Tag Archives: Investment

"Frightening" Investment Strategies Hit Harvard

By Sebastian Jones
WPRB News

The Harvard Crimson published a very interesting story a few days ago about Iris Mack, an analyst at the Harvard Management Company who brought attention to “frightening” trades involving derivatives via e-mails to the office of the university’s then-president, Larry Summers. Like many other whistleblowers, Mack was promptly fired:

In an e-mail sent May 30, 2002 to Marne Levine, chief of staff for then-Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers, Mack detailed her concerns regarding what she deemed HMC’s “frightening” usage of derivatives and statistical modeling techniques, as well as the Company’s lack of a timely and portfolio-wide risk management system, high employee turnover rate, and low level of productivity in the workplace, specifically among managers…

Mack, a derivatives researcher for Enron before coming to HMC, says she was “shocked” by the mishandling and ignorance of derivatives at the HMC international equities division where she worked, led by Jeffrey B. Larson. At the time, Mack says, Larson’s group had only recently begun exploring more sophisticated financial instruments such as credit default swaps and capital structure arbitrage.

Larson left his job at Harvard in 2004 to start his own hedge fund, Sowood Capital Management, with $500 million worth of seed money courtesy of the university. What happened next?

Sowood collapsed in 2007 due to heavily leveraged investments in corporate debt—making national headlines as one of the first high-profile hedge fund implosions of the subprime mortgage crisis—costing Harvard $350 million.

Oops.

More broadly, that a university– not an investment bank or insurance giant– was fiddling around in credit default swaps up until very recently bears some serious consideration. Also worth thinking about: the $17,256,161 that Larson pulled in during FY2003 and the $35,099,300 that Maurice Samuels, a Senior Vice President for the Harvard Management Company, netted that same year, according to tax records. While salaries for HMC employees have dropped to less astronomical levels since 2004, some still rake in millions. Here at Princeton, the three highest compensated employees all work for the Princeton Investment Company and a list of other educational institutions where the top earners are investment managers would be long.

A few years ago, when the money was pouring in, all of this might have been unsettling but excusable and perhaps that’s why Larry Summers apparently was not too interested in hearing about the trouble at HMC. Today, however, with endowment losses at Harvard and Princeton both estimated to end up around 30%, it might be time to rethink how universities manage their billions while injecting a little transparency into the process. Not that I’d get my hopes up.

–
TPMMuckraker has a post up on the Mack story.

The lighter side of investment ethics

In its annual joke issue, The Daily Princetonian reports on the University’s latest international investment:

Following significant endowment losses in 2008, the University will be investing in a joint venture with Somali pirates, Princeton University Investment Company (PRINCO) president Andrew Golden said in an interview Friday.

However, they save the best for last. As seen in Tina Fey’s comedic approach to the Palin-Couric interviews, sometimes the true content requires very little manipulation. Do any of these faux-quotes sound familiar? You be the judge:

The University seems unfazed by what some have called the “questionable ethics” of the investment.

Golden explained that the University performs no regular ethical review of its investments and instead focuses only on maximizing financial returns.

“Fundamentally, the instructions we give to our investment managers is that they should invest with the goal of maximizing return over the long-term,” University Vice President and Secretary Bob Durkee ’69 said. “A strong presumption is that the University as an institution will not take a position or play an active role with respect to external issues of a political, social or moral character.”

Students should not really care about the ethics of the University’s investments, University spokeswoman Cass Cliatt ’96 said.

“Members of the campus community with interest in these issues typically would not need to know whether the University is invested in a Somali pirate band today to know whether they feel the University should be invested in such an organization,” Cliatt said. “If a group of people have a question or concern about something taking place in the world, that belief would exist regardless of whether the University is invested there.”

Golden agreed that interest in ethical investment practices should not stem from knowledge of how the University invests its money, but instead from a broader interest in the world at large. Examining a list of University holdings for the purpose of raising ethical questions would be “the tail wagging the dog,” he said.

“Why would you focus first on those companies we’re invested in as opposed to looking out and thinking ‘what do I care most about in the world?’ ” he explained. “I care more about the engagement of the entire community in social issues, in ways that go far beyond the investment portfolio, especially because the investment portfolio may be a particularly cost-ineffective way of making change.”

The Dispatch Update: Princeton Endowment Drops

By Sebastian Jones
WPRB News

This morning Shirley Tilghman, the President of Princeton University, sent an e-mail to students and staff with an “update on Princeton’s response to the economic downturn”, spelling out some of the losses the university’s endowment has suffered.

According to Tilghman, by late October, “the University’s endowment had declined by 11%, based upon our standard reporting protocols, using information that is the best available as of the reporting date.”

She added that this figure likely “understates the actual economic loss”:

And, of course, financial markets have continued to decline since then. Although we cannot know what the next six months will bring, we believe it is prudent for the University to plan for the possibility that its endowment will have declined by 25% at the end of the fiscal year.

