$1,152,138,000

[Goo]

Spoke too soon....Make that $14.3 trillion under Obama

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np


In just two years, he has grown total debt from $10.6 trillion to $14.3 trillion.

 

[cdsfrog]

The allocation changes made in 2010 year from year end 2009 year after pretty minor according to statements made this year.
Year end 2009 was 1.07 billion.

Year 2010 was 82 million higher after distributions. The fund was estimated to pay out 5.11% in 2010 according to the year end 2009 statement. That amounts to 62 million of the total prior to distribution which was an estimated 1,214,000.

This comes out to just over 7.1% after distributions, and a little more than 13.45% prior to distributions.

The market was up considerably higher than that but remember the allocation is considerably more conservative than the market. Energy allocation is primarily MLP (energy income trusts) and even the hedge funds are the more conservative ones. Not to mention the 11% allocation to fixed income and 5% to balanced funds.

 

[cdsfrog]

Spoke to soon....Make that $14.3 trillion under Obama

http://www.treasuryd...?application=np


In just two years, he has grown total debt from $10.6 trillion to $14.3 trillion.

You can skew it anyway you want. One can say the position Bush put this country in required at the very least 3 trillion of that. If not even more.

Fact is, both presidents haven't done well. Obama's universal health care plan isn't looking good so far nor are some of the other policies put in the place. Bush Jr was probably one of the worst presidents of all time but obviously behind carter, Nixon, and a few others.

 

[YA]

Spoke to soon....Make that $14.3 trillion under Obama

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np


In just two years, he has grown total debt from $10.6 trillion to $14.3 trillion.

That's what happens when you finally get straight with the American people on the accounting for two wars and the medicare RX plan of which none of them were on the books as part of the bush deficit projections. It took cojones to actually do that since it sure as heck isn't worth the political hits he is getting from folks like you.

 

[Paint It Purple]

You can skew it anyway you want. One can say the position Bush put this country in required at the very least 3 trillion of that. If not even more.

Total nonsense

 

[Land Frog]

Can we please keep this TCU related and not go political? Thanks :biggrin:

 

[ShadowFrog]

We've also been admitting quite a lot more students and building on every available plot...

Agreed - Start tunnelling now!

 

[ShadowFrog]

Rice historically has had one if the larger endowments in the country. That said, they're currently selling their radio station to UH (which will give UH two stations). There has been some uproar about Rice losing that asset but the university has said that it needs the money. Interpret that as you will.

Dang, they sure miss CDC.

 

[ShadowFrog]

Consider for a moment, how fortunate this University is in having a Board of Trustees and other key individuals whose sound decisions have placed us in the position that we currently enjoy.

EVERY. DAY.

 

[cdsfrog]

Total nonsense

I work in the financial industry, and have experience in the housing industry. Not sure what you mean by nonsense. Obama came into office right after Lehmans collapse, and nearly witnessed the whole system nearly collapse. The housing market went to 5 year lows across the country completely crippled, and the credit markets completely froze for a almost a year. Auto industry was in dire straits with multiple companies filing bankruptcy. Deflation was a real threat for the entire year of 2009 something WAY worse than inflation.

The fixes for these TARP, housing tax credits, cash for clunkers, payroll tax decrease of 2% is predicated more on republicans and Obama's predecessor had a huge cost.

Once again I am not in favor of Obama. He has done at best a C-. Bush was a F or a D-. His father was great, he failed to live up to the hype. Democrats ideas for the future still suck. Too much spending.

That being said Paul Ryan is a tool and an idiot. 25% for the top bracket? Give me a break. The top 400 earners pay an effective rate of 17%, 1/3rd less than they did when Clinton stepped into office. Top 3 brackets need to be increased, certain tax cuts need to be removed/decreased and spending to be cut across the board not all from medicare/medicaid.

 

[Big Frog II]

I work in the financial industry, and have experience in the housing industry. Not sure what you mean by nonsense. Obama came into office right after Lehmans collapse, and nearly witnessed the whole system nearly collapse. The housing market went to 5 year lows across the country completely crippled, and the credit markets completely froze for a almost a year. Auto industry was in dire straits with multiple companies filing bankruptcy. Deflation was a real threat for the entire year of 2009 something WAY worse than inflation.

The fixes for these TARP, housing tax credits, cash for clunkers, payroll tax decrease of 2% is predicated more on republicans and Obama's predecessor had a huge cost.

Once again I am not in favor of Obama. He has done at best a C-. Bush was a F or a D-. His father was great, he failed to live up to the hype. Democrats ideas for the future still suck. Too much spending.

That being said Paul Ryan is a tool and an idiot. 25% for the top bracket? Give me a break. The top 400 earners pay an effective rate of 17%, 1/3rd less than they did when Clinton stepped into office. Top 3 brackets need to be increased, certain tax cuts need to be removed/decreased and spending to be cut across the board not all from medicare/medicaid.

