MSU, which has an endowment valued at $4.4 billion, outpaced the average returns among a smaller subset of institutions with similarly sized endowments by even more: The average endowment returns among universities with endowments valued between $1 billion and $5 billion was 10%, according to the survey. 

“Our strong performance this year came primarily from our large position in U.S. equities and the strong performance of our hedge fund portfolio,” said Philip Zecher, MSU’s chief investment officer in an October press release.

University endowments are pools of money from donors that the university invests in the market to generate income. Then, a fixed percentage of that income is spent on things like scholarships, professorships or new campus buildings, and to cover some general operating expenses like salaries and facilities overhead. The income left over is then reinvested in the market to grow the endowment’s size in the long-term and ensure investments maintain their principal value to keep pace with inflation. 

$1.13 billion in income generated by endowment investments have been used to "directly support the university’s operating budget" over the last five years, according to the press release. 

The robust performance of MSU’s endowment relative to the national average comes amid sustained criticism from campus activists of the university’s endowment investments tied to Israel and weapons manufacturers. Though MSU has long-insisted its primary consideration in endowment investments necessarily has to be how well they’ll perform financially, advocates have argued the university should give more weight to the social and political implications of their investments. 

Though MSU has remained steadfastly against activists’ calls for divestment from Israel, the university has seemingly heeded their calls for campus stakeholders having a stronger say in investment decisions. 

In December, the Board of Trustees voted to establish a presidentially appointed committee of students, staff and faculty who will be permitted to formally consider "non-financial" concerns over particular investments, and make non-binding recommendations to the institution's top leadership based on them. However, that move was promptly decried by activists as a bad-faith attempt at placating them that won’t bring about the Israel divestment they’ve long pushed for. 

In an interview last month with The State News, Board Chair Kelly Tebay did little to dispel that criticism relating to the university’s most immediate campus investment debate. But she did present a broader optimism for the committee’s long-run effect, arguing it will help the institution’s fiduciaries better account for the feelings of the campus overall toward the ethical and social implications of their investments.