Page 1

FY19 ANNUAL REPORT


CONTENTS 02

L E T T E R F R OM TH E BOARD C H AIR & P RES IDEN T/CEO

04

8 4T H A N N UAL BUS INE SS M EETING & FO UNDATI ON WEEKEN D

10

F Y 1 9 F U N D R AIS ING REP O RT

12

F Y 1 9 N E W BUS INE SS

14 U N I V E R S I T Y O F ILLINO IS SYSTE M CAM PAIGN HI GHLI GHTS 16 W I T H I L L I N O IS CAM PAIGN H IGH LIGH TS 18 I G N I T E C A M PAIGN H IGH LIGH TS 20 R E AC H I N G STE LLAR CAM PAIGN H IGH LIGH TS 22 F Y 1 9 E N D OWM ENT REP O RT 34 F O U N DAT I O N LE AD ERS H IP


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

“TOGETHER, OUR DONORS CREATE A COLLECTIVE POWER THAT PROPELS OUR UNIVERSITIES TO REMARKABLE HEIGHTS." JAMES H. MOORE, JR. President/CEO, University of Illinois Foundation

R EPOR T


LETTER FROM THE

BOARD CHAIR AND PRESIDENT/CEO There are dozens of descriptions of power, but the one that matters most to the University of Illinois Foundation is the power generated by you, our alumni and friends. That is why we chose “The Collective Power of Giving” as the theme of our 84th Annual Meeting in October. We wanted YOU—the tens of thousands who invest time, talent, and treasure in the University of Illinois—to know how great an impact you make on the university and how much we appreciate you. Whether you attended our UIF business meeting in person or via the web, we hope you enjoyed hearing about the fantastic accomplishments your collective power has generated. If you were unable to attend, you can read about the results of your generosity within the pages of this Annual and Endowment Report. Your kind and caring philanthropy are what makes the University of Illinois System one of the world’s greatest institutions of higher learning, and we cannot be more grateful. The Foundation had another extraordinary fiscal year, and we are pleased to share the details of its financial performance. Our three campaigns— Reaching Stellar, IGNITE, and With Illinois—are more than 75 percent of the way to their $3.1 billion system-wide goal thanks to you. Specific facts and figures are included in this report. We are pleased with our progress, but know we must keep working hard to keep your collective power growing. Since 1935, the Foundation has been committed to securing and managing gifts to benefit the University of Illinois. Today we support nearly 89,000 students, more than 7,000 faculty members, over 800 facilities, and hundreds of educational and research opportunities in Urbana-Champaign, Chicago, and Springfield. Thank you again for everything you have done and continue to do for the altogether extraordinary University of Illinois. We look forward to sharing the details of fiscal year 2020 with you at our 85th Annual Business Meeting and Foundation Weekend October 22-24, 2020, and hope you can join us. Sincerely,

ALAN D. FELDMAN Immediate Past Chair, Board of Directors

02

JAMES H. MOORE, JR. President/CEO

L ETTE R F R O M THE BOARD CHAI R & PRESI DENT/CEO


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

REPOR T

03


I CONTINUE TO BE OVERWHELMED BY THE GENEROSITY OF OUR DONORS AND I AM PROUD OF THEIR LOYALTY AND CONFIDENCE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS SYSTEM. TIMOTHY L. KILLEEN

President, University of Illinois System

U of I System President Tim Killeen spoke to guests at the 84th Annual Business Meeting. He shared an update on all-time high enrollment, on-going extraordinary faculty hires, pioneering research initiatives that are driving economic progress, and much more—all of which is accomplished through the support of our donors.

04

84TH A N N UA L B USINESS MEETI NG & FOUNDATI ON WEEK E ND


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

REPOR T

84TH ANNUAL

BUSINESS MEETING & FOUNDATION WEEKEND OCTOBER 10–12, 2019

Hundreds of alumni and friends gathered in Urbana-Champaign for the 84th Annual Business Meeting and Foundation Weekend. It was a wonderful celebration of the collective power of our generous donors and their unwavering commitment to the University of Illinois. The festivities kicked off Thursday evening with a reception in the beautiful, state-of-the-art Electrical and Computer Engineering Building. Friday morning more than 450 people joined the Foundation for breakfast and the Annual Business Meeting at the Krannert Center for Performing Arts. The business meeting featured remarks from Foundation and university leaders who shared board updates, financial reports, campaign progress, and points-of-pride from the past fiscal year. A highlight of the meeting was an inspiring panel discussion led by Stu Levenick, a governing director. Stu and fellow FY19 governing directors, Nita Francis, Saul Morse, and JosĂŠ Santillan shared their thoughts on the importance of giving and what motivates and rewards each of them in their philanthropic work with the University of Illinois. The weekend festivities also included the unveiling of the Dick Butkus statue, an open house at the Bruce D. Nesbitt African American Cultural Center, the dedication of the Henry Dale and Betty Smith Football Center, a With Illinois luncheon and dinner, a pre-game tailgate, and the Fighting Illini football game vs. Michigan. It was terrific to see such a diverse, thoughtful, and inspiring group of donors gathered together. It is their enthusiastic and passionate support that enables our faculty, students, and staff to truly be altogether extraordinary.

SAVE THE DATE: The 85th Annual Business Meeting and Foundation Weekend will be October 22-24, 2020.

05


A panel met at center stage to share insights on the importance and impact of philanthropy in higher education. UIF board member, Stu Levenick (opposite page, far left), led the energetic discussion with fellow board members (above, clockwise from left) Nita Francis, JosĂŠ Santillan, and Saul Morse.

06

84TH A N N UA L B USINESS MEETI NG & FOUNDATI ON WEEK E ND


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

REPOR T

Please visit the Foundation’s Annual Meeting website for event photo galleries and business meeting playback.

UIF.UILLINOIS.EDU/AM2019

07


Foundation Weekend guests enjoyed a cocktail reception in the atrium of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Building on Thursday, October 10. More than 150 people gathered to kick off the weekend’s festivities. Speakers included Jim Moore, UIF President/CEO; Alan Feldman, UIF Immediate Past Chair; and Rashid Bashir, dean of The Grainger College of Engineering.


