Voluntary Support. Vice President May said that the campaign has reached 68% of the
goal with 51% of the time passed. He thanked everyone for their continued support.
EVPMA Runge gave an update on his orientation findings. The
committee received a fact sheet on the health system development campaign which has reached
67% of the $1.0 billion goal at the midpoint of the campaign.
On a motion by Regent Newman, seconded by Regent Ilitch, the regents unanimously
authorized issuing the New Biological Science Building for bids and awarding construction
contracts providing that bids are within the approved budget.
The voluntary support is off a bit from last year – with one month to go – but pretty
decent numbers given the several large gifts which bumped up the prior year
Plant extension report which has the usual huge volume of projects and
dollars in the hopper…well over half a billion by eye…a huge figure
for a university and emblematic of the extremely well maintained campus
and cutting edge buildings/labs which students/faculty/alums have come
to expect.
Since April 30, the markets have not gained much ground, if any at all, so it is safe to say that the value of the endowment has not grown much since then. I assume the endowment for the Ann Arbor campus will scratch the $10b billion mark…by a hair!
Yes, a pretty disappointing year, but as I commented, at least it is not a loss. My hope is that the number in the .pdf if AFTER operational spending. If so, then alumni contributions will, roughly, wash against that spending leaving a small margin for compounding in future years. Given the huge years turned in by UM competitors, this is a very disappointing result to say the least.
Sorry, I have no inside color on the general expectations. As noted, other schools had a huge year last year so it would be disappointing in the extreme to see them have another year and UM languish at 3% or whatever. I think the markets have been generally tough and some schools have lost money on funds that were invested in China…other than that, no particular color.
Are you suggesting that Michigan’s funds in China have actually done well, or are you just posting a pointless/irrelevant counter-factual generalization?
You said that some schools have lost money on funds invested in China. The Shanghai Composite Index a year ago was barely over 2000; 5 minutes ago it was at 4929. What the heck are you talking about?
You apparently don’t understand much about finance: 1) you only experience the exposure to and return of the index if you are invested in that particular index and then only if your exposure is not hedged; 2) I never stated that the university was invested in the Shanghai Composite, that is your assumption which – while doubtless impressive to your friends, relatives and mentors is – as stated, irrelevant; 3) losing money on “funds that were invested in China” could mean $ investments, $ invested in renminbi, $ invested into some FX vehicle and quantoed, or a host of other things which might generate a host of different exposures…incidentally, since you don’t seem to understand “funds” in this context, you seem to have assumed that the investments were in an index fund; rather than merely being “funds” which were invested…thus your basic English comprehension doesn’t appear to be that strong; 4) I said “some schools have lost money” not specifically Michigan, which you have assumed from context.
All of that to one side, what difference does it make if an economy or an index is booming amidst generally strong macro conditions if one has made a poor credit bet and those bets have gone South? Exposure to one or more credits in the midst of a boom can still impair a portfolio. So you don’t appear to understand much about macro economics or credit markets. Michigan, like many universities, specifically acts to take CONCENTRATED exposure in portions of its portfolio and can take losses in a focused portfolio not experienced by the general market…to that extent you may also not understand how some (not all) hedge funds generate the concentrated exposure desired by their clientele.
I hope your vast portfolio is not invested with Morgan in a China fund: "WASHINGTON — The University of Michigan, defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. and a foundation helping Appalachian children all own stakes in an overseas investment fund backing two major Chinese companies, which recently froze their stocks and missed financial reporting deadlines.
The American organizations invested in the $1.4 billion fund — managed by New York banking giant Morgan Stanley — for their endowments or retirement funds, parts of which could be at risk amid news that auditors have yet to sign off on the Chinese companies’ books.
Those delays sometimes mean accounting troubles are ahead, which could put the investments in jeopardy. But the companies declined to explain the reasons for the unusual delays, and would say only that the auditors’ work wasn’t finished."
There are a host of similar articles about several other funds, but I’m sure you’re family office risk manager is all over it on your behalf. Good luck with you index exposure.
Impressive BS as usual. First, I didn’t infer you meant Michigan lost $ on China. You said schools did. I doubt it. You’ve proven nothing. Hard to have lost money in China recently if your investments are diversified as all large endowments are.
Show me some actual data in all these schools that recently lost money in their investments in China. Nothing else please simply a tad of evidence.
Cool it down guys…and back to the topic at hand. From what I have seen, no university has posted preliminary figures yet (usually, by now, many universities release some sort of figure), which tells me that this have been a mediocre/bad year for most university endowment funds.
“Impressive BS as usual.”
No, what is impressive is your prescience or your telepathy: we have never interacted before this mail exchange, yet you know what is usual. Impressive. I’ll tell my grandchildren about the guy I never met who could predict the future without using the past.
“First, I didn’t infer you meant Michigan lost $ on China. You said schools did. I doubt it. You’ve proven nothing.
Yes, I’m sure that the news excerpt that I provided and the numerous on-line links available out there allow you to maintain that doubt in the face of overwhelming empirically available evidence. Clearly, you don’t want to be wrong so actual events don’t impinge on your theories. Well played: denial is a powerful driver of self-delusion.
“Hard to have lost money in China recently if your investments are diversified as all large endowments are.”
I have a parrot that could say this, but diversification is utterly worthless if you experience event risk and/or credit risk which is not coupled with macro economic basis-vectors. This concept seems to elude you. What good is an investment in the S&P compared to owning the one company that loses 50% while the index is returning 10%? What is the value of a 50%/50% portfolio in that context? Are you winning or losing?
“Show me some actual data in all these schools that recently lost money in their investments in China.”
You are deeply confused: I mentioned Michigan, I don’t have to carry an argument relative to “all schools”. Try to keep up. I don’t have to show you more data than you can glean from the excerpt already posted. If you insist on reading but not understanding it, I’m not going to bail you out. You’ll have to engage with the article with your own ability to understand it: clearly, Michigan THE SCHOOL UNDER DISCUSSION, has lost money as documented both in the article mentioned and other articles. Your lack of credulity concerns me not one whit.
“Nothing else please simply a tad of evidence.”
You’ve got the evidence and simply pretending it doesn’t exist won’t make you look like less of a fool to the other posters who have actually read and comprehended the thread.
“I don’t give a crap about one Morgan fund.”
Of course you don’t: you’d rather talk about the positive experience derived from an index Michigan does NOT invest in rather than the actual fund which lost the actual money which Michigan DOES own. You apparently don’t understand that wishful thinking about the Hang Seng doesn’t lead to spendable dollars in UM’s bank accout whereas the highly probable loses (as well as the 1300bps underperformance in some other funds in well documented articles) DOES result in actual losses. Your preference for homespun theories over actual facts will lead you to unfavorable investment results. Ignoring reality doesn’t make it go away.