To help offset a drop in Harvard University’s enormous endowment, Harvard Medical School has cut a deal with its affiliated teaching hospitals that calls for the hospitals to contribute $36 million to the school over the next 3 years.

The figure represents but a fraction of the medical school’s $580 million budget, but it may signify the onset of a new kind of relationship between the school and its affiliates.

Before the deal, Harvard was probably the only medical school in the country that didn’t derive financial support from its teaching hospitals. The school does not own its teaching hospitals, as do most others.

The peculiar arrangement means Harvard Medical School has been unusually dependent on government research funding and endowment income, which exhibit cyclical variations beyond the control of the school.

The ongoing worldwide financial crisis thus hit Harvard Medical hard: Harvard University’s endowment fell by 27%, to $26 billion during fiscal year 2009. That caused a 20% reduction in endowment income for the medical school.

In response, Harvard Medical School froze salaries and dropped 70 FTEs from its labor force via layoffs and early retirement in 2009. It expects to break even in the current fiscal year, but needs more money to expand programs and develop new ones so it can maintain its exalted status.

At a meeting last summer involving medical school dean Jeffrey Flier and teaching hospital execs, Massachusetts General Hospital CEO Peter Slavin said Flier “had to convince us this is the fairest thing to do.’’

Although the Harvard teaching hospitals are profitable, insurers, politicians and regulators are all pressuring them to cut costs.

In return for their largesse, the hospitals asked the medical school to handle physician promotions more quickly, among other things.

The year-long tailspin in venture-based activity ended on an up note, according to Dow Jones VentureSource. In Q4, 2009, venture investors invested $6.3 billion in 743 deals, up slightly from the $6.1 billion invested in 619 deals during the previous fourth quarter.

Overall, there were 2,489 deals completed and $21.4 billion in venture capital invested in 2009 in US companies. That represented a 31% drop from 2008, when $31 billion was invested in 2,817 deals.

“Venture capitalists are still treading lightly when making investments,” said Jessica Canning, global research director for Dow Jones VentureSource. “In the fourth quarter, venture deal activity returned to levels seen before the collapse of the financial markets, but capital invested continued to lag as investors gave companies just what they need to reach the next milestone.”

2009 was also notable in that for the first time ever, the healthcare industry raised more VC capital than the Information Technology (IT) sector. Healthcare deals garnered $7.7 billion across 701 deals last year, a 14% drop from the previous year. That compared favorably to IT, in which VCs risked $6.1 billion in 817 deals last year, a 35% drop from 2008 and the industry’s weakest year since 1996.

The majority of VC money in health care went to biopharmaceutical companies, which raised $4.2 billion over 302 deals. Medical devices came in second at $2.9 billion for 291 deals.

The Energy & Utilities sector experienced a profound decline in VC investment last year. Companies in this sector raised just $1.2 billion in 87 deals in 2009, less than a third of the amount raised in 2008.

The median round size of venture deals in 2009 was $4.7 million, down from $6 million in 2008, according to VentureSource. Later-stage deals accounted for the largest slice of deal activity, attracting $11.4 billion in investment, whereas seed- and first-round deals garnered $3.7 billion.

More women than ever are better-educated than their husbands and in nearly 20% of marriages, they earn more than their husbands, according to a report released last week by the Pew Research Center. 

To reach these conclusions, Richard Fry and colleagues examined Census Bureau data for US-born married couples between the ages of 30 and 44, an age group that was the first ever to feature more women with college degrees than men.

The Pew study revealed that men nowadays tend to get an economic boost when they marry someone with as much or more education than they have. 

“Marriage now is a better deal for men,” Fry told the Washington Post. “Now when men marry, often their spouse works quite a bit. Often she is better-educated than the guy.”

According to the report, more than half of all married couples nowadays feature spouses with nearly equal levels of education. In 28% of all marriages, the wife had more education, whereas in 19% the man had more.

