The Big Ten’s private investment proposal has hit yet another snag.
UC Investments, the University of California system’s pension fund that has proposed purchasing an equity stake in the Big Ten, indicated Monday it will not sign a deal without Michigan and USC.
“As we continued to evaluate this opportunity over the past five months, we remain convinced that the unity of the 18 Big Ten University members is key to the success of Big Ten Enterprises,” UC Investments said in a statement Monday.
Since July, UC investments—which manages the retirement funds for University of California employees—has been engaged in conversations about a private capital deal with the Big Ten. According to the terms of the deal, UC Investments would invest $2.4 billion into a spinoff entity of Big Ten assets called Big Ten Enterprises in exchange for a 10% stake in the group. It would also require Big Ten schools to sign a grant of rights contract binding them together until 2046.
Over the past few weeks, however, Michigan and USC have come out against the deal, as FOS has previously reported. Despite this opposition, the Big Ten has indicated it might be willing to go forward with the proposal without the participation of those two schools—even planning for a vote in late November, multiple sources have confirmed to FOS.
Now, UC Investments is pumping the breaks, saying it “requires some additional time to complete our due diligence as recent developments unfold and we continue to engage with the conference.”
A representative from the Big Ten did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“I think it’s the right decision,” University of Michigan regent Jordan Acker, who has been publicly outspoken against the deal, told FOS in response to the UC Investments statement. “I think it’s really important for all of us to take a deep breath and figure out how this is going to impact the university. I think there’s no rush in this deal. There should be no rush on any deal that affects the long-term success and integrity of the University of Michigan and of the Big Ten conference.”
Acker added: “We are fiduciaries, and this is our job—whether the commissioner likes it or not—to understand the long-term impact for our schools and for the places that elected us.”
Michigan and USC aren’t the only detractors. A growing number of university trustees from schools across the Big Ten have said they’ve been largely kept in the dark about the details of the deal, and have been told their university presidents can decide to sign on without their approval, FOS previously reported. Those trustees have begun an opposition campaign—not necessarily because they’re against the deal, but because they believe they should be involved in the decision-making process.
On Friday, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni hosted an hourlong webinar with trustees from Maryland, USC, Michigan, Penn State, and Minnesota on this topic—a recording was made public on Monday. On it, trustees from multiple schools voiced their concern about the lack of transparency from the Big Ten. Penn State trustee Jay Paterno said that during a meeting with Commissioner Tony Petitti, the conference provided only “one slide that had five lines on it.”
The pension fund appeared to acknowledge these concerns in its statement. “We also recognize that some member universities need more time to assess the benefits of their participation,” UC Investments said.
UC Investments disputed some reporting about the deal, however. “The process [the Big Ten] have led has been rigorous, honest, and fair—among the best we’ve seen,” the pension fund said. “Recent misinformation has distorted some aspects of its effort.”
Dianne Klein, investment director and senior advisor to the CIO, clarified in an email to FOS that the “misinformation” in the statement referred to reports calling the deal “private equity.”
“We’re a bit of a different animal, nothing like private equity,” Klein wrote. “We’re the University of California, a public research university system (10 campuses and six academic health centers.) We manage the UC’s pension and endowments. We’re not a separate group, not an outside capital firm. We are not private capital at all. The Big Ten, in fact, rejected making a deal with private equity a while ago.”
