10 ms·

With their endowment above $50 billion, combined with Federal plus Non-Federal sponsored revenue at 16% of operating budget, it makes sense to me they just forg

With their endowment above $50 billion, combined with Federal plus Non-Federal sponsored revenue at 16% of operating budget, it makes sense to me they just forgo Federal funds and operate independently. If all 16% is canceled, then they'd need to draw an additional $1 billion per year from endowment at current budget levels. That would put them above 7% draw so potentially unsustainable for perpetuity, historically they've averaged 11% returns though, so if past performance is a predictor of future, they can cover 100% of Federal gap and still grow the endowment annually with no new donations.

ren_engineer 1y ago
those endowments, especially for the Ivy League schools, aren't liquid at all. They'd take a massive haircut if they had to start pulling funds from it
- Marsymars 1y ago
  Presumably they could go to a large bank and make a deal so that they only have to take a relatively small haircut by getting a loan to be paid back from endowment interest.
- hnburnsy 1y ago
  If this is the case then they really are not for the benefit of students?
gruez 1y ago
This article lists out why it's not good of an idea as you think. >Universities’ endowments are not as much help as their billion-dollar valuations would suggest. For a start, much of the money is reserved for a particular purpose, funding a specific professorship or research centre, say. Legal covenants often prevent it from being diverted for other purposes. In any case, the income from an endowment is typically used to fund a big share of a university’s operating costs. Eat into the principal and you eat into that revenue stream. >What is more, eating into the principal is difficult. Many endowments, in search of higher income, have invested heavily in illiquid assets, such as private equity, property and venture capital. That is a reasonable strategy for institutions that plan to be around for centuries, but makes it far harder to sell assets to cover a sudden budgetary shortfall. And with markets in turmoil, prices of liquid assets such as stocks and government bonds have gyrated in recent days. Endowments that “decapitalise” now would risk crystallising big losses. More worrying is the fact that the federal government can inflict even more harm aside from cutting off federal funding: >the Trump administration has many other ways to inflict financial pain on universities apart from withholding research funding. It could make it harder for students to tap the government’s financial-aid programmes. It could issue fewer visas to foreign students, who tend to pay full tuition. With Congress’s help, it could amend tax laws in ways that would hurt universities. https://archive.is/siUqm https://archive.is/siUqm
- forrestthewoods 1y ago
  if a $50,000,000,000 endowment can not be used to smooth things over in times of need or turbulence then the endowment managers need to make changes. You can not possibly convince me that Harvard’s endowment doesn’t trivially have one year of liquidity in it. I’m sure it’s not structured to handle a 7% annual draw down for the next 30 years. But it’s got plenty of time to restructure if needed.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    The point is, it's eating your seed corn. Spending a billion of it is not just spending a billion. It's spending the many billions it was meant to provide, in interest, over the next decades. It's extraordinarily expensive to spend it directly, as opposed to spending the income it generates. You can certainly do it, in a true emergency. But you certainly don't want to make a habit of it.
    - davorak 1y ago
      > You can certainly do it, in a true emergency. This seems to qualify for many people though. Less pain than complying in many minds I am sure.
    - empath75 1y ago
      > The point is, it's eating your seed corn. I've seen arguments of this general shape and form many times about this, and yes, this is true. In general, Harvard should not spend down it's endowment when it has other sources of revenue. I think the issue here is that this _is_ an emergency. Harvard should consider that Federal money gone for the near future and spend and plan to spend as if they will not have it. There is no point in them continuing to exist as an institution if they accede to these absurd demands.
    - unclebucknasty 1y ago
      >You can certainly do it, in a true emergency. But you certainly don't want to make a habit of it. Harvard's endowment returned 9.6% last year, growing the total by $2.5 billion. In the previous year, the endowment returned 2.9%, though the total endowment decreased as the gain was offset by contributions to operating expenses. [0] In other words, Harvard already operates somewhat from their endowment, and can realize net endowment gains in spite of that. [0] https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/10/financial-report-fiscal-2024 https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/10/financial-report-fis...
Obscurity4340 1y ago
He's not gonna be happy they can operate financially without his assent
- bilbo0s 1y ago
  He still controls the congress, the white house and the supreme court. So he could potentially pull a completely illegal fast one and freeze their accounts. Since rule of law seems on fairly shaky ground right now in any case.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > he could potentially pull a completely illegal fast one and freeze their accounts Harvard (and most institutions and powerful individuals) would be smart to maintain liquid assets and a bank account outside America’s control.
    - outer_web 1y ago
      Maybe their endowment is held in treasurys they should start selling off...
      - bilbo0s 1y ago
        LOL I like the way you think!
    - bilbo0s 1y ago
      This is true, and they have likely been accelerating the arrangements they already had for a while now. At the same time however, getting 50 billion in assets into various European jurisdictions is not at all easy. I'd estimate Trump could cut off 70-90 percent of what Harvard has to work with. Alumni will need to come through for continuing operations if the worst does happen. And I'm certain Harvard has put some thought into that contingency as well.
