And the first comment on it says that a similar lawsuit is proceeding against the Faculty Club. wow.
mad @er 9/25/2012 5:19 pm
And here’s the follow-up story on the lawsuit against the Faculty Club: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/9/25/Faculty-Club-Lawsuit/
If they’re smart, they’ll settle this quickly because the media would love this story.
Me 9/26/2012 9:29 pm
Sam Spektor was right:
http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2012/09/26/harvard-endowment-dips-slightly-billion-european-losses-offset-investment-gains/WUaPvcPr3pXhSu3H2Oh8jL/story.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed5
Sam Spektor 9/27/2012 7:23 am
Ah, my fan club … one member.
The numbers really weren’t bad. One year doesn’t mean bupkis, nor do three years for that matter, but no one would go along with three years unless you were able to train your investor constituency well (think Seth Klarman at Baupost).
Unfortunately, people would be calling for Ms. Mendillo’s head if she underperformed (underperformed what?), for three years. It makes it harder to do well looking at short periods (three years) of “investment time.” The university community, and for that matter the university administration, would be much better off in the long run (much better off!), if the time frame were 5-15 years of performance.
Speaking of which… the university is still paying out way too much on a yearly basis. Performance over the next 5-20 years is not going to be anywhere near historical numbers. The university, however, is still thinking in those terms, at least from the numbers that are public.
One last thing. I read The Crimson article by Ms. Rouse and Mr. Scuderi. It was not a long article and it should have been an easy one to write. Why were there so many mistakes and a lack of understanding about the investment process.
If the head Crimson editor or Ms. Rouse or Mr. Scuderi want to identify themselves here, I’l be happy to point out the problems so that perhaps it doesn’t happen again.
4 Responses
9/25/2012 1:00 am
Wow, here’s an interesting story from the Crimson: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/9/24/harvard-club-settles-lawsuit/
And the first comment on it says that a similar lawsuit is proceeding against the Faculty Club. wow.
9/25/2012 5:19 pm
And here’s the follow-up story on the lawsuit against the Faculty Club: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/9/25/Faculty-Club-Lawsuit/
If they’re smart, they’ll settle this quickly because the media would love this story.
9/26/2012 9:29 pm
Sam Spektor was right:
http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2012/09/26/harvard-endowment-dips-slightly-billion-european-losses-offset-investment-gains/WUaPvcPr3pXhSu3H2Oh8jL/story.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed5
9/27/2012 7:23 am
Ah, my fan club … one member.
The numbers really weren’t bad. One year doesn’t mean bupkis, nor do three years for that matter, but no one would go along with three years unless you were able to train your investor constituency well (think Seth Klarman at Baupost).
Unfortunately, people would be calling for Ms. Mendillo’s head if she underperformed (underperformed what?), for three years. It makes it harder to do well looking at short periods (three years) of “investment time.” The university community, and for that matter the university administration, would be much better off in the long run (much better off!), if the time frame were 5-15 years of performance.
Speaking of which… the university is still paying out way too much on a yearly basis. Performance over the next 5-20 years is not going to be anywhere near historical numbers. The university, however, is still thinking in those terms, at least from the numbers that are public.
One last thing. I read The Crimson article by Ms. Rouse and Mr. Scuderi. It was not a long article and it should have been an easy one to write. Why were there so many mistakes and a lack of understanding about the investment process.
If the head Crimson editor or Ms. Rouse or Mr. Scuderi want to identify themselves here, I’l be happy to point out the problems so that perhaps it doesn’t happen again.