We're still looking for numbers and definitions - Part 3

Yesterday, we posted the table below from the Oct. 29th Zoom meeting in which the UCLA budget was discussed:

We raised some macro-level questions about the numbers shown and about basic definitions such as "deficit." But there are also some micro issues that could be raised. Maybe someone did raise them in the Zoom but at least so far no recording of that Zoom is available. (Why not?)

Here are some line-item questions from the table on the left.

Line 5 shows "indirect cost recovery." Presumably, this refers to the tax on grants that helps pay for general expenses. The amount is projected to fall this year compared to last year. Is that a reflection of the current conflict with the feds?

Line 6 shows "other sources" that are also falling. The amount of other sources is around 16% of total revenues so they are not negligible.

Line 9: What are "all orgs"?

Line 10: Can we have a list of "core teaching and research units"? (See also the question about line 14 below.)

Line 11 and Line 12: What is the difference between "Central Administration" and "Operational Central Administration"?

Line 13: How does "operational student administration" differ from "operational central administration"?

Line 14 refers to "other research and mission-related units." Presumably, these are somehow not the "core" units of line 10. What are non-core units?

Line 15: Athletics is projected to lose more money this year relative to last year. A new AD has been brought in to fix things. Is the target for this year now zero? What is the new target?

Line 16: We noted that the business side of UCLA Health appears to be carved out of this version of the budget. So what are the expenses for UCLA Health on this line? 

Lines 21 and 22: Why are expenses for DTS for this year, but not last year, shown outside the usual lines for such expenses?

As noted yesterday, there seems to be confusion about deficit vs. debt in the table on the right.

On line 23: It appears that someone is moving debts around to the center. But it is unclear why this would raise net debt unless the units involved are somehow off the books. What units are we talking about?

Line 24 contains mysterious language we noted yesterday that seems to imply that UCLA has overdrawn accounts held by UC. Or maybe it doesn't mean that. So an explanation is needed since this line accounts for over half the debt shown on the right-hand table.

Line 25 on athletics is past debt which is bigger than the athletics deficit of line 15. Presumably, when debt was forgiven, not all of it was - which accounts for the difference. ??? In any event, there needs to be more said about athletics than can be discerned from the two lines.

As noted yesterday, there was apparently discussion of a $250 million bond for athletics in which much was made of the fact that the entire principal was due when the bond matured. If that is correct, why is that depicted as unusual? A standard US Treasury bond, for example, is issued in just that way: The bond pays the lender just interest on a regular basis and when it matures the entire principal is returned. Of course, loans can be structured in various ways, e.g., mortgages typically involve repayment of interest and principal during the life of the loan. And the issuers of mortgages have claims on real property if the borrower defaults. So what exactly is the story of the athletics bond?

Two afterthoughts:

The chancellor has repeatedly talked about a $58 million deficit. But you won't find the number 58 on the tables. There is a $59 million number on line 20. As we have noted, that number is really not a deficit (flow concept). But putting aside the sloppy word usage, is that what the chancellor has been referencing?  

We again urge that the recording of the Zoom event be made available. And we continue to wonder why the 2025-26 budget of last year is not on the UCLA website at:

https://www.finance.ucla.edu/corporate-accounting/ucla-annual-financial-reports.

All in Medicare - Percent

Note: Click on table to clarify.

We have been reformatting our earlier postings of Oct. 26 on UC health insurance premium changes, 2026-2027. It appears that having everyone in Medicare was a kind of insulation against premium increases. The only retirees disadvantaged were those in UC's Medicare Advantage Plan (Medicare Choice).

Straws in the Wind - Part 514

From Inside Higher Ed: The Department of Defense last week said the 30 institutions it ordered to audit their partnerships with foreign entities of concern have “fully mitigated” those partnerships... The Pentagon said the audits resulted in more than 80 “termination-related” actions across the 30 universities with institutions on the Section 1286 list of foreign entities of concern, “as well as precautionary terminations involving entities not specifically identified on the list.” 

