President AND CEO.

Last night, in front of the imposing view from the top floor of the International Affairs Building, William C. Dudley, President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was right on the money with his insights into the Fed and our economy. Bwog’s Economic Expert Alexandra Svokos was there to report.

I entered last night’s talk expecting to see a strict William C. Dudley viciously defending monetary policy and banks.  Instead, I found an amiable “Bill” speaking realistically–and recruiting SIPA students to work at the New York Fed.  When not explaining positions available for SIPA grads (hey guys!  over 5% of the bank is Columbia affiliated!), Dudley was forthcoming about the future of the economy as he sees it and his experiences at both the Fed and Goldman Sachs.

Dudley was inspired by the community he found when he became president in 2009, especially having been at Goldman from 1986 to 2007.  The mission at the Fed, he said, was similar to the Marine Corps: get the job done no matter what it takes, but leave no man behind.  This was proven during Hurricane Sandy.  The building lost power but they still managed to complete their work that week.  Dudley compared the supportive group to the highly competitive atmosphere at Goldman Sachs; the people at the Fed are “there for the right reasons,” to make the American economy and financial system better.  There is “no moral ambiguity” at the Fed.

Regarding what’s actually going on in the economy right now, Dudley was also optimistic in his institution.  With interest rates at 0%, they have needed to be more innovative (as you can’t lower it more than that…) but the Fed has risen to the occasion with clever initiatives to generate sustainable growth policies, leading to more public confidence, leading to more growth, and on.  The Fed focuses on the best idea–not where it comes from–meaning they have not been submitting to the most senior person’s plans.  He is “cautiously optimistic with two caveats,” though: “the fiscal cliff and Europe.”

Read more about the ominous sounding “fiscal cliff”…

You fancy, huh?

Supply: of honey is not what it seems! (Food Safety News)

Demand: for water could lead to international tension in the coming years. (NYT)

Supply: of transplant organs in China will drop as the government discontinues the practice of taking them from inmates on death row. (BBC)

Demand: transparency in the administration. (Spec)

Chartz via Wikimedia Commons

Those are a lot of stairs to hop up...

As Dylan once professed, the times they are a-changin’. Although he wasn’t really referring to the climate, we’re going to extrapolate his message and use that as a lede here. Last night, welfare economics/climate change enthusiast Peter Krawczyk got Low (ha!) with Professors Stiglitz and Dasgupta. Hopping ensued.

The Fourth Annual Arrow Lecture in honor of Professor Kenneth Arrow was delivered in the Low Library Rotunda on Tuesday evening. Cambridge University’s Partha Dasgupta and our own Scott Barrett (SIPA) and Geoffrey Heal (BSchool) discoursed. Perhaps due to the time of the lecture or to the consistent rain that was falling outside, there were many empty seats around the periphery of the rotunda as Professor Joseph Stiglitz gave the introductory remarks. However, the combination of a small audience with the friendly rapport of most of the speakers (Dasgupta, Heal, and Stiglitz all studied at Cambridge) lent the lecture a refined and intimate atmosphere of a 19th century academic society, as twilight fell behind the statues of Euripedes, Demosthenes, Sophoclese and Augustus Caesar.

The evening’s topic was “Persons and Time in the Welfare Economics of Climate Change,” and Professor Dasgupta accordingly avoided common debates about the severity and timing of climate change to instead focus on the method of evaluating intergenerational justice as it pertains to climate change. This concept of justice refers to the increasingly apparent evidence that climate change entails costs that will vary across time. By taking steps now to prevent climate change, we are essentially incurring costs upon ourselves in order to lessen the future costs of climate change. How much of our current consumption are we willing to give up so that future generations will be able to consume one unit more?
Read more after the jump!

A tipster has forwarded us a notice that “as a cost-saving measure,” Columbia will be closing the physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology libraries a full year early. According to Physics Department Chair Andrew Mills, who sent the email, “I have received two conflicting reports of the closing date: July 1, 2009 and July 31, 2009.”

As for course reserves and other in-demand books, Mills wrote, “our [Physics] course reserve materials will be held either in the Engineering library or in the Mathematics library until such time as the Science Library in the new science building opens. Some non-reserve books will be moved to the Mathematics library, others to an off-site repository. If you wish to access a book you will need to go to one of the remaining libraries (e.g. math or engineering) and check it out or request that it be extracted from the off-site storage facility.” Bwog is checking on the new locations for other majors’ reserves.

