Stanford's 990 for 2019 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford's 990 for 2019 (/thread-22134.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford's 990 for 2019 (/thread-22134.html)
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - BostonCard - 08-06-2021
The endowment payout is smoothed out to account for ups and downs in the market. Like, if the market were to ever go down (it happens, you know), it's not like there would be no payout. Typically, the payout is about 5% of the value of the endowment, so to support a $6 million base salary, the endowment principle would have to be $120 million. (narrator: the actual endowment is not $120 million). The endowment doesn't pay all of Shaw's salary, and it certainly isn't paying $6 million a year.
BC
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - winflop - 08-06-2021
(08-06-2021, 12:36 PM)Goose Wrote:(08-06-2021, 12:34 PM)winflop Wrote: Take the $2.2M and set it aside. That still leaves $6.7M. I don't blame Shaw for taking the money. I doubt any of us would turn it down. But I do blame Muir for paying him that much.
Yet ANOTHER reason to send Muir packing...unfortunately one of many.
Again, if the endowment generates the 6.7million on a recurring basis, maybe Muir has no choice.
That's now how ANY endowment works that I'm aware of.
(08-06-2021, 02:23 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The endowment payout is smoothed out to account for ups and downs in the market. Like, if the market were to ever go down (it happens, you know), it's not like there would be no payout. Typically, the payout is about 5% of the value of the endowment, so to support a $6 million base salary, the endowment principle would have to be $120 million. (narrator: the actual endowment is not $120 million). The endowment doesn't pay all of Shaw's salary, and it certainly isn't paying $6 million a year.
BC
Most endowments pay out 3-4%, not 5%. That allows for the principal to grow over time so that the payouts get larger to deal with rising costs for the recipient
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - Goose - 08-06-2021
(08-06-2021, 02:23 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The endowment payout is smoothed out to account for ups and downs in the market. Like, if the market were to ever go down (it happens, you know), it's not like there would be no payout. Typically, the payout is about 5% of the value of the endowment, so to support a $6 million base salary, the endowment principle would have to be $120 million. (narrator: the actual endowment is not $120 million). The endowment doesn't pay all of Shaw's salary, and it certainly isn't paying $6 million a year.BC, I think the 5% number is a bit out of date. When endowments were managed very conservatively that was a good number. The ROI they aimed at was in that range. Heck, even CalPers uses a bigger number than that (which they don't actually meet, but that is another problem). These days the target is higher and in "good" years a much larger return can happen. I suspect you are correct that the endowed chair doesn't pay out 6 mil a year guaranteed money, but I wouldn't be surprised if it paid half that. I don't know what Shaw's contract actually says. It may be the AD pays a fixed payment and the endowed chair pays a percentage of it's ROI over the last N years. In any case, I can't get too worked up about the salary given that I don't know what is guaranteed money, what is endowed, terms of the bonuses etc.
BC
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - BostonCard - 08-06-2021
5% is the payout; the return needs to account for both the payout and inflation, and is probably assumed closer to 7%.
Last year, the endowment returned 5.6% (but it was a very strange year). The 10 year return between 2005 and 2015 was 8.7%, which was a bit better than the average endowment return for all endowments > $1 billion (8.2%).
BC
(08-06-2021, 02:27 PM)winflop Wrote: Most endowments pay out 3-4%, not 5%. That allows for the principal to grow over time so that the payouts get larger to deal with rising costs for the recipient
Stanford's endowment as a whole pays out almost exactly 5% ($1.4 billion payout on an endowment of just under $29 billion):
https://facts.stanford.edu/administration/finances/
I believe that is a federal requirement to maintain tax-free status. As I explained to Goose above, the payout is slightly lower than the long-term return to allow the endowment to grow.
BC
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - Mick - 08-07-2021
(08-06-2021, 11:38 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(08-06-2021, 11:36 AM)DC 86 Wrote:(08-06-2021, 11:02 AM)martyup Wrote: I presume it was fairly negotiated, which by definition makes his salary the fair market value for his services.
It's well established that Shaw is highly regarded by NFL teams and particularly during the Rose Bowl years he was frequently cited as being a prime candidate for openings in the league if he was interested. I assume that this leverage (and effective representation by Octagon) is the basis for his compensation, not pure generosity on the part of the University.
