FY 2009 Endowments

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Just released:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2009_NCSE_Public_Tables_Endowment_Market_Values.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2009_NCSE_Public_Tables_Endowment_Market_Values.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p>Most seem to have lost about 20%…what are the colleges really getting for their money by paying high priced investment managers?</p>

3

<p>I believe those are mid-year 2009 numbers. Most made good gains in the second half of 2009. The market was up over 20% over the last 6 months so many funds might have been back to even by 12/31/2009.</p>

4

<p>NACUBO (National Association of College and University Business Officers) uses a June 30th fiscal year, so these are the values as of 6/30/09.</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>Ah those cycles. People do not question the value of investment managers when they double or triple endowments in a few short years. Perhaps it might help to compare the same figures for 1979, 1989, 1999, and today. </p>

<p>Was it so long ago that a few academic and political loonies proposed to raid the “obnoxious” riches of Stanford and Harvard to shore up the leaking finances of public institutions in Mass. and California?</p>

6

<p>Assuming that HYPS can best weather the storm due to their huge endowments, some of the USNEWS top 20 poorest performers (w/ 23% or greater loss) include:</p>

<p>Brown
Chicago
Cornell
Duke
Northwestern
Notre Dame
WashU</p>

7

<p>xiggi, my point was if everyone was getting about the same return, in my mind, it calls into question premium pay for a fancy pants investment management team.</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>While these “proposals” (which admittedly, I don’t know much about) may have been unrealistic and nonsensical, despite endowment losses, Harvard and Stanford are still richer than the Univ. of Massachusetts and Univ. of California systems, respectively.</p>

9

<p>^ The only proposal I heard was using the money to increase access for poor kids to these rich private universities…programs that are still in place despite the endowment loss.</p>

10

<p>[Research</a> universities: Powerhouses | The Economist](<a href=“http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15211179]Research”>http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15211179)</p>

<p>

4 - 6 uber-wealthy private universities seems to concern a lot of academics.</p>

11

<p>It’s no accident that the five richest (private) American universities are also the top five in terms of academics, prestige and selectivity.</p>

12

<p>Where is MIT? I don’t see it listed…</p>

13

<p>Where’s MIT? I think their endowment dropped to roughly $8 billion, making it the 5th wealthiest univerity in the nation.</p>

14

<p>I am including MIT among the top 5 (richest private universities) even though, for some reason, it is not listed here.</p>

15

<p>PER post #6:</p>

<p>By the “USNEWS top 20 poorest performers,” I mean poorest performers in the USNEWS top 20 (NOT top 20 poorest performers in the USNEWS).</p>

16

<p>Oh hey, Penn made the top 10 now. Awesome!</p>

17

<p>The UC figures are confusing. There is a figure for UC and then there are figures for each campuses.</p>

18

<p>Well Emory in the top 15 so they’re still pretty loaded. Yea, these drops are expected.</p>

19

<p>

</p>

<p>Not per capita.</p>

20

<p>Add Caltech to the list of USNEWS top 20 universities that lost more than a quarter of their endowment. I missed that.</p>

<p>Given Caltech’s very small undergraduate population, per capita-wise, the school is still ranked very high despite the losses.</p>