Universities' nightmare scenario: it's not just federal funding cuts
The nightmare scenario for elite universities is here. The flood of White House actions aimed at private colleges can be hard to follow. But think of these universities as companies, and the math gets simpler — and the dangers become stark.
Top universities are financial titans, generating investment profits that mirror those of Wall Street firms. They are health care companies; the University of Pennsylvania gets half its revenue from the hospitals it runs. They commercialize the inventions that spring from their labs. They sell four-year subscriptions for rent and classes to their students and lifelong memberships in an elite club to their donors (posthumous, if the checks are big enough).
By revenue, UPenn is bigger than BNY Mellon; Columbia is as big as Coinbase. But these universities operate on profit margins thinner than those of a grocery store. In short, they make a lot of money but spend almost all of it.
That leaves little wiggle room when any of their revenue streams is threatened, as they are all now by the Trump administration. Harvard has sued to block several of the president's attacks. 'They want to show how smart they are, and they're getting their ass kicked,' Trump told reporters Wednesday.
Here's how the administration's pressure campaign could add up to an existential threat to university finances:
Loss of federal funding. The US government has yanked more than $3 billion in federal grants and contracts from Harvard since April. Other universities are even more exposed: MIT gets 48% of its revenue from the federal government, while Johns Hopkins gets 42%, according to the Urban Institute.
Higher taxes. Universities rely on their tax-exempt status in three ways. First, they pay low or no taxes on the investment profits generated by their endowments. Second, donors can write off the money they give to universities as a charitable expense. Third, universities can raise money more cheaply than for-profit companies by selling tax-exempt bonds. (Bondholders pay no taxes on the interest they receive, and so are willing to offer better terms.) Just over half of the $1.6 billion in bonds Harvard sold in 2024 were tax-exempt.
Bans on enrolling international students. Students from abroad make up as much as one-quarter of undergraduates at elite colleges and tend to pay sticker price, while American students get discounts, scholarships, and federal aid. The Trump administration's efforts to ban them from campus — including a State Department memo this week telling US embassies to stop scheduling visa interviews and Secretary Marco Rubio targeting Chinese students — would rob universities of their best customers. That is especially true in graduate programs, which rely more heavily on foreign students paying full sticker price.
Forced sale of assets disfavored by the Trump administration. Semafor reported last month that Trump officials may scrutinize university endowments and potentially pressure them to sell holdings disfavored by the White House, like overseas investments or those made under an ESG framework. Forced fire sales would make it harder for endowments to fund operations, even before being asked to cut bigger checks to make up for shortfalls elsewhere.
And the biggie: University endowments have too much of their money tied up in assets that can't be sold quickly. Inspired by Yale's pioneering chief investment officer, David Swensen, they plowed into illiquid investments — private equity, private credit, real estate, and venture capital — assuming that they'd never be asked to contribute more than 5% or so of their university's annual budgets. Wall Street investors are expecting endowments to look to sell portfolios of these stuck investments for cash in the coming weeks.
Summing up: The Trump administration's across-the-front assault — if it survives legal challenges — could push universities into financial ruin. So far, universities have been borrowing to fill the gap, and my colleague Reed Albergotti recently highlighted some ways that Silicon Valley is stepping in to fund research, but neither source can fill the gap.
The nightmare scenario outlined above would hit US banks, which have built a brisk business lending against the good name of university endowments.
In recent years, banks have lent money to Wall Street investment firms, backed by the promises from Harvard and other university endowments to pony up money for their next funds. The total size of these 'capital call' loans isn't clear, but they belong to a fast-growing bucket of loans that has worried global regulators, which are watching the post-2008 financial reordering for signs of a spillover event.
Loans against fund commitments by university endowments are a big chunk of those loans, and they have been assumed to be safe, on that theory that big institutions wouldn't renege on promises to invest in, for example, Blackstone's next fund: 'Our counterparty here is, like, Harvard,' one Goldman executive told me in early 2024.
