[FoRK] wealth disparity amongst institutions of higher learning

Greg Bolcer greg at bolcer.org
Tue Dec 8 14:34:35 PST 2015

Back online.  Just to be clear I believe the numbers in the report but was pointing out a more accurate way to gauge the actual per undergrad amount is to take the returns minus the spend.  That number does not show up in the report, but can be calculated by the numbers, and IMHO is more representative.

Just like profit and loss, you can't ignore the spending part of the equation.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 8, 2015, at 12:34 PM, dan at geer.org wrote:
> | Minus the payout rates which fluctuate between 4.2 and 5.1% on average 
> | from 1998 through 2014, so your numbers are high by 30%.
> Ain't my numbers; am the CRS' numbers.
> | "Larger institutions also tended to have a larger share of assets 
> | invested in alternative strategies, including hedge funds and private 
> | equity."  That means they can take more risks with the money and thus 
> | more rewards, but you can't think that risky investments will be worth 
> | the risks for decades (plastics, man, plastics) or else they wouldn't be 
> | paying higher returns.
> | 
> | But...so what?  University endowments make too much money so we should 
> | tax them more?  That breaks the social contract where endowments are 
> | used to foster the universities for general economic benefit, but 
> | without having to fund them with scarce government tax dollars as hard 
> | budget item costs.  Even better they get the benefit of a 
> | public-private-partnership that creates trillions upon trillions of 
> | dollars of economic benefits that are taxed.
> The CRS, acting on behalf of some Congressional request, is talking
> about taxing more.  That is the whole point of the whole report.
> And, as above, ain't my report, am the CRS' report.
> --dan
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

More information about the FoRK mailing list