2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I have to respectfully disagree with the statement given by Mr. Wolfgruber at Oppenheimerfunds that the losses are attributable to a bad market.  The two most conservative portfolios for the Oregon Plan were heavily invested (more than one quarter of all the assets) in Oppenheimer’s  Core Bond Fund, which was not managed as a conservative fund.  Yes, market conditions in the last 6 months have been extremely unfavorable to investors.  But, portfolio managers are professionals paid to manage risk.  Conservative portfolios should never incur the losses like those suffered by the Oregon College Savings Plan.  There was no excuse for taking the risks that were taken.  They gambled and we lost.   I posted some information on the subject on our website  www.bankslawoffice.com. 

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context