    - bgarbiak 1y ago
      Trump can make that illegal in no time. „No foreign funds” is a well known method of fighting opposition, tried and tested in many soft regimes (looking for a recent example, Hungary comes to mind).
inglor_cz 1y ago
They could also possibly fire some administrators. Not every vice-provost out there is strictly necessary. Just a few years ago, Harvard Crimson carried an op-ed complaining about the bloat: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/11/29/anderson-bureaucratic-bloat-harvard/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/11/29/anderson-burea...
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  Cannot edit my original comment, because I wrote it 16 hours ago, but I am somewhat surprised by the fluctuating up/downvote count, going from 0 to 6 and back. It seems that the very idea that some employees in academia might be superfluous is very disagreeable for some HNers. Why? Institutional bloat is a well known problem, it happens in private sector, public sector, churches, military, wherever you can think of. It probably already happened in Ur and Nineveh. Why should academia be somehow immune from this problem? And if it is not immune, shouldn't it try to do something with it? There was a massive increase in tuition in the last generation or so. How much of that extra money goes to the core mission of the universities, and how much is spent on "nice to have extras", starting with opulent campuses and ending with "Standing Committees on Visual Culture and Signage"? Everyone has to trim the fat down a bit from time to time. Even Google and Meta. Why not Harvard.
  - oldprogrammer2 1y ago
    People are reflexive. In a different context, driven by someone else, many of the people currently defending Harvard would instead be pointing out that Harvard and the other elite institutions are part of "the problem". In general this year, it's been interesting to me to see Republicans become protectionists and Democrats become neoliberal free traders, both parties flipping their talking points to either align or disagree with Trump.
    - kelipso 1y ago
      People in HN have been complaining about university admin bloat for many years. In this thread, the problem is it’s political and people struggle with the cognitive dissonance about that stuff.
sandworm101 1y ago
This is about lots more than money. Sure, Harvard can go without federal funds. Then comes federal tax breaks. Then Harvard's ability to recruit foreign students (no visas, no foreign students/professors). After that comes the really draconian stuff like the fed revoking clearances or not hiring/doing business with Harvard grads. Such things were once thought illegal but are now very much on the table. That is why Harvard needs to win the money fight no matter the numbers.
- morkalork 1y ago
  Right, money is just the first and most obvious cudgel. Does Harvard have any biomedical labs that require federal approval to handle hazardous materials? That could be delayed or revoked. Do they file taxes? They could face an audit. There's no shortage of painpoints an organization that large has exposed to an unethical government.
__jl__ 1y ago
I think the 9 billion is very misleading. More than half goes to hospitals affiliated with Harvard. I am not sure but I don't think they get anything from the endowment. The impact of loosing this money would be very uneven across different parts of the university and hospitals affiliated with it. The faculty of arts and science would be fine. Yes, some cuts, a hiring freeze etc. The med school and public health school would feel a big impact. They employ so many people on "soft money" through grants including many faculty members. The hospitals are a different story and I am not sure why they are even lumped together.
- tootie 1y ago
  Yeah this isn't purely a question of Harvard's P&L being dependent on subsidies. The money in question is grants attached to specific practices or research. The money isn't just gratuity for Harvard being so great, it's awarded for specific objectives that Harvard was deemed capable of delivering. Cutting off the money isn't going to hurt Harvard, it's going to stop all the programs the grants were funding.
  - wmf 1y ago
    Stopping those research programs is a choice. They could also choose to pay for them out of the endowment.
fma 1y ago
Harvard is probably thinking they just need to draw the $1 billion extra for another 4 years. Unless, Trump runs for a 3rd time which he has floated. If that happens then I think everyone's just screwed.
- formerly_proven 1y ago
  With an overbearingly powerful executive like the federal US executive you can come up with so many ways to fuck with companies or institutions like this one beyond not giving them money.
- throwway120385 1y ago
  I'm sure he's got plans to issue an executive order declaring all of the votes against him null and void because they weren't cast and counted within 4 hours of each other on election day.
- tremon 1y ago
  It's very dangerous to assume "oh, this will only last four years". The rights currently being eroded (free speech, habeas corpus and voting rights themselves) are required for free and fair elections. Even if the term of the current Shitstain In Chief ends when it's supposed to, his replacement will be from the same cloth.
robocat 1y ago
Republicans Are Floating Plans To Raise the Endowment Tax. Here’s What You Need To Know : https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/11/increasing-endowment-tax-preview/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/11/increasing-endo... Proposed College Endowment Tax Hike: What to Know : https://thecollegeinvestor.com/52851/proposed-college-endowment-tax-hike/ https://thecollegeinvestor.com/52851/proposed-college-endowm... College endowments are typically tax-exempt, but a 2017 law imposed a 1.4% tax on investment income for a small group of wealthy private universities. A new proposal seeks to increase the endowment tax rate to 14% Other article: proposing an 8.6 percent tax hike When hacking the government rules is used against you.
- onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
  LoL - why it makes any sense to do this for universities and not billionaires is beyond me, but I'm sure half the country can explain it to me like I'm 5.
  - pqtyw 1y ago
    Doesn't this tax only apply to "net investment income"/realized gains? Billionaires technically already have to pay it at a higher rate. And well they generally do? I mean when they personally actually sell stock and or receive dividends and interest.
    - peterbecich 1y ago
      Agreed. For the revenue tax activists want from billionaires, it would necessitate a wealth tax, which I believe is unconstitutional. The non-profit tax exemption fight is about "income taxes" which billionaires already have to pay (but avoid). So it is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
      - nrclark 1y ago
        what is unconstitutional about a wealth tax?
bitcoin_anon 1y ago
I agree. Also, the quality and independence of the research will improve when it is funded outside of government influence.
- jmye 1y ago
  Which is, of course, why the internet is a spectacular failure and SpaceX is our best chance to ever put a man on the moon, and polio is still ravaging the country. Great point.
paulpauper 1y ago
80% of the endowment funds are heavily restricted as per donor requests and cannot be used unconditionally.
- hnburnsy 1y ago
  Could you give us some of these restrictions? This seems like a BS excuse to not support the students.
  - kristjansson 1y ago
    This is absolutely par for the course for university endowments. They're not big pots of money, they're thousands of small pots of money with various restrictions on their investment, disbursement, etc.
    - hnburnsy 1y ago
      Not asking for the breakdown, wondering what some of those restrictions look like and whether they support the students with those restrictions.
      - kristjansson 1y ago
        For a quick institution specific overview, see “with donor restrictions” on page 20-21 (pdf page 21-22) of their most recent annual report[0]. I’d imagine “maintain and invest the original contribution in perpetuity” covers majority of the restricted funds, with use-specific restrictions in a distant but comfortable second. Since it’s Harvard, they probably also have more funky restrictions than the average bear (gifts of stock in kind with restrictions on timing of sale, voting, etc.). [0]: https://finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/fy24_harvard_financial_report.pdf https://finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/fy24_harvard_fin...
        hnburnsy 1y ago
        thx
janalsncm 1y ago
This might be true for Harvard, but I don’t think free speech should only be for those who can afford it. I know my school couldn’t if the government came knocking.
- silexia 1y ago
  Harvard is free to say whatever it wants and operate without government funds. A shocking idea may be for a school to actually use the tuition paid by students to educate them. This is forced speech for all those of us who disagree with Harvard's politics and yet have our tax dollars sent to support it anyways.
  - ericjmorey 1y ago
    1st Amendment is more important than you not liking a specific spending of government funds.
    - silexia 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - NovemberWhiskey 1y ago
        You have a very strange idea of how government works. You don’t get a veto on all speech from anyone who receives funds from the public purse, and it’s not a First Amendment issue that you don’t. That’s such an incredibly odd premise; where do you get that idea from?
        const_cast 1y ago
        It's conservative doublespeak in regards to free speech and small government we've been seeing for the past 10 years. By free speech, they mean the lack thereof. By small government, they mean a monarch.
        1y ago
benrapscallion 1y ago
Harvard affiliated hospitals are dependent on NIH funding for survival. Wonder if they are included in the scope of this.
- mikeryan 1y ago
  NIH falls under HHS, and the HHS acting general counsel was a signatory on the original letter. That said, affiliated hospitals are not owned or operated by Harvard. The affiliates could be pushed to drop their affiliation if NIH wanted to play hardball with Harvard.
  - benrapscallion 1y ago
    According to NYT, “ of the $9 billion in federal funding that Harvard receives, with $7 billion going to the university’s 11 affiliated hospitals in Boston and Cambridge, Mass., including Massachusetts General, Boston Children’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.”
acmj 1y ago
People here have little idea about how Harvard works. Harvard is financially vulnerable. It is currently running on a deficiency considering the endowment. And Harvard can't freely use most endowment for personnels anyway. If the government takes away funding, Harvard will have a financial crisis. I guess the leadership made the decision in hope someone could stop the government before bad things happen but when bad things do happen, you will probably see mass layoffs of researchers in particular in life sciences and biomedical research.
- rtp4me 1y ago
  With $50B in the endowment, how are they financially vulnerable? Honest question.
  - tmpz22 1y ago
    Much of the endowment is earmarked towards specific ends. It is not a slush fund for discretionary spending.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      Earmarked implies discretionary so it is discretionary
      - jakelazaroff 1y ago
        Most of it is not discretionary, no matter what words random Internet commenters use to describe it.
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        I am replying to the GP. GP must be mistaken. It was Harvard’s choice to operate this way financially
        jakelazaroff 1y ago
firesteelrain 1y ago
Harvard has sat on $53B tax free leveraged 40% into private equity and now might have to panic sell because their VIP status got clipped? Color me surprised.

