The provision cited above talks about a "self-directed investment window". Last time I checked, that meant the option would remain with individual investors. So if you don't want an actively managed portfolio, don't choose it.
In other words, this is only going to effect those people who choose to be effected by it (or who don't make a choice - the article doesn't say what the default enrollment investment option is)
Re: Scaremongering?
LR Specialist DoD Agency Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:14 AM
We are obviously a culture of whiners. I shudder to think of how the public views the federal workforce when reading some of these comments.
I don't trust Congress when it comes to making changes to the TSP. From setting up "socially responsible investments" (which may be politically correct but not good investments) to looking out for the interests of minority investment firms (not necessarily your financial interests), I usually assume that the political interests of Congress and those that have contributed huge sums have more priority than making sound investments in my retirement future.
This article seems balanced. "You may think some of the changes are potentially harmful to your retirement investments. Regardless of your view, this change may be worth your attention because of its potential long-term impact on the TSP and how it may impact your retirement savings."
that is good advice. If it is "scaremongering" we must have some very frightened people who don't like to read an entire article or just want to complain about a free site that seems to provide us with good information on a timely basis that we often do not find elsewhere.
Or, perhaps, some just want to complain publicly because it makes them feel good about themselves.
I hope the site will continue to provide this type of information. Please ignore the complainers who obviously have nothing better to do.
Actively Mismanaged
Engineer Air Force Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:10 AM
First, the majority of "actively managed" funds do not out perform the market over time. That's because the active managers haven't proven to be better than a dice roll (even a lottery has a winner).
Second, giving the goal of biased investment in women- and minority-owned companies sounds like a path to corruption (or at least loss). What makes these companies a better investment for TSP subscribers? Aren't WE the TSP customer?
Index funds remain the cheapest way to invest and are appropriate for the TSP. Let's leave the social and corporate welfare funds to for-profit companies.
Majority? Over the long run (40 years) NO activley managed funds outperform the market. We pay .05% in management fees while activley managed funds pay 1.5% average. Thats 25 times higher than the tsp. It;s a rip off. Another campaign contribution at work
Re: Actively Mismanaged
Real thinker GS 72 dod USA Mon Apr 6, 2009 7:50 PM
"Over the long run (40 years) NO activley managed funds outperform the market. "
Wrong.
I can think of three actively managed funds just today that have outperformed the market for the duration of their existence. Most funds can't match the market but to tell us none do is incorrect.
Article Vague
Security Manager AMCOM G-2 Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:16 AM
Does this mean that civil service employees will be given the option of investing with women and minority companies or staying with the funds that they like???
tsp changes-minority
physical scientist Department of Energy Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:25 AM
Changing the TSP investment strategy under the guise of being fair to minorities is an open invitation for political favors and corruption--Illinois style! Keep your greedy little hands off the TSP! If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Re: tsp changes-minority
Transportation Specialist BLM Mon Apr 6, 2009 10:40 AM
The government way = if it's not broke, lets break it so we CAN fix it! If congressional handling of social security funds is any indication this could get interesting!
TSP changes hidden in an unrelated bill
retired USPS Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:25 AM
Shouldn't the TSP be investing in companies that are actually making money instead of companies that it deems politically correct? What is going on there? Good thing I don't have much invested. No wonder returns are never quite as high as private investments......
TSP changes
Program Specialist ACF Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:40 AM
Sadly, Congressman Davis is my congressman and I wish he would keep his nose out of the TSP. The TSP was constructed to provide federal employees with a low cost means of saving for retirement and to keep politics out. I shudder whenever politicians want to engage in social causes with our money. I've invested with minority owned firms, for example Ariel Capital. That's my choice. But, my reason for investing with them was that I believed they would provide a good return, not just that they are a minority firm. When you start playing the social engineering game you open the doors to hacks and profiteers. Also, I would add that increasing the number of fund choices doesn't necessarily make a better TSP. Passive index funds are the best route. The only change I would make is to offer a Roth TSP.
LEAVE IT ALONE
Sick of it. DOD Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:42 AM
Congressman Davis leave our TSP plan alone. I wouldn't trust you as far as I can throw you.
Congressional Interest in the TSP
retired fed DHHS Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:52 AM
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.
Engineer BOR Fri Apr 3, 2009 10:11 AM
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:
Engineering Technician DoD Fri Apr 3, 2009 10:18 AM
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:
worker Fed Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:12 AM
If you want actively managed funds, you should pay the service fees for these actively managed funds. The investors in indexed funds, which have less fees, should not have to pay for your activity.
I do agree that the investments should be based on the quality of the investment and not on political correctness.
