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.