耶鲁捐赠基金2002年（耶鲁投资办公室年度报告）

Introduction Diversification once again helped the Yale Endowment weather stormy markets during the year ending June 30, 2002. The Endowment returned a respectable 0.7 percent in an atmosphere in which equity markets registered severe declines and most endowments suffered negative returns. Strong active management and a value orientation protected Yale from bearing fully the costs of the recent market turmoil.

During the past ten years, the Endowment grew from $2.8 billion to $10.5 billion. With annual net investment returns of 16.9 percent, the Endowment’s performance exceeded its benchmark and outpaced institutional fund indices. Over the past two decades, the Yale Endowment produced even more dramatic results, as investment returns of 17.0 percent per annum produced a 2002 Endowment value of over 14 times 1982’s level. Yale’s long-term record resulted from disciplined and diversified asset allocation policies, superior active management results, and strong capital market returns.

Spending from Endowment grew during the last decade from $108 million to $409 million, an annual growth rate of 14.2 percent. On a relative basis, Endowment contributions grew from 13.2 percent of total revenues in fiscal 1992 to 27.9 percent in fiscal 2002. Next year, spending will approach $471 million, or 31 percent of projected revenues. During the decade Yale’s spending and investment policies provided handsome growth in cash flow to support current scholars while preserving Endowment purchasing power for future generations.

Endowment Growth Outpaces Inflation 1950–2002 $12 $10 Actual Endowment $8 Billions $6 $4 Endowment Target $2 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1950 Endowment Inflated Post-1950 Endowment Endowment Market Value The Yale Endowment Totaling $10.5 billion on June 30, 2002, the Yale Endowment is an investment pool composed of thousands of funds with a variety of designated purposes and restrictions. Approximately four-fifths of funds are true endowment, gifts restricted by donors to provide long-term funding for designated purposes. The remaining one-fifth is quasi-endowment, monies which the Yale Corporation chooses to invest and treat as endowment.

Donors frequently specify a particular purpose for gifts, creating endowments to fund professorships, teaching, and lectureships (23 percent), scholarships, fellowships, and prizes (18 percent), maintenance (4 percent), books (3 percent), and miscellaneous specific purposes (31 percent). The remaining funds (22 percent) are unrestricted. Thirty-four percent of the Endowment benefits the overall University, with remaining funds focused on specific units including the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (32 percent), the Professional Schools (21 percent), the library (8 percent), and other entities (6 percent).

Although distinct in purpose or restriction, Endowment funds are commingled in an investment pool and tracked with unit accounting much like a large mutual fund. Endowment gifts of cash, securities, or property are valued and exchanged for units that represent a claim on a portion of the whole investment portfolio. In fiscal 2002, the Endowment provided $409 million, or 28 percent, of the University’s $1,467 million current fund income. Other major sources of revenues were grants and contracts of $418 million (28 percent), medical services of $214 million (15 percent), net tuition, room, and board of $209 million (14 percent), gifts of $86 million (6 percent), other investment income of $27 million (2 percent), publications income of $23 million (2 percent), and other income of $82 million (6 percent).

Endowment Fund Allocation Operating Budget Revenue Fiscal Year 2002 Fiscal Year 2002 Maintenance Medical Services Tuition, Room, Board Unrestricted Professorships Publications Other Endowment Books Gifts & Bequests Miscellaneous Specific Purposes Scholarships Grants & Contracts Policy Asset Allocation Targets Establishing policy asset allocation In order to have closed the gap between Yale’s newly adopted target asset targets represents the heart of the the current actual allocation and the allocation produces an expected real investment process, as no other aspect former target allocation, Yale would (after inflation) long-term growth rate of portfolio management plays as great have needed to invest significant of 6.2 percent per annum with a risk a role in determining a fund’s ultimate amounts of new capital in private (standard deviation of returns) of 10.9 performance. Yale’s target allocation equity strategies. percent. This risk-return combination is achieved using a combination of Currently, however, the private compares favorably to the average quantitative and qualitative analysis. equity marketplace appears less endowment portfolio, which offers an By employing the quantitative tool attractive than it has in the past. expected real return lower than Yale’s, of mean-variance optimization, the The deluge of capital entering the with higher risk. Yale’s spending Investments Office identifies efficient private equity sector, the relentless disruption risk—defined as the portfolios with expected returns that transformation of moderate-sized likelihood of a real reduction of surpass those of all other portfolios funds into mega-funds, the increased 10 percent in spending from the with the same level of risk. Inputs to the competition for deals and personnel, Endowment over any five-year period— process include estimated return, risk, and the reduced ability to use public is 20 percent for the current target and correlation measures for different markets to exit private investments portfolio. Impairment risk—defined as asset classes. Important qualitative combine to diminish expectations for the likelihood of losing half of considerations include the nature of the asset class. Moreover, regardless of purchasing power over a 50-year active management opportunities, the the current prospects for private equity, horizon—is 7 percent. In contrast, the degree of asset class illiquidity, the value the University prefers to take a gradual average endowment runs a 37 percent of gradualism in making changes, and approach to making portfolio moves. chance of spending disruption and a Yale’s comparative advantages as an By setting the new private equity target staggering 40 percent chance of investor. at 17.5 percent—measurably above the impairment.

In producing portfolio current actual allocation—Yale Throughout the 17 years during recommendations, the Investments expresses a desire for deliberate growth which Yale engaged in a disciplined Office complements top-down mean- in private equity exposure over the next annual review of policy targets, only in variance optimization with bottom- few years. The difficult conditions in the two instances did the University make up assessment of market conditions. private equity markets accentuate the changes as large as it did in 2002. The By evaluating the absolute and ever-present need to be highly selective first, a 1986 reduction of 10.0 percent relative attractiveness of investment in choosing investment partners for in domestic equities combined with 5.0 opportunities uncovered by Yale’s far- the University. ranging roster of external investment managers, the Investments Office directs funds to more attractive opportunities and away from less compelling situations. Nonetheless, given the long- Yale Diversifies Policy Asset Allocation Targets 1985–2002 term nature of policy targets, bottom-up considerations play a secondary part 100% in the asset allocation process relative 90% to the lead role of mean-variance optimization. 80% In June 2002 the University adopted a number of significant changes in 70% policy targets. Private equity moved from a target of 25.0 percent of the 60% portfolio to 17.5 percent, while real 50% assets moved from 17.5 to 20.0 percent, absolute return moved from 22.5 to 40% 25.0 percent, and foreign equity moved from 10.0 to 12.5 percent. After three 30% years in which policy targets remained 20% unchanged, the flurry of activity represented an important change in 10% the character of the target portfolio.

