you should be very interested in this issue if you want to keep your TSP money:

[SWAVET]

http://www.fedsmith.com/article/2566/do-you-trust-congress-your-tsp-investment.html

 

[tsptalk]

Yikes!

"As the pot of money in the TSP grows, Congress may not be able to resist the temptation to use it as it sees fit."

 

[nasa1974]

http://www.fedsmith.com/article/2566/do-you-trust-congress-your-tsp-investment.html

SWAVET, Thanks for the article. Very interesting. Keep us updated.

 

[Steel_Magnolia]

SWAVET, I second nasa's thanks. This article caught my eye, too. ttp://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=285266&postcount=6

So thanks for bringing attention to the issue by starting a new thread for the article. Gold star!

Maggie

 

[crws]

SWAVET, I second nasa's thanks. This article caught my eye, too. ttp://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=285266&postcount=6

So thanks for bringing attention to the issue by starting a new thread for the article. Gold star!

Maggie

I'd be in on a CRSIF.
That is/will continue to be a huge sector of growth.
As for the Senate and their sticky fingers, I'm not so sure that they can tap into funds designated to BlackRock. (All but G).
However, I could see them holding the 1% match until separation, and or saying going forward, Match performance earnings would be TSP balance based as if our contributions were fully invested in the G Fund....

 

[Afishegg]

Yeah but remember "their" money is also in there, I think it definately sounds scary but the robbers on the hill usually like to dabble with everyone else's money. I would imagine they'd have enough sense (not much though) to at LEAST know they shouldn't start playing with their own money.

 

[Boghie]

Well,

1. Don't 'invest' in the 'G Fund'. The assets in that fund are Social Security Bonds. They can be 'borrowed' by the Treasury at any time.
2. The other options would be additional funds to which you have the opportunity to invest in. I, personally, would love to see a REIT fund. It is the time to be buying into REITs. It wasn't the time five years ago. But, who could argue against the option of having that investment opportunity.
3. Watch out for any fund actively managed by the government. Maybe an actively managed treasury fund.
4. Watch out for an option to have a larger pension portion of FERS if you migrate assets to some pension holding fund. That will be a plaything of Congress.
5. And, finally, what's wrong with having funds for the socially conscious. I, personally, would not touch them with a 10 ft pole - but the opportunity to lose money should be available

Remember, the assets in F/C/S/I are NOT controlled by Congress or the government. They cannot directly touch them. However, they can indirectly touch them by increasing income taxes. Oh my, many of these goobers are trying to touch you right now, eh:laugh:

 

[Silverbird]

If they mess around with the funds too much, some of us would have to divest ourselves from TSP as it might be too close to our work. For instance, if you worked on environmental or health and safety regulations, limiting investment in companies based on their enviromental records would cause conflict of interest.Limit to small and women-owned business, what if you work for SBA?
(I'm just making up examples here).

 

[JimmyJoe]

Yeah but remember "their" money is also in there, I think it definately sounds scary but the robbers on the hill usually like to dabble with everyone else's money. I would imagine they'd have enough sense (not much though) to at LEAST know they shouldn't start playing with their own money.

Very good fish.

 

[Boghie]

That is an amazing thought SilverBird. That is probably one of the reasons why we can only invest in broad index funds.

Congress may want to grab our assets, but whoever set it up was good to go. Our assets (other than the 'G Fund' and our pension) are managed by a holding company in our name. Basically, we own a 401(k). We just have to watch out for enticing funds that can be appropriated by the Feds.

If they mess around with the funds too much, some of us would have to divest ourselves from TSP as it might be too close to our work. For instance, if you worked on environmental or health and safety regulations, limiting investment in companies based on their enviromental records would cause conflict of interest.Limit to small and women-owned business, what if you work for SBA?
(I'm just making up examples here).

 

[Silverbird]

That's what we were told informally, TSP is in broad funds so that any bureaucrat can invest in them, no matter what job. At certain pay grades and security clearances, you have to list all your investments except TSP to show you have no conflict of interest in your investments. It would be a pretty crappy retirement plan if your security clearance and work made you ineligible.

 

[Buffalo_Nickle]

How do we know they are in this system? Many through the years (ie. secret service ;fbi; and other affliates in the DC area, or in the know) had a chance to convert the pensions to the Washington DC police pension fund that in fact pays way better than CSRS. Ever hear of that?

 

[JimmyJoe]

How do we know they are in this system? Many through the years (ie. secret service ;fbi; and other affliates in the DC area, or in the know) had a chance to convert the pensions to the Washington DC police pension fund that in fact pays way better than CSRS. Ever hear of that?

No. I know that FERs on the hill get more than 1% of their high 3 X years of service. Is it 2% high 3 plus their TSP? Da boyz is buzy woiking on the hill ya know.

 

[SWAVET]

This is a followup article about Congress and our TSP:

http://www.fedsmith.com/article/2568/keeping-perspective-tsp-your-retirement-future.html

 

[Show-me]

No. I know that FERs on the hill get more than 1% of their high 3 X years of service. Is it 2% high 3 plus their TSP? Da boyz is buzy woiking on the hill ya know.

1.7 same as all LEO.