Even so, 78% of married men make more money than their wives, although the gap is narrowing.  In 1970 for example, 96% of married men earned more than their spouses.

This income gap is narrowing across all economic strata. For example, in 1970, 4% of male high-school grads had wives that earned more money than they did. That number is now 24%. The numbers are nearly identical for those with “some college” education. For male college graduates, 3% had wives that earned more than they did in 1970. That number is now up to 18%.

Currently, the median income for men is about $46,000, about 30% higher than the median income of women. Back in 1970, men’s incomes were twice that of women’s.

The Great Economic Crisis may not make front-page news with the regularity it did a year ago, but it continues to have a pernicious effect on the health of Americans, according to a survey carried out by the American Optometric Association.

The nationally representative survey of 1,000 adults showed that recession-related financial problems have prompted 36% of US citizens to cut back on doctor visits.

Sixty-three percent of the survey respondents have foregone visits to the dentist, whereas 59% and 52% have done the same for primary care physicians and eye doctors, respectively. Only 8% claimed they hadn’t changed their routine health-maintenance schedules at all.

The poor economy has hit Hispanics disproportionately, according to the survey. Nearly half (49 percent) of them said they’ve cut back on doctor visits, whereas 36% of blacks and 33% of whites had done the same.

Nearly 2/3 of Hispanics had bagged one or more dental visits, and 53% said they had been to see an eye doctor less often.

Women (38%) were more likely than men (32%) to forego a visit.

In rural areas, nearly 2/3 of respondents said they had reduced eye doctor visits, whereas only half of urban and suburban respondents had done so.

The survey findings “are very worrisome,” said David Cockrell, an optometrist and a trustee with the Association. “We know that many eye and vision problems have no obvious signs or symptoms, so early diagnosis and treatment are critical. This is true beyond just eye care. Health issues of any kind are not things that Americans should ignore.”

“The longer patients go between doctor visits, the greater the opportunity for additional health problems that ultimately can be much more expensive than routine checkups and early-stage treatment,” he added.

It had been known for decades that kids who are born during the winter test relatively poorly, drop out of school more frequently, earn less as adults and have a shorter life expectancy than those born at other times.

But no one knew why.

There were several theories, of course. One held that since winter babies reach age 16 earlier in the school year, they can legally drop out a bit earlier in their education. Another postulated that vitamin D played a role, since winter babies got less sunshine early in life. A third suggested that the cause was higher pesticide concentrations in the surface water during spring and summer, when winter babies were conceived.

These theories might have some validity, but Notre Dame economists Kasey Buckles and Daniel Hungerman have come up with another, more compelling explanation: winter babies are more likely to come from socioeconomically less-privileged families.

To reach this conclusion, the economists examined CDC birth-certificate data for 13 consecutive years beginning in 1989. In every year, winter babies were more likely to be born to teenage or unwed mothers, or mothers that hadn’t completed high school themselves.

For example, 13.2% of January babies are born to teen mothers, whereas the number is 12% for May babies, a statistically significant difference that, along with other findings like it, is large enough to explain at least 50% of the differences in earnings, education and mortality (according to Buckles and Hungerman).

The economists can’t explain the surprising link between socioeconomic status and the time of the year when babies are born.

Perhaps it’s related to seasonal variations in employment, since married women tend to conceive when they are unemployed, they say.  Or perhaps it is due to cooler springtime temperatures, since hot weather decreases fertility, but only for those who live in homes without air conditioning.

Then again…January is roughly 9 months after prom season!

Things aren’t so good these days in Sergiyev Posad, the small town in northeastern Russia that is generally considered to be the birthplace of the matryoshka, the iconic nesting dolls that represent Russian folk culture and a simpler time, generally.

The wooden, black lacquered dolls that come in sets with each one fitting just so inside the next have become an endangered species, squeezed as they have been off vendors’ shelves by cheap plastic knock-offs from Asia and now threatened by the global economic slowdown.

The dolls are produced by hand in small factories or in  workshops by artisans that have spent years learning to use a lathe.