10

F Y 19 F UN D R A ISIN G REPORT


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

R EPOR T

FUNDRAISING REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2019

The University of Illinois System and the University of

Of this fiscal year’s cash totals, the greatest contribu-

Illinois Foundation released an impressive fundraising

tions came from alumni (26 percent), family founda-

report for fiscal year 2019 with $462.9 million in new

tions (21 percent), and corporations (26 percent). The

business, comprised of new gifts, grants, pledges, and

remaining 27 percent was contributed by friends (10

deferred commitments.

percent), foundations (4 percent), and the category of

Fundraising for the fiscal year that ended June 30,

“other” (13 percent).

2019 was second only to last year’s impressive $498.5

The cash flow allocation was designated by donors

million, and marks just the third time that the fiscal

to a number of categories including $75.8 million for

year total surpassed $400 million. The Foundation first

research, $46.7 million for student support, $25.2

reached the $400 million milestone in fiscal year 2013

million for facilities, $23.9 million for academic

with $434.9 million in new business.

programs, $11.2 million for faculty support, $11.8 million

Of the new business total, 62 percent was contrib-

for public service, and $4.4 million for other areas.

uted by alumni ($134.1 million or 29 percent) and family

Of the $298.7 million total, $99.7 million was desig-

foundations ($150.8 million or 33 percent). The remain-

nated by donors to a university, college, department

ing 38 percent came from corporations ($55.6 million),

or program for its unrestricted use at the discretion of

friends ($54.4 million), foundations ($25.4 million), and

the dean or unit head.

“other” ($42.6 million). (The “other” category includes

The majority (69.1 percent, or $206.4 million) of the

giving vehicles such as donor advised funds, which

$298.7 million was designated as current use funds

continue to grow in popularity by individual donors.)

(to be used during the current fiscal year), while 29.9

“I continue to be overwhelmed by the generos-

percent ($89.3 million) was designated for the endow-

ity of our donors and I am proud of their loyalty and

ment and 1.0 percent ($3.0 million) was designated for

confidence in the University of Illinois System,” Pres-

annuity/life income funds.

ident Tim Killeen said. “We will reward their trust,

“Support for the University of Illinois comes in many

using their investment to build on the momentum

different shapes and sizes—from thousands of individ-

that is increasing our power as an engine of progress

uals, corporations, and foundations each year,” said

making our system a model for higher education in

U of I Foundation President/CEO James H. Moore.

the 21st century.”

“Together, our donors create a collective power that

The financial report includes $298.7 million in outright

propels our universities to remarkable heights. I am

cash gifts, pledge payments, annuity/life income gifts,

incredibly grateful for their generosity and awed by

and estate distributions. It was the second highest

their powerful investments in our three extraordi-

figure in history, trailing the historic high bar set last

nary universities through our With Illinois, Ignite, and

year by just under $4 million. Cash flow total surpassed

Reaching Stellar campaigns.”

the $220 million mark for the seventh consecutive year.

11


FY19 NEW BUSINESS

New Gifts, Grants, Pledges, & Deferred Gift Commitments

$462.9 MILLION 81.5%

15.6%

$377.1 Million

URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

CHICAGO

1.8%

SPRINGFIELD

1.1%

$72.0 Million

$8.5 Million

$5.3 Million

SYSTEM

FY 2015–2019 NEW BUSINESS GROWTH

Fiscal Year (July 1–June 30)

$498.5M $295.5M

$286.2M

$286.3M

2015

2016

2017

2018

$462.9M

2019

FY19 NEW REVOCABLE & IRREVOCABLE COMMITMENTS

$93.8M 12

FY19 N E W B USIN E SS

$400M+ 3RD TIME IN HISTORY

*Irrevocable gift arrangements administered by UIF

90%

8%

2%

Revocable Estate Plan Commitments $84,847,484

Charitable Remainder Trusts* $7,488,598

Charitable Gift Annuities* $1,442,026


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

R EPOR T

FY19 NEW BUSINESS SOURCES

29%

12%

38%

12%

9%

ALUMNI

FRIENDS

FOUNDATIONS

CORPORATIONS

OTHER

$134.1 Million

$54.4 Million

$176.2 Million

$55.6 Million

$42.6 Million

FY19 NEW BUSINESS DESIGNATIONS

• • • • • • • •

FOR 13 CONSECUTIVE YEARS NEW BUSINESS HAS SURPASSED

RESEARCH // $68.4M FACILITIES // $56.0M STUDENT SUPPORT // $89.3M ACADEMIC PROGRAMS // $34.6M PUBLIC SERVICE // $11.6M FACULTY SUPPORT // $28.3M OTHER // $5.3M UNRESTRICTED // $169.4M

DONORS IN FY19

GIFTS IN FY19

$250,000,000 88K+ 145K+ 13


Many of the 89,000 students across the University of Illinois System take advantage of leading edge research opportunities.

14

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS SYSTEM CAMPAI GN HI GHLI GHTS


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

REPOR T

OVERALL CAMPAIGN GOAL

$3.1 BILLION 75.7% OF GOAL

Raised

Gifts

UILLINOIS.EDU

$2.35B 739,627 197,579 Donors

PROGRESS AS OF 09.30.19

For up-to-date progress, please visit the campaign website.

In the fall of 2017 university campaigns were launched in Urbana, Chicago, and Springfield with a collective, system-wide goal of $3.1 billion. Now, two years into the public phase of the campaigns, we are pleased to report the progress is off to a tremendous start. With the loyal backing of our donors, we have raised $2.35 billion in support of our exceptional universities and are just over three-quarters of the way toward our goal. “The generous gifts from our donors keep lifting us higher, and your commitment is why we are never afraid to dream bigger in our push to better serve the needs of our faculty, staff, and students and drive a new era of progress,� said Timothy L. Killeen, president of the University of Illinois System.

15


On October 11, 2019 the beautiful Henry Dale and Betty Smith Football Center was dedicated and a larger-than-life statue of legendary football great, Dick Butkus, was unveiled. Photo courtesy of Illinois Athletics

16

W ITH IL LIN O IS CA MPAI GN HI GHLI GHTS


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

REPOR T

WITH ILLINOIS CAMPAIGN GOAL

$2,250,000,000 79.5% OF GOAL

$1.79B 543,331 142,405 Gifts

Donors

WITH.ILLINOIS.EDU

Raised

PROGRESS AS OF 09.30.19

For up-to-date progress, please visit the campaign website.

