Tag Archives: hbcu endowments

The Debt That Could Bind Us: Why African American Banks Must Engage African Debt Markets to Strengthen Diaspora Sovereignty

Posted on December 5, 2025 by | Leave a comment

“Control of credit is control of destiny. Until Our institutions decide where Our capital sleeps and wakes, Our freedom will remain on loan.” – William A. Foster, IV

The African diaspora’s greatest unrealized financial potential may lie not in Wall Street, but in the vast and growing debt markets of Africa. Across the continent, nations are negotiating, restructuring, and reimagining how they fund development. At the same time, African American banks and financial institutions, small but strategically positioned in the global Black economic architecture, stand largely on the sidelines. This disconnection is more than a missed investment opportunity; it is a failure of transnational financial imagination. If the descendants of Africa in America wish to secure true sovereignty, interconnectivity, and global influence, engaging African debt markets is not optional it is imperative.

Africa’s debt profile is as complex as it is misunderstood. Many Western narratives frame African debt in crisis terms, yet that view ignores the sophistication of African capital markets and the diversity of creditors. The continent’s public debt stood around $1.8 trillion by 2025, but much of this borrowing has gone toward infrastructure and industrial expansion. The key shift in recent years has been away from traditional multilateral lenders toward bilateral and market-based finance particularly through Chinese, Gulf, and private bond markets. Countries like Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, and Ethiopia have issued Eurobonds in recent years, often at higher interest rates due to perceptions of risk rather than fundamental insolvency. Others, such as Zambia, have undergone restructuring efforts designed to rebalance repayment with growth. In each case, Africa’s economic story remains one of ambition constrained by external debt conditions, a pattern reminiscent of the post-Reconstruction era Black South, when capital starvation and dependency on non-Black lenders limited autonomy and intergenerational power. That parallel matters deeply for African Americans. The same global financial order that restricts African nations’ fiscal independence also limits the growth of African American financial institutions. The tools that could change both realities already exist within the diaspora: capital pools, credit analysis expertise, and shared strategic interest in sovereignty.

African American banks—roughly 18 federally insured institutions as of 2025—control an estimated $6.4 billion in combined assets. While that is a fraction of what one mid-sized regional white-owned bank manages, these institutions hold a symbolic and strategic power far greater than their balance sheets suggest. They remain the custodians of community trust, the anchors of small-business lending in historically neglected markets, and potential conduits for international financial collaboration. Historically, African American banks were created to fill a void left by exclusionary financial systems. But in the 21st century, their mission can evolve beyond domestic community lending toward global financial participation. The African debt market, currently dominated by Western institutions that extract value through high interest and credit rating manipulation, offers a natural arena for African American engagement. If Black banks can collectively participate through bond purchases, underwriting partnerships, or diaspora-focused sovereign funds they could help shift Africa’s dependence from Western and Asian creditors toward diaspora-based capital flows. This would not only stabilize African economies, but also create transnational linkages that reinforce both African and African American economic self-determination.

Consider the power of mutual indebtedness as a political tool. When nations or institutions lend to each other, they form durable relationships governed by trust, negotiation, and shared interest. For too long, the African diaspora’s relationship with Africa has been philanthropic or cultural rather than financial. That model, however well-intentioned, is structurally disempowering and it reinforces dependency rather than partnership. Debt, properly structured, reverses that dynamic. If African American financial institutions were to purchase or underwrite African sovereign and municipal debt, they would create financial obligations that tether African states to diaspora capital, not to exploit but to interdepend. This is the foundation of modern sovereignty: the ability to borrow and invest within your own cultural and political network rather than through intermediaries who extract value and dictate terms. Imagine, for instance, a syndicated loan or bond issuance where a consortium of African American banks, credit unions, and philanthropic financial arms partner with African development banks or ministries of finance. The terms could prioritize developmental outcomes like affordable housing, small business lending, renewable energy while generating steady returns. The instruments could even be marketed domestically as “Diaspora Sovereign Bonds,” accessible through digital platforms. The impact would be twofold: African American banks would diversify their portfolios and tap into emerging market yields, while African governments would gain access to capital free from neocolonial conditions.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) stand at the crossroads of intellect, finance, and heritage. Their institutional capacity, academic talent, and alumni networks make them natural architects for a new financial relationship between the African diaspora and the African continent. Yet this potential comes with risk, particularly for public HBCUs, whose visibility and state dependency could make them targets of political and financial backlash. If a public HBCU were to openly participate in or advocate for engagement with African debt markets, it would likely face scrutiny from state legislatures, regulatory bodies, and entrenched financial interests. Such activity would be perceived by non–African American–owned banks and state-level policymakers as a challenge to existing capital hierarchies. The idea of Black public institutions developing transnational financial alliances outside traditional Western frameworks threatens not only market control but ideological narratives about where and how Black institutions should operate. To navigate this terrain, public HBCUs must be strategic, creative, and stealth in execution. Their participation in African financial engagement cannot be loud; it must be layered. They can do so through consortia, research collaborations, and investment partnerships that quietly build expertise and influence without triggering overt resistance. For example, an HBCU economics department could conduct African sovereign credit research under a global development initiative, while a business school could host “emerging market” investment programs that include African debt instruments without explicitly branding them as Pan-African.

Private HBCUs, freer from state oversight, can play a more overt role forming partnerships with African banks, hosting diaspora finance summits, and seeding funds dedicated to Africa-centered investments. But public institutions must operate with a subtler hand, leveraging think tanks, foundations, and alumni networks to pursue the same ends through indirect channels. Creativity will be their shield. Collaboration with African American–owned banks, credit unions, or diaspora investment funds can serve as intermediary structures allowing HBCUs to channel research, expertise, and even capital participation without placing the institutions themselves in direct political crossfire.

Both public and private HBCUs must also activate and empower their alumni associations as extensions of institutional sovereignty. Alumni associations exist in a different legal and political space and they are often registered as independent nonprofits, free from the direct control of state governments or university boards. This autonomy allows them to operate where the universities cannot. Through alumni associations, HBCUs can channel capital, intelligence, and partnerships in ways that stay outside the reach of regulators or political gatekeepers. Alumni bodies can create joint funds, invest in African debt instruments, or collaborate with African banks and diaspora enterprises. The understanding between HBCUs and their alumni networks must be clear and disciplined: the institution provides intellectual and structural guidance; the alumni associations execute the capital movement. This relationship becomes a discreet circulatory system of sovereignty with universities generating the vision and expertise, alumni executing the financial maneuvers that advance that vision.

HBCUs can further support this ecosystem by funneling institutional capital and intellectual property toward their alumni associations in strategic, deniable ways. Research centers can license data or consulting services to alumni-managed firms. Endowments can allocate small funds to “external collaborations” that, in practice, seed diaspora initiatives. Career and alumni offices can quietly match graduates in finance and development with African institutions seeking diaspora partners. These are small, legal, but potent acts of quiet nation-building. The success of this strategy depends on discipline, secrecy, and shared purpose. HBCUs, particularly the public ones, must move as institutions that understand the historical realities of Black advancement: every act of power must be both visionary and shielded. Alumni associations, meanwhile, must operate as the agile extensions of these universities, taking calculated risks on behalf of the larger mission. If executed carefully, this dual structure of HBCUs as the intellectual architects and alumni associations as the financial executors creates a protected channel for diaspora wealth creation. It allows public institutions to avoid political exposure while still advancing the collective objective: redirecting Black capital toward Africa and reestablishing a financial circuit of trust, obligation, and empowerment across the diaspora. In this model, the public HBCU becomes the hidden engineer, the private HBCU the visible vanguard, and the alumni network the financial hand. Together, they form an ecosystem of quiet innovation and a movement that builds transnational Black sovereignty not through protest or proclamation, but through precise and deliberate financial design.

