Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : MARKET INDEX TECHNICAL ANALYSIS - MITA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Killswitch who wrote (14818)	10/16/2002 8:30:08 AM
From: Killswitch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19219

Signs that some institutions may slowly but steadily bail out of this market if it worsens? "Brian Reynolds Thinking Way Ahead 10/16/02 06:57 AM EDT While all the bond talk yesterday was about Warren Buffet selling his Treasuries (which Doug Kass noted), a more significant bond move might have been made by CalPers late yesterday afternoon. The board voted to approve a measure (that had been recommended by the staff last week) to cut their bond weighting by 2%, splitting the proceeds between private equity and real estate. That doesn’t sound like a large move, but it would represent $2.6 billion out of bonds. This move would be expected to be implemented over a long stretch of time, so its immediate impact isn't great. However, the follow-on effect will bear watching next year, as CalPers is a trend-setter and many institutional decision makers are trend followers. It's a potential negative for Treasuries, but probably a greater risk for corporates, as most institutions are overweighted in corporates. I've written about the client troubles that many bond managers have been having. If more institutional clients come to their yearly reviews in the first quarter of '03 and decide that Treasuries are overvalued and that corporates have turned out to be riskier than they had thought, it would be a negative for bonds later in '03. If those re-allocations were tilted toward real estate, it would be a negative for financial markets."