WSJ: College Endowments Plunge

<p>Interesteddad, full paying students pay the educational costs at Swarthmore. No?</p>

<p>They don’t pay the fixed costs, building costs, interest costs, depreciation, for the non-teaching staff, etc. </p>

<p>So… if Swarthmore added 10 more students, it wouldn’t cost the school $80,000 per additional student, would it?</p>

<p>The school might even make money on those students? Doesn’t mean the school is going to do that, but the school could make money allowing 10 more students into the school.</p>

<p>dstark:</p>

<p>How do you break up the “product” at Swarthmore into “educational” and “not educational” when the product is a 24/7 residential learning experience that includes every thing, every place, and every person the student encounters? For all intents and purposes, there is nothing at Swarthmore that isn’t focused on the undergrad experience.</p>

<p>Anyway, here is the per student operating expense from 2007-2008:</p>

<p>**Instruction $29,440
Academic support $10,765
Student services $7,557
Research and public service $3,053
Auxiliary activities $14,150
Institutional support $16,108</p>

<p>Total operating expenses $81,073**</p>

<p>Swarthmore took in **$32,252 **per student in net tuition, fees, and room/board charges.</p>

<p>What do you want to count as “instruction”? I mean, the Instruction headig is pretty self-evident. So is academic support. That includes the cost of the library, the writing associates program, the 130 outside honors examiners, and so forth. Student services includes the health center, psych counseling, security, academic deans, and so forth. Research and public service activities all involves undergrad students. Auxillary services is the dining hall and dorms.</p>

<p>Faculty and staff costs alone at Swarthmore are $46,370 per student.</p>

<p>Could these costs be reduced? Or spread over more students? Sure. But, then the “product” is not the same.</p>

<hr>

<p>

</p>

<p>Depends. For starters, that’s one more faculty slot to keep the 8:1 ratio. Dorm space is OK because the school just completed two new dorms and took quite a bit of undesireable housing (basement rooms, converted lounges) out of inventory. Dining hall is at capacity. Library is at capacity. Classroom space is OK after a sustained building cycle. Swarthmore has held enrollment fixed for about a decade now as they’ve been shuffling dorm space during major construction. So they could probably return to their historic linear growth rate of an additional five students per year.</p>

<p>Dcstark, I can pretty much guarantee you that the Boards and University Presidents have no idea what their highly compensated investment team has been doing with their generous contributors money. If they went out and kicked a few tires and actually saw the companies and real estate they owned they would be shocked.</p>

<p>There is some speculation that the biggest university endowments lost more than they’ve revealed.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/diploma-mill/2009/01/27/losing-harvards-billions[/url]”>http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/diploma-mill/2009/01/27/losing-harvards-billions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>sm74, I agree with you.</p>

<p>This tells me the guys who run the schools are overpaid.
The investment managers are overpaid.</p>

<p>If you cut the cost of the investment managers and those that run the company, the cost of running a school drops. The cost per student drops. Many of the costs are paying people too much.</p>

<p>Hoedown, interesting link. Very risk speculation in endowments. Amazing losses. Illiquid. Endowment per student…what a joke. High paid money managers. High paid money managers that were gambling with that money. Well, investing is gambling, but these managers…</p>

<p>"The lack of clarity says a lot about how exotic Harvard’s finances have become. Its team of highly incentivized money managers—who themselves earned $26.8 million in 2008—adopted a strategy aimed at taking maximum advantage of an inflationary global boom in the early 2000s by shifting the lion’s share of Harvard’s money from conventional endowment assets—such as bonds, preferred stocks, Treasury bills, and cash—into more esoteric investments that would presumably rise as more money chased after scarcer goods. They bought, for example, oil in storage tanks, timber forests, and farmlands. As the proliferation of trillions of dollars worth of subprime mortgages further expanded the bubble, driving up the price of oil, lumber, and land, the notional value of Harvard’s portfolio soared.</p>

