Return to Article: Groups question TSP interfund transfer restrictions
-
49539
It is very evident that the abusers of the TSP trading problem don't understand how the trading after the decline or gain gets you no where and runs the cost up for others who are in it for the long haul. They may not like being restricted to twice a month, but it is for their own good, and they are being protected from their lack of trading knowledge.
-
46537
I strongly support limiting transactions to several per month if there is an adverse impact on return, as you state. I actively manage my retirement accounts and do transfer funds between different accounts. Yet I think that allowing several trades a month is perfectly sufficient for managing retirement assets. My TIAA-CREF accounts have restrictions on transfers; it's standard practice in the industry, and necessary to provide the best returns possible to the constituent group.
-
46536
Bob, why do you need to do daily transfer? I can understand the need to make adjustment(s) for purposes of asset allocation, but daily? The concern on day-trading is valid and it runs up the cost of TSP. If there is a loophole in the system, we've got to fix it. Do you agree? Yes, you do have a point as far as retirees go, but for the current employees, I have to agree with the "irate engineer". Something has to be done to these people.
-
46476
Please retain the option of daily interfund transfers for the TSP accounts.
My decision to retire in October 2006 was partially based on the stated right to make daily adjustments to my TSP account. I have spent a great deal of time and money educating myself on the principles of economics and international investments with a goal of making informed daily decisions on how to best invest my TSP money. It doesn't seem fair to alter the rules of the TSP now, especially for those of us who have already retired. Afterall, we don't have the option of returning to work so that we can make additional contributions to our TSP.
I applaud the Federal Government for developing the TSP as an innovative employee retirement savings plan. Please do not reduce it's effectiveness by limiting retirees' ability to actively manage their accounts.
-
42934
The discussion by those on high is sounding more like a shell game each day. When a prominent member of the National Federation of Federal Employees states the goal is what is for the greater good for all, not for the greater good of a few...concerns me. Is the Federation against the common folk earning more money by exchanging funds for fear there will be less money for the people running the Program? Makes me wonder who the Federation is really representing!
-
42320
I'm happy to see the restrictions, if for no other reason than to see my coworkers, start focusing on something other than the market when they are supposed to be doing their job. You can call it all sorts of names like "Managing your retirement" or "taking charge of your investments" but the bottom line is active trading takes a significant amount of time, and I suspect most of the abusers are doing their "active trading" and research at work. It's no wonder Federal employees get a bad rap.
-
40693
cruiser9806 raises a good question when he/she asks why TSP participants can't invest in specific stocks, and mentions that Barclays could easily accomodate such an arrangement.
Perhaps the answer is found on page R21 of today's (1/3/08) Wall Street Journal in an article in which Lee Kranefuss, director of Barclays PLC's Barclays Global Investors, the largest provider of ETFs, speaks about the increasing demands to include ETFs in 401(k)s. Since the TSP is federal employees' version of a 401(k), his comments are both applicable and instructive.
Mr. Kranefuss says "There's continuing need for equity ETFs, particularly in international equity. ... there's a real argument to be made for commodities as part of an overall investment portfolio. ... The current 401(k) market is very much beholden, in systems and technology, to traditional mutual funds. (For instance, these systems aren't designed to allow users to buy and sell ETFs throughout the day.) ... My prediction is that there will be continuing pressure on the 401(k) record-keepers, which tend to be large mutual-fund companies. And when a reasonable number of good-size plans choose an ETF option, you'll see a new point of view from the incumbents."
You see, the TSP is really a dinosaur, and when more of its participants realize it, their investment options and returns will improve.
Anyone over 59.5 years of age should seriously consider making an age based in-service transfer of their TSP funds to a traditional IRA at a discount broker like Charles Schwab. Then, subscribe to a few good investment newsletters (Leeb or The Complete Investor), educate yourself, and increase your net worth.
-
40605
Again i ask, why not allow us to put 20% of our savings into specific stocks? Barclays can easily set up an online account for trading and charge a fee like e-trade or ameritrade. That would satisfy everyone and the TSP would not have the problem of the fees anymore. Any thoughts on this idea?
BTW this would be optional.
-
40589
Wow, I left this article and discussion a week ago and it's still going strong. If I may...