Skeptics might argue that African American banks lack the scale or technical capacity to engage in sovereign lending. This concern, while not unfounded, can be addressed through collaboration. No single Black institution must go it alone. The path forward lies in consortium models of pooling resources, sharing risk, and leveraging collective bargaining power. Diaspora bond funds could be structured as partnerships between African American banks, HBCU endowments, and African development finance institutions such as the African Development Bank (AfDB) or Africa Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank). These organizations already have experience managing sovereign risk and would benefit from diaspora participation, which strengthens their political legitimacy. Furthermore, technology has lowered the cost of entry into complex financial markets. Digital banking, blockchain-based identity verification, and fintech partnerships can allow diaspora institutions to participate in cross-border finance with greater transparency and speed. The real obstacle, therefore, is not capacity it is vision. The diaspora’s capital remains trapped within Western financial systems that reward liquidity but punish sovereignty. Redirecting even a fraction of that capital toward Africa would shift the balance of global economic power in subtle but profound ways.

Sovereignty in the modern world is measured as much in capital access as in military or political power. Nations that cannot borrow on fair terms cannot build on fair terms. The same is true for communities. African Americans, long denied fair access to capital, should understand this truth intimately. The African debt question, then, is not a distant geopolitical matter it is a mirror. If African American banks and financial institutions continue to operate solely within the parameters of domestic credit markets, their growth will remain capped by a system designed to contain them. But if they extend their vision outward to the African continent, to Caribbean nations, to the global diaspora then they create new asset classes, new partnerships, and new pathways to power. Moreover, engagement with African debt markets enhances geopolitical influence. It positions African American institutions as interlocutors between Africa and global finance, enabling a collective voice on credit ratings, debt restructuring, and investment policy. That is the kind of influence that cannot be achieved through philanthropy or symbolism it is built through transactions, treaties, and trust.

Other diasporas have already proven this model works. Jewish, Indian, and Chinese global networks have long used financial interconnectivity as a tool of sovereignty. Israel’s government issues bonds directly to diaspora investors through the Development Corporation for Israel—a program that has raised over $46 billion since 1951. The Indian diaspora contributes billions annually in remittances and investments that underpin India’s foreign reserves. The African diaspora, by contrast, remains financially fragmented despite its vast size and income. With over 140 million people of African descent living outside Africa, the potential for coordinated capital deployment is immense. Even modest participation of say, $10 billion annually in diaspora-held African bonds would change the global conversation around African finance and diaspora economics. This scale of engagement requires trust, transparency, and accountability. African nations must commit to governance reforms and anti-corruption measures that assure diaspora investors of integrity. Likewise, African American institutions must build financial literacy and confidence around African markets, overcoming decades of Western media narratives portraying the continent as unstable or uninvestable.

The long-term vision is a self-sustaining ecosystem of diaspora credit: African American and Caribbean banks pool capital to buy or underwrite African debt; HBCUs model sovereign risk, publish credit analyses, and design diaspora finance curricula; African governments and regional banks issue diaspora-oriented financial instruments; fintech platforms connect diaspora investors directly to African projects; and cultural finance diplomacy transforms diaspora engagement into official national strategy. The ecosystem would allow wealth to circulate within the global African community rather than being siphoned outward through exploitative intermediaries. Over time, such networks could support not only debt financing but also equity investment, venture capital, and trade finance all under the umbrella of Black sovereignty economics.

At its core, this initiative is not merely about money. It is about the reconfiguration of power. The African diaspora cannot achieve full sovereignty while its economic lifeblood flows through institutions indifferent or hostile to its future. Engaging African debt markets transforms the diaspora from spectators of African development into its co-architects. It also transforms Africa from a borrower of last resort to a partner of first resort within its global family. For African American banks, this is the logical next chapter. The institutions that once shielded Black wealth from domestic exclusion now have the opportunity to project that wealth into international inclusion. It is a matter of strategic foresight aligning moral mission with financial opportunity. As the world edges toward a multipolar order where the U.S., China, and regional blocs vie for influence, the African diaspora must define its own sphere of power not through slogans but through balance sheets. A sovereign people must have sovereign finance.

Toward a Diaspora Credit Ecosystem

The long-term vision is a self-sustaining ecosystem of diaspora credit:

  1. Diaspora Banks & Funds: African American and Caribbean banks pool capital to buy or underwrite African debt.
  2. HBCU Research Hubs: HBCUs model sovereign risk, publish credit analyses, and design diaspora finance curricula.
  3. African Institutions: African governments and regional banks issue diaspora-oriented financial instruments.
  4. Fintech Platforms: Secure, regulated digital systems connect diaspora investors directly to African projects.
  5. Cultural Finance Diplomacy: Diaspora engagement becomes part of national policy—similar to how nations court foreign direct investment today.

The ecosystem would allow wealth to circulate within the global African community rather than being siphoned outward through exploitative intermediaries. Over time, such networks could support not only debt financing but also equity investment, venture capital, and trade finance all under the umbrella of Black sovereignty economics.

In 1900, at the First Pan-African Conference in London, W.E.B. Du Bois declared, “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line.” A century later, that color line has become a credit line. It is drawn not only across borders but across ledgers between who lends and who borrows, who owns and who owes. The African American bank and the African treasury are not distant cousins; they are parts of one economic body severed by history and waiting to be reconnected by will. Engaging African debt markets is not charity it is strategy. It is the financial expression of unity long preached but rarely practiced. The next stage of the African world’s freedom struggle will not be won merely in the streets or in the schools. It will be won in the boardrooms where capital chooses its direction. If African American finance chooses Africa, both sides of the Atlantic will rise together not as debtors and creditors, but as partners in sovereignty.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

Leave a comment

Posted in Banking & Credit Unions

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Real Game: PWI Athletics Win with Wealth, Not Athletes—And HBCUs Can’t Chase That Model

Posted on December 4, 2025 by | Leave a comment

“The wealthiest boosters and donors to a PWI rarely ever played sports, but they did go build companies and a lot of wealth. Boosters spend hundreds of millions a year to compete with their friends and business competition from rival schools. The money spent is a bigger game than what happens on the field.” – William A. Foster, IV

Courtesy of The Rich Eisen Show

The image circulating across sports media this week says everything without trying to explain anything at all. LSU’s new contract offer to Lane Kiffin — seven years at $13 million annually, stacked with multimillion-dollar bonuses, home buyouts, and housing subsidies looks less like a coaching contract and more like a sovereign wealth transaction. It is the kind of deal only an institution backed by generational wealth, mega-boosters, and a national alumni base at the upper end of the economic ladder could produce. Yet every few months a familiar chorus resurfaces insisting that if “only the top African American athletes chose HBCUs,” the financial gap in college athletics would close. The narrative is compelling, emotional, and rooted in cultural longing, but it remains economically false.

