U Chicago financial woes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never would have expected this!

https://chicagomaroon.com/40872/news/expect-growing-pains-university-presentation-reveals-severe-financial-pressures/

“ While UChicago’s investments have allowed it to punch above its weight for decades, rising interest rates and a drop in operating income have necessitated a range of cost-cutting measures, including a temporary staff hiring freeze and voluntary staff retirement packages, as well as budget cuts for programs across the University.”

“ Since 2013, UChicago has seen a 25 percent student enrollment increase across its undergraduate, Ph.D., masters, and professional divisions. This increase is one of the highest among UChicago’s Ivy Plus peer group, second only to Columbia’s 27 percent student enrollment increase during the same time period.

However, UChicago’s 2022 endowment market value of $10.3 billion stood lower than many of its peer institutions. ”

Opposite end of spectrum. Considering leaving money via a trust to my alma mater. Was shocked that said institution was only earning a 4% return on its invested securities. Apparently this is not the only college out there that has such a low return. Why not just invest in the S&P 500. Could someone please tell me where/why colleges invest in low yielding securities, private equity (hardly a low risk investment) and then hammer the alumni for donations. Just curious.

Because they are looking for very low risk investments and will sacrifice returns to get it.

People who manage top University endowments aren’t putting everything into Bitcoin.

If you have a cash flow system where if you ask people for money they will hand it to you why would you change that?

Anyways Chicago is broke, they only have $20 Billon left. As we all know sending out mailers costs $1 Billion a year.

Chicago affiliated nobel winners number no less than 16. Hadn't one of them - on their way to Oslo, Norway, learn the art of, "Why not just invest in the S&P 500"? Or were they free nobel medals they got out of Capt Crunch serial boxes?

What do they do the years the S&P is down and they are relying on investment income for core operations?

“Surely if investing in index funds works great for me, an individual with $600k, it’s a perfect strategy for a $20B investment portfolio”

Stick to your day job

Use the S&P as a yardstick to see how Chicago pros did. I can teach my dog to choose S&P. Chicago nobel laureates aren't as smart as canines.

As long as you measure risk not just return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never would have expected this!

https://chicagomaroon.com/40872/news/expect-growing-pains-university-presentation-reveals-severe-financial-pressures/

“ While UChicago’s investments have allowed it to punch above its weight for decades, rising interest rates and a drop in operating income have necessitated a range of cost-cutting measures, including a temporary staff hiring freeze and voluntary staff retirement packages, as well as budget cuts for programs across the University.”

“ Since 2013, UChicago has seen a 25 percent student enrollment increase across its undergraduate, Ph.D., masters, and professional divisions. This increase is one of the highest among UChicago’s Ivy Plus peer group, second only to Columbia’s 27 percent student enrollment increase during the same time period.

However, UChicago’s 2022 endowment market value of $10.3 billion stood lower than many of its peer institutions. ”

Opposite end of spectrum. Considering leaving money via a trust to my alma mater. Was shocked that said institution was only earning a 4% return on its invested securities. Apparently this is not the only college out there that has such a low return. Why not just invest in the S&P 500. Could someone please tell me where/why colleges invest in low yielding securities, private equity (hardly a low risk investment) and then hammer the alumni for donations. Just curious.

Because they are looking for very low risk investments and will sacrifice returns to get it.

People who manage top University endowments aren’t putting everything into Bitcoin.

If you have a cash flow system where if you ask people for money they will hand it to you why would you change that?

Anyways Chicago is broke, they only have $20 Billon left. As we all know sending out mailers costs $1 Billion a year.

Chicago affiliated nobel winners number no less than 16. Hadn't one of them - on their way to Oslo, Norway, learn the art of, "Why not just invest in the S&P 500"? Or were they free nobel medals they got out of Capt Crunch serial boxes?

What do they do the years the S&P is down and they are relying on investment income for core operations?

“Surely if investing in index funds works great for me, an individual with $600k, it’s a perfect strategy for a $20B investment portfolio”

Stick to your day job

Use the S&P as a yardstick to see how Chicago pros did. I can teach my dog to choose S&P. Chicago nobel laureates aren't as smart as canines.

Which top performance Hedge Fund do you run? Is that you Bill Ackman?

“I’m smarter than Nobel Laureates”, sure you are.

The level of arrogance and delusion is truly incredible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a really bad sign for higher Ed in general. The top 10 endowments in terms of size are:

HPSM, Penn, Yale, Notre Dame, UT system, UMich, Northwestern, Columbia, Duke.

UChicago is ~15th largest endowment. If they’re talking about struggles, what does that say for the thousands of institutions not as financially blessed?

Their problem is spending, not revenue. An institution can be financially sound and have no endowment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they should stop spending so much money marketing to literally every HS senior just to increase their rejection rate and appear more selective.

Totally agree. It's insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never would have expected this!

https://chicagomaroon.com/40872/news/expect-growing-pains-university-presentation-reveals-severe-financial-pressures/

“ While UChicago’s investments have allowed it to punch above its weight for decades, rising interest rates and a drop in operating income have necessitated a range of cost-cutting measures, including a temporary staff hiring freeze and voluntary staff retirement packages, as well as budget cuts for programs across the University.”

