PonyFans.com

Southern Methodist University will announce Friday that it has raised $1.15 billion for student scholarships, new faculty positions, buildings and more in a campaign that ended in December.

It’s the largest amount ever raised by a private university in Texas, and a feat few private schools around the country have accomplished, SMU leaders said.

From Northeastern University in Boston to the University of Miami, a growing number of colleges and universities are pursuing billion-dollar-plus campaigns as they try, like SMU, to elevate their national status and prestige.

Until now, only one private college in Texas had raised that much money — Rice University in Houston with $1.08 billion in a campaign that ended in 2013.

The University of Texas at Austin, which is public, raised $3.1 billion in a campaign that wrapped up in 2014. Just last November, Texas A&M upped the philanthropic ante and said it planned to raise $4 billion.

SMU’s campaign is called the Second Century Campaign in honor of the college’s 100th birthday. SMU was founded in 1911 and opened in 1915 after prominent families donated land and Dallas leaders lobbied the Methodist church for it.

Turner said that while SMU is proud to have raised more than $1 billion, that’s not the ultimate goal.

“The dollar amount is really only the means to an end,” he said, “and the end is to do things that make your school better.”

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/educatio ... ersity.ece

So why the bain layoffs? Different money buckets?

Elimination of redundancies

mtrout wrote:So why the bain layoffs? Different money buckets?

We could probably get rid of half the administrators and our students wouldn't notice. Plus, we should probably reallocate teaching positions to the future (Engineering, Cox, Meadows, Simmons) from the past Dedman (certain majors).

Because colleges and universities across the country have become horribly bloated with unnecessary, irrelevant, redundant, or pointless administrative positions.

And some professors for whom tenure is the same thing as social security.

mtrout wrote:So why the bain layoffs? Different money buckets?

you have to remember not all of that money is in straight cash that goes to the endowment and generates a return

some of that money would be in a "life trust" that will not vest until that person does and their life insurance policy goes to SMU or their investments go to SMU

some of that billion+ could be in the form of artworks, software, lab or computer equipment ect and will not generate a return and can actually be an expense over time to maintain or display

some of the money went towards building a building and thus not only is that money not returning dividends that building is now a new expense that other money needs to be available to cover

some money could have gone to recruit top professors and that requires a start up package for them to equip a lab or recruit graduate students so again no return on investment

and as others stated SMU really did not just fire a ton of people they simply did not fill positions they deemed as no longer needed or redundant, they reassigned people to other positions and closed out their former position and some people were probably offered early retirement or a chance to retire and then return at a reduced cost in non-retirement dollars

and as stated most universities could probably go through several rounds of that and not skip a beat

rodrod5, when do you feel it's acceptable for SMU to start its next campaign, this time focused on increasing Endowment.

I think for universities that are aggressive about it 4 years is probably the least amount of time and 5 or 6 would be more standard

and I think that is for aggressive schools so SMU could probably go 5-6 years between

some of it probably depends on the donors as well and feeling them out

in the case of SMU with a pretty good number of "foundations" that are started, run by or connected to SMU alumni and regents and former major donors I think that helps things because foundations of course are always in the business of making donations and supporting things

I think you generally need a "cause" or a goal to work around as well in the case of SMU this last go around it was of course buildings, faculty and student financial aid

I know it would be popular with many for a "cause" of "lets distance from Baylor and TCU on endowment dollars", but I am not sure that would be enough of a cause to get major donors rallying around that

in the case of TCU I can see them starting one soon wrapped around the medical school they are going to work with north Texas state on (although that sure has been quiet lately)

I still feel over time TCU will want to break that away and take it over and more than likely north Texas state will screw the deal up enough to make it easy for TCU to do

as it is not north Texas state TCOM is legislatively prohibited from offering MD degrees so it is not a matter of them getting enough private dollars (something the north Texas state system excels at NOT doing) to go ahead and get it started it is a matter of law that TCOM cannot offer MD degrees and I am not sure that will change

in the case of Baylor I would not be surprised if they had a campaign soon, but at the same time they started one back in about 2008 or 2009 (can't remember) and the economy hit and they shifted it ti "lets raise money to spend now in student aid" instead of long term endowment money and then with the football stajium and other athletics facilities that was sort of a campaign on it's own

but their endowment could use a boost at this point

Coogs are in the midst of a $1B campaign.

