Austin Eagle wrote:

---

Can this possibly be correct? Could the USM figure be a misprint?

---

We have a high overhead. All of those new lightpoles as well as a very nice recently acquired airplane for traveling.

money matters wrote:

---

I don't know about the exact figure, but I've heard that most of that is not actually "in pocket." A large portion of what is reported is land, etc. Other portions are in wills. Ask some of the folks who used to work at the foundation. 

---

Are you saying that most of USM's measly $2.3 million in endowment funds as reported by USNWR are not "in pocket?"  How much is in pocket?

I just read a USM Foundation news release concerning the successful completion of the seven year, $100 million USM Comprehensive Campaign.  Shelby Thames is reported as having announced on 23 October 2004 that the campaign raised $107,772,415.72,  including approximately $35.5 million in cash.  That was USD I presume.  In the pocket.

Maybe I just don't understand USM's financial reporting.  Let's see, if there was $107.7 mil raised and reported less than a year ago, and now there's only $2.3 mil in the endowment pot, where's the other $105+ million? I know it isn't nearly that simple, and that a chunk of these monies were directed to the athletic foundation. Even so, the numbers seem way of of kilter. Could someone please enlighten me, or better yet, direct me to a link with a USM Foundation  balance sheet?

AE

Austin Eagle---I just know that a tiny percentage of what USM claims is in actual endowed funds--gaining interest or stocks gaining in value.  Maybe this $2.3 million is the true endowed amount.   It IS a tiny sum--and a tiny percentage of what the big guy claims.

Austin Eagle wrote:

---

M.M. wrote:

From A.E. By the way, most of the USM Foundation web site is "under construction."  There's no financial information to be found there, and the only accessible areas of the site are "News Highlights" and "Giving Opportunities."

I know of at least 8 people (i.e. I know names) who have suspended giving to meet pledges they have made--each is planning to resume when this madness is over. And that is in my narrow corner of the world.

AE

---

At the next paving company meeting we will give more details....we dont really care what our peers think or for that matter alumni, students or taxpayers(and certainly not faculty)


Printers devil, if you don't care what the alumni, students or taxpayers think then where will you raise money?

Austin Eagle wrote:

---

Can this possibly be correct? Could the USM figure be a misprint? Do I need glasses? If these figures are accurate, the USM endowment is every bit as pathetic as its peer ratings. 

---

It is becoming increasingly obvious to anyone with eyes to see that the past three years have been the among the darkest in USM's modern history. The administration has been the recipient of numerous, history making and overwhelming votes of no confidence, accreditation has been threatened for the first time in seventy years, national rankings have dropped to the lowest level, almost half of the faculty has jumped ship in desperation, student test scores have slipped, almost half a million dollars were squandered in an ill-conceived attempt to fire two senior faculty members, a hasty reorganization undertaken without appropriate consultation has severely affected a number of academic programs and removed the bulk of capable middle management and institutional memory, and the university endowment has languished at the bottom of the state ranking. All of this has transpired while pursuing some ill defined and illusory holy grail of economic development. The IHL and the Alumni Association have watched as all of this has transpired. How has the administration's performance been rewarded? With two more years.
 
 

astonished wrote:

---

Fron what I see and hear, Stephen Judd and his cohorts over in the Arts have done more for "economic Development" in this area than have all those highly touted Econ Dev types.  For example, I talked with several families who relocated here from other upscale communities primarily for proximity to the theatre and music offerings, as well as the general atmosphere usually associated with college towns. Now if we could just get rid of the toxic influences currently residing in the dome, we could put all our energies toward being a truly quality institution. We have along way to go, so let's get to it.

---

yes rich retirees who hate taxes for local schools. Mississippi needs a lot more of them.

This cannot be right.  The campaign started in 1998 concluded with raising over $110 million.

donald wrote:

---

This cannot be right.  The campaign started in 1998 concluded with raising over $110 million.

---

Did that $110 million go into endowments? (I'm asking, not making an assertion that it did or didn't. I honestly don't know.) As discussed up-thread, a sizeable amount of that $110 million wasn't in cash. It was pledges, insurance policies, land, etc. Obviously, those kinds of donations can't be called "endowments."

Unfortunately, I don't think the USM endowment level vs. published capital campaign numbers is all that unusual.

Consider MSU's $18M endowment and remember that MSU's first major gifts campaign concluded in 1997 with more than $143M in private gifts, pledges and deferred gifts for the university. The current capaign is supposed to raise more than $400M (and has "collected" $243M from july 2001 to date).

