What YOU can do to fight back - IFT limit

[James48843]

I think whoever is going to file suit, ought to start with ETAC members as defendants in civil court- the board could not have authorized Long to suspend IFTs by internet if the ETAC had told them no.

 

[James48843]

New TSPSHAREHOLDER.ORG newsletter out tonight:

http://tspshareholder.org/newsletters/Vol2_No8.html

Last one before the NPRM cutoff. Have you already sent in an objection?

 

[James48843]

Note:

Intercepted communication data:

Note from Greg Long to the ETAC members regarding limits:

View attachment 3680
View attachment 3681​

This is the latest intel I have.​

 

[James48843]

From: senator@isakson.senate.gov [mailto:senator@isakson.senate.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 9:29 AM
To: XXX.XXXXX@us.army.mil
Subject: A Response From Johnny Isakson

<http://www.isakson.senate.gov>


Dear XXXXX:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Thrift Savings Plan. I appreciate your thoughts and the opportunity to respond.



As you are well aware, the Thrift Savings Plan is a retirement savings and investment plan for federal employees and it is very similar to 401(k) plans offered to employees of private corporations.

Ultimately, it is up to the federal employee to decide how much of their income will be invested into a thrift savings plan. The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board is the independent government agency responsible for managing the Thrift Savings Plan. I understand your frustration regarding the board's decision to impose new restrictions on inter-fund transfers.

Currently, there is no legislation regarding this specific issue. Should such legislation come before me in the Senate, I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.



Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my web site at
http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm
<http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm>

(Isakson is the junior Republican Senator from Georgia. Wikipedia says he's ranked 7th most conservative in the Senate).

 

[brucemh]

Note:

Intercepted communication data:

Note from Greg Long to the ETAC members regarding limits:

View attachment 3680
View attachment 3681​

This is the latest intel I have.​

Could be a typo, but why are 549 shareholders identified on page 1 as violating the 3 interfund transfers limit in February, when on page 2 only 547 will receive letters and be limited to snail mail interfund transfers? Are two shareholders getting special treatment?

 

[Asylum]

I highly suspect that well connected TSP'ers were never sent the dreaded "Letter" and that they will never be restricted to 2 reallocations per month either.

 

[weatherweenie]

Just faxed the following:
Thomas K. Emswiler, General Counsel
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
1250 H Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
Fax: (202) 942-1676

Dear Mr. Emswiler:

I attempted to make an interfund transfer (IFT) of my Thrift Savings Funds (TSP) and found that I was locked out of the TSP internet site system.

I was aware that TSP planned to implement a new plan that limits the number of IFTs in May. I was not aware restrictions would be imposed prior to the new plan being implemented as I never received any such notification.

For the TSP Board to summarily take the new and radically change the TSP fund with out input from members is wrong.

Add to that, for the TSP Board to lock its members out of their funds with the out due process, giving me legal notice of its intent, is reprehensible. I now find myself unable make transfers, except by a paper form, through U.S. mail, when TSP gets around to processing it.

Approximately 3,500 other members are, as I understand it, also either locked into the G funds unable to move into equity funds; or, stuck in the equities funds, afraid and/or unable to timely move to the G fund (treasure funds) to safeguard their retirement.

On April 8, 2008, I call the TSP “contact us” line and requested the IFT sanction be lifted on my account because I did not receive notice of their intended sanctions action. My request was denied. I also made a similar request to the TSP board which was also refused.

Mr. Emswiler, both the TSP Board and Mr. Gregory T. Long, TSP’s Executive Directory, are now needlessly causing me and around 3,500 other TSP members real and irreparable harm. That damage will potentially amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. All of this is ocurring with out due process.

Sincerely,

 

[James48843]

To all:

Just so you know- this afternoon we closed down the on-line petition, printed out the results (316 pages), and then spent the afternoon and evening faxing in every single comment to the TSP comment line, doing it 50 pages at a time, with a little time between sets, so that others could fax in their opposition too.