“ Since 2013, UChicago has seen a 25 percent student enrollment increase across its undergraduate, Ph.D., masters, and professional divisions. This increase is one of the highest among UChicago’s Ivy Plus peer group, second only to Columbia’s 27 percent student enrollment increase during the same time period.

However, UChicago’s 2022 endowment market value of $10.3 billion stood lower than many of its peer institutions. ”

Opposite end of spectrum. Considering leaving money via a trust to my alma mater. Was shocked that said institution was only earning a 4% return on its invested securities. Apparently this is not the only college out there that has such a low return. Why not just invest in the S&P 500. Could someone please tell me where/why colleges invest in low yielding securities, private equity (hardly a low risk investment) and then hammer the alumni for donations. Just curious.

Because they are looking for very low risk investments and will sacrifice returns to get it.

People who manage top University endowments aren’t putting everything into Bitcoin.

If you have a cash flow system where if you ask people for money they will hand it to you why would you change that?

Anyways Chicago is broke, they only have $20 Billon left. As we all know sending out mailers costs $1 Billion a year.

Chicago affiliated nobel winners number no less than 16. Hadn't one of them - on their way to Oslo, Norway, learn the art of, "Why not just invest in the S&P 500"? Or were they free nobel medals they got out of Capt Crunch serial boxes?

What do they do the years the S&P is down and they are relying on investment income for core operations?

“Surely if investing in index funds works great for me, an individual with $600k, it’s a perfect strategy for a $20B investment portfolio”

Stick to your day job

Use the S&P as a yardstick to see how Chicago pros did. I can teach my dog to choose S&P. Chicago nobel laureates aren't as smart as canines.

Which top performance Hedge Fund do you run? Is that you Bill Ackman?

“I’m smarter than Nobel Laureates”, sure you are.

The level of arrogance and delusion is truly incredible.

Come back after UChicago's return catches up with my dog's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither of our kids who both scored in the 95%+ on the PSAT/SAT got any mailings from U Chicago. I think some zip codes get plastered and others don't.

My kid who got 1500 on their 1st SAT got weekly mailings from U of Chicago starting the beginning of junior year.

My kid who got 1460 on the SAT received only 1 mailing from U of Chicago. They retook the SAT 6 months later and scored above 1500. The U of Chicago mailings onslaught started after the score topped 1500.

Perhaps the school is only postcard bombing 1500+ SAT scores?

My kid started getting bombarded when he took his first AP exam and earned a 5. He's gotten a few mailings from Swarthmore, too, but only after earning 5s on his next two APs as well. Hasn't taken the SAT yet, but will be NMSF based on PSAT score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they should stop spending so much money marketing to literally every HS senior just to increase their rejection rate and appear more selective.

Totally agree. It's insane.

+1000

[Anonymous]

My oldest was spammed by UChi and some of the mailings were extremely targeted/arty (art kid, she ultimately enrolled at RISD) and not inexpensive. Since she was never remotely interested, and frankly not a match ever to be admitted (didn't even sit for SAT/ACT), there is no other explanation than that they were recruiting to reject. Since the real financial returns come from *yield* and most other schools have been investing in their yield game, this did make me think UChi had lost its way. A low acceptance rate can boost yield, but only if the student is interested in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My oldest was spammed by UChi and some of the mailings were extremely targeted/arty (art kid, she ultimately enrolled at RISD) and not inexpensive. Since she was never remotely interested, and frankly not a match ever to be admitted (didn't even sit for SAT/ACT), there is no other explanation than that they were recruiting to reject. Since the real financial returns come from *yield* and most other schools have been investing in their yield game, this did make me think UChi had lost its way. A low acceptance rate can boost yield, but only if the student is interested in the first place.

This makes sense. And the e-mail spam is one thing, but the glossy color mailers are another thing entirely in terms of expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never would have expected this!

https://chicagomaroon.com/40872/news/expect-growing-pains-university-presentation-reveals-severe-financial-pressures/

“ While UChicago’s investments have allowed it to punch above its weight for decades, rising interest rates and a drop in operating income have necessitated a range of cost-cutting measures, including a temporary staff hiring freeze and voluntary staff retirement packages, as well as budget cuts for programs across the University.”

“ Since 2013, UChicago has seen a 25 percent student enrollment increase across its undergraduate, Ph.D., masters, and professional divisions. This increase is one of the highest among UChicago’s Ivy Plus peer group, second only to Columbia’s 27 percent student enrollment increase during the same time period.

However, UChicago’s 2022 endowment market value of $10.3 billion stood lower than many of its peer institutions. ”

Opposite end of spectrum. Considering leaving money via a trust to my alma mater. Was shocked that said institution was only earning a 4% return on its invested securities. Apparently this is not the only college out there that has such a low return. Why not just invest in the S&P 500. Could someone please tell me where/why colleges invest in low yielding securities, private equity (hardly a low risk investment) and then hammer the alumni for donations. Just curious.