“The matryoshka is our face” to the world, Galina Subbota, the town’s deputy mayor told the Washington Post. “Even if it is not economically profitable, we can’t allow it to disappear from our lives.”

But in the setting of the Great Economic Crisis, souvenir shops have slashed orders and the tourists have all but vanished. Recently, nesting doll producers approached Moscow for financial aid which is necessary, they say, to save the industry from extinction.

In response, the Kremlin pledged to buy nearly $30 million worth of the dolls and began requiring  officials to distribute them as gifts.

But the artisans view the largesse with skepticism and have indicated they would prefer that Moscow cut export taxes and make it easier for them to obtain existing subsidies.

“For 12 years, I’ve heard the government talking about support for folk crafts,” Oleg Korotkov told the Post. The director of Semyonovskaya Painting, a nesting doll manufacturer that has seen sales drop more than 90% added, “unfortunately, there’s never any real help.”

The Big O’s January Economic Hail Mary instructed stimulus recipients to “buy American,” forcing the town of Peru, Indiana, to ditch its Canadian sewage pump supplier in favor one located in Uncle Sam’s back yard.

The next week, a US government official noticed evil Canadian pipe fittings at a California construction site.

He had them excavated and replaced with those bedecked in red, white and blue.

Now, the Maple Leafs are fighting back. Several Ontario towns have barred US companies from their municipal contracts, a shot over the US bow that, if allowed to escalate, could cause US-based companies to lose billions derived from Canadian projects.

The two countries can hardly be blamed for attempting to keep jobs domestically in the midst of the Great Economic Crisis, but the moves may backfire.

Take the Duferco Farrell Corporation, a Pennsylvania-based steel plant that employs 600 people. It manufactures coils using imported steel slabs for which there are no US suppliers. This partially foreign production process does not meet the Hail Mary’s “made in the USA” criteria.

That has forced Duferco’s biggest customer, a neighboring steel pipemaker, to cancel its orders which forced Duferco to furlough 80% of its workforce.

“I’ve got 600 United Steel Workers who are going to lose their jobs because of this,” seethed Bob Miller, the company’s EVP to the Washington Post. “You tell me this is good for America?”

And John Hayward, president the Canadian pump manufacturer that got shafted by the Peruvians was equally displeased. “We’re not China. We’re not even Mexico. We have the same relative cost of labor as you do,” he told the Post.

“If we have a better price, you should buy from us. That’s what competition is supposed to be about.”

US drug sales will fall 1-2% in 2009, according to IMS Health, a record drop. The market research firm expects growth to rebound in the following years, but that overall compound annual growth over the next 5 years will be flat.

The problem, according to IMS, has been inopportune pharmaceutical cost shifts to patients who are being hammered by the Great Economic Crisis, as well as patent expirations for several blockbusters in the upcoming years.

Global sales are not immune to these developments. IMS now predicts that worldwide sales will rise only 2.5- 3.5% this year, which is 2 percentage points less than it forecast before the Feds played Russian Roulette with Lehman Brothers and the chamber turned out to be loaded.

The new forecast translates to about $750 billion in 2009 revenues for Big Pharma.

In October, IMS had pegged that number at a cool $820 billion. 

“To the now-familiar factors impeding market growth such as patent expirations, a slowdown in innovative product launches, and hurdles imposed by payers on market access and acceptance, we can now overlay the economic downturn,” said Murray Aitken, a senior VP at IMS.

“There is a clear correlation between demand for medicines and key macroeconomic variables such as GDP, consumer spending and government expenditures. The pharmaceutical industry is not recession-proof.”

Despite the near term hit to global pharmaceutical sales, IMS predicts that the global compound annual growth rate for pharmaceutical sales will run between 3-6% through 2013.

Countries in which patients largely pay out-of pocket for drugs, such as China and Brazil will impact these figures negatively.

Despite this, IMS expects that China will rise from its current position as the world’s sixth-largest pharmaceutical market to 3rd place by 2011.