It's also well established that Shaw had ZERO interest in the NFL, EVER (and as such was not actually "leverage"), and that high regard is waning.
Not at his income level. it's a low-pressure gig. Alums and the media are easier on the Stanford football coach than just about anywhere else in football, college or pro. I can't imagine why he would want to go to the NFL.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - DC 86 - 08-07-2021
(08-07-2021, 08:23 AM)Mick Wrote:(08-06-2021, 11:38 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(08-06-2021, 11:36 AM)DC 86 Wrote:(08-06-2021, 11:02 AM)martyup Wrote: I presume it was fairly negotiated, which by definition makes his salary the fair market value for his services.
It's well established that Shaw is highly regarded by NFL teams and particularly during the Rose Bowl years he was frequently cited as being a prime candidate for openings in the league if he was interested. I assume that this leverage (and effective representation by Octagon) is the basis for his compensation, not pure generosity on the part of the University.
It's also well established that Shaw had ZERO interest in the NFL, EVER (and as such was not actually "leverage"), and that high regard is waning.
Not at his income level. it's a low-pressure gig. Alums and the media are easier on the Stanford football coach than just about anywhere else in football, college or pro. I can't imagine why he would want to go to the NFL.
We're not talking about his current situation. In 2012 Shaw's base salary was $1.175 million (total compensation ~ $2 mm), Stanford had just won the Rose Bowl and his record as head coach was 23-4. At this point his pay was doubled. Stanford then went 31-10 over the next three years culminating in another Rose Bowl victory and a final #3 ranking in the AP. This is when he had serious NFL leverage and when his performance justified the contract revisions that he received. Now in 2021 his compensation is exorbitant, but his contract wasn't negotiated during this down period. Of course he loves his situation and never wanted to go to the NFL but there was period where he was a "hot" coach and the disparity between his Stanford compensation and NFL head coach salaries was enormous, motivating Stanford to move preemptively to retain him.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - teejers1 - 08-07-2021
(08-07-2021, 09:17 AM)DC 86 Wrote:(08-07-2021, 08:23 AM)Mick Wrote:(08-06-2021, 11:38 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(08-06-2021, 11:36 AM)DC 86 Wrote:(08-06-2021, 11:02 AM)martyup Wrote: I presume it was fairly negotiated, which by definition makes his salary the fair market value for his services.
It's well established that Shaw is highly regarded by NFL teams and particularly during the Rose Bowl years he was frequently cited as being a prime candidate for openings in the league if he was interested. I assume that this leverage (and effective representation by Octagon) is the basis for his compensation, not pure generosity on the part of the University.
It's also well established that Shaw had ZERO interest in the NFL, EVER (and as such was not actually "leverage"), and that high regard is waning.
Not at his income level. it's a low-pressure gig. Alums and the media are easier on the Stanford football coach than just about anywhere else in football, college or pro. I can't imagine why he would want to go to the NFL.
We're not talking about his current situation. In 2012 Shaw's base salary was $1.175 million (total compensation ~ $2 mm), Stanford had just won the Rose Bowl and his record as head coach was 23-4. At this point his pay was doubled. Stanford then went 31-10 over the next three years culminating in another Rose Bowl victory and a final #3 ranking in the AP. This is when he had serious NFL leverage and when his performance justified the contract revisions that he received. Now in 2021 his compensation is exorbitant, but his contract wasn't negotiated during this down period. Of course he loves his situation and never wanted to go to the NFL but there was period where he was a "hot" coach and the disparity between his Stanford compensation and NFL head coach salaries was enormous, motivating Stanford to move preemptively to retain him.
Your take is right out of the Shaw notebook, and I categorically reject that he was "all that" as a coach, even in 2015. Have you forgotten all the DOGs? All the timeouts burned to avoid DOGs? All the mind-numbingly idiotic and indefensible play calls in critical situations that cost Stanford games and a shot at the Big Prize? You may have under the gloss of 31-10, but I assure you anyone doing any diligence on the guy would have seen all the warts . . . and passed.
Plus, even if you think he deserved an extension, where else was Shaw going to get $4M/year? Nowhere, that's where. And that doesn't even take into account that Shaw had no desire to leave the cushiest job in high-paying (and now, evidently, obscenely high-paying) football.
