I feel for the few that want to drive cost up, that maybe they should go into working on Wall Street and leave the rest of us to do what we feel is right and not have to pay for your nervesness. If you have that much time on your hands then I think you need more work to do...
Re: TSP Restriction
Supervisor DOL Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:05 AM
You do yourself injustice sir when you across as ignorance as bliss.
Surely you realize that saying put in the market only weakens your portfolio over the years?
Thrift Savings Plan
Supervising LR Specialist VA Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:45 AM
There should be no restrictions on trade, but the individual employee should bear the expense of his/her trade.
Re: Thrift Savings Plan
H.R. Specialist VA Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:17 PM
That's an interesting idea. Wonder why nobody thought of it before?
Re: Thrift Savings Plan
HR Specialist Small agency Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:59 AM
Because setting up a system to individualize payments like that would, in itself, cost money.
They saved 5 million and we lost 5 billion
Technician USPS Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:02 AM
Ok, they saved 5 million and we lost 50 billion. Many folks are now buy and hope. Move from stocks during a sell-off and you can’t get back in until the next month. The limit should be higher. Minimum should be four moves per month TSP police, not two!
TSP Day Traders
Program Analyst Treasury Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:19 AM
Hooray for the TSP for looking out for all Federal employees and not caving in to the demands of the few who want to use the TSP in a manner contrary to its intent at the expense of all Federal employees. My comment to those employees is if you want to be a day trader, quit your government job and go ahead. Also, I hope that you are only working on your TSP trades during non-work hours or during your lunch hour, and using your own computer and online account. Bottom line for me - TSP Board, keep up the good work!
Re: TSP Day Traders
Beach Bum Retired DoD Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:46 PM
OK, lets try and get this straight for those of you who think a trade is completed instantly. You place a trade, it takes up to 48 hrs for it to process.
Now I know people in government love their labels, but if it takes 48 hrs to process that is two trades a week.
That is not day trading. Find another label and another soapbox.
TSP
retired USPS Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:44 AM
I think the name should be changed to the TSK TSK Fund.
I never kept more than $3000 in TSK, er TSP. Only what I could aford to lose.
This is government at it's finest. Almost as good as the Postal Service, hehehehehe.
Re: TSP
NEPA Coordinator Forest Service Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:28 AM
The TSP IS government at its finest. It outshines most other private 401(k) plans. And that's all it is, a 401(k) plan. It never promised to give you a set return on your investment. If you can't stand the thought of losing a dime, then you should keep all your money in the G fund, which barely keeps up with inflation. But a person is foolish not to take advantage of the tax break as well as the government matching funds. I'm sorry retired USPS feels like he beat the system, I think he lost an incredible opportunity.
Re: TSP
Independent Thinker DoN Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:09 AM
I'm glad I didn't keep less than $3,000 in my TSP account; in four years it's increased by $100,000. I am continuing to put money in the C fund and will reap the benefits once the stock market bounces back. Yes, it may take several years but I'll have a lot more stock by then. Warren Buffet didn't make his billions by sitting on his thumb when the market was down.
none
Receptionist SEC-Boston Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:48 AM
ouch!!
Pay As You Go
Psychologist VA Mon Oct 20, 2008 9:04 AM
I firmly believe that investors in TSP funds should have a plan for asset allocation, and should adhere to that plan. Therefore, those individuals who trade among funds are, by definition, not adhering to a long-range plan and they are traders, not investors. The TSP was not designed for trading, but for investing. I believe that if traders want to trade, then they should be charged for their activities. I INVEST and I feel that trading activity is costing ME money, when the traders are the ones who should be paying for their own foolishness. So, I would greatly prefer a Pay-Per Trade system, in which EVERY SINGLE TRADE resulted in a charge to that individual account holder. That would serve as a disincentive to those who wish to TRADE in their accounts rather than INVEST in their accounts. As an investor, I shift assets once or twice each year in order to rebalance my portfolio. I would not object to paying a fee if I knew that those abusing the TSP paid their share, too.
IFT Restrictions
Review Clerk US Postal Service Mon Oct 20, 2008 9:32 AM
It's plain and simple that the restictictions on interfund transfers is costing knowlegable investors millions of dollars by not allowing them to take advantage of the huge down turns in the market. If you have moved your money twice in the early part of the month, you must wait until the next month to transfer back into the market. With the current volitility, one can miss out on huge gains due to the restrictions. I have lost nearly 20 percent in my TSP over the last month while making 300 percent in my Roth IRA. How fair is it to restrict our retirement savings?
Re: IFT Restrictions
Nameless, Faceless Nobody DOD Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:49 AM
If they are that knowledgeable, (and even Warren Buffet declines to say he is knowledgeable enough,) then let those who want to play in market timing open a private account with Charles Schwab, and go play!
If they need the protections and cost break given by the TSP then they need to accept that TSP is NOT the appropriate vehicle for market timing. The costs to the rest of us is far more than just the trading fees.
TSP Not a Day Trader Account
Program Analyst Veterans Affairs Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:03 AM
I have an investment strategy. I have tracked and watched the ebb and flow of the TSP since 1987. In the 2000-2003 period, I made money following my strategy and I did not have to trade more than once a month and in most cases went several months without moving in and out of funds.
I have another account in which I have money that I can day trade with. I see the allure of day trading and one can make a lot of money playing the market but you can loose it just as fast. I don't want my TSP to be a crap shoot like day trading is and I don't want to pay for someone else's foolishness. If one wants to day trade divide what you are saving and put some of it into another savings/trader account and go for it but you'd likely have as good of luck and more fun it you took it to Vegas and stood at the crap tables for a week.
BUY Buy BUY
manager usda Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:11 AM
The latest direction is per Warren Buffett the Economic Advisor to the OBAMA campaign. The Stock problems are strictly fear and is all brought on to get OBAMA elected by the democratic leadership so you better BUY BUY BUY on stocks. American STOCKS are gonna soar.
Re: BUY Buy BUY
Genius (Colin Powells Brother) DOD Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:58 PM
When BUFFET buys we all should BUY.
Thanks
special projects rep USDA RD Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:22 AM
Thanks for dousing the flames of rancor with a healthy dose of facts. It's easy to make a bold statement based on opinion, a little harder to pull together fascts and display them dispassionately so that people can make informed decisions.
I have no sympathy for the day traders. If they want to get rich that way they should take their money out of the TSP and trade commercially. I am not interested is subsidizing their costs.
Abolishing the 401(k) tax break
NEPA Coordinator Forest Service Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:53 AM
Hello! Is anyone listening? There ought to be a huge outcry over the insane proposal to abolish the 401(k) tax break as well as the proposed mandatory 5% savings that would only receive a 3% return, possibly only staying even with inflation. How in the world is that going to encourage people to save for their retirement, much less help them supplement the meager social security benefit? Government gives subsidies for home ownership, oil and gas development, alternative energy development, farms, and a thousand other activities that the government wants to encourage. Why take away the sinlge most important incentive for people to save long-term for their own retirements? And then add insult to injury by forcing us to save at a measly 3%. Hello! Is anyone listening?? This is scarey stuff. They can take 5% of my Social Security tax and apply it to a savings account, but don't force me to "invest" in what I believe is a loser. Or give us back CSRS. And I'm a Democrat, BTW.
Re: Abolishing the 401(k) tax break
H.R. Specialist VA Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:23 PM
You're right. This isn't Russia ... is it?
Re: Abolishing the 401(k) tax break
Engineer DCMA Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:24 PM
I never once considered that this kind of talk had anything to do with concern for people saving for retirement. Creating a fund like this has no other purpose than to give lawmakers another pot of money to get their hands on and squander to their own benefit.
Re: Abolishing the 401(k) tax break
Salior DON Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:38 PM
Is it possible we could all be put in the CSRS? If things are this bad is that possible?
Re: Abolishing the 401(k) tax break
Diversity Manager DOL Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:52 PM
As far as the taxpayers go eliminating CRS and FERS would be to their liking since defined pension plans have ended for the most part and none none are inflation protected
special government guaranteed bond fund
Systems Analyst - Sociologist Retired Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:56 AM
If the special government guaranteed bond fund is as "special" as the way the Congresses and the Presidents have handled the Social Security fund, spending it all every year and giving us I.O.U.'s, then no one would want it.
If they really plan to invest the money then there is no improvement over the current system and a 3% return is theft in either case.
Higher Losses Due to Limitation on IFT
Retiree USDA/Food and Nutrition Program Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:00 AM
One must admit that limitation of two-per-month IFTs has in fact contributed to the losses (not able to make transfers as rapid market conditions would dictate) of 20 percent or more. Because I was locked in stocks and had already reached the two month limit, I lost money as I was not able to change to safe haven timely. The market has it stands now does not favor a 'buy and hold' situation. This must change before we all lose the little money we have in our TSP (when in the 'G' fund you are not growing your retirement funds when inflation is factored in (Even those in the L Funds have sustained huge losses and they are the ones the TSP officials said were losing because of trading by others.) I believe there is a middle ground here for everyone. Simply incrase the limit to a yearly restriction rather than a monthly or increase the montly retriction to more than two (which would allow a in/out, in/out situation rather than just a in/out situation).
Re: Higher Losses Due to Limitation on IFT
Info Tech IRS Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:34 AM
Here's an idea: You are retired, so roll your money over to a mutual fund company or brokage house. Then, you could move money 'willy-nelly'. Come on. If you really want to money huge sums of money with the market dips & peaks, roll the money out.
Geez. This talk that the limits are unfair is ridiculous! I do invest outside of the gov't so I could trade when I want & pay the price.
Your 10/17/08 Article
Retired Technical Expert Social Security Administration Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:48 AM
My TSP funds are divided between the C, S and I funds and have been there since I retired 2 years ago. Since my retirement, I have lost $60,000.00 due to the stock market declines. I have been reading your articles and I agree that we should not panic so I have left my money in the same 3 funds.
Since I am a retiree and I am no longer able to contribute to the TSP I am beginning to think I should move my money into the G fund (temporarily) so I can lose less money and even make a little money. Do you think that would be a wise move or would you advise against it?
The articles I have read seem to refer only to current employees who can still contribute to the TSP so I wonder if the "hold em" philosophy is valid for retirees.
Thank you for your response.
Re: Your 10/17/08 Article
govt drone NOAA Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:57 PM
Your TSP should have been allocated this way AT ALL if you are retired. Upon retirement you should have moved to the safety of the G fund. You may be too late. If you move to G you lock in the loss of 60K. You might just be better off now waiting it out...and once you make your money back...then move it.
You should probably talk to a financial advisor...but I imagine that now is NOT the time to bail out. That time has passed unfortunately. Good luck!
Re: Your 10/17/08 Article
IT Spec dod Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:21 PM
While the drone is right that talking to a financial advisor about your particular situation is a good idea, his/hers advice about sticking everything in the G fund isn't quite right. While opinions vary, most financial experts agree that we are near the bottom of the current downtrend. Getting out of stocks right now is a common emotional reaction but from a mathmatical perspective it doesn't make sense.
P.S. Knowing you lost 60K doesn't tell us anything if we don't know what percentage of your portfolio this represents.
Re: Your 10/17/08 Article
govt drone NOAA Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:39 AM
IT...
That is what i was trying to say....that at this point the OP should not dump everything into G. He probably should have upon retirement...2 years ago. Its too late now...now he might have a chance to recover some of that loss however.
Re: Your 10/17/08 Article
Federal Employee DOJ Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:40 AM
I too listened to what the experts have written and after dropping nearly $59,000 I moved to the G Fund about four weeks ago. My daily gains are very minimal, but at least I'm not losing one cent! I still have two years before I can retire, so I doubt that I'll regain what I lost.
proposal to abolish 401(k) tax breaks
Internal Revenue Agent IRS Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:15 PM
This one of the most assinine proposals I have heard coming out of the House. I'm a middle of the roader-neither liberal or conservative. Greed is a large part of what created this crises. Now congressional leaders (and I use tht term loosely) are motivated by greed to take advantage of the American public who they are supposed to represent. They simply want to get as much money into federal coffers as possible at the public's expense. I understand that this economy leaves everyone, including the federal government, looking for additional funds to make ends meet. But don't they understand that the money that goes to the federal government is ours. We're not dumb. This is just a disguised tax increase. We give some people (especially poloticians) way too much credit for being smart and ethical. I'm beginning to think we should have a special election to fire all members of the House, and make anyone now serving ineligible to serve in any public office for life.
What Can You Believe With TSP?
Dirt Worker USDA Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:16 PM
Most folks here are blaming some people who move the funds around. But, why are you relying on what the TSP Board has stated? Other than the verifiable fact that most of the funds have gone south, what can you believe from the TSP Board?
