Harvard finances in bad shape
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
No, Harvard created the problems they are facing. Ackman pointed them out. |
Anonymous
How much though to other alternative assets? Does the "private equity" include other types of non-liquid assets like: venture capital, infrastructure, real estate, private credit? |
Anonymous
Bumping |
Anonymous
Harvard has long harbored antisemitic voices. That ugly, hateful, fact has been exposed. Alumni have responded. |
Anonymous
Wait, wouldn't multiple grains of salt be more serious than a grain of salt? Do you mean half a grain of salt? |
Anonymous
| Harvard should strip Ackman’s degree very publicly and send him back the measly contributions he’s made. He’s a liability not worth having around. |
Anonymous
| Seems it was less than a week ago that the anti-Harvard crowd were talking about how Harvard is swimming in money and don't deserve any federal funding - not even for medical research. Now, suddenly, Harvard is on the verge of bankruptcy. You guys are nothing if not ridiculously inconsistent. |
Anonymous
| Although Dartmouth College & Middlebury College have the highest percentage (40% and 40.6% respectively), they may have a lower dependence on federal funds than do Harvard, Michigan, & Yale. |
Anonymous
| Schools which accept federal funding should be required to invest at least 60% in US government bonds. |
Anonymous
My thoughts as well. |
Anonymous
Here was the asset allocation in the Harvard Management Company letter last fall: Public equities - 14% Hedge funds - 32% Private equity - 39% Real estate - 5% Bonds/TIPs - 5% Other real assets (incl. natural resources) - 3% Cash - 3% Here’s what they had to say about it: “HMC’s asset allocation has featured three interrelated portfolio moves over the last seven years. First, we reduced the exposure to real estate and natural resources from 25% of the endowment portfolio in FY18 to 6% today. This strategic reduction has had a positive and compounding impact on the University’s endowment returns. It has also created room for the second major portfolio shift, which is our significant increase in private equities. Public equity returns are often outpaced by private equity — both buyouts and venture capital. However, in FY24, for the second year in a row, private equity returns lagged those of public equity markets. Readers will recall that in FY22, private managers did not reduce the value of their investments in a manner consistent with declining public equity markets at the time. As presaged inthat year’s letter, those private asset managers did not subsequently increase the value of their investments in the context of rising public equity markets in fiscal years 2023 and 2024. Finally, we increased the size of the hedge fund portfolio as a means of limiting equity exposure (public and private, collectively) and, therefore, limiting portfolio risk.” TLDR: Ackman is basically full of it. Or maybe half full of it. |
Anonymous
|
Wait, but anyone could have told you the PE vintage 21/22 would lag with interest rates higher for longer.
Why didn't they start to unwind last year? HF and PE is 71%!!! Whoa. |
Anonymous
Hedge funds run the gamut of strategies. They can’t be grouped with PE. And they (mostly) have timely valuations. The point in the letter is that the PE investments were not revalued down in 22, nor were they revalued up in 23 or 24, which explains their lag behind public equities. They may have still outpaced public equities, but with shrinking exit opportunities it is hard tell. |