ren_engineer 1y ago

those endowments, especially for the Ivy League schools, aren't liquid at all. They'd take a massive haircut if they had to start pulling funds from it

Marsymars 1y ago
Presumably they could go to a large bank and make a deal so that they only have to take a relatively small haircut by getting a loan to be paid back from endowment interest.
hnburnsy 1y ago
If this is the case then they really are not for the benefit of students?

gruez 1y ago

This article lists out why it's not good of an idea as you think. >Universities’ endowments are not as much help as their billion-dollar valuations would suggest. For a start, much of the money is reserved for a particular purpose, funding a specific professorship or research centre, say. Legal covenants often prevent it from being diverted for other purposes. In any case, the income from an endowment is typically used to fund a big share of a university’s operating costs. Eat into the principal and you eat into that revenue stream. >What is more, eating into the principal is difficult. Many endowments, in search of higher income, have invested heavily in illiquid assets, such as private equity, property and venture capital. That is a reasonable strategy for institutions that plan to be around for centuries, but makes it far harder to sell assets to cover a sudden budgetary shortfall. And with markets in turmoil, prices of liquid assets such as stocks and government bonds have gyrated in recent days. Endowments that “decapitalise” now would risk crystallising big losses. More worrying is the fact that the federal government can inflict even more harm aside from cutting off federal funding: >the Trump administration has many other ways to inflict financial pain on universities apart from withholding research funding. It could make it harder for students to tap the government’s financial-aid programmes. It could issue fewer visas to foreign students, who tend to pay full tuition. With Congress’s help, it could amend tax laws in ways that would hurt universities. https://archive.is/siUqm https://archive.is/siUqm