The fantasy is seductive: if only more premier African American athletes chose HBCUs, our athletic programs could compete with Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs). If only we could land that five-star recruit, sign that top quarterback, or attract that elite basketball prospect, everything would change. The dream persists in alumni conversations, on social media, and in aspirational fundraising campaigns. But the dream is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of what actually drives college athletic success and it’s costing HBCUs resources they can’t afford to waste. The numbers tell a story that talent alone cannot rewrite.

Lane Kiffin’s new contract with LSU pays him approximately $13 million annually, making him one of the highest-paid coaches in college football. To put this in perspective, Southern University’s entire athletic department operates on total revenues of $18.2 million for fiscal year 2025-2026. One coach at a PWI earns over 70 percent of what an entire HBCU athletic department generates in revenue. This isn’t an aberration it’s the system working exactly as designed.

The disparity becomes even starker when you examine what funds these massive operations. According to an audit report, Southern University Athletics had total revenue of $17.3 million and expenses of $18.9 million in fiscal year 2023, creating a deficit of $1.5 million. Meanwhile, PWI athletic departments operate with budgets in the hundreds of millions. The athletes on the field, no matter how talented, cannot bridge this chasm.

What truly separates PWI athletic programs from HBCU programs isn’t the talent of 18-22 year-olds playing the games. It’s the economic power of the institutions behind them specifically, the size, wealth, and giving capacity of their alumni bases. According to Georgetown University, PWI graduates earn an average of $62,000 annually, compared to HBCU graduates who earn around $51,000. But the income gap is just the beginning of the story. The real disparity lies in generational wealth accumulation and the sheer number of potential donors.

Major PWIs have alumni bases numbering in the hundreds of thousands, often spanning generations of families who have accumulated significant wealth over decades. These institutions benefit from alumni who are CEOs, hedge fund managers, real estate developers, and executives at Fortune 500 companies. Their boosters can write seven-figure checks without blinking. When they want to retain a coach or upgrade facilities, they simply open their checkbooks.

HBCUs represent around 3% of America’s colleges, yet account for less than 1% of total U.S. endowment wealth. The endowment funding gap stands at approximately $100 to $1—for every $100 a PWI receives in endowment money, HBCUs receive $1. This isn’t just about annual giving; it’s about the compound interest of generational investment that HBCUs have never had the opportunity to build.

Corporate sponsors don’t pay for athletic excellence they pay for eyeballs and access to affluent consumer bases. When companies decide where to invest their marketing dollars, they’re calculating the purchasing power and professional networks they can reach through an institution’s alumni base. A company sponsoring a PWI athletic program gains access to hundreds of thousands of alumni with significant disposable income and decision-making power in corporations. The athletes are just the entertainment that delivers this audience. The actual product being sold is access to the alumni network—for recruiting employees, marketing products, and building business relationships.

This is why even if every top African American athlete chose HBCUs, the sponsorship dollars wouldn’t automatically follow. The economic fundamentals would remain unchanged. Companies invest based on return on investment calculations that are tied to alumni wealth and network size, not solely to on-field performance.

The belief that athletic success drives institutional prosperity is perhaps the most dangerous delusion facing HBCU leadership. Even among PWIs, only a tiny fraction of athletic programs actually turn a profit. Most operate at a loss that’s subsidized by the broader university budget, student fees, and institutional transfers. Southern University’s budget shows $2.2 million in “Non-Mandatory Transfer” and $1.4 million in “Athletic Subsidy”—meaning the institution itself must subsidize athletics with nearly $3.6 million in institutional funds. This is money diverted from academic programs, faculty salaries, research, and student services to keep athletic programs afloat.

The PWI athletic model works for PWIs not because athletics are inherently profitable, but because they can afford the losses. They have massive endowments, substantial state funding, and alumni donor bases that can absorb deficits while still funding academic excellence. HBCUs don’t have this luxury. When an HBCU runs a $1.5 million athletic deficit while struggling to pay competitive faculty salaries, upgrade outdated classroom technology, or fund research initiatives, the opportunity cost is devastating. That deficit represents scholarships not awarded, professors not hired, and academic programs not developed.

Some HBCU advocates point to conference television deals and NCAA tournament appearances as potential revenue sources. But here again, the math is unforgiving. Major PWI conferences negotiate billion-dollar television contracts because they deliver large, affluent viewing audiences that advertisers covet. The Big Ten and SEC don’t command massive TV deals because their athletes are more talented they command them because their alumni bases represent valuable consumer demographics. The SWAC and MEAC can’t replicate these deals because they don’t deliver the same audience size and purchasing power, regardless of the talent on the field. Even if HBCUs somehow assembled teams that won national championships, the structural economic advantages would remain with PWIs.

Here’s what proponents of athletic investment don’t want to acknowledge: the marginal difference in talent between a five-star recruit and a three-star recruit is minimal compared to the massive difference in institutional resources. A slightly more talented roster cannot overcome a 10-to-1 or 100-to-1 resource disadvantage.

Consider the logistics: While an HBCU football program might struggle to afford charter flights for the team, PWI programs have dedicated planes, state-of-the-art training facilities, nutritionists, sports psychologists, and medical staffs that rival professional franchises. They have recruiting budgets that allow them to identify and court prospects nationally. They have video coordinators, analysts, and support staff that outnumber many HBCU athletic departments entirely. The game is won with infrastructure, coaching depth, medical support, nutrition, facilities, and recovery technology not just with the athletes on scholarship. And these resources require the kind of sustained, massive funding that only comes from large, wealthy alumni bases and major corporate partnerships.

There is an alternative model that makes sense for HBCUs: the Ivy League approach. Ivy League schools have chosen not to compete in the athletic arms race. They don’t offer athletic scholarships for football. They emphasize academic excellence while maintaining competitive but not dominant athletic programs. Their alumni networks and institutional prestige are built on academic achievement, research output, and professional success not athletic championships.

For HBCUs, this model offers a realistic path forward. Focus resources on academic excellence, research capabilities, and entrepreneurship. Build prestige through intellectual output, not athletic performance. Create value through what HBCUs have always done best: developing future leaders, producing groundbreaking research, and serving their communities.

The Ivy League proves that institutional prestige and alumni loyalty can thrive without major athletic success. No one questions Harvard’s or Yale’s institutional value because their football teams don’t win national championships. Every dollar spent trying to compete in the PWI athletic model is a dollar not invested in what could actually transform HBCU economic outcomes: research infrastructure, entrepreneurship programs, endowment building, and academic excellence.

Research shows that more than half of all students at HBCUs experience some measure of upward mobility, and upward mobility is about 50 percent higher at HBCUs than PWIs. This is the actual competitive advantage HBCUs possess their ability to transform the economic trajectories of students from under-resourced communities. This mission deserves full investment, not the scraps left over after athletic departments consume resources. If HBCUs invested the millions currently subsidizing athletic deficits into research grants, business incubators, technology transfer offices, and endowed professorships, they could create sustainable revenue streams while fulfilling their core mission. They could become engines of wealth creation for African American communities rather than junior varsity versions of PWI athletic programs.