AFAICT, there was only one person in America who followed Stanford football who even entertained the notion that Shaw deserved some kind of mammoth bump in comp . . . and that one guy was freaking Bernard Muir. A disgrace - completely and totally. And embarrassing, too. And I think it is going to end up costing Bernard his job (even if it isn't presented as such - probably trying to look for soft landing already).
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - DC 86 - 08-07-2021
(08-07-2021, 03:23 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Your take is right out of the Shaw notebook, and I categorically reject that he was "all that" as a coach, even in 2015. Have you forgotten all the DOGs? All the timeouts burned to avoid DOGs? All the mind-numbingly idiotic and indefensible play calls in critical situations that cost Stanford games and a shot at the Big Prize? You may have under the gloss of 31-10, but I assure you anyone doing any diligence on the guy would have seen all the warts . . . and passed.
Simply not true, and there are literally hundreds of links to the contrary. Was the supposed interest planted by Shaw or his representatives (although he didn't use an agent for his first extension)? I suppose a cynic can make that argument. As Stanford fans we may have been frustrated by his game management at times, but for about a five year period he was golden, with legitimate high-income options if he chose to pursue them.
Following the 2015 season he had a record of 54-14, three conference championships, two Rose Bowl victories, and eight seasons experience as an NFL quarterbacks coach, but your assertion is that he wouldn't be a candidate for bigger jobs if he was interested?
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - teejers1 - 08-07-2021
(08-07-2021, 04:40 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(08-07-2021, 03:23 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Your take is right out of the Shaw notebook, and I categorically reject that he was "all that" as a coach, even in 2015. Have you forgotten all the DOGs? All the timeouts burned to avoid DOGs? All the mind-numbingly idiotic and indefensible play calls in critical situations that cost Stanford games and a shot at the Big Prize? You may have under the gloss of 31-10, but I assure you anyone doing any diligence on the guy would have seen all the warts . . . and passed.
Simply not true, and there are literally hundreds of links to the contrary. Was the supposed interest planted by Shaw or his representatives (although he didn't use an agent for his first extension)? I suppose a cynic can make that argument. As Stanford fans we may have been frustrated by his game management at times, but for about a five year period he was golden, with legitimate high-income options if he chose to pursue them.
Following the 2015 season he had a record of 54-14, three conference championships, two Rose Bowl victories, and eight seasons experience as an NFL quarterbacks coach, but your assertion is that he wouldn't be a candidate for bigger jobs if he was interested?
My contention is he never would have been hired because any "big money" slot would require a modicum of diligence. And if that occurred, then they would have quickly moved on. My other contentions are (a) he never, ever interviewed, because (b) he knew he had best/cushiest gig going.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - SamuelMcF - 08-08-2021
(08-07-2021, 10:07 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-07-2021, 04:40 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(08-07-2021, 03:23 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Your take is right out of the Shaw notebook, and I categorically reject that he was "all that" as a coach, even in 2015. Have you forgotten all the DOGs? All the timeouts burned to avoid DOGs? All the mind-numbingly idiotic and indefensible play calls in critical situations that cost Stanford games and a shot at the Big Prize? You may have under the gloss of 31-10, but I assure you anyone doing any diligence on the guy would have seen all the warts . . . and passed.
Simply not true, and there are literally hundreds of links to the contrary. Was the supposed interest planted by Shaw or his representatives (although he didn't use an agent for his first extension)? I suppose a cynic can make that argument. As Stanford fans we may have been frustrated by his game management at times, but for about a five year period he was golden, with legitimate high-income options if he chose to pursue them.
Following the 2015 season he had a record of 54-14, three conference championships, two Rose Bowl victories, and eight seasons experience as an NFL quarterbacks coach, but your assertion is that he wouldn't be a candidate for bigger jobs if he was interested?
My contention is he never would have been hired because any "big money" slot would require a modicum of diligence. And if that occurred, then they would have quickly moved on. My other contentions are (a) he never, ever interviewed, because (b) he knew he had best/cushiest gig going.