'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?
research scientist noaa Fri Apr 3, 2009 10:42 AM
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?
Editor FedSmith.com Fri Apr 3, 2009 11:15 AM
There are several bills pending that impact federal employees. Some of these have been passed by the House including HR 1804--"The Federal Retirement Reform Act of 2009". Under this bill, the hours of unused sick leave would be converted to months and days of creditable service to be used to compute the FERS basic retirement benefit. That is a different bill than the one the would make the changes to the TSP discussed in this article.
TSP
worker Federal government Fri Apr 3, 2009 10:58 AM
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.
Looking Out for Your Best Interests?
Beach Bum Retired DoD Fri Apr 3, 2009 12:04 PM
It is quite simple - MY retirement funds are NOT a social experiment, nor are MY retiements funs going to be used so someone can learn how to deal with passively managed funds. I will put my money in any other fund but that one.
Can the Editer ...........
Logistics DOD Fri Apr 3, 2009 12:26 PM
of this column pass along our comments to those who vote on such matters to see just how the majority of us Thrift Savings Fund participants wish Congress to leave "our" money alone? I don't mind contacting my own representatives myself but it seems here lately all I get are vocie mails and an inability to leave my 2 cents worth because the message tape is already full. Yeah, our representatives are getting an ear full from all of us. But are they listening and servicing their constiuents is the 64 million dollar question. If Congress has its way with the TSP, say bye, bye to a significant part of your monies/returns on investments I'm afraid to say.
soup is on
clerk irs Fri Apr 3, 2009 12:41 PM
when you mix congress with our money.
it just doenst work, kinda like saying "military intellegence"
dont they have something better to do? like stop that new president from spending more money then the poor country has? this stimulus crap just isnt working.
Like in my state, the stimulus is going to pay for th city building to get solar panels...I am still ponering how that is going to stimulate our economy...........
.............I think we need to go back to soup kitchens
I like the idea of a Roth Option, but I won't invest in a fund SOLELY because it invests in minority companies. The funds need to be profitable ones for me to invest in them and I don't care what race, sex, sexual orientation, or national origin founded them!
TSP
ATCS FAA Fri Apr 3, 2009 5:39 PM
Great, another in the long list of things that was working just fine, but will be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness.
Couldn't Congress just adjourn and let us alone?
possible tsp changes
health care worker Veteran Administration Sat Apr 4, 2009 10:55 AM
I like the idea of maybe investing in a Roth IRA.
Changes to TSP
Concerned Federal Employee DHS Sat Apr 4, 2009 1:54 PM
Where in the hell does Davis get off with the idea that my (our) retirement dollars should be subject to management via minority firms, in the same train of thought if he's so worried why isn't he and the rest of the brainless wonders trying to get the congressional retirement fund managed by small minority owned business. Hey here's an idea how many of the current Federal readership of this publication are interested in petitioning congress to modify their retirement funds to be managed by minority firms. Fedsmith would you offer a survey on this subject? Number 1 issue should be to have the congressional retirement fund subsidize the transfer of tobacco to a controlled substance. Just think now we can have a war on tobacco instead of a war on drugs. Tobacco Czar Pelosey she must be very proud of herself. Number 2 have the congressional retirement program indexed at 3% less than the federal employee cola. Really folks is there anyone else concerned about what these clowns are doing.
Affirmative Action With My Retirement? NUTS!
Battalion Chief Federal Fire Dept. Sat Apr 4, 2009 4:26 PM
This is sick, absurd and near criminal! Look, if anyone (minority group or not) want to provide competitive investment choices, that's up to THEM! Managed mutual fund accounts defeat the success of the entire TSP program. Does this mean they can get commissions too???? The most significant contributing factor to the success of the TSP is LOW EXPENSES. The drag of additional management fees will bleed the TSP down. This is sabotage to raid and ruin the investments of federal workers and future retirees. If our elected officials do not stop injecting unrelated items into bills, like Thrift Savings Plan into this FDA bill, they are BEGGING for a revolution in this country. No joke. Tea Parties are sprouting up all over the country. I'll be on vacation but I'm attending in another city. ELECTED OFFICIALS! You are on notice. KNOCK IT OFF!
Paranoid
Gov Worker DoD Sun Apr 5, 2009 1:26 PM
Let us not get paranoid. It's just an option for people to consider. The C Fund will still be the S&P 500, etc. It might be nice to have these options. I trust Ms. Hobson at Arial Investments more than all the clowns at Putnam put together. It's your money and your choice, and frankly I would like to add TIPS to my mix. Study the financial markets, and investment choices and make the right choice for you. This is not going to happen by itself, you have to put forth some effort. The TSP will go back up over time.