forrestthewoods 1y ago
if a $50,000,000,000 endowment can not be used to smooth things over in times of need or turbulence then the endowment managers need to make changes. You can not possibly convince me that Harvard’s endowment doesn’t trivially have one year of liquidity in it. I’m sure it’s not structured to handle a 7% annual draw down for the next 30 years. But it’s got plenty of time to restructure if needed.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  The point is, it's eating your seed corn. Spending a billion of it is not just spending a billion. It's spending the many billions it was meant to provide, in interest, over the next decades. It's extraordinarily expensive to spend it directly, as opposed to spending the income it generates. You can certainly do it, in a true emergency. But you certainly don't want to make a habit of it.
  - davorak 1y ago
    > You can certainly do it, in a true emergency. This seems to qualify for many people though. Less pain than complying in many minds I am sure.
  - empath75 1y ago
    > The point is, it's eating your seed corn. I've seen arguments of this general shape and form many times about this, and yes, this is true. In general, Harvard should not spend down it's endowment when it has other sources of revenue. I think the issue here is that this _is_ an emergency. Harvard should consider that Federal money gone for the near future and spend and plan to spend as if they will not have it. There is no point in them continuing to exist as an institution if they accede to these absurd demands.
  - unclebucknasty 1y ago
    >You can certainly do it, in a true emergency. But you certainly don't want to make a habit of it. Harvard's endowment returned 9.6% last year, growing the total by $2.5 billion. In the previous year, the endowment returned 2.9%, though the total endowment decreased as the gain was offset by contributions to operating expenses. [0] In other words, Harvard already operates somewhat from their endowment, and can realize net endowment gains in spite of that. [0] https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/10/financial-report-fiscal-2024 https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/10/financial-report-fis...

Obscurity4340 1y ago

He's not gonna be happy they can operate financially without his assent

bilbo0s 1y ago
He still controls the congress, the white house and the supreme court. So he could potentially pull a completely illegal fast one and freeze their accounts. Since rule of law seems on fairly shaky ground right now in any case.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > he could potentially pull a completely illegal fast one and freeze their accounts Harvard (and most institutions and powerful individuals) would be smart to maintain liquid assets and a bank account outside America’s control.
  - outer_web 1y ago
    Maybe their endowment is held in treasurys they should start selling off...
    - bilbo0s 1y ago
      LOL I like the way you think!
  - bilbo0s 1y ago
    This is true, and they have likely been accelerating the arrangements they already had for a while now. At the same time however, getting 50 billion in assets into various European jurisdictions is not at all easy. I'd estimate Trump could cut off 70-90 percent of what Harvard has to work with. Alumni will need to come through for continuing operations if the worst does happen. And I'm certain Harvard has put some thought into that contingency as well.
  - bgarbiak 1y ago
    Trump can make that illegal in no time. „No foreign funds” is a well known method of fighting opposition, tried and tested in many soft regimes (looking for a recent example, Hungary comes to mind).

inglor_cz 1y ago

They could also possibly fire some administrators. Not every vice-provost out there is strictly necessary. Just a few years ago, Harvard Crimson carried an op-ed complaining about the bloat: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/11/29/anderson-bureaucratic-bloat-harvard/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/11/29/anderson-burea...

inglor_cz 1y ago
Cannot edit my original comment, because I wrote it 16 hours ago, but I am somewhat surprised by the fluctuating up/downvote count, going from 0 to 6 and back. It seems that the very idea that some employees in academia might be superfluous is very disagreeable for some HNers. Why? Institutional bloat is a well known problem, it happens in private sector, public sector, churches, military, wherever you can think of. It probably already happened in Ur and Nineveh. Why should academia be somehow immune from this problem? And if it is not immune, shouldn't it try to do something with it? There was a massive increase in tuition in the last generation or so. How much of that extra money goes to the core mission of the universities, and how much is spent on "nice to have extras", starting with opulent campuses and ending with "Standing Committees on Visual Culture and Signage"? Everyone has to trim the fat down a bit from time to time. Even Google and Meta. Why not Harvard.
- oldprogrammer2 1y ago
  People are reflexive. In a different context, driven by someone else, many of the people currently defending Harvard would instead be pointing out that Harvard and the other elite institutions are part of "the problem". In general this year, it's been interesting to me to see Republicans become protectionists and Democrats become neoliberal free traders, both parties flipping their talking points to either align or disagree with Trump.
  - kelipso 1y ago
    People in HN have been complaining about university admin bloat for many years. In this thread, the problem is it’s political and people struggle with the cognitive dissonance about that stuff.

