Month: February 2026

In a recent FIN News article about the benefits of the OCIO model, Jessica Portis, Chief Client Officer, spoke about how OCIO assets are projected to grow and how OCIOs allow institutions to focus on mission and strategy, rather than day-to-day investment execution.

“There’s this concept of consultants being able to advise, but OCIOs are really able to execute and advise,” Portis said.

Read the full article here
Disclaimer: To access this article, a subscription is necessary. Please note that TIFF does not possess the rights to distribute this content.

The materials are being provided for informational purposes only and constitute neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. These materials also do not constitute an offer or advertisement of TIFF’s investment advisory services or investment, legal or tax advice. Opinions expressed herein are those of TIFF and are not a recommendation to buy or sell any securities.

These materials may contain forward-looking statements relating to future events. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” or “continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Although TIFF believes the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, future results cannot be guaranteed.

Executive Summary

• Transformational capital can significantly accelerate mission impact, but without discipline, it can introduce governance, financial, and strategic risks.
• A concise, investment-focused framework can help nonprofit boards and staff prepare for large gifts and steward them responsibly.
• Transformational gifts should be treated as balance sheet events, not just programmatic opportunities.
• This four-principle framework emphasizes governance readiness, capital discipline, investment and spending alignment, and long-term mission integrity.
• When applied together, these disciplines help convert generosity into durable mission outcomes.

Context: A Framework for Transformational Gifts

An unprecedented transfer of wealth is underway, accompanied by a growing prevalence of large, often unrestricted, gifts to nonprofit organizations. While transformational capital can significantly accelerate mission impact, it also introduces governance, financial, and strategic risks if not managed with discipline.

This article offers an investment-focused framework to help nonprofit boards and staff prepare for large gifts and steward them responsibly as balance sheet events, not just programmatic opportunities.

Principle 1. Governance Readiness Before Capital Arrives

Institutional and Fiduciary Preparedness

Sophisticated donors increasingly seek evidence that an organization is ready for capital, not merely in need of it. Readiness is demonstrated through clear strategic priorities, transparent financial reporting, and thoughtful articulation of how unrestricted funds would advance mission impact.

Equally important is governance capacity. Large gifts magnify existing strengths and weaknesses. From an investment perspective, they often require boards to oversee meaningfully larger and more complex balance sheets. Boards must be prepared to make higher-stakes fiduciary decisions related to risk, liquidity, and time horizon. Organizations anticipating significant gifts should ensure audit, finance, and investment oversight structures are clearly defined, active, and appropriately resourced.

Principle 2. Capital Discipline After the Gift

A Deliberate Strategic Pause

A common post-gift pitfall is moving too quickly into spending or expansion. The best practice is to impose a deliberate pause — often 90 to 180 days — before major commitments are made. For boards, this pause allows time to evaluate how new capital should function on the balance sheet before committing to investment or spending decisions. This period allows organizations to document donor intent, update policies, and conduct scenario and stress testing before capital deployment.

Capital Allocation Policy

Before determining how funds are invested or spent, boards should adopt a capital allocation policy that explicitly addresses:

1. Permanence: What portion of the gift is permanent versus time-limited?
2. Time Horizon: Over what period should the capital be deployed or preserved?
3. Risk Tolerance: What financial and operational risks are acceptable in pursuit of mission goals, and how do those risks interact with existing revenue variability and reserves?

Separating capital allocation decisions from annual budgeting helps preserve strategic clarity and long-term discipline and creates a clearer foundation for investment and spending policy design.

Principle 3. Investment and Spending Considerations

Beyond the Traditional Endowment

Large gifts do not automatically imply permanent endowment. Many organizations benefit from hybrid structures such as board-designated endowments, time-limited capital pools, or multiple investment sleeves with differing objectives and liquidity needs. These structures allow organizations to align investment risk, liquidity, and spending expectations with the role each pool plays in supporting the mission.

The appropriate structure depends on mission volatility, revenue stability, and organizational capacity to govern increasingly complex investment programs.

Investment and Spending Policy Alignment

A larger asset base warrants a re-examination of the Investment Policy Statement, including risk tolerance tied to mission variability, liquidity needs, and governance procedures appropriate to scale. As assets grow, informal practices often need to be replaced with clearer delegation, monitoring, and decision-making frameworks.