In related news, there does appear to be progress on the new science building: as seen above, workers have begun adding outer skin to the building. Until it opens, affected majors, bone up on your offsite-ordering skills.

- JCD, photo by JYH

PrezBo has decided to close the academic year with a less-than-cheery missive about the University’s budget. Not surprisingly, the numbers have declined more since January: “For the first nine months of the University’s fiscal year ending on March 31, 2009, the value of the endowment declined nearly 22%, with private investments and real assets valued on the normal one quarter lag as of December 31.” But, PrezBo claims, “while hardly good news, my sense is that this constitutes strong relative performance both compared to benchmark averages in the financial markets and university endowments nationally.”

As for cost-cutting measures, “meaningful expense reductions have been set in place.  Additionally, many salaries across the University will be held constant.” Additionally, as already announced in January, new hires will be “reviewed” across the university (read: will be significantly less likely), and no new “capital projects” will be started.

And it looks as if creditors are satisfied so far: “last week both Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s reaffirmed their highest credit rating, Aaa and AAA respectively, for Columbia’s debt.” Other revenue streams continue to remain strong, including tuition. Then again, Bwog suspects tuition will continue keeping you poor, but at least no one’s going to be repossessing your room during finals. Full email after the jump. (more…)

Ah, memories of when money grew on trees: a study by the Council for Aid to Education determined that Columbia raised $495.11 million in Fiscal Year 2008, an increase of 17% over FY 2007, good for third in the country. The only two schools to raise more money than Columbia? Stanford ($785.04 million) and Harvard ($650.63 million). 

Overall, the 1,052 institutions in the report raised $31.6 billion, an increase of 6.2%. However, that number may be the last increase for several years, as Ann Kaplan, the director of the study, told the Wall Street Journal that many institutions “hit a wall” at the start of the year. Kaplan also predicts that the new year could see the steepest year-to-year decline in decades. So if you see one of these people, consider giving them a hug. Seeing Manhattanville in your lifetime could depend on it.

- JCD

The Wall Street Journal reports that Columbia’s Economics department, along with Econ departments across the country, is hiring no new economists this year. Last year, Columbia made nine new hires, eight of whom were snagged from other schools.

Economists can generally make more working for the government or the private sector, but, for obvious reasons, jobs in those areas are not quite as plentiful as they used to be.

On the well-employed side of the economist equation, Columbia econ prof Jagdish Bhagwati weighed in on protectionism in the federal bailout package, arguing against a ‘Buy American’ provision in the bill. Sadly, the stimulus has no provision aiding ailing econ PhDs.   

Columbia economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz recently spoke at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland. In interviews at the week-long summit, Stiglitz has called for more government action, labelling current public economic stimulus “totally inadequate.” He advocates a less taxcut-based stimulus plan in the United States. He also predicted a global trend toward social welfare states common in Europe.

“There will be more emphasis on the welfare state,” he said. “But there will also be more emphasis on incentives within the welfare state.”

The conference is normally an opportunity for business titans and world leaders to pat themselves on the back for successful free market growth, but in this year’s gloomy climate, Stiglitz is sure to garner attention.   

Another month, another depressing e-mail about the state of Columbia finances: earlier this evening, President Bollinger sent an email to the Columbia community (which may or may not have reached your inbox at this point) about the state of the endowment, and this time he included actual figures! After spending a paragraph on why “Columbia has maintained its impressive momentum as one of the world’s great research universities,” PrezBo announced that “during the six-month period ending December 31st, the total return of the University’s investment portfolio declined by approximately 15%.” 

The decline, while still significant, is not as bad as it could have been. Last month, Barnard announced a six-month decline (of the entire endowment, as opposed to its investments portfolio) of around 25%, while Harvard and Yale lost 22% and 25% on their investments, respectively, through the end of October (at that point, according to Bollinger’s email, Columbia’s own decline was only 11.8%).

Bollinger closes the dispatch with a summary of the budget cuts ahead. “Although certain parts of the University (such as the central administration) are significantly dependent on endowment for operating revenue…” he writes, “the University as a whole counts on its endowment for only 13% of operating budget.” Even though this number is lower than Columbia’s peers, Bollinger says, “to facilitate a smooth transition to these new financial realities, we are asking all budget units to model an 8% decline in endowment funds available for operations next year.” Bwog would like to suggest a 100% cut in the War on Fun. Full email after the jump. (more…)

Suggesting that frozen-yogurt customers are perhaps less than loyal, Tasti D-Lite experienced a 75% decline in sales in the first semester before abruptly departing campus this past Friday. Was it off-campus flex? The introduction of (more popular) Pinkberry? The economy? We’ll probably never know.