The department also called out seven institutions—Oklahoma State University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of South Carolina, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas at Austin and Virginia Tech—for going “above and beyond by quickly terminating problematic relationships” with blacklisted institutions...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/us-colleges-world/2026/10/26/dod-declares-foreign-partnerships-audit-success.

Davis discovers volunteers aren't free

From the Sacramento Bee: UC Davis is phasing out a supplemental subsidy that capped out-of-pocket maximums on its Blue and Gold plan at $1,000 for individuals and $3,000 for families, according to university records and the University Professional and Technical Employees union. UPTE represents technical, healthcare and research workers. Under the change, those ceilings will jump to $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for families. For Nella, the hike turns an ad celebrating her daughter’s care into a painful irony — calling the shift offensive in an interview with The Sacramento Bee. Nella said absorbing the new out-of-pocket costs will force her to divert money from family savings toward medical bills just to keep her daughter healthy.

“I was really appalled and offended that they would use me and my family in this way only to increase our costs by thousands of dollars after we’ve tried to give back in the ways that we could,” she said. The university said Nella “volunteered to appear with her family in UC Davis Health advertising.” ...

Full story at https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article317686770.html.

We're still looking for numbers and definitions - Part 2

As blog readers will know, we have agitated for up-to-date budgets from Murphy Hall. It is still the case that if you go to UCLA's official webpage for budgets as of today:

https://www.finance.ucla.edu/corporate-accounting/ucla-annual-financial-reports

you won't find anything beyond fiscal year 2024-2025.

However, Murphy Hall did provide a Zoom session on October 29th for the Senate. Unfortunately, yours truly could not attend. Another faculty member did provide notes and screenshots. It would be very helpful if the Senate provided a recording of the event. (Many faculty cannot attend live Zoom sessions during business hours due to classes or other activities and obligations.)

Below is a screenshot of two tables:

Here are some abbreviations used on the tables:

DTS = Digital & Technology Solutions

GL = General Ledger (a financial record at UC that contains every transaction and account used by an organization, in this case UCLA)

TRIP = Total Return Investment Pool (short-term investments held at UC - in this case by UCLA - that provide liquidity)

BGP = Blue and Gold Pool/Blue and Gold Endowment Pool (longer-term investments funds held at UC - in this case by UCLA - that earn higher returns than TRIP, but whose value at any point in time fluctuates more, i.e., more risk taken for higher returns)

And below are two charts related to the "General Fund," a term typically applied to an account for day-to-day receipts and expenditures:

== 

Note: "TE14 allocations" appear to refer to transfers of fund into or out of accounts such as research grants. Source:

https://www.ucop.edu/ucop-budget/_files/AM101%20Training%20Nov.pdf (p. 29)

==

The first thing to note is that if you go back to 2024-25 in the link provided at the top, you will find that UCLA's overall expenditures (and revenues) were about $12.5 Billion. So even if we assume no growth to 2025-26, the total is around 10 times as large as what is shown on the charts. The revenues and expenditures on the tables above are around $2 billion, still a lot less than $12.5 billion. Thus, it appears that the business operations of UCLA Health (and possibly/probably other UCLA business units) are carved out of the tables and charts above.

You might also note that standard bookkeeping typically involves two kinds of basic information (flows, i.e., revenues coming in and spending going out) during a standard period (usually 12 months) and a statement of stocks (assets and liabilities) at a moment of time (usually the beginning and end of the 12-month period). Possibly, a statement of assets and liabilities was provided during the Zoom event, but - if so - yours truly doesn't have it.

Note first that the language used on the tables appears to mix up stocks and flows. The table on the right talks about "deficits" (a flow concept referring to spending flows exceeding revenue flows) when what is being referred to is a debt, a stock concept. The table on the left talks about an "operating balance" which seems to be the difference between revenue flowing in and spending flowing out. But balance is really a stock term. The difference between revenue and spending in everyday English is either a deficit (spending > revenue) or a surplus (revenue > surplus). 