Over the past two years, Yale’s actual 0% private equity allocation decreased from 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 25.0 percent of assets to 14.4 percent Fiscal Year due to distributions of cash and securities, write-downs of investments, U.S. Equity U.S. Bonds Foreign Equity Absolute Return Private Equity Real Assets and reduced rates of new investment.

(reading from bottom to top of graph) percent increases in both private equity percent in bonds and cash, and 21 embodies a substantial equity and foreign equity, occurred early in percent in alternative strategies. In orientation. By implementing a Yale’s process of moving to a more contrast, with Yale’s six asset classes diversified, equity-oriented asset diversified investment portfolio. The exhibiting allocations between 10 and allocation, Yale’s Endowment is well second, a 1990 reduction of 15.0 25 percent, the portfolio meets the positioned to serve the needs of both percent in domestic equities to fund test of diversification; with five high current and future generations of the newly created absolute return asset expected return asset classes accounting scholars. class, represented a reclassification of for 90 percent of assets, the portfolio assets, not a change in portfolio composition.

Even though Yale’s portfolio has changed dramatically from its position in the mid 1980s, moving from a Yale’s Portfolio Moves Toward Risk-Return Efficiency typical institutional portfolio dominated by marketable securities to a well- 8.0% diversified equity-oriented collection of assets, the year-to-year changes tended to be small. Most years saw changes 7.0% in targets of 2.5 or 5.0 percent; in fact, in six of 17 years no changes occurred Efficient Frontier Real Growth Rate at all.

6.0% 2002 Yale’s asset allocation targets are Portfolio reviewed only once per year, limiting the possibility of damage from ill-considered moves made in response to 5.0% the gloom or euphoria imbuing current market conditions. During the 1987 Portfolio stock market crash, a 25 standard 4.0% deviation event in which the domestic market fell more than 20 percent in one day, Yale maintained policy targets in the face of pressure to move assets into 0 fixed income. In fact, shortly following 0 7.0% 9.0% 11.0% 13.0% 15.0% the crash, Yale purchased tens of Volatility millions of dollars of S&P 500 Index futures to rebalance the portfolio to long-term targets. While other institutions sold equity positions for losses, purchased bonds at exorbitant Yale Reduces Spending Disruption Risk prices, and missed the ensuing recovery, and Purchasing Power Impairment Risk Yale did not reverse—after the fact— 30% positions it had adopted as part of a recent annual policy target review.

Accordingly the University was spared from an untimely reversal of strategy. 25% Serious investors recognize that the 1987 principles of diversification and equity Portfolio Impairment Risk orientation underlie successful long- 20% term investment strategies. Yet, honoring these basic tenets represents the exception rather than the rule. In 15% the mid 1980s typical endowment portfolios exhibited neither diversification nor equity orientation, as they consisted of roughly 50 percent 10% marketable equities, 45 percent bonds and cash, and 5 percent alternative 2002 Portfolio strategies. A decade and a half later, average allocations have made little 0 20% 25% 30% 35% progress, with approximately 53 percent in marketable equities, 26 Spending Disruption Risk Investment Policy Yale’s portfolio is structured using a combination of academic theory and informed market judgment. The theoretical framework relies on mean-variance analysis, an approach developed by Nobel laureates James Tobin and Harry Markowitz. In fact, both Tobin and Markowitz conducted work on this important portfolio management tool at Yale’s Cowles Foundation. Using statistical techniques to combine expected returns, variances, and covariances of investment assets, the analysis estimates expected risk and return profiles of various asset allocation alternatives and tests the sensitivity of the results to changes in input assumptions. Because investment management involves as much art as science, qualitative considerations play an extremely important role in portfolio decisions. The definition of an asset class is quite subjective, requiring precise distinctions where none exist. Returns and correlations are difficult to forecast. Historical data provide a guide, but must be modified to recognize structural changes and compensate for anomalous periods. Finally, quantitative measures have difficulty incorporating factors such as market liquidity or the influence of significant, low-probability events.

The combination of quantitative analysis and market judgment employed by Yale produces the following portfolio: June Current Asset Class 2002 Target Domestic Equity 15.4% 15.0% Fixed Income 10.0 10.0 Foreign Equity 12.8 12.5 Absolute Return 26.5 25.0 Private Equity 14.4 17.5 Real Assets 20.5 20.0 Cash 0.3 0.0 Yale Endowment Target Asset Allocation June 30, 2002 Domestic Equity Foreign Equity Fixed Income Private Equity Real Assets Absolute Return The target mix of assets produces an expected real (after inflation) long-term growth rate of 6.2 percent with a risk (standard deviation of returns) of 10.9 percent. Primarily because of shortfalls relative to the target in private equity holdings, the actual allocation produces a portfolio expected to grow at 6.0 percent with a risk of 10.4 percent. The University’s measure of inflation is based on a basket of goods and services specific to higher education that tends to exceed the Consumer Price Index by approximately one percent. The need to provide resources for current operations as well as preserve purchasing power of assets dictates investing for high returns, causing the Endowment to be biased toward equity. In addition, the University’s vulnerability to inflation further directs the Endowment away from fixed income and toward equity instruments. Hence, 90 percent of the Endowment is targeted for investment in some form of equity, through holdings of domestic and international securities, real assets, and private equity. Over the past fifteen years, Yale has reduced dramatically the Endowment’s dependence on domestic marketable securities by reallocating assets to nontraditional asset classes. In 1987, over 75 percent of the Endowment was committed to U.S. stocks, bonds, and cash. Today, target allocations call for 25 percent in domestic marketable securities, while the diversifying assets of foreign equity, private equity, absolute return strategies, and real assets dominate the Endowment, representing 75 percent of the target portfolio. The heavy allocation to nontraditional asset classes stems from their return potential and diversifying power. Today’s actual and target portfolios have significantly higher expected returns and lower volatility than the 1987 portfolio. Alternative assets, by their very nature, tend to be less efficiently priced than traditional marketable securities, providing an opportunity to exploit market inefficiencies through active management. The Endowment’s long time horizon is well suited to exploiting illiquid, less efficient markets such as venture capital, leveraged buyouts, oil and gas, timber, and real estate.