Change
Helium Payment Technician BLM Mon Apr 6, 2009 10:40 AM
I am for a Roth IRA, but I do not like some of the changes being stated. I do not believe that we should close investment companies to only those run by women or minorities. I believe that the US Government has gone overboard with this and is discriminating against whites. I am a female and do not think I am discriminated against because of it.
Congress, Tobacco and TSP
Supervisor DOD Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:37 AM
I watch what Congress does and inform my Senators and Representative of my opinion on bills that are important to me and the country. If my elected officials vote contrary to what I believe on important issues then I vote them out the next election.
I will also stop putting my money into TSP if Congress somehow tries to get it's sticky fingers into my money I have invested there.
Congressman Davis must have some friends that he wants to get into the TSP arena. The admin cost is less for indexed funds versus actively managed ones. Why would we want to pay more for admin costs; that would mean less profit for the investors.
TSP
Management Assistant Internal Revenue Service Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:02 AM
What is it going to mean to those of us who have only aear or more to invest in the TSP.
Also we have a triditional IRA.
I am already at the age where I must withdraw form the IRA.
I don't see what this bill will do to my TSP or IRA.
Thanks
Legislation affecting TSP
accountant Air Force Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:44 AM
Only one complaint - the three year period once signed to receive 100% of sick leave. Why would an individual who has given 30+ years to the government have to wait an additional 3 years to received 100% of something they didn't abuse in the first place? For those eligible to retire it should be based on 100% of the unused balance at time of bill passing/approval signature. I take offense at being punished at tenure for something that was not abused in the 1st place.
ROTH
IRS sourcing guy IRS Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:08 PM
This may sound funny, but I thought there is a (IRS) limitations on household income and Roth contributions. It caps out at like 175k. Are they going to change that tax law also?
Running Early
Adjudication Officer DHS Wed May 27, 2009 8:42 AM
Looks like Mr. Davis has already started his re-election campaign and he wants to see what kind of damage he can do to the TSP in order to reach out and claim some sort of credit for being a "Lochinvar" on bebalf of minority and women owned businesses. And, of course, where better to screw things up than messing with the TSP. It seems that certain members in Congress cannot stand the idea of an efficient TSP; they simply have to see what they can do in order to bring it down!!!
More fund options
Tool Custodian DoD Wed May 27, 2009 1:37 PM
Imagine if there were a precious metals fund, or an energy fund, that we could have invested in, especially in a Roth type of account three-four years ago.
Diversification would be a benefit in a world of shrinking perks, for military/retiree/civil service households!
best interest & congress
Industrial Hygienist BUMED Tue Jun 2, 2009 10:59 AM
My best interest is not what congress has in mind. They have yet to do anything that benefits civil service or the average person. They should provide us with the same retirement package they have.
Not my best Interest
Shop Manager National Park Service Wed Jun 3, 2009 8:58 AM
Let Congress be the front runners with the minority firms managing their retirement funds, than let us know how it works out for them.
Scaremongering?
my agency
Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:09 AM
The provision cited above talks about a "self-directed investment window". Last time I checked, that meant the option would remain with individual investors. So if you don't want an actively managed portfolio, don't choose it.
In other words, this is only going to effect those people who choose to be effected by it (or who don't make a choice - the article doesn't say what the default enrollment investment option is)
Re: Scaremongering?
DoD Agency
Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:14 AM
I don't trust Congress when it comes to making changes to the TSP. From setting up "socially responsible investments" (which may be politically correct but not good investments) to looking out for the interests of minority investment firms (not necessarily your financial interests), I usually assume that the political interests of Congress and those that have contributed huge sums have more priority than making sound investments in my retirement future.
This article seems balanced. "You may think some of the changes are potentially harmful to your retirement investments. Regardless of your view, this change may be worth your attention because of its potential long-term impact on the TSP and how it may impact your retirement savings."
that is good advice. If it is "scaremongering" we must have some very frightened people who don't like to read an entire article or just want to complain about a free site that seems to provide us with good information on a timely basis that we often do not find elsewhere.
Or, perhaps, some just want to complain publicly because it makes them feel good about themselves.
I hope the site will continue to provide this type of information. Please ignore the complainers who obviously have nothing better to do.
Actively Mismanaged
Air Force
Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:10 AM
First, the majority of "actively managed" funds do not out perform the market over time. That's because the active managers haven't proven to be better than a dice roll (even a lottery has a winner).
Second, giving the goal of biased investment in women- and minority-owned companies sounds like a path to corruption (or at least loss). What makes these companies a better investment for TSP subscribers? Aren't WE the TSP customer?
