Harvard endowment is down $8B

<p>cellardweller:</p>

<p>Those numbers look about right. One thing that's a little misleading. Many schools don't include their study abroad students when they report their enrollment on the CDS (because they are paying tuition elsewhere), even though they are receiving financial aid from the home college. This has the effect of reducing your denominator. Swarthmore includes their study abroad students in all of their reported enrollment numbers because they continue to pay Swarthmore tuition while studying abroad.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Huh? If you don't know the fraction of enrolled students receiving aid, how do you know whether this reflects few students receiving lots of aid vs. alot of students getting some aid?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You don't know (although that data is available from the Common Data Set, too). What I said was that a high per student aid discount number captures schools that spread smaller aid discounts over many students AND larger aid discounts over fewer students. If you simply looked at average aid over aided students, a school whose entire financial aid program consisted of one full ride scholarship for one student would appear to have strong financial aid. That would be misleading.</p>

<p>ID:
For the purpose of the analysis I used the total number of degree seeking undergraduates, item B1 on the CDS, not any enrollment numbers.</p>

<p>Sorry, folks. With all of this "data" floating about, what are we arguing about? </p>

<p>ID, I like the way you set up your own straw men (straw people?), then argue to support them. So what? Who is arguing that financial aid differs among groups? </p>

<p>Several of you have reported interesting data about averages, and differences in averages, for various groups. Without boring you with the details, to me it does not mean a heck of a lot that on the average, a few more african american students get financial aid. What matters is a bit more granular than that: What is the distribution of aid awards within this group? This is especially important when you see average aid awards in the high teens and so forth. Which gets back to my earlier point, that so called affirmative action efforts in higher ed are not always what they seem. For example, blacks from poor inner city families are for all practical purposes non-existent at elite campuses.</p>

<p>
[quote]
For the purpose of the analysis I used the total number of degree seeking undergraduates, item B1 on the CDS, not any enrollment numbers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Believe it or not, most colleges do not include their study abroad students in the number of degree seeking undergrads (unless they are studying in the school's own study abroad programs). Study abroad students are treated the same as students on leave. </p>

<p>It took me a while to figure this out as I kept seeing discrepancies in the Common Data Set numbers and colleges' own numbers. It was very hard to confirm until I found a few colleges that spelled it out, noting that per instructions their Common Data Set numbers did not include study abroad.</p>

<p>It's not a big deal one way or another, but it is something to keep in mind when comparing colleges.</p>

<hr>

<p>I just remembered. It was Davidson that cleared it up. On their 2007-08 Common Data Set, they reported 1674 students.</p>

<p><a href="http://www3.davidson.edu/cms/Documents/OfficesServices/OfficeofthePresident/InstResearch/CDS07-08-B.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www3.davidson.edu/cms/Documents/OfficesServices/OfficeofthePresident/InstResearch/CDS07-08-B.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Read what they say in their factbook:</p>

<p><a href="http://www3.davidson.edu/cms/documents/OfficesServices/OfficeofthePresident/InstResearch/DC%20FF%200708.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www3.davidson.edu/cms/documents/OfficesServices/OfficeofthePresident/InstResearch/DC%20FF%200708.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Davidson’s Fall 2007 enrollment of 1,674 includes only full-time students, with no part-time students enrolled. The 145 Davidson students on leave this semester are not included in the reported enrollment number.</p>

<p>Federal enrollment accounting rules state that Davidson students studying in off-campus Davidson programs are included in the reported enrollment number, while those in non-Davidson
programs are not included. Similarly, non-Davidson students enrolled in Davidson programs are included in Davidson’s enrollment figures.</p>

<p>Currently, there are 1819 students working towards a Davidson degree. This includes 1634 Davidson students on campus,
40 Davidson students in offcampus Davidson programs and 145 students on leave, whether off-campus in non-Davidson programs of study or for personal/medical reasons.</p>

<p>Total Fall Enrollment: 1674
On-Campus: 1634
Off-Campus in Davidson Programs: 40</p>

<p>Davidson Students on Leave: 145
In Non-Davidson Programs: 130
Personal/Medical Leave: 15

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It makes sense from a "who is paying tuition standpoint", but it doesn't make sense when trying to get a handle on how many current undergrads a school has, i.e. how big is it?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Who is arguing that financial aid differs among groups?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uhhh, I believe the point of departure was that "diversity costs a lot of money". You disputed that. </p>