Adam Gase was an NFL head coach twice despite everyone and their mother knowing Peyton Manning carried him (and audibled out of his playcalls), Bill O'Brien was given the reins as a GM for the Texans, Jon Gruden got a 10-year $100m contract after 9 years of not coaching, Hue Jackson wasn't fired after going 1-31 in two seasons, Mike McCarthy was hired by the Cowboys as HC despite being carried by Aaron Rodgers for years and continually blowing it. I doubt teams always do "modicums of diligence" on their head guys, as it's pretty clearly an old boys' club (unless the prospective coach has had coffee with Sean McVay).
This is all moot because Shaw's luster is now gone, of course. And I do remember hearing that he received - and turned down - interview calls in the past.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - BostonCard - 08-08-2021
Exactly. Fixating on delay of game penalties as somehow disqualifying is just very weird. The NFL careers of Steve Spuriur and Nick Saban tells you that NFL teams will hire successful head coaches even if they won’t turn out successful in the NFL.
BC
One add. Shaw did have a good thing going, but also, is just very different than Harbaugh. In fact, it was one of the reasons he was hired to the job.
BC
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - teejers1 - 08-08-2021
(08-08-2021, 12:09 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Exactly. Fixating on delay of game penalties as somehow disqualifying is just very weird. The NFL careers of Steve Spuriur and Nick Saban tells you that NFL teams will hire successful head coaches even if they won’t turn out successful in the NFL.
BC
One add. Shaw did have a good thing going, but also, is just very different than Harbaugh. In fact, it was one of the reasons he was hired to the job.
BC
Serial DOGs and use of timeouts to avoid same are merely symptoms of incompetent handling of the offense. And probably the most obvious. But there are so many other examples - again, I think you've suppressed them for whatever reason. But take the game at ASU that Stanford actually won somehow, despite Shaw completely packing it in for the entire 2H. Do you think that was good coaching? Good game management? Did it give Stanford the best chance to win? [Recall that it took a brain fart by opposing QB - who ran the ball in-bounds with no timeouts left, iirc - for Stanford to hang on for dear life]. And there are many more examples in Ws and Ls.
I just think anyone paying $4-$5M/year would do a lot of diligence before doling out that kind of cabbage . . . although, come to think of it, . . . maybe Samuel is right. I mean, our own AD certainly had no clue.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - BostonCard - 08-08-2021
(08-08-2021, 03:10 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Do you think that was good coaching? Good game management? Did it give Stanford the best chance to win? [Recall that it took a brain fart by opposing QB - who ran the ball in-bounds with no timeouts left, iirc - for Stanford to hang on for dear life]. And there are many more examples in Ws and Ls.
Do you think that teaching your players not to run the ball inbounds with no time outs left is not part of coaching? Does the fact that Stanford won by having fewer of those bonehead plays might not count? I mean, I'd rather a coach who packs it in for two quarters and nearly loses the game than a coach nearly comes back to win it until one of his players commits a boneheaded play.
BC
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - gailtate - 08-08-2021
(08-08-2021, 12:00 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(08-07-2021, 10:07 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-07-2021, 04:40 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(08-07-2021, 03:23 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Your take is right out of the Shaw notebook, and I categorically reject that he was "all that" as a coach, even in 2015. Have you forgotten all the DOGs? All the timeouts burned to avoid DOGs? All the mind-numbingly idiotic and indefensible play calls in critical situations that cost Stanford games and a shot at the Big Prize? You may have under the gloss of 31-10, but I assure you anyone doing any diligence on the guy would have seen all the warts . . . and passed.
Simply not true, and there are literally hundreds of links to the contrary. Was the supposed interest planted by Shaw or his representatives (although he didn't use an agent for his first extension)? I suppose a cynic can make that argument. As Stanford fans we may have been frustrated by his game management at times, but for about a five year period he was golden, with legitimate high-income options if he chose to pursue them.
Following the 2015 season he had a record of 54-14, three conference championships, two Rose Bowl victories, and eight seasons experience as an NFL quarterbacks coach, but your assertion is that he wouldn't be a candidate for bigger jobs if he was interested?
My contention is he never would have been hired because any "big money" slot would require a modicum of diligence. And if that occurred, then they would have quickly moved on. My other contentions are (a) he never, ever interviewed, because (b) he knew he had best/cushiest gig going.
