OT: UT oil $ giving Harvard a run
- Thread starter fang
- Start date
Tax free, baby! And none of it to be spent on tuition assistance to help reduce costs for in state residents at the in state school system.
and for what now, the last 20 years or so, UT has led the nation in doing le$$ with more in athletics than anyone in the country
Well thats different from the article. Good to hear.
Infrastructure improvements are important, but keeping costs down for those who live in the state is more important.
Kind of. Some ESG investors claim that ESG investing is different from "socially responsible investing", that ESG investing is recognizing that ESG issues are risk issues and they will actually get better returns by taking those risk factors into account. In fact, I think that was the original meaning of it. And it transitioned from that, to taking having such a long horizon on certain issues that it was basically irrelevant to near term returns and was functionally "socially responsible" investing, to just being flat out making policy/political statements with investing. Now a lot of people want to essentially act like ESG is socially responsible investing when they are virtue signaling and/or marketing, but then when they are questioned on returns (or questioned whether they are sacrificing returns of state owned funds), they retreat to the "no, no, it's just risk factors that help maximize returns". I have no clue which statement is more ********. I think mostly ESG is a marketing tool for funds and they don't let it impact returns to much. But I think for funds with principal agent problems (e.g., state pension funds), they acctually do sacrifice returns if that is what they think will keep the business for them.
That's a whole gang of words, but I still haven't seen where somebody was saying it was costless.
How is it different from the article? Funds that go into the $42B endowment have been put to use to help tuition costs for instate residents. It’s exactly what you said none of it would be spent on.
I looked up NFL draft picks over the past 10 years for another post in reply to CookieMonster about PAC 12 vs. SEC talent level. I got curious, and did the same thing for Texas.
In the past 10 NFL drafts, Texas had had 24 draft picks and only 2 first round picks. Mississippi State had had 31 picks and 4 first rounders.
Incredible.
From the article...
I read that to mean funds cant be spent on tuition assistance and scholarships. It does say 'for most of the schools'. There are 8 in the UT system, I think? Wonder which can use funds and why.
Now that so much money is coming in from oil to be spent on the things you listed, it makes it easier for other revenue streams going into the same $42B endowment to be spent on tuition. The oil money inadvertently allows more tuition assistance. If I have a side hustle that’s making enough to now pay my mortgage, I can then earmark more from my salary to a nice vacation or a home improvement project.
I understand your comment that they restrict oil money to certain things, but it’s all one big budget in the end. I think it could be problematic if the restricted funds ended up becoming some crazy percent of the total.
ETA: I was wondering how much a new $300M was relative to MSU. We have nearly $700M in our endowment and about 50% goes to scholarships. Oof.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, see if this helps:
The "cost" is lower returns, but lots of ESG investors claim there won't be lower returns, but higher returns, and therefore costless.
There are a few of those movie star girls I could make queen of my double wide, this could work out.
Interesting tactic to double down on your ignorant comment and pretend you can't read a compound sentence. Kudos on the persistence.
Being you keep bringing this up, kindly show me a specific person or entity claiming there is no downside risk aka costless.
Holy ****. It's like half the people claiming to be ESG investors. Here is Larry Fink, who is one of the people most criticized for utilizing other people's money to push his personal beliefs, walking back his social responsibility talk and claiming it's just good investing:
"We focus on sustainability not because we’re environmentalists, but because we are capitalists and fiduciaries to our clients. That requires understanding how companies are adjusting their businesses for the massive changes the economy is undergoing. As part of that focus, we are asking companies to set short-, medium-, and long-term targets for greenhouse gas reductions. These targets, and the quality of plans to meet them, are critical to the long-term economic interests of your shareholders."https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/2022-larry-fink-ceo-letter
Did I miss the word "costless" or is it not there? Also LOL literally the next paragraph:
The transition to net zero is already uneven with different parts of the global economy moving at different speeds. It will not happen overnight. We need to pass through shades of brown to shades of green. For example, to ensure continuity of affordable energy supplies during the transition, traditional fossil fuels like natural gas will play an important role both for power generation and heating in certain regions, as well as for the production of hydrogen.
Are you arguing over whether somebody has used the literal phrase "it will be costless" or whether people claim that ESG investing won't cost investors compared to non-ESG investing?
What in this statement do you think implies they are going to give up returns to choose things they think are more socially responsible?
Either Highschool football players in Texas are over rated or all the good ones are leaving the state. The fact that Baylor is the best football program in Texas speaks volume.
Post-materialism. That's F.U. money so admins likely can do what they want regardless of whether it angers the Bubbas. Lots of extra play money for sports. Cool hash bars on South Congress in a decade. Masks required (Don't be a Karen). Hopdoddy's ready for when you get the munchies.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.