Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 21 2015, @12:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the course-correction dept.

Victor Fleischer writes in the NYT that university endowments are exempt from corporate income tax because universities support the advancement and dissemination of knowledge. But instead of holding down tuition or expanding faculty research, endowments are hoarding money. Last year, Yale paid about $480 million to private equity fund managers for managing about $8 billion, one-third of Yale's endowment. In contrast, of the $1 billion the endowment contributed to the university's operating budget, only $170 million was earmarked for tuition assistance, fellowships and prizes. Private equity fund managers also received more than students at Harvard, the University of Texas, Stanford and Princeton.

Fleischer, a professor of law at the University of San Diego, says that as part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act expected later this year, Congress should require universities with endowments in excess of $100 million to spend at least 8 percent of the endowment each year. Universities could avoid this rule by shrinking assets to $99 million, but only by spending the endowment on educational purposes, which is exactly the goal. According to a study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity a minimum payout of 5 percent per annum, would be is similar to the legal requirement for private and public foundations. "The sky-high tuition increases would stop, and maybe even reverse themselves. Faculty members would benefit from greater research support. University libraries, museums, hospitals and laboratories would have better facilities," concludes Fleischer. "We've lost sight of the idea that students, not fund managers, should be the primary beneficiaries of a university's endowment."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Friday August 21 2015, @04:01PM

    by Non Sequor (1005) on Friday August 21 2015, @04:01PM (#225898) Journal

    Okay, this makes more sense. A typical hedge fund fee arrangement is supposed to be 2% of net asset value plus 20% of performance in excess of a benchmark. Those fees make sense on 8 billion, assuming a banner year performance-wise.

    Locking up a third of assets in this kind of thing is outside of my world. I don't work with the investments, but considerations related to return over long periods of time are part of my actuarial work. For pensions it's unusual for alternative investments to exceed 10% of total assets. The management fee component of this is more crucial for budgeting investment fees. If the fund stops performing, paying out 2% per year for an illiquid investment is toxic. As I noted, most investment managers for conventional investments aren't carving out anything nearly that large as a fixed percentage of assets.

    I agree that the carried interest tax loophole is ludicrous.

    --
    Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2