Former Harvard president Claudine Gay's base salary was 30 percent less than her predecessor's, records show
Advertisement
Gay, the
The Internal Revenue Service requires nonprofit entities to submit an annual tax filing called a Form 990, which discloses compensation for the university's highest-paid officers and faculty members. The document represents fiscal year 2024, but compensation reported covers the 2023 calendar year.
Harvard Business School professors Paul Healy and Herman Leonard were the top earners in 2023 at Harvard after Bacow, due to the school's voluntary retirement incentive plan for eligible faculty. Both received about $2 million.
Advertisement
Computer scientist David Malan also earned slightly more than Gay in 2023; about $1.4 million.
Harvard Management Company, which manages the university's $53.2 billion endowment, also filed its annual tax filing Thursday. The university's portfolio of private equity, hedge funds, real estate, and other investments gained 9.6 percent in the fiscal year that ended June 30, surpassing Harvard's long-term return target of 8 percent.
Nirmal P. Narvekar, president and CEO of the Management Company, took home about $6.2 million. Chief investment officer Richard W. Slocum and treasurer Sanjeev Daga each earned about $5 million.
Alan Garber, Harvard's president, was the university's provost in 2023; he earned $1.2 million that year. On Wednesday, the university said Garber would take a
Garber also took a 25 percent pay cut during the COVID-19 pandemic when the school was facing budget shortfalls. Bacow and other college leaders also agreed to reduced pay at that time.
Hilary Burns can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Best Stock to Buy: Macy's vs. Dick's Sporting Goods
While tariffs are a headache for retail, that doesn't necessarily mean the space should be avoided entirely. Dick's Sporting Goods has enjoyed a few years of growth in a turnaround from what was a stagnant business. Macy's, on the other hand, is struggling with weak annual top-line growth and it is shuttering stores. 10 stocks we like better than Dick's Sporting Goods › Retail is a confusing segment right now, with the price of goods impacted via increases in tariffs causing a tougher situation for not only consumers, but also sellers and producers. Let's take a look at two major retailers, Macy's (NYSE: M) and Dick's Sporting Goods (NYSE: DKS). In all, I think one of these two retail titans is showing more signs of life, whereas the other is being forced to shrink to improve its bottom line. Macy's saw an uptick in the few years following the COVID-19 outbreak but has since been in slow stagnation, with revenue declining over the last two years. Looking into 2025, the retailer's first quarter beat estimates, but the overall outlook underwhelmed. The company reported adjusted earnings of $0.16 per share versus estimates of $0.14 per share, while total revenue came in at $4.60 billion compared to expectations of $4.50 billion. From another perspective, things didn't look that great. While revenue came in above expectations, it trailed last year's total sales of roughly $4.85 billion. Operating income fell 24.8% year over year to $94 million, and net income declined 38.7% to $38 million. Diluted earnings per share declined from $0.22 in the first quarter of 2024 to $0.13 per diluted share this year. These year-over-year declines are something that is haunting Macy's and putting downward pressure on the stock. For this year, the company reiterated net sales guidance in the range of $21 billion to $21.4 billion. In comparison, it reported sales of $22.29 billion in 2024. All in all, Macy's cut its profit outlook for the year and expects to raise prices on products to offset the impact of tariffs on its goods. In contrast, Dick's Sporting Goods has done surprisingly OK. First-quarter results included a 5.2% year-over-year increase in sales revenue, to roughly $3.18 billion, while non-GAAP income was flat at $275 million. The company has been building sales annually and provided good guidance for 2025, reiterating its previous expectations of $13.80 to $14.40 in earnings per share. The high end of that range would beat out 2024, which finished with diluted earnings per share of $14.05. Net sales are expected to be in the range of $13.6 billion to $13.9 billion, which would outperform last year's revenue of $13.45 billion. Dick's is also looking to expand through its announced acquisition of Foot Locker for $2.5 billion. This drastically increases the company's position within shoes and sets up Dick's for future growth, as Foot Locker had been in the midst of a turnaround itself. This story is a comparison of a company that is shuttering stores in an attempt to become a leaner machine, relative to a company that seemingly is looking to grow. Though improvement is slow, Dick's has been reporting better year-over-year sales figures than Macy's, with plans to open new stores and even make an acquisition, whereas Macy's plans to close over 100 locations and raise prices. While the potential for tariffs to cause headaches for both of these companies is something to be mindful of, I think you have to go with Dick's Sporting Goods here. Its diversified offerings give it a broader consumer base, while Macy's is more heavily concentrated in clothing, perfumes, etc. Unlike a lot of tech, there's still some value in retail, with Dick's trading at a little over 12 times earnings and offering a 2.73% dividend yield. While the short term might be a bit choppy due to tariffs, long-term this company seems to be making the right moves. Before you buy stock in Dick's Sporting Goods, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Dick's Sporting Goods wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 David Butler has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Best Stock to Buy: Macy's vs. Dick's Sporting Goods was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
AGNC Investment: Its High Yield Looks Tempting -- Why the Stock May Be Ready to Rebound