Final number of comments opposed: 3,944 just from us.

thanks everyone who signed the petition.

If you want to see what everyone said- I'll caution you- there are LOTS of people who took part in the campaign:

(in Adobe Acrobat, the file is 3.08 megs of opposition).

If nothing else, it makes for fun reading. Here is the link to the final submission:

http://tspshareholder.org/data/reverse-the-decision.pdf

Thanks everybody for pitching in.

We gave it one hell-uv-a-hail-mary try.

Now the ball is in their court.

 

[Braveheart]

Note:

Intercepted communication data:

Note from Greg Long to the ETAC members regarding limits:

View attachment 3680
View attachment 3681​

This is the latest intel I have.​

Wow and this is the numbers guy Mr Long what is 2+2 answer "5 no my bad 6" Pissa good to see "W" hired Brownie's relative. The letter shows just how low the IQ is of the man behind this matter. He has 2 outs blame it on a typo by his office or apparently 2 members probably had some good intel on him for him to let them make unlimited trades or maybe a Presidential Pardon was given. This is why the TSP lost 36 Million with this clown flying the plane the letter shows his hand. This was a plan to get EVERYONE SCARED and FORCED into the G FUND so the FED would use our money once again.

 

[Braveheart]

How many of "the 549" got the "end of March" letter with the referenced explanation of how to make snail mail IFT's? Let's see, the restrictions went into effect at NOON March 31. WHY would Long wait until THE END of March to educate those being penalized, unless it is for punishment?

INNOCENT until PROVEN QUILTY unless you are one of 3.9 Million members of the TSP. How Mr. Long, Barclay's is treated should be the same. The FRTIB is GUILTY of FRAUD and ABUSE OF POWER to PUBLICALLY PROCLAIM MEMBERS OF THE TSP WERE QUILTY OF __________ ? WHAT & SINCE THE 549 ARE QUILTY OF _______ WE WILL PENALIZE THEM FOR _______WHAT ?

Mr. Long and his name have made it all the way to the Marines in Iraq. The Military knows he's a sell out with all of the FRTIB. Imagine fighting for your country but you don't know what the hell your fighting for any more. Imagine seeing all the men and women who gave their lives to this country or are coming home with no limbs, PTSD, brain injuries to see President Bush trying to take your benefits from you, the DAV is back logged, limited help from anyone in Congress or the Senate, Walter Reed scandel that was a cover-up until exposed, Marines homeless and waiting for benefits and care. Now there is Mr. Long playing a game with the Pension Fund.

 

[Guest2]

Now the ball is in their court.

Until I find a way to take them to mine !

 

[Guest2]

Your signature expresses my sentiments exactly!

You are wiser and more knowledable then you give yourself
credit for. I always read your opinions and coments. Believe
me, you have a lot to offer and I take full advantage. Thanks !

 

[qibovin]

To all:

Just so you know- this afternoon we closed down the on-line petition, printed out the results (316 pages), and then spent the afternoon and evening faxing in every single comment to the TSP comment line, doing it 50 pages at a time, with a little time between sets, so that others could fax in their opposition too.

Final number of comments opposed: 3,944 just from us.

thanks everyone who signed the petition.

If you want to see what everyone said- I'll caution you- there are LOTS of people who took part in the campaign:

(in Adobe Acrobat, the file is 3.08 megs of opposition).

If nothing else, it makes for fun reading. Here is the link to the final submission:

http://tspshareholder.org/data/reverse-the-decision.pdf

Thanks everybody for pitching in.

We gave it one hell-uv-a-hail-mary try.

Now the ball is in their court.

Well that explains the "Check status of receiving fax" error I kept getting. I figured they just turned the thing off on their way out the door yesterday afternoon. I am encouraged to know that it was just "busy." Thank you, James, and everyone for all the work you've done.

