Sounds like a transition problem. Somebody left, retired, or got fired and
the responsibilities never got reassigned. It went on for two years is what
surprises me the most. What else got orphaned ? I’ve seen this sort of thing
happen several times at a large company; but it usually doesn’t get missed for
2 years.
1 Like
this is some incorrect information
in the 2025 NACUBO The Texas State System reported $2.1 billion up just over 50% from the prior year of $1.4 billion and that is up from $720 million in 2023
the north Texas State system reported $377,679,000 and I do not recall (and am too lazy to look it up again) what the prior year was for 2024
so Texas State has reported TUF to the NACUBO for the prior two years while north Texas state has not and the above communication has that backwards
the jumps for Texas State are based on being TUF PEER “level 2” in the first year and now they are TUF PEER “level 1” so they go from a 1/6th split of 75% of the available money to a 4/16th split of 75% of the available money which equals about $562.5 million more in “endowed dollars” for each level in movement…so 2023 was prior to TUF being in place…2024 TUF was in place and Texas State was PEER “level 2” and would have included about $610 million and then for 2025 becoming PEER “level 1” there was an increase on the TUF endowment total dollars (I am not sure how much), but the move up in PEER levels equals about $562.5 million doing some quick simple math because there is still the other 25% of the TUF funding that is not PEER based so again Texas State adds that for 2025 and probably a bit more based on some other factors
north Texas state is still PEER “level 2” so if they did report they would only be adding $610 million more to that whopping $377 million and they will possibly qualify for PEER “level 1” in 2027
it looks like TAMU-CC is going to join the TUF next year as well
Tech is reporting $3.069 billion for the system and the UT System now has the individual universities reporting their own private endowments and then the PUF as the system which is the smart thing for them to do to showcase UTD reporting $892,724,000 and the merged UTSA-UTHSC-SA $1.21 billion
I am not sure what has been reported to IPEDS by any of them
282 227216 University of North Texas Foundation Denton TX
Institutionally-related foundation (IRF)
4-Year Public College/University
Doctorate Non-HBCU 377,679 323,190 16.86
North Texas does not appear to report to NACUBOwith 2025/2024 numbers being 377,679 / 323,190
84 228459 Texas State University System¶ Austin TX
Public college university or system fund
4-Year Public College/University
Master’s Non-HBCU 2,114,538 1,407,321
Texas State University System’s fiscal year-end is 8/31, but the endowment market values are based on 6/30. Totals include the combined market values of the Development Foundation and the McCoy College of Business Foundation.
TSUS does appear to have included TUF money in the endowment.
And the 2025 distributions were as follows .
and the letter above says
However, Texas Tech and UNT both reported that they were going to include TUF in the NACUBO common fund survey.
but north Texas state did not include it in the NACUBO
and the email above for some reason (probably because the person that sent it was too lazy to really see what was said) does not include what Texas State is going to do at all for the NACUBO…which they are going to include it because they did…and they did for 2024 as well
those TUF distributions are for 2025 based on 2024 metrics (or 3 year averages of metrics in the case of research doctorates and private/federal research dollars)…Texas State would have been PEER “level 2” at that time and between that time and the time that NACUBO endowment metrics are reported Texas State became PEER “level 1” and thus they will automatically get about $22 million or more or so in additional TUF distributions for all the years going forward or possibly more than that which means the amount they would have reported to the NACUBO would increase significantly and their research productivity average is going to increase by a good amount and their research doctorate productivity will increase as well, but in a less meaningful amount
trying to work backwards with the numbers leaves some guess work, but most of the $1.4 billion increase in the Texas State System reported numbers to NACUBO from 2023 to 2025 would be based in Texas State U including their TUF distributions in the NACUBO numbers
and then including the move from PEER “level 2” to “level 1”
either way the email from the individual at UH was just a “throw out a reply with a reason why this was not done” and showed no interest in really getting the information right just relaying a reason for not getting something done (which seems even less relevant considering it is two years in a row the numbers have not been sent to the NACUBO
the NACUBO has (for some reason) stopped allowing access to recent past years data for free, but I have access to it
