The Myths and Perils of Carryforward Balances

Transcription

1 The Myths and Perils of Carryforward Balances Maria Anguiano, University of California, Riverside Kelly M. Ratliff, University of California, Davis Su-Lin Shum, University of California, Davis

2 Agenda 1. Systemwide perspective 2. Campus background and context 3. Campus approach

3 The University of California includes 10 Campuses, 5 Academic Medical Centers and 3 National Laboratories Established in 1868 and Governed by a 26-member constitutionally autonomous Board of Regents Educated over 235,000 full-time equivalent students in FY Employs 140,000 full-time equivalent employees UC s assets total $53 billion UC s research enterprise includes more than 800 research centers, institutes, laboratories and programs

4 Operational Liquidity THINGS TO CONSIDER Daily/ monthly & seasonal needs (debt service) Reserving for extraordinary circumstances Incoming cash flow patterns Balancing investments vis-à-vis timing of operational needs Framing institution s policy for various constituent groups Rating impacts Opportunity costs Institutionalizing requirements

5 UC s financial strength benefits from diverse revenue streams which flow in throughout the year DOE Labs 4% Revenues in FY State 10% Other 6% Medical Centers & Auxiliaries 45% Student Tuition & Fees 14% Total $24.3 Billion Grants & Contracts 22% Over the past five years, UC has consistently focused on optimizing liquidity KEY QUESTIONS: Supplies 9% What is the right level of liquidity to maintain on hand, given our operational needs and ratings agency requirements? How do we evaluate the trade-off of holding liquidity vs. investing in longer term assets? Given a target level of liquidity, how can we work with campuses to ensure those targets are met?

6 UC s Target Liquidity Policy Remainder moved to longerterm investment vehicles to increase potential returns as risk profile permits Daily Operating Needs Investments should be sufficient and liquid enough to cover daily operating needs (such as payroll, debt service, etc) Diversify Investment Portfolio Meet Rating Agency Requirements Funds should cover extraordinary liquidity needs and comparable metrics of days cash to other universities Sufficient Long-term Liquidity Short-term assets should hold enough rating agency defined investments to meet daily and weekly coverage requirements

7 UC has 2 Investment Vehicles for Current Funds: The Short-Term Investment Pool (STIP) & Total Return Investment Pool (TRIP) STIP Short-Term Investment Pool (STIP) is the investment vehicle for all operating funds of the University All revenues flow into STIP, and all expenditures (operations, payroll, debt service) are paid from STIP Target Return Rate: 2.4% Asset Allocation: 100% Fixed Income TRIP Total Return Investment Pool (TRIP) was launched in 8/2008 as an alternative investment to STIP TRIP is designed to maximize return on long-term working capital, subject to an acceptable level of risk, by investing across a broad range of asset classes Target Return Rate: 4.75% Asset Allocation: 50% Public Equity; 20% Fixed Income; 30% Alternatives

8 UC Liquidity is a vast ocean with ripples on top The most significant inflows and outflows of liquidity are planned, and represent large expenses such as payroll and debt service Since 2004, we have not had a black swan scenario affect liquidity STIP Daily Inflow/Outflow as a % of Total % 15% 10% 99% of the time between 6% (+/-) 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% STIP Inflow/Outflow -20%

9 Liquidity is aggregated into STIP each day, and then a portion is invested in TRIP All campus funds are aggregated into one pot of working capital Funds used across campus STIP STIP: Aggregated Working Capital TRIP Working capital all goes into STIP Money gets moved to TRIP as a % of total cash, not fund by fund

10 We have gone through a multi-year process to move excess investments in short-term assets into TRIP UC STIP/TRIP Ratios Former (2010) Future (2014) From Oct 2010 June 2013, we moved $2 billion to TRIP Resulted in incremental $100 mm in interest income over that period Liquidity optimization work in 2012 / 2013 identified remaining ~$2 billion overinvestment in short-term assets Currently moving $2 billion from STIP to TRIP

