Did Chicago have a big year in fund raising?

There is this statement as reported by the Maroon

And then there is this one

I didn’t know that the University had $12 B in investment assets?

Their 2016 Financial statement stated that they had $8B in investment assets?

That is quite a significant jump unless I am comparing apples and oranges?? Are they sand bagging their fund raising efforts and reporting small increases on their campaign website?

Everything about this university from admissions to fundraising is a mystery :slight_smile:

The $12 billion might include money raised during the current capital campaign. Rumor has it that campaign is proceeding well ahead of schedule, and the goal was about $4.5 billion. (Edit: it’s $5 billion)

More details here: http://campaign.uchicago.edu

Going from $8 billion a year ago to $12 billion now seems like a huge increase, but if you factor in $3.9 billion from the capital campaign as well as some gains by the University portfolio (with the Dow at historic levels), it looks plausible.

If the $8 billion already includes money from the capital campaign (which seems more logical from a bookkeeping perspective) then $12 billion would require a huge uptick in donations and investment returns.

The University has finally come clean on the “new dorm”

So looks like they do have some spare cash on hand :slight_smile: Look for their Notes payable to increase from $4.5B (gulp) :slight_smile:

Are they counting pledges as part of their assets? Can a university book pledges? Thought they could but I dont’ know GAAP accounting for non-profits.

Edit/Update: Guess pledges are like receivables. But wondering how they are booked and whether/how they are included in the $12 billion. If the additional $4 bil. is from the capital campaign then some of that’s non-cash (as of yet)

Pledges are counted as receivables (and subject to a reserve). But I can’t imagine how accounts receivable could possibly be described as “investment asset” being managed by some team. That would be awfully misleading.