The College’s endowment grew 19.2 percent in the 2006 to 2007 fiscal year, from $491.7 million to $585.9 million — the largest growth since 2000. Chair of the William and Mary Foundation Howard Busbee said that the investment trust grew 19.5 percent.
The investment trust includes only the endowment funds invested in assets and discards funds acquired as gifts or funds paid out from the endowment to be spent. In the 2005 to 2006 fiscal year, the investment trust grew 13.7 percent.
“As stewards of these important funds, the William and Mary Foundation takes a great deal of pride in this exceptional rate of return,” Busbee said in a College press release. “As a result of this investment performance, all of the important programs and priorities of the College will be even stronger in the long term.”
In an interview during a break at today’s Board of Visitors meeting, Busbee said the increased rate of return results from two decisions of the foundation: moving assets away from pure stocks and bonds and into partnership investments and hiring a chief investment officer, Brian Hiestand, who Busbee says brings additional expertise to the foundation.
According to the press release, the total endowment growth results from new contributions to the endowment, growth in the investment trust, growth in the funds held in trust by others and increases in the College’s real estate holdings.
“Thanks to a sophisticated investment strategy and the heartening support of alumni and friends of the College over the past fiscal year, this is terrific news for all who love this College,” President Gene Nichol said in the press release. “This growth in our endowment will continue to cement the long-term financial health of this historic institution for generations to come.”
RSS Feeds
13 Comments
Wow— I wish my investments would grow by 20%! Next step — the billion dollar fundraising campaign!
All we needed to do was move funds? This is so sad that no one was smart enough to do this sooner— great job W and Mary! However, even though I do not invest very often, I know that with the right funds, just under 20 per cent is easy to do, especially if you have almost $500 million dollars. Now if we could actually get donations, we would be in better shape.
Were these changes/improvements/whatever in management made in the past two years?
Investment returns (19.5%) actually exceeded the endowment growth (19.2%)? Assuming all $491.7 million was invested, this would mean that new donations and/or expenses dragged down the investment returns.
That’s great…W&M has greater endowment per student than other public ivy’s as UNC-Chapel Hill!
MacSuile — I dont think you can say since we don’t know the percentage of the 500 million campaign that was given to unrestricted endowment as opposed to other funds/scholarship funds, etc. And besides, i think you’re talking about two different funds as the article talks about towards the end… either way, the endowment going up 19.5 or 19.2 % is still great news!
Tribe01 makes a great point — endowment as compared to institution size is an important measure
DaveS – There is no such thing as “unrestricted endowment.” Endowment, by it’s very definition, is “restricted.” I don’t think you understand the disctinction between “campaign” and “endowment” nor the significance of endowment growth being lower than investment returns.
Gene Nichol or whatever else DaveS has been talking about obsessively on these comments aside—: a lot of big money portfolios went up this much: trust me, I would know.
MacSuille is right— endowment has nothing to do with the Fund! Endowment is restricted. When the students today are stuck with budget cuts because the college would like to be “great and public” and no longer sees itself as an Ivy (TERRIBLE re-branding) nothing can be saved by the endowment, only by the Fund for WandM.
Data in a URO article released today imply that at least 66% ($62.5 million) of the FY2007 endowment growth was due to investment returns. This further implies that new donations were somewhere around $20-30 million. Presumably, the Class of ’57 gift of $12 million was a big piece of that “new money.” Where are the $50 million bequests from alumni and non-alumni? The largest single pledge/bequest/gift to-date was only $21 million.
MacSuile & friends — I think that your agenda here is clear. You’ve been spouting the same misleading statistics that Lance Kyle, Jim Jones and the whole anti-Nichol crowd have been emailing around for months. “Not that impressed” just parroted, word for word, the argument plastered all over the front of the anti-Nichol website!
At least I’d freely admit to strongly supporting Gene Nichol’s leadership. Heck, I even blog about it. How about you guys cop to the fact that you’re just trying to trash the school’s accomplishments to in order to trash Gene Nichol. Give us a break from your ideological agenda – WM doesn’t need your personal vendetta. Maybe you should come back when you have something positive to say about the school you claim to love so dearly.
Who is this DaveS? What kind of an ass are you? As someone who invests, I specifically mentioned that it has nothing to do with Nichol so that no one would bring it up and that for maybe 1 minute DaveS could not obsess over the president. Evidently, that is beyond him. I just hope you are not a graduate of my class— my degree would be cheapened. I am guessing you are a young alum with nothing better to do than stick up for Nichol. Good for you and all, but please, get a life like most of the other alum have. Your blog must be even worse than what you have here.
I never said it was bad that the endowment went up—I was mad that we did not do this sooner! Why don’t you just take credit for your precious president having done it all? I want to see the Fund grow too, because it is unrestricted— I am not rooting against it?
So if anyone else wants to comment about actual substance on investing and what this all means, please do. Otherwise, DaveS, please read something about investing and learn the difference between the Fund and the Endowment. If you want to learn something, read MacSuille’s comments: he knows even better than me.
I feel like I can’t read an article anymore without ridiculous spin from the pro- and anti-Nichol factions of W&M alumni.
The serial poster above apparently has a problem distinguishing between Nichol and the College. Calling objective evidence “misleading statistics” without providing details is also intellectually disingenuous.