Some staff was laid off after the Bain recs. Don't think (m)any VPs were touched.

rodrod5 wrote:I think for universities that are aggressive about it 4 years is probably the least amount of time and 5 or 6 would be more standard

and I think that is for aggressive schools so SMU could probably go 5-6 years between

some of it probably depends on the donors as well and feeling them out

in the case of SMU with a pretty good number of "foundations" that are started, run by or connected to SMU alumni and regents and former major donors I think that helps things because foundations of course are always in the business of making donations and supporting things

I think you generally need a "cause" or a goal to work around as well in the case of SMU this last go around it was of course buildings, faculty and student financial aid

I know it would be popular with many for a "cause" of "lets distance from Baylor and TCU on endowment dollars", but I am not sure that would be enough of a cause to get major donors rallying around that

in the case of TCU I can see them starting one soon wrapped around the medical school they are going to work with north Texas state on (although that sure has been quiet lately)

I still feel over time TCU will want to break that away and take it over and more than likely north Texas state will screw the deal up enough to make it easy for TCU to do

as it is not north Texas state TCOM is legislatively prohibited from offering MD degrees so it is not a matter of them getting enough private dollars (something the north Texas state system excels at NOT doing) to go ahead and get it started it is a matter of law that TCOM cannot offer MD degrees and I am not sure that will change

in the case of Baylor I would not be surprised if they had a campaign soon, but at the same time they started one back in about 2008 or 2009 (can't remember) and the economy hit and they shifted it ti "lets raise money to spend now in student aid" instead of long term endowment money and then with the football stajium and other athletics facilities that was sort of a campaign on it's own

but their endowment could use a boost at this point

Good points. "Donor fatigue" is definitely a concern but I do wonder if the donors and foundations that tend to drive campaigns at schools like SMU really experience that fatigue. Take someone like Annette Simmons (who I assume controls most of her late husband's net worth) - did she and her family really even notice an impact of their $45 million in donations? Since Harold was worth about $10 billion, I doubt they did.

It seems that the challenge lies in balancing "donor fatigue" among the small to medium donors (the ones that write 3, 4, and 5 figure checks) and the need to constantly press forward. While this latest campaign accomplished a lot of needed things, we're still a long way from where we need to be... I really think we need to push hard to get the endowment over $2 billion (ideally, over $3 billion) along with other things needed to advance the university's overall prestige.

rodrod5 wrote:

mtrout wrote:So why the bain layoffs? Different money buckets?

you have to remember not all of that money is in straight cash that goes to the endowment and generates a return

some of that money would be in a "life trust" that will not vest until that person does and their life insurance policy goes to SMU or their investments go to SMU

some of that billion+ could be in the form of artworks, software, lab or computer equipment ect and will not generate a return and can actually be an expense over time to maintain or display

some of the money went towards building a building and thus not only is that money not returning dividends that building is now a new expense that other money needs to be available to cover

some money could have gone to recruit top professors and that requires a start up package for them to equip a lab or recruit graduate students so again no return on investment

and as others stated SMU really did not just fire a ton of people they simply did not fill positions they deemed as no longer needed or redundant, they reassigned people to other positions and closed out their former position and some people were probably offered early retirement or a chance to retire and then return at a reduced cost in non-retirement dollars

and as stated most universities could probably go through several rounds of that and not skip a beat

Perhaps not?

Some of the campaign's accounting has been questioned along the way. University of Texas System Regent Wallace Hall famously questioned the inclusion of in-kind software donations that were not permitted to be counted in reports to the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, an international organization that sets standards for higher ed fundraising reporting.

Ultimately, the university was forced by the system to remove more than $220 million from its total, which at the time temporarily knocked it back below the $2 billion mark. Powers said the software gifts in question were not included in the $3.1 billion total announced on Tuesday.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/02/ ... lion-camp/

RebStang wrote:

rodrod5 wrote:I think for universities that are aggressive about it 4 years is probably the least amount of time and 5 or 6 would be more standard

and I think that is for aggressive schools so SMU could probably go 5-6 years between

some of it probably depends on the donors as well and feeling them out

in the case of SMU with a pretty good number of "foundations" that are started, run by or connected to SMU alumni and regents and former major donors I think that helps things because foundations of course are always in the business of making donations and supporting things

I think you generally need a "cause" or a goal to work around as well in the case of SMU this last go around it was of course buildings, faculty and student financial aid

I know it would be popular with many for a "cause" of "lets distance from Baylor and TCU on endowment dollars", but I am not sure that would be enough of a cause to get major donors rallying around that

in the case of TCU I can see them starting one soon wrapped around the medical school they are going to work with north Texas state on (although that sure has been quiet lately)

I still feel over time TCU will want to break that away and take it over and more than likely north Texas state will screw the deal up enough to make it easy for TCU to do

as it is not north Texas state TCOM is legislatively prohibited from offering MD degrees so it is not a matter of them getting enough private dollars (something the north Texas state system excels at NOT doing) to go ahead and get it started it is a matter of law that TCOM cannot offer MD degrees and I am not sure that will change

in the case of Baylor I would not be surprised if they had a campaign soon, but at the same time they started one back in about 2008 or 2009 (can't remember) and the economy hit and they shifted it ti "lets raise money to spend now in student aid" instead of long term endowment money and then with the football stajium and other athletics facilities that was sort of a campaign on it's own

but their endowment could use a boost at this point

Good points. "Donor fatigue" is definitely a concern but I do wonder if the donors and foundations that tend to drive campaigns at schools like SMU really experience that fatigue. Take someone like Annette Simmons (who I assume controls most of her late husband's net worth) - did she and her family really even notice an impact of their $45 million in donations? Since Harold was worth about $10 billion, I doubt they did.