With 4 interfund transfers last year, I am not a "day trader" (as we've inaccurately agreed to identify those traders in the so-called "3000" and others like them); but I understand their potential to reap great benefits from "trading" IF they have proper timing. I also understand that such timing is rare. I understand (thanks to another reader) that the L funds do not "cost" the same as individual trades; even so, I understand the excessive trades of the few have raised costs almost 300%.
Regardless, I (and every other TSP participants at the time) paid for a computer system that would allow me to make daily trades, paid twice over I should add; and I would appreciate getting what I paid for! Backwards is not a direction for the Army I came up in. I think that since we pay for the expenses either way, the next scheduled upgrade we pay for should allow costs to be recouped based on trade volume and frequency. Such would allocate a fair share of the costs to each and every participant on an as-occurred basis.
Having said all that I expect, when the dust is settled, the TSP board to continue its pattern of paternalism and disregard our desires restricting our trading capabilities, despite the fraud that constitutes. The ultimate reason I see for this action is the unintended consequences of the world's largest retirement fund going into a panic and toppling our financial trading system. Picture the potential for destruction of a pachyderm (no, not the party's this time) in the living room, frightened, crushing everything in its path. Such is the power we possess and the danger of the herd mentality when the market cycle dips into its inevitable trough. Sorry folks, but there is a reason cowpokes fear a stampede.
-
40585
I am amazed by some of the comments supporting day-trading at the expense of the rest of us and lumping us as passive investors who don't care about the rate of return on our money in TSP. This is not true. If we don't care about the return on our retirement money, we would not be opposing to day-trading which runs up the cost, therefore, reduces the rate of return.
Mutual funds in recent years have stopped the practice of day-traders by limiting the number of trade to one round trip within 90 days. For funds with the highest risks, there is the imposition of a redemption fee to as much as 2% if the money is withdrawn within 90 days. The reason is simple. Day-trading activities run up the cost and reduce the fund's rate of return.
For those who want to continue day-trading within the TSP, they should bear the full cost of their behavior. I believe this is not only logical but also fair.
I, for one, strongly oppose to the practice of day-trading within TSP. I believe the number of inter-fund transfers should be limited to no more than 4-6 per year. I further believe that the decision to restrict day-trading should be put to a vote by all participants in TSP. For those who prefer day-trading, they can do so by not putting the money in their TSP accounts which are set up solely for RETIREMENT.
-
40576
To: Contracting Officer
My post was in response to previous comments about how expensive it would be for TSP to allow daily trades, and was an attempt to show that, like the private sector, the TSP could accomodate daily trades with nominal fees.
Of course everyone should participate 5% to the TSP and get the 5% match - that's a guaranteed 100% return per year. Next, they should max their Roth IRA each year, and then contribute as much as they can to other investments, either real estate, stocks, bonds, etc.
I suspect that most folks opining that the TSP isn't for day trading really don't want to actively manage their investments, but are somewhat in denial about this, and instead mistake their passivity for prudence. Well, I hope they're happy with pre-tax returns about equal to our real 6% inflation, because that's what they got this year unless they were heavily invested in the I Fund. And it's only going to get worse for the TSP's US based and connected investments, including the I Fund.
If TSP members were only more knowledgeable they could demand and obtain more TSP investing tools (How about a Roth 401K, sector specific investing like real estate, or emerging markets?). Let's say the tools quadrupled the cost per dollar invested. With the TSP's .0003 cost per dollar invested, on a $100,000 TSP account that would raise their annual cost a big $90. Anyone who objects to that isn't really interested in taking charge of their investments.
Hopefully you've invested outside the TSP, where you would have had the change to make a larger fortune.
-
40552
The TSP should limit the number of transfers to two a month. It used to be a participant would have to wait 2 weeks for a transfer to go into effect. Same day execution was a major enhancement.
The TSP is not a day trading instrument and it would be in the best interests of all to put limits on it. Most day traders delude and hurt themselves by actively jumping in and out. If somebody has an intense desire to attempt trading, they can open an account with Ameritrade and save the rest of us some money.
-
40455
To: TG
Any tax-advataged investment vehile is going to have restrictions imposed upon what you can do with "your money." The TSP is hardly unique in this way.
-
40454
To: Ed
What those private sector accounts DO NOT have is the free money 1% and matching contribution for FERS folks. And deopending on the IRA vehicle, you can't use pre-tax dollars for funding.
