Time is short.
 
Well - I just wish I had some of the personal information that Jame's did - cause I would take it downstairs to OIG in 2 seconds flat and then let whatever hit the fan.

In the mean time - I will continue to be among those who "attempt to beat the market" - goes up 4% in one day - what did I do? (duh - big secret - selling rally in bear market). I think I will continue my "attempt"s for the next week or so, hopefully much longer.
 
Almost all of the information I have has been eithre made publically available in these pages, or in the newsletters sent out, or are off the TSP website, or are off the electronic reading room at FTRIB. The one case of personal knowledge I had gained in an in-person meeting with one ETAC member was a passing comment in a 45-minute discussion. I remember exactly what was said, (and I have some extensive notes) -- I simply had not posted it previously because it was not an issue before.

Anidoc- listen to this, and please hear what I say clearly-

Although we ALL agree that the numbers don't add up, that there is no reason in common sense for us to agree to any kind of limit or fee, we're continuing to look at ways to thrawrt the biggest issue of them all- the inability to move funds.

In 2007, the number of IFT's averaged about 200,000 a month. That works out to 2,400,00 IFTs conducted over the course of the year.

Ray cites three costs: 1. Direct trading costs (commissions, taxes); 2. "Lost income from potential interest" while waiting the three day period for the trade to clear, and:
3. Costs from fair value misses- trades conducted overnight AFTER the U.S. value is set.


Two point four million trades. Cost a total of $13 million (16 million in the I, offset by -4 million in the S, and then small change in the C and F).

That works out to $5.41 per IFT. that is what cost # 1 and #3 comibned cost. We don't know exactly what cost #2 is. She cannot provide that figure. So we can't give it a calcualted value. Whatever it is, it's small, but that is neither here nor there.

We all know that by addressing #3, we solve 3/4 or more of the I fund cost issue. We will continue to hammer them on that.

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.

So that is one of the options we need to push as a valid, acceptable option. No one out there can say NO to a price that covers all costs, and allows freedom to move. So that is going to be one of the options we're going to suggest. It's not the preferred option, but one of the acceptable options. What is unacceptable is total limits on numbers of trades.

Personally, my TSP account increased $12,544 yesterday. I didn't IFT out yesterday, because I am trying to keep to a twice a month limit. Instead, in my brokerage account outside TSP, I bought a significant amount of SDS yesteday- 2X short on S&P500 ETF's, so that I could gain from the known *(expected) delcine today. My analysys tells me we're going to go down to between 1280 and 1290 tomorrow, but then I fully expect we'll start rising again. I plan to sell my SDS tomorrow, and then go long with that same money in the 2X S&P500 long ETF tomorrow.

My suggestion to you is to start looking at ways to work outside with your other money, while we continue to fight this TSP battle.

Today was a victory. A very, very small one, but a victory none-the-less. We were able to pose some hard questions to Mr. Barr, and start generating the idea in his head that he, and the Washington Post, needs to look more into this. That was the whole point of getting some questions posted there today. I hope it works- We need at least ONE press journalist SOMEWHERE to really look hard at this, start asking the right questions, and break this story wide open.

Daylight is the best disinfectant. Take every advantage to make a hit-and-run attack to bring the subject into the daylight. When the journalists finally start asking real questions, we will all win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tsptalk
  • Article Article
Stocks bounce right back... Now what?
Replies
0
Views
295
tsptalk
tsptalk
TommyIV
Member Title Ladder
Replies
6
Views
265
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
  • Article Article
Stocks rally into resistance and the tariff announcement, but then...
Replies
0
Views
199
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
  • Article Article
Do you like roller coasters? An 8.5% rally yesterday, yet the S&P was down
Replies
2
Views
332
JTH
JTH
tsptalk
  • Article Article
Stocks succumb to the violence in the Middle East. Now what?
Replies
1
Views
158
nasa1974
nasa1974
Back
Top