(08-17-2014 10:08 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote: (08-17-2014 02:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote: (08-17-2014 12:57 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote: (08-17-2014 12:05 PM)nzmorange Wrote: (08-17-2014 11:01 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote: Neither has any role in what I posted above.
Right, so when you said:
*Miami's endowment moved from #94 to #103
and
*Miami's R&D funding moved from #52 to #59
you weren't talking about absolute rankings?
And, you don't see a connection between low interest rates and credit ratings and debt to asset ratios? Or do you now mean to deny that you mentioned that Miami's credit rating dropped from A1 to A3 and Miami's total assets to liabilities ratio changed from 2.781 to 1.870?
My statements stand. Low interest rates have little to do with the regression of the financial strength at the university. The "rankings" are notable only to show the comparable performance in these direct measures compared to peer institutions. Miami hasn't advanced...barely keeping pace...despite significant fundraising and heavy investment specifically in what is mostly federally-dependent health/biomedical research which you obviously aren't aware of. "New institutions"? I can't even follow the logic of that suggestion as such institutions have zero impact on Miami in either of those. Thoroughly irrelevant.
Why don't you actually try looking up some information about Miami. There's plenty of public information out there that will give you an indication of some of the stuff that has gone on. There are direct (and poor) strategic and financial decisions that have been made that have negatively impacted the university.
Really, I'm uncomfortable delving much further into Miami's dirty laundry and can't go into anything that isn't already publicly available. Google is your friend. Take or leave it. I'll be very happy for Miami when there is a regime change.
Your measurements of financial strength are strongly related to the economy, which affects every institution. You then supported your statement by showing an absolute ranking, while conveniently ignoring percentile rankings (which are far more applicable). You then claimed that somehow outside factors and relative rankings are irrelevant with a slew of ad hominem attacks without giving any explanation supporting *any* of your claims, substantive or otherwise.
You seriously have no idea what you are talking about, and you certainly didn't look into anything. Believe what you want.
I'll explain. You seem to be absolutely clueless. During recessions, organizations tend to lose money. That causes their assets to decrease.** Interest rates also tend to decrease because, if the recession is big enough, the Fed will cut interest rates in an attempt reduce the cost of capital. That acts as a HUGE incentive for an organization to take on debt. One would expect an organization to have a stronger assets to liabilities ratio right before a recession that right after it. Therefore, showing Miami's numbers from right before a recession and right after a recession doesn't prove anything. It's what one would expect, even with good management. Honestly, if the cost of capital was reduced such that an organization could borrow money and invest it with a positive return, wouldn't you want that organization to do so?
Secondly, if school A was ranked in the top 1% in 1900, it might have been in the top 2 schools in the country (I'm not sure how many colleges were around in 1900, but I'll guess somewhere south of significantly over 200). A school ranked in the top 1% today would put it in the top 20-30 (there are at least 2,000 colleges in some form bouncing around today). Therefore, such school could have dropped from 2 to 20 while maintaining it's same relative rank. Conversely, if the school remained #2, it would have actually gotten more selective over time when compared to every other college in America. It would have improved by staying the same. That's the difference between absolute rankings and relative rankings.
Showing an absolute ranking over time is meaningless, much like showing an asset to liabilities ratio without some kind of relative comparison. When those statistics/rankings are made relative (i.e. Miami's asset to liabilities ratio compared to the median and/or average college's over that same time) then they are meaningful rankings/statistics. Otherwise, it only highlights your complete lack of understanding of either math or finance.
**This alone is enough to cause the ratio to appear less favorable, especially since (but not reliant on the fact that) monetary assets (i.e. Cash) have values that float on balance sheets (as opposed to non-monetary assets (i.e. Land), which is pegged at its acquisition cost less any adjustments (i.e. depreciation to non-land assets).