the 2023 numbers will be before the TUF was in place UH System $1.045 billion, Tech System $1.7 billion, Texas State System $720 million
2024 shows the jump of the Texas State System of $680 million to $1.4 billion so about $610 of that would be TUF PEER “level 2” and the other TUF money
it shows a jump of Tech of almost $1.2 billion so about $1.1 billion of that would be TUF PEER “Level 1” and the other money
it also does not show UH anywhere in there and I included the screen capture all the way down to one billion to show no UH with or without TUF money
in 2025 we show what north Texas state is still reporting to the NACUBO and then we start at a level that is below what UH last reported in 2023 that also happens to show individual UT System schools and we go see Texas State again making another jump of $700 million to $2.1 billion and then Tech at $3.069 billion and well beyond that with UH still not listed (and 2025 available for view on the NACUBO site)
so again the email from the person at UH seems to show some misinformation about the intentions of Texas State and north Texas state as far as what they are going to report to the NACUBO because the exact opposite of what was stated happened in the case of north Texas state and they did not bother to include Texas State even though you think they would have ask them if they bothered to contact them and had information from them about their intentions for IPEDS
and again it shows the two very large jumps by the Texas State System numbers and I know of no massive gift to any other component in that system (though I have not researched that), but I do know that it would be a meaningful increase in the TUF endowment reporting dollars to go from PEERS “level 2” to “level 1”
Seems like a simple mistake of switching what UNT and TSUS plans were in the email. No big deal IMHO.
My important takeaways from the email are
-
the schools are treating it differently in their submissions.
TT and TSUS including it; UNT did not. UH didn’t submit and appears
to acknowledge the future amount “claimed” of TUF could go down as more
systems are added to TUF. -
hopefully the purpose of the email has been addressed with
communication of plans to submit in 2026.
1 Like
I see it as more of a “how can we cover our ass” email
again lets look at what was said in the email
The university has discussed the inclusion of Texas University Fund (TUF) in a variety of different reports and surveys, as it is a unique situation given that the UH System (UHS) does not control the funds or have possession of them and that the recipients can change.
Our financial reporting team reached out to the other “TUF” universities in Texas to find out what they were planning to do. We learned that for IPEDS, Texas Tech was going to include TUF, but North Texas (UNT) and Texas State were not. However, Texas Tech and UNT both reported that they were going to include TUF in the NACUBO common fund survey. Unfortunately, that survey had already closed for 2025 when it was identified as an option.
now lets parse those statements based on what we know for a fact
you emailed to ask about the 2025 survey…when it has been shown in the screen captures above that in 2024 Texas Tech and Texas State had already included the money in the NACUB 2024 survey
so for whatever reason they were not even aware of that
then the email states that Tech and north Texas State were going to include the TUF money in the survey…and again for some reason no mention of Texas State for the NACUBO only for IPEDS…when again it was already clear what those universities had done in 2024
so one would have to ask why were they not aware of what had actually happened, why were they claiming they did not do so because “Unfortunately, that survey had already closed for 2025 when it was identified as an option.” when it was clear in 2024 that was an option and it was clear in 2024 what all 3 of the other university systems had done and it was clear what systems had included it and what one had not
so they were completely unaware for a year about what had already happened (and seemingly unaware they had not reported anything for 2024) and then they relayed incorrect information about their poor excuse with the statement about when they became aware of that being an option vs. when the survey closed…unless of course what they are really saying is that they did not ask Tech and north Texas state what they were going to do about the NACUBO (and one would think they ask Texas State since they said they ask them about the IPEDS) until after the NACUBO survey closed…to which the proper answer would be “we simply missed the deadline and forgot to do it” (again for two years in a row)…and one would think as someone working in the administration at a university they would at least get the story somewhat straight about Tech, north Texas state, and oh yea Texas State…but of course I think they were just tossing something out there to see if it stuck
in addition there is other incorrect information as well with this statement
and that the recipients can change.