I have made a small fortune in the TSP over the last 20 years, it is by far the best benefit we Feds have. I love it and think that those who don't should stop contributing and invest elswhere. Nobody holds a gun to you head to make you participate in the TSP.
-
40414
To Ed the "Not a Charles Schwab commercial" guy, You make excellent points but you are "speaking in tongues" to many TSP participants. Most either don't know, care to learn or want to be bothered... just read their many posts to this article. It is truly sad, but most are institutionalized and fully accept any paternalistic or communalistic like statements such as, "The goal here is what is for the greater good of all, not for the greater good of a few." Of course, these will be the same people screaming for eligibility need scaling of Social Security and who-knows-what other type of "save me, save me" measures when their retirement "investments" don't measure up.
I continue to say, do the minimum to obtain the complete government match, with the hope you retire before it is stolen, and save after tax dollars like a mad man/woman in the private investment vehicle of your choice and control.
-
40400
I agree that TSP is not for day traders. I have been a quite passive, long-term investor and have made very few interfund transfers in my 15+ years in TSP--never exceeding 2 transfers per month. However, I should have the option to adjust my funds if market conditions are such that it would be to my advantage to make more than transfers per month.
When considering transaction fees with private sector IRA plans, it should be remembered that most of those plans provide thousands of investment choices; TSP offers 4, plus the G fund.
-
40329
I oppose limitations on what I can / cannot do with my money.
-
40302
TSP is not a day trading account and most (if not all) 401ks are not either. If daily trades are increasing my costs then I'm against supporting frequent trades. Either limit the trades or charge the frequent traders the full cost of their trades -regardless of the cost of the trades. I am not in favor of freq. traders being charged a small fee; they need to pay the full cost of the program -regardless of the cost. There is no reason why I should defray that cost. The actual cost should be determined and charged to freq. traders. The points charged by TSP to manage the TSP is the lowest in the industry -lets keep it that way.
-
40258
The TSP is not for day traders, that was never the intent of the program from day one. It appears a few users are creating large transaction costs that affect the entire membership. Recall recently that Costco's unlimited return policy on electronics was hitting at about 4% of its bottom line. Again, a few users affecting all. So even Costco elimintated this and their bottom line is incredible. There are leaches everywhere that are greedy and hit 99% of the others with their costs. EXCELLENT MOVE by TSP to deal with this; keep up with the good work TSP.
-
40252
If the high cost is associated specifically with the I fund then why not only limit trades into and out of the I fund?
How are you associating costs from traders with those of re-balancing the L funds? I would believe that the re-balancing is more costly than the trading of individuals.
-
40225
Many federal employees overestimate the costs associated with a private sector traditional IRA, and underestimate the advantage of their much greater investment options.
For example, at Charles Schwab you can establish a traditional IRA with a $1,000 minimum balance, or withdrawals of $100 per month from your paycheck. There are zero fees associated with maintaining the IRA account, regardless of its balance. Your only costs will be the cost of individual trades which, for stocks, will probably be about $12.95 per trade to Schwab, and for mutual funds, the costs are zero if the mutual funds are sponsored by Charles Schwab. If the mutual funds are non-Schwab funds, the transaction fee for mutual funds is a flat $49.95 regardless of dollar amount. Each mutual fund will also have its own fee which can vary, but probably will range from about .005 to .02 per dollar invested. This seems so much greater than the TSP .0003 per dollar invested, but think of the extra cost as the cost of investment freedom and the much greater returns available at commensurately less risk.
Choices of investments within an IRA include individual stocks, mutual funds, ETF (exchange traded funds), money market accounts (which have a zero cost, even less than the much bragged-about TSP cost of .0003 per dollar), bonds, certificates of deposits, and you can even get approval to trade some options. The one thing you can't do in a traditional IRS is sell short because of IRS prohibitions.
Another advantage of a private traditional IRA is that you get lots of investment tools provided for free. At Charles Schwab, which Barron's Magazine picked for the last 2 years as having the best stock picking record of all major discount brokers, there are a great many FREE online investment tools and, other than the previous costs which I've mentioned above, you never have to pay a broker. Compared to Charles Schwab or any other private sector discount broker, the TSP provides very poor investment support.
The preceding may sound like a Charles Schwab commercial, but my only connection with them is that I've had accounts there for many years.
I'll bet the members of the TSP Board have plenty of their own money in private sector accounts. You should do your best to do the same.
