Singapore universities could do more to shed light on endowment returns

US UNIVERSITIES Harvard and Princeton made headlines recently, posting endowment returns of 27.1 per cent and 23.7 per cent, respectively, for the financial year ended June 2026.

While much focus was on the eye-catching figures, what stood out to me was how much the schools shared about their investments.

Disclosures include longer-term performance, investment strategies and asset allocation, offering insights into how two of the world’s wealthiest universities manage their portfolios.

Their approaches may vary, but stakeholders have access to enough details to compare their investment performance over time.

In Singapore, making such comparisons is more challenging.

The country’s six autonomous universities – the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Management University, Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore Institute of Technology and Singapore University of Social Sciences – collectively manage billions of dollars in endowment funds.

These funds provide financial support for scholarships, research, academic programmes and other initiatives.

To be sure, all six universities publish audited financial statements, but these do not necessarily give a clear picture of investment performance.

The value of an endowment fund and how it changes tell only part of the story. An endowment’s assets can grow because of increased donations or grants – even when its investments have performed poorly.

SEE ALSO

Singapore’s wealth management success should extend to everyday families

Tamagotchis and Toy Story: Why the market for millennials is booming

When did entry-level jobs stop being for beginners?

Without returns calculated and disclosed on a consistent basis, it is difficult to assess and make meaningful comparisons.

For its latest financial year ended March, NUS reported a nominal investment return of 4 per cent, alongside a 10-year annualised nominal return of 6.4 per cent. After adjusting for inflation, its annualised real return was 4.5 per cent over the same decade. 

Such disclosure is not yet the norm among universities here.

Greater consistency, stronger public accountability

Given that autonomous universities benefit from substantial public funding, including government matching grants for endowment donations, there is a case for more consistent disclosure of investment performance metrics beyond existing financial reporting requirements. 

This is not a call for local universities to pursue aggressive returns or to match their investment strategies to those of their US counterparts such as Harvard and Princeton, which operate under different financial circumstances. 

Indeed, approaches may vary significantly even among local universities. A newly set up institution building its endowment would have different priorities compared to an established one managing billions.

But these differences should not detract from the need for transparency. Rather, it becomes even more vital for stakeholders to understand how investments are managed, what objectives are guiding these decisions and whether they are on track. 

A common minimum disclosure framework requiring autonomous universities to publish annual investment returns, alongside five to 10-year annualised figures, where available, would be a good start.

These institutions could also disclose broad asset allocation, investment objectives and performance benchmarks, without compromising sensitive investment positions. Such information would enable stakeholders to differentiate market fluctuations from longer-term investment performance.

Greater disclosure could also strengthen donor confidence by giving a clearer picture of how effectively these funds are being invested.

Ultimately, a common baseline for disclosure is not about maximising returns at all costs, but about strengthening transparency and accountability to ensure that universities can continue to serve generations of students to come.