while it is true the universities (or systems) do not control the money and thus I fully agree there should be a discussion about if it to be included or not…and I will even agree that “recipients can change” BUT the important part about that statement that makes it incorrect and irrelevant to the inclusion or non-inclusion of the funds in the endowment reporting numbers is the two facts that once a university is a TUF participant they remain a TUF participant…there are currently no metrics that a participant would drop below to lose funding
so what that means is there can only be a change in participants with the addition of new participants…and even more important is the fact that participation has a “hold harmless” in it which means that any new member added or any current member moving from PEER “level 2” to PEER “level 1” can only be approved to so if that change does not cause any reduction to current funding for any current members
so as of now the move of Texas State from PEER “Level 2” to PEER “level 1” means there will be no reduction in funding for any of the four current participants…and this year (2026) it is highly likely that TAMU-CC will become TUF eligible
The State of Texas adds $100 million annually to the corpus of the fund currently and that has been budgeted and (I am fairly certain) that The State of Texas can budget even more if needed to allow the addition of universities to the TUF or the movement upwards in PEER level
and Texas has budgeted for two such cases currently and currently north Texas state is possibly going to move up in PEER level in 2027
so it is clear for Texas State to move up and only if it does not impact current funding of existing members with a reduction to prior funding will any new adds or PEER advancements happen
so what that means is there is absolutely no reason to have concerns about “that the recipients can change” because the addition or advancement on PEER level will not impact others funding with any reduction to the current levels and as stated before once you are a TUF participant there is no metric to keep meeting to fall out of participation
so the person that sent you that was again giving a poor excuse for any concern about reporting the funding or not reporting it because there is no real concern about a reduction in funding based on new participants or becoming a non-participant and they clearly do not have a good grasp of how the TUF works (and really made no effort to learn about it) before sending that “hey here are some excuses” email
and one other thing “systems” are not added to the TUF individual universities are and individual universities that are PUF participants are not eligible to participate in the PUF
the only reason the “system” matters is because Texas State (only very recently) and UH and Tech make the dumb mistake of reporting their endowments on a system basis instead of on a university basis…I suspect that Tech and UH did this in the past to “bump up” and I think the Texas State System did that as well and it really crapped on Texas State (which is not a flagship because of the TSUS being a “weak system” structure) because it happened right when the TUF kicked in and the individual university would have moved up in the numbers as the individual university instead of as “the system” that now can have that out there of no real benefit to other members, but removing the benefit that Texas State gained from becoming a TUF participant and that showing for them as the university (and no they will not become a flagship of a “strong system” structure)
As I said, I’m fine with the email, as it met my objectives.
If you’re worked up over specific details in an informal email, follow up with UHS finance, or a state agency if you think serious fiduciary issues or laws
are being broken.
1 Like
Today I see UHF has updated thier system endowment numbers to
205 million from 194 million in January. UH-V name has been removed from
the home page but still has a campus building photo up.
2Q FY2026 posted; overall ~4 million increase in endowment with 15 million in receipts, but rather large $60 million distribution taken as well.
That investment income looks really low considering the market.
It’s been in that range for last several quarters. The big numbers come from the
net unrealized appreciation for last 2 quarters at least. I believe those numbers reflect investments in the market equities (31 million and 21 million)
3 Likes
Where does that 60 million go??
Athletic dept subsidy.
/s
No idea actually. There is usually one large distribution a year in Q2 or Q3.
Some is dedicated to scholarships, as defined by the donor, pays for endowed chairs(and research ?) or funds various UH institutes.
Maybe some goes to finance campus construction ?
Past distributions.
2026 Q2 60 million
Q1 27
2025 Q4 2
Q3 2.7
Q2 51
Q1 12
2024 Q4 2.25
Q3 48.7
Q2 1.6
Q1 2.6
1 Like