Index funds remain the cheapest way to invest and are appropriate for the TSP. Let's leave the social and corporate welfare funds to for-profit companies.
Re: Actively Mismanaged
DOE, Albuquerque
Mon Apr 6, 2009 9:37 AM
Re: Actively Mismanaged
dod USA
Mon Apr 6, 2009 7:50 PM
Wrong.
I can think of three actively managed funds just today that have outperformed the market for the duration of their existence. Most funds can't match the market but to tell us none do is incorrect.
Article Vague
AMCOM G-2
Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:16 AM
Does this mean that civil service employees will be given the option of investing with women and minority companies or staying with the funds that they like???
tsp changes-minority
Department of Energy
Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:25 AM
Changing the TSP investment strategy under the guise of being fair to minorities is an open invitation for political favors and corruption--Illinois style! Keep your greedy little hands off the TSP! If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Re: tsp changes-minority
BLM
Mon Apr 6, 2009 10:40 AM
TSP changes hidden in an unrelated bill
USPS
Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:25 AM
Shouldn't the TSP be investing in companies that are actually making money instead of companies that it deems politically correct? What is going on there? Good thing I don't have much invested. No wonder returns are never quite as high as private investments......
TSP changes
ACF
Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:40 AM
Sadly, Congressman Davis is my congressman and I wish he would keep his nose out of the TSP. The TSP was constructed to provide federal employees with a low cost means of saving for retirement and to keep politics out. I shudder whenever politicians want to engage in social causes with our money. I've invested with minority owned firms, for example Ariel Capital. That's my choice. But, my reason for investing with them was that I believed they would provide a good return, not just that they are a minority firm. When you start playing the social engineering game you open the doors to hacks and profiteers. Also, I would add that increasing the number of fund choices doesn't necessarily make a better TSP. Passive index funds are the best route. The only change I would make is to offer a Roth TSP.
LEAVE IT ALONE
DOD
Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:42 AM
Congressman Davis leave our TSP plan alone. I wouldn't trust you as far as I can throw you.
Congressional Interest in the TSP
DHHS
Fri Apr 3, 2009 9:52 AM
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
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
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
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
'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
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
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.
Looking Out for Your Best Interests?
Retired DoD
Fri Apr 3, 2009 12:04 PM
It is quite simple - MY retirement funds are NOT a social experiment, nor are MY retiements funs going to be used so someone can learn how to deal with passively managed funds. I will put my money in any other fund but that one.
Can the Editer ...........
DOD
Fri Apr 3, 2009 12:26 PM
of this column pass along our comments to those who vote on such matters to see just how the majority of us Thrift Savings Fund participants wish Congress to leave "our" money alone? I don't mind contacting my own representatives myself but it seems here lately all I get are vocie mails and an inability to leave my 2 cents worth because the message tape is already full. Yeah, our representatives are getting an ear full from all of us. But are they listening and servicing their constiuents is the 64 million dollar question. If Congress has its way with the TSP, say bye, bye to a significant part of your monies/returns on investments I'm afraid to say.
soup is on
irs
Fri Apr 3, 2009 12:41 PM
when you mix congress with our money.
it just doenst work, kinda like saying "military intellegence"
dont they have something better to do? like stop that new president from spending more money then the poor country has? this stimulus crap just isnt working.
Like in my state, the stimulus is going to pay for th city building to get solar panels...I am still ponering how that is going to stimulate our economy...........
.............I think we need to go back to soup kitchens
Say!
Navy
Fri Apr 3, 2009 2:55 PM
What the heck is a minority anyway?
Re: Say!
USPS
Fri Apr 3, 2009 8:35 PM
Mixed feelings
Homeland Security
Fri Apr 3, 2009 3:03 PM
I like the idea of a Roth Option, but I won't invest in a fund SOLELY because it invests in minority companies. The funds need to be profitable ones for me to invest in them and I don't care what race, sex, sexual orientation, or national origin founded them!
TSP
FAA
Fri Apr 3, 2009 5:39 PM
Great, another in the long list of things that was working just fine, but will be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness.
Couldn't Congress just adjourn and let us alone?
possible tsp changes
Veteran Administration
Sat Apr 4, 2009 10:55 AM
I like the idea of maybe investing in a Roth IRA.