The latest MSU memo (the internal bragging sheet) claims MSU's endowment is "more than $210M". A substantially larger amount than the $18M reported by USNews.

palindrome wrote:

---

The latest MSU memo (the internal bragging sheet) claims MSU's endowment is "more than $210M".

---

I wouldn't believe anything that appears on an inernal USM 'braggin sheet' even if the bragger placed their hand on a copy of John Donne when it was said.

palindrome wrote:

---

No. I just meant to emphasize the difference between the bragging numbers reported by a financial campaign manager (which all schools report) and the actual cash-in-hand number that generates investment income.

---

Do you think that USM honestly reported endowment of 2.3 mil to USNWR,  and the other Mississippi colleges and universities reported inflated figures? 

Referring to the USM Foundation's own press release, they received well over $35 mil in cash donations during the 1997-2004 capital campaign.  It appears that little or none of that cash was channeled into the USM endowment.  It's just too bad that our in house financial genius Ken Malone isn't here to explain what happened to all that money.

On a related note,  if the paltry endowment figure is correct,  one must wonder why this is the case.  Have past administrations deemed it unimportant to build an endowment?  What about Lucas, and Fleming, and Thames?  Did this escape their notice?

I believe the USNWR endowment numbers. The Ole Miss endowment amount ($367 m) matches what the Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting in their annual 05-06 Almanac.

Also, for comparison, last year, according to the Chronicle of Higher Ed:
Mississippi State University fundraised $56,538,600;
and University of Mississippi fundraised $48,719,000;
and Mississippi College fundraised $8,279,700. No data was listed for USM.

Additionally, in the same Almanac, the ranked list of 704 universities with endowments over $150 million (includes several community colleges and tiny colleges too) USM is not listed. Ole Miss appears ranked #134 and MSU is ranked #229.

I've listed the top 105 fyi and the list in is based in MILLIONS (so, for example, Harvard has a $22 billion dollar endowment; Middlebury College has a $664 million dollar endowment).

