TSP Places Limit on Participant Interfund Transfers

April 28, 2008 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The debate over methods to stop frequent trading by participants in the Federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) has ended as the TSP Board officially amended the plan to restrict interfund transfers.

A rule posted in the Federal Register for April 24 says the plan’s interfund transfer regulations have been amended to limit the number of interfund transfer requests to two per calendar month. Additional interfund transfers can be made only into the Government Securities Investment (G) Fund until the first day of the next calendar month, the rule says.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

In the preamble to the regulations, the TSP Board explained the action as follows: “Under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986, the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) was created to offer passive long-term investments designed to improve the retirement security of Federal employees. As a result of analysis performed in 2007, it became clear that a small number of TSP participants were pursuing “market timing” active investment strategies in the TSP. These activities were diluting the earnings of the long-term investors, and adversely affecting the ability of TSP managers to replicate the performance of selected indexes as required by law.”

A recent analysis by TSP officials on the impact of trading activity on fund management and transaction expenses found the average daily trade in September and October for the fund with the highest costs, the International (I) fund, was $224 million, far above the daily trades of $49 million in 2006 and $27 million in 2005. The officials found the majority of the higher trading volume was due to fewer than 3,000 participants who engaged in frequent trading.

In December members of the TSP Employee Thrift Advisory Council discussed measures other than the interfund transfer restriction that could be used to curb the frequent trading including imposing fees on the frequent traders (See TSP Transfer Restriction Proposal Brings Debate ).

In the published rule, the TSP explained in detail why it rejected comments from participants about the proposed restriction. “By way of summary, those individual respondents who have personally made frequent interfund transfers and oppose the proposed limits display a fundamental misunderstanding of the statutory TSP design. They also present two overarching arguments which deserve discussion at the outset, because they obscure the damage which their frequent IFTs inflict on other plan participants,” the document says.

The TSP noted that the non-random, coordinated actions of fewer than 1% of participants are being made to the detriment of the remaining 99% of participants, and that “the clear intent of this activity–to “beat” the market indexes–fundamentally conflicts with statutory mandates that the Board provide passive investments which replicate the performance of market indexes.”

Some participants argued that it was misleading to compare the TSP funds to mutual funds, but the Board pointed out that TSP assets are invested in Collective Trust Funds which are "virtually identical to mutual funds in the way they are priced and the that trades are executed."

The Board said its decision to restrict transfers was based in part on the fact that the TSP funds are like mutual funds regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the SEC found that: "Excessive trading in mutual funds occurs at the expense of long-term investors, diluting the value of their shares. It may disrupt the management of a fund's portfolio and raise the fund's transaction cost because the fund manager must either hold extra cash or sell investments at inopportune times to meet redemptions."

The commenters' claim that frequent interfund transfers do not significantly increase costs is misleading, the TSP said, explaining that the $16 million in trading costs for 2007 was significant compared to the TSP's budget of $87 million and that these costs are born by all participants, not just the few making frequent transfers. The document explained that while the Board has kept the plan's expense ratio to participants very low, the funds also incur transaction costs, which are directly related to the dollar amount of interfund transfers requested by participants. It noted that these transaction costs are investment expenses that reduce investment income before deductions for administrative expenses and are not included in the plan's expense ratio.

Though TSP officials found the highest impact of frequent transfers was made to the I fund, leading some commenters to suggest this should be the only fund with restrictions, the Board noted in the new rule that its analysis also showed adverse effects of frequent trading to other funds. The TSP Board said it was especially troubled by the effect frequent transfers had on the G fund, considered the plan's stable value investment, as it found that some participants were making several trades in one day in and out of the fund, causing a dilution of earnings amounts in the G fund to all participants.

The Board said protecting the intent of the G fund offering is "especially important to those cautious investors who seek security of principle and interest."

In addressing commenters' suggestion to levy a flat fee for interfund transfers, the Board said it decided against such a move because it would be impossible to correctly assign the exact costs of trading to those who are making interfund transfers. The agency explained in detail how trades are made each day using the previous day's closing price, and any difference in total trade amount due to the difference in price on the following day is shared by those participants who did not move monies out of the fund being traded.

In addition, the Board said imposing a fee would deny participants the ability to move to the safety of the G fund at any time without charge.

The new rule in the Federal Register is here .

GASB Revamps 2008 Technical Plan

April 25, 2008 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has added three projects to its current agenda - including a review of existing postemployment benefits standards.

Under the Postemployment Benefits Accounting and Financial Reporting project, the GASB will assess the effectiveness of its existing standards for accounting and financial reporting for postemployment benefits-focusing on a review of existing pension standards in GASB Statements No. 25, Financial Reporting for Defined Benefit Pension Plans and Note Disclosures for Defined Contribution Plans, and No. 27, Accounting for Pensions by State and Local Governmental Employers -and consider whether improvements need to be made.  

According to a press release, through the Public/Private Partnerships project, also added to the agenda, the Board will explore whether existing authoritative guidance is sufficient to address the accounting and financial reporting issues resulting from public/private partnership arrangements-such as contracting with private companies to operate or build toll roads or other major infrastructure assets-or if new standards are needed.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Other Additions

Also added to the agenda was a reexamination of GASB Statement No. 14, The Financial Reporting Entity, including consideration of establishing reporting standards for government departments, agencies, and other units smaller than a complete reporting entity. The additions were announced by GASB Chairman Robert Attmore following discussion among GASB members at the public Board meeting last week.

The Reporting Unit Presentations/Statement 14 Reexamination project has two main objectives. First, the GASB will consider developing generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for separately issued financial statements of reporting units that comprise less than a separate legal entity as defined in Statement 14. Second, the GASB will reexamine the requirements of Statement 14, as amended, to determine its effectiveness and to consider whether improvements are needed.

“While it is not common for three projects to be added to the current agenda at once, the GASB staff’s extensive research on these three major projects concluded at approximately the same time. The schedule also allowed the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council to provide timely input on project priorities before this action was taken,” said GASB Chairman Robert Attmore, in a statement. “I am confident that these important projects will result in users of financial reports having access to better information, which will allow them to make better informed decisions about the entities they are evaluating.”

In addition, the GASB will be addressing three new practice issues:

  • The AICPA Omnibus project will incorporate accounting and financial reporting standards currently found in the AICPA Statements on Auditing Standards into the GASB's literature, including the GAAP hierarchy.
  • The ARC Adjustment project will consider providing guidance that would allow the annual required contribution (ARC) adjustment to be based on actual amounts associated with the amortization of past contribution deficiencies or excesses.
  • The Derivative Instruments Implementation Guide project will provide assistance to practitioners in applying the forthcoming derivative instruments standard.

Research also will begin in two areas, according to the announcement:

  • Identifying provisions in Financial Accounting Standards Board Statements and Interpretations, Accounting Principles Board Opinions, and Accounting Research Bulletins of the AICPA, issued on or before November 30, 1989, that do not conflict with or contradict GASB pronouncements, for possible codification into the GASB literature.
  • Further development of the definition of fair value, the methods used to measure fair value, and potential disclosures about fair value measurements.

More information about the GASB and each of the projects mentioned above can be found at www.gasb.org .

«