1

The University’s Finances - II

Spring Semester, 2010

2

Primary Budget Variables•Revenue

▫Pricing Comp Fee Discount Rate Net Revenue per student

▫Enrollment▫Endowment▫Giving

•Expenditures▫ Salaries and Wages▫ Benefits▫ Expendables▫ Debt Service

3

Revenue Side of the Equation

4

2009-2010 Price Increases of the NCG

Kalamaz

oo

Trini

ty C

Kenyo

n

Ohio W

esley

an

Alleg

heny

St. L

awre

nce

Muhlen

berg

Dickins

on

Carlet

on

Vass

ar

Wooste

r+

Macale

sterDre

w

Buckn

ell

Bates+

Skidm

ore

Holy C

ross

Colby

Deniso

n

Colgate

Conne

cticu

t+

Hob/W

m. Smith

Middleb

ury+

Gettys

burg

Hamilto

n

Wheato

n, IL

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

Median – 4% Mean – 4.2% SLU – 5%

5

• Vassar $51,470• Trinity $51,400• Bates $51,300• Skidmore $51,196• Connecticut $51,115• Colgate $50,940• Middlebury $50,780• Bucknell$50,320• Hobart/William Smith $50,245• Carleton$50,205• Dickinson $50,194• St. Lawrence $49,925• Hamilton $49,860

• Kenyon $49,410• Holy Cross $49,341• Gettysburg $48,500• Drew $48,385• Macalester $47,392• Denison $45,720• Muhlenberg $45,580• Wooster $44,280• Ohio Wesleyan $44,254• Allegheny $42,000• Kalamazoo $40,419• Wheaton, IL $35,496

Comprehensive Fees

St. Lawrence University Ranks 13th in the NCG

6

2009-10 Price Increases of Admissions Overlap

Group5.0% 4.9%

3.9% 3.9% 3.7% 3.6% 3.5%3.0%

Median =3.9% Mean = 4.1% SLU-5%

7

•Skidmore $51,196•Colgate $50,940•Union $50,440•Colby $50,320•Hobart/WS $50,245•Dickinson $50,194•St. Lawrence $49,925•Hamilton $49,860

Admissions Overlap Group

8

Comprehensive Fee Discount Rate

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 30.0

32.0

34.0

36.0

38.0

40.0

42.0

44.0

Class of

9

NCG Estimated 2007-08Comprehensive Fee Discount

Middleb

ury

Skidm

ore

Conne

cticu

tColb

yBate

s

Buckn

ell

Dickins

on

Trini

tyC

H & W

S

Kenyo

n

Colgate

Hamilto

n

Gettys

burg

Carlet

on

Wheato

n

Deniso

n

Vass

ar

CHoly C

ross

St. L

awre

nce

Alleg

heny

Macale

ster

Muhlen

berg

CWooste

r

Kalamaz

oo0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

10

SLU Net Comprehensive Fee Revenue/Student

91 93 92 94 95 96 97 98 99 01 00 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10$0

$5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000

Fiscal Year

11

NCG 2007-08Comp Fee Revenue/Student

Middleb

ury

Skidm

ore

Conne

cticu

tBate

sColb

y

Colgate

Buckn

ell

Trini

tyC

Dickins

on

Hamilto

n

Kenyo

n

Carlet

on

Gettys

burg

Vass

ar

CHoly C

ross

St. L

awre

nce

Deniso

n

H & W

S

Macale

ster

Muhlen

berg

CWooste

r

Alleg

heny

Kalamaz

oo

Wheato

n -

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

12

Enrollment (2 semester avg)

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 151000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

Fiscal Year

Projections Assume FY Class of 600

13

NCG 07-08 Enrollment (FTE)

Buckn

ell

Colgate

Gettys

burg

Middleb

ury

Muhlen

berg

Trinity

C

Deniso

nDre

w

Carlet

onColb

y

Hamilt

onBate

s

Kalamaz

oo -

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

14

SLU FY to Sophomore Retention Rate

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 127476788082848688909294

Class of

Perc

ent

Reached All Time High Retention Rate this Fall

15

Endowment Investment Performance

1984-85

85-86

86-87

87-88

88-89

89-90

90-91

91-92

92-93

93-94

94-95

95-96

96-97

97-98

98-99

99-00

00-01

01-02

02-03

03-04

04-05

05-06

06-07

07-08

08-09

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

$220

$240

$260

$280

-30.00%

-20.00%

-10.00%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

$50$63

$72 $72$80 $80 $86

$97$107$110

$126

$145

$172

$195$207

$214$200

$174$170

$199$211

$230

$269

$245

$188

Year End Market Value Investment Return

16

Endowment Spending Model

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31100120140160180200220240260280300