More than 500,000 gifts from over 140,000 donors have helped With Illinois climb to nearly 80 percent of its $2.25 billion goal. Highlights from the fiscal year included the renaming of the College of Engineering to The Grainger College of Engineering. The naming was announced after a $100 million gift from the Grainger Foundation brought their overall commitments to more than $300 million. Another significant highlight was a $20 million gift from the H.D. Smith Foundation to support the Henry Dale and Betty Smith Football Facility, scholarships for student athletes, and innovative research at the Carle Illinois College of Medicine. Additionally, millions of dollars were raised in support of innovative research, passionate faculty, and the best and brightest students. These examples, and the thousands of donors who contribute both large and small gifts, provide the collective power that fuels the world-leading excellence and forward-thinking innovation at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

With You. With Illinois.

17


Nursing students work in the new state-of-the-art childbirth simulation lab, where they will learn labor and delivery skills in a sophisticated simulated healthcare setting. Photo courtesy of Mark Mershon

18

I GN ITE CA M PA IGN HI GHLI GHTS


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

REPOR T

IGNITE CAMPAIGN GOAL

$750,000,000 66.7% OF GOAL

Raised

93,226 Gifts

40,576

IGNITE.UIC.EDU

$500.2M

Donors

PROGRESS AS OF 09.30.19

For up-to-date progress, please visit the campaign website.

The vision and passion of UIC donors at all levels is energizing the entire campus and is setting a new standard in education that pushes boundaries and redefines success. As of September 30, 2019, UIC has raised just over $500 million toward their ambitious $750 million goal. In fiscal year 2019, donors to IGNITE supported student access and faculty excellence, including gifts of $11.8 million to support students and $5.2 million to empower faculty. There were also several significant contributions from family foundations and individuals including a $3.65 million gift from the Fulk Family Foundation to support a professorship in art history, a $2 million gift from Carol Retzky to support an innovation fund in pharmacy, and other major gifts in excess of one million dollars to the health sciences and engineering.

It all starts with a single spark.

19


The UIS Student Union has become the social heart of campus for students.

20

R E AC HIN G STE LLA R CAMPAI GN HI GHLI GHTS


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

R EPOR T

REACHING STELLAR CAMPAIGN GOAL

$40,000,000 78.5% $31.4M 80,940 Raised

Gifts

UIS.EDU/REACHINGSTELLAR

OF GOAL

14,236 Donors

PROGRESS AS OF 09.30.19

For up-to-date progress, please visit the campaign website.

Reaching Stellar has gained tremendous momentum and as of September 30, 2019 has climbed to 78.5 percent of its lofty $40 million goal. Nearly 15,000 donors have generously contributed in support of campaign priorities that include: scholarships, academic excellence, the UIS Center for Lincoln Studies, public good, facilities and technology. Some notable points of pride from fiscal year 2019 include a $3.8 million gift to support an innovative program that will not only benefit UIS, but also the broader Springfield community. UIS also received a multi-million dollar gift to support Honors Scholarships. Faculty and staff at UIS rallied behind their university with more than 50 percent of this group contributing to the campaign. This earned them the distinction of having one of the top faculty and staff campaign participation rates in the country.

The stars are aligned.

21


ENDOWMENT REPORT ELLEN ELLISON, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER

ECONOMIC & MARKET REVIEW

22

Markets and investors were whipsawed during the fiscal

the last 12 years by an average of 2.0% per annum. Today,

year ended June 30, 2019: the first six months saw a 7%

the spread between growth and value is at an historic high.

decline in the S&P 500 whereas the second half saw the

The chart at the top of page 25 shows that the Price/Earning

index swing positive to almost 19%. The most volatile

(P/E) ratio of the S&P 500 is now significantly higher than

moment occurred late in December when the S&P 500 lost

its value components, and this divergence exists as well in

18% of its price in only 15 trading days. The chart on page

non-U.S. markets. The length of this particular cycle, 2,691

24 indicates that volatility is a secular trend with four to

trading days, is another record.

six year cycles that has historically implied lower returns.

As the light blue line on the chart at the bottom of page

Although it is too soon to tell if we are in fact entering a

25 indicates, value style is also back to the same valuation

new “red” period, last fiscal year was certainly consistent

level—relative to the market—as it was in 1999 during the

with this analysis.

dotcom era. Many of you will remember that period was

U.S. equities were again a top performer last year and

immediately followed by a strong run of value outperfor-

reached new all-time highs. Outside the U.S., equity perfor-

mance when the tech bubble burst in 2000. We also find

mance was mixed due to concerns about global growth and

it interesting that an even more powerful divergence has

increasing trade tensions. Starting mid-year, fixed income

evolved between value and low volatility factors. The dark

surprised on the upside as investors retreated into the safety

blue line shows a “low volatility bubble” forming relative to

of bonds once it became clear that central banks were not

value, as investors have piled into stable, defensive stocks

raising interest rates after all but were going to reverse

around the world to the detriment of anything cyclical.

course and lower them instead. Across all asset classes,

Paying up for slow growth, defensive companies seem the

gold was the big winner and returned 13% for the year as

epitome of risky behavior, in our opinion, but in the current

investors sought safety in a world with $17 billion in bonds

risk-off environment, it is understandable.

bearing negative interest rates. To paraphrase Stanley

Growth sectors such as Technology, Healthcare, and

Druckenmiller, “Central banks have succeeded, for the first

Consumer were the best performers, whereas Financials

time in 5,000 years, in granting gold a positive carry!”

and Energy—the biggest industry components of value

Last year was another year in which growth stocks outper-

benchmarks—performed poorly. Although the UIF endow-

formed value shares. Value has trailed the market in nine of

ment has several growth-oriented managers and strategies,

FY19 E N DOW M E N T REPORT


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

REPOR T

$1.96 BILLION UI FOUNDATION ACTIVE ENDOWMENT

79.2%

14.7%

$1.55 Billion

URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

UI FOUNDATION ENDOWMENT POOL

93.4% of the Active Endowment

CHICAGO

0.9%

SPRINGFIELD

5.2%

$287.7 Million

$18.3 Million

$101.7 Million

OTHER

$1.83 BILLION

DISTRIBUTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS SYSTEM

$59M+

79.2%

16.3%

$46,854,993 Urbana-Champaign

$9,644,847 Chicago

1.1%

3.4%

$663,018 Springfield

$2,031,822 Other

23


particularly in Healthcare and Emerging Markets, we have a

concerned about the heightened risk and vulnerability that

strong value bias via Financials that hurt performance, espe-

comes with higher valuations (especially in U.S. assets) and

cially once interest rates changed direction in early 2019.

will proceed with caution.

The endowment’s long-time horizon offers significant advantages. In the past, patient investors have been richly rewarded for owning value or more cyclically biased investments over the long term, and even through poor economic

FISCAL YEAR IN REVIEW

times. It has been a tough decade for value investors, but we continue to support managers that offer us the “free

The following commentary refers to the Foundation’s

insurance” of buying assets with an embedded discount to

pooled endowment that totaled $1.8 billion at fiscal year-

intrinsic value. Although we cannot predict when, we know

end with a specific focus on the ex-legacy assets.

that markets will come around to reward this bias.

The UIF Investment Office sought not only to navigate

Last year was somewhat challenging when allocating new

but also to exploit the whipsaw market conditions of the

capital because—with few exceptions—most strategies and

past year. In particular, we focused on building out the

assets traded at or close to historically high valuations,

private asset portfolio as we marked the fifth year of this

and the U.S. economic expansion became the longest on

new program. In 2014, we inherited a legacy portfolio of 30

record during the second quarter of 2019. We agree with

dormant relationships with about $135 million in value with

experts who suggest that cycles do not die of old age, nor

a goal of a concentrated manager count of 22 and an allo-

do we spend much time trying to predict when the current

cation target of 22%, private equity and private real assets

economic and market cycle will end. We are nevertheless

combined. It is still too early in the life of the private port-

CBOE SPX VOLATILITY INDEX

80

70

60

~6.5 YEARS ANNUALIZED S&P RETURN = 4.9%

50

~6.5 YEARS ANNUALIZED S&P RETURN = 0.5%

40 ~6 YEARS ANNUALIZED S&P RETURN = 16.1%

~4 YEARS ANNUALIZED S&P RETURN = 15.0%

~7 YEARS ANNUALIZED S&P RETURN = 13.7%

30

20

10

0 '90

'92

'94

SO UR C E : Strategas

24

FY19 E N DOW M E N T REPORT

'96

'98

'00

'02

'04

'06

'08

'10

'12

'14

'16

'18


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

REPOR T

VALUATION SPREAD BETWEEN GROWTH AND VALUE

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7 DEC '05

DEC '06

DEC '07

DEC '08

DEC '09

DEC '10

DEC '11

DEC '12

DEC '13

S&P 500 GROWTH P/E RELATIVE TO S&P 500 P/E

DEC '14

DEC '15

DEC '16

DEC '17

DEC '18

S&P 500 VALUE P/E RELATIVE TO S&P 500 P/E

SO UR C E : Bloomberg

VALUE VERSUS MARKET AND LOW VOLATILITY

0.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0 DOT COM BUBBLE

-8.0

LOW VOL BUBBLE

-10.0

-12.0

-14.0 JUN '86

JUN '89

JUN '92

JUN '95

JUN '98

JUN '01

FWD. P/E SPREAD, LOW VOLATILITY VS. VALUE

JUN '04

JUN '07

JUN '10

JUN '13

JUN '16

JUN '19

FWD. P/E SPREAD, VALUE VS. MARKET

SO UR C E : J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Copyright 2019

25


FY 2019 ASSET CLASS RETURN

As of June 30, 2019

US EQUITY

NON-US DEVELOPED MARKETS EQUITY

EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY

GLOBAL EQUITY

PRIVATE EQUITY2,3

GLOBAL DIVERSIFYING

GLOBAL RATES

GLOBAL INFLATION-LINKED BONDS

REAL ESTATE2

NATURAL RESOURCES2

-10%

-6%

 ASSET CLASS RETURN1

-2%

2%

6%

10%

 POLICY BENCHMARK RETURN

1 Asset class returns are shown net of fees. ² Asset class returns for Private Equity, Real Estate, and Private Natural Resources reflect March 31, 2019 statement values adjusted for cash flows through June 30, 2019. 3 Policy Benchmark Return for Private Equity is as of March 31, 2019

26

FY19 E N D OW ME N T REPORT

14%


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

REPOR T

folio to discuss performance. However, after five years we

tional investors and consultants employ and, as a result, do

are pleased to report our progress: we sold the above-ref-

not fit neatly into a style box. For most investors, these “fall

erenced legacy portfolio; established 18 new manager rela-

through the cracks” ideas are often easier to avoid than

tionships; committed almost $600 million in capital; and,

embrace because they are agnostic, time-consuming to

as of June 30, 2019 have a private portfolio net asset value

underwrite, and small. We embrace uncrowded ideas and,

of $358 million that represents 19% of the endowment. We

to paraphrase Sam Zell, go where the capital is not.

funded three co-investment investments last year bringing

The chart on page 26 shows that three out of 10 asset

the total to eight. We project that we will meet the combined

classes within the endowment outperformed their specific

22% target allocation by the end of the current fiscal year,

benchmarks: Global Equity (6.6% versus 4.7%); Global Diver-

i.e. June 30, 2020. We expect great things from this part of

sifying (13.4% versus 3.7%); and Global Inflation Linked

the endowment portfolio as it matures over the next three

Bonds (4.4% versus 3.6%). Asset class underperformers

to five years.

included: Global Natural Resources (-8.5% versus -6.8%);

Over the past year, we engaged two new managers, termi-

U.S. Equity (7.3% versus 9.0%); and Emerging Market Equity

nated one manager relationship, and decided to make follow

(-2.6% versus +0.5%). Private equity, venture capital and

on investments to seven existing relationships. Market vola-

real assets are valued as of March 31, 2019 and, as indicated

tility provided us with several propitious opportunities to

above, represent a de novo program that is not yet contrib-

add capital to strategies that were unfairly punished by

uting to the performance line.

short-term price fluctuations. We reduced U.S. equities by 3% in order to conform to the new target weight set by the Investment Policy Committee in June, 2018. Finally, additional re-balancing occurred to move portfolio weightings toward their strategic targets.