As for what would go in its place, Columbia Dining Services told Bwog that “a brand like Chick-Fil-A or Jamba Juice would rather have a location with foot traffic 365 days a year.” In addition, the space formerly occupied by the Tasti kiosk has no running water, just electricity, which rules out many potential vendors (Tasti employees apparently cleaned/washed up down in the Lerner student kitchen). Regardless, any new location would appear “probably in the fall,” and would be selected with input from the Dining Advisory Committee (which includes each school’s student services representatives).

PrezBo had already “conceded that the endowment was down” at his last fireside chat, but now Bwog has some information on the scale of the damage:

At the University Senate’s monthly plenary on Friday, PrezBo told the Senate that, over the fiscal year, Columbia’s endowment has lost “about the same” percentage as Harvard’s, which lost 22% of its value in the first four months of the new fiscal year. 

He declined to give more specific figures at the public plenary, but Bwog has been told that the number may be a little less than Harvard’s — somewhere around 20%. More specific figures should be coming in the near future. Regardless, the loss marks a steep fall from last fiscal year’s 2% rise

Tipster Tadi Ciszak director our attention to sustainable development guru Jeffrey Sachs, professor to the stars, who made at cameo at today’s House Financial Services Panel regarding a possible bailout for automakers.

That’s Chrysler CEO Robert L. Nardelli in the front, who, along with other executives from G.M. and Ford testified on the Hill today.

Why is Jeffrey Sachs there? He’s a well-respected economist for sure, and was most likely brought in to offer his opinion. In fact, in another MSNBC video (after the jump), Sachs warns against letting the auto makers fail. We’ve been watching him for minutes, and at about 28 seconds in, he tussles his hair with boyish nonchalance, which seems to be some sort of window in his psyche. What else is he trying to tell us?

(more…)

In which Lecture Hop Editor Pierce Stanley takes in the second of two economic forums held at Columbia last night.

Another spectacle of epic proportions has come and passed in Roone Arledge Auditorium.  Yet, last night’s Presidential Economic Forum courtesy of Columbia’s Program for Economic Research and co-sponsored by the Economics Department, the Committee on Global Thought, and the Business School seemed to pass quietly into the night with a whimper far more than with a bang.  While not quite on the level of spectacle that characterized the original Obamacain affair, yesterday’s Presidential Economic Advisors Forum, which pitted self proclaimed “data hound” Austan Goolsbee, Senior Economic Advisor of the Obama-Biden ticket and former Director of the Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Chief Economic Advisor of the McCain-Palin camp against a serious panel of Columbia Economics department heavy-hitters, including Professors Richard Clarida, Janet Currie, Joe Stiglitz, and Michael Woodford, resembled a high school policy debate round moderated by a panel of seriously pretentious judges more than a forum of any academic import with serious implications for the fate of the economy. (more…)

The B-schoolers aren’t the only ones effected by the recent economic downturn.  It turns out undergrads are too! Instead of offering advice on how to save money, this week Bwog on a Budget returns with a special money-making feature. 

The long and the short of it is simple: Bwog is broke.  Given our economic state, there’s little sense in discussing how to save money since there’s no money to be saved.  Yes, indeed the time has come for Bwog to make some money. But when the times are tough, finding work is hard.   And finding work is especially hard for Columbia students, who not only prefer not to waste their talent doing remedial labor but also have their cumbersome class schedules to take into account.  And while the minority of employed folks may receive a steady flow of cash each month, by October 18th, September’s paycheck certainly must have diminished.

Bwog’s done some research and discovered that Columbia’s most lucrative resource is just where you’d expect to find lucrative things and people.  Tucked away on the second floor of the business school library is Columbia’s Behavioral Research Lab.   If you are desperate enough, Bwog understands and suggests you sign up to receive the Behavioral Research Lab‘s bi-weekly announcements. 

(more…)

Economy remains not-so-hot; PrezBo begins to “cut back in a lot of little different ways,” no big deal.

College Democrats and Republicans gather in same room, give each other silent treatment.

Wait, being an English major is worthless?!?

Camels roam streets, Spec reporters kissed by llamas, all just a few short blocks away!

Queer sex controversy at Barnard like you’ve never seen it before! As if you’ve ever seen it before!