Admitting you can’t win an unwinnable game isn’t defeat it’s strategic wisdom. HBCUs should stop trying to beat PWIs at a game rigged by structural economic advantages they will never possess. Instead, they should redefine success on their own terms.

This means:

Rightsizing athletic budgets to reflect institutional resources and priorities, accepting that competing for national championships in revenue sports isn’t financially viable or strategically wise.

Investing in niche sports and athletic experiences that can be competitive without massive resource requirements and that build campus community without drowning budgets.

Redirecting resources toward academic distinction, particularly in high-demand fields like STEM, healthcare, and technology where HBCU graduates can command premium salaries and build generational wealth.

Building research infrastructure that attracts grants, creates intellectual property, and establishes HBCUs as innovation centers rather than athletic also-rans.

Developing entrepreneurship ecosystems that turn students into business owners and job creators, building the kind of economic power that generates sustained institutional support.

Creating HBCU-specific tournaments and competitions where these institutions can showcase their talents to their communities without subsidizing PWI athletic departments through guarantee games.

The African American community’s love for HBCU athletics is real and deep. The pageantry of HBCU homecomings, the tradition of the bands, the pride of seeing young Black excellence on display these matter. But love sometimes means making hard choices about where to invest limited resources for maximum impact. The question isn’t whether HBCUs should have athletic programs. The question is whether they should bankrupt their academic missions chasing a competitive model they can never win, designed by and for institutions with 100 times their resources.

One coach earning $13 million. One entire athletic department operating on $18 million. The math isn’t subtle. The choice shouldn’t be either.

Until HBCUs build alumni bases with the size, wealth, and giving capacity to compete in the modern college athletic arms race, pursuing the PWI model isn’t ambition it’s financial suicide. The path to HBCU prosperity runs through classrooms and laboratories, not football stadiums and basketball arenas. It’s time to stop chasing someone else’s game and start winning our own.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Moneyball

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Owning The Diamond: Why HBCU Women Entrepreneurs Should Buy a Women’s Pro Baseball Team

Posted on November 21, 2025 by | Leave a comment

“Let us put our moneys together; let us use our moneys; let us put our moneys out at usury among ourselves, and reap the benefits ourselves.” – Maggie L. Walker, pioneering African American banker and businesswoman:

It is not enough to cheer from the stands.
IIt is not enough to cheer from the stands. If HBCU women entrepreneurs and the institutions that produced them are serious about building generational wealth, influence, and visibility in the global sports economy, then ownership, not participation, must be the goal. The emergence of the Women’s Pro Baseball League (WPBL) offers just such a moment. Four inaugural franchises in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, and Boston mark the first professional women’s baseball league in the United States since 1954. And yet, amid this historic announcement, one question should echo across the HBCU landscape: Who will own a piece of it?

Ownership in sports is about more than trophies it’s about capital, culture, and control. While athletes inspire, it is owners who shape the economic ecosystem: negotiating television contracts, setting standards for pay equity, deciding where teams are located, and determining which communities benefit from their presence. In American sports, Black ownership remains vanishingly rare. Fewer than a handful of African Americans have ever held majority stakes in professional teams across all major leagues. Among women, ownership representation is even smaller. Yet the HBCU ecosystem comprising over a hundred institutions, $4 billion in endowment capital (though still dwarfed by their PWI counterparts), and a growing class of wealthy and capable alumni possesses both the human and institutional capital to change that reality. Buying a WPBL franchise would be a powerful signal: that African American women are no longer content to merely play or support the game, but to own the infrastructure of it.

The WPBL represents a once-in-a-century opportunity. The last women’s professional baseball league folded in 1954 when postwar America reverted to its gendered labor norms and refused to institutionalize women’s success on the field. Today, that same sport returns in a vastly different economy one defined by media fragmentation, digital storytelling, and institutional investing that rewards niche audiences and strong narratives. Women’s sports are on the rise. The WNBA just received a $75 million investment round from Nike, Condoleezza Rice, Laurene Powell Jobs, and others. Women’s college basketball ratings have exploded, drawing more viewers than some men’s sports. The National Women’s Soccer League has seen team valuations grow fivefold in the past five years. Investors are realizing what the data already shows: undervalued leagues often yield outsized returns once visibility and infrastructure catch up.

The WPBL sits at this exact inflection point. Early investors will not just shape the league they will define its culture, inclusivity, and profitability. This is why HBCU women entrepreneurs, backed by HBCU endowments and alumni capital, should move swiftly. Ownership here is not a vanity project it is a long-term equity position in the fastest-growing frontier of professional sports.

Start-up sports franchises are not the billion-dollar investments of the NFL or NBA. The WPBL’s initial teams are expected to sell for figures in the mid-seven to low-eight figures: expensive, yes, but feasible through a syndicate model combining entrepreneurial capital and institutional backing. A $15 million franchise, for instance, could be financed with $5 million in equity from HBCU women entrepreneurs, $3 million in matching commitments from HBCU endowments through a joint-venture investment arm, $5 million in debt financing via an African American–owned bank or credit union consortium, and $2 million in naming rights, sponsorship pre-sales, and city incentives.

Such a structure distributes risk while maximizing institutional leverage. It also allows for a reinvestment loop: returns from franchise appreciation, media deals, or merchandising could feed back into the endowments that helped fund the acquisition, growing HBCU wealth through private equity in sports. At a modest ten percent annualized return over fifteen years, a $3 million endowment investment could grow to more than $12.5 million, even before accounting for franchise appreciation. The social return of visibility, leadership, and influence would be immeasurable.

HBCU women entrepreneurs already lead some of the most innovative ventures in the country from fintech to fashion to wellness. They have built companies with leaner budgets, higher risk tolerance, and community-driven missions. That same acumen could translate seamlessly into sports ownership. A women-led ownership group rooted in HBCU culture would bring authenticity to a league whose audience is already primed for inclusive storytelling. They would not merely own a team they would shape its identity around empowerment, intellect, and cultural sophistication. Imagine a team whose executive suite reflects Spelman’s academic rigor, Howard’s creative dynamism, and FAMU’s entrepreneurial grit.

Moreover, the investment aligns with HBCU women’s long history of institution building. From Mary McLeod Bethune’s founding of Bethune-Cookman University to Maggie Lena Walker’s creation of the first Black woman–owned bank, African American women have always been at the forefront of merging mission with market. Buying a professional sports franchise is simply a modern continuation of that legacy.

Most HBCU endowments remain undercapitalized. Collectively, they total roughly $4 billion, compared to Harvard’s $50 billion alone. That gap underscores why traditional endowment investing centered on conservative asset classes may not close the wealth chasm. Sports equity, particularly in emerging women’s leagues, represents a hybrid investment: cultural capital meets growth asset. Endowments could carve out a modest allocation for strategic co-investment vehicles aimed at ownership in minority- or women-led sports ventures. Such a move would not only produce potential returns but reposition HBCU endowments as active agents in wealth creation, mirroring how elite universities use their endowments as venture capital arms. The same institutions that once nurtured the first generations of African American scholars could now nurture the first generation of African American women sports owners.

