Recent budget cuts at the University of Chicago have raised concerns, with rumors suggesting a loss of $6 billion from cryptocurrency investments. The official denies such massive losses, but financial reports show a total investment loss of $1.5 billion in 2022. Besides trading cryptocurrencies, debt expansion and high interest expenses are the main reasons for the financial difficulties. This article is based on an piece by Darren Terminator, compiled, edited, and written by Foresight News.
(Background: U.S. military personnel obsessed with stock and crypto trading, even on aircraft carrier decks “recommend stocks”)
(Additional context: Hollywood director Carl Rinsch embezzled Netflix investments to trade stocks and cryptocurrencies, once earning $27 million from Dogecoin, now facing a 90-year sentence)

Table of Contents

• So, did the University of Chicago really lose over $6 billion trading cryptocurrencies?
• So, is the University of Chicago’s Provost definitely telling the truth?
• What does the University of Chicago’s financial report [6] say?
• What should the University of Chicago do next?

Recently, on the occasion of the third edition publication of Professor Zhao Dingxin’s “Social and Political Movements Lecture Notes” (the second edition is truly excellent), Interface News interviewed Professor Zhao. In the interview, Zhao mentioned that the recent cost-cutting measures at the University of Chicago are allegedly because “it is said that the university listened to some Nobel laureates’ investment advice and lost over $6 billion in crypto trading. It can be said that the university’s reduction in liberal arts funding has little to do with Trump’s policies.”

So, did the University of Chicago really lose over $6 billion trading cryptocurrencies?

Coincidentally, in an FAQ update from December 2025, the University of Chicago [1] mentioned the crypto trading matter. According to their official website: “Contrary to some news reports, the University of Chicago has not suffered losses in cryptocurrency investments. Our investment scale in cryptocurrencies is relatively small, but it has more than doubled over the past five years. Our investment goal is to provide a stable income stream to support various university projects long-term and to secure the university’s future.”

So, is the University of Chicago’s Provost definitely telling the truth?

Hard to say. But intuitively, the total donations over the past five years are roughly around $10 billion (a peak of about $11.6 billion in FY2021; approximately $10.9 billion in FY2025 [2]). Unless the university was crazy enough to allocate at least 60% of its donation fund to crypto trading (which clearly violates various regulations), or embezzled large operational funds for crypto trading and lost everything, it’s unlikely they lost that much—$6 billion.

So, how much did they actually lose? Or, as the official FAQ suggests, did they actually make a fortune?

Stanford University’s student newspaper [3], the Financial Times [4], and Investopedia [5] reported on this last year. According to Stanford’s report, four sources indicated: “Around 2021, the University of Chicago lost tens of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency investments.”

What does the University of Chicago’s financial report [6] say?

Unfortunately, the financial report does not directly specify how much money was lost in crypto trading. However, in the FY2022 report, the university disclosed its cryptocurrency investments (fair market value): about $64 million as of June 2021, and about $45 million as of June 2022 (a difference of approximately $19 million). In subsequent reports, perhaps due to significant gains or losses, the university stopped publishing its cryptocurrency investments. However, according to the FAQ in 2025, the university still invests cautiously in cryptocurrencies.

It’s worth noting that the FY2022 report shows that by June of that year, the university’s endowment fund had a total loss of about $1.5 billion. The FY2023 report indicates only a small loss. Over the following two years, the university rebounded.

However, we don’t know exactly how much of these gains and losses come from crypto trading. Stanford’s report offers a somewhat unreliable clue: “The target asset allocation shows that the university’s ideal proportion of private debt and ‘absolute return’ investments (including cryptocurrencies and other alternative assets) has decreased from 25.5% in 2020 to 20% in 2022, indicating a clear withdrawal (or decline) from high-risk alternative assets.”

But Stanford’s report also makes an interesting observation: “From 2013 to 2023, the University of Chicago’s endowment annualized return was only 7.48%, while the stock market’s annualized return in the same period was 12.8%, and the Ivy League average was 10.8%. If the university had simply followed market performance, its endowment today would be worth an additional $6.45 billion. This (dream) fund would be more than enough to pay off all the school’s debts. Of course, universities cannot simply replicate market indices, as they need to hedge during economic downturns to maintain financial stability. But even if Chicago only matched the Ivy League average, its endowment would still be $3.69 billion higher. This amount could cover the school’s projected budget deficit for the next 15 years.”

Besides crypto trading and investment losses, what other reasons could explain the budget cuts at the University of Chicago?

A common explanation, aside from Trump being a rogue, emphasizes the university’s own strategic mistakes: leveraging debt, massive infrastructure expansion, and aggressive growth. [7][8] As of June 2025, the university’s debt was about $9.2 billion [9], roughly 90% of its endowment. Although the financing costs are relatively low compared to overseas, the university still pays over $200 million in interest annually.

Such high debt levels are not without cause. Since the new millennium, to boost reputation and enrollment, and to compete with established elite schools, the university has spent heavily on new labs, libraries, dormitories, and technology, often financed through large borrowings. But these new infrastructures bring ongoing operational costs, and the university has not figured out how to sustain them long-term.

The university’s [10] student newspaper quotes Professor Clifford Ando, stating that any parent considering sending their child to Chicago should think about whether the tuition they pay is truly for their child’s education or to pay off the school’s debt. The reckless expansion and resulting debt are clearly due to management’s overenthusiasm and hubris. Ironically, from 2006 to 2022, the president’s base salary increased by 285%. Now, facing economic issues, the administration shifts the burden onto students and faculty: even in years of asset sales, layoffs, or recruitment freezes, top salaries continue to rise.

So, what should the University of Chicago do next?

Besides continuing to cut costs, it must also increase revenue. A common tactic among U.S. universities is to recruit more undergraduates. The University of Chicago is doing this too, but surely with a more lofty justification.