<p>The price of oil, for example, which Harvard and other speculators were storing, more than quadrupled to $153 a barrel on commodity exchanges, allowing Harvard to hugely appreciate the notional value of its portfolio. So between fiscal 2003 and 2008, Harvard’s “real assets” showed a gain of nearly 25 percent annually. But even after the subprime mortgage crisis began to unfold and a number of financial institutions had collapsed, Harvard’s money managers persisted in pursuing this risky course.</p>

<p>Consequently, as late as June 2008, the fund kept almost no reserve of cash or Treasury bills and allocated a mere 6 percent of its money to fixed-interest bonds. It also borrowed more than $1 billion to amplify the returns on its less conventional investments. So by the time the bubble burst in the fall of 2008, only a small fraction of the endowment fund investment was even under the jurisdiction of the SEC. According to the November 7th 13F holding report it filed with the SEC for the quarter ending September 30th, 2008, Harvard had only $2.88 billion of its funds in exchange-listed stocks, options, or other derivatives. What of the more than $35 billion it had allocated to investments at the start of fiscal 2009 (i.e., July 2008)? Most of the balance had been allocated to investments, which if not totally illiquid could not be valued by market activity. The breakdown that follows illuminates how far HMC had strayed from the path of traditional endowment investing in the last decade.</p>

<p>More than one-quarter of Harvard’s funds were still sunk in “real assets”: about 8 percent in stockpiled oil, about 9 percent in timber and other agricultural land, and 9 percent in real estate participation. Then came the financial crises, and prices plunged. Oil fell to less than $40 a barrel. Lumber suffered almost as badly. And, with the drying up of bank lending, the value of Harvard’s real estate holdings—which remain opaque—became at best problematic. One indication of how steep the loss may be is that CalPERS, the giant pension fund of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, which owned even more real estate acreage than Harvard, reported in this period a 103 percent loss on real estate deals in which, like Harvard, it had borrowed to amplify its profits.</p>

<p>Another huge portion of Harvard’s endowment had been farmed out to hedge funds (18 percent) and private equity funds (13 percent). While these funds provided some diversification, many of them also impose restrictions on withdrawals, including ones, like Citadel, that suffered substantial losses. To get back its money under such circumstance, it was often necessary to sell at a steep discount to a “secondary” hedge fund. One major player in the private equity business tells me that Harvard had tried this fall to sell its private equity stakes at 30 percent to 35 percent discounts but could find no buyers even at those prices. It’s also possible that Harvard will have to meet “capital calls” on its private equity investments that would sap even more capital.</p>

<p>Harvard also allocated nearly $4 billion, or 11 percent of its fund, to volatile emerging markets, such as Brazil, Mexico, and Russia. Here its money managers bet both that the stocks would go up and that the local currencies would at least hold steady against the dollar, but they lost on both counts. First, the thin local stock markets, which had little liquidity, collapsed in the financial crises. For example, Russian stocks lost almost 80 percent of their value in a matter of days last fall. Then, as banks and hedge funds got out of their currency trades, the local currencies in many of these countries also lost heavily against the dollar. The Brazilian real, for example, fell about 40 percent last year. So presumably the endowment fund took a double hit. Aside from emerging markets, Harvard had invested another 11 percent if its portfolio in more established foreign economies, as those of Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, and Japan. But here the stock markets declined and, with the exception of the Japanese yen, so did their currencies.</p>

<p>Given the true cost of getting its money out of the hedge funds and other illiquid investments, my knowledgeable source finds the claim by Harvard’s money managers that the fund lost only 22 percent at best “purely Pollyannaish.” (A Harvard University press representative declined to comment for this story.) But while Harvard’s money managers may chose to look through rose-colored glasses at the value of their portfolio, Harvard University, which relies on the interest from distribution from its endowment to fund one-third of its operating budget, needs to be more realistic."</p>