Changes to TSP
DHS
Sat Apr 4, 2009 1:54 PM
Where in the hell does Davis get off with the idea that my (our) retirement dollars should be subject to management via minority firms, in the same train of thought if he's so worried why isn't he and the rest of the brainless wonders trying to get the congressional retirement fund managed by small minority owned business. Hey here's an idea how many of the current Federal readership of this publication are interested in petitioning congress to modify their retirement funds to be managed by minority firms. Fedsmith would you offer a survey on this subject? Number 1 issue should be to have the congressional retirement fund subsidize the transfer of tobacco to a controlled substance. Just think now we can have a war on tobacco instead of a war on drugs. Tobacco Czar Pelosey she must be very proud of herself. Number 2 have the congressional retirement program indexed at 3% less than the federal employee cola. Really folks is there anyone else concerned about what these clowns are doing.
Affirmative Action With My Retirement? NUTS!
Federal Fire Dept.
Sat Apr 4, 2009 4:26 PM
This is sick, absurd and near criminal! Look, if anyone (minority group or not) want to provide competitive investment choices, that's up to THEM! Managed mutual fund accounts defeat the success of the entire TSP program. Does this mean they can get commissions too???? The most significant contributing factor to the success of the TSP is LOW EXPENSES. The drag of additional management fees will bleed the TSP down. This is sabotage to raid and ruin the investments of federal workers and future retirees. If our elected officials do not stop injecting unrelated items into bills, like Thrift Savings Plan into this FDA bill, they are BEGGING for a revolution in this country. No joke. Tea Parties are sprouting up all over the country. I'll be on vacation but I'm attending in another city. ELECTED OFFICIALS! You are on notice. KNOCK IT OFF!
Paranoid
DoD
Sun Apr 5, 2009 1:26 PM
Let us not get paranoid. It's just an option for people to consider. The C Fund will still be the S&P 500, etc. It might be nice to have these options. I trust Ms. Hobson at Arial Investments more than all the clowns at Putnam put together. It's your money and your choice, and frankly I would like to add TIPS to my mix. Study the financial markets, and investment choices and make the right choice for you. This is not going to happen by itself, you have to put forth some effort. The TSP will go back up over time.
Change
BLM
Mon Apr 6, 2009 10:40 AM
I am for a Roth IRA, but I do not like some of the changes being stated. I do not believe that we should close investment companies to only those run by women or minorities. I believe that the US Government has gone overboard with this and is discriminating against whites. I am a female and do not think I am discriminated against because of it.
Congress, Tobacco and TSP
DOD
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:37 AM
I watch what Congress does and inform my Senators and Representative of my opinion on bills that are important to me and the country. If my elected officials vote contrary to what I believe on important issues then I vote them out the next election.
I will also stop putting my money into TSP if Congress somehow tries to get it's sticky fingers into my money I have invested there.
Congressman Davis must have some friends that he wants to get into the TSP arena. The admin cost is less for indexed funds versus actively managed ones. Why would we want to pay more for admin costs; that would mean less profit for the investors.
TSP
Internal Revenue Service
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:02 AM
What is it going to mean to those of us who have only aear or more to invest in the TSP.
Also we have a triditional IRA.
I am already at the age where I must withdraw form the IRA.
I don't see what this bill will do to my TSP or IRA.
Thanks
Legislation affecting TSP
Air Force
Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:44 AM
Only one complaint - the three year period once signed to receive 100% of sick leave. Why would an individual who has given 30+ years to the government have to wait an additional 3 years to received 100% of something they didn't abuse in the first place? For those eligible to retire it should be based on 100% of the unused balance at time of bill passing/approval signature. I take offense at being punished at tenure for something that was not abused in the 1st place.
ROTH
IRS
Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:08 PM
This may sound funny, but I thought there is a (IRS) limitations on household income and Roth contributions. It caps out at like 175k. Are they going to change that tax law also?
Running Early
DHS
Wed May 27, 2009 8:42 AM
Looks like Mr. Davis has already started his re-election campaign and he wants to see what kind of damage he can do to the TSP in order to reach out and claim some sort of credit for being a "Lochinvar" on bebalf of minority and women owned businesses. And, of course, where better to screw things up than messing with the TSP. It seems that certain members in Congress cannot stand the idea of an efficient TSP; they simply have to see what they can do in order to bring it down!!!
More fund options
DoD
Wed May 27, 2009 1:37 PM
Imagine if there were a precious metals fund, or an energy fund, that we could have invested in, especially in a Roth type of account three-four years ago.
Diversification would be a benefit in a world of shrinking perks, for military/retiree/civil service households!
best interest & congress
BUMED
Tue Jun 2, 2009 10:59 AM
My best interest is not what congress has in mind. They have yet to do anything that benefits civil service or the average person. They should provide us with the same retirement package they have.
Not my best Interest
National Park Service
Wed Jun 3, 2009 8:58 AM
Let Congress be the front runners with the minority firms managing their retirement funds, than let us know how it works out for them.