sandworm101 1y ago

This is about lots more than money. Sure, Harvard can go without federal funds. Then comes federal tax breaks. Then Harvard's ability to recruit foreign students (no visas, no foreign students/professors). After that comes the really draconian stuff like the fed revoking clearances or not hiring/doing business with Harvard grads. Such things were once thought illegal but are now very much on the table. That is why Harvard needs to win the money fight no matter the numbers.

morkalork 1y ago
Right, money is just the first and most obvious cudgel. Does Harvard have any biomedical labs that require federal approval to handle hazardous materials? That could be delayed or revoked. Do they file taxes? They could face an audit. There's no shortage of painpoints an organization that large has exposed to an unethical government.

__jl__ 1y ago

I think the 9 billion is very misleading. More than half goes to hospitals affiliated with Harvard. I am not sure but I don't think they get anything from the endowment. The impact of loosing this money would be very uneven across different parts of the university and hospitals affiliated with it. The faculty of arts and science would be fine. Yes, some cuts, a hiring freeze etc. The med school and public health school would feel a big impact. They employ so many people on "soft money" through grants including many faculty members. The hospitals are a different story and I am not sure why they are even lumped together.

tootie 1y ago
Yeah this isn't purely a question of Harvard's P&L being dependent on subsidies. The money in question is grants attached to specific practices or research. The money isn't just gratuity for Harvard being so great, it's awarded for specific objectives that Harvard was deemed capable of delivering. Cutting off the money isn't going to hurt Harvard, it's going to stop all the programs the grants were funding.
- wmf 1y ago
  Stopping those research programs is a choice. They could also choose to pay for them out of the endowment.

fma 1y ago

Harvard is probably thinking they just need to draw the $1 billion extra for another 4 years. Unless, Trump runs for a 3rd time which he has floated. If that happens then I think everyone's just screwed.

formerly_proven 1y ago
With an overbearingly powerful executive like the federal US executive you can come up with so many ways to fuck with companies or institutions like this one beyond not giving them money.
throwway120385 1y ago
I'm sure he's got plans to issue an executive order declaring all of the votes against him null and void because they weren't cast and counted within 4 hours of each other on election day.
tremon 1y ago
It's very dangerous to assume "oh, this will only last four years". The rights currently being eroded (free speech, habeas corpus and voting rights themselves) are required for free and fair elections. Even if the term of the current Shitstain In Chief ends when it's supposed to, his replacement will be from the same cloth.

robocat 1y ago

Republicans Are Floating Plans To Raise the Endowment Tax. Here’s What You Need To Know : https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/11/increasing-endowment-tax-preview/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/11/increasing-endo... Proposed College Endowment Tax Hike: What to Know : https://thecollegeinvestor.com/52851/proposed-college-endowment-tax-hike/ https://thecollegeinvestor.com/52851/proposed-college-endowm... College endowments are typically tax-exempt, but a 2017 law imposed a 1.4% tax on investment income for a small group of wealthy private universities. A new proposal seeks to increase the endowment tax rate to 14% Other article: proposing an 8.6 percent tax hike When hacking the government rules is used against you.

onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
LoL - why it makes any sense to do this for universities and not billionaires is beyond me, but I'm sure half the country can explain it to me like I'm 5.
- pqtyw 1y ago
  Doesn't this tax only apply to "net investment income"/realized gains? Billionaires technically already have to pay it at a higher rate. And well they generally do? I mean when they personally actually sell stock and or receive dividends and interest.
  - peterbecich 1y ago
    Agreed. For the revenue tax activists want from billionaires, it would necessitate a wealth tax, which I believe is unconstitutional. The non-profit tax exemption fight is about "income taxes" which billionaires already have to pay (but avoid). So it is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
    - nrclark 1y ago
      what is unconstitutional about a wealth tax?