Full e-mail below… Continue reading →

Breaking: Princeton says it no longer holds BAE bonds

By Sebastian Jones
WPRB News

Princeton University says it “no longer owns” bonds of BAE Systems, a controversial British arms supplier, that WPRB reported yesterday were purchased in 2001. This disclosure appears to represent a departure from the University’s stated policy of not discussing investment holdings.

In an e-mail sent to WPRB Wednesday evening, University spokeswoman Cass Cliatt wrote:

A case in point is your inquiry related to BAE. While we do not disclose specifics of our investment portfolio, I can confirm that your inquiry relates to a fixed-income account that was widely diversified, but since mid-2003, the University no longer owns those securities.

BAE Systems has been criticized for dealings with, among others, Suharto’s Indonesia and Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and has been investigated on charges of alleged corruption on multiple occasions.

Additionally, details surrounding the foreign financial account or accounts held by the University in Zimbabwe, first revealed by WPRB on Tuesday, have yet to be disclosed.

In her Wednesday evening e-mail, Cliatt instead suggested that:

members of the campus community with interest in these issues typically would not need to know whether the University is invested in Zimbabwe today to know whether they feel the University should be invested in Zimbabwe. And looking at a list of investment holdings on a given day can’t tell you what we’re invested in today. It tells you only what we were invested in at the time the list was published.

Tomorrow afternoon, at the invitation of the University, WPRB is slated to sit down with Andrew Golden, the president of the Princeton University Investment Co. (PRINCO), to discuss how the University makes and monitors investments, why Princeton has stopped disclosing printouts of investments–as was a standard practice during the late 1990′s up until 2002–and why consideration of non-economic factors in investment appear only to be considered after concerns are raised by the campus community.

[Editor's Note: If you have questions you feel WPRB should ask Mr. Golden, send them along to tips@wprb.com before 1:30 PM tomorrow]

Our full program on Zimbabwe, and on Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs)– where companies, individuals and foundations can invest funds at very low tax rates, usually at the expense of their home nations’ tax revenues– aired this afternoon and will be posted online tomorrow evening. Roughly one third of Princeton’s declared foreign financial accounts, as of June 2007, are situated in OFCs.

WPRB Exclusive: Princeton University Invested in Zimbabwe

By Sebastian Jones
WPRB News

As the United States and members of the European Union condemned the Zimbabwean government and considered strengthening sanctions, Princeton University chose to invest in Robert Mugabe’s troubled African nation, according to tax filings obtained by WPRB.

A portion of the IRS filing that demonstrates Princeton has investments in Zimbabwe

A portion of Princeton's tax records covering foreign assets, obtained by WPRB. The previous two filings, spanning July 2004 to June 2006, show no investment in Zimbabwe.

The investment, placed between July 2006 and June 2007, was made despite Zimbabwe’s highly publicized political and economic upheaval and disreputable human rights record. Questions as to the size, nature and current state of the investment remain unanswered at this time.

Princeton spokeswoman Cass Cliatt told WPRB in an e-mail this evening that “as a matter of policy, the University does not disclose the specifics of its investment portfolio or its return drivers.”

“The University in 1997 adopted guidelines for socially responsible investment under which action is taken after “considerable, thoughtful and sustained” campus interest and widespread consensus that action should be taken. The first step in that process is for the issue to be raised by a segment of the campus community and to my knowledge, the process has not been initiated,” Cliatt wrote.

What internal standards, if any, Princeton employs in selecting and vetting investments in corporate stock or foreign assets were not addressed by Cliatt.

Mugabe’s rule has drawn harsh international criticism ever since a violent policy of land redistribution plunged Zimbabwe into severe food shortages and economic crisis in 2002.

In 2005, the United States government called Zimbabwe an “outpost of tyranny” on par with Burma and Iran, the Zimbabwean government implemented an urban “clean-up” plan that the United Nations estimates left 700,000 people homeless and, by year’s end, the UN’s humanitarian chief had concluded the country was “in meltdown”. Conditions in 2006 and 2007 worsened with inflation reaching all-time highs and widespread imprisonment of union leaders and political activists (several of whom alleged they were tortured while in state custody).

This summer Time reported that, in the run up to Zimbabwe’s June elections, Mugabe’s “brutality before the vote resulted in the deaths of about 100 Zimbabweans, the detention of some 2,000, injury to 10,000 and the displacement of more than 200,000.” Just last week, The Guardian reported that the country was on the “brink of collapse”.

Stay with WPRB as we prepare additional reporting on the subject to be aired this Thursday on 103.3 FM and on the web at www.wprb.com at 5PM. Among our guests will be Andrew Meldrum, who wrote for The Guardian and The Economist about Zimbabwe for 23 years until he was kicked out of the country in 2003.
–
Update- Read WPRB‘s report from Wednesday on Princeton’s investments in Zimbabwe-tied British arms supplier BAE Systems here..