Has ANYONE ever verified what the TSP Board is stating regarding the cost??? I don't think so! The TSP Board, long ago, stated the new system would be less expensive, more timely, and more cost-efficient! And the TSP Board's sales pitch was the ease of moving funds!
It would be very wise to stop blaming folks until you actually have verifiable facts! We didn't get them within this article.
TSP
Manager USDA Mon Oct 20, 2008 1:10 PM
Its always somewhat amazing to read these comments. If the experts can't time the market, why do you (you know who you are) think you do better? Over the long term, if you are honest and can really evaluate your portfolio, it is likely you have not successfully timed the market. A long term investment strategy is always best. One thing I have noticed is that many people seem to think they deserve a positive rate of return, no matter what the investment. I also get irritated to read about these folks who want to treat this investment opportunity as a day trading account. You are not forced to invest in this account. If you want to day trade, do it in the appropriate venue, and pay the associated costs. I am not willing to pay your costs, when I am undertaking a prudent, long term investment strategy. I also am amazed at the carping - we have one of the best retirement plans in the country, but people complain and whine constantly.
Education of the Masses
engineer Air Force Mon Oct 20, 2008 1:32 PM
TSP is one of the greatest retirement plans I have seen in my life of some 30 years of working.
But you have to know what you are doing, and you have to keep up with what is going on.
Many of the comments sound like a bunch of horse and buggy drivers bad-mouthing motorcars.
Each person has the mental talents to succeed in investing, but they need to know how it works!
The FRTIB is terrible at educating federal employees on how to get the most out of the TSP funds. Knowledge is Power.
Because of the way TSP is constructed, I would recommend the ninth edition of Edwards and Magee's "Technical Analysis of Stock Trends."
Don't let the word 'technical' fool you, there is no math or computer. It is simple price and volume patterns which are very easy to work with. The more you do it, the better you get.
My account has been in G fund most of the year and is at its greatest value, ever!
Inter Fund Transfers
Concerned Federal Employee DHS Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:31 PM
Would it be to much trouble (accounting wise) to provide all traders say two, three or four free transactions per month and charge the ones above that (the frequent traders) the normal transactions fees. It may provide the service and solve the problem all in one fell swoop.
I'd be interested to hear what the other readers say about it.
Re: Inter Fund Transfers
Diversity Manager DOL Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:50 PM
The easiest would be to charge for every transaction, that way TSP would address every-one's issues.
Trading Cost
Supervisor, John T. Martinez DHS/TSA Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:52 PM
I am not a Financial Expert. However, it doesn't take a Genius to figure out that all you have to do is charge for each Trade Transaction being made.
If someone wants to buy, let them buy. If someone wants to sell, let them sell. It doesn't matter what you charge for each Transaction, just give the choice!!!
Let's not make this a Socialist Account. Keep it simple.
Trading
PPT Specialist Dept of State Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:43 AM
I understand that this is a retirement account, specifically I do not retire for a long-long time, but some people feel very comfortable "daytrading" or "swing-trading" their retirement account. If people want this, and it can increase the TSP's bottom-line, then do what Scottrade does and charge $7, or whatever makes fiscal sense, per trade and make them, the customer, happy. I move money around a little bit, but, as is stated by all experts, this is my retirement account and I leave it as such. But, if charging for anything more than 2 trades per month can keep our costs low and, potentially, increase all of our returns, then what is the problem?
the trouble with charging for transactions
Supervisory IT Specialist DON Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:48 AM
There is no way for them to charge for transactions. TSP would have to modify their computer systems, or accounting systems, or phone systems (or all 3).
So there would be some cost associated with implementing such a system.
TSP is generally regarded as a great investment system due to its super low costs. The lower the costs, the higher the gains. It's especially good over the long term too.
TSP Saving/Trading
Distribution Process Worker DOD Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:19 PM
I read with amusement about you people that "invest" in the TSP and don't move your money around. If I take the time to inform myself on the market changes that advance my money making opportunities, I would gladly pay a fee just like I do buying stocks with Scottrade online. My portfolio had increased tremendously when I could move my money when needed. Now with these restrictions I'm limited to not making the positive moves that have made me money in the past. I really don't care if people want to stay in one fund or another winning, loseing or whatever. But I would like to manage my own money "fund" to my own benefit especially when I do the homework. You investors may go down with the ship along with the captain!!!!!!!
Re: TSP Saving/Trading
IT Spec dod Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:54 PM
I always chuckle when I see someone who's incapable of understanding that you don't have to constantly move your money around to "invest". These people are blind to the fact that a properly allocated buy and hold strategy will yield long term results that are comparable to an intelligently executed timing strategy.
Trading Costs
Civil Engineer Army Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:53 PM
The limit of 2 trades a month is too low a number! I think 4 is a more reasonable number. I could also understand and vote for charging for each trade.
Day trading is just that - trading daily. Going from 25+ trades a month to 2 is going from one extreme to another. Both extremes are wrong!
trading restrictions
Electrician DOD Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:12 PM
Although I can understand the rationale behind the trading restrictions, I believe when yo do submit a change, it should be accomplished in a matter of minutes, not days! We are in the 21st century and do have the technology to accomplish this, as is evident with the rest of the trading world.
Analysis
Forester US Forest Service Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:13 PM
I'm not a frequent trader but I know an expression that goes somewhat like "Statistics don't lie, but liers use statistics."
41 B- 28 B = 13 B difference between last year and this
13 B / 300 Frequent Traders = $43,333,333 per Trader
$43,333,333 per Frequent Trader / 365 days per year = If they traded every day they would have to average $118,721 trade every day.
If they only traded every other day then each one would have to trade an average $237,442.
If they only traded once a week their average trade would have to be $831,047.
I wonder how many of the employee that have commented and admitted that they are frequent traders have this amount of money in their accounts? I doubt very many.
Sorry I don't buy the story that these 300 frequent traders have traded any where close to this much and are the cause of the increase in fees.
fully examine the TSP trading issue
TSP investor Federal employee Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:41 AM
Again, only part of the story. The costs associated with frequent trading does not address the wealth either created or lost as a result of those trades. Until info such as this is examined, the additional costs of frequent trading can not be put in a proper context. Isn't the main objective to maximize returns? The limit of trading should at a minimum be raised to 4. That is only 2 trades in my view (If you are in the G fund and you go to the C fund once and go back to the G that month, then that constitutes two trades -- I argue it is one trade). By the way, our retirement when changed from CSRS to FERS in my opinion did not properly provide me adequate risk and reward which has resulted in a less lucrative retirement.