PRELIMINARY PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTION

Given the aforementioned challenges in finding truly compelling new ideas against the backdrop of a fully valued

Every year, we review performance from a variety of

investment landscape, we persevered to uncover hidden

perspectives that includes both near and long-term goals,

gems. We classify our two new managers under the rubric,

absolute and relative return metrics to help us understand

“high return on complexity.” These are often ignored strat-

where we have been successful and where we have fallen

egies of intermediate duration and not easily scalable. They

short of our targets. The following commentary references

seek to exploit the (sometimes-artificial) distinction between

the chart below.

public and private assets, equity and credit securities, and

First, we measure performance relative to the endowment’s

the embedded informational differences that exist between

policy portfolio benchmark. The endowment realized a

public and private market participants. Their strategies defy

return, net of all fees and expenses, of 2.8% as compared to

the classical asset allocation hierarchies that most institu-

the total portfolio benchmark’s return of 4.2%. This resulted

Note: Figures are preliminary and net of external manager fees and investment office expenses.

ENDOWMENT POOL COMPARISON TO BENCHMARKS

Presented in years as of June 30, 2019 1

ONE

THREE

FIVE

TEN

Total Return (net of fees) 2

2.8%

8.8%

5.2%

8.7%

Total Portfolio Benchmark

4.2%

8.4%

5.0%

9.2%

Relative +/-

-1.4%

0.4%

0.2%

-0.5%

5.1%

5.2%

5.1%

5.5%

Annualized Effective Total Spending Rate 3

1 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized returns expressed in percent per year ² Performance is presented net of all external and internal costs and includes legacy assets no longer relevant to the ongoing strategic management of the portfolio. 3 Includes Administrative Fee. Spending is pursuant to the Foundation's policy and in consultation with the University. The policy is reviewed annually by the Foundation's Board of Directors. For 2019, the 5.1% total spending consists of a 3.7% "effective" spending rate and a 1.4% "effective" administrative fee. The Foundation currently distributes 4.0% of a six-year moving average of the corpus of most endowment accounts to the University.

27


in a relative performance shortfall for the fiscal year ended

(or subtracted) through active management. Performance

June 2019 of -1.4%. One of our stated goals is to exceed the

derived from asset allocation, that is, the value due to devi-

policy portfolio benchmark’s return by at least 0.5% over the

ations from the portfolio’s target asset allocation. Over time,

intermediate term time horizon. For the ex-legacy assets,

asset allocation is seen as providing the majority of the

we have exceeded this goal for the three-year annualized

endowment’s top line return. Performance attributed to

performance for the fund with a result of 9.2% versus 8.4%.

manager selection and execution is also important: this

The second approach to performance evaluation asks the

measures the value added or subtracted from the selection

question: was the realized return sufficient to meet the mini-

of specific managers or implementation strategies within

mum required return to support the University and the Foun-

each asset class as well as the impact from timing as they

dation over the very long term? We calculate the minimum

entered or exited the portfolio. This is often the main source

required return every year based on the total of the effective

of differentiation between endowment returns across insti-

spending distribution, administrative fee, and actual (real-

tutions and can add significantly to return. The -1.4% of rela-

ized) inflation. The minimum required (real) return for the

tive underperformance for the fiscal year just ended can be

fiscal year just ended was 5.1% and actual inflation measured

broken down into its most important components: asset

1.6%. Therefore, the minimum required return totaled 6.7%,

allocation detracted -0.7% and manager selection/execution

indicating that we fell short of this return metric in the year

detracted -0.7%. The biggest drivers of underperformance

just ended. Over longer time horizons, however, we have

during the past year were the portfolio’s overall value bias

consistently exceeded this important metric.

(see comments in Economic & Market Review on page 22)

Third, we consider performance attribution metrics that

and the private asset program’s immaturity (see comments

can offer a deeper understanding of the various compo-

in Fiscal Year in Review on pages 24 and 27). Because of the

nents of endowment return, measuring the value added

value bias, portfolio exposures to natural resource equities,

ACTUAL FY 2019 VS. POLICY PORTFOLIO

ASSET ALLOCATION

UIF ACTUAL

CURRENT TARGET1

62.5%

63.0%

16.1%

14.0%

14.3%

12.0%

7.7%

10.0%

15.8%

17.0%

8.6%

10.0%

17.7%

17.0%

17.7%

17.0%

19.8%

20.0%

Global Rates3

4.3%

4.0%

Global Inflation-Linked Bonds

3.6%

4.0%

Real Estate

5.7%

6.0%

Natural Resources4

6.3%

6.0%

100.0%

100.0%

GLOBAL EQUITY US Equity Non-US Developed Markets Equity Emerging Markets Equity Global Equity Private Equity2 GLOBAL DIVERSIFYING Credit/Absolute Return/Distressed MACRO RISK HEDGES

TOTAL As affirmed by the Investment Policy Committee in June 2019 Includes LBO, Mezzanine, M&A, Growth Equity, International, and Venture Capital 3 Includes short duration liquidity assets resulting from portfolio and gift cash flows 4 Includes energy (oil and gas), timber, and agriculture 1

2

28

As of June 30, 2019

FY19 E N DOW M E N T REPORT


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

REPOR T

U.S. and European banks and global industrial and cyclical

10-year Treasury. Once the curve turns negative for several

stocks detracted the most from performance on a relative

months (it is now negative by 3 to 5 basis points), it is an

basis across a number of mandates.

indication that an economic recession has occurred with a lag. The chart on page 30 illustrates the dramatic drop in short and intermediate term yields today when compared to a year ago.

CURRENT ASSET ALLOCATION & THE POLICY PORTFOLIO

The counter argument is that since the end of the Global Financial Crisis in 2009, large international flows into U.S. Treasuries have driven yields far lower than they would

The policy portfolio benchmark represents the returns that

be normally and have distorted the traditional signaling

hypothetically would have resulted if each asset class had

efficacy of an inverted yield curve. This may be correct,

been weighted at its policy target weight and generated

however, investors reacted violently when the curve inverted

the average asset class return. The Foundation’s Investment

for the first time in mid-August. We are watching this metric

Policy Committee, based on input and recommendations

closely as a harbinger of the next recession.

from the CIO and the Investment Team, reviews the policy annually, and in June 2019 voted to maintain the current

2. CHAOTIC BI-LATERAL TRADE APPROACH TO CHINA

targets. The policy portfolio is the theoretical, dynamic, long-term mix of assets that will best support the program’s

China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001,

“intergenerational equity” or the balance between current

and its economy and people have benefited handsomely

spending distributions and future principal growth that can

from admission to this group of the world's largest econ-

support spending in perpetuity. It is not an investable bench-

omies. Now the world’s second largest economy, China

mark, nor can it be replicated. However, it seeks to come as

should be treated as an equal and influential economic

close as possible to a passive proxy for the endowment’s

partner who has fully “emerged.” Holding up a mirror to

strategic policy.

