Business
Yale’s Endowment Selling Private Equity Stakes as Trump Targets Ivies
Yale University’s famed endowment has been trying to offload one of the largest portfolios of private equity investments ever in a single sale, a move that reflects the pressures on both Wall Street and higher education under the Trump administration.
The Ivy League school has sought buyers for up to $6 billion in stakes in private equity and venture funds, according to three people briefed on the sales process, amid uncertainty about its federal funding and the reality that many of these investments have not delivered the outsize returns that Yale expected.
Yale is now close to completing a sale of roughly $3 billion of the portfolio and is selling the assets at a slight discount, one of the people said.
“This is a big deal,” said Sandeep Dahiya, a professor of finance at Georgetown University who has conducted research on the performance of endowments. “The investor that was the lead architect of investing in the private equity markets is pulling in its horns.”
For decades, Yale has been regarded as a pioneer for shifting its investments away from stocks and bonds into longer-term holdings managed by private equity and venture capital firms. But last year, Yale’s $41 billion endowment generated returns of just 5.7 percent, underperforming the S&P 500 and other major indexes. Yale said its 10-year return averaged 9.5 percent annually.
Private equity investments typically generate cash for endowments and other investors after they sell or take public the companies in which they have invested. But lately, private equity and venture firms, which make up about half of Yale’s endowment, have struggled to sell their stakes in companies and return cash to investors. That has driven down returns.
Yale’s quest to exit investments in both well-known firms like Bain Capital and lesser-known ones like Golden Gate Capital, Clayton Dubilier & Rice and Insight Partners is a sharp U-turn for an endowment that has long proselytized the value of private equity and other long-term investments.
Knowing that some stakes would be harder to sell than others, Yale’s bankers offered potential bidders two separate lists of funds: “core” funds, the ones they most wanted to sell, and “sweeteners,” the better-performing ones, according to two of the people briefed on the sale.
While buyers would receive only a small discount of about 5 percent on the private equity stakes, Yale willingness to sell assets that were once highly desirable at less than full value reflects the industry’s challenges.
The sale comes at a critical juncture for universities. While President Trump has spared Yale the kind of punitive funding cuts he has leveled against other Ivy League schools such as Harvard, Yale is grappling with decreases in federal research funding that have hit higher education broadly. Republicans in Congress have also proposed steep tax increases on endowments.
Yale is on track to spend roughly $2.1 billion from its endowment in 2025, which accounts for just over one-third of its annual budget.
In a statement provided to The New York Times, a representative for the Yale endowment acknowledged the sale, but called private equity “a core element of our investment strategy.” The statement added, “We are not reducing our long-term target to private equity.” The university said it was also looking to invest in other private equity firms.
Yale’s bankers tried to keep the process discreet by giving the sale the code name Project Gatsby. (Two of the main characters in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel set in the roaring 1920s went to Yale.) But Yale’s move is widely viewed on Wall Street as a harbinger.
At least two other large universities are preparing to sell some private equity assets, and dozens of U.S. and Asian pension funds are also looking at exits.
Lawrence Siegel, a former director of research at the Ford Foundation, called Yale’s move “a wake-up call” for investors.
“It’s also Yale trying to get out before everyone else,” Mr. Siegel said.
The Swensen Model
When David Swensen, a former Lehman Brothers banker, joined Yale as its chief investment officer in 1985, the university’s endowment was valued at about $1.3 billion. (Harvard’s had $2.7 billion.)
During 2021, the year that Mr. Swensen died, Yale’s endowment had swelled to $42.3 billion, behind Harvard but billions ahead of almost every other university endowment.
To achieve that, Mr. Swensen shifted Yale’s investments from a traditional portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds. After getting to know fund managers in private equity and venture firms, Mr. Swensen moved a relatively large slug of Yale’s endowment into long-term assets, often investing in those funds for decades.
Other universities watched Yale’s returns and started to follow the Swensen Model, as it came to be known.
Yale’s early affection for private equity provided the perfect advertisement for an industry looking to attract new investors.
“Do you want to be smart like Yale?” said Ludovic Phalippou, an economist at the University of Oxford, in describing the pitch.