Spending policies should likewise reflect the organization’s absorptive capacity rather than default market norms, with phased or dynamic spending approaches often better supporting sustainable impact and protecting long-term purchasing power.

Principle 4. Protecting Mission Integrity Over Time

Managing Financial, Cultural, and Reputational Risk

Transformational gifts can alter organizational culture, incentives, and public perception.

From a balance sheet perspective, boards should consider concentration risk, sensitivity to investment performance, and the long-term effects of relying heavily on a single pool of capital. Transparency should emphasize accountability and learning, rather than performative reporting.

Conclusion

Transformational philanthropy presents a rare opportunity to strengthen nonprofit impact and resilience. Organizations that pair generosity with disciplined governance, clear capital allocation and investment policy frameworks, and thoughtful investment strategy are best positioned to translate large gifts into enduring mission success.

How We Help

At TIFF, we partner with nonprofit boards and executive teams to prepare for, receive, and steward transformational gifts with confidence and discipline. We help organizations answer the most consequential questions these gifts raise:

• How should this capital function on the balance sheet?
• What level of investment risk and liquidity best supports the mission?
• How should spending and governance evolve as assets scale?

This work focuses on capital allocation strategy, investment and spending policy design, and governance readiness, helping organizations make well-governed decisions that honor donor intent while protecting long-term institutional integrity. TIFF’s investment expertise and educational resources are designed to support nonprofits as their balance sheets — and fiduciary responsibilities — grow in complexity.

The materials are being provided for informational purposes only and constitute neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. These materials also do not constitute an offer or advertisement of TIFF’s investment advisory services or investment, legal or tax advice. Opinions expressed herein are those of TIFF and are not a recommendation to buy or sell any securities.

These materials may contain forward-looking statements relating to future events. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” or “continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Although TIFF believes the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, future results cannot be guaranteed.

The NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments FY25 average one-year performance for all institutions is 10.9%, bringing the 10-year average return to 7.7%. TIFF’s November 2025 preliminary FY25 outlook reflects a similar view to the final NACUBO report’s findings on performance.

1. Everyone’s a winner in 2025: There were many ways to win in FY25, as no single asset class was an outlier in performance, in contrast with prior years. No major asset class had negative returns and the bottom 10% of endowments still returning 8.4%. Those who eked out top quartile performance likely had overweight allocations to AI themes (public or private), precious metals (e.g., gold), international equities and hedge funds.
2. Size didn’t matter for the first time in a long time: FY25 performance was relatively even across size-based cohorts. With strong performance across a variety of asset classes, the asset allocation differences across size segments didn’t materialize in meaningfully different performances. While the $5B+ peer group had the highest average FY25 returns at 11.8%, the second-highest returning peer group was the $51M-$100M group with an average return of 11.1%. Historically, endowment size has been a strong determinant of performance, with larger endowments historically outperforming smaller endowments due to larger allocations to private assets. We saw this reverse the past two years (FY23-24), when smaller endowments outperformed their larger counterparts.
3. Narrow band of outcomes: Due to strong performance across all asset classes, there was not as much dispersion in investment outcomes compared to previous years. The interquartile dispersion, which measures the gap between the 75th and 25th percentiles, was 2.4% in FY25. This is low compared to the previous five fiscal years, which saw interquartile dispersion ranging from 3.1% to 7.1%.
4. Operating budgets lean more on endowments: Institutions appear to be increasing use of the endowment to support their mission. In FY25, the average portion of the operating budgets funded from endowments reached 15.2%, compared to 14.0% in FY24 and 10.9% in FY23. While spend rates have remained relatively stable, special appropriations have increased in recent years, particularly for larger endowments. In FY25, the majority of specially appropriated funds went towards the operating budget.
5. Strong returns, persistent headwinds: Despite a positive endowment performance year, higher education faces a myriad of headwinds that are putting pressure on institutions to lean on their endowments. Pressures come from both sides: revenue (declining enrollment, gifts and federal funding) and costs (higher inflation, increased endowment tax). However, different size segments face different pressures. For smaller endowed institutions, enrollment tops the list of concerns, while they also face challenges in fundraising and increasing financial aid. For the largest endowed institutions, the predominant concerns are federal funding cuts and liquidity.

FY25 Asset Class Returns

The materials are being provided for informational purposes only and constitute neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. These materials also do not constitute an offer or advertisement of TIFF’s investment advisory services or investment, legal or tax advice. Opinions expressed herein are those of TIFF and are not a recommendation to buy or sell any securities.