<p>I’d like to get one of those jobs where I can lose $18 billion and make millions a year.</p>

<p>hoedown, thanks for that. An $8 Billion loss to them was a big hiccup. $18 Billion would be a disaster.</p>

<p>I should have said that the Board and President do know how bad it really is, they don’t want to know the specifics though, and more importantly they don’t want me, you, or their professors to know because if we did it would be clear that a few band-aids was not going to be enough to get their financial house in order.</p>

<p>It was one thing to say that your endowment was down 15% to 20% last October when all you had to go on was the price drop in publicly traded stocks. Any college that is still sticking to that story today, in late January (when it is obvious what has happened to private equity and venture capital and oil and timber and real estate) is simply trying to deceive by ignoring the losses in the non-liquid investments. Simple as that.</p>

<p>To put it even more bluntly, they are lying. And, they think their customers are stupid. Moody’s Investment Services, which tracks higher education finances closely as part of their bond rating service, has been saying for some time that the average endowment loss will end up somewhere in the 30% range. </p>

<p>If I were choosing a college this year, I would pay very close attention to which ones are lying, which ones are shooting straight, and which ones aren’t saying anything.</p>

<p>“I’d like to get one of those jobs where I can lose $18 billion and make millions a year.”</p>

<p>I think that most of us would resign if we got close to losing a fraction of that amount and hang our head in shame. I think that it actually takes quite a bit of work to lose that kind of money when you consider you have to put stuff into financial instruments. One could have built a concrete and steel vault, put a bed in it and just stuff the money in a big mattress and done better.</p>

<p>Most people would probably be too honest and afraid to lose this kind of money that belongs to someone else.</p>

<p>I’ve said since October that the entire faculty of the Harvard Business School should resign in disgrace. What **have **they been teaching to have the collective business leadership of the top financial institutions fail so comprehensively?</p>

<p>It would be a useful experiment to compare what would have happened to the Harvard ( or any other ) endowment if they had just invested in the S&P 500 index over the last 20 years. I’m just guessing, but I think that the actual managers would have beaten the index by a substantial margin, despite the recent setbacks. If this is the case they probably deserve to be richly compensated, because beating the index over a long period is no mean feat.</p>

<p>Here are President Casteen’s comments regarding UVA’s endowment. This was sent out in November. He does a very good job addressing their issues: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Curious, first I think if and when these assets are accurately valued you will find that a passive approach would have been better.
Secondly, in a passive more transparent approach you would not have built up such a huge expense base in the first place. Professors would not have gotten the big-time contracts that they now have and some of those gold plated buildings would not have been built and mortgaged.
One final point, I don’t believe this crisis has come out of nowhere. When the dust settles I think you’ll find that the investors knew big time problems were coming in 2007.</p>

<p>Casteen was hoping for the best and lying.</p>

<p>I thought that was a great letter. I would like to see similar ones from other Universities.
Barrons, what leads you to believe that he is lying? sm74, if they knew problems like this were coming they truly are geniuses and deserve the big bucks. This kind of panic and the bubble that preceded it are expectations driven phenomenon and by definition hard to predict.</p>

<p>I know U-M has a link on the front page of their website that takes you to statements about the fiscal crisis. I would think other universities would also have things posted.</p>

<p>John Casteen has done a wonderful job at UVA and is a man of tremendous professional and personal integrity. I assure you, he was not being disengenuous.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Heck, investing your endowment in REGULAR normal investments has turned out to be a big bust, too. Citicorp, GM, Ford, etc.–far from alternative investments, but toxic just the same.</p>

<p>I would hope that colleges would have mercy on the poor parents–after all, our investments haven’t done much better than theirs. They should know how it feels. Wouldn’t count on it though…</p>

<p>If you’re in liquid assets like stocks, at least you can get out.</p>

<p>Buying illiquid assets is like checking into a roach motel, easy to get into, very difficult to get out.</p>