Note second that when flow deficits occur (spending > revenue), the money to cover the difference has to come from somewhere. And that "somewhere" is either drawing down past reserves (assets) or running up debt (borrowing, liabilities). So an important element in understanding how significant a (flow) deficit to the financial condition of an organization is the organization's capacity to deal with that deficit. If, for example, the organization has very large reserves on hand and the deficit is small relative to those reserves, there is no emergency. If there is a reverse situation, there is an emergency.

When in the classic film Citizen Kane, newspaper owner Kane is told by his accountant Thatcher that he is losing money and should do something about it, the following dialog occurs:

"You're right, Mr. Thatcher, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in... sixty years." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzhb3U2cONs

Apparently, the powers-that-be at UCLA do not think of their financial situation as anything like Kane's. But absent some clear accounting of what reserves UCLA has, how much leeway the university has to deal with its deficits is hard to assess.

So what do we learn from the table on the left? Apart from the business side of UCLA health and perhaps other business units, last year (2025-2026) UCLA ran a deficit of $95 million. An oddity of the table when it comes for the projection for this year (2026-2027) is that after calculating a deficit of $203 million, two added lines tell us that the table left out another $100 million ($36 million + $66 million, lines 21 and 22) of projected DTS spending. So the total deficit is thus $303 million. 

That amount seems like a lot, but we don't have - or at least yours truly doesn't have - information on assets or reserves that can be drawn upon. The table on the right seems to be some kind of total of liabilities. It gives a total of about $1.3 billion of debt. I can't make head or tail of the TRIP/BGP number of $740 million on line 24. But note that more than half of UCLA's debt on that table is on that line! Is that line saying that UCLA overdrew its bank account with UC to the tune of $740 million? 

Then there is the matter of athletics. It seems - mainly from ongoing news accounts - that UCLA has forgiven significant past debts of athletics (accumulated annual deficits). But that just shuffles the liabilities that arose to somewhere else. Apparently, there was something at the Zoom event about a $250 million long-term bond to deal with past athletic debt.

Finally, former CFO Agostini - before he said Very Bad Words and was fired - created a budget book that broke down the macro totals into sub-units of the university. There apparently was no analog to that format at the Zoom event.

Non-Medicare Percent

 Non-Medicare Emeriti/Retirees: Percent Change in Premiums

Continuing our reformatting of UC health insurance premiums: Non-Medicare retirees - mainly people who retire before age 65 - have a more mixed set of premium changes than actives. The actives, which we presented yesterday, all have big percentage increases. But this group has a mixed picture with a range of changes from big percentage drops to big percentage increases. Generally, if you are a retiree of Medicare age but not eligible for Medicare, your premiums are going up a lot unless you are in the most expensive UC Care plan. 

Straws in the Wind - Part 513

From Inside Higher Ed: Education Secretary Linda McMahon had a firm message for America’s higher education institutions last week—be more like Arizona State University. “Our message to the sector is simple: Follow ASU’s example,” McMahon said. She praised ASU’s business partnerships, accessibility, innovation and its “high-quality degrees at a reasonable cost.”

“The Trump administration is reorienting higher education to ensure that there is no ‘lesser than’ degree or credential. Any pathway that offers an affordable route to a good career and a good life deserves to be celebrated,” she said. Thanks to ASU President Michael Crow, “ASU has emerged as a model for the new American university. You remind us that college belongs to students from every background, and that excellence is measured not by whom you shut out, but by how the students you welcome in go on to advance [their] careers,” she added.

But the secretary’s decree—given from a podium at the university’s College for Teaching and Learning Innovation—was about more than just touting ASU’s achievements. It was a platform to condemn colleges she said have morphed into “sprawling business enterprises that put their own corporate interests first” and to boast about how the Trump administration is fighting back with a focus on affordability, alternative pathways and value...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2026/10/26/mcmahon-touts-arizona-state-example-nation.