Skip to content
home Harvard Magazine
E-mail updates

Sign up to be notified of new issues.

View a sample newsletter

 STAY CONNECTED

    

Yale's Endowment Performance Edges Harvard's

September 22, 2009

 

Yale University announced today that investment returns on its endowment were negative 24.6 percent during the volatile fiscal year ended last June 30. That result was slightly better than the 27.3 percent investment losses Harvard Management Company (HMC) reported on September 10. In all, the value of Yale’s endowment declined 28.8 percent during the fiscal year, from $22.9 billion to $16.3 billion, reflecting investment losses of $5.6 billion, spending in support of the university’s operations of $1.2 billion, and gifts received and other adjustments totaling $200 million. At Harvard, where distributions in support of operations were $1.7 billion during fiscal year 2009, the value of the endowment decreased 29.5 percent, from $36.9 billion as of June 30, 2008, to $26 billion one year later.

Yale’s announcement highlighted the damage wrought by adverse financial markets worldwide, particularly on endowments—like Yale’s and Harvard’s—managed for long-term appreciation:

“In fiscal 2009, equity exposure hurt results, diversification failed to protect asset values, and illiquidity further detracted from performance. With more than 95% of assets invested to generate equity-like returns, the portfolio’s performance suffered in an environment characterized by widespread declines in marketable and non-marketable equity values. The University’s holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds, which provided a rare safe haven last year, returned 5.1%. Yale’s allocation of only 4% to bonds, motivated by fixed income’s unattractiveness to long-term investors, provided little protection to the portfolio.

“Among Yale’s asset classes, marketable assets performed relatively well, with absolute return, domestic equity, foreign equity, and fixed income in aggregate declining by 13.1%. As in previous years, active management added substantial value to the University’s portfolio. Absolute return posted a credible -9.1% return. Even though the University’s absolute return managers failed to achieve the goal of producing a positive return in fiscal 2009, the hedged portfolio produced results far superior to returns generated by equity markets. The University’s domestic equities fell by 18.6%, surpassing their Wilshire 5000 benchmark by 7.5%. Foreign developed equities shrank by 14.4%, posting a 17.0% advantage over the MSCI EAFE Index. Emerging market equities decreased by 19.2%, outperforming the MSCI Emerging Markets Index by 8.8%. Strong one-year relative performance in each marketable equity category contributed to ten-year records in which domestic equity showed annual excess returns of 8.7%, foreign developed equity of 10.0%, and emerging market equity of 6.9%.

“Yale’s private equity holdings in leveraged buyouts and venture capital posted a 24.3% loss. Real assets, Yale’s largest asset class, produced the worst performance with a decline of 33.9%, thereby accounting for the largest portion of the endowment’s losses. Notably, in a year when oil prices dropped from $140 on July 1, 2008, to $72 on June 30, 2009, Yale’s energy investments dropped a commensurate 47.4%. From a longer-term perspective, over the decade ending June 30, 2009, Yale’s private equity returned 24.0% per annum and real assets returned 13.4% per annum, with both results far exceeding the returns generated by marketable equities and bonds.”

The latter comments, on the long-term performance of private equity and real assets, closely echoed those made by Jane Mendillo, HMC’s president and CEO.

Yale’s 10-year annualized investment return on endowment assets declined to 11.8 percent, according to its report. HMC reported that the comparable figure for Harvard’s endowment now stands at 8.9 percent, above its long-term goal of 8.25 percent annualized gains.

  1. September 29, 2009

    This is really not correct. Yale’s letter indicated that it’s performance was -24.6% before any gifts, distributions to the University, etc. Harvard indicated performance was -27% *after* distributions to the University, gifts, etc. So these two numbers are not comparable at all. Yale mentioned that after taking distributions into account, its performance was -30%. I’m surprised the Magazine editors didn’t notice this before running this piece.

    Editor’s Note:

    The data are as follows: Harvard’s investment return was negative 27.3 percent, and the total value of the endowment, including investment return, distributions, and gifts received, declined 29.5 percent. Yale’s investment return was negative 24.6 percent, and the total value of its endowment, including investment return, distributions, and gifts received, declined 28.8 percent. The figures reported in our dispatch are correct, and can be checked by using the links in the posting, which go directly to Yale’s release. SM has misinterpreted Harvard’s release, and so is confused by the data, which are reported correctly here. Of note: Princeton reported on September 29 that its investment return was negative 23.7 percent; surprisingly, Princeton was able to fund its operations with zero distribution from the endowment during the year (using the proceeds of a debt issue instead), and so was able to preserve the assets in its portfolio.

    ~SM

  2. September 29, 2009

    And moreover, Yale did not pay its investment advisers bonuses of $100 Million for the bad advice.

    Editor’s Note:

    Yale does not manage money internally. It hires outside investment advisers, and does not disclose its compensation paid to them (other than disclosing the compensation for David Swensen, who oversees the operation). Harvard Management Company manages 30 percent of assets internally; compensation paid to those money managers is disclosed, but the bonuses will not nearly equal $100 million this year, when they are reported. HMC president and CEO Jane Mendillo reported, on September 10, that managers whose funds underperformed their market benchmarks in fact had bonuses awarded for prior years withdrawn (or “clawed back”), as is HMC policy; that is generally not the formula for outside investment managers. In any case, HMC continues to maintain that its internal money-management costs are a small fraction of what it pays outside managers for comparable performance; but Yale, which is presumably paying those higher fees for outside money management, continues to have a better long-term rate of investment return than Harvard, including Yale’s presumably higher expenses for money management (investment returns are reported net of—i.e., after deducting—such fees and expenses).

    ~Harold Friedman

  3. September 30, 2009

    If memory serves, HMC severed ties with its old portfolio manager a year or two ago in response to populist concern over the size of his compensation. I wonder, would HMC have prevented a few billions of losses if the university community had tolerated the payment of a few tens of millions of “outrageous” compensation?

    Editor’s Note:

    Harvard Management Company president and CEO Jack Meyer, and a large number of colleagues, departed in September 2005 to start their own hedge fund, Convexity Capital Management. His successor, Mohamed El-Erian, served from early 2006 until the end of 2007, when he returned to PIMCO, his prior employer, in a more senior role. In neither case did anyone ever talk about Harvard “severing ties” with HMC’s leader—and in fact, Harvard contracted with Convexity to manage $500 million of endowment assets.

    ~Nicholas Georgakopoulos, LLM '88, SJD '93

Add a new comment

Your email address is kept private and will not be shown publicly
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote> <span> <b> <i> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • SmartyPants will translate ASCII punctuation characters into “smart” typographic punctuation HTML entities.

Copyright ©1996—2009
Harvard Magazine Inc.
Contact the webmaster