Now if we can just get that injunction under way...

 

[JonesH2O]

Received the following email from GovExec.com newsletters this morning:

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008
Fair Trade
By Brittany R. Ballenstedt

Federal employee groups are at odds over whether new trading restrictions for the Thrift Savings Plan are in the best interest of the plan's 3.9 million participants.

The comment period on a proposal to limit the transfers opened last month. The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board has recommended allowing participants only two interfund transfers per month, after which additional transfers would be allowed only into the government securities (G) fund.

The comment period ended on Wednesday and several members of the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, which consists of labor unions and other federal employee groups, have weighed in on the proposal.

Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, proposed setting no limits on interfund transfers at the present time, noting that "the hallmark of the TSP is simplicity." She argued that "less draconian" methods adopted by the board -- letters to participants and publicity about the costs of 3,500 participants trading frequently -- already have tackled the problem of excessive interfund transfers.

Since November, the board has implemented a number of interim reforms designed to crack down on frequent trading by more than 3,500 TSP participants. An analysis by TSP officials of the international (I) fund found that in September and October 2007, the average daily trade was $224 million, well above the daily trade figures of $49 million in 2006 and $27 million in 2005.

Interim reforms included sending letters to the 3,500 participants urging them to scale back their transfers to three per month. Though many participants stopped their frequent trading activity, 549 exceeded the interim three-per-month rule, and TSP officials have since required those individuals to trade by mail.

So far, the interim rules have curbed frequent trading. At a board meeting in March, officials said interfund transfers declined significantly, falling from 260,044 in January to 137,320 in February.

"It seems to us that the problem has been greatly reduced and may be completely resolved in the future," Kelley said. "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, attach a fee for servicing the transfer."

Jacqueline Simon, public policy director for the American Federation of Government Employees, proposed allowing TSP participants four interfund transfers per month, with unlimited transfers available into the G Fund. The union also suggested charging participants a fee of 2 percent of the value of a trade for more than four interfund transfers.

"Numerous AFGE members have expressed their support for charging the full cost of excessive interfund transfers to individual traders," Simon wrote. "We believe that not only will this serve as a disincentive to imprudent, high-risk behavior, it will either minimize or even eliminate the adverse impact of frequent trading on those who refrain from the practice."

Other members of the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, however, believe the proposed restrictions serve the interests of all the plan's participants by keeping low the administrative costs of the plan.

"A small fraction of participants have driven up the costs for the 3.9 million Thrift Savings Plan participants," said Susan Tsui Grundmann, general counsel for the National Federation of Federal Employees. "Keeping costs as low as possible by using a simple system will help ensure the greatest investment return for all participants while maintaining the fundamental principles of the fund: long-term investment and enhancement."

Darryl Perkinson, president of the Federal Managers Association, pointed out that the TSP was never designed to be a day-trading benefit for federal workers, but rather an investment option to allow workers to grow their accounts to support their retirement.

"Despite the arguments of the day traders, most experts suggest that moving your funds at the dynamic levels practiced by some does not really increase your result," Perkinson said.

TSP Legislative Director Thomas Trabucco said on Tuesday that officials will not consider comments or establish final rules until the comment period is over. "I expect it will be at least a few days until we have something to say," he said.

 

[Guest2]

Received the following email from GovExec.com newsletters this morning:

Thanks for the heads-up JonesH2O. It's good to read
that our Unions have addressed this issue in public !
Your effort to keep us informed is always appreciated !

 

[brucemh]

To all:

Just so you know- this afternoon we closed down the on-line petition, printed out the results (316 pages), and then spent the afternoon and evening faxing in every single comment to the TSP comment line, doing it 50 pages at a time, with a little time between sets, so that others could fax in their opposition too.

Final number of comments opposed: 3,944 just from us.

thanks everyone who signed the petition.

If you want to see what everyone said- I'll caution you- there are LOTS of people who took part in the campaign:

(in Adobe Acrobat, the file is 3.08 megs of opposition).