Chinese unfair trade practices and intellectual property

The policy portfolio is reviewed and discussed annually

theft is a laudable goal for the U.S., since China must adhere

within the context of both expected returns (on a 10-year

to the same rules of the game as everyone else relative to

forward basis) and estimated risk, but does not typically

economic governance and rule of law.

change dramatically from year to year. Although the invest-

The U.S. trade dispute with China intensified over the past

ment team is highly attuned to the current forces shaping

year. As the chart on page 31 shows, equity market partic-

the market, our primary goal is to manage around the long-

ipants initially thought the U.S. was unlikely to enter into a

term or strategic policy target allocations within the estab-

serious trade conflict with long-lasting consequences. The

lished ranges. Having an established long-term target within

S&P 500 continued to rise in July 2018 even after the U.S.

a reasonable range allows us to re-balance the portfolio

announced 10% tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods. The

after significant market moves.

on-again, off-again nature of the negotiations introduced a lot of volatility into the market starting in September and culminated with a large drop at year-end, 2018. When stocks broke down again in May 2019, investors internalized that

WHAT WE ARE WATCHING: THREE ISSUES TO CONSIDER DURING THE NEXT YEAR

this dispute was not fleeting and could cause long-lasting damage. Combined tariffs were levied on circa $360 billion in goods, and a tech war between the two countries regard-

1. WHAT THE BOND MARKET IS SAYING

ing Chinese multinational, Huawei, ensued. The execution of U.S. trade policy has seemed at times

Historically, the bond market has proven a much better

incoherent, inconsistent and poorly communicated. Busi-

prognosticator than the stock market. For this reason,

ness executives who might have considered long-term capi-

investors tend to pay close attention to significant moves

tal investments have opted for the logical choice of “wait

in bonds for signals on the economy. An inverted yield

and see” until the dust settles and the path is clear. Capex

curve, i.e. when short-term rates are higher than long-term

has slowed from 4.2% to 3.5%. Uncertainty is the bane of

rates, is a yellow flag of potential trouble ahead. There are

businesses, and the markets and we are, as of May, in a situ-

many ways to measure this, but historically the most reliable

ation of maximum uncertainty. The collective economic

curve spread has been the Two-year Treasury versus the

pain from tariffs now exceeds the benefit of the 2017 tax

29


YIELD CURVE US

3.40%

2.90%

2.40%

1.90%

1.40% 1M

3M

6M

1Y

CURRENT

2Y

3Y

5Y

7Y

10Y

30Y

YEAR AGO

SO UR C E : Bloomberg

law change to American consumers and businesses. It is

attracted significant inflows from a variety of investors.

hard to see the problem as anything other than self-inflicted.

In 2000, there were 1,600 private equity firms managing

We believe it would have been preferable for the U.S. to

$577 billion. Today there are over 5,000 firms managing

work alongside our diplomatic and economic allies to pres-

over $2.8 trillion. In addition to the superior returns, inves-

sure China to make these important changes much more

tors prefer the relative calm of owning 10 to 15-year invest-

gradually so as not to upset existing global supply chains

ments that price “by appointment” when compared to the

and businesses. Had the U.S. decided to join the Trans-Pa-

day-to-day volatility when investing in the public sphere.

cific Partnership (TPP), we would have been positioned

In particular, large pension funds have shifted billions of

to partner with Japan to nudge China in a more favorable

dollars from marketable hedge funds into private assets

direction on trade. Finally, as the largest foreign holder of

resulting in a backlog of money that has been committed

U.S. debt, China is vitally important to our financial as well

but not invested.

as economic health. We worry about a potential interest

The chart on page 32 illustrates this large and growing “dry

rate shock to the U.S. economy should China ever decide

powder” overhang within private equity funds. For the last

to sell the large amount of U.S. Treasuries it holds in reserve

five years ending 2018, the cumulative overhang reached

in retaliation.

$678 billion and the bulk of the funds waiting in the wings resides within larger buyout funds with assets greater than

3. TOO MUCH MONEY CHASING TOO FEW GREAT PRIVATE INVESTMENT DEALS

$1.0 billion. It is also interesting to note that investors today are willingly making this choice despite the fact that there is no

30

Private investments have outperformed their public

longer a private equity premium offered in exchange for the

equivalents for one, five, 10 and 20-year periods and have

long-term lock-up and informational opacity. This is strik-

FY19 E N DOW M E N T REPORT


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

S&P 500 CUMULATIVE WEALTH AND THE US–CHINA TRADE WAR

115

June 30, 2018–June 30, 2019 • June 30, 2018 = 100

7.6.18 US & CHINA IMPLEMENT 25% TARIFFS ON $34B OF GOODS

6.28.19 G20 MEETING HELD IN OSAKA, JAPAN

5.6.19 TALKS BREAK DOWN, TARIFF HIKES THREATENED

8.2.18 25% TARIFFS PROPOSED ON PRIOR $200B, CHINA RETALIATES 9.7.18 US THREATENS TARIFFS ON REMAINING CHINESE IMPORTS (>$250B)

110

R EPOR T

4.3.19 DISCUSSIONS CONTINUE, AGREEMENT EXPECTED W/IN MONTHS

10.4.18 MIKE PENCE SPEECH IMPLIES PROTRACTED ORDEAL WITH CHINA

6.18.19 TRUMP, XI CONFIRM MEETING AT G20

10.25.18 TRADE DISCUSSIONS RESUME AHEAD OF NOVEMBER G20

105

5.10.19 TARIFFS INCREASED TO 25%, CHINA RETALIATES

12.3.18 TRUCE REACHED AT G20, TARIFF HIKES DELAYED

100 4.10.19 AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH ENFORCEMENT OFFICES 2.21.19 MARCH 1 TARIFF HIKE DELAYED, DISCUSSIONS ONGOING

9.21.18 TALKS CANCELLED, US & CHINA IMPLEMENT 10% TARIFFS

95

1.30.19 US & CHINA NEGOTIATIONS HELD IN DC 8.23.18 US & CHINA IMPLEMENT 25% TARIFFS ON $16B OF GOODS

6.6.19 TRUMP THREATENS TARIFFS ON ADDITIONAL $300B OF CHINESE GOODS

90 1.16.19 US OPENS INVESTIGATIONS AGAINST HUAWEI

7.10.18 US PLANS 10% TARIFFS ON $200B OF CHINESE GOODS

85 JUN '18

JUL '18

AUG '18

SEP '18

OCT '18

NOV '18

DEC '18

JAN '19

FEB '19

MAR '19

APR '19

MAY '19

JUN '19

SO UR C E S: MSCI Inc. and Thomson Reuters Datastream. MSCI data provided "as is" without any express or implied warranties. Cumulative wealth based on total returns in USD terms. If an event falls on a non-trading day, chart data point and label reflect the nearest subsequent trading day.

