4 ms·

I think it doesn't include administrative type people? The chancellor makes about that much

by gyrgtyn 7y ago

lisper 7y ago
It does include them. I saw the chief investment officer mixed in amongst the MDs.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  Being cheap with your chief investment officer doesn't sound like a good idea. Besides, a proper CIO's pay is tied to getting good investment returns.
  - logifail 7y ago
    > Besides, a proper CIO's pay is tied to getting good investment returns [...] Q: What happens to the typical CIO and his/her package when returns aren't "good" ?
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      Fired.
      - akiselev 7y ago
        With a golden parachute.
        WalterBright 7y ago
        Golden parachutes are not decided on after the fact. They are agreed upon in advance when they are hired. The only reason companies offer them is to get the best people they can. The person running your investments can make or break you. You're going to hire the best you can, and that's going to cost. And someone with a track record of making it rain is going to know this and know what they're worth. If you want a golden parachute yourself, you're going to need to build a track record of success first showing you're worth it.
        namdnay 7y ago
        > And someone with a track record of making it rain I think you kind of summed it up there... There are better things for a university to be doing than paying rainmakers
        ChrisLomont 7y ago
        >There are better things for a university to be doing than paying rainmakers Dozens of university endowments are over a billion dollars, with significant returns when under good management. Ignoring the returns possible on that means the students and state has to pay more to continue the university. Endowments often consist of hundreds or more fund, usually set up by donors, to advance some part of the university, which very often is scholarships and other direct student benefits. It's incredibly short-sighted to downplay them without understanding the benefits.
        namdnay 7y ago
        Good management is one thing. Rainmakers are another. I’m not sure why a university needs someone actively managing funds instead of using passive vehicles
        logifail 7y ago
        > The person running your investments can make or break you How would one propose to distinguish* someone who will deliver growth for - say - 25 consecutive years from someone who delivers growth for 5 years yet blows up your endowment in year 6 ? * beforehand ;)
        WalterBright 7y ago
        Their track record.
        logifail 7y ago
        > Their track record If you think that "25 years of not blowing up" is a sure-fire way to predict the risk of blowing up in year 26, I would recommend reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

I think it doesn't include administrative type people? The chancellor makes about that much

lisper 7y ago

It does include them. I saw the chief investment officer mixed in amongst the MDs.

WalterBright 7y ago
Being cheap with your chief investment officer doesn't sound like a good idea. Besides, a proper CIO's pay is tied to getting good investment returns.
- logifail 7y ago
  > Besides, a proper CIO's pay is tied to getting good investment returns [...] Q: What happens to the typical CIO and his/her package when returns aren't "good" ?
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    Fired.
    - akiselev 7y ago
      With a golden parachute.
      - WalterBright 7y ago
        Golden parachutes are not decided on after the fact. They are agreed upon in advance when they are hired. The only reason companies offer them is to get the best people they can. The person running your investments can make or break you. You're going to hire the best you can, and that's going to cost. And someone with a track record of making it rain is going to know this and know what they're worth. If you want a golden parachute yourself, you're going to need to build a track record of success first showing you're worth it.
        namdnay 7y ago
        > And someone with a track record of making it rain I think you kind of summed it up there... There are better things for a university to be doing than paying rainmakers
        ChrisLomont 7y ago
        >There are better things for a university to be doing than paying rainmakers Dozens of university endowments are over a billion dollars, with significant returns when under good management. Ignoring the returns possible on that means the students and state has to pay more to continue the university. Endowments often consist of hundreds or more fund, usually set up by donors, to advance some part of the university, which very often is scholarships and other direct student benefits. It's incredibly short-sighted to downplay them without understanding the benefits.
        namdnay 7y ago
        Good management is one thing. Rainmakers are another. I’m not sure why a university needs someone actively managing funds instead of using passive vehicles
        logifail 7y ago
        > The person running your investments can make or break you How would one propose to distinguish* someone who will deliver growth for - say - 25 consecutive years from someone who delivers growth for 5 years yet blows up your endowment in year 6 ? * beforehand ;)
        WalterBright 7y ago
        Their track record.
        logifail 7y ago
        > Their track record If you think that "25 years of not blowing up" is a sure-fire way to predict the risk of blowing up in year 26, I would recommend reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb.