Comments on: How much risk should pensioners accept?

By: Aslam

Aslam — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:59:56 +0000

Just as Fed was unable to see what was in store for the economy, its acceptable that CalPERS also missed it.

What I’m wondering is the decision to lower the asset allocation mix from 56% to 49% on the global euqity asset class (as per the latest allocation figures). Wouldn’t be a good idea to buy equities considering the valuation gloablly is at much reasonable that what it was in 2007? Therefore aiming for a good return when the market bounce back?

Decision to hike the private equity to 14% from 10% looks sounds to be like a pension fund transforming to a hedge fund. Are we loosing the distinction between a pension fund and a hedge fund?

By: f belz

f belz — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:03:58 +0000

Risky investments look good when things are going up and are almost like death throes when things are going down. The loss of money can be explained but the damage to lives is incalculable. The people at the head of the pension funds need to buy some good insurance, because if things get nasty there will not be anywhere to hide. I do not think we have seen all the results of the great amount of damage done to the spirit of this country which was done by inane decisions of the Bush administration.

By: john

john — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:39:11 +0000

You Leave Our PENSIONS ALONE AND LAY OFF SOME OF THE GARBAGE YOU’RE TRYING TO PASS

By: Gary D

Gary D — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:34:33 +0000

Calpers hasn’t learned anything and is now like a losing gambler, only interested in recouping its previous losses with even riskier bets.

The fund managers should be arrested for official malfeasance.

By: JAMES MIMA

JAMES MIMA — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:07:10 +0000

I reject the tendency to constantly try to improve on returns by increasing risk. Calpers past performance is commendable and should be continued but not increasing risk.