University endowments now invest an average of about 17.1 percent of assets in private equity funds, according to studies by the National Association of College and University Business Officers. That’s up from just 5.4 percent in 2007 before the financial crisis.
Universities and private equity firms have developed a symbiotic relationship. Endowments typically pay private equity firms roughly 2 percent of the money they manage and 20 percent of the profits they generate.
Those fees have helped mint slews of billionaires, many of whom sit on university boards and make large donations to the schools.
Yale’s senior trustee, for example, Joshua Bekenstein, has worked at Bain Capital since its inception in 1984, four years after he graduated from Yale. The Boston-based firm was one of the earliest to jump into the buyout business. It scooped up companies like Dunkin’ Donuts, Clear Channel Communications and Gymboree, added debt and then tried to sell them for a profit. Gymboree, a children’s clothing retailer, filed for bankruptcy seven years after Bain bought it.
Bain now manages $185 billion, including at least roughly $1 billion for Yale.
For more than a decade after the financial crisis, U.S. private equity firms reliably generated average returns, on paper, in the mid- to high teens, according to the data provider PitchBook. But the firms generated average returns below 10 percent in 2022 and 2023, and just over 10 percent in 2024.
Another challenge: Deal making has been slow for several years, and private equity firms have had difficulty selling stakes in companies and returning cash to investors at levels reached in previous years. Despite optimism that the second Trump administration would spur a deal-making resurgence, the volatility around tariffs has made companies wary.
In 2024, the firms returned about 15 percent of the value of their funds to investors in cash, compared with between 25 and 35 percent in prior years, PitchBook data shows.
The winnowing returns come after private equity firms, from 2021 to 2024, raised record sums from pensions, endowments and sovereign wealth funds, PitchBook data shows.
Steven Meier, chief investment officer for the New York City Retirement System, acknowledged that returns for private equity “haven’t been great.”
The system, which manages a $280 billion investment portfolio for the pensions of teachers, firefighters and other public employees, just sold $5 billion of its stakes in private equity firms. Mr. Meier said the city would continue investing in private equity but was looking to pay lower fees.
He added that the funds’ recent returns to pensions and endowments had also been “disappointing.”
Project Gatsby
When Yale’s bankers at Evercore Partners began shopping the endowment’s private equity portfolio in April, they didn’t disclose the seller’s identity.
But they left a clue: They called the sale Project Gatsby.
Bidders were asked to select funds from a combination of the “sweetener” and the “core” pool of assets and to name their price by May 6, with Yale’s bankers aiming for a June 30 closing, according to sales documents viewed by The Times.
Some details of Yale’s sale were reported earlier by Secondaries Investor and Bloomberg.
The biggest single position that Yale has been shopping is a roughly $600 million stake in a 2007 fund run by Golden Gate Capital, a San Francisco-based private equity firm known mostly for investing in retailers like Ann Taylor, Eddie Bauer and PacSun. Two people familiar with the sale said Yale did not expect to sell the entire stake.
The Golden Gate stake was marketed as part of the core portfolio, among the assets that the bankers most wanted to sell.
Evercore’s bankers also offered stakes in Insight Partners and General Catalyst. At least one stake that was labeled a “sweetener,” Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, was not expected to be sold because Yale has been able to get the price that it wanted on other stakes, according to two people familiar with the sale.
Yale has also been offering to sell nine funds managed by Bain Capital, with a total value of about $1 billion. A person familiar with the deal said the school was on the verge of selling about $500 million worth of those Bain stakes.
Business
Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon
President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.
In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”
“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.
The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.
Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.
The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.
“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.
Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”
The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.
On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.
The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.
Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.
“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”
Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.
Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.
“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.
Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.
Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.
“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”
Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.
The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”
Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.
The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.
Business
Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk
new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey
February 27, 2026
Business
Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office
Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.
If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.
All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.
But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.
That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.
The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.
— Katie Martin, Financial Times
Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.
Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.
Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.
But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.
Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.
That hasn’t been the case for months.
”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”
Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.
Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.
It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.
Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”
Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”
Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.
Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.
“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”
I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.
To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.
Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.
The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.
It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.
That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.
Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology7 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics7 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT