Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2033 | +0.0011 | +0.64% |
| F | $13.5947 | +0.0048 | +1.95% |
| C | $13.6927 | -0.0027 | +3.59% |
| S | $17.9723 | +0.0233 | +9.18% |
| I | $18.5302 | +0.1287 | -0.04% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.1474 | +0.0291 | +3.28% |
| L 2030 | $15.9136 | +0.0249 | +2.93% |
| L 2020 | $15.6956 | +0.0208 | +2.45% |
| L 2010 | $15.4351 | +0.0080 | +1.41% |
| L Income | $14.0647 | +0.0064 | +1.33% |
Looking Out for Your Best Interests? Congress, Tobacco and Changes to the TSP
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Congressional Interest in the TSP
DHHS
Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:52 AM
Post Reply
An important sentence in the article:
"Congress may be getting around to changing the investment philosophy of the TSP. And, if Congress sees an advantage in changing a program with billions of dollars at stake and some small portion of those billions represent your personal financial future in retirement, you may want to pay attention."
If participants in the TSP begin to see the kind of political meddling in the TSP we have all experienced in our jobs, many will withdraw their money and reinvest it elsewhere. Remember, Congress has already raided the G Fund twice to raise the national debt ceiling. Stay tuned.
TSP ACCOUNT FOR RETIREMENT.
BOR
Fri Apr 3, 2009 10:11 AM
Post Reply
It appears like Congressman Davis has nothing better to do than to monkey around with the TSP. Is he a member or does he just see a pot of money and wants to get his grubby paws into it. For what ever reason, all of my WHINING will not change things. At least in the presidential election I only had one vote for the candidate that I felt would do the best job for this (my) country. With the TSP, I do not even have this one vote, its up to someone else to decide for what they think is my best interests (not) and if they decide to eliminate indexed funds then it is NOT my (our) best interests.
re:
DoD
Fri Apr 3, 2009 10:18 AM
Post Reply
Umm..
So who exactly *chooses* which of these 'other investment options' make it to the list to stand with apparent equality next to the G, F, C, S, and I?
I'm already irritated by the erratic way the TSP chooses to implement your interfund transfer requests. (9/26 to 10/10 in particular cost me a bundle more than the 9/29 to 10/09 I had submitted for my IFT requests.) It will be all too easy for this to evolve into a byzantine paper pile that will ultimately cost us more in administrative fees (not to mention the whole question of accountability) than if we had direct control over our own little funds with our chosen, actively-managed firms in the first place.
But hey. Congress gets to choose whom to hand this fat piece of pie. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: re:
Fed
Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:12 AM
I do agree that the investments should be based on the quality of the investment and not on political correctness.
Bill number
DoD Navy
Fri Apr 3, 2009 10:20 AM
Post Reply
The bill refered to is HR 1804 and can be fiund at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:3:./temp/~bdh7br::|/bss/d111query.html|
Politicians keep hands off
cbp
Fri Apr 3, 2009 10:42 AM
Post Reply
'But Gregory Long, executive director of the board, said the law has dictated the TSP's focus on funds that track the performance of the stock market rather than the use of active managers to make trades aimed at outperforming the market. The purpose has been to minimize risks and fees for users and avoid concerns over political manipulation of large pools of funds. Long said the conference report on the creation of the TSP specifically noted that active fund management could lead to lawmakers or interest groups pressuring fund fiduciaries to create investment options that would support specific industries.'
Politicians see a pool of money and want to get their hands on it. Actively managed funds have significant higher costs and yet the returns are not significantly better.
No sick leave provision?
noaa
Fri Apr 3, 2009 10:42 AM
Post Reply
I thought this bill had a provision to include retirement SICK leave creditable for retirement for FERS employees (ie mimicking whats now in place for CSRS employees)?
Is this no longer the case ?
Man, I hope thats not the case not...
Re: No sick leave provision?
FedSmith.com
Fri Apr 3, 2009 11:15 AM
TSP
Federal government
Fri Apr 3, 2009 10:58 AM
Post Reply
First, I invest in the G fund for personal reasons. I may change, but we will see. I do not critisize those that invest in other areas because that is their call. I also have a CSRS pension when I retire.
I like the availability of the Roth option. I would rather pay the tax now than later on the investment and the earnings. I wish it came earlier. others may have different ideas. Their call.
I am not sure that I would want to see self directed thrift plan. Remember that the indexes have lost 30-50% of their value. These investors may still have a profit. I do not know. I believe that actively investing in stocks could result in a much larger loss. This is part of the retirement plan for FERS people. It is not a supplement like for the CSRS people. Actively investing in stocks does not fit the security issue of a retirement plan. If you lose, then what happens?
I am very opposed to any social engineering with the thrift plan. let individuals do it if they wish.