-
40216
I support limits on funds transfers for the following reasons:
1. Costs incurred by frequent traders are paid for in reduced net earnings by all TSP particiapants.
2. It is not the responsibility of the TSP to provided federal workers with a tax deferred account from which they can speculate or day-trade. Anyone who thinks that he or she can beat the market by constantly moving between funds is either deceiving himself, or is very, very lucky.
3. TSP Board has the responsibility of providing a stable, low-cost environment for federal workers to build tax-deferred supplements to their pensions. Constant trading by enough TSP participants could ultimately interfere with the Boards' efforts to this.
-
40215
I needed to realize about 3% higher return than the nominal 7% return in order to retire. So, I spent the last 2 yrs developing a system to "characterize and identify near term trends". The trend identification was developed assuming the daily trading rules. So, now the TSP board wants to revise the rules.
The board implements a version of the efficient frontier, which has a built in lag greater than six months, and perfroms day trading based on a six month lag. I'm not sure I follow the logic in that approach to managing retirement funds. Rather, that implementation appears has the advantadge that it is easy to market and implement.
Not much an individual can do in this situation, except go along with the rule changes. I don't agree with the comments comparing retirment managment to day tradiing, that's the system, and it's where all my funds are tied up. If they want to limit the trading, I think they should relax the rules on withdraws also.
I hope the board implement a more realistic retirement stratedgy that doesn't incoporate such a large lag. We are not grading a fund manage, which is the practical application of efficient frontier. Or, if the board wants to keep the current L funds with the large lag, the board should reduce the cost by rebalancing only once a month, or every other month. Either way is too fast for the built in lags.
Finally, I hope they allow more than 2 moves per month, preferably an odd number of moves, along with the planned movement back to G fund. With only 2 moves, you will migrate towards starting the month in a low risk distribution, move once to a high risk distribution, them move back to low risk, followed with additional moves to G (low risk), putting you in a low risk position to start the following month. So, I would like to have an odd number of moves, either 3 or 5, instead of the proposed 2 moves. An odd number of moves allows an ending move towards a high risk distribution, to be followed by the G fund moves towards a lower risk distribution.
-
40207
As more participants get more involved the cost of trades is still going to be there. It may be 3000 doing 10 trades now, but what will it be like when 300,000 do 2 trades.
Restricting trades is not the right answer.
-
40199
Mr. Brown states ""The goal here is what is for the greater good of all, not for the greater good of a few." Yet taking a step backwards by once again limiting transactions only RESTRICTS the ability of ALL to MAXIMIZE their retirement funds. There are MANY TSP participants who EXCEED market returns by taking advantage of dips and peaks in the market several times per month. Instead of the many passive sheep who do not care about their TSP funds, these people are ACTIVELY trying to provide themselves a BETTER FUTURE. If costs are an issue, a THOROUGH EXAMINATION of a fee-based trading system for only those who exceed the proposed limits is the LOGICAL SOLUTION. If brokerage houses can provide reasonable fees, so can the TSP. Let's keep moving FORWARD, not BACKWARDS.
-
40198
I understand the need to hold down fees, but I do not like the idea of limiting my ability to REASONABLY transfer investment funds in my TSP account. I agree with those who point out that the TSP is not for day trading. However, there are periods of time when any prudent investor needs flexibility in managing his/her accounts. I often go many months - even years - without shifting anything. However, in recent months it has become clear that to do nothing would be a very expensive error. For that reason I have made about six moves in the past three months. Therefore, I support the suggestion to limit trades to 24 a year or some other reasonable number PER YEAR, not per month, to allow us the flexibity we need to protect and grow our investments.
-
40195
Why hasn't the TSP published the costs of the daily trading that the Life Cycle funds must do to maintain the set percentages. Certainly anyone using the L funds should be charged an additional fee for this very frequent trading.
-
40194
Agree with Kirk Strain below. How much is the daily rebalancing of all L fund participant accounts costing other TSP participants who do not use these funds? Shouldn't L fund participants also be charged additional fees to cover the extra expenses of these funds? My personal opinion is that there should be fees (reasonable ones) on all transfers (no free ones), which would be the fairest way to ensure that those doing the transfers pay at least a reasonable portion of the extra costs. In like manner, L fund participants should also pay reasonable fees to offset the extra costs associated with these funds.