Rank June 30, 2004 June 30, 2003 One-year change

1. Harvard U $22,143,649 $18,849,491 17.5%

2. Yale U $12,747,150 $11,034,600 15.5%

3. U of Texas System $10,336,687 $8,708,818 18.7%

4. Princeton U $9,928,200 $8,730,100 13.7%

5. Stanford U $9,922,000 $8,614,000 15.2%

6. Massachusetts Inst of Technology $5,865,212 $5,133,613 14.3%

7. U of California $4,767,466 $4,368,911 9.1%

8. Emory U $4,535,587 $4,019,766 12.8%

9. Columbia U $4,493,085 $4,343,151 3.5%

10. Texas A&M U System and Fdns $4,373,047 $3,802,712 15.0%

11. U of Michigan $4,163,382 $3,464,515 20.2%

12. U of Pennsylvania $4,018,660 $3,547,473 13.3%

13. Washington U in St Louis $4,000,823 $3,470,072 15.3%

14. Northwestern U $3,668,405 $3,051,167 20.2%

15. U of Chicago $3,620,728 $3,221,851 12.4%

16. Duke U $3,313,859 $3,017,261 9.8%

17. Rice U $3,302,455 $2,937,649 12.4%

18. Cornell U $3,238,350 $2,854,771 13.4%

19. U of Notre Dame $3,095,703 $2,573,346 20.3%

20. U of Virginia $2,793,225 $1,800,882 55.1%

21. Dartmouth C $2,454,293 $2,121,183 15.7%

22. U of Southern California $2,399,960 $2,113,666 13.5%

23. Vanderbilt U $2,296,262 $2,019,139 13.7%

24. Johns Hopkins U $2,055,542 $1,714,541 19.9%

25. Brown U $1,647,295 $1,461,327 12.7%

26. U of Minnesota and Fdn $1,542,863 $1,336,020 15.5%

27. Ohio State U and Fdn $1,541,175 $1,216,574 26.7%

28. New York U $1,449,500 $1,244,600 16.5%

29. Case Western Reserve U $1,441,819 $1,289,274 11.8%

30. Rockefeller U $1,394,736 $1,278,100 9.1%

31. U of Pittsburgh $1,364,882 $1,156,618 18.0%

32. U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Fdns $1,317,211 $1,097,418 20.0%

33. U of Washington $1,315,894 $1,103,197 19.3%

34. Grinnell C $1,291,781 $1,111,615 16.2%

35. U of Rochester $1,261,562 $1,127,350 11.9%

36. California Inst of Technology $1,261,122 $1,151,148 9.6%

37. Williams C $1,229,516 $1,082,336 13.6%

38. Purdue U $1,207,131 $1,056,767 14.2%

39. Wellesley C $1,179,988 $1,043,476 13.1%

40. Boston C $1,150,148 $968,511 18.8%

41. Pomona C $1,149,720 $994,476 15.6%

42. U of Richmond $1,103,465 $996,710 10.7%

43. Swarthmore C $1,080,026 $930,373 16.1%

44. U of Illinois and Fdn $1,058,167 $904,960 16.9%

45. Pennsylvania State U $1,056,078 $919,422 14.9%

46. Indiana U and Fdn $1,012,707 $941,068 7.6%

47. Yeshiva U $1,003,024 $914,130 9.7%

48. U of Delaware $995,889 $868,065 14.7%

49. U of Wisconsin Fdn $994,172 $677,595 46.7%

50. Amherst C $993,417 $877,151 13.3%

51. U of Cincinnati $987,785 $873,327 13.1%

52. Baylor C of Medicine $972,351 $833,644 16.6%

53. U of Toronto $966,124 $788,774 22.5%

54. U of Nebraska and Fdn $959,861 $775,718 23.7%

55. Smith C $924,464 $823,915 12.2%

56. Southern Methodist U $914,527 $810,071 12.9%

57. Texas Christian U $868,907 $796,676 9.1%

58. Kansas U Endowment Association $849,255 $734,536 15.6%

59. U of Missouri System $844,477 $811,353 4.1%

60. Georgia Tech Fdn $814,963 $729,926 11.7%

61. Wake Forest U $812,192 $725,155 12.0%

62. Princeton Theological Seminary $801,193 $717,000 11.7%

63. Lehigh U $796,946 $705,426 13.0%

64. Berea C $794,963 $695,812 14.2%

65. Syracuse U $770,167 $656,893 17.2%

66. Carnegie Mellon U $768,990 $654,678 17.5%

67. Tufts U $752,428 $669,286 12.4%

68. Michigan State U $749,365 $592,004 26.6%

69. U of Florida Fdn $738,299 $585,695 26.1%

70. U of Iowa and Fdn $737,704 $638,996 15.4%

71. George Washington U $733,801 $634,100 15.7%

72. Saint Louis U $702,064 $645,382 8.8%

73. U of Tulsa $701,948 $640,119 9.7%

74. U of Alabama System $699,200 $602,301 16.1%

75. Boston U $694,051 $620,300 11.9%

76. Tulane U $692,665 $606,488 14.2%

77. Georgetown U $680,611 $591,042 15.2%

78. Trinity U (Tex) $673,572 $593,973 13.4%

79. Baylor U $672,341 $556,785 20.8%

80. U of Tennessee System $666,085 $592,194 12.5%

81. Middlebury C $664,781 $536,386 23.9%

82. U of Oklahoma and Fdn $631,376 $588,669 7.3%

83. U of Arkansas and Fdn $626,446 $546,267 14.7%

84. Vassar C $608,261 $546,854 11.2%

85. Oberlin C $593,742 $537,772 10.4%

86. McGill U $588,892 $530,610 11.0%

87. U of California at Los Angeles Fdn $586,839 $499,139 17.6%

88. Berry C $581,725 $547,040 6.3%

89. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst $570,175 $510,883 11.6%

90. U of Louisville Fdn $554,840 $475,193 16.8%

91. Lafayette C $544,317 $496,410 9.7%

92. U of Maryland System and Fdn $533,059 $452,524 17.8%

93. U of British Columbia $523,580 $458,636 14.2%

94. Wesleyan U $517,631 $472,251 9.6%

95. Washington State U $515,571 $495,623 4.0%

96. Bowdoin C $514,243 $452,436 13.7%

97. Carleton C $511,200 $451,883 13.1%

98. U of Colorado Fdn $499,794 $386,935 29.2%

99. Northeastern U $498,481 $410,691 21.4%

100. U of Kentucky $488,827 $412,308 18.6%

101. Macalester C $487,010 $435,732 11.8%

102. Hamilton C (NY) $486,477 $405,890 19.9%

103. Bryn Mawr C $478,452 $418,502 14.3%

104. Washington & Lee U $477,504 $416,855 14.5%

105. U of Georgia and Fdn $474,596 $397,082 19.5%

The problem with reporting endowment numbers is that some universities have them clustered in different ways. For example the Univ. of Texas numbers reflect all of the universities in the UT system (most of this money stays in Austin but not all of it). At USM, in addition to the university, funds are maintained by 3 quasi-private foundations, the USM Foundation, the Athletic Foundation and the Research Foundation. I suspect that the small numbers reported in USNWR represents the endowment maintained by USM itself, which is probably close to the average balance in the USM checking account. This number does not reflect the balance in the various Foundation accounts.