<p>The primary way that diversity costs a lot of money is that every "diversity" group on campus consumes fiancial aid dollars at disproportionately higher rates than white students. In other words, a diverse student body means higher aid discounts than a lily-white student body.</p>

<p>As for relevancy to the overall discussion of the financial climate, I fully expect diversity efforts to be curtailed as part of an overall belt-tightening in higher education. Diversity costs money, which is something colleges don't have as much of these days.</p>

<p>I thought this discussion is about the real amount of the loss in Harvard's endowment and then the likely impact on a range of school policies as a result of the decline in so many endowments (and state financial support at publics). To understand how policies may change, one needs to understand the structure of current spending and other sources of revenue for the school (like tuition or real estate deals). </p>

<p>Thanks very much to all who have posted their research and analysis about both questions. Please keep it coming. I have learned a lot and will be keeping my eye out for more news about endowments losses and evidence of policy changes driven by the economic troubles of schools like Harvard.</p>

<p>ID, I'm with wisedad. </p>

<p>Parsing the meaning of "lots of money" is a futile exercise, in my book. It's pretty apparent that your definition of "lots" and mine will not be the same. It is also pretty clear that one can manipulate the available data (e.g. to imply that Swat data is relevant to all other colleges...) to suggest lots of things. Fact is that the detailed data we'd like to see is just not available. Fact is that most financial aid goes to BRWK anyway. </p>

<p>I will bow out of the discussion of the meaning of "costs a lot".</p>

<p>Wisedad, I don't know if Harvard gives out much information on their operating costs but if a large percentage of the costs are fixed costs like debt payments on expensive expansion projects and they counted on using the endowment to pay that debt then I really think Harvard has a huge problem. Where are they going to find the money? $10million here and 10million there is not going to do it.</p>

<p>Yale seems to put quite a bit of its financial info online here:</p>

<p>Yale</a> > Office of Institutional Research > Introduction</p>

<p>How similar could we expect Harvard's books to be?</p>

<p>I don't know anything about Harvard's budget, but here's a revealing snapshot of Bowdoin College's budget as of a couple of years ago (FY2006-07). I'd imagine this is fairly typical for LACs. </p>

<p>Standard</a> Nine: Financial Resources (Bowdoin, Academic Affairs)</p>

<p>Some highlights:</p>

<p>Overall budget excluding financial aid: $105 million
Overall budget including financial aid: $122 million</p>

<p>Endowment: $578.2 million
--- 40% restricted for financial aid
--- distributed at 5% of 12-quarter moving average</p>

<p>Total long-term debt: $113.1 million
---at weighted cost of 4.60%
---average outstanding life of 16.3 years
$10 million letter of credit, used to manage cash flow and "unanticipated expenditures"</p>

<p>REVENUE</p>

<p>Tuition & fees: $52.6 million (less 31% "discount" for financial aid)
Endowment distributions: $23.4 million
Total contributions: $38.1 million
-- of which Contributions, Bequests, and Designated Funds: $18 million
-- of which Unrestricted Gifts to Annual Giving: $5.1 million
"Auxiliary income": $5 million
(Together, tuition & fees, endowment distributions, and annual giving = 81% of total operating revenue) </p>

<p>EXPENDITURES</p>

<p>Faculty & staff salaries & benefits: $63.7 million
Operating expenses: $41 million
-- Debt Service: $5 million
-- Technology Services & Equipment: $7 million
-- Facilities maintenance & renewal $3 million
-- Library acquisitions and periodical subscriptions $1.8 million
-- Utilities
-- Residence halls and dining services</p>

<p>Financial aid: $17.3 million
-- of which 65% came from endowment resources (though there may be some double-counting here as the same document also reports tuition & fees as being "discounted" by 31% or $16 million for FA; I imagine they actually spend from endowment funds restricted to support for FA since that's the only legal use they have for that money, and report the tuition "discount" for p.r. purposes only)</p>

<p>Now assuming this picture is more-or-less representative of LACs in general, I'd say schools like Bowdoin are going to have trouble on several fronts. First, demands for FA are likely to be up, even as distributions from the 40% of the endowment restricted for FA purposes decline. This means there will probably be more actual "discounting" of tuition, i.e., less available tuition revenue net of financial aid. Second, distributions from the other 60% of the endowment will also shrink. Notice that the distribution won't shrink as fast as the endowment, however, because it's based on a payout of 5% of a 12-quarter moving average---so this year's payout will be buoyed somewhat by the past two years of larger endowment, but on the other hand the reductions in payout will also be spread over the subsequent two years, so even if the endowment makes a quick recovery to something like pre-recession highs they're in for at least three years of lean times. Third, unrestricted annual giving will likely be down. As these three sources make up 81% of the budget, that spells trouble. Other sources of revenue may be hurt, too, but we don't know much about what they are. </p>