I here by nominate you for President of the United States. You have it right.

 

[cdsfrog]

I here by nominate you for President of the United States. You have it right.

if all of the political figures are unhappy including Obama then we are good to go.

 

[thewellendowedfrog]

Deep, thanks for the lengthy explanation...I enjoy reading and learning about this stuff. I also very much enjoy learning about businesses, business models, and how different business operate. I wish there was a class offered with all things related to TCU...

You're still thinking of TCU on the for-profit "business model," Shale. Non-profit is a different animal. It doesn't use that model. The idea is not to make money, but to offer a service at a price that is affordable to the greatest number of people. If TCU charged students at a rate that truly covers operating costs, tuition would be somewhere around $60,000 a year.

Your idea of charging some students actual cost while heavily subsidizing others assumes that application rates would remain stable even in the face of 30-35% higher tuition. Bad assumption. See my post above for how that worked at Baylor. [Edit: Plus it doesn't work mathematically. If you subsidize some students, you can't charge others merely full cost -- you have to overcharge them to pay for the subsidies.] Pricey tuition = reduced applications/admissions = reduced revenue. Obviously this formula varies with the culture of each institution. What is considered pricey tuition at TCU or Baylor would not be considered pricey at Stanford or Emory.

In short, there's a delicate balance at each institution between price and perceived value, or perhaps between revenue and affordability. Tip that balance too far toward maximizing revenue, and you wreck your admissions goals, as Baylor did. Tip it too far toward affordability, and your institution is perpetually revenue-starved.

TCU does a better job of maintaining that balance than most. For the record, SMU is almost always teetering on the brink of tipping the scale with their overly pricey tuition. They frequently don't make their admission goals and are forced to "buy students" by throwing quantities of financial aid at them. That's an okay "quick fix," but not a financially sound long-term strategy. However, SMU is more tuition-dependent than TCU because they have a smaller endowment-per-student than we do.

So are you saying that we cannot operate as I suggested because being non profit prevents us, or are you saying that we do not operate this way because this is not in the best interest of TCU...I.E. Baylor?

Tuition isn't TCU's only source of revenue. The university also earns revenue through contracts and sponsored grants, as well as what are called "auxiliary enterprises." Auxiliary enterprises are things that are not in the university's main line of teaching and research -- things like the bookstore, the athletics program, conference services, etc. Every summer, thousands of outside groups pay fees to TCU to use its campus and facilities for meetings, conferences, camps, retreats. etc. Tuition + grants/contracts + auxiliary enterprises = earned revenue. Add to this the unearned revenue TCU gets through the endowment, fundraising, and other sources, and that constitutes the total revenue side of TCU's operating budget. Roughly:

Tuition = 70% of operating costs
All other revenue = 30% of operating costs

So if TCU won national championships in every sport, and because of this had a tremendous increase in revenues, would they be forced to put the revenue back into TCU (I.E. build more buildings etc..) because they are non-profit? Also, in this hyptothetical, could the chancellor say, we won all these championships under my watch and with all the increased revenues, I am giving myself a bonus?

 

[Endless Purple]

Top 3 brackets need to be increased, certain tax cuts need to be removed/decreased and spending to be cut across the board not all from medicare/medicaid.

Simply remove most the deductions and you have the same effect, plus it reduces the tax administrative costs.

 

[cdsfrog]

Simply remove most the deductions and you have the same effect, plus it reduces the tax administrative costs.

There is nothing simple about removing most of the deductions. The only way you have the same effect is to remove chartiable, 401k, and mortgage deductions. There is nothing simple about a total overhaul of the tax code. It's politically not feasible on either side. Not to mention taking away the immediate tax benefit of 401k will reduce contributions by 80% and employer contributions by 99%. Not sure if you meant keeping the tax rates the same, love the idea except that most republicans and democrats heads would explode. Massive tax increase to rich and poor. Doing it UK style

Paul Ryan ideology is cute, but to put it mildly it's a joke.

 

[Deep Purple]

TCU's IRS disclosure forms are (1) not all-inclusive, and (2) their release is delayed. By the time annual disclosure forms are released to the public the past investment decisions are long "past." In the world of investment, IRS disclosure data is useless by the time it's released--not to mention summary in nature.

The same is true of public universities. They disclose investments in the same way TCU does. TCU has no special advantage in this regard.

And also, I did not miss my own point. Nor do I appreciate the condescension. I am not a fool.

I didn't condescend or treat you as a fool. I corrected a mischaracterization by you regarding TCU's investment practices.

The idea that a private non-profit's investments are subject to more strict scrutiny than a government-owned institution is just hilarious--because it's so wrong.