Endowment MV Spending Base

$ in millions

Actual Projected

17

Giving

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

NCG 25th percentileNCG 25th percentile*NCG 25th percentile*

NCG 25th percentile*NCG 25th percentile*NCG 25th percentile*NCG 25th percentile*NCG 25th percentile*

NCG 25th percentile*NCG 25th percentile*NCG 25th percentile*

NCG 25th percentile*

NCG 75th percentile

NCG 75th percentile*

NCG 75th percentile*NCG 75th percentile*NCG 75th percentile*

NCG 75th percentile*NCG 75th percentile*

NCG 75th percentile*NCG 75th percentile*

NCG 75th percentile*

NCG 75th percentile*NCG 75th percentile*

NCG Median

St. Lawrence

St. Lawrence

NCG median and 25th & 75th percentiles are based on 25* institutions (not including St. Lawrence).The data reflected in this chart are self-reported and are not official CAE numbers and , therefore, are subject to change when those num-bers become available.**Do not release this data to the public. Preliminary replies are available for analysis by dataminer subscribers only. This data is not considered official until released by CAE in mid-February. For internal purposes only**

$14,228,754 Actual FY09

18

Expenditure Side of the Equation

19

Salaries, Wages and Benefits - 59% of Operating Budget

•Salaries total $46 million•Salary Policy

▫One more year of policy▫Policy level is NCG average increase plus 1%▫NCG Base is likely to be very small (<1%)

•Union Contracts▫Contracts end June, 2010

20

SLU Administrative Salaries vs. NCG

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

Wei

ghte

d M

ean

Sala

ries

($

in 0

00's

)

% D

iffer

ence

Source: CUPA Admin and Mid-Level Salary Survey

5.35%5.45%5.45%

4.3% 3.4% 8.0%3.0%

Pool Increases:4.0% 5.1%

6.2%

21

SLU Faculty Salaries vs. NCG Median

95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 090

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-8%

-7%

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

Sala

ry $

in T

hous

ands

% D

iffer

ence

fro

m N

CG

Pool Increases:

3.5% 4.8% 3.5%6.2%

1.5%3.0% 5.3% 5.45% 5.2% 4.4%

8.6%3.1%

4.0%6.2% 6.1%

22

Benefits - $17M▫Health Care - $4.2M▫Retirement Plan - $3.7M▫FICA - $3.2M▫Tuition Benefits - $3.1M

23

Expendables - $27M•Utilities $4.6M•Food $3.2M•Travel (business and athletics) $3.4M•Fac & Equip maint/repair $2.4M•Int’l Program payments $2.0M •Print/copy/mail $1.9M

24

Debt Service

Original Interest* Principle** Total2009-10 5.2 3.5 8.72010-11 5.0 3.5 8.52011-12 4.8 5.0 9.82012-13 4.7 5.0 9.72013-14 4.6 4.6 9.2

*Includes interest rate swap **Based on original payment schedule

$ in millions

25

Hi/Mid/Low Projection$M 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 Total

Impact5%* 77.1 80.0 83.3 88.0 92.5 -4% 76.0 77.6 79.7 82.8 85.8 -19.03% 74.9 75.3 76.0 77.8 79.3 -37.6

Comprehensive Fee - Net Student Revenues

$M 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 TotalImpact

37% 76.8 79.4 82.4 86.7 91.2 -4.436%* 77.1 80 83.3 88 92.5 -35% 77.5 80.7 84.3 89.3 97.9 8.8

Discount Rate – Net Student Revenues

*Indicates current variable value

26

Hi/Mid/Low Projection$M 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 Total

Impact625 77.9 81.4 85.5 90.5 95.1 9.5600* 77.1 80.0 83.3 88.0 92.5 -575 76.3 78.4 80.9 84.6 88.9 -11.8

Enrollment – FY Class Size – Net Student Revenues

$M 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 TotalImpact

9% 11.7 10.8 10.9 11.3 11.8 0.78%* 11.7 10.7 10.8 11.1 11.5 -7% 11.7 10.7 10.8 11.0 11.3 -0.3

Endowment Return – Formula Income

*Indicates current variable value

27

‘Best’ & ‘Worst Case’ – FY2010-11Best Case Base Case Worst Case

Comp Fee Incr.DiscountFY Class

5%35%625

5%36%600

3%37%575

Revenues Comp Fee Discount Enrollment

-+0.4+0.8

$108.2M $107.0M

-2.2-0.4-0.8

103.6

Expenditures $106.0M $111.0M $111.0M

Net Operations $2.2M -$4.0M -$7.4M