If nothing else, it makes for fun reading. Here is the link to the final submission:

http://tspshareholder.org/data/reverse-the-decision.pdf

Thanks everybody for pitching in.

We gave it one hell-uv-a-hail-mary try.

Now the ball is in their court.

Thank you James! If you receive any "intel" on how they plan to respond to the thousands of negative comments, let us know.

I believe they don't have to respond individually to every comment, especially if there are duplicate comments. Still, they have a significant job facing them as they go through all the comments and organize them into general categories to start preparing their responses. I can only hope they are getting a sense of the long-term battle they have started. Wisdom would suggest they try to sit down with representatives of TSPshareholders.org and the ETAC, and negotiate a compromise that reduces the chance of future litigation or Congressional action. Unfortunately, based on their behavior to date, I fear they will attempt to ram their original proposal through unchanged.

Unlike some of the other commenters on this site, I don't see some larger conspiracy to manipulate the TSP for the benefit of the Federal Government or private funds. What I do see is two very misguided and stubborn individuals who think they are right and refuse to backdown. Their clear personal bias toward passive investing causes them to be aghast when they see other investors actively managing their own money. In the worst form on Nannyism, they rush in to protect us all. If only we were elightened enough to understand their wonderfully good intentions. Sorry for the rant.

 

[FundSurfer]

...What I do see is two very misguided and stubborn individuals who think they are right and refuse to backdown. Their clear personal bias toward passive investing causes them to be aghast when they see other investors actively managing their own money. In the worst form on Nannyism, they rush in to protect us all. If only we were elightened enough to understand their wonderfully good intentions. Sorry for the rant.

I think I hear a lot of arrogance in their tone. That arrogance may keep them from compromising.

I do look forward to seeing them tap dance with answers to objections.

 

[James48843]

Note:

I was just reading over on federalradionews.com a recent interview with Tom Trabucco, in which he said that 73% of 401K plans had restrictions. (See http://federalnewsradio.com/emedia/112571.mp3 )

So I went and looked up the specific Hewett-Jackson report he was citing- and then I read it. *(Note to reporters- -- when someone throws out a number- go look it up yourself, and doulbe check the facts so that you can see who is telling the truth). \

(For the whole report, click on this link: http://federalnewsradio.com/?sid=1372073&nid=169 and then go to the second page, and see the hotlink at the bottom of the page).

Here is what the report said:

[FONT=Arial,Bold]Transfers and Restrictions[/FONT]
Nearly three-quarters of plan sponsors (73%) have some type of transfer restrictions in place. Eleven percent of
plans restrict transfers on all funds and 62% restrict only on certain funds. Over half of employers (55%)
acknowledge they added the restriction at the request of the fund manager. Across available asset classes,​

international funds were most likely to have trading restrictions (73% of plans).

So yes, 73% of plans have put some kind of a restriction in place. But only 11% have some kind of restriction in place on all funds. IN 63% of the cases, the restrictions ONLY apply to the international fund.

 

[BlueMax]

I think I hear a lot of arrogance in their tone. That arrogance may keep them from compromising.

I do look forward to seeing them tap dance with answers to objections.

I don't think those two "Boneheads" even care. They will make a very passive attempt to whitewash the whole thing and still implement everything they intended to from the beginning.
They don't feel any real pressure to really consider anything else.

 

[tsptalk]

Unlike some of the other commenters on this site, I don't see some larger conspiracy to manipulate the TSP for the benefit of the Federal Government or private funds. What I do see is two very misguided and stubborn individuals who think they are right and refuse to backdown. Their clear personal bias toward passive investing causes them to be aghast when they see other investors actively managing their own money. In the worst form on Nannyism, they rush in to protect us all. If only we were elightened enough to understand their wonderfully good intentions. Sorry for the rant.

I think you hit the nail on the head, bruce.