It seems that the challenge lies in balancing "donor fatigue" among the small to medium donors (the ones that write 3, 4, and 5 figure checks) and the need to constantly press forward. While this latest campaign accomplished a lot of needed things, we're still a long way from where we need to be... I really think we need to push hard to get the endowment over $2 billion (ideally, over $3 billion) along with other things needed to advance the university's overall prestige.

I think with natural growth, the SMU endowment will hit the $2 billion mark within the next 5 years.

We hit the $1 billion mark in June 2005 ($1,013,703,336) rising to $1,363,846,000, three years later in June 2008, before falling back to $1,035,448,946 in June 2009 because of the financial crisis. We are now at $1.505 billion.

AfricanMustang wrote:

rodrod5 wrote:

mtrout wrote:So why the bain layoffs? Different money buckets?

you have to remember not all of that money is in straight cash that goes to the endowment and generates a return

some of that money would be in a "life trust" that will not vest until that person does and their life insurance policy goes to SMU or their investments go to SMU

some of that billion+ could be in the form of artworks, software, lab or computer equipment ect and will not generate a return and can actually be an expense over time to maintain or display

some of the money went towards building a building and thus not only is that money not returning dividends that building is now a new expense that other money needs to be available to cover

some money could have gone to recruit top professors and that requires a start up package for them to equip a lab or recruit graduate students so again no return on investment

and as others stated SMU really did not just fire a ton of people they simply did not fill positions they deemed as no longer needed or redundant, they reassigned people to other positions and closed out their former position and some people were probably offered early retirement or a chance to retire and then return at a reduced cost in non-retirement dollars

and as stated most universities could probably go through several rounds of that and not skip a beat

Perhaps not?

Some of the campaign's accounting has been questioned along the way. University of Texas System Regent Wallace Hall famously questioned the inclusion of in-kind software donations that were not permitted to be counted in reports to the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, an international organization that sets standards for higher ed fundraising reporting.

Ultimately, the university was forced by the system to remove more than $220 million from its total, which at the time temporarily knocked it back below the $2 billion mark. Powers said the software gifts in question were not included in the $3.1 billion total announced on Tuesday.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/02/ ... lion-camp/

UT is far from the only university that has counted software donations for capital campaign purposes and they will not be the last

while some non-profit organization can set any standards they wish for the purposes of comparison in fundraising that does not prevent a university from counting it in their reported goals to alumni and donors

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/stor ... /17829015/

MSU in 2006 had a "$1.2 billion dollar campaign" and as the article states perhaps it could be a $1 billion dollar campaign if you removed software and patents and things of that nature

but there is still nothing that prevents MSU or SMU or anyone else from accounting for their donations how they see fit when reporting to students and alumni and donors

and as far as growth of the endowment goes SMU was at $1 billion in 2005 so it took SMU 10 years and through the period of a pretty big capital campaign to move $500 million so expecting SMU to start going from a growth of $50 million on average over the last 10 years to $100 million on average over the next 5 years seems pretty ambitious

if SMU is spending 5% a year of a rolling average of the endowment value they would need another 6.7% a year growth for a total of 11.7% a year to meet that goal

from 2004 to 05 the growth in endowment was 10.8% and from there to 2015 it is
10.7%
18.3%
3%
-26.3%
3.3%
11.9%
-1.6%
7.7%
15.6%
2.7%

so SMU had only had a year over year increase in endowment (including investment returns and donations) 3 times over 11 reporting years that would have been at or above that needed 11.7% and two years that were within 1% of getting there

and then there are the negative two years and the USA really does not look to be going into a series of years with major stock market returns happening and the price of oil is surely not helping some major SMU donors and alumni and probably not helping a lot more smaller ones

so expecting 11%+ growth each year over the next 5 years is probably not likely to happen

and while I did not include any "compounding" of growth each year I also did not really include any potential negative returns as well and when you are pretty much set to be spending a rolling average of the endowment even a small negative return for a single year hurts and even a year when you do not make a 5% growth rate, but still spend 5% hurts as well

then there is the simple fact that if the goal is to move onward and upward no other university out there is standing still either they are all shooting for the same things and thus SMU needs to out pace them if they want to move up in total available dollars from endowment funds to contribute to the university and raise the rankings and profile

Three agenda items for RGT before riding off into the sunset:

1) $2B endowment
2) Vastly increase SMU's research footprint and reputation
3) Get football competitive and relevant.