Re: fully examine the TSP trading issue
IT Specialist USDA REE ARS Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:40 AM
Trading into the G fund then out again is not one trade. It is two. Check with any stock brokerage. You will be charged for the "buy" and charged again for the "sell". There are no round trip tickets for this activity. Frankly, I don't care about the "wealth" lost or gained through frequent trading, since, in the end, it does not benefit me at all. If you want to play the stock market, take your next pay raise and put it into Scottrade or Schwab or T. Rowe Price or whomever.
The TSP is designed to take advantage of the benefits of the market economy while minimizing the risks as much as is feasible. I've been very satisfied with my returns until this year, and I'm sure I'll be satisfied later on. If we had actually been investing in the S&P instead of tracking it, we'd have lost much more.
Market Awareness
Investigative Aide I R S Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:49 AM
I used to sell securities before my govt days. I found that people are ONLY interested in the bottom line. NOT the Why or Wherefores of the market. I found that when I dealt with new clients I made them aware that markets go two directions...UP and DOWN. Also, to be somewhat aware of what is going on in the world.
This latest fiasco was not even visible to some of the experts, let alone diligent investors.
Clues could have been forthcoming from the investment community and Congress to at least blunt the pain.
A lot of angst could have been avoided. Money could have moved into bonds, safer funds and bank accounts.
Those in charge, especially CEOs, Brokers and Congress persons should pay for their lax and clandestine behavior.
Dollar Cost Averaging
Engineer TACOM Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:42 AM
Do the math. Dollar cost averaging works on the way up not on the way down.
Quit listening to all the bull, put pencil to paper, and work out the math instead of being sheep.
If you pulled out over a year ago (there were signs already of a market meltdown). You would have saved 39 percent fromm your 401K. It may take 5 to 10 years to recover from that loss.
Again for those who don't know what day trading is. Its the ability to get in and out of various stocks on the same day. TSP under the old system only allowed 2 per week.
Re: Dollar Cost Averaging
Electronics Engineer FCC Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:26 AM
Dollar Cost Averaging is nothing more than a deception either up or down. But to the extent that it "works", it does "work" both up and down. It is a deception because it relies on dividing an investment into increments or "shares", and then getting the investor to focus on the average price of those shares instead of their whole investment. It "works" in the sense that it results in the investor buying slightly fewer shares when they shouldn't be buying any, and buying slightly more shares when they should be buying a whole lot more. It doesn't work in the sense that the investor is actually putting the same $ amount in each time regardless of market conditions, instead of reacting intelligently to trends. The number of shares don't matter, only the actual dollars they represent. OK people, you can flame away now and call me stupid or whatever.
Long-Term Investing vs. Playing the Stock Market
IT Specialist USDA REE ARS Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:27 AM
I have money in the TSP and, like many others, I am concerned with the current volatility of the markets it tracks. That said, however, I am in it for the long haul, not to make a killing in the stock market. I've ridden out other downturns, and I'll ride out this one.
If the frequent traders are so sure of their abilities to play the stock market, they should take their extra money and put it into the real market, where they can trade all they want.
An acquaintance of mine thought he would retire at 50 due to how well his day trading was going. He is now several years beyond that and still working, because he couldn't beat the market at its own game. I prefer not to risk money I can't afford to lose.
Fund Status
IT Spec Ag Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:36 PM
I have 15 years left in my career and have one third in the C, S, and I funds. Yes, I've seen all 3 drop drastically, but following the advice of many I am able to let it ride due to the remaining years before I retire. I continue to contribute the full amount as allowed which is going into the C fund. My question however has to do with the status of individual funds. Are each of them diversified to the point where if a mutual fund actually was disolved as the managing company goes out of business that my value would essentially be zeroed out with no chance of recovery?
Here's an update!
Retired Air Force NAVY Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:40 AM
Do people out there understand what it means for US banking system leveraged 30 to 1 to unleveraged to 10 to 1? Or European banks to go from 50 to 1 leverage to 10 to 1 leverage?
Plain and simple it means that all the wealth in the world is going to decrease by a factor of 3 to 5 times.
We are only in the beginning of this mess and the Dow has lost a factor of about 1.55 so the market will have to fall at least as much as it has already from 9000 so a Dow of about 4500 next year if we are being optimistic and expecting the least amount of decrease.
We have Bernanke finally getting on board with the fact that things have gone from bad to worse and he now wants a stimulus package. Of course the government is going to target the wrong people and make things worse. If you are a realist you will be planning on the Dow hitting below 3000 next year.
It's sad to see Bernanke and Paulson do exactly what they did during the Great Depression to cause the Great Depression to last decades instead of years. Already Paulson alone has added at least five to seven years to trouble with his bail out plan. It may even be impossible for us to recover as a nation already with another targeted bail out of the super rich which is what they are planning it will become impossible for America to get out of it's trouble.
The government is saying this is all because 2 million sub prime home owners defaulted on their homes causing this problem. As their average house price was only $250,000 this means a mere 500 billion give or take a few hundred billion would solve the problem.
The problem comes from having had a decade of real negative growth in GDP and the government lying about inflation and wages to cover it up. So instead of growing from 11,474 in DEC 1998 (or was it 1999? somebody help me here) to 14,000 on the dow last year the stock market should have been falling 2 percent a year to reflect the true decrease in American GDP.
Now we are having a double impact on the stock market besides the deleveraging of the banks and that is retired people taking their money out so they can live on it and younger people either not putting any money in due to their wages falling 2 percent a year vs the real inflation rate over the last decade or the laid off younger people taking money out to pay their bills.
There is no panic causing the stock market to fall. It's natural market forces. If too much money chases too few goods (stock market) the price will increase. If too little money chases too many goods (which is happening in the stock market now) the price will decrease.
These trends are not going away as more of us retire and more of us get laid off and have to raid the 401k plan to survive. It will be many years before the money flowing into the stock market is again greater than the money flowing out of the stock market.
Shorting TSP Funds Should Be Allowed
Management Analyst NAVSEA Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:09 PM
To recoup money that individuals are vulneralbe to losing in their TSP account, shorting the TSP Funds on any day, at any time should be allowed.
frequent trades
MANAGER USPTO Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:35 PM
Why not have someone research how much the fund could charge a person who chooses to make more than 2 trades per month to cover the increase in cost to the funds. It would be interesting to know, even if the charge would fluctuate because the dollar volume of the trades fluctuates, as expanded Ms. Ray. What would the funds have to charge for trades over the 2 per month.