With a high yield and monthly dividend payout, AGNC often draws the attention of income-oriented investors. However, AGNC has struggled in recent years due to rising mortgage rates and an inverted yield curve. The setup for the stock now looks a lot more favorable. 10 stocks we like better than AGNC Investment Corp. › AGNC Investment (NASDAQ: AGNC) has one of the highest dividend yields in the market, sitting at about 16%. But with a stock price that's steadily declined the past few years, investors are right to ask: Is the payout sustainable, and more importantly, is the stock a buy today? For those unfamiliar, AGNC is a mortgage real estate investment trust (mREIT) that owns agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS), primarily guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these securities are backed by government agencies, they carry virtually no credit risk. But AGNC's business is far from risk-free, and here's where the story gets complicated. The biggest issue facing AGNC the past few years has been higher mortgage interest rates. There have been two main issues that have pushed up rates. One is that the Federal Reserve aggressively raised benchmark interest rates a couple of years ago to combat inflation. This resulted in mortgage rates also climbing. However, that was not the only reason mortgage rates shot up. Spreads between MBS yields and Treasury yields also began to significantly widen. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fed was a huge buyer of MBSs, driving down yields and narrowing the yield spread between MBS and Treasuries. However, after the pandemic, it stopped purchasing MBSs and began letting them roll off its balance sheet as they matured. About the same time, banks also began to back off buying MBS as bond prices fell, and the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, which was heavily concentrated in long-duration MBSs, only pushed banks further away from the MBS market. During this period, the value of AGNC's MBS portfolio, as measured by its tangible book value (TBV), plunged. From the end of 2021 through the end of 2023, AGNC's tangible book dropped 45% from $15.75 to $8.70 per share. It has slipped a bit further since, and stood at $8.25 at the end of Q1 2025. Ultimately, where AGNC's TBV goes, its stock is sure to follow. Despite the rough stretch that AGNC has seen, the setup for the stock now looks a lot more favorable. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has signaled that more rate cuts could be on the table, and the Fed's own projections point to lower rates in the years ahead. That should be a much better environment for AGNC. Fed rate cuts could benefit AGNC in two main ways. First, it would likely reduce its short-term funding costs; AGNC tries to borrow money to invest in MBSs with longer maturities and higher yields. Second, lower rates could help increase its TBV by boosting MBS valuations. The past few years, the Treasury yield curve was inverted, which means that shorter-term Treasuries, like the two-year, had a higher yield than long-term Treasuries, like the 10-year. Not surprisingly, this is not a good environment for a company that generates its income from the spread between short- and long-term rates. Now, AGNC actively hedges out its funding costs to better align them with the duration of its MBS assets. However, it's not able to fully offset the pressure from an inverted curve over an extended period of time. With the yield curve flipping from inverted to positive (long-term yields being higher than short-term yields) late last year, though, AGNC stands to benefit from wider spreads. AGNC's portfolio is also well-positioned if MBS yields begin to fall. More than 80% of its holdings carry coupons of 6% or lower, which helps limit prepayment risk. Prepayment risk is highest when homeowners begin to refinance into lower-rate mortgages, forcing mortgage REITs to reinvest in lower-yielding MBS. While high dividend yields are attractive, they can also be a warning sign. However, AGNC has maintained the payout through a very difficult environment, albeit sometimes at the expense of a lower tangible book value. It's not fair to say the dividend is completely safe, but if the yield curve continues to steepen, the dividend should become more sustainable. If MBS-to-Treasury yield spreads narrow from historically wide levels as banks or other institutions reenter the MBS market, AGNC could see a meaningful recovery in both its book value and share price. That's the best-case scenario. However, even if that doesn't play out, AGNC still has room to deliver solid total returns. The company pays a monthly dividend of $0.12 per share, which equates to a yield of about 16% based on recent prices for the stock. That dividend income alone puts it in a strong position to outperform in a market that seems to have stalled. With even a modest portfolio value recovery, AGNC could deliver annual 20% to 25% total returns during the next few years. Overall, I'd consider AGNC a high-risk, high-reward income play. However, the stock has already taken the brunt of the blow from higher interest rates and wide MBS-to-Treasury yield spreads, and the current environment may finally be turning in its favor. The wild card is whether historically wide MBS-to-Treasury spreads begin to narrow, because if they do, the upside could be significant. For investors who understand and are comfortable with the risks, AGNC offers a very high yield with strong potential upside. It's not a set-it-and-forget-it stock, but at current prices, it could be a smart investment for income-focused investors during the next few years. Before you buy stock in AGNC Investment Corp., consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and AGNC Investment Corp. wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,395!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $858,011!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 997% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Geoffrey Seiler has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. AGNC Investment: Its High Yield Looks Tempting -- Why the Stock May Be Ready to Rebound was originally published by The Motley Fool