That's not what I said. Again, please don't put words in my mouth.

I said nothing about private non-profits in general, my comment was limited to TCU. Nor did I say TCU was subject to stricter scrutiny than public institutions, if by "subject to" you mean legally enforceable public disclosure.

What I said was, TCU has so many multilayered reviews and audits, both internal and external, that our investment management is more thoroughly scrutinized than it would be if done under legally enforceable, government examination and disclosure. TCU does this on its own, as a matter of policy.

 

[Paint It Purple]

I work in the financial industry, and have experience in the housing industry. Not sure what you mean by nonsense. Obama came into office right after Lehmans collapse, and nearly witnessed the whole system nearly collapse. The housing market went to 5 year lows across the country completely crippled, and the credit markets completely froze for a almost a year. Auto industry was in dire straits with multiple companies filing bankruptcy. Deflation was a real threat for the entire year of 2009 something WAY worse than inflation.

The fixes for these TARP, housing tax credits, cash for clunkers, payroll tax decrease of 2% is predicated more on republicans and Obama's predecessor had a huge cost.

Once again I am not in favor of Obama. He has done at best a C-. Bush was a F or a D-. His father was great, he failed to live up to the hype. Democrats ideas for the future still suck. Too much spending.

That being said Paul Ryan is a tool and an idiot. 25% for the top bracket? Give me a break. The top 400 earners pay an effective rate of 17%, 1/3rd less than they did when Clinton stepped into office. Top 3 brackets need to be increased, certain tax cuts need to be removed/decreased and spending to be cut across the board not all from medicare/medicaid.

Lehman Bros, last I looked, works in the financial market as well. Not sure those credentials give just anyone the bona fides to serve as an expert finance witness or grade presidents for that matter. TARP was going to troubled assets, but never made it there. Instead I think Obama took equity positions in Lehman, AIG and others, along with nationalizing two automakers. The Housing Crash has its roots all the way back to the seventies. The list of politicians who created, made worse and ignored its cause and effect is long and very well documented. My point is, and it relates to TCU and this market discussion, is that Presidents do very little good, but can cause much harm. Some are such TEAM OBAMA players that you can't see all the real facts. They just want to pick and choose so their team wins. Well, America is loosing right now and the American people better wake up and insist that the corrupt, stupid Washington game stop. Calling Paul Ryan a tool and an idiot is a tiresome liberal game and is indeed nonsensical, as well as intellectually lazy.

 

[cdsfrog]

Lehman Bros, last I looked, works in the financial market as well. Not sure those credentials give just anyone the bona fides to serve as an expert finance witness or grade presidents for that matter. TARP was going to troubled assets, but never made it there. Instead I think Obama took equity positions in Lehman, AIG and others, along with nationalizing two automakers. The Housing Crash has its roots all the way back to the seventies. The list of politicians who created, made worse and ignored its cause and effect is long and very well documented. My point is, and it relates to TCU and this market discussion, is that Presidents do very little good, but can cause much harm. Some are such TEAM OBAMA players that you can't see all the real facts. They just want to pick and choose so their team wins. Well, America is loosing right now and the American people better wake up and insist that the corrupt, stupid Washington game stop. Calling Paul Ryan a tool and an idiot is a tiresome liberal game and is indeed nonsensical, as well as intellectually lazy.

2 of the least intelligent statements ever made. You give Sarah Palin a run for her money.

 

[Paint It Purple]

2 of the least intelligent statements ever made. You give Sarah Palin a run for her money.

So you're saying the statements ARE intelligent?

 

[FeistyFrog]

Lehman Bros, last I looked, works in the financial market as well. Not sure those credentials give just anyone the bona fides to serve as an expert finance witness or grade presidents for that matter. TARP was going to troubled assets, but never made it there. Instead I think Obama took equity positions in Lehman, AIG and others, along with nationalizing two automakers. The Housing Crash has its roots all the way back to the seventies. The list of politicians who created, made worse and ignored its cause and effect is long and very well documented. My point is, and it relates to TCU and this market discussion, is that Presidents do very little good, but can cause much harm. Some are such TEAM OBAMA players that you can't see all the real facts. They just want to pick and choose so their team wins. Well, America is loosing right now and the American people better wake up and insist that the corrupt, stupid Washington game stop. Calling Paul Ryan a tool and an idiot is a tiresome liberal game and is indeed nonsensical, as well as intellectually lazy.

Wow, do you even have a clue?

First of all, if the last time you looked Lehman's was in the financial markets, then you haven't looked in quite a while. Second, Lehman's filed for bankruptcy and was assumed by Barclays, Nomoro and others. Neither Obama nor the feds took any equity positions in the company. 3rd, the TARP program (started by Paulson under Bush) went directly to troubled assets.

The rest of your rant is plain silliness.