These materials may contain forward-looking statements relating to future events. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” or “continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Although TIFF believes the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, future results cannot be guaranteed.

Executive Summary

• Princeton announced it was lowering its endowment expected return from 10.2% to 8%.
• The main reason cited was a slow, decades-long declining return profile, in part due to changing fundamentals of illiquid asset classes (e.g., private equity).
• The impact is reduced future budget support from the endowment, moving Princeton from a decade of strategic growth to a posture of “focus,” “efficiency,” and “substitution rather than addition.”
• This message of budget constraint comes at a time when multiple headwinds are putting pressure on higher education finances. 2025 saw federal university research funding come under attack, along with an endowment tax increase. This is on the heels of multiple years of above-average inflation.
• Is this a big deal? It feels very dramatic! For Princeton, this is a meaningful change and a very real problem that endowed nonprofits face. Princeton’s budget is highly sensitive to changes in the endowment value, as 65% of the budget comes from the annual endowment draw.
• How did Princeton get here? Over the last 25 years, Princeton has made various strategic choices to increase the amount taken from the endowment (i.e., by increasing the spend rate) and used within the budget, which in turn increased Princeton’s budget allocation from the endowment. These choices have been underpinned by an above-average expected endowment return of 10%, which Princeton maintained until this letter.
• Strategic considerations for endowment institutions:
  • Acknowledge and understand your endowment dependence
  • Understand the spend rate trade-off
  • Periodically assess if one’s portfolio aligns with one’s needs
• TIFF has been helping endowed nonprofits navigate these strategic endowment-related topics for 35 years.

From Growth to Focus: Why the Endowment Matters

In Princeton University’s President’s Annual Letter1, President Christopher L. Eisgruber delivered a sober message that Princeton would be moving from a decade of strategic growth to a posture of “focus,” “efficiency,” and “substitution rather than addition.” Underlying this change in tone was a dramatic reduction in Princeton’s endowment expected return, dropping from 10.2% to 8.0%. The stated reason was “changing market fundamentals” in the investment landscape, particularly in illiquid asset classes (e.g., private equity), which faces more competition today than when Princeton began investing in the 1980s. With 65% of Princeton’s budget coming from the endowment, a reduction in expected return means there will be less available capital to flow into the budget in the future. This belt tightening message also comes at a time when higher education is facing a multitude of headwinds, such as shifting federal funding policies, increased endowment tax (for some institutions), and heightened inflation.

The challenge Princeton faces today is an issue all endowed nonprofits face on a regular basis: how to balance maintaining real purchasing power in the endowment while supporting the institution’s mission. However, Princeton has been in a privileged position for decades, with its above-average endowment returns, sustained growth, and ultimately support for the university’s budget.

TIFF took a deeper look at Princeton and what endowed nonprofits can learn from their situation.

Major Contributing Factors to this Predicament

There are three contributing factors related to Princeton’s budget that warranted a letter. All of these factors are interwoven. When the endowment returns are high, the endowment can support an expanding budget while also growing the endowment’s value. However, when expected returns fall, something must adjust–if the spend rate remains the same, the endowment will start to lose purchasing power. At the same time, when such a large percentage of the budget comes from the endowment, any reduction is felt widely.

1. High endowment dependency / high sensitivity to changes in endowment value: At 65% endowment reliance, Princeton has the highest dependency in the Ivy League2, and far above similarly-sized peer average of 18.3%.3 While this is a privilege to have freedom from external revenue sources (e.g., tuition), it also makes Princeton’s budget highly sensitive to changes in endowment value.
2. High spend rate: The FY25 spend rate was 5.37%, compared to an average peer spend rate of 5.0%.4
3. High required expected return: Princeton has maintained an expected return of 10% or higher, compared to the peer average target return of 8.1%.5

25 Years of Strategic Choices Led Princeton Here

When reading 25 years of Princeton’s annual Report of the Treasurer, it is clear Princeton made strategic decisions to increase the amount taken from the endowment to increase budget support. In the following graphic, I break down 25 years of history into three broad phases. At the end of each phase, Princeton made policy decisions to increase the use of the endowment, which in turn increased the average spend rate and the percentage of operating revenue from the endowment.