擷取數據時發生錯誤
登入存取你的投資組合
擷取數據時發生錯誤
擷取數據時發生錯誤
擷取數據時發生錯誤
擷取數據時發生錯誤
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Associated Press
33 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump moves to merge wildland firefighting into single force, despite ex-officials warning of chaos
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered government agencies to consolidate their wildland firefighting into a single program, despite warnings from former federal officials that it could be costly and increase the risk of catastrophic blazes. The order aims to centralize firefighting efforts now split among five agencies and two Cabinet departments. Trump's proposed budget for next year calls for the creation of a new Federal Wildland Fire Service under the U.S. Interior Department. That would mean shifting thousands of personnel from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service — where most federal firefighters now work — with fire season already underway. The administration has not disclosed how much the change could cost or save. Trump in his order cited the devastating Los Angeles wildfires in January as highlighting a need for a quicker response to wildfires. 'Wildfires threaten every region, yet many local government entities continue to disregard commonsense preventive measures,' the order said. The Trump administration in its first months temporarily cut off money for wildfire prevention work and reduced the ranks of federal government firefighters through layoffs and retirement. The order makes no mention of climate change, which Trump has downplayed even as warming temperatures help stoke bigger and more destructive wildfires that churn out massive amounts of harmful pollution. More than 65,000 wildfires across the U.S. burned almost 9 million acres (3.6 million hectares) last year. Organizations representing firefighters and former Forest Service officials say it would be costly to restructure firefighting efforts and cause major disruptions in the midst of fire season. A group that includes several former Forest Service chiefs said in a recent letter to lawmakers that consolidation of firefighting work could 'actually increase the likelihood of more large catastrophic fires, putting more communities, firefighters and resources at risk.' Another destructive fire season is expected this year, driven by above-normal temperatures for most of the country, according to federal officials. A prior proposal to merge the Forest Service and Interior to improve firefighting was found to have significant drawbacks by the Congressional Research Service in a 2008 report. But the idea more recently got bipartisan support, with California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla and Montana Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy sponsoring legislation that is similar to Trump's plan. Before his election last year, Sheehy founded an aerial firefighting company that relies heavily on federal contracts. In a separate action aimed at wildfires, the Trump administration last month rolled back environmental safeguards around future logging projects on more than half U.S. national forests. The emergency designation covers 176,000 square miles (455,000 square kilometers) of terrain primarily in the West but also in the South, around the Great Lakes and in New England. Most of those forests are considered to have high wildfire risk, and many are in decline because of insects and disease.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Global EV sales rise in May as China hits 2025 peak -Rho Motion
By Jesus Calero (Reuters) -Global sales of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles rose 24% in May compared with the same period a year ago, as strength in China offset slower growth in North America, according to market research firm Rho Motion. Electric vehicle sales in China surpassed over one million units in a single month for the first time this year, driven by strong domestic demand and targeted export efforts from Chinese manufacturers, notably BYD, tapping into emerging markets. BYD's exports to Mexico and Southeast Asia, along with Uzbekistan, have significantly boosted sales in these regions, Rho Motion data manager Charles Lester said. Fleet incentives in Germany and robust growth in Southern Europe helped lift the European market, while the expiry of Canadian subsidies dragged on North American demand, he added. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT Global automakers face a 25% import tariff in the United States, the world's second-largest car market, causing many of them to withdraw their outlooks for 2025. In Europe, new incentives for fleet buyers in Germany are expected to support electric car sales through the second half of the year. Tesla's Model Y production in Berlin shields it from tariffs, yet it faces market share pressures as production ramps up globally amidst shifting trade tensions. President Donald Trump's stance towards emissions standards and uncertainties around tariffs has also hampered EV growth in North America. In the U.S., tax credits for EVs are still available but will begin phasing out from 2026, contributing to hesitation among buyers. BY THE NUMBERS Global sales of battery-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids rose to 1.6 million units in May, Rho Motion data showed. Sales in China grew more than 24% from the same month last year to 1.02 million vehicles. Europe posted a 36.2% increase to 0.33 million units, while North American sales edged up just 7.5% to 0.16 million. Sales in the rest of the world rose 38% to 0.15 million vehicles. KEY QUOTE "The story this month with global vehicle sales is the continued chasm between Chinese market growth versus the faltering market in North America," Charles Lester said. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