<p>That's going to put huge pressure on the school to cut costs, perhaps on the order of 10%, 15%, possibly more. But most of the costs are more or less fixed. Debt service isn't huge, but it's immovable. Financial aid will only grow (unless the composition of the student body shifts toward more full-pays). They won't cut back on technology, and probably can't cut back much on library acquisitions and subscriptions without having a negative impact on educational quality and the research environment for faculty. Salaries and benefits are by far the biggest costs, but they can't lay off tenured faculty, and it's a little dicey to start letting untenured tenure-track faculty go without hurting their competitive position going forward. They can shrink the faculty by attrition, accelerate attrition with retirement buyout "sweeteners," and freeze faculty salaries, but these measures won't bring costs down all that much, and they could have a negative impact on both faculty morale and educational quality as some courses go untaught, the student/faculty ratio increases, class sizes increase, and faculty are forced to spread themselves thinner to make the curriculum work. It's much easier to cut staff, so I'd expect to see a lot of unfilled vacancies, early retirements, and possibly even layoffs in areas like facilities management, libraries, clerical services, and various aspects of administration. They'll defer maintenance, and certainly postpone any capital projects. They'll also be forced to cut back on some non-essential student services, but what these will be, it's hard to say.</p>

<p>In short, they'll find a way to get through it, but it won't be pretty. And pretty much everything that can be cut will have a negative impact on educational quality or students' quality of life. But there will also be a lot of pressure to enhance tuition revenue, either with price increases, financial aid reductions (e.g., accepting more full-pays), or both.</p>

<p>interesting info.- expenses are pretty much salaries and debt payments and maintenance. They might be able to restructure some of the debt but the biggest haircuts have to come from salaries. My guess is that Harvard would be similar to Yale just add 50% to the numbers.</p>

<p>"Salaries and benefits are by far the biggest costs, but they can't lay off tenured faculty, and it's a little dicey to start letting untenured tenure-track faculty go without hurting their competitive position going forward. They can shrink the faculty by attrition, accelerate attrition with retirement buyout "sweeteners," and freeze faculty salaries, but these measures won't bring costs down all that much, and they could have a negative impact on both faculty morale and educational quality as some courses go untaught, the student/faculty ratio increases, class sizes increase, and faculty are forced to spread themselves thinner to make the curriculum work."</p>

<p>First off, why can't salaries be cut? If you work for yourself, the odds are pretty good your income is going to be down.</p>

<p>Second, why can't pensions be cut? Most people with IRAs, Keoghs, and 401ks have seen their pension money disapear.</p>

<p>Third, why can't some of the professors teach an additional class?</p>

<p>Ok. Morale might suffer. Uhhh....it's kind of ugly in the economy right now. The for-profit private sector is kind of taking it on the chin right now. I don't see any reason why the people in upper education don't share a little in the pain. From the top down.</p>

<p>Unless the economy bounces back before the end of the fiscal year (next June 30th), the size of the faculty will be reduced and faculty salaries will be cut. At every college and university in the United States. They just don't know it yet.</p>

<p>
[quote]
First off, why can't salaries be cut?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>At some schools faculty salaries probably will be cut, but administrators are going to view this as a last resort. As much as colleges are in competition for top students, the top schools are in an even more intense competition for top faculty in an increasingly fluid and competitive market. Now is not the best time for disgruntled faculty to look for a new job, but I guarantee you that any school that cuts faculty salaries significantly is going to see some significant fraction of them depart for what they perceive to be greener pastures as soon as they're able. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Second, why can't pensions be cut?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Same reason as above. And faculty are among the people who have already seen their retirement accounts disappearing; they're not immune from the market forces you describe. Every college I'm aware of is on a defined-contribution retirement plan; both the school and the employee pay a fixed percentage of salary into an individual account, with the employee assuming all the investment risk. Many people have seen their accounts shrink by 30, 40, even 50%. If the college now says, "Sorry you lost your shirt in the market, but times are tight so we're going to cut our share of the recurring contribution to your retirement fund, making it more difficult for you to rebuild what you've just lost," faculty will flee for their competitors in droves. As soon as they're able, of course. That's not to say it won't happen at some schools; it probably will. But those who cut the most will put themselves at the greatest competitive disadvantage for faculty talent now and in the future.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Third, why can't some of the professors teach an additional class?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My point was that at many schools professors WILL end up teaching more classes. Nothing wrong with that. Except that some may end up teaching classes they're not fully qualified to teach; they'll have less time for class preparation, supervising and grading student work, and giving out-of-class attention to individual students; and they'll have less time available for their research which in many fields is itself an important source of income for the school. And of course, like salaries and pensions, it's a quality-of-work-life issue for faculty, so schools imposing the heaviest teaching loads will again put themselves at a competitive disadvantage in the faculty retention and recruitment game. Again, some schools will be forced to do it, but no one will want to do it unless they absolutely have to. </p>