Graphic: Summary of Key Princeton Endowment & Budget Related Metrics Over Time

Increased the spend rate policy range by +1.25%, paving the way for larger draws: Princeton voted twice to increase the upper bound of this range, once in 2006 to 5.75% and again in 2015 to 6.25%, with the stated goal of supporting a higher spend rate. In announcing the 2015 increase to 6.25%, Princeton noted that “the Trustees decided that, considering the continued strength of Princeton’s investment program, higher long-term average spending rates could be supported and, indeed, that a higher average rate of spending was needed in order to achieve intergenerational equity, i.e., having endowment spending patterns that balanced the interests of current and future students and faculty.6” Princeton follows a spending policy where the Trustees annually approve a percentage to be taken from the endowment, based on the most recent fiscal year-end value.

Increased endowment draw post-2006: The following 10 years after the first policy change, the average spend rate increased by 14.3%, from 4.1% to 4.7%.

Implemented ambitious strategic plan 2017-2025, pulling more from the endowment: In 2016, Princeton announced an ambitious plan to expand the campus and university offerings.7 It noted at the start of this plan that the university would purposefully draw more from the endowment to support this vision. During this eight year period, the average spend rate increased to 5.12%, up by 8.4% from the prior 10-year average of 4.71%. In addition, during this period, endowment dependency increased in a step-wise fashion. The operating revenue from the endowment for FY14-FY16 was 55%. In the first year of the strategic plan (FY17), endowment support rose to 61% and increased again in FY18 to 65%, where it has generally remained.

Increased endowment dependency by 89%: Over the past 25 years, Princeton’s operating revenue from the endowment increased from 34% in 2000 to 65% in 2025. Each policy increase resulted in a step change in endowment dependency. This has afforded Princeton the ability to implement many of its offerings, such as financial aid packages. However, it also means Princeton has fewer levers to pull in terms of other revenue sources if the endowment doesn’t provide what is expected.

Maintaining of 10% expected return for 25 years: Underpinning all of this financial support is the endowment’s performance and growth. For 25 years, Princeton has maintained its 10% expected return, until 2026. What strikes TIFF as somewhat odd is this consistency. Much has changed in 25 years across all asset classes, and maintaining the same expected return for that length of time is unusual. Perhaps we give Princeton the benefit of the doubt that internally PRINCO had its own varying expectations, and only externally was the 10% noted. However, it is clear that 10% is a key underlying assumption to this endowment-budget relationship, and that assumption did not change.

Three Takeaways from Princeton

1. Acknowledge and understand your endowment dependence: An endowment of any size is a gift for a nonprofit, helping to provide financial resiliency and flexibility. However, when dependence on the endowment in one’s budget starts to become significant, it means one’s institution becomes more sensitive to endowment changes. The cushion from diversification of revenue sources decreases as the endowment dependence increases. Having a clear understanding of this dynamic on one’s budget is important.
2. Understand the spend rate trade-off: Choosing how much to draw from one’s endowment remains an age-old push and pull between supporting institutional needs today while maintaining purchasing power after inflation. For more details on this trade-off, please refer to TIFF’s piece on how to think about changing of one’s spend rate here.
3. Periodically assess if one’s portfolio aligns with needs: Underneath the spend rate and budgetary endowment dependence is the investment portfolio and expected return assumptions. Ensuring that all three of these elements work together in harmony is key to long-term financial health of both the endowment and the institution.

Princeton’s announcement is not just about one university lowering a return assumption. It is a reminder that endowment dependence, spending policy, and institutional specific characteristics must remain aligned, especially in an ever evolving investment landscape. Institutions that proactively revisit these assumptions are better positioned to sustain their missions over the long term.

For 35 years, TIFF has helped endowed nonprofits achieve their investment goals to support their missions. Our work around setting a Strategic Asset Allocation remains grounded in the key issues raised by Princeton’s letter: a portfolio designed to achieve appropriate target returns that support institutional financial needs. As institutions face these questions, TIFF works to help guide the conversation to the answer right for their organization.

The materials are being provided for informational purposes only and constitute neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. These materials also do not constitute an offer or advertisement of TIFF’s investment advisory services or investment, legal or tax advice. Opinions expressed herein are those of TIFF and are not a recommendation to buy or sell any securities.

These materials may contain forward-looking statements relating to future events. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” or “continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Although TIFF believes the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, future results cannot be guaranteed.