Asset Class Yale’s six asset classes are defined by differences in their expected response to economic conditions, such as price inflation or changes Characteristics in interest rates, and are weighted in the Endowment portfolio by considering risk-adjusted returns and correlations. The University combines these assets in such a way as to provide the highest expected return for a given level of risk.

Domestic Equity Finance theory predicts that equity holdings will generate returns superior to those of less risky assets such as bonds and cash. The predominant asset class in most endowments and other U.S. institutional portfolios, domestic equities represent a large, liquid, and heavily researched market. While the average educational institution invests 39.3 percent of assets in domestic equities, Yale’s target allocation to this asset class is only 15.0 percent. The domestic equity portfolio has an expected real return of 6.0 percent with a standard deviation of 20.0 percent. The Wilshire 5000 Index serves as the portfolio benchmark. 7 James Tobin, 1918–2002 James Tobin, who served Yale for half a tend to acquire companies rather than century, passed away in March 2002 at spend on new equipment. Tobin’s q the age of 84. Considered one of the became especially pertinent during the most influential economists of his time, excesses of the U.S. stock market in the Tobin focused his research on how late 1990s, as measures of q for dot-com economic policies affect people’s lives, stocks climbed to levels in excess of 100. adhering to the Keynesian belief that the New dot-com stocks were valued at federal government should use fiscal and hundreds of millions of dollars, even monetary policy for society’s benefit. though they cost only a few million He noted that economics “offered the dollars to create, explaining their prolific hope, as it still does, that improved rise in number. This period in the understanding could better the lot of markets shocked Tobin, who believed mankind.” Tobin wrote or edited 13 that the equilibrium level of q should be books and hundreds of articles, winning approximately one and that market the Nobel Prize in 1981 for his analysis forces would limit movements away of financial markets. from that value.

Tobin became interested in economics Tobin played an important role in the while growing up in Illinois during the development of the principles underlying Great Depression. He pursued this James Tobin mean-variance analysis. In fact, Harry interest as a scholarship student at Markowitz, whose name is most closely Harvard College. After an heroic stint professor. I am what you call an ivory associated with portfolio optimization, as a naval officer during World War II, tower president.” After Tobin returned used to refer to Tobin as the “father of Tobin returned to Harvard to complete to Yale, he was an active consultant to mean-variance analysis” until Tobin his ph.d. and joined the Yale faculty in the Council for several years. with characteristic modesty asked 1950, where he later became Sterling Among Tobin’s many legacies in the Markowitz to stop. Tobin developed the Professor of Economics. field of economics are his contributions separation theorem and showed how to Tobin’s dedicated teaching of to finance theory, including Tobin’s q, a increase the opportunity set available to undergraduate and graduate students quantifiable measure of the relationship investors by using combinations of an spanned nearly four decades. Former between an asset’s market value and its efficient portfolio of risky assets and the students recall his incisive gaze as he intrinsic value. In the context of equity risk-free asset. By choosing one of the explored new concepts with them and markets, q relates the market value of a combinations, arrayed along what Tobin the gleam in his eye when they showed firm to the replacement cost of its assets. called the Capital Market Line, investors their understanding. Of the classroom When market value exceeds replacement create portfolios superior to those that Tobin once wrote, “I like teaching, and I cost, resulting in a q greater than one, contain only risky assets. do a lot of it. I never fail to learn, from business investment is stimulated. When Tobin’s contributions to portfolio the students themselves and from the replacement cost exceeds market value, theory had a practical side as well. discipline of presenting ideas clearly to resulting in a q below one, firms will In the late 1980s, along with Yale them.”

Professor Tobin directed the Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics Tobin’s q for U.S. Equities 1925–2002 from the time of its establishment at 3.0 Yale in 1955 until 1961 and then again from 1964 to 1965. The Cowles Foundation, named for Yale graduate 2.5 Arthur Cowles, is dedicated to the conduct of research in economics with particular emphasis on the development 2.0 and application of mathematical and statistical methods of analysis. Tobin’s 1.5 contribution to the Cowles Foundation, considered to be one of the most productive research centers in academia, 1.0 was focused in the areas of macroeconomics and monetary theory.

0.5 In 1961 and 1962 Tobin took leave from Yale to serve on President John Kennedy’s Council of Economic 0.0 Advisers. Tobin initially resisted the 1925 1940 1955 1970 1985 2000 appointment, explaining to Kennedy that he was an “ivory tower economist.” Data as of September 2002. Tobin’s q normalized to average one. Kennedy replied, “That’s all right, Dashed lines represent one and two standard deviations around the normalized ratio of one.

