GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Time Is on TSP's Side

• 56916
  

  The roller coaster ride our economy is experiencing has been greatly caused my day trading and speculative trading. I do not want my retirement subjected to this. Passive fund management is not just a choice; it is a statutory requirement imposed by the lawmakers who established the plan. The requirement was designed to keep federal employees' retirement funds safe. leave my TSP Program ALONE....

  sandi Posted August 21, 2008 12:35 PM
• 56450
  

  Don't forget that the TSP paycheck deductions are pre-tax dollars and hopefully will be taxed at a lower rate when you retire. Investing otherwise with after tax dollars, will be taxed again when you begin to withdraw. Also how can you reject 100% match on 5% of your pre-tax salary.

  Ever B. Posted August 14, 2008 3:17 PM
• 55246
  

  Certainly frequent trading increases costs. It's a whole other issue when investors do not have sufficient investment choices.

  For example, when I don't want to hold my cash in US dollars Currently my only option is the I fund which forces me to own equities to hold foreign.

  Having no gold option borders on criminal with the ever shrinking dollar.

  So no, there are currently not adequate choices in the TSP. I do not have sufficient choices to protect my wealth from currency devaluation caused by our own Fed policies.

  GovtPCO Posted July 29, 2008 2:16 PM
• 55232
  

  I am outraged that Congress is considering having less oversite over the pension plans (TSP being one of them) for their federal employees! I urge every federal employee to immediately write their Congressmen and Senators, the union, and anyone else they can think of urging them to NOT SUPPORT this! Do we want our pensions to go the way that ENRON employees' pensions did? This is a STUPID IDEA!

  Suzanne Posted July 29, 2008 1:05 PM
• 55131
  

  The TSP board should add more funds and investment choices. That is a given. The problem is it took two years to add the last two fund choices. Totally Unsat! After all the false starts and so forth, and given hindsight, the TSP function should have been given to Vanguard or Fidelity. It would have been 1/10th the cost, 1/10 the timeline and better for the taxpayers. Off topic but same goes for NSPS, they should have used the demo programs for pfp that were operating the last 20 years vice re-inventing the wheel.

  govie Posted July 28, 2008 3:56 PM
• 55098
  

  Ditto fed.

  To House: don't touch it To aggressive investors: go private, do your own investing

  ffederal employee Posted July 28, 2008 11:35 AM
• 54985
  

  For all you TSP bashers, pack your bags. The beauty of the TSP is low fees! Sure there is room for improvement like a Roth IRA, and some more fund options could be added. Now if you want a day trader, actual-time environment, that would be cool. However, you can expect to pay brokerage house level fees for that level of service. That said, I would option for a Super-TSP. Then you guys who want the flexibility can pay your way.

  Jake Posted July 25, 2008 9:21 AM
• 54946
  

  Personally, I invested in TSP because I did want conservative investment that I didn't have to worry about, but better than the G fund. The comments here are haranguing the TSP for NOT being more aggressive. But that was not the point of the TSP. No one is forcing any Federal employee into TSP. Even auto enrollment will have an opt out. If you want more aggressive investment, go on the outside.

  another fed Posted July 24, 2008 1:39 PM
• 54943
  

  You folks that are complaining about the TSP have the right to invest your funds where ever you please, but if you dont invest in the TSP you dont get the 5% match. So quit your belly aching and live with it.

  Daddygo Posted July 24, 2008 1:18 PM
• 54925
  

  For every 6000 invested in apple in 2001 your looking at close to 800,000 dollars. RIMM(Blackberry), the same. 5000 in Terra Group would have netted you 250,000. And your telling me the TSP is the best you got? Let me manage my money. That's what the TSP is about, right? Responsibilty for the Individual? Personally, i reduced the amount into the TSP to 5% and investing the rest in low cost stocks with good margins and growth. Stocks with great earnings, like GE and WFC are so cheap now that not buying them at this point would be a sin. The financials? See you in 2010, except WFC Thank you.

  N.E. Melendez Posted July 24, 2008 11:06 AM
• 54923
  

  As soon as I turn 59 1/2 I will do a rollover to a self directed IRA. Even if fees are higher I will at least have investment choices. The TSP should be abolished and ran like health care where you can choose a plan on the outside.

  Nick Posted July 24, 2008 11:00 AM
• 54898
  

  The government has made us responsible for over 50% of our retirement. But, the TSP board limits our access to trades. With moves like this, I do not want the board to have anymore leeway over my retirement. I am now exploring other options for my money and am seriously concidering removing all my funds from TSP.

  GONE Posted July 24, 2008 9:19 AM
• 54883
  

  Mr. Long I agree the statutory requirement to keep the TSP funds safe for federal employees' retirement is foremost for investing in it. If I had wanted all the other options for investing I would have found an investment broker. If H.R. 6500 is passed,I will move my funds out. Every time the government makes changes we lose, and those supporting it have their own agenda, as usual, not what is best for me.

  Not my Agenda Posted July 24, 2008 8:16 AM
• 54879
  

  I can't believe Congress would consider giving the anti TSP investor TSP Board more power. This board wants to force TSP investors into a buy an hold strategy. This strategy recently took the C fund back to 1998 levels. TSP investors in this fund lost 10 years of appreciation. That is one third of a 30 year career. The TSP board believes it is a parent protecting all of us child like investors from making mistakes. By limiting our ability to move in and out of funds and having so few investment options, FERS employees will be living in trailers during retirement or working until we are 80. Congress move the TSP to a large mutual fund company like Fidelity or Vanguard. Let us manage our money. Then, at least we have a fair chance at building a desent retirement. And, if we fail and end up poor, it will be our own doing. If Congress leaves our retirement in the hands of the TSP Board, that is good chance that we will end up poor. The TSP Board believes that the next 20 years for investors will be the same as the last 20 years. It won't. Look around, things have changed. Inflation is running higher than G fund returns (you are loosing money). We lost 10 years of C fund returns (buy and hold people are in big trouble). There are no commodity funds to invest in (the biggest hedge against inflation). For the TSP Board, the biggest problem with the fund is that a TSP investor might trade more than 2 times a month. The TSP Board is out of touch. Congress, please do not give it more power.

  Buster Posted July 24, 2008 7:53 AM
• 54874
  

  If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!

  Fed Posted July 24, 2008 7:39 AM
• 54870
  

  The House of Representatives needs to keep its hands out of the management of TSP. If they spread out to too many options, the cost of managing the funds is going to outweigh the benefits. Obviously, with so much money involved, everyone wants to get a chance to benefit from it. TSP should not be used to make money for a bunch of Fund managers! It should be used to provide retirement benefits for governemnt employees who aren't covered by the Civil Service Retirement System. Keep Congress away! They'll only mess up a good thing!

  Mary Lou Bailey-Funk Posted July 24, 2008 7:23 AM
• 54865
  

  There is an iteresting dynamic at play here, certain quarters of Congress have wanted the TSP to initiate funds in REITs, which were going like gang-busters just before the realestate bubble burst --up on average over 150% from 2003 to 2006. If TSP investors had remained in REITs though, they would be down over 35% in their accounts just from the beginning of 2007.

  The TSP board would seemingly be more satisfied with having to have their investors mail in passbook savings accounts to have the interest posted once or twice a year --for the safety and stability. Surely Federal employees deserve retirement accounts that are at once more flexible than that which the TSP board would have and less risky than some of the ideas that Congress has proposed.

  Paul D. Posted July 24, 2008 6:49 AM