The path to ownership would unfold in phases: coalition building, institutional partnerships, financial structuring, branding, and media engagement. The first step would be forming an HBCU Women Sports Ownership Council an alliance of HBCU alumnae entrepreneurs, investors, attorneys, and sports professionals. Its mission would be to identify a WPBL franchise opportunity, conduct due diligence, and negotiate terms. Next, endowments, foundations, and alumni associations could serve as anchor investors via a pooled HBCU Sports Ownership Fund. African American–owned financial institutions would provide credit facilities, ensuring that capital circulation strengthens Black banking. The team’s branding could reflect HBCU values of intellect, resilience, and excellence. Annual “HBCU Heritage Games,” scholarships for women in sports management, and partnerships with K–12 baseball programs would ensure the franchise deepens institutional impact.

By the time Opening Day 2027 arrives, the vision becomes real. A stadium in Atlanta or Houston cities with deep HBCU roots roars with excitement. The team, perhaps named The Monarchs in tribute to the Negro Leagues, takes the field in uniforms stitched by a Black-owned apparel company. The owner’s suite is filled not with venture capitalists, but HBCU women—founders, engineers, bankers, educators—raising glasses to history. Every ticket sold funds scholarships. Every broadcast includes HBCU branding. Every victory multiplies across the ecosystem, from the university’s endowment statement to the little girl in the stands whispering, “She looks like me.” That is the multiplier effect of ownership.

A defining mark of this ownership group’s legacy should not only be who owns the team but who benefits from it. When an HBCU-led syndicate buys a women’s professional baseball team, it must ensure that every dollar of the fan experience circulates through Black and HBCU-centered businesses. Ownership without ecosystem-building simply recreates dependency; real power multiplies through participation.

An HBCU women’s ownership group has the chance to build an authentically circular sports economy, where concession stands, catering services, and retail vendors reflect the same entrepreneurial DNA as the team itself. The model for this begins with women like Pinky Cole, founder of Slutty Vegan, who transformed plant-based dining into a cultural and economic phenomenon through purpose-driven branding and community investment. Her ability to merge food, culture, and empowerment offers a blueprint for how HBCU women entrepreneurs could anchor the ballpark experience in ownership and identity.

Complementing this vision is the role of HBCU-owned service enterprises like Perkins Management Services Company, founded by Nicholas Perkins, a Fayetteville State University alumnus and owner of Fuddruckers. Perkins Management operates food services across HBCUs and federal institutions, combining operational scale with cultural competence. Partnering with Perkins Management to run stadium concessions or hospitality would ensure that the team’s operations mirror the ownership group’s values efficiency, reinvestment, and excellence.

Such an approach would transform the stadium into an economic hub for HBCU enterprise. Food vendors would come from HBCU alumni-owned companies. Uniform suppliers could source from HBCU textile programs. Merchandise stands could feature HBCU student designs. Hospitality contracts would prioritize HBCU-affiliated culinary programs. The music during games could feature HBCU marching bands or alumni artists. Even the stadium’s artwork could highlight HBCU painters and photographers, ensuring every sensory detail honors the ecosystem that made the ownership possible. A fan buying food or merchandise would not just be a consumer they’d be participating in a shared mission to strengthen African American institutions.

This reimagined sports environment would also offer internships, apprenticeships, and consulting opportunities for HBCU students and faculty. Business students could study operations. Communication majors could intern with the PR team. Engineering departments could advise on stadium energy efficiency. Each partnership would turn the franchise into a living classroom of applied HBCU excellence.

At a time when major leagues outsource globally, a women’s baseball franchise owned by HBCU women could reimagine localization and reinvestment as competitive advantage. Every game day would circulate dollars through a self-sustaining ecosystem that feeds back into HBCU entrepreneurship. Because when the ballpark itself is powered by HBCU women’s enterprise from boardroom to concession stand it ceases to be a venue. It becomes a living institution.

If the Women’s Pro Baseball League truly takes off, early ownership will be the golden ticket. African American investors have often entered markets too late once valuations skyrocket and access narrows. Now, before the WPBL matures, is the time for HBCU institutions and their entrepreneurial alumnae to act collectively. The call is not for charity but for strategy. Pooling even a fraction of the capital that circulates annually among HBCU alumni could change the power dynamic in sports forever. Endowments could stake equity. Alumni could invest through private funds. Students could study the economics of their own institution’s franchise. The result would be a feedback loop of wealth, wisdom, and visibility.

The first women’s professional baseball league in seventy years deserves first-of-its-kind ownership and no community is more qualified to deliver it than HBCU women. Because when HBCU women own the field, the entire game changes.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

Leave a comment

Posted in Moneyball

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pan-African Capital: HBCU Endowments, African American Banks, and Kenya’s Growth Story

Posted on October 17, 2025 by | 1 comment

“When HBCU endowments and African American banks act together, they stop being small players. They become a financial force that nations must reckon with.” – HBCU Money Editorial Board

In the next several decades, the fault lines of global growth will not run through New York or London but through Nairobi, Lagos, and Accra. Kenya, sitting at the intersection of East Africa’s financial corridor and global trade routes, has become a laboratory for innovation in fintech, agriculture, and infrastructure. Yet despite centuries of cultural, spiritual, and blood connections, African America remains structurally absent from this new frontier of opportunity. Our financial institutions and HBCU endowments are under-leveraged in international markets, particularly in Africa, even as Asian, European, and Middle Eastern investors carve out dominant positions. For African American financial institutions and HBCU endowments, Kenya represents more than just an emerging market. It is a strategic stage for institutional wealth-building, geopolitical leverage, and reconnecting the African Diaspora through shared prosperity. The opportunity lies not simply in making isolated investments but in creating transatlantic joint ventures that bring together capital, expertise, and institutional strategy.

Kenya is more than safari brochures and tourist postcards. Its economy has quietly matured into one of Africa’s most diversified. With a GDP of over $110 billion and growth rates consistently outperforming many global peers, Kenya is often referred to as East Africa’s economic anchor. Nairobi has developed into the region’s financial hub, hosting multinational headquarters, stock exchange operations, and a robust startup ecosystem. Agriculture remains central, with Kenya exporting coffee, tea, and horticultural products while seeking to expand into value-addition agribusiness. Technology is another frontier, with Nairobi’s “Silicon Savannah” serving as a magnet for fintech, led by the global success of M-Pesa. Rapid urbanization fuels infrastructure and real estate demand, while Kenya’s leadership in geothermal and renewable energy has made it a global model. For African American institutions, the attraction lies not only in the growth metrics but in the alignment of needs: Kenya seeks patient capital, educational partnerships, and trusted diaspora allies, while African American institutions seek diversification, higher yields, and independence from U.S.-centric markets.

Despite African America’s aggregate $1.8 trillion in consumer spending, the community’s institutional capital remains modest. Only a handful of Black-owned banks, credit unions, and venture firms exist, and most hold under $1 billion in assets. HBCU endowments combined are less than $4 billion—an amount dwarfed by single Ivy League endowments. Yet within these constraints lies enormous potential. African American financial institutions already possess the regulatory infrastructure to pool and allocate capital, while HBCU endowments, though smaller in scale, carry moral weight and symbolic capital that can unlock global partnerships. Together, these institutions can create vehicles for international deployment of African American wealth, something that has been absent throughout our history. Imagine a pooled investment fund where Howard University, Spelman College, and Florida A&M commit $25 million collectively, matched by $25 million from Black-owned banks. That $50 million fund could be deployed into Kenyan agritech ventures, renewable energy projects, or commercial real estate. The collaboration would be historic: an African Diaspora financial ecosystem investing directly in Africa’s future.