<p>And it all ends up coming around to a negative impact on the students who may be getting suboptimal classroom instruction from faculty not fully qualified for the particular course, faculty who have invested less time in preparation for each classroom hour, faculty who don't give them as much supervision or individual attention in or out of class, faculty who may be disgruntled and looking to flee at the earliest opportunity. It's for good reasons that student/faculty ratio is usually considered an important indicator of educational quality. Schools that try to skimp by upping the teaching load pay for it in reduced educational quality and problems in facutly recruitment and retention.</p>

<p>I predict you'll see all these things at the bottom of the academic food chain---schools with the weakest finances and the weakest faculties, who may not have a lot of other options. At schools like Bowdoin that aim to remain near the top of the food chain, the president is going to think long and hard about all other alternatives before deciding it's the faculty that will take the biggest hit.</p>

<p>The buyers of education... the students (really the parents of the students) don't have the money to pay for the schooling anymore.</p>

<p>Many never did. They borrowed to pay for their kids education.</p>

<p>That's over for awhile. </p>

<p>Adjustments are going to have to be made. </p>

<p>Bloomberg.com:</a> News</p>

<p>The Dam is about to burst on these Hedge Funds and Private Equity funds. Madoff is the latest. $17Billion fund owner carried away in handcuffs, nothing left, he himself called it a Ponzi scheme. There are going to be plenty more to come and alot of their money came from University endowments. </p>

<p>Where I dont agree with bclintock is your statement that the bottom of the food chain will be most affected. If you have a small endowment that covers less than 5% of your costs then you have already learned to live without an endowment. But rich schools like Harvard and Yale and Princeton that use endowments to cover up to 40% of their costs are clearly going to suffer the most wrenching change. I think the schools that will come out of this the strongest will be state supported schools.</p>

<p>The irony is that we've heard over and over again than that the endowment exists to buffer the budget.
Of course what actually happens is that the budget is adjusted to buffer the endowment.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But rich schools like Harvard and Yale and Princeton that use endowments to cover up to 40% of their costs are clearly going to suffer the most wrenching change.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is not likely. Any changes in the endowment value will take years to be reflected in the distribution. Growth in endowment had been so large in the past few years the richest schools couldn't even keep up with a 5% payout rate. Financial aid budgets at elite schools grew by 20% in the last year alone. Aid budgets probably won't increase for a while but they will not drop substantially. The credit rating of schools like HYPSM is better than that of GE and they can borrow nearly unlimited funds at rock bottom rates. Harvard just raised $1.5 billion last week at around 4% and it did not even need to put up any collateral. Capital budgets for new projects will be cut back but operating budgets will stay largely the same. With hardly any debt on their books these schools can easily borrow the cash they need in the short term. They definitely will not touch faculty salaries or benefits, just defer new appointments.</p>

<p>The colleges that will be most affected are those which do not have the credit rating to borrow their way through the crisis and may be forced to liquidate portions of their endowments at large discounts. Public universities are even worse off as they don't even any have assets to liquidate and depend for a large portion of their budgets on tuition revenue and on the state. With California gearing up for a $20 billion deficit next year, expect large cuts in the UC system. Their best faculty is already being raided by wealthy private colleges and the talent flight is accelerating. </p>

<p>The spread between the rich and poor colleges will only get wider.</p>

<p>The WSJ article I saw had Harvard raising 30 year money at about 6.4%, higher than you and I would likely pay for a home mortgage. Yeah, they would be valuing our houses. But then Harvard's plant and equipment over in Cambridge is worth something.
December 6th paper. The shorter dated issues were about 3.25%-3.5% above Treasuries.
One third was five year notes at about 5%, one third ten year at about 6%, and one third 30 year at about 6.41%.
I agree that most well endowed private schools short of HYP are worse off, and some may have problems borrowing at all.</p>