<p>Makes sense to me. We did the same in 2002-2006 for college costs. Article states that Pton’s borrowing costs about 5% interest. Our PLUS interest rate was ~4.5% in 2002-2003. Guess what we did? </p>
<p>The financial companies were guaranteed 6.5%, with the difference made up by the taxpayer. It took a D Congress to change the formula in early 2006. </p>
<p>Our current PLUS rate is ~2.5%, fixed for 22 more years. I won’t tell you the Stafford rates, you’d cry tears and accused us of raping-the-taxpayer. But I’d tell you blame it on the R’s who insisted on deficit spending</p>
<p>Did we sell securities to cover college costs?</p>
<p>Another very good perspective. Finally someone pointing out the obvious conflicts of interest that lead to questionable valuations in private equity.</p>
<p>@381 - fine for a family investing in the long-term future of their offspring. Not so fine if you chronically need a bank loan to pay the babysitter or other current, household expenses. The latter is what Pton is doing.</p>
<p>It depends on your outlook and financial attitude.</p>
<p>I came out of college with a $1,000 loan at one or two percent for ten years. My biggest problem was remembering to make the payments (they were quarterly) and scrounging up a stamp and an envelope. I just paid the whole thing off after a year to avoid paperwork. We paid off our mortgage very early too.</p>
<p>Harvard’s investments admittedly are in resourses and longterm investments. Selling these investments, even if they could be valued, would be contrary to the philosophy of the original purchase. </p>
<p>Your home purchase can be a longterm investment too. When the purchase was made will greatly influence how you view continued ownership. Those who purchased/refinanced during the W years will see their investments underwater regardless of carrying costs. Those who purchased in H.W years worried more about the carrying interest costs and less so than the purchase amount. We too accelerated home payments because the interest rate was much greater than our increase in pay. </p>
<p>And no, we didn’t sell securities. Dividends off the securities were exceeding the cost of borrowing,** Unbelievable. ** Besides, selling at a loss, guarantees a loss, (which I generally don’t believe is a good investment philosophy).</p>
<p>Nearly half of the Dartmouth ED admits (47%) will receive financial aid…</p>
<p>Dartmouth took a larger number ED bcos it’s gonna increase its Frosh class by ~50 students. (Obviously, a way to increase revenue with little increase in marginal costs.)</p>
<p>@#386 - if you’re implying that Harvard was in danger of invading principal, then of course, borrowing makes much more sense. However, I don’t think even Walter Cabot has made that allegation – yet. One person’s “selling at a loss”, is another person’s “taking profits.”</p>
<p>Looks like the increase in ED admits at Dartmouth is related to the idea of increasing the class size to boost revenue (see post #359) rather than boosting revenue by admitting more full-pays. Either way they are fishing for more money.</p>
<p>In what Dean of Admissions Maria Laskaris said was partly a result of recent discussions on increasing class size to generate additional revenue, Dartmouth offered early admission to 461 students on Tuesday, 60 more than last year.</p>
<p>“If there was a time — if we are going to grow — this was a great pool to do so with,” Laskaris said.</p>
<p>The College received a record 1,594 early applications, up from 1,571 last year. About 29 percent of students who applied early were accepted to the College.</p>
<p>If College officials ultimately decide not to increase the size of the freshman class, the admissions office will accept fewer students than planned during regular decision, making that process slightly more competitive, Laskaris said.</p>
<p>It’s been dead for a long while. What was still unersolved was what to do about the giant hole left behind. I do feel for the Allston residents. But perhaps some businesses will be motivated to move in temporarily so that the site is not too much of an eyesore.</p>
<p>I think it is just beginning to sink in just how serious the budget issues at colleges and universities really are. Even the schools that have weathered the endowment declines relatively unscathed are making real cuts.</p>
<p>look for some real surprises with debt downgrades this year and a new wave of debt offerings. I think some of these U’s are going with the things are improving with the endowment spin but I’m not sure i’m buying it.</p>
<p>Interesting that a lot of international loans default. I wonder if it is wise for Columbia to take on this debt. Perhaps they have no choice. I guess that’s the two-edged sword when you sell a product that a lot of people have to borrow big money for. In the international students case, it seems to me that the “asset” is completely unsecured.</p>
<p>Something seems odd here. I would have thought they would be happy to get 80-85% on these investments. Why did they even go through this process-have things changed that much in the past 3 months. I think this article gives us about 10% of the real story-would be nice to hear the other 90%.</p>
<p>Good, well written articles on Harvard. 2 +2 = 4…even for the smartest guys in the room. Revenues and costs are important.</p>
<p>Stanford…I guess Stanford is feeling better about its financial situation and/or the assets it owns.</p>
<p>Asset prices are up in the last 6 months in the public markets. Some assets anyway. So maybe Stanford is more confident about the private markets.</p>