TSP contributions purchase stocks
Thinker SSA Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:03 PM
Does anyone know when our TSP contributions purchase the stocks? If our pay checks are in our bank accounts on 10/17/08, on which date is the stock purchased?
IFT
Orthotist VAMC Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:52 PM
Charge a fee for trading, let everyone bear thier own cost.
Jeff
Trading Costs vs rate of return for TSP Investors
physical scientist DOI Mon Nov 3, 2008 12:47 PM
Once again the TSP board has completely missed the point of their mission. the purpose of the TSP is not to save trading costs. Trading costs can be borne by those conducting the trading. Every brokerage in America charges investors for their trades. Why the TSP can not do that is sad. The Feds would be better off giving the whole program to a major brokerage house to be run just the same as private IRA accounts rather than the narrow minded anti-investment attitudes of the TSP board. amen
G-Fund
Radar Tech FAA Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:28 AM
The G-Fund, contrary to the TSP propaganda, is not meeting it's objective "to maintain a higher return than inflation without exposing the fund to risk of default or changes in market prices." Source: TSPLF14G
The G-Fund is paying about 2% BELOW the current inflation rate [refer to the Social Security and CSRS COLA of 5.8% based on CPI] This amounts to a massive transfer of wealth from Federal workers and retirees to the Treasury Department. How is it that: "The G Fund rate is also used in other Government programs, such as the Social Security and Medicare trust funds and the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund." yet the SS and CSRS COLA are 5.8% while the G-Fund is paying [at best] about 3.98%? If they are using the same CPI to guage inflation, and Social Security is using the G Fund rate as stated in TSPLF14G, why is there a nearly 2% discrepancy?
TSP Trading Costs
Revenue Agent IRS Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:51 AM
The amount of trading costs seems very high...but the article doesn't provide the number of shares /dollars traded or in which entities the shares are traded in to validate the high cost or need for restrictions. There is no cost per trade provided, not cost per volumn, trade, etc. Why are some investments not liquid? Who is benefiting here?
If high trading costs can be attributed to certain accounts, which your article alleges, why not deduct the transaction costs from the account(s), involved since they can be identified.
It has always been my understanding that the Board of the TSP watched the fund and its activity to keep costs at a minumum. Doesn't appear to be working...who do they use as their brokerage firm? And what amount of shares get traded on a daily basis. Why don't we have a access to information showing what the TSP has invested in? Who is providing the investment advise?
TSP Restriction
DOD
Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:44 AM
I feel for the few that want to drive cost up, that maybe they should go into working on Wall Street and leave the rest of us to do what we feel is right and not have to pay for your nervesness. If you have that much time on your hands then I think you need more work to do...
Re: TSP Restriction
DOL
Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:05 AM
Surely you realize that saying put in the market only weakens your portfolio over the years?
Thrift Savings Plan
VA
Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:45 AM
There should be no restrictions on trade, but the individual employee should bear the expense of his/her trade.
Re: Thrift Savings Plan
VA
Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:17 PM
Re: Thrift Savings Plan
Small agency
Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:59 AM
They saved 5 million and we lost 5 billion
USPS
Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:02 AM
Ok, they saved 5 million and we lost 50 billion. Many folks are now buy and hope. Move from stocks during a sell-off and you can’t get back in until the next month. The limit should be higher. Minimum should be four moves per month TSP police, not two!
TSP Day Traders
Treasury
Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:19 AM
Hooray for the TSP for looking out for all Federal employees and not caving in to the demands of the few who want to use the TSP in a manner contrary to its intent at the expense of all Federal employees. My comment to those employees is if you want to be a day trader, quit your government job and go ahead. Also, I hope that you are only working on your TSP trades during non-work hours or during your lunch hour, and using your own computer and online account. Bottom line for me - TSP Board, keep up the good work!
Re: TSP Day Traders
Retired DoD
Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:46 PM
Now I know people in government love their labels, but if it takes 48 hrs to process that is two trades a week.
That is not day trading. Find another label and another soapbox.
TSP
USPS
Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:44 AM
I think the name should be changed to the TSK TSK Fund.
I never kept more than $3000 in TSK, er TSP. Only what I could aford to lose.
This is government at it's finest. Almost as good as the Postal Service, hehehehehe.
Re: TSP
Forest Service
Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:28 AM
Re: TSP
DoN
Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:09 AM
none
SEC-Boston
Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:48 AM
ouch!!
Pay As You Go
VA
Mon Oct 20, 2008 9:04 AM
I firmly believe that investors in TSP funds should have a plan for asset allocation, and should adhere to that plan. Therefore, those individuals who trade among funds are, by definition, not adhering to a long-range plan and they are traders, not investors. The TSP was not designed for trading, but for investing. I believe that if traders want to trade, then they should be charged for their activities. I INVEST and I feel that trading activity is costing ME money, when the traders are the ones who should be paying for their own foolishness. So, I would greatly prefer a Pay-Per Trade system, in which EVERY SINGLE TRADE resulted in a charge to that individual account holder. That would serve as a disincentive to those who wish to TRADE in their accounts rather than INVEST in their accounts. As an investor, I shift assets once or twice each year in order to rebalance my portfolio. I would not object to paying a fee if I knew that those abusing the TSP paid their share, too.
IFT Restrictions
US Postal Service
Mon Oct 20, 2008 9:32 AM
It's plain and simple that the restictictions on interfund transfers is costing knowlegable investors millions of dollars by not allowing them to take advantage of the huge down turns in the market. If you have moved your money twice in the early part of the month, you must wait until the next month to transfer back into the market. With the current volitility, one can miss out on huge gains due to the restrictions. I have lost nearly 20 percent in my TSP over the last month while making 300 percent in my Roth IRA. How fair is it to restrict our retirement savings?
Re: IFT Restrictions
DOD
Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:49 AM
If they need the protections and cost break given by the TSP then they need to accept that TSP is NOT the appropriate vehicle for market timing. The costs to the rest of us is far more than just the trading fees.
TSP Not a Day Trader Account
Veterans Affairs
Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:03 AM
I have an investment strategy. I have tracked and watched the ebb and flow of the TSP since 1987. In the 2000-2003 period, I made money following my strategy and I did not have to trade more than once a month and in most cases went several months without moving in and out of funds.
I have another account in which I have money that I can day trade with. I see the allure of day trading and one can make a lot of money playing the market but you can loose it just as fast. I don't want my TSP to be a crap shoot like day trading is and I don't want to pay for someone else's foolishness. If one wants to day trade divide what you are saving and put some of it into another savings/trader account and go for it but you'd likely have as good of luck and more fun it you took it to Vegas and stood at the crap tables for a week.