professors William Brainard, William the same set of activities that it is in economics, allowing the department Nordhaus, Robert Shiller, Burton now supporting” and that “current to recruit the very best graduate Malkiel, Stephen Ross, Roger Ibbotson, consumption should not benefit students. The Tobin-Okun-Phelps and William Goetzmann, Tobin from the prospects of future gifts Research Fund, established in 1983 by worked with David Swensen and Dean to the endowment.” He argued that donor Seong Yawng Park (’61 m.a., Takahashi of the Yale Investments Office consumption may rise to encompass an ’65 ph.d.), supports research by junior to review the application of mean- enlarged scope of activities when, but faculty and advanced graduate students variance optimization and Monte Carlo not before, capital gifts enlarge the at the Cowles Foundation. The James simulation techniques to the challenges endowment. Using the principles set Tobin Professorship, created in 1993 of managing Yale’s Endowment. The forth in this paper, Tobin contributed to through an anonymous gift, provides framework developed at that time still the design of the smoothing, inflation- financial support and prestige to the serves the University as an important sensitive spending rule that Yale uses to holder of the endowed chair. Since 1994 tool in developing policy asset allocation link the Endowment to the University’s the position has been filled by Professor portfolios. annual budget. John Geanakoplos, who in addition to One of Tobin’s papers, What Is The Yale community’s respect and teaching students and conducting Permanent Endowment Income, gratitude for Tobin’s contributions to the research currently serves as director of provided a formula for the sustainable University are expressed in part by the the Cowles Foundation. Although consumption of endowment income, endowment funds established in his James Tobin can no longer add to his ensuring preservation of equity among name. The James Tobin Fund for impressive legacy of teaching and generations. Tobin wrote that Graduate Studies in Economics, scholarship, the endowments established endowment consumption should be established by a group of donors in his name will continue to touch the structured such that the “existing subsequent to Professor Tobin’s death, lives of Yale scholars forever. endowment can continue to support grants scholarships to ph.d. candidates Despite recognizing that the U.S. equity market is highly efficient, Yale elects to pursue active management strategies, aspiring to outperform market indices by a few percentage points annually.

Because superior stock selection provides the most consistent and reliable opportunity for generating excess returns, the University favors managers with exceptional bottom-up fundamental research capabilities. Managers searching for out-of-favor securities often find stocks that are cheap in relation to current fundamental measures such as book value, earnings, or cash flow. Yale’s managers tend to emphasize small-capitalization stocks, as they are less efficiently priced and offer greater opportunities to add value through active management. Recognizing the difficulty of outperforming the market on a consistent basis, Yale searches for exceptional managers with high integrity, sound investment philosophies, strong track records, superior organizations, and sustainable competitive advantages.

Fixed Income Fixed income assets generate stable flows of income, providing greater certainty of nominal cash flow than any other Endowment asset class. The bond portfolio creates substantial diversification for the Endowment, having a low covariance with other asset classes, and provides a hedge against financial accidents or periods of unanticipated deflation. While educational institutions maintain a substantial allocation to domestic bonds and cash, averaging 25.9 percent, Yale’s target allocation to fixed income is a relatively low 10.0 percent of the Endowment. Bonds have an expected real return of 2.0 percent with risk of 10.0 percent. The Lehman Brothers U.S.

Treasury Index serves as the portfolio benchmark.

Yale is not particularly attracted to fixed income assets, as they have the lowest historical and expected returns of the six asset classes comprising the Endowment. In addition, the government bond market is arguably the most efficiently priced asset class, offering few opportunities to add significant value through active management. Based on skepticism of active fixed income strategies and belief in the efficacy of a highly structured approach to bond portfolio management, the Investments Office chooses to manage Endowment bonds internally. In spite of an aversion to market timing strategies, credit risk, and call options, Yale manages to add value consistently in its management of the bond portfolio. Willingness to accept illiquidity leads to superior investment results without impairing the portfolio protection characteristics of high quality fixed income.

Foreign Equity Investments in overseas markets give the Endowment exposure to the global economy, providing diversification along with opportunities to earn above-market returns through active management. Emerging markets, with their rapidly growing economies, are particularly intriguing, causing Yale to target one-half of its foreign portfolio to developing countries. Yale’s foreign equity target allocation of 12.5 percent stands somewhat below the average endowment’s allocation of 13.4 percent. Expected real returns for emerging equities are 8.0 percent with a risk level of 30.0 percent, while developed equities are expected to return 6.0 percent with risk of 20.0 percent. The portfolio is measured against a composite benchmark of 50 percent developed markets, measured by the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI ) Europe, Australia, and Far East Index, and 50 percent emerging markets, measured by the MSCI Emerging Markets Free Index.

Yale’s investment approach to foreign equities emphasizes active management designed to uncover attractive opportunities and exploit market inefficiencies. As in the domestic equity portfolio, Yale favors managers with strong bottom-up fundamental research capabilities. Capital allocation to individual managers takes into consideration the country allocation of the foreign equity portfolio, the degree of confidence Yale possesses in a manager, and the appropriate asset size for a particular strategy. In addition, Yale attempts to exploit compelling undervaluations in countries, sectors, and styles by allocating additional capital and, perhaps, by hiring new managers to take advantage of the opportunities.

Absolute Return In July 1990, Yale became the first institutional investor to pursue absolute return strategies as a distinct asset class, beginning with a target allocation of 15.0 percent. Designed to provide significant diversification to the Endowment, absolute return investments seek to generate high long-term real returns by exploiting market inefficiencies. Approximately half of the portfolio is dedicated to event-driven strategies, which rely on a very specific corporate event such as a merger, spin-off, or bankruptcy restructuring to achieve a target price. The other half of the portfolio contains value-driven strategies, which involve hedged positions in assets or securities that diverge from underlying economic value. Today, the absolute return portfolio is targeted to be 25.0 percent of the Endowment. In contrast, the average educational institution allocates only 11.7 percent of assets to such strategies. Absolute return strategies are expected to generate real returns of 6.0 percent with risk levels of 10.0 percent for event-driven strategies and 15.0 percent for value-driven strategies.

Unlike traditional marketable securities, absolute return investments provide returns largely independent of overall market moves. Over the past ten years, the portfolio exceeded expectations, returning 12.1 percent per year with essentially no correlation to domestic stock and bond markets.

An important attribute of Yale’s investment strategy is the alignment of interests between investors and investment managers. To that end, absolute return accounts are structured with performance-related incentive fees, hurdle rates, and clawback provisions. In addition, managers invest a significant portion of their net worth alongside Yale, enabling the University to avoid many of the pitfalls of the principal-agent relationship.

Private Equity Private equity offers extremely attractive long-term risk-adjusted return characteristics, stemming from the University’s strong stable of value-added managers that exploit market inefficiencies. Yale’s private equity investments include participations in venture capital and leveraged buyout partnerships. The University’s target allocation to private equity of 17.5 percent and its actual allocation of 14.4 percent both far exceed the 5.5 percent actual allocation of the average educational institution. In aggregate, the private equity portfolio is expected to generate real returns of 12.0 percent with risk of 30.0 percent.

