Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the endowment so large that pure growth isn't the measuring stick as much as avoiding pitfalls.

It’s like having a 14 inch ****.

Having returns comparable with its peers is also an objective. Harvard wants to make sure it remains the richest school by a mile. Pretty sure part of the objective is to keep Stanford and Yale from breathing down its neck.

Also regarding avoiding pitfalls, they have done anything but that. They have taken huge risks that have not paid off.

When you’re investing in timberland in Romania, you need to stop being cute and creative and get back to basics. Sometimes allegedly smart people overthink things.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the endowment so large that pure growth isn't the measuring stick as much as avoiding pitfalls.

It’s like having a 14 inch ****.

That is one bald guy. Holy s***.

Anonymous wrote:1. New CIO soon.
2. They never, ever seek peak rent for their capital. Objective is preservation and not speculation.
3. Some slices of their assets under management are in keep-separate accounts or vehicles, that can't really produce too much more and that HMC doesn't really control.

So not good, but you're not looking at them through the right lenses.

Lol..... I would suggest that operating a Brazilian agribusiness is the very definition of speculative investing.

Anonymous wrote:1. New CIO soon.
2. They never, ever seek peak rent for their capital. Objective is preservation and not speculation.
3. Some slices of their assets under management are in keep-separate accounts or vehicles, that can't really produce too much more and that HMC doesn't really control.

So not good, but you're not looking at them through the right lenses.

that's obviously not true. HIMCO historically has played in more exotic, illiquid, alt-invetsment markets than their peers. it is precisely their drive for returns over the last decade which has caused underperformance.

Isn't the endowment so large that pure growth isn't the measuring stick as much as avoiding pitfalls.

1. New CIO soon.
2. They never, ever seek peak rent for their capital. Objective is preservation and not speculation.
3. Some slices of their assets under management are in keep-separate accounts or vehicles, that can't really produce too much more and that HMC doesn't really control.

So not good, but you're not looking at them through the right lenses.

Bad management people in key positions and even more importantly bad structure of the HMC. This is changing with the new CIO who had an amazing track record at Columbia and has done a lot of restructuring so far at Harvard.

If he succeeds and Harvard manages to pull in returns comparable to its peers then it will very rapidly pull away from the rest in terms of endowment size. It current endowment size is less and bound ahead of all other schools even with the past decade of underperformance.

Harvard's endowment is 37.1 billion. This is a non-story

Anonymous wrote:Some years are good, some are bad. That was a bad one.

It’s a decade of under performance, not just one year

Some years are good, some are bad. That was a bad one.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-01/harvard-blew-1-billion-in-bet-on-tomatoes-sugar-and-eucalyptus

what's going on at harvard?

Too big to not fail.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-01/harvard-blew-1-billion-in-bet-on-tomatoes-sugar-and-eucalyptus

what's going on at harvard?

Hubris.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-01/harvard-blew-1-billion-in-bet-on-tomatoes-sugar-and-eucalyptus

what's going on at harvard?