The reasons to prioritize such engagement are strategic. Diversification is one. U.S. capital markets are increasingly low-yield for small institutional investors, while African markets offer higher growth potential and uncorrelated returns. Another is first-mover advantage. Unlike European or Asian investors, African American institutions do not carry the baggage of colonial relationships, which makes trust-based partnerships more viable. Transnational investment also provides institutional leverage. Just as Jewish, Irish, and Italian communities have leveraged diaspora ties for economic and political power, African Americans can build similar networks of influence. Beyond finance, there is the educational pipeline. HBCUs can link faculty, students, and alumni into research, study abroad, and entrepreneurial ventures tied to investments in Kenya. And finally, there is legacy. These investments address the absence of transgenerational institutional wealth that has long defined the African American economic condition.

The structures to achieve this vision can be diverse. A Diaspora investment fund pooling capital from HBCU endowments, Black-owned banks, and other African American institutions could professionally manage investments in Kenya. Public-private partnerships could align capital with Kenya’s infrastructure push in transport, energy, and housing. Venture capital and startup accelerators in Nairobi could connect HBCU students with Africa’s entrepreneurial scene while generating equity returns. Real estate investment trusts, driven by Nairobi’s urbanization, could provide stable income streams. Even education-linked ventures in e-learning and vocational training could generate both profit and intellectual reciprocity.

The barriers are real but not insurmountable. Kenya requires foreign investors to comply with incorporation, licensing, and work permit laws, which demand careful navigation. Currency risk from fluctuations in the Kenyan shilling must be hedged. Information gaps are wide, with many African American institutions unfamiliar with African business environments, highlighting the need for trusted partnerships and research. The relatively small scale of HBCU endowments makes collaboration indispensable. Above all, transparent governance and professional management are critical to avoid reputational risk. Yet none of these barriers are unique. European, Asian, and African investors face them daily and manage to thrive.

This is not only an economic project but a political one. The creation of a formal African American–Kenya Investment Council, for example, could coordinate through the Four Points Chamber of Commerce, HBCUs, and Kenyan universities to advocate for favorable treaties, tax incentives, and research collaborations. African American institutions investing abroad alter the narrative at home: no longer just a constituency asking for inclusion, but a global economic player with interests that stretch across the Atlantic. Such evolution creates leverage in Washington, Wall Street, and international forums.

Take agritech as a concrete example. Kenya’s agricultural sector employs over 60 percent of its labor force, yet productivity remains limited by technology and infrastructure. African American banks could co-finance ventures in irrigation, cold storage, and logistics platforms. HBCUs such as Tuskegee and Prairie View A&M could supply expertise in agricultural science and training. The returns could be strong, while the ventures also address food security and climate resilience—issues central to Africa’s stability. This is an example of investment tied not only to financial return but to global relevance.

The deeper point is that these ventures embed African American institutions into Africa’s growth story. They create a new narrative where HBCU students intern at Nairobi startups, Kenyan entrepreneurs raise capital from African American banks, and families on both sides of the Atlantic see tangible proof that the Diaspora is not fragmented but interwoven. In a world where capital dictates influence, these ties are transformative. They represent not just diversification but restoration, an opportunity to re-knit the fabric of a dispersed people through shared prosperity.

The cost of inaction is steep. China has entrenched itself in Kenya and across Africa through the Belt and Road Initiative. Gulf states are investing heavily in energy and real estate. European firms continue to capture opportunities in agriculture and infrastructure. If African American institutions remain passive, they will again watch as others define Africa’s economic trajectory, forfeiting both profits and influence. Worse, they will remain locked in a domestic cycle of undercapitalization and marginalization, failing to establish the transatlantic presence that could transform their institutional standing.

For too long, African America has celebrated individual success while neglecting institutional power. The result has been wealth without leverage and influence without permanence. Kenya and the wider African continent present a chance to reverse this trajectory. African American financial institutions and HBCU endowments can seize the opportunity by building joint investment vehicles that are ambitious, strategic, and collaborative. To invest in Kenya is to invest not only in profitable ventures but in the future of a Diaspora united by shared capital, shared strategy, and shared destiny. The transatlantic bridge is waiting to be built. The question is whether African America will summon the courage, coordination, and vision to cross it.

Step-by-step practical framework that African American financial institutions and HBCU endowments could follow to launch their first $50 million joint Kenya investment fund:

Imagine a handful of African American bank CEOs and HBCU endowment chiefs sitting together in a boardroom. The room is filled with cautious optimism. They know that together, they control billions in assets. What they don’t yet have is a proven model for working together to extend institutional power abroad. That meeting marks the first step: the coalition. A steering committee is formed, with voices from banking, academia, and outside advisors who know Kenya’s economic landscape. Their mandate is clear—launch a fund that delivers returns, but also anchors a new Pan-African economic relationship.

Step 1: Establish a Foundational Coalition

  • Identify core partners: Secure commitments from 3–5 African American banks and 5–7 HBCUs with at least $50M in combined investable capital.
  • Set up a steering committee: Include representatives from bank leadership, HBCU endowment managers, and external advisors with Africa market expertise.
  • Define purpose: Clearly state the dual mission: generating strong financial returns while building a bridge for institutional Pan-African economic partnerships.

The first order of business is to commission a feasibility study. Consultants with expertise in Kenya’s political economy, regulatory framework, and sector opportunities are hired. They map out the terrain: Kenya’s fast-growing fintech sector, renewable energy projects feeding off abundant solar and wind, agribusiness tied to both domestic and export markets, and logistics hubs serving East Africa’s gateway economy. Risks are weighed—currency volatility, regulatory hurdles, political cycles—but so are opportunities. The committee sees promise.

Step 2: Commission a Feasibility Study

  • Hire consultants with Kenya expertise: Legal, financial, and political economy experts based in both the U.S. and Kenya.
  • Sector focus analysis: Prioritize sectors Kenya is inviting foreign direct investment into—agriculture, fintech, renewable energy, real estate, and logistics.
  • Risk assessment: Evaluate currency volatility, repatriation policies, political stability, and regulatory compliance.

Next, the legal and financial scaffolding of the fund takes shape. They agree on a traditional GP/LP structure based in the U.S. for investor familiarity, with a Kenyan arm for local operations. Banks pledge their first tranches—perhaps $5M each. HBCUs, with smaller endowments but a deep sense of mission, contribute $2–3M apiece. Collectively, the first commitments reach $30M, enough to begin building credibility. The remaining capital will come from outside partners.

Step 3: Create the Legal & Financial Structure

  • Fund structure: Decide whether the vehicle will be a private equity fund, venture fund, or blended finance model.
  • Jurisdiction: Likely establish a U.S.-based LP/GP model for investor confidence, with a Kenyan subsidiary or partnership entity.
  • Capital commitments: Each bank and HBCU pledges proportional investments. Example: 3 banks commit $5M each, 7 HBCUs commit $2–3M each, plus matching funds from development finance institutions.