bitcoin_anon 1y ago

I agree. Also, the quality and independence of the research will improve when it is funded outside of government influence.

jmye 1y ago
Which is, of course, why the internet is a spectacular failure and SpaceX is our best chance to ever put a man on the moon, and polio is still ravaging the country. Great point.

paulpauper 1y ago

80% of the endowment funds are heavily restricted as per donor requests and cannot be used unconditionally.

hnburnsy 1y ago
Could you give us some of these restrictions? This seems like a BS excuse to not support the students.
- kristjansson 1y ago
  This is absolutely par for the course for university endowments. They're not big pots of money, they're thousands of small pots of money with various restrictions on their investment, disbursement, etc.
  - hnburnsy 1y ago
    Not asking for the breakdown, wondering what some of those restrictions look like and whether they support the students with those restrictions.
    - kristjansson 1y ago
      For a quick institution specific overview, see “with donor restrictions” on page 20-21 (pdf page 21-22) of their most recent annual report[0]. I’d imagine “maintain and invest the original contribution in perpetuity” covers majority of the restricted funds, with use-specific restrictions in a distant but comfortable second. Since it’s Harvard, they probably also have more funky restrictions than the average bear (gifts of stock in kind with restrictions on timing of sale, voting, etc.). [0]: https://finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/fy24_harvard_financial_report.pdf https://finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/fy24_harvard_fin...
      - hnburnsy 1y ago
        thx

janalsncm 1y ago

This might be true for Harvard, but I don’t think free speech should only be for those who can afford it. I know my school couldn’t if the government came knocking.

silexia 1y ago
Harvard is free to say whatever it wants and operate without government funds. A shocking idea may be for a school to actually use the tuition paid by students to educate them. This is forced speech for all those of us who disagree with Harvard's politics and yet have our tax dollars sent to support it anyways.
- ericjmorey 1y ago
  1st Amendment is more important than you not liking a specific spending of government funds.
  - silexia 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - NovemberWhiskey 1y ago
      You have a very strange idea of how government works. You don’t get a veto on all speech from anyone who receives funds from the public purse, and it’s not a First Amendment issue that you don’t. That’s such an incredibly odd premise; where do you get that idea from?
      - const_cast 1y ago
        It's conservative doublespeak in regards to free speech and small government we've been seeing for the past 10 years. By free speech, they mean the lack thereof. By small government, they mean a monarch.
        1y ago

benrapscallion 1y ago

Harvard affiliated hospitals are dependent on NIH funding for survival. Wonder if they are included in the scope of this.

mikeryan 1y ago
NIH falls under HHS, and the HHS acting general counsel was a signatory on the original letter. That said, affiliated hospitals are not owned or operated by Harvard. The affiliates could be pushed to drop their affiliation if NIH wanted to play hardball with Harvard.
- benrapscallion 1y ago
  According to NYT, “ of the $9 billion in federal funding that Harvard receives, with $7 billion going to the university’s 11 affiliated hospitals in Boston and Cambridge, Mass., including Massachusetts General, Boston Children’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.”

acmj 1y ago

People here have little idea about how Harvard works. Harvard is financially vulnerable. It is currently running on a deficiency considering the endowment. And Harvard can't freely use most endowment for personnels anyway. If the government takes away funding, Harvard will have a financial crisis. I guess the leadership made the decision in hope someone could stop the government before bad things happen but when bad things do happen, you will probably see mass layoffs of researchers in particular in life sciences and biomedical research.

rtp4me 1y ago
With $50B in the endowment, how are they financially vulnerable? Honest question.
- tmpz22 1y ago
  Much of the endowment is earmarked towards specific ends. It is not a slush fund for discretionary spending.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    Earmarked implies discretionary so it is discretionary
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      Most of it is not discretionary, no matter what words random Internet commenters use to describe it.
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        I am replying to the GP. GP must be mistaken. It was Harvard’s choice to operate this way financially
        jakelazaroff 1y ago

firesteelrain 1y ago

Harvard has sat on $53B tax free leveraged 40% into private equity and now might have to panic sell because their VIP status got clipped? Color me surprised.