31


ing and indicative of an attractive arbitrage between public

an immediate discount by choosing public over private,

and private assets. (See our comments under Section II and

ceteris paribus. To us, this gold rush attitude toward private

“Return on Complexity.”)

equity does not make much sense, although we have found

The chart on page 33 shows that public and private valu-

smaller funds with talented investors in niches such as lower

ation multiples are strikingly similar at circa 17X cash flow.

middle-market and healthcare. If one can be agnostic when

Therefore, one is not compensated for the time value and

evaluating public versus private in a portfolio, today presents

uncertainty of committing and locking-up capital for 10 to

a great opportunity to choose a public vehicle to express an

15 years. This is eerily analogous to long-term bonds with

investment theme.

negative interest rates. Said another way, investors get

US PRIVATE EQUITY COMMITMENTS AND ESTIMATED PAID-IN CAPITAL

As of Fourth Quarter 2018 • US$B

2013–18 CUMULATIVE Capital Commitments

1410.5

Estimated Paid-In Capital

621.3

Capital Uncalled

789.2

Remaining Fees

111.4

1

2

TOTAL OVERHANG 2013–18

677.8

298.1 272.0 223.7

219.2

218.2

179.4 140.9

137.8

124.1

148.6 129.3

101.9 97.3 71.4 70.3

VY2009

72.5

112.2

68.1

VY2010

52.3

VY2011

VY2012

40.9

VY2013

VY2014

VY2015

VY2016

VY2017

VY2018

PERCENT OF CAPITAL COMMITMENTS PAID IN (%) 98%

94%

96%

88%

77%

68%

58%

51%

19%

14%

4.5

16.8

41.6

70.5

94.3

105.9

219.7

257.2

CAPITAL UNCALLED 1.2

4.5

 CAPITAL COMMITMENTS

 ESTIMATED PAID-IN CAPITAL1

SO UR C E : Cambridge Associates LLC 1 Estimates based on the percentage paid in by funds tracked by Cambridge Associates in each vintage year. 2 Assumes a ten-year life span with a 1.5% management fee decreasing linearly over the life of a fund, and no re-investment of capital.

32

FY19 E N DOW M E N T REPORT


F Y 1 9 // A N N U A L

REPOR T

RUSSELL 2000 TRAILING EV/EBITDA MULTIPLE VS. PRIVATE EQUITY EBITDA MULTIPLES

22.0x

20.0x

18.0x

17.7 17.4

16.0x

14.0x

12.0x

10.0x

8.0x

6.0x

4.0x '96

'98

'00

'02

'04

'06

RUSSELL 2000

'08

'10

'12

'14

'16

'18

PRIVATE EQUITY

SO UR C E : Strategas

CONCLUDING REMARKS As an endowment, we have the luxury of thinking with a

act with even greater caution than normal as this business

10 to 20 year time horizon and can use periods of negative

cycle matures, financial markets lose steam, and geopo-

volatility as an opportunity to add to those areas that are

litical actions confound. This extra dose of prudence does

attractively priced. It is important to reiterate that we do

not imply that we are bearish: the U.S. economic cycle has

not try to predict economic cycles; we are opportunistic

tremendous staying power and has been “slower for longer.”

yet avoid tactical shifts; and we are macro-aware but not

As the world’s largest economy, the U.S. has never followed

macro-driven in our investment decisions. We direct our

the rest of the world into a recession if history can serve

focus, instead, on the big shifts in the global landscape and

as our guide. Although human beings are wired to focus

how these can be exploited over decades.

more on “what could go wrong,” and pay short shrift to

For the past several years, we have gradually moved to

“what could go right,” there remain positive trends in the

“hurricane-proof” the portfolio and prepare our diverse

U.S. and internationally that serve as the foundation for

fiduciaries and constituents for greater market volatility.

future investment ideas.

We are in a transitional moment when it seems logical to

33


FOUNDATION LEADERSHIP OFFICERS OF THE BOARD

A. Helen McGrath ’77, MS ’78

Doris K. Christopher ’67

Mark A. Pytosh ’86

CHAIR Kay M. Schwichtenberg ’84

(Retired) Vice President, AT&T Inc.

President & CEO, CVR GP, LLC

Samuel Mendenhall ’88, JD ’91

Founder & Chairman, The Pampered Chef, Ltd.

Richard G. Cline ’57 Chairman, Hawthorne Investors, Inc.

(Retired) Commissioner, Illinois Human Rights Commission

James R. DeBord ’69, MS ’71, MD ’74

Edwin A. Scharlau II ’66, MS ’68, PhD ’74

President, Peoria Surgical Group, Ltd.

(Retired) Vice Chairman, Busey Bank

Jane Phillips Donaldson ’65, MS ’67

George T. Shapland ’55

Partner, Phillips Oppenheim

President, Shapland Management Company

President & CEO, Central Life Sciences

Partner, Winston & Strawn, LLP

IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR Alan D. Feldman ’74, MBA ’76

Saul J. Morse ’69, JD ’72

(Retired) Chairman, President & CEO, Midas, Inc.