Continuing an apocalyptic trend, venture capital investment in Q1, 2009 has dropped 50% from the same quarter a year earlier. 

Young companies raised a paltry $3.9 billion in the first quarter of 2009, as compared with $7.78 billion in Q1 2008, according to VentureSource.

That represented the lowest quarterly investment in 11 years.

Remarkably, it was $2 billion less than the quarterly investment total in Q4, 2008 when the Great Economic Crisis matured into a fire-breathing dragon. 

VentureSource reported that only 477 venture-backed companies closed equity financings in Q1 2009. The number was 706 one year earlier, and 601 in Q4 2008.

Angel and first-round financing fell even more sharply, to $682 million in Q1. That’s just one-third of the spend a year earlier.

Much of the problem is traceable to the enormous drops in the portfolio values of pension funds, foundations and endowments that typically finance VC firms.

These limited partners had started becoming gun-shy regarding VCs even before the Great Economic Crisis due to underperformance for nearly a decade.

“LPs are using this to demand a back-to-basics approach,” said Maria Cirino, a co-founder and managing director of .406 Ventures, an early-stage venture firm in Boston. This means smaller funds and investment strategies with a tighter focus, she said.

IT, a staple for VCs, recorded its worst quarter in 12 years with $1.68 billion invested. That’s off 52% from Q1 2008.

Health care did a bit better, netting investments worth $1.35 billion in Q1 2009, down “only” 34% from a year earlier. The sector saw 118 deals close in the quarter, much lower than the 156 that got done in Q4 2008.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has taken a page out of FDR’s playbook with weekly televised talks to his countrymen. Problem is, few of them are watching.

It seems they’ve tired of his message, which amounts to a remix of Albert King’s woeful lament, “if it wasn’t for bad news, I’d have no news at all.”

A recent poll revealed for example, that a third of Russians expected to lose their jobs in the immediate future.

February’s industrial output, including oil and minerals, was down 13.2% versus the same month last year, and manufacturing output shriveled a whopping 20%, according to the Economist.

Meanwhile wage arrears, the most visible symptom of Russia’s economic chaos in the 1990s, are creeping up again. State-approved reports suggest that more than 500,000 people had pay withheld temporarily last month, which is higher than at any point in 4 years.

Given these are state-approved reports, one can only imagine how bad the matter has actually become.

Medvedev has even taken the unusual step of appealing for help from the oligarchs. They have “a moral role” to preserve jobs, he stated while reminding them how easily they amassed wealth during different economic times.

“It’s time to repay debts, moral debts,” he said in his last chat.

“If a person really has become a businessman, he knows how to value his employees.”

Then he waded directly into the fray, calling it “unacceptable” that billionaire Mikhail Fridman’s Alfa Bank was threatening to close down billionaire Oleg Deripaska’s Basic Element, laying off tens of thousands in the process, if the latter didn’t repay an overdue $650m loan.

The oligarchs buried the hatchet the next day.

A new survey of national innovation and competitiveness puts the US sixth among 40 nations. Singapore leads the pack.

The Washington-based Information Technology & Innovation Foundation ranked countries using indicators in 6 categories:  economic performance, economic policy, entrepreneurship, human capital, innovation capacity and IT infrastructure.

Singapore came out on top or near the top for dozens of indicators, notably the ease of doing business and trade balance. The city-state’s trade balance as a percentage of GDP is a plus 29%, while the US’ stands at -6%.

The US aced GDP per working age adult at $ 83,422, and was second in a photo finish on key indicators like e-government, productivity and contributions to global scientific and technical publications.
 
But we scored only 7th in broadband connectivity and were dead last in corporate tax rates, with a whopping 32%. Ireland topped that category at 9.6%.

The Foundation lauds Singapore, where, according to the report technological innovation has become a “national obsession.” 

“The rise of global economic competition means that the United States (needs to) proactively put in place national or continental economic development strategies,” the report warned.
 
