Comment by jltsiren
9 days ago
Columbia's endowment is ~$20 billion. A sustainable spending level would be 3-4% of that, assuming no further donations, or 4-5%, if donations continue as usual. In any case, it would be at most $1 billion/year, and that money is already spent on current activities.
Last year, Columbia received over $1.3 billion as government grants and contracts. Even if they stopped everything that currently depends on the endowment and redirected the money to replace federal funding, it would not be enough.
Why not spend the money? That is a 20 year runway.
It isn't a law of nature that the endowment must always grow. It serves the institution, not the other way around. What is the point if not to spend it when it matters?
20 years is a short time for an institution that can reasonably expect to last centuries. Serving the institution means sustaining the endowment indefinitely, which isn't compatible with spending more than you can afford.
Depleting the endowment doesn't mean the institution disappears, and as I said, that would be decades into the future.
Is there no institutional value or quality that is worth even reducing the size of the endowment? If so, then the institution is serving the endowment, not the other way around.
2 replies →
Keep in mind that they've also suggested attacking endowments with wealth taxes. I'm not sure they've thought that one through, because that would also open the door to going after the wealth of their billionaire buddies in the next administration, assuming there is one.
> It isn't a law of nature that the endowment must always grow.
But it is the nature of endowments that you must follow the explicit spending guidelines that almost always accompany them. A university cannot just "spend they money", because the money is earmarked for certain things and often includes certain guidance on timelines.
Sounds like they need to play along with the rules, then.
Yeah, who cares about the science and research they're doing when there's minorities to punish? Oops, I meant "anti-dei initiatives"
This one isn't DEI, it's the fact that the university is "allowing" students to protest the genocide in Gaza. The White House is using the antisemitism arm of governance to attack their political enemies.
1 reply →
[flagged]