Adam Gase was an NFL head coach twice despite everyone and their mother knowing Peyton Manning carried him (and audibled out of his playcalls), Bill O'Brien was given the reins as a GM for the Texans, Jon Gruden got a 10-year $100m contract after 9 years of not coaching, Hue Jackson wasn't fired after going 1-31 in two seasons, Mike McCarthy was hired by the Cowboys as HC despite being carried by Aaron Rodgers for years and continually blowing it. I doubt teams always do "modicums of diligence" on their head guys, as it's pretty clearly an old boys' club (unless the prospective coach has had coffee with Sean McVay).
This is all moot because Shaw's luster is now gone, of course. And I do remember hearing that he received - and turned down - interview calls in the past.
Luster? Shaw has all the luster he could ever need or dream of, right now, right within his present position.This is a platinum sinecure in the realm of college football. No other coaching job anywhere at any level even comes close. Dude. Has. It. Made. And he knows it.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - BostonCard - 08-08-2021
(08-08-2021, 03:19 PM)gailtate Wrote: Luster? Shaw has all the luster he could ever need or dream of, right now, right within his present position.This is a platinum sinecure in the realm of college football. No other coaching job anywhere at any level even comes close. Dude. Has. It. Made. And he knows it.
I think this was in reference to NFL head coaching positions, and it is clear that Shaw is no longer near the top of the lists of NFL GM's for interviews (whether he would actually have gotten hired is a different story; as Sam mentioned it does tend to be an old-boy network).
Shaw wasn't likely to go anywhere, even for a salary half as large as he is getting. As you and others have noted, he has a great thing at Stanford.
BC
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - Goose - 08-08-2021
(08-08-2021, 03:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Shaw wasn't likely to go anywhere, even for a salary half as large as he is getting. As you and others have noted, he has a great thing at Stanford.Indeed he does. If he should ever decide to leave it won't be for more money, especially at this point. However, people do change jobs for reasons "outsiders" just don't understand. Sometimes coaches want to prove to themselves that they are the cause of success, not their surroundings. Sometimes guys want to win a natty and don't think it can be done where they are. Lots of different reasons for moving on. I don't see it happening soon, but don't count on Shaw staying until he retires.
BC
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - teejers1 - 08-09-2021
(08-08-2021, 09:23 PM)Goose Wrote:(08-08-2021, 03:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Shaw wasn't likely to go anywhere, even for a salary half as large as he is getting. As you and others have noted, he has a great thing at Stanford.Indeed he does. If he should ever decide to leave it won't be for more money, especially at this point. However, people do change jobs for reasons "outsiders" just don't understand. Sometimes coaches want to prove to themselves that they are the cause of success, not their surroundings. Sometimes guys want to win a natty and don't think it can be done where they are. Lots of different reasons for moving on. I don't see it happening soon, but don't count on Shaw staying until he retires.
BC
My prediction: he will not be a head football coach anywhere else (at least not at D1 or pro level). He could leave and go into broadcasting or some kind of occasional TV role, though.
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - Phogge - 08-09-2021
I can’t ever see Shaw unfolding a cot and sleeping in his office like Dick Vermeil. Instead when he is drifting towards sleep at 9pm in his luxury bed he’s thinking, “Fooled em again.”
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - BostonCard - 08-09-2021
(08-09-2021, 07:22 AM)Phogge Wrote: I can’t ever see Shaw unfolding a cot and sleeping in his office like Dick Vermeil. Instead when he is drifting towards sleep at 9pm in his luxury bed he’s thinking, “Fooled em again.”
While I agree that he's not sleeping in his office and not going to, I highly doubt the second part of that. I have seen no indication that Shaw suffers from impostor syndrome, and to make it to that level, nobody is thinking they got there by "fooling em". Rather, Shaw, to the extent he goes to sleep thinking about his place in Stanford athletics, is probably thinking "I'm the most successful Stanford coach, ever; I led the team to three Rose Bowls and Four BCS bowls; in 10 years, I've had 9 winning seasons; they are damned lucky to have me."
You may agree or disagree, but to the extent that we can peer into Shaw's mind, I highly doubt he thinks he's run a successful scam on the Stanford AD.
BC
RE: Stanford's 990 for 2019 - Goose - 08-09-2021
I am pretty sure that essentially all coaches, good or bad, go to sleep thinking about how to make the team better. The good ones come up with good ideas. The bad ones, well quick kicking a lot is an idea.