Because they are looking for very low risk investments and will sacrifice returns to get it.

People who manage top University endowments aren’t putting everything into Bitcoin.

If you have a cash flow system where if you ask people for money they will hand it to you why would you change that?

Anyways Chicago is broke, they only have $20 Billon left. As we all know sending out mailers costs $1 Billion a year.

Chicago affiliated nobel winners number no less than 16. Hadn't one of them - on their way to Oslo, Norway, learn the art of, "Why not just invest in the S&P 500"? Or were they free nobel medals they got out of Capt Crunch serial boxes?

What do they do the years the S&P is down and they are relying on investment income for core operations?

“Surely if investing in index funds works great for me, an individual with $600k, it’s a perfect strategy for a $20B investment portfolio”

Stick to your day job

Use the S&P as a yardstick to see how Chicago pros did. I can teach my dog to choose S&P. Chicago nobel laureates aren't as smart as canines.

Which top performance Hedge Fund do you run? Is that you Bill Ackman?

“I’m smarter than Nobel Laureates”, sure you are.

The level of arrogance and delusion is truly incredible.

Come back after UChicago's return catches up with my dog's.

How many billions in your dog’s portfolio?

Do you think UChicago just has a giant Vanguard account?

Do you have any idea how things work at that level? Where do they put $20B into an index fund? Like name the institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My oldest was spammed by UChi and some of the mailings were extremely targeted/arty (art kid, she ultimately enrolled at RISD) and not inexpensive. Since she was never remotely interested, and frankly not a match ever to be admitted (didn't even sit for SAT/ACT), there is no other explanation than that they were recruiting to reject. Since the real financial returns come from *yield* and most other schools have been investing in their yield game, this did make me think UChi had lost its way. A low acceptance rate can boost yield, but only if the student is interested in the first place.

The more rejective your school is, the better the yield.

The way you become more rejective is by boosting applications.

It’s a very rational approach as long as people continue to conflate rejectivity with quality.

How much do people think it costs to send out tens of thousands of mailers? Not in the millions, those aren’t $10 each.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they should stop spending so much money marketing to literally every HS senior just to increase their rejection rate and appear more selective.

Totally agree. It's insane.

It just makes them look desperate. at the very least slimy. A school like that should be above desperate tactics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My oldest was spammed by UChi and some of the mailings were extremely targeted/arty (art kid, she ultimately enrolled at RISD) and not inexpensive. Since she was never remotely interested, and frankly not a match ever to be admitted (didn't even sit for SAT/ACT), there is no other explanation than that they were recruiting to reject. Since the real financial returns come from *yield* and most other schools have been investing in their yield game, this did make me think UChi had lost its way. A low acceptance rate can boost yield, but only if the student is interested in the first place.

They achieve success in their game by admitting nearly their ENTIRE class from ED1 and ED2 (predict nearly 100% yield this way) They want a ton of applicants to reject to drive down their acceptance rate and don’t have to worry about yield because that was achieved through the ED rounds. Lowers their credibility imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither of our kids who both scored in the 95%+ on the PSAT/SAT got any mailings from U Chicago. I think some zip codes get plastered and others don't.

My kid who got 1500 on their 1st SAT got weekly mailings from U of Chicago starting the beginning of junior year.

My kid who got 1460 on the SAT received only 1 mailing from U of Chicago. They retook the SAT 6 months later and scored above 1500. The U of Chicago mailings onslaught started after the score topped 1500.

Perhaps the school is only postcard bombing 1500+ SAT scores?

My kid started getting bombarded when he took his first AP exam and earned a 5. He's gotten a few mailings from Swarthmore, too, but only after earning 5s on his next two APs as well. Hasn't taken the SAT yet, but will be NMSF based on PSAT score.

How many kids get 1500+ each year?

It’s around 20-22 thousand.

Spamming mailers to every single one of them is very cost effective if every application yields $75 in fees and boosts selectivity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest was spammed by UChi and some of the mailings were extremely targeted/arty (art kid, she ultimately enrolled at RISD) and not inexpensive. Since she was never remotely interested, and frankly not a match ever to be admitted (didn't even sit for SAT/ACT), there is no other explanation than that they were recruiting to reject. Since the real financial returns come from *yield* and most other schools have been investing in their yield game, this did make me think UChi had lost its way. A low acceptance rate can boost yield, but only if the student is interested in the first place.

They achieve success in their game by admitting nearly their ENTIRE class from ED1 and ED2 (predict nearly 100% yield this way) They want a ton of applicants to reject to drive down their acceptance rate and don’t have to worry about yield because that was achieved through the ED rounds. Lowers their credibility imo.

It will work forever as long as people keep rating schools by how rejective they are.

Lots of ED applications means that there are a lot of students who have them as first choice, it’s clearly a desirable school.

As always the DCUM sour grapes- I can play the system all I want but if the school plays back they not credible and engaging in exploitation.

Chicago is doing what parents are begging for- single digit admit rates to give an aura of super exclusivity but also no problem getting in if it’s the real first choice.