Richard C. Osborne MBA ’73

PRESIDENT/CEO James H. Moore, Jr. SECRETARY Jacquline N. Schweighart ’03, EdM ’09 TREASURER Christine C. Devocelle MBA ’13 CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER Ellen J. Ellison ASSISTANT TREASURERS Kevin L. Noland MS ’10 Michelle S. Bolger MBA ’14 LEGAL COUNSEL Wesley W. Curtis ’83, JD ’86

GOVERNING DIRECTORS Shakeeb A. Alam ’97 Co-founder & President, East Bridge Capital Management

Donald E. Bielinski ’71 Managing Partner, SMB Interim Management, LLC

Mark D. Coe ’84

Attorney, Brown, Hay & Stephens, LLP Senior Managing Director, Madison Industries

Deborah A. Paul, PhD MS ’79 (Retired) Biochemist/Director, Business Development & Licensing, Abbott Laboratories

David J. Downey ’63, JD ’66

Mary Ellen Penicook ’81, JD ’87

Partner, Gator Trading

(Retired) Corporate Attorney & Assistant Secretary, Federal Signal Corporation

José L. Santillan ’80 Senior Securities Compliance Examiner/Industry Expert Division of Enforcement, US Securities & Exchange Commission

Khawar M. Siddique ’94, MD ’98 CEO, Beverly Hills Spine Surgery, Inc.

Paul T. Tucker ’70, MS ’71, PhD ’75 (Retired) Corporate Vice President, Computer Sciences Corporation

President, The Downey Group, Inc.

Bernard Shaw ’66

W. Robert Felker ’74

(Retired) Principal Washington Anchor, CNN

Juanita F. Francis ’70 President, F2 Family Foundation

Louis A. Friedrich ’67 (Retired) Principal, Bernstein Global Wealth Management

John A. Georges ’51 (Retired) Chairman & CEO, International Paper Company

Phillip C. Goldstick ’53 (Retired) Chairman of the Board, G. Equity Investment Group, Ltd.

G. Stephen Irwin MD ’77 (Retired) President & Chairman, The Center for Outpatient Medicine

Stuart L. Levenick ’76 (Retired) Group President, Caterpillar, Inc.

Leon J. Loichle MA ’71 (Retired) Global Personnel Development Manager, Ford Motor Company

Jean M. Manning ’72, MBA ’78, JD ’83
 Emeritus Chief Counsel for Employment, United States Senate

34

FO UN DATIO N L E A DERSHI P

President/CEO

Barry Benson Senior Vice President; Vice Chancellor for Advancement, UIUC

Wesley W. Curtis ’83, JD ’86 Vice President and General Counsel

Christine C. Devocelle MBA ’13

(Retired) Partner, Hewitt Associates

Avijit Ghosh

(Retired) President, North America, William Wrigley Jr. Co.

James H. Moore, Jr.

Gail Veasman Kellogg ’65

Chair, University of Illinois Board of Trustees; Chief Executive Officer, Flexpoint Ford LLC

Anthony G. DiTommaso ’74, MS ’77

Mary Kay Haben ’77

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS TEAM

Senior Vice President for Campaigns, Marketing, & Communications

President, Flex-N-Gate Corporation

(Retired) Global Vice Chair, Ernst & Young Global Limited

(Retired) Senior Counsel, DLA Piper, LLP (US)

Donald J. Edwards ’88

Shahid R. Khan ’71

Karen M. Golz ’76

Carl L. Vacketta ’63, JD ’65

(Former) Chairman, Harlem Globetrotters

President, University of Illinois System

Principal, Greenway Family Office, LLC

Chairman, The Tokarz Group, LLC

Mannie L. Jackson ’60

Timothy L. Killeen

Laura L. Fraley ’77, MS ’79

Michael T. Tokarz ’71, MBA ’73

EX-OFFICIO DIRECTORS

Managing Member & Chief Investment Officer, Intrinsic Edge

Managing Partner, Ecvall, LLC

Jane Hayes Rader ’54

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Comptroller, University of Illinois System

William D. Forsyth III ’86 Chair, University of Illinois Alumni Alliance; President and Founder, Frontier Partners, Inc.

James H. Moore, Jr. President/CEO, University of Illinois Foundation

LIFE DIRECTORS James M. Benson ’68 Chairman, Benson Botsford, LLC

Gary K. Bielfeldt ’58, MS ’59 Managing Partner, Bielfeldt & Company, LLC

Henry B. Blackwell II ’52 (Retired) Counsel, Baker & Daniels, LLP

Alice C. Campbell JD ’43 (Retired) Treasurer, The Robert Campbell Company

Robert Klaus ’57 President, Klaus Companies

Gregory B. Lykins ’69 Chairman, First Busey Corporation

R. Eden Martin ’62 Of Counsel, Sidley Austin, LLP

William C. Merchantz ’79 (Retired) President & CEO, Lakeview Technology, Inc.

Steven L. Miller ’67 Chairman & President, SLM Discovery Ventures, Inc.

Joseph A. Piscopo ’65 (Retired) Chairman, Pansophic Systems, Inc.

Roger L. Plummer ’64 President, Plummer & Associates Consulting

Gayl S. Pyatt ’64 (Retired) Attorney, Gayl Simonds Pyatt, Attorney at Law

Rick Darnell

Senior Vice President for Financial & Administrative Operations/CFO

Ellen J. Ellison Chief Investment Officer

Edward F. Ewald Executive Vice President

Shari M. Fox Senior Vice President for Principal Gifts, Gift Planning, & Trust Services

Jeff Lorber Senior Vice President; Vice Chancellor for Advancement, UIS

Jacquline N. Schweighart ’03, EdM ’09 Vice President for Board & Donor Relations

Thomas Wamsley Senior Vice President; Vice Chancellor for Advancement, UIC


The University of Illinois Foundation, established in 1935, is an independent Illinois not-for-profit membership corporation dedicated to securing and administering private gifts for the University of Illinois System and its three universities. More than 150 Foundation professionals develop and support the vision and efforts of the advancement teams at each university. As the primary repository of private support to the University of Illinois System, the Foundation is committed to best practices, continuous improvement, quality service, upholding our fiduciary responsibility, and—most importantly—honoring donor intent. O U R VA LU E S : Exemplify Integrity // Practice Civility // Embrace Collaboration // Inspire Innovation // Create Impact Learn more about the University of Illinois Foundation at uif.uillinois.edu.


Harker Hall, MC-386 1305 West Green Street Urbana, IL 61801 217.333.0810 | info@uif.uillinois.edu | uif.uillinois.edu

Profile for University of Illinois Foundation

FY 19 Annual Report  

FY 19 Annual Report  

Profile for uifmarcom