Yale’s private equity program, one of the first of its kind, is regarded as among the best in the institutional investment community. The University is frequently cited as a role model by other investors pursuing this asset class. Since inception, private equity investments have generated a 31.4 percent annualized return to the University. The success of Yale’s program led to a 1995 Harvard Business School case study—“Yale University Investments Office”—by Professors Josh Lerner and Jay Light. The popular case study was updated in 1997 and 2000.

Yale’s private equity assets concentrate on partnerships with firms that emphasize a value-added approach to investing. Such firms work closely with portfolio companies to create fundamentally more valuable entities, relying only secondarily on financial engineering to generate returns. Investments are made with an eye toward long-term relationships—generally, a commitment is expected to be the first of several—and toward the close alignment of the interests of general and limited partners. Yale avoids funds sponsored by financial institutions because of the conflicts of interest and staff instability inherent in such situations.

Foreign Equity Foreign equities, with a target allocation provide an attractive arena for active Yale also manages internally a portfolio of 12.5 percent of Endowment assets, management. of closed-end funds and investment provide substantial diversification to The Investments Office monitors trusts that contain both developed and Yale’s portfolio. Because forces that the size of actively managed portfolios, emerging market equities. Through these drive markets differ from country to shifting capital to take advantage of vehicles the University can increase or country, market returns will vary tactical opportunities. Capital allocation decrease exposure to foreign markets as from one country to another. This to individual managers takes into needed and add incremental value by diversification, quantitatively reflected consideration the degree of confidence purchasing at wide discounts and selling in the foreign equity portfolio’s expected Yale possesses in a manager, the country at narrower discounts. correlation of 0.5 to domestic equities, allocation of the foreign equity In general, Yale’s managers do not reduces overall portfolio risk. portfolio, and the appropriate size for hedge currency exposure, since currency Additionally, the large volume of a particular strategy. positions are not expected to add value, companies listed in foreign markets and Although Yale’s foreign equity improve diversification, or reduce risk the inefficiencies in their pricing create managers fulfill a broad range of to an extent that would justify their opportunities to earn above-market investment mandates, they share a costs. With only 12.5 percent of the returns through active management. commitment to fundamental research. Endowment exposed to foreign Yale looks for foreign equity In the developed portfolio, Yale has core currencies, Yale’s exchange rate risks managers that concentrate on creating allocations to managers that search for are of relatively small consequence. In portfolios using bottom-up stock undervalued securities, employing fact, modest foreign currency exposure selection rather than top-down macro proprietary models to identify value. can improve diversification, providing considerations. Small-capitalization Investment approaches range from a welcome hedge against domestic stocks, lying below the radar screen of using highly sophisticated quantitative inflation or economic weakness. large institutional funds, offer modeling techniques, to buying “good The University’s performance in particularly compelling opportunities to companies at fair prices and fair foreign equities has been outstanding, add value. Although some of Yale’s companies at good prices,” to both in the short term and over longer managers have global mandates, Yale identifying out-of-favor, asset-rich periods. Yale’s returns in this asset recognizes that regional mandates companies at deep discounts to fair class make a strong case for active facilitate the conduct of intensive value. management, since the University has company research, creating an edge over In the developing markets portfolio, fared well despite lackluster returns in less focused global funds. in addition to managers that invest in global indices. Over the ten years ending Country allocations heavily influence emerging markets globally, Yale employs June 30, 2002, Yale foreign equities overall performance in foreign equities. managers with regional concentrations returned 9.3 percent per annum, nearly Unfortunately, forecasting country in Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin twice the annualized 4.7 percent return returns proves difficult in developed America, Asia, and Africa. Such of the asset class’s composite markets and provides a generally managers use thorough fundamental benchmark. This solid performance unreliable source of value added. In research to understand potentially generated $430 million in value added emerging markets, country valuations attractive companies, often making relative to the portfolio’s benchmark. sometimes move to extremes that offer hundreds of company visits per year. identifiable top-down opportunities to generate excess returns. In general, however, Yale’s managers focus on identifying bottom-up security-specific Foreign Equities Add Value Relative to Composite investments. Benchmark 1992–2002 Yale allocates one-half of its foreign Millions equity portfolio to emerging markets, $450 where managers are particularly apt to $430 Million $400 find attractive investment opportunities.

Emerging markets tend to be less $350 efficient than developed markets, a $300 consequence of illiquidity, little research coverage, and relatively unsophisticated $250 local investors. Emerging markets also $200 provide an expanded set of investment $150 opportunities, with a large number of companies well positioned to benefit $100 from rapidly growing and changing $50 economies. Given expectations of powerful underlying economic growth and greater opportunities to find -$50 undervalued stocks, developing countries 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Cumulative Value Added Net of Fees Real Assets Real estate, oil and gas, and timberland share common characteristics: sensitivity to inflationary forces, high and visible current cash flow, and opportunity to exploit inefficiencies. Real asset investments provide attractive return prospects, excellent portfolio diversification, and a hedge against unanticipated inflation. Yale’s 20.0 percent long-term policy allocation significantly exceeds the average endowment’s commitment of 3.2 percent. Expected real returns are 6.0 percent with risk of 15.0 percent.

The real assets portfolio plays a meaningful role in the Endowment as a powerful diversifying tool and a generator of strong returns. Real assets provide relative stability to the Endowment during periods of public market turmoil, at the price of an inability to keep pace during bull markets. Pricing inefficiencies in the asset class and opportunities to add value allow superior managers to generate excess returns over a market cycle. Since inception in 1978 the portfolio has returned 15.0 percent per annum.

The illiquid nature of real assets combined with the expensive and time-consuming process of completing transactions creates a high hurdle for casual investors. Real assets provide talented investment groups with the opportunity to generate strong returns through savvy acquisitions and managerial expertise. A critical component of Yale’s investment strategy is to create strong, long-term partnerships between the Investments Office and its investment managers. In the last decade Yale played a critical role in the development and growth of more than a dozen organizations involved in the management of real assets.