CNBC
38 minutes ago
- CNBC
An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount
Beset by near-universal bearish outlooks just a month ago, oil prices could spike to more than $100 a barrel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran, some analysts are warning. Crude prices spiked as much as 5% overnight — before paring gains — on fears of military escalation between Iran and Israel as President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of some U.S. personnel from embassies and bases across the Middle East. The front-month August contract for global benchmark Brent crude was trading at $69 per barrel at 3:20 p.m. ET on Thursday, while the front-month July U.S. WTI contract was at $67.7 per barrel. "They [U.S. military personnel] are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place and we will see what happens... We have given notice to move out," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. The Pentagon has ordered the withdrawal of troops and non-essential staff from embassies in Baghdad, Kuwait and Bahrain. The jury is still out as to whether the moves are a pressure play ahead of upcoming U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, or whether the U.S., Israel and Iran are truly on the verge of conflict. The geopolitical risk premium is "already at least partially reflected in current oil prices," according to J.P. Morgan's global commodities research team, citing Brent crude trading at just under $70 a barrel, already above its model-derived fair value figure of $66 for June. "This suggests an elevated 7% probability of a worst-case scenario, where the price reaction is exponential rather than linear, with the impact on supply potentially extending beyond a 2.1 mbd (million barrels per day) reduction in Iranian oil exports," the bank's research team wrote in a note published Thursday. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Israel appears ready to attack Iran, according to reports citing U.S. and European officials, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressing Trump to allow strikes. But the American president said in late May that he had warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran while negotiations with Washington were under way. U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff is currently set to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman on Sunday for a sixth round of negotiations. Strait of Hormuz in focus Oil traders are focusing on the potential of a wider conflict shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which 20% of the volume of the world's total oil consumption passes daily. The British Navy on Wednesday issued a rare warning to ships in the region, saying it had "been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners." It urged caution for vessels transiting "the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz." Beyond that, J.P. Morgan warned, "a more general Middle East conflagration could ignite retaliatory responses from major oil producing countries in the region responsible for a third of global oil output." "Under this severe outcome," the bank's analysts wrote, "we estimate oil prices could surge to the $120-130/bbl range." Even before the latest uptick in tensions, some oil industry watchers were already making bullish calls despite a flood of announced OPEC+ supply coming onto the market, and lower global growth and demand forecasts due to trade and tariff tensions. Josh Young, founder and chief investment officer at Houston-based Bison Interests, told CNBC in late May that physical markets are more tightly supplied than previously thought, and with several oil rigs in the U.S. shale patch coming offline just as the U.S. summer driving season begins, markets should be preparing for Brent crude at $85 a barrel. "The pure inventory versus consumption would indicate $85 [per barrel], which is way higher than where we are right now. It's almost uncomfortable to say that, but that's the current price implied by inventories," Young told CNBC's Access Middle East. He cited his forecast figure as "fair value," arguing that "typically, you go from too cheap to too expensive. So I don't think we should be ruling out $100 oil this year. And I think if there is a geopolitical risk, it could get even higher." Without the geopolitical risk premium — namely, a conflict with Iran — Young still sees crude coming up to the $80 to $85 per barrel range, particularly in the event of trade deals being reached and Trump's tariffs being lowered. The outlook is boosted by this month's forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which sees a decline in U.S. oil production for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic due to slower drilling activity and a declining rig count. Such bullish forecasts are certainly not the norm, however. Without a military attack on Iran, J.P. Morgan's base case for oil "remains in the low-to-mid $60s oil for the remainder of 2025, and $60 in 2026." Goldman Sachs also maintains an oil price forecast in the $50 to $60 per barrel range for this and next year, despite noting an improving demand picture, downside risks to U.S. supply and geopolitical tensions. The recent rise in inventories due to OPEC+ output increases, "supports our cautious oil price forecast, with Brent expected to average $60 for the rest of 2025 and $56 in 2026," the bank's commodities team wrote. "However, small misses in OPEC+ supply suggest that lower-than-anticipated spare capacity represents an upside risk to our price forecast."