Those partners are cultivated carefully. Calls are made to the African Development Bank, IFC, and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. Each sees value in a diaspora-led fund connecting capital from the African American community to African markets. Meanwhile, Kenyan pension funds and cooperatives are invited to co-invest. Diaspora high-net-worth individuals are offered side-car vehicles. With these anchor and matching partners, the fund’s $50M target is within reach.

Step 4: Secure Anchor & Matching Partners

  • DFIs and multilaterals: Approach institutions like African Development Bank (AfDB), U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and IFC for co-investments.
  • Kenyan institutions: Partner with local pension funds, cooperatives (SACCOs), or universities to establish local credibility and co-ownership.
  • Diaspora investors: Offer side-car investment vehicles for African American and African diaspora high-net-worth individuals.

Governance is another priority. The steering committee transforms into an investment committee, balanced between African American institutional leaders and Kenyan business experts. An advisory board is established with specialists in agriculture, energy, real estate, and fintech. Transparency is emphasized—annual impact reports will detail not only financial returns, but jobs created, student exchanges launched, and trade flows increased.

Step 5: Build Governance & Accountability Mechanisms

  • Investment committee: Balance between African American institutional reps and Kenyan business leaders.
  • Advisory board: Include sector specialists in agriculture, energy, fintech, etc.
  • Transparency: Publish annual reports and impact metrics, not just financial returns, but job creation and trade flows between HBCUs and Kenya.

Deal flow comes next. Nairobi-based investment professionals are hired to scout opportunities, vet local entrepreneurs, and structure partnerships. At the same time, HBCUs begin linking their own academic programs—business schools, agricultural research centers, and engineering departments—into the fund’s sector priorities. Student projects and faculty research now have real-world investment applications in Kenya.

Step 6: Develop Pipeline & Deal Flow

  • Partnership with Kenyan government: Leverage incentives offered to foreign investors, including tax breaks and special economic zones.
  • Local deal scouts: Hire Nairobi-based professionals to source deals in priority sectors.
  • HBCU connections: Link research and student projects to sectors targeted by the fund (e.g., agricultural science programs tied to Kenyan agribusiness investments).

With structure, governance, and deal flow in place, the fund launches its pilot tranche. $10M is deployed across two or three projects. A solar mini-grid company extending power to rural communities. A fintech platform simplifying mobile payments. A mid-sized agribusiness processing exports for global markets. These are not moonshots—they are solid, scalable enterprises that demonstrate both impact and return. The performance of this pilot will be watched closely. If successful, it will unlock the remainder of the $50M and set the stage for larger ambitions.

Step 7: Launch Pilot Investments ($10M tranche)

  • Start small within the $50M: Deploy $10M across 2–3 companies/projects.
  • Focus on scalable businesses: Renewable energy mini-grids, fintech payment platforms, or agri-processing facilities.
  • Monitor performance closely: Use pilot results to refine risk models, build confidence among stakeholders, and attract more investors.

Within 18 months, the pilot investments begin to show results. Jobs are created. Returns begin to flow. Confidence builds. The remaining capital is deployed, spreading across a diversified portfolio. HBCUs launch student and faculty exchanges with Kenyan institutions tied to the fund’s sectors. African American banks begin opening lines of credit to U.S. businesses interested in exporting to East Africa. The fund is no longer just an experiment—it is an institution in itself.

Step 8: Expand and Institutionalize

  • Scale to full $50M deployment: After 12–18 months of pilot success, release additional tranches.
  • Knowledge transfer: Create HBCU student and faculty exchange programs tied to investments.
  • Secondary fundraising: Use strong pilot performance to raise an additional $100M+ follow-on fund.

As momentum grows, the fund takes steps toward permanence. A Nairobi office is established, staffed by African American and Kenyan professionals alike. Training programs create a pipeline for HBCU students to intern in Kenya and Kenyan students to study at HBCUs. Over time, this exchange deepens the cultural and economic ties the fund was designed to spark.

Step 9: Create Long-Term Infrastructure

  • Permanent office in Nairobi: Establish a joint African American–Kenyan fund management company.
  • Training & pipeline development: Develop internship pipelines for HBCU students in Kenya, and Kenyan students at HBCUs.
  • Institutional trust: Turn the fund into a long-term institutional asset class for African American banks and HBCUs.

After five years, success is measured in multiple ways. Financially, the fund delivers returns in line with its targets—perhaps 12–15% IRR. Institutionally, it has created a precedent: HBCUs and African American banks can collaborate on global investments. Socially, it has created jobs in Kenya, exported knowledge and partnerships, and brought students and faculty into real-world economic diplomacy. Most importantly, it has built trust. Trust between African American institutions and African markets. Trust that this model can be scaled.

Step 10: Measure Success & Reinvest

  • Financial benchmarks: Target 12–15% IRR across diversified investments.
  • Social impact: Jobs created in Kenya, number of HBCU students/faculty involved, new African American businesses entering African markets.
  • Recycling capital: Reinvest returns into next-generation funds, building compounding institutional wealth.

With trust comes ambition. A second fund is planned—this time $100M, then $500M. The coalition envisions a Pan-African investment platform, deploying billions across sectors and countries. HBCUs, once thought of only as educational institutions, now sit at the table of international finance. African American banks, once dismissed as niche, now act as global intermediaries for diaspora capital.

The $50M Kenya fund was never just about money. It was about proving the power of joint institutionalism. It was about showing that African American capital, when organized and directed abroad, can generate wealth, influence, and opportunity for generations. And it was about establishing a roadmap that others can follow—a playbook for diaspora-led investment that starts in Kenya but could extend across the African continent.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

1 Comment

Posted in Investing

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

While Howard Is Chasing Harvard, What Public HBCUs Are Chasing UTIMCO?

Posted on September 16, 2025 by | Leave a comment

“I make no apology for the love of competition.” – John Harbaugh

In the world of higher education finance, few numbers turn heads quite like endowment size. It is the ultimate scoreboard for institutional power—a metric that signals not only a university’s wealth but also its capacity to shape research, drive innovation, support students, and influence national policy. In this rarefied air, Howard University has made history, becoming the first Historically Black College or University (HBCU) to surpass the $1 billion endowment mark. According to HBCU Money’s 2024 rankings, Howard’s endowment now stands at $1.03 billion.

Spelman College, long regarded as Howard’s fiercest private competitor, received a record-setting $100 million donation in 2023. Yet even with that windfall, its endowment reached $506.7 million—leaving it more than $500 million behind Howard. Nevertheless, Spelman’s donor base remains one of the strongest in Black higher education, and it may still overtake Howard in the race to $2 billion. But the $1 billion baton has already been passed.

If Howard is chasing Harvard, and Spelman is setting its sights on Yale, then who among public HBCUs dares to chase the Goliath of public university endowments—UTIMCO?

The Silent Behemoth in Texas

UTIMCO—the University of Texas/Texas A&M Investment Management Company—is not just large; it is colossal. As of 2024, UTIMCO manages a staggering $64.3 billion in assets across the University of Texas and Texas A&M university systems. That figure is nearly $15 billion more than Harvard’s own endowment and more than three times the size of the second-largest public university endowment at the University of Michigan.

This financial empire is largely invisible to the public eye. Few outside of elite Texas financial and political circles are even aware of UTIMCO’s existence, let alone its scale. It quietly funds a wide spectrum of research, real estate development, and private equity plays that influence state and national agendas.