Asset Allocations Yale Educational University Institution Mean Domestic Equity 15.4% 39.3% Fixed Income 10.0 22.9 Foreign Equity 12.8 13.4 Absolute Return 26.5 11.7 Private Equity 14.4 5.5 Real Assets 20.5 3.2 Cash 0.3 3.0 Data as of June 30, 2002.

Spending Policy The spending rule is at the heart of fiscal discipline for an endowed institution. Spending policies define an institution’s compromise between the conflicting goals of providing substantial, sustainable support for current operations and preserving purchasing power of Endowment assets. The spending rule must be clearly defined and consistently applied for the concept of budget balance to have meaning.

Yale’s policy is designed to meet two competing objectives. The first is to release substantial current income to the operating budget in a stable stream, since large fluctuations in revenues are difficult to accommodate through changes in University activities or programs. The second is to protect the value of Endowment assets against inflation, allowing programs to be supported at today’s level far into the future.

Yale’s spending rule attempts to achieve these two objectives by using a long-term spending rate of 5 percent combined with a smoothing rule that adjusts spending gradually to changes in Endowment market value. The amount released under the spending rule is based on a weighted average of prior spending adjusted for inflation (70 percent weight) and the amount that would have been spent using 5 percent of current Endowment market value (30 percent weight).

Spending Growth Outpaces Inflation 1950–2002 $450 $400 $350 Actual Spending $300 $250 Millions $200 Spending Target $150 $100 $50 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1950 Spending Inflated Target Spending from Post-1950 Gifts Inflated Actual Spending The spending rule has two implications. First, by incorporating the previous year’s spending the rule eliminates large fluctuations, enabling the University to plan for its operating budget needs. Over the last twenty years, annual changes in spending have been less than a third as volatile as annual changes in Endowment value. Second, by adjusting spending toward the long-term rate of 5 percent of Endowment, the rule ensures that spending levels will be sensitive to fluctuating Endowment market value levels, providing stability in long-term purchasing power.

Spending from the Endowment increased at a hearty pace during the past decade despite the conservative nature of Yale’s spending policy, with distributions rising from $108 million in fiscal 1992 to $409 million in fiscal 2002. Consequently, Endowment spending plays an ever-greater role in the budget, having risen from 13 percent of expenditures in 1992 to 28 percent in 2002.

Dean Richard H. Brodhead, A. Bartlett Giamatti Professor of English, meets with Yale College students. Endowed faculty chairs and other teaching endowments help the University to attract and retain outstanding faculty.

Endowed scholarship funds are essential to ensuring that Yale continues to attract the finest students, regardless of ability to pay.

Investment Performance Yale has produced excellent investment returns. Over the ten-year period ending June 30, 2002, the Endowment earned an annualized 16.9 percent return, net of fees, placing it in the top one percent of large institutional investors. Endowment outperformance is attributable to sound asset allocation policy and superior active management.

Yale’s long-term superior performance relative to its peers and benchmarks created substantial wealth for the University. Over the ten years ending June 30, 2002, Yale added $4.7 billion relative to its composite benchmark and an estimated $5.1 billion relative to the average return of a broad universe of college and university endowments.

Performance by Yale’s long-term asset class performance continues to be strong. In the past ten years every asset class posted superior returns, in Asset Class all cases outperforming benchmark levels.

For the decade ending June 30, 2002, the domestic equity portfolio returned an annualized 16.9 percent, outperforming the Wilshire 5000 by 5.8 percent per year. Active managers have added value to benchmark returns primarily through stock selection. Yale’s internally managed fixed income portfolio earned an annualized 8.2 percent over the past decade, outpacing the Lehman Brothers Government Bond Index by 0.9 percent per year. By making astute security selection decisions and accepting illiquidity, the Endowment benefited from excess returns without incurring material credit or option risk.

Relative Investment Performance of the Yale Endowment Growth of $1,000 from 1992 to 2002 $5 $4,777 $4,777 $4 $3 Thousands $2,767 $2,767 $2 $1 $1,399 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Fiscal Year Yale Endowment Mean of Broad Universe of Colleges and Universities Inflation Over the past decade, the absolute return portfolio has produced an annualized 12.1 percent, exceeding its benchmark of University inflation plus 8.0 percent by 0.4 percent per year. Absolute return results exhibited essentially no correlation to traditional marketable securities.

The foreign equity portfolio generated an annual return of 9.3 percent over the ten-year period, outperforming its composite benchmark by 4.6 percent per year. The portfolio’s excess return is due to effective security selection and country allocation by active managers.

Results from Yale’s non-marketable assets demonstrate the value of effective active management. Private equity earned 36.9 percent annually over the last ten years. Since inception in 1973, the private equity program has earned an astounding 31.4 percent per annum.

Real assets generated a 15.3 percent annualized return over the ten-year period, outperforming its benchmark, currently University inflation plus 6.0 percent, by 6.7 percent per year. Yale’s outperformance is due to the successful exploitation of market inefficiencies and timely pursuit of contrarian investment strategies.

Asset Class Returns Relative to Benchmarks 1992–2002 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Domestic Foreign Fixed Real Private Absolute Equity Equity Income Assets Equity Return Yale Asset Class Benchmark Annualized returns net of fees.

Real assets consists only of real estate prior to 1999.

Management and Since 1975, the Yale Corporation Investment Committee has been responsible for oversight of the Endowment, incorporating senior-Oversight level investment experience into portfolio policy formulation. The 6 Investment Committee consists of at least three Fellows of the Corporation and other persons who have particular investment expertise. The Committee meets quarterly, at which time members review asset allocation policies, Endowment performance, and strategies proposed by Investments Office staff. The Committee approves guidelines for investment of the Endowment portfolio, specifying investment objectives, spending policy, and approaches for the investment of each asset category. Thirteen individuals currently sit on the Committee.

Investment Committee Charles D. Ellis ’59, Chairman Richard C. Levin ’74 ph.d. Former Managing Partner President Greenwich Associates Yale University ..