11 Campus Perspective

12 There s an Elephant in the room We call him Carry Forward

13 What has UC Davis done to get him out in the open?

14 UC Davis Campus Facts Started in 1905 as the "farm" for UC Berkeley. Founded as a separate campus in Students as of fall 2013: 34,000 4 colleges, 6 professional schools 99 undergraduate majors 90 graduate programs 23 intercollegiate sports (NCAA Division I) UC Davis accounts for $6.9 billion and 69,000 jobs Member of the Association of American Universities 1 st in the world for agriculture and forestry (QS World University Rankings, 2014) 9 th ranked public university by U.S. News & World Report Research Funding: 13 th among U.S. ranked public universities 21 nd among public and private universities Health System: Top Hospital and "A" Hospital Safety Award, Leapfrog Group Consumer Choice Award, National Research Corporation 22,500 employees (4,100 academic, 14,900 staff, 3,500 students) 1 st in Sierra Magazine 2012 Cool Schools Survey

15

16 New Budget Model

17 2020 Initiative Growth Plan CA National & International

18 What are Carryforward Balances? Unexpended balances at the end of the year net revenue, plus prior year balances designated use is not easily reflected in the balance often the result of salary or other savings occur in most fund sources

19 Why are Carryforward Balances Important? Fiscally responsible management practice Secure funds for multiyear commitments in advance Manage financial risk Note: few formal mandates prohibiting balances at UC

20 A LOOK BACK Carryforward Balances Highly decentralized management of funds No uniform policy or guidance about appropriate levels Multiple approaches about management of funds Inconsistent information

21 MYTHS What we Hear in the Absence of Carryforward Guidance LACK OF UNDERSTANDING Units: We have no money! Leadership: Why is there so much money? ENTITLEMENT This is my money! I/my department have critical plans FEAR You are going to take it all!

22 Disclaimer! We had to centrally assess carryforward funds in 2012 as a result of a significant budget shortfall; this practice is not viewed as routine.

23 PERILS What we Risk in the Absence of Carryforward Balances Lack of stewardship for our students, citizens, other funders Inconsistent reporting limits strategic planning Mismatch between priorities and funding sources

24 What we Wanted Strategic decision making Consistency Transparency Flexibility While Considering Current and future fiscal scenarios Impact to student fees New budget model 2020 Initiative Enrollment growth Campus and unit priorities

25 OVERVIEW What Did we Do? 1. Researched best practices 2. Engaged the education advisory board 3. Partnered with accounting and key campus units to establish methodology 4. Issued guidance white papers Policy Framework Reporting and Recording Guidance 5. Consulted with key campus stakeholders 6. Repeat step 5

26 Options Considered Approach Methodology Description A B C D E F Unit Held and Used Central Campus Review Spend Down Levy (tax/holdback) Applied Percentage- Based Limits Absolute Limits Units accumulate and use carryforwards/reserves at their discretion Carryforward amounts reviewed centrally and assessed for reasonableness ; no prescribed limits or further policy set Options seen at other institutions: - full/partial spend down expected in the next year - full/partial spend down prior to asking for additional central funds A central campus levy or holdback e.g., 3%, 15%, 25%, 85% applied on carryforward balances Specific %-based limits established (e.g. 0.2%, 2%, 2.5%, 3%, 5%, 10%) and applied on an account, fund type or budget basis by unit Pre-determined dollar limits established (e.g. $10k, $25k, $50k, $100k, $150k, $300k) and applied on an account, fund type or budget basis by unit/college. Approaches E and F can also work in combination

27

28

29 APPROACH TAKEN B with Guidance 10-15% (30-60 DAYS CASH) For funds managed through campus budget model (state, tuition) and all student fees 25% (90 DAYS CASH) For funds with a higher degree of volatility e.g., indirect costs, patent funds, unrestricted funds, etc.

30 COBL and KOBL RECORDING FUTURE COMMITMENTS Consistent process to account for funds already committed COMMITTED OBLIGATIONS (COBL) Hard commitments that restrict the use of funds and/or may be legally binding KNOWN OBLIGATIONS (KOBL) Potential expenditures

31 Examples Start-up funding for faculty recruitment and retentions Graduate fellowships Endowed chairs Contract employees Equipment Renovation Bridge funding

32 Process STEP ONE Create a standard reporting template

33 Process STEP TWO Spring review

34 Process STEP THREE Fall review

35 Process STEP FOUR Strategic decisions

36 What we are Seeing USE OF CARRYFORWARD FUNDS Engaging in new conversations with decision-makers Investments to meet local priorities Better timing of budget information Advancing Chancellor and Provost goals

37 Resources Budget and Institutional Analysis: Carryforward White Papers: Education Advisory Board: Affairs-Forum/Custom/2012/08/Calculating-and- Communicating-Carry-Forward-and-Reserve-Policies