-
40189
The reason for the restrictions cited by the board is the excess costs incurred by the frequent traders. The only hard numbers I have seen quoted were for October: $450,000,000 in trades which incurred about 8 basis points in direct trading costs which comes out to about $280,000 (.008 * 450,000,000). There were apparently indirect costs also, no estimate of which were given. I'll try to be pessimistic and call the total costs incurred to be about $600,000, over double the direct costs. If there are 10,000,000 investors in the TSP (I believe this to be low? Help me out here?) that would mean that my cost would be on the order of LESS THAN 6 cents (for Oct.). I can afford the 6 cents a month for the option to move my funds on an as desired basis. It sounds like much ado about nothing to me. The board gave us the option to move our funds around, then pitch a tissey because some want to actually excercise the option?
-
40183
FACT: A fee of $10 per trade would raise $24 million per year for the TSP, more than offsetting any costs involved. Those who trade more often would be charged more, those who don't move at all would pay nothing.
FACT: A limit of $100,000 per day would also reduce the dollar volume of money moving, and would protect the right to move where the employee thinks is best for his/her account. It would cost minimal to impose, and would allow a reasonable amount of freedom.
FACT: The costs they are talking about amount to $4 PER YEAR per TSP participant. The proposed change would scale that back to $3 per year per participant.
I'm for FREEDOM. Look at the facts.
-
40179
Take away "our" ability to control "our" fund and you might as well dump the whole thing (or use it for Social Security instead, where "you" can control everything.) Did "you" think that there wouldn't be costs involved when you started the program? Who are these economic "gurus" making the big salaries? Give me a break. Either let us do what you promised, or scrap the program, but don't change the rules in the middle of the game.
-
40171
Agree with limiting the number of trades. The tax payer probably visualizes (probably correctly) hundreds of Warren Buffett wannabees performing stock/bond market research while on the clock.
-
40159
My suggestion would to not limit interfund transfers. However, if cost is an issue, a small fee would certainly will get our attention. But when I do do frequent transfers it's because FERS system puts a lot of stress on me as a FERS participant, and I am sure on others, because our defined contribution pension benefits are not guranteed and the defined benefit portion is minscule. We FERS participants have to be vigilant and be aggresive with protecting our benefits.
Therefore, put restrictions on CSRS particiapnts because for them TSP investment is really not for pension, but maybe to play the market. Another possible option is to put restrictions on younger participants who are not close to retirement and as they age, start reducing to eliminating the restrictions. I am not young and I beleive moving my money frequently in the market in recent months may have kept me from losing my principal.
Our Agency oversees private sector employee benefits and I have heard horror stories, like, when the participants could not move their money out of Enron emplyer stock due to restrictions and lost big infront of their eyes.
If you would like to speak with me, please call me at 972-850-4595.
-
40158
I certainly welcome anyone to correct my thinking on this but isn't the purpose of the TSP to provide a stable (as stable as can be in today's market) means for us to save money for our retirement? If you want to day trade, this is not the place to do it because the instability hurts the overall plan. If the board decides to change it's mind and allow as frequent transactions as the investor wants, they should at least charge something for it. What day trader trades for free? Put the fees in a pot and use as a dividend for those who had no pay transactions throughout the year. This is not a charity. Why run it like one? Am I thinking too simply in my opinion that the more transactions are made, the less stable the plan, and the more negative the impact overall?
-
40153
Your article points to a web site that Brown pointed to for the council members. Have you even read the 4th news letter at that site? After reading the news letter it certainly would be an excellent article to write on. Seems the 3000 members are being dumped on by over 1/2 million members unknowingly having their accounts rebalanced which constitutes day trading. Do your homework then report.
-
40151
I believe the surviving spouse benefit should be provided within the TSP system. Being a federal employee for 35 years myself and my wife putting up with me for 37 years of marriage has earned her the right to stay in a plan that I have earned.
-
40150
This is such a no brainer. Give everyone a fixed number (say 5) of free transfers/month. That should be sufficient for anyone managing a retirement account. Then charge a fee that reflects the actual costs for additional transfers, maybe $50. I personally don't want my returns lowered because of a few thousand people who whould be playing the markets via another vehicle.
-
40146
I do not agree with such a policy. I think that we should have the flexibility of moving our shares as we see fit. Although I agree that the practice of daily switching may be extreme, we should have the flexibility, especially in the volitile shares such as the "I" funds, to be able to move them around in order to protect our assests.
-
40123
"But Strombotne argues that IRAs have expenses that are dramatically higher than the TSP, placing an additional burden on surviving spouses."
I just spoke to my people at Dain Rauscher in St Paul and they told me that if my account balance is over $200,000 they charge no fees at all. I plan to roll my TSP into my IRA with them when I retire.
-
40114
"The proposal is a result of a recent analysis by TSP officials on the impact of trading activity on fund management and transaction expenses. Officials studied the fund with the highest costs, the International fund, and found that in September and October, the average daily trade was $224 million, far above the daily trades of $49 million in 2006 and $27 million in 2005. The TSP found that the majority of the higher trading volume was due to fewer than 3,000 participants who engaged in frequent trading."
I find it hard to believe that 3,000 participants could have such a hugh cost impact on the tsp considering there are millions of Federal Employees that make up the collective group. Are you suggesting these 3,000 frequent traders hold vast sums of monies compared to the buy and hold participants? Exactly how much does it cost for the re-balancing of the L-funds, which by your own reports, participation has grown rapidly over the past 3 years. It appears that your arguments only include pieces of the puzzle instead of looking at the whole picture. Please provide proof of your "recent analysis" of the added expenses(instead of one line per year comparisons) and explain exactly how fund management and transaction cost are incurred before blaming it on the 3,000 frequent traders. I find it reprehensible and irresponsible that after spending millions of our dollars to upgrade to the current computer system that the board would just throw it away.
-
40110
It is a lot harder to regain your reputation after you have lost it than to maintain it in the first place. TSP has lost its reputation if this is implemented as expected. Federal employees will no longer think of maxing out their TSP. Over time as the populace gets more educated about stocks and bonds, this habit of not looking first to TSP when you have extra money for investments will become more and more entrenched. And no one will ever be accountable for the loss. A sign of the times.
It will be interesting to see what offers the financial institutions will develop to entice TSP shareholders away. Capitalism and competition will prevail over TSP mismanagement is my bet. Let's hope so.
-
40108
"This is a retirement fund, not a day-trading account," Brown said.
Why did the TSP board spend millions of dollars implementing a system that allows daily transfers in the first place?!
Did Mr Brown, and his kind, protest the ability to make daily transfers prior to their implementation?
-
40107
I'm in favor of the restrictions because in the "real world"...ie any 401(k) plan in the private sector - these interfund transfers that occur 2-3+ times would cost individuals $100s....if not $1000s of dollars by doing that and if you make lets say 1% in a day but are charged .75% or more for that transaction...is it reallyw worth that extra .25%? What if the fee was 1.25%? Mutual funds in 401(k) plans were never meant to be traded like stocks. In that I mean - have a position today and change position tomorrow...then the next day..trying to time the market...etc. I don't care how good the returns are - the majority of TSP participants don't move their $$ that often and common sense/most financial advisers encourage that. If you want to "play the market" then use your after-tax $$ and time it. But don't raise my fees/costs because you want a better return. Some of us don't have the luxury of watching the market during the workday while we are being paid to do our jobs. What wonderful use of taxpayer $$.
-
40105
"We felt the two trades a month allows flexibility for everyone and the ability for everyone to go into the G Fund if they get scared," Ray said. "A percentage fee is certainly an option, but we felt that would hurt the nonfrequent traders."
"Nonfrequent traders" would not trade that often or be charged a fee if we go to 2 free trades and a fee for anything beyond that.
Why is it costing TSP so much to execute trades while the brokerage houses do it so much cheaper? Who is making the extra money on the trades? Barclay?
Come on this is the second largest plan in the WORLD and we don't have some "power" to get cheaper trades. Time to renegotiate our contract with Barclay, update the TSP system, and remove the FRTIB to include Mr. Long, Ms. Ray, and possibly the so called advocates on the ETAC.
Were is the ETAC contact list? Were is web access to them? What is their phone number? Who do I call and can they make a difference?
Why are political appointees on the FRTIB and what did they do to get there? Were is the oversight by Congress and the DOL? Why do the FRTIB sight industry standards that are two trades or less a month but ignore the GAO-05-38 report advising better "Customer Service Practices Adopted by Private Sector Plan Managers"?
Something stinks to high heaven and it ain't the "3000 frequent traders".
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.