Herbert M. Allison, Jr. ’65 Jane L. Mendillo ’80, ’83 m.b.a. Chairman, President, and Chief Investment Officer Chief Executive Officer Wellesley College Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association and College Retirement William I. Miller ’78 Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF) Chairman Irwin Financial Corporation G. Leonard Baker ’64 Managing Director Indra K. Nooyi ’80 m.p.p.m.

Sutter Hill Ventures President and Chief Financial Officer PepsiCo, Inc.

Joshua Bekenstein ’80 Managing Director Theodore P. Shen ’66 Bain Capital Former Chairman DLJ Capital Markets Robert L. Culver Vice President for Finance John L. Thornton ’80 m.p.p.m. and Administration President and Yale University Co-Chief Operating Officer Goldman Sachs International Holcombe T. Green, Jr. ’61 Principal Douglas A. Warner iii ’68 Green Capital Investors, L.P. Former Chairman of the Board J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

The Investments Office manages the Endowment and other University financial assets, and defines and implements the University’s borrowing strategies. Headed by the Chief Investment Officer, the Office currently consists of sixteen professionals.

Investments Office David F. Swensen ’80 ph.d. Randy Kim ’98 Chief Investment Officer Senior Associate Dean J. Takahashi ’80, ’83 m.p.p.m. Celeste P. Benson Senior Director Senior Portfolio Manager Seth D. Alexander ’95 Shuba V. Raghavan Director Senior Research Associate Alexander C. Banker Robert F. Wallace ’02 Director Senior Financial Analyst Alan S. Forman Ana Yankova Director Senior Financial Analyst Timothy R. Sullivan ’86 Jay L. Kang ’02 Director Financial Analyst Kenneth R. Miller ’71 Kimberly B. Sargent ’00 Associate General Counsel Financial Analyst Michael E. Finnerty David B. Slifka ’01 Associate Director Financial Analyst South courtyard in Berkeley College.

Science and Technology at Yale In the early decades of Yale College’s existence, the curriculum was dominated by theology and classics, with natural science playing a secondary role. The first generations of Yale students did take a course in “natural philosophy”—a mixture of biology, geology, astronomy, and physics— although their textbooks would have been out of date even before the College was founded.

Science was not the only subject to be subordinated to other pursuits in Yale’s early years. English language and literature were not introduced until a full half-century after the founding of the College. In 1776, the Corporation finally offered a course in history, rhetoric, and “belles lettres” as an extra subject for students who had obtained permission from their parents. Joseph E. Sheffield Josiah Willard Gibbs, Jr.

Yale began to make strides in the sciences in the 19th century. Porter married the daughter of a faculty support. At that time Yale “Considering the hesitation with which wealthy New Haven financier, Joseph E. College was fortunate to have on its English universities recognized the study Sheffield. Sheffield generously provided faculty as professor of mathematical of nature as their concern,” one buildings and temporary funding for physics the brilliant Josiah Willard prominent alumnus stated in 1901, “it salaries in engineering, metallurgy, and Gibbs, Jr. (1838, 1863 ph.d.) who has is well to remember how early science chemistry. The school acknowledged been called “the greatest scholar Yale came into the Yale curriculum, and how him by taking his name in 1861. has ever produced or harbored.” steadily it has held its place.” Indeed, a Sheffield’s bequest, which included his Gibbs, the author of groundbreaking faculty chair of mathematics, physics, home on Hillhouse Avenue, brought his works on thermodynamics that remain and astronomy was instituted at Yale lifetime gifts to a total of $1.1 million, a authoritative even today, joined the thirty years before the professorship of sum that would remain a Yale record Yale faculty in 1871 without salary. ancient languages. until the 20th century. Despite For nine years Professor Gibbs raised In a momentous move in 1847, Sheffield’s munificence, endowed no objection to his lack of pay, even Yale established the Department of support for the teaching of the sciences when Bowdoin College offered him a Philosophy and the Arts, which was slow to develop. salaried position in 1873. The Yale introduced a broader science curriculum The Sheffield Scientific School, also administration seemed unaware of the and formalized graduate education in known as “Sheff,” remained distinct extent to which the institution was scientific subjects. The department had from Yale College until well into the taking this important scientist for only eleven students in its first year, 20th century. While Yale College granted. with so little financial backing that continued to offer a fixed program of In 1880, when Johns Hopkins Professor Benjamin Silliman, Jr. used liberal arts and a smattering of sciences, attempted to hire Gibbs for a salary his own funds to rent space for Sheff provided a more flexible of $3,000, Yale finally made a counter-laboratories. In spite of its humble curriculum. Yale students and Sheff offer. It would be unthinkable today for beginnings, the department was students led separate lives. No housing an institution to try to retain a member responsible for the founding of a new was provided for Sheff students, chapel of its faculty by offering two-thirds of a school of science in 1852, which offered attendance was not required, and the competitor’s bid. But that is what Yale instruction in chemistry, mineralogy, course of study lasted only three years. did, and, to the relief of many, Gibbs geology, astronomy, calculus, analytical Because students of one school could accepted the $2,000 along with the mechanics, psychology, and agricultural not take courses in the other, there was promise to secure an endowment to science, along with non-science subjects. some duplication of curriculum and of fund his salary as well as future The institution incorporated engineering facilities; each school, for instance, increases. Yale’s problem was not into its curriculum soon thereafter, maintained its own chemistry and disregard for Gibbs, but the University’s offering not only civil engineering but physics laboratories. It was not until relative poverty. The institution had also “dynamic” (mechanical) 1909, when a common physics been trying to improve its offerings in engineering, a subject in which the laboratory was built, that Yale students laboratory science, or what it still called school was a pioneer. would begin the trek up “Science Hill.” “natural philosophy.” In 1880, An important development for the In 1880, Yale learned an important however, it had only three endowed school of science occurred in 1855 lesson about competition in the natural professorships in the fields of science when chemistry Professor John A. sciences and the importance of endowed and mathematics.

Historic contributions from John W.

Sterling (1864) of approximately $40 million and Edward S. Harkness (1897) of nearly $16 million proved crucial to the sciences at Yale. The building of residential colleges, thanks to Harkness funding, brought Sheff and Yale College students under the same roof as participants in a common undergraduate culture. Sterling funds created facilities such as the central library and the new chemistry laboratory that would serve Sheff and Yale College students alike. The trend toward integration would soon spell the end of the Sheffield Scientific School.