BUY Buy BUY
usda
Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:11 AM
The latest direction is per Warren Buffett the Economic Advisor to the OBAMA campaign. The Stock problems are strictly fear and is all brought on to get OBAMA elected by the democratic leadership so you better BUY BUY BUY on stocks. American STOCKS are gonna soar.
Re: BUY Buy BUY
DOD
Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:58 PM
Thanks
USDA RD
Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:22 AM
Thanks for dousing the flames of rancor with a healthy dose of facts. It's easy to make a bold statement based on opinion, a little harder to pull together fascts and display them dispassionately so that people can make informed decisions.
I have no sympathy for the day traders. If they want to get rich that way they should take their money out of the TSP and trade commercially. I am not interested is subsidizing their costs.
Abolishing the 401(k) tax break
Forest Service
Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:53 AM
Hello! Is anyone listening? There ought to be a huge outcry over the insane proposal to abolish the 401(k) tax break as well as the proposed mandatory 5% savings that would only receive a 3% return, possibly only staying even with inflation. How in the world is that going to encourage people to save for their retirement, much less help them supplement the meager social security benefit? Government gives subsidies for home ownership, oil and gas development, alternative energy development, farms, and a thousand other activities that the government wants to encourage. Why take away the sinlge most important incentive for people to save long-term for their own retirements? And then add insult to injury by forcing us to save at a measly 3%. Hello! Is anyone listening?? This is scarey stuff. They can take 5% of my Social Security tax and apply it to a savings account, but don't force me to "invest" in what I believe is a loser. Or give us back CSRS. And I'm a Democrat, BTW.
Re: Abolishing the 401(k) tax break
VA
Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:23 PM
Re: Abolishing the 401(k) tax break
DCMA
Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:24 PM
Re: Abolishing the 401(k) tax break
DON
Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:38 PM
Re: Abolishing the 401(k) tax break
DOL
Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:52 PM
special government guaranteed bond fund
Retired
Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:56 AM
If the special government guaranteed bond fund is as "special" as the way the Congresses and the Presidents have handled the Social Security fund, spending it all every year and giving us I.O.U.'s, then no one would want it.
If they really plan to invest the money then there is no improvement over the current system and a 3% return is theft in either case.
Higher Losses Due to Limitation on IFT
USDA/Food and Nutrition Program
Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:00 AM
One must admit that limitation of two-per-month IFTs has in fact contributed to the losses (not able to make transfers as rapid market conditions would dictate) of 20 percent or more. Because I was locked in stocks and had already reached the two month limit, I lost money as I was not able to change to safe haven timely. The market has it stands now does not favor a 'buy and hold' situation. This must change before we all lose the little money we have in our TSP (when in the 'G' fund you are not growing your retirement funds when inflation is factored in (Even those in the L Funds have sustained huge losses and they are the ones the TSP officials said were losing because of trading by others.) I believe there is a middle ground here for everyone. Simply incrase the limit to a yearly restriction rather than a monthly or increase the montly retriction to more than two (which would allow a in/out, in/out situation rather than just a in/out situation).
Re: Higher Losses Due to Limitation on IFT
IRS
Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:34 AM
Geez. This talk that the limits are unfair is ridiculous! I do invest outside of the gov't so I could trade when I want & pay the price.
Your 10/17/08 Article
Social Security Administration
Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:48 AM
My TSP funds are divided between the C, S and I funds and have been there since I retired 2 years ago. Since my retirement, I have lost $60,000.00 due to the stock market declines. I have been reading your articles and I agree that we should not panic so I have left my money in the same 3 funds.
Since I am a retiree and I am no longer able to contribute to the TSP I am beginning to think I should move my money into the G fund (temporarily) so I can lose less money and even make a little money. Do you think that would be a wise move or would you advise against it?
The articles I have read seem to refer only to current employees who can still contribute to the TSP so I wonder if the "hold em" philosophy is valid for retirees.
Thank you for your response.
Re: Your 10/17/08 Article
NOAA
Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:57 PM
You should probably talk to a financial advisor...but I imagine that now is NOT the time to bail out. That time has passed unfortunately. Good luck!
Re: Your 10/17/08 Article
dod
Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:21 PM
P.S. Knowing you lost 60K doesn't tell us anything if we don't know what percentage of your portfolio this represents.
Re: Your 10/17/08 Article
NOAA
Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:39 AM
That is what i was trying to say....that at this point the OP should not dump everything into G. He probably should have upon retirement...2 years ago. Its too late now...now he might have a chance to recover some of that loss however.
Re: Your 10/17/08 Article
DOJ
Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:40 AM
proposal to abolish 401(k) tax breaks
IRS
Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:15 PM
This one of the most assinine proposals I have heard coming out of the House. I'm a middle of the roader-neither liberal or conservative. Greed is a large part of what created this crises. Now congressional leaders (and I use tht term loosely) are motivated by greed to take advantage of the American public who they are supposed to represent. They simply want to get as much money into federal coffers as possible at the public's expense. I understand that this economy leaves everyone, including the federal government, looking for additional funds to make ends meet. But don't they understand that the money that goes to the federal government is ours. We're not dumb. This is just a disguised tax increase. We give some people (especially poloticians) way too much credit for being smart and ethical. I'm beginning to think we should have a special election to fire all members of the House, and make anyone now serving ineligible to serve in any public office for life.
What Can You Believe With TSP?
USDA
Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:16 PM
Most folks here are blaming some people who move the funds around. But, why are you relying on what the TSP Board has stated? Other than the verifiable fact that most of the funds have gone south, what can you believe from the TSP Board?
Has ANYONE ever verified what the TSP Board is stating regarding the cost??? I don't think so! The TSP Board, long ago, stated the new system would be less expensive, more timely, and more cost-efficient! And the TSP Board's sales pitch was the ease of moving funds!
It would be very wise to stop blaming folks until you actually have verifiable facts! We didn't get them within this article.
TSP
USDA
Mon Oct 20, 2008 1:10 PM
Its always somewhat amazing to read these comments. If the experts can't time the market, why do you (you know who you are) think you do better? Over the long term, if you are honest and can really evaluate your portfolio, it is likely you have not successfully timed the market. A long term investment strategy is always best. One thing I have noticed is that many people seem to think they deserve a positive rate of return, no matter what the investment. I also get irritated to read about these folks who want to treat this investment opportunity as a day trading account. You are not forced to invest in this account. If you want to day trade, do it in the appropriate venue, and pay the associated costs. I am not willing to pay your costs, when I am undertaking a prudent, long term investment strategy. I also am amazed at the carping - we have one of the best retirement plans in the country, but people complain and whine constantly.