The Foundation’s methodology differs from those in other analyses because it relies on hard data only, foregoing surveys. It also controls for country size rather than relying on aggregate data, according to BurrillReport.
 
To improve its standing, the Foundation recommends that the US enact tax incentives that stimulate R&D, welcome highly skilled immigrants, foster entrepreneurship development programs and expand funding for university research, among other things.
 
Sweden came in second in the survey, followed by Luxembourg, Denmark, and South Korea. The EU limped in at 18.

When the Big O packs his gym bags for the G-20 in London 3 weeks hence, he’s planning to include a proposal to hike emergency government spending around the world, an audacious idea that might limit the Great Economic Crisis to, oh, say a decade.

That’s going to sound a bit loopy to Angela Merckel, Nic Sarkozy and Co. who think job one is to overhaul  global financial regulatory systems, with something extra special in there for hedge funds and private-equity firms which they perceive to be the second coming of Snidley Whiplash.

The philosophical divide was apparent during last week’s Washington visit by Downtown Gordon Brown, who hosts the April meeting.

Brown was all about the need for the G-20 to “set principles for the banking system for the future,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

To which the Big O nodded, squared his shoulders and said his concern was assuring that G-20 countries are, in “a coordinated fashion…stimulating their economies.”

G-20 party-goers know the event needs to be choreographed so as not to give markets the dry heaves or raise doubts whether government leaders know what they’re doing, which almost certainly they do not.

So quite possibly this weekend, when the G-20 finance ministers show up in Washington, they will hash out the matter while the doors are still more-or-less closed.

If he sticks to his guns, the Big O can bank on support from China since it passed a hefty stimulus of its own.

But it’ll never fly for Angela’s Germany which actually tries to balance its books every year and passed a measly stimulus package after much hand-wringing. 

Plus, Angela knows the EU might still have to bail out most of Eastern Europe, like it or not.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has blamed the US for the Great Economic Crisis which among other things put 25 million Chinese out of work last year.

Wen didn’t actually cite the US during his Davos rant against “excessive expansion of financial institutions in blind pursuit of profit,” the utter lack of government oversight of financial institutions, and an “unsustainable model of development characterized by low savings and high consumption.”

But even Mo, Larry and Curley couldn’t have missed the reference.

Wen and Co. have been appalled to discover their supposedly safe holdings in the US financial sector weren’t so safe after all.

This includes more than a few bucks in Morgan Stanley, the cratered Reserve Primary Fund, Aunt Fannie and Uncle Freddie.

But when his blistering rhetoric fades, Wen knows he’s got a foot in the same potato sack we do. The 2 economies have to hop together, like it or not.

That’s because China enables our profligate spending in order to prop up its export-based economy.

China accumulates wealth by exporting just about everything to the US. It uses the money it makes to buy T-bills, which finances our trade deficit. This keeps US interest rates low, which lets US consumers buy more goods from China while preventing the Yuan from appreciating too quickly.

China now holds $2 trillion in US foreign exchange reserves according to the Wall Street Journal. Around the time Lehman tanked, it surpassed Japan as the largest foreign holder of Treasury bills.

That’s fine when it comes to US government-backed securities, but China did start pulling out of Fannie and Freddie in Q3 and Q4 2008, a move that forced the Feds to step in back in November and buy $600 billion in debt from the troubled organizations.

Someday, US taxpayers are going to feel that and it’s going to hurt.

Now that the Big O’s nixed the idea of a car czar and tasked Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to deal with the Big 3 who are asking for boatloads more money as we speak, let’s hope those economic titans understand the entire auto parts industry is about to go pfffft unless it gets bailed out, too. 

The parts suppliers requested federal aid 10 days ago. $25.5 billion was the opening bid made by the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, a trade group representing 400 companies in the sector.

It’s probably just coincidence that the amount is nearly identical to the handouts already received by GM, Chrysler and their flailing finance divisions…so far.