If an HBCU—or group of HBCUs—is ever to rival that level of public endowment control, it will not happen by accident. It must be built. And it will most likely be built collectively.

HBCUs and the Endowment Gap

The endowment disparity between HBCUs and Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) has been well-documented. HBCUs represent around 3% of America’s colleges, yet account for less than 1% of total U.S. endowment wealth. According to a McKinsey report, HBCUs would need $12.5 billion in incremental funding to achieve endowment parity with similarly sized PWIs.

While private HBCUs like Howard and Spelman appear to be making some headway, public HBCUs remain largely behind. Most of them are tethered to state systems that have historically underfunded them and which rarely—if ever—extend the full benefits of their system-wide endowment strategies.

Consider the University of North Carolina System. It includes North Carolina A&T, the largest HBCU by enrollment, and North Carolina Central University. Yet both institutions have endowments under $200 million. Meanwhile, UNC Chapel Hill boasts an endowment exceeding $5.4 billion. Similarly, Florida A&M University has an endowment of less than $200 million, while the University of Florida’s soars above $2 billion.

The Case for a Public HBCU Endowment Challenger

In identifying a public HBCU capable of mounting a challenge to UTIMCO’s financial supremacy, the most promising strategy does not lie in the strength of one institution—but in the collective power of several. States that are home to multiple public HBCUs present the most viable path to establishing a unified, independently managed investment entity that can leverage scale, pooled capital, and institutional collaboration.

Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi all house two or more public HBCUs, each with proud legacies and strategic regional influence. A coordinated financial framework across these schools could form the foundation of a “Black UTIMCO”—a professionally managed, state-based consortium endowment capable of rivaling small PWI systems in both return and influence.

The most likely candidates must share a few key characteristics:

  1. State-Level Endowment Consortium Model – States with two or more public HBCUs, such as Virginia (Virginia State, Norfolk State), Georgia (Albany State, Fort Valley State, Savannah State), or Alabama (Alabama A&M, Alabama State), are uniquely positioned to pioneer a collective endowment strategy. Rather than relying on marginal support from broader university systems, these HBCUs could form a joint investment vehicle modeled on UTIMCO—pooling their endowments under a professionally managed, independent investment company. Such a fund would enable economies of scale, competitive asset management, and unified long-term planning, boosting their ability to generate investment alpha and philanthropic leverage.
  2. Flagship Status Among HBCUs – Institutions with strong alumni networks, national reputations, and federal research capabilities are better positioned to attract major philanthropy.
  3. Strategic Location – HBCUs located in fast-growing economic zones can leverage regional corporate ties for private partnerships.

However, creating such a financial architecture is not purely a technical endeavor. It is inherently political—and often fraught with social resistance.

The Political Geography of Resistance

Many of the states that host multiple public HBCUs are governed by conservative legislatures and state boards of regents that have long resisted equitable funding for Black institutions. Despite proclamations about diversity, equity, and inclusion, these power structures often withhold support from Black-led entities that could challenge traditional hierarchies.

  • Alabama, with Alabama State and Alabama A&M, underfunded its HBCUs by over $527 million between 1987 and 2020, according to the U.S. Department of Education.
  • Georgia’s consolidation of HBCUs like Albany State into broader system structures has often diluted their financial and governance autonomy.
  • Mississippi has repeatedly neglected basic infrastructure and funding needs at its three public HBCUs—Jackson State, Alcorn State, and Mississippi Valley State—despite allocating surpluses elsewhere. It is also no secret that Mississippi has purposely constructed a singular board of trustees for all of its public higher education institutions across the state with Ole Miss and Mississippi State unabashedly dominating the board.

Even in Virginia, perceived as more moderate, a move by Virginia State University and Norfolk State to pool their endowments might be seen as too bold a play in a state that still subtly resists Black institutional consolidation.

Social Impediments and Institutional Fragmentation

Beyond politics, there are intra-HBCU dynamics that complicate collaboration. These institutions have historically been forced to compete for scraps, which can breed a zero-sum mentality. Trustees, alumni, and administrations often prefer complete local control over modest assets rather than shared governance over substantial ones.

Convincing institutions to pool their endowments requires cultural alignment and a long-term vision of shared prosperity. Donors, too, may resist giving to multi-institutional funds, preferring the emotional appeal of a singular alma mater.

Nonetheless, this mindset must change. The math is clear: five public HBCUs each contributing $100 million can produce a $500 million investment base. That scale opens doors to private equity, hedge funds, and other vehicles that outperform the conservative allocations typically used by smaller institutional portfolios.

Institutions Poised for Leadership

  • North Carolina A&T State University, with an endowment of $201.9 million, remains the largest public HBCU endowment. With deep ties to tech and defense industries, it has both alumni momentum and industry leverage.
  • Florida A&M University, despite setbacks surrounding its pledged $237 million donation, has an official endowment of $124.1 million and stands to benefit immensely from partnership with institutions like Bethune-Cookman or Edward Waters.
  • Virginia State University and Norfolk State University, with $96.5 million and $88.2 million respectively, could combine to form the financial cornerstone of a Virginia HBCU Investment Company—managing nearly $185 million in assets at inception.

The Need for a “Black UTIMCO”

Rather than wait for state systems to share the wealth equitably, some in the HBCU policy space are advocating for the creation of a consortium endowment fund — a kind of “Black UTIMCO.” This collective endowment manager would pool assets from willing HBCUs, allowing them to negotiate better investment terms, lower fees, and generate alpha through scale.

Such an initiative would require governance innovation, donor transparency, and trust between institutions that are often underfunded and overburdened. But it may be the only viable path forward for public HBCUs to compete against mega-managers like UTIMCO, MITIMCo, or the Yale Investments Office.

A $5 billion consortium fund, even divided across 25 HBCUs, would be transformational. It could fund scholarships, capital improvements, faculty chairs, and technology upgrades, while giving HBCUs the financial leverage to attract major federal research grants.

A New Competitive Mindset

In American higher education, the metaphorical arms race is very real. Endowments are the stockpiles. Harvard and Yale are the gold standard in the private arena. UTIMCO is the titan in the public sector. And HBCUs, despite their contributions to Black excellence, continue to be locked out of the upper tier.

John Harbaugh’s quote about competition resonates because it points to a deeper truth: love of competition does not require parity at the outset, only the will to chase. Howard is in the final lap toward $1 billion, setting a new bar for Black institutional capital. Spelman may outdistance them on the next lap to $2 billion. But in the public sphere, the silence is deafening.

Where is the public HBCU that dares to dream of beating Michigan, surpassing UNC, or even challenging UTIMCO?

The Race Begins with Vision

Howard is chasing Harvard. Spelman is perhaps chasing Yale.

But no single public HBCU can chase UTIMCO. The scale is too vast, the machinery too entrenched, and the rules too uneven.

What public HBCUs can do, however, is combine. They can look across their borders, past their rivals, and toward a shared future. They can imagine a world where collective African American endowment power reshapes not just education, but the broader economy and policy landscape.

It is not a failure of ambition that no public HBCU has reached $1 billion. It is a failure of coordination and imagination.

The first African American UTIMCO will not be built by a single school. It will be built by a desire for compeition. A desire to win.

Leave a comment

Posted in Philanthropy

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,