Education of the Masses
Air Force
Mon Oct 20, 2008 1:32 PM
TSP is one of the greatest retirement plans I have seen in my life of some 30 years of working.
But you have to know what you are doing, and you have to keep up with what is going on.
Many of the comments sound like a bunch of horse and buggy drivers bad-mouthing motorcars.
Each person has the mental talents to succeed in investing, but they need to know how it works!
The FRTIB is terrible at educating federal employees on how to get the most out of the TSP funds. Knowledge is Power.
Because of the way TSP is constructed, I would recommend the ninth edition of Edwards and Magee's "Technical Analysis of Stock Trends."
Don't let the word 'technical' fool you, there is no math or computer. It is simple price and volume patterns which are very easy to work with. The more you do it, the better you get.
My account has been in G fund most of the year and is at its greatest value, ever!
Inter Fund Transfers
DHS
Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:31 PM
Would it be to much trouble (accounting wise) to provide all traders say two, three or four free transactions per month and charge the ones above that (the frequent traders) the normal transactions fees. It may provide the service and solve the problem all in one fell swoop.
I'd be interested to hear what the other readers say about it.
Re: Inter Fund Transfers
DOL
Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:50 PM
Trading Cost
DHS/TSA
Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:52 PM
I am not a Financial Expert. However, it doesn't take a Genius to figure out that all you have to do is charge for each Trade Transaction being made.
If someone wants to buy, let them buy. If someone wants to sell, let them sell. It doesn't matter what you charge for each Transaction, just give the choice!!!
Let's not make this a Socialist Account. Keep it simple.
Trading
Dept of State
Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:43 AM
I understand that this is a retirement account, specifically I do not retire for a long-long time, but some people feel very comfortable "daytrading" or "swing-trading" their retirement account. If people want this, and it can increase the TSP's bottom-line, then do what Scottrade does and charge $7, or whatever makes fiscal sense, per trade and make them, the customer, happy. I move money around a little bit, but, as is stated by all experts, this is my retirement account and I leave it as such. But, if charging for anything more than 2 trades per month can keep our costs low and, potentially, increase all of our returns, then what is the problem?
the trouble with charging for transactions
DON
Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:48 AM
There is no way for them to charge for transactions. TSP would have to modify their computer systems, or accounting systems, or phone systems (or all 3).
So there would be some cost associated with implementing such a system.
TSP is generally regarded as a great investment system due to its super low costs. The lower the costs, the higher the gains. It's especially good over the long term too.
TSP Saving/Trading
DOD
Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:19 PM
I read with amusement about you people that "invest" in the TSP and don't move your money around. If I take the time to inform myself on the market changes that advance my money making opportunities, I would gladly pay a fee just like I do buying stocks with Scottrade online. My portfolio had increased tremendously when I could move my money when needed. Now with these restrictions I'm limited to not making the positive moves that have made me money in the past. I really don't care if people want to stay in one fund or another winning, loseing or whatever. But I would like to manage my own money "fund" to my own benefit especially when I do the homework. You investors may go down with the ship along with the captain!!!!!!!
Re: TSP Saving/Trading
dod
Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:54 PM
Trading Costs
Army
Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:53 PM
The limit of 2 trades a month is too low a number! I think 4 is a more reasonable number. I could also understand and vote for charging for each trade.
Day trading is just that - trading daily. Going from 25+ trades a month to 2 is going from one extreme to another. Both extremes are wrong!
trading restrictions
DOD
Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:12 PM
Although I can understand the rationale behind the trading restrictions, I believe when yo do submit a change, it should be accomplished in a matter of minutes, not days! We are in the 21st century and do have the technology to accomplish this, as is evident with the rest of the trading world.
Analysis
US Forest Service
Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:13 PM
I'm not a frequent trader but I know an expression that goes somewhat like "Statistics don't lie, but liers use statistics."
41 B- 28 B = 13 B difference between last year and this
13 B / 300 Frequent Traders = $43,333,333 per Trader
$43,333,333 per Frequent Trader / 365 days per year = If they traded every day they would have to average $118,721 trade every day.
If they only traded every other day then each one would have to trade an average $237,442.
If they only traded once a week their average trade would have to be $831,047.
I wonder how many of the employee that have commented and admitted that they are frequent traders have this amount of money in their accounts? I doubt very many.
Sorry I don't buy the story that these 300 frequent traders have traded any where close to this much and are the cause of the increase in fees.
fully examine the TSP trading issue
Federal employee
Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:41 AM
Again, only part of the story. The costs associated with frequent trading does not address the wealth either created or lost as a result of those trades. Until info such as this is examined, the additional costs of frequent trading can not be put in a proper context. Isn't the main objective to maximize returns? The limit of trading should at a minimum be raised to 4. That is only 2 trades in my view (If you are in the G fund and you go to the C fund once and go back to the G that month, then that constitutes two trades -- I argue it is one trade). By the way, our retirement when changed from CSRS to FERS in my opinion did not properly provide me adequate risk and reward which has resulted in a less lucrative retirement.
Re: fully examine the TSP trading issue
USDA REE ARS
Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:40 AM
The TSP is designed to take advantage of the benefits of the market economy while minimizing the risks as much as is feasible. I've been very satisfied with my returns until this year, and I'm sure I'll be satisfied later on. If we had actually been investing in the S&P instead of tracking it, we'd have lost much more.
Market Awareness
I R S
Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:49 AM
I used to sell securities before my govt days. I found that people are ONLY interested in the bottom line. NOT the Why or Wherefores of the market. I found that when I dealt with new clients I made them aware that markets go two directions...UP and DOWN. Also, to be somewhat aware of what is going on in the world.
This latest fiasco was not even visible to some of the experts, let alone diligent investors.
Clues could have been forthcoming from the investment community and Congress to at least blunt the pain.
A lot of angst could have been avoided. Money could have moved into bonds, safer funds and bank accounts.
Those in charge, especially CEOs, Brokers and Congress persons should pay for their lax and clandestine behavior.
Dollar Cost Averaging
TACOM
Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:42 AM
Do the math. Dollar cost averaging works on the way up not on the way down.
Quit listening to all the bull, put pencil to paper, and work out the math instead of being sheep.