“Without immediate assistance to suppliers, the country will face massive job losses and the eventual breakdown of the entire automotive sector in the United States,” according to an 11-page request from the Association that was obtained by the Wall Street Journal.

Last week GM and Chrysler reported breathtaking declines in domestic vehicle sales for January: GM dropped 49% and Chrysler was off 55%.

In 2008, 40 auto parts suppliers filed for bankruptcy protection. That number is likely to be surpassed this year almost no matter what.

The suppliers propose that $7 billion be used to fund a “quick pay program” allowing the beleaguered auto makers to pay suppliers 10 days after receipt of goods. That’s substantially less than the 45 days or more that has become their norm.

They also want $10.5 billion to guarantee receivables and $8 billion in federal loans.

Failure of key parts suppliers could cripple the industry faster than a rabbit on skates because the Big 3 use just-in-time supplier management systems meaning they have essentially no inventory on hand to feed the assembly line.

In Q4, 2008 the Great Economic Crisis matured into a fire-breathing dragon that stomped on everything including start-ups and the venture capitalists that fund them.

In that quarter, VC investment dropped 30% to levels not seen since Q1, 2005, according to VentureSource.

Venture capital firms invested $5.5 billion into US companies during Q4, compared with $7.9 billion the previous year. A total of 554 VC deals went down during the quarter, compared with 718 in Q4, 2007.

“Very few new deals are getting done, and a lot of people are trying to make sure their portfolios are protected,” Faysal Sohail, of San Francisco-based CMEA Ventures told the Wall Street Journal.

The dragon blasted venture capital firms 2 ways. First, these firms typically generate revenue when a portfolio company is acquired, merged or goes public, but just about none of that is happening these days.

Second, the firms need to raise cash from institutional investors for investment purposes, but those guys have fled for the hills.

The downturn affected Tech start-ups in particular. They posted their worst investment quarter since 1998. A total of $2.2 billion was invested in 266 Tech deals in Q4, down nearly 40% from that invested in Q4, 2007, according to VentureSource.

Health care start-ups also got nailed, dropping to levels not seen since 2005. For the quarter, 137 deals netted roughly $1.5 billion worth of investment in health care.

For the year 2008 as a whole, venture capitalists invested $28.8 billion in 2,550 deals, down from $31.4 billion invested in 2,823 deals in 2007, according to VentureSource.

Asian stock markets dropped faster than those in the G7 countries during 2008. Taiwan’s exports plummeted 42% during the year and South Korea’s fell by 17%. Even China’s dipped a bit.

Do we take these to be signs the Great Economic Crisis will end the Asian emerging markets boom once and for all?

Probably not, according to the Economist. In fact many Asian economies are likely to recover faster than ours.

Economists who predict long term trouble for emerging Asian economies argue that the boom was  fueled by three things—exports to American consumers, easy access to cheap capital and high commodity prices—and all 3 have collapsed. 

But claims that Asian economies rely on consumption in G7 countries are exaggerated. The Asian export surge since 2000 is almost totally explained by exports to the developing world. Exports to G7 countries has barely budged from 20% of the pan-Asian GDP since 2000.

And Asian companies are net importers of commodities, so they stand to benefit from the collapse in their prices.

Meanwhile Gerard Lyons, the senior economist at Standard Chartered, emphasizes that many emerging Asian economies do not face the structural problems confronting America’s economy.

He mentions in particular our overwhelming domestic debt, which might forestall growth for years and blunt the impact of fiscal stimulus programs like the one the Big O is about to unveil.

This is especially true of China. Many expect that nation’s GDP will drop to 7% in 2009, down from 12% in 2007 and its lowest growth in 20 years.

Thousands of factories have already closed in China, and the government rolled-out a major fiscal stimulus package just last month.

But China has debts amounting to only 18% of GDP, so its government can throw several more stimulus packages together if necessary. And these programs would help build domestic demand, thereby sheltering its economy once and for all from our capricious ways.