In 1956 Sheff ceased operation as a separate entity, and its endowment merged into the University’s funds. Class of 1954 Environmental Science Center, a laboratory and classroom facility on Sachem Street Yale’s expenses rose steadily after adjacent to the Peabody Museum of Natural History, opened in 2002. World War II and the Endowment suffered. Fortunately, the growth of an In response to the campaign, a gift additions to the Science Hill landscape important new source of revenue filled of $10 million from C. Mahlon Kline include the Nancy Lee and Perry R. the gap. Federal government grants and (ph.b. 1901) launched a wave of Bass Center for Molecular and gifts, less than $600,000 in 1950, construction that added Kline Biology Structural Biology and the Class of increased thirtyfold by 1965, providing Tower and Kline Geology Lab to 1954 Environmental Science Center, a tremendous benefit to the sciences. In Science Hill. Yale continued to improve both of which enhance Yale’s programs 1960, the University launched a major its standing in the science disciplines, in newer disciplines. In January 2000, fundraising campaign, “The Program adding a department of computer Yale President Richard Levin revealed for the Arts and Sciences,” with science in 1970 and emphasizing new the University’s plans for a $500 million emphasis on the latter. President programs in the biological, health, and construction program devoted entirely Whitney Griswold asserted that Yale environmental sciences. In the late to engineering and the sciences. In had been seriously neglecting the 1990s the University introduced new announcing the program at the start of sciences for decades, just when “the majors in biomedical engineering and the new century, the President stated, advancement of scientific knowledge environmental engineering. “This ambitious plan for science and has been more rapid than at any other Science and technology remain at the engineering is a crucial element in Yale’s time since the scientific revolution of the forefront of University planning today, strategy to remain among the very small 17th century.” evidenced by increased Endowment number of universities that are support for the sciences and the considered the finest in the world.” construction of new buildings. Recent Nancy Lee and Perry R. Bass Center for Yale undergraduates designed and built a solar-powered automobile, “Lux Perpetua,” in the Molecular and Structural Biology, atop late 1990s.

Science Hill.

Some Important Yale Endowments in the Sciences and Engineering 1851 1871 1920 Silliman Professorship Fund Joseph Earl Sheffield Fund Sterling Professorships Fund Edward E. Salisbury (1832), Theodore D. Joseph Earl Sheffield (1871 m.a.hon.), The bequest of John William Sterling Woolsey (1820), Alexander Duncan stating his concern for the need to fund (1864) provided, in addition to $23 (1825), and Joseph Trumbull (1801) made salaries in the Sheffield Scientific School, million for buildings, some $17 million a combined gift of over $10,000 to create made an endowment gift of $50,000 to fund various endowments. Now worth the Silliman Professorship of Natural that was earmarked for general purposes, more than $300 million, the Sterling History. The chair honored Benjamin including teaching. Mr. Sheffield also endowments support, among other Silliman, Sr. (1796), a notable professor gave North Sheffield Hall and the land things, 30 Sterling Professorships for of chemistry, mineralogy, pharmacy, and on which it stood, in addition to other Distinguished Faculty. Among those geology at Yale College. Professor Karl buildings. Upon his death in 1882 he left holding Sterling chairs are professors of Turekian of the Department of Geology the school one-seventh of his estate, biology, chemistry, mathematical sciences, and Geophysics currently holds the chair. bringing the sum of his contributions to and molecular biophysics and more than $1 million. biochemistry.

1961 1961 1983 Edward Allen Colby Scholarship Fund Henry Ford II Professorship Fund Arthur K. Watson Professorship Fund Annie W. Colby donated $300,000 to The Henry Ford ii Fund provided A bequest of $1.5 million from Arthur K. establish an endowment in honor of Yale with over $1 million to endow Watson (’42), who had distinguished her husband, Edward Allen Colby professorships in the sciences, one himself as President of IBM World Trade (1880 ph.b.). Now worth $10 million, of which supported the teaching of Corporation, led to the establishment of a the fund provides grants to as many as molecular biophysics, a relatively new professorship in the Department of 16 undergraduate students each year in subject for the University at the time. Computer Science, currently held by the sciences. Current incumbents of Henry Ford ii Professor Martin H. Schultz. chairs include Professors Richard K.

Chang, Department of Applied Physics, and Michael E. Zeller, Department of Physics.

1995 1997 2000 Frederick W. Beinecke Chair G. Evelyn Hutchinson Endowed Allen H. Ford ’50 Biomedical in Engineering Fund Chair Fund Engineering Fund William S. Beinecke (’36, ’71 m.a.hon., Edward P. Bass (’67, ’72 arch.) endowed To commemorate his 50th Yale College ’86 ll.d.hon.) endowed a chair in a professorship in the Institute for reunion, Allen H. Ford (’50) made a gift engineering in honor of his father, Biospheric Studies, to honor a to support one of the newest Yale College Frederick W. Beinecke (’09S). distinguished Sterling Professor of majors, Biomedical Engineering. Paul A. Fleury, Dean of the Faculty of Zoology. Mr. Bass’s generous support Engineering, currently holds the chair. also helped to establish the Institute for Biospheric Studies at Yale, and endow other faculty chairs and the directorship of the Peabody Museum of Natural History. Michael J. Donoghue is the current Hutchinson Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

Sources Photo Credits Much of the material in this publication is drawn from Page 8 Michael Marsland, Yale Office of Public Affairs memoranda produced by the Investments Office for Graph of Tobin’s q data from Grantham Mayo van the Yale Corporation Investment Committee. Other Otterloo. Data from Federal Reserve Board. Design material comes from Yale’s financial records, Reports Strong Cohen of the Treasurer, and Reports of the President. Page 16 The Endowment’s annual return for the ten years ending June 30, 2002 ranks in the top one percent of Pages 7–13 institutional funds as measured by the SEI Large Plan Average educational institution asset allocations from Universe.

Cambridge Associates’ Analysis of College and University Investment Pool Returns, 2001-2002. Printed on recycled paper