If you pulled out over a year ago (there were signs already of a market meltdown). You would have saved 39 percent fromm your 401K. It may take 5 to 10 years to recover from that loss.
Again for those who don't know what day trading is. Its the ability to get in and out of various stocks on the same day. TSP under the old system only allowed 2 per week.
Re: Dollar Cost Averaging
FCC
Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:26 AM
Long-Term Investing vs. Playing the Stock Market
USDA REE ARS
Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:27 AM
I have money in the TSP and, like many others, I am concerned with the current volatility of the markets it tracks. That said, however, I am in it for the long haul, not to make a killing in the stock market. I've ridden out other downturns, and I'll ride out this one.
If the frequent traders are so sure of their abilities to play the stock market, they should take their extra money and put it into the real market, where they can trade all they want.
An acquaintance of mine thought he would retire at 50 due to how well his day trading was going. He is now several years beyond that and still working, because he couldn't beat the market at its own game. I prefer not to risk money I can't afford to lose.
Fund Status
Ag
Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:36 PM
I have 15 years left in my career and have one third in the C, S, and I funds. Yes, I've seen all 3 drop drastically, but following the advice of many I am able to let it ride due to the remaining years before I retire. I continue to contribute the full amount as allowed which is going into the C fund. My question however has to do with the status of individual funds. Are each of them diversified to the point where if a mutual fund actually was disolved as the managing company goes out of business that my value would essentially be zeroed out with no chance of recovery?
Here's an update!
NAVY
Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:40 AM
Do people out there understand what it means for US banking system leveraged 30 to 1 to unleveraged to 10 to 1? Or European banks to go from 50 to 1 leverage to 10 to 1 leverage?
Plain and simple it means that all the wealth in the world is going to decrease by a factor of 3 to 5 times.
We are only in the beginning of this mess and the Dow has lost a factor of about 1.55 so the market will have to fall at least as much as it has already from 9000 so a Dow of about 4500 next year if we are being optimistic and expecting the least amount of decrease.
We have Bernanke finally getting on board with the fact that things have gone from bad to worse and he now wants a stimulus package. Of course the government is going to target the wrong people and make things worse. If you are a realist you will be planning on the Dow hitting below 3000 next year.
It's sad to see Bernanke and Paulson do exactly what they did during the Great Depression to cause the Great Depression to last decades instead of years. Already Paulson alone has added at least five to seven years to trouble with his bail out plan. It may even be impossible for us to recover as a nation already with another targeted bail out of the super rich which is what they are planning it will become impossible for America to get out of it's trouble.
The government is saying this is all because 2 million sub prime home owners defaulted on their homes causing this problem. As their average house price was only $250,000 this means a mere 500 billion give or take a few hundred billion would solve the problem.
The problem comes from having had a decade of real negative growth in GDP and the government lying about inflation and wages to cover it up. So instead of growing from 11,474 in DEC 1998 (or was it 1999? somebody help me here) to 14,000 on the dow last year the stock market should have been falling 2 percent a year to reflect the true decrease in American GDP.
Now we are having a double impact on the stock market besides the deleveraging of the banks and that is retired people taking their money out so they can live on it and younger people either not putting any money in due to their wages falling 2 percent a year vs the real inflation rate over the last decade or the laid off younger people taking money out to pay their bills.
There is no panic causing the stock market to fall. It's natural market forces. If too much money chases too few goods (stock market) the price will increase. If too little money chases too many goods (which is happening in the stock market now) the price will decrease.
These trends are not going away as more of us retire and more of us get laid off and have to raid the 401k plan to survive. It will be many years before the money flowing into the stock market is again greater than the money flowing out of the stock market.
Shorting TSP Funds Should Be Allowed
NAVSEA
Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:09 PM
To recoup money that individuals are vulneralbe to losing in their TSP account, shorting the TSP Funds on any day, at any time should be allowed.
frequent trades
USPTO
Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:35 PM
Why not have someone research how much the fund could charge a person who chooses to make more than 2 trades per month to cover the increase in cost to the funds. It would be interesting to know, even if the charge would fluctuate because the dollar volume of the trades fluctuates, as expanded Ms. Ray. What would the funds have to charge for trades over the 2 per month.
TSP contributions purchase stocks
SSA
Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:03 PM
Does anyone know when our TSP contributions purchase the stocks? If our pay checks are in our bank accounts on 10/17/08, on which date is the stock purchased?
IFT
VAMC
Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:52 PM
Charge a fee for trading, let everyone bear thier own cost.
Jeff
Trading Costs vs rate of return for TSP Investors
DOI
Mon Nov 3, 2008 12:47 PM
Once again the TSP board has completely missed the point of their mission. the purpose of the TSP is not to save trading costs. Trading costs can be borne by those conducting the trading. Every brokerage in America charges investors for their trades. Why the TSP can not do that is sad. The Feds would be better off giving the whole program to a major brokerage house to be run just the same as private IRA accounts rather than the narrow minded anti-investment attitudes of the TSP board. amen
G-Fund
FAA
Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:28 AM
The G-Fund, contrary to the TSP propaganda, is not meeting it's objective "to maintain a higher return than inflation without exposing the fund to risk of default or changes in market prices." Source: TSPLF14G
The G-Fund is paying about 2% BELOW the current inflation rate [refer to the Social Security and CSRS COLA of 5.8% based on CPI] This amounts to a massive transfer of wealth from Federal workers and retirees to the Treasury Department. How is it that: "The G Fund rate is also used in other Government programs, such as the Social Security and Medicare trust funds and the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund." yet the SS and CSRS COLA are 5.8% while the G-Fund is paying [at best] about 3.98%? If they are using the same CPI to guage inflation, and Social Security is using the G Fund rate as stated in TSPLF14G, why is there a nearly 2% discrepancy?
TSP Trading Costs
IRS
Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:51 AM
The amount of trading costs seems very high...but the article doesn't provide the number of shares /dollars traded or in which entities the shares are traded in to validate the high cost or need for restrictions. There is no cost per trade provided, not cost per volumn, trade, etc. Why are some investments not liquid? Who is benefiting here?
If high trading costs can be attributed to certain accounts, which your article alleges, why not deduct the transaction costs from the account(s), involved since they can be identified.
It has always been my understanding that the Board of the TSP watched the fund and its activity to keep costs at a minumum. Doesn't appear to be working...who do they use as their brokerage firm? And what amount of shares get traded on a daily basis. Why don't we have a access to information showing what the TSP has invested in? Who is providing the investment advise?