Curious what others would say to this

@CharlesNegy @sfmcguire79 We’ve always wanted that.

@kcmariner @JosephT80525112 @Columbia Correct. That would generate around $200-230m a year in proceeds.

@ArturoVandelayI @Harvard We actually describe the use of funds in the current draw here:

@sfmcguire79 Which is also not all that different from what Congress recommended:

@BrianHa36920543 @JosephT80525112 @Columbia @NewYorkStateAG No, as an institution, @Columbia has professed nothing of the sort -- plus it would be violation of NYS's anti-BDS executive order. There are some bad actors who are affiliated with the institution who would like that. Those bad actors hurt us all.

@BrianHa36920543 @JosephT80525112 @Columbia There is technically a mechanism to remove restrictions but the hurdle is high and it requires a court and the @NewYorkStateAG. The endowment is also not one fund but 6,300+ distinct funds. For practical purposes, removing restrictions is not feasible.

@kissel_adam @gil_zussman @Columbia Not quite. It’s 65% of every $1. 65% is also the top rate for certain activities; the blended rate is ~35%. However, the apples-to-apples comparison to a private sector metric (SG&A as a % of revenue) is actually ~26%, which is high but not out of whack. (@DanaherCorp is > 30%).

@BenTelAviv @CampusJewHate @Ilhan @ColumbiaBDS @palyouthmvmt @PeoplesForumNYC @Columbia It is specifically prohibited by section 385 of the University Statutes. And here CUAD is specifically in breach because they use “Columbia University” as opposed to “Columbia” (see @columbiasport )

@SupremacyWoke @Fafner55 @questionsin2014 @Columbia The “administrative bloat” you reference is driven in part by escalating govt driven regulatory and compliance requirements. COGR has a chart showing the growth of those reqs since 1991 (when ICR was capped at 26%):

@NY_LBSS @Columbia It’s not just the PMIFA, the restrictions are governed by bilateral contracts.

@GaryTatumIV @Columbia No. “Shutting it down” would be a disastrous loss to the country and the world. It should be renewed.

@questionsin2014 @Columbia If you do the math, approx $980m was used for research, and $350m was used for indirect cost recovery. As for why taxpayers should subsidize, it’s because Columbia faculty and researchers won competitive grants in a peer reviewed process. The endowment has nothing to do with it.

@rumnusstraube @questionsin2014 @Columbia It’s within the term “indirect cost”, which administration has wide discretion to apply within the buckets of “facilities & administration”.

@rumnusstraube @questionsin2014 @Columbia

@questionsin2014 @Columbia It doesn’t. The NIH funds facilities & administrative expense. But because money is fungible, it frees up money to go to other sources that otherwise would have been tapped for overhead. It’s an indirect cross-subsidy by providing “substitutional” funds.

@EarnieAdams @Columbia On the contrary, we are deeply aware of it and trying to reverse course:

@EarnieAdams @Columbia The greatest contributors to the national debt are entitlements.