Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
The point is that more billions are no longer needed.
9% of the 5.8 billion dollar operating budget was from gifts for use today. They also had a surplus income of 407 million (independent of the amount the endowment grew). So that 9% works out to roughly 500 million. So you can see how unnecessary all that fundraising is.
They could easily eliminate legacy admissions and lose all of that endowment money and it would not impair their ability to deliver the current level of education now or in the future.
So to answer your question no I am not that dense. Perhaps you are trying to respond to a point I am not making.
|
Harvard disagrees with you. Hence employing 435 people and five executives to fund raise. Massive investment for something not needed.
Also, Harvard's revenues are still driven by this fund raising because of volatility in the market ($11B loss in 2009 counter by an $11B gain in 2021). Harvard's
own review states the key is donors.
"That means that 49 percent of University revenue is from current-use gifts and the endowment (which can be very volatile, depending on market conditions and Harvard’s investment strategy). As discussed below, the endowment’s performance was historically strong in fiscal 2021, but Harvard’s increasing dependence upon it makes setting the appropriate guardrails and executing the investment strategy ever more important. And although donors’ current giving surpassed expectations at the worst moments early in the pandemic, their largess is not inexhaustible."
"The true heroes for Harvard in fiscal 2021 were supportive donors, past and present."
But whatever, Harvard should follow your economic plan for long-term sustainability and tell the alumni to take a flying leap. They don't need their money (or stock gifts).