The 990's

[garfield]

So, I'd hoped that the numbers would tell the story of the loss for BD in 2010 ($607,302), and I believe they do. I've got 27 entries of Revenue and Expenses.to summarize here, broken down into these categories:

Program Service Revenue minus Program Service Expenses

Other Revenue minus MGE (Management & General Expense) and FRE (Fundraising Expense)

Resulting in the Net Program Service Income (Loss) and Net "Other" Revenue (Loss)

Blue Devils Summary

Net Program (Program Service Revenue minus Program Service Expense)

2008: ($546,436)

2009: ($7,000)

2010: ($946,949)

2011: ($868,720)

Net Other (Other Revenue minus Management & General and Fund Raising Expense)

2008: $1,004,134

2009: $925,269

2010: $337,647

2011: $844,227

So, in a year (2010) where their show expenses were $940,949 more than show revenue, their "Other" revenue generated only $337,647 to cover the deficit. The result was the loss of $609,302.

In 2008 they spent $546,436 MORE on their show than show revenue brought in, but they earned more than $1-million in Other Income to cover the deficit.

In 2009 their program revenue brought in nearly enough to cover expenses (a $7000 loss), and their Other income generated $925,269 in addition - more than enough to cover the deficit.

Another way to look at it:

Although they cut expenses from '09 to '10 by nearly $372,000, and their 2010 show generated $149,328 more than 2009, they spent $1,089,277 MORE on their 2010 show than they did on their 2009 show.

So, it looks like the perfect storm in fiscal management. They spent a lot more on their 2010 show while, at the same time, Other revenue to support it declined a bunch.

(Note: Remember that Program Service includes ALL corps, not just the A-corps)

Edited April 18, 2013 by garfield

[garfield]

Is this the instructional staff or am I off base here?

These numbers are from the "Compensation, Salary, and Wages" category, so it's reasonable to presume that the answer is "Yes".

But, because the category is not broken down further, it's not possible to verify that it's all instructional staff.

We don't know what the breakdown is between Executive, Staff, and Instructional.

[NeoCervantes II]

These numbers are from the "Compensation, Salary, and Wages" category, so it's reasonable to presume that the answer is "Yes".

But, because the category is not broken down further, it's not possible to verify that it's all instructional staff.

We don't know what the breakdown is between Executive, Staff, and Instructional.

Ok, then these are some of the numbers I think are really interesting. That makes a 13% increase in staff spending from 08 to 09, and a 32% increase over the two years! What is this, the housing bubble? This is what is driving th G7 proposal as far as I can see. An additional $167,000? That's like asking each member to pay another $1,000 to line your pockets! Of course we can't do that, so we have to take a bigger market share from other corps. Anyone wanna challenge me on this? Cause I would love to be wrong!

[chaos001]

Ok, then these are some of the numbers I think are really interesting. That makes a 13% increase in staff spending from 08 to 09, and a 32% increase over the two years! What is this, the housing bubble? This is what is driving th G7 proposal as far as I can see. An additional $167,000? That's like asking each member to pay another $1,000 to line your pockets! Of course we can't do that, so we have to take a bigger market share from other corps. Anyone wanna challenge me on this? Cause I would love to be wrong!

Correct!

[Jeff Ream]

I don't think the G7 thinks this way, at least those who have put some thought to it. The fact is that, at current prices let alone higher ones, the activity doesn't support itself. I don't think Dave Gibbs believes that higher prices is the solution (although I have no direct evidence either way). Rather, I'd bet they're thinking in terms of attracting more people at the same, or even lower, prices.

Reminds me of the story of a guy standing on a street corner making change. If you handed him a dollar, he'd give you four quarters, or vice-versa. A "Wall Street" type approached him and asked him how he makes money. The answer was...

"I make it up in volume."...

but Hop does. look at pricing for YEA events vs. most TEP shows

[garfield]

Ok, then these are some of the numbers I think are really interesting. That makes a 13% increase in staff spending from 08 to 09, and a 32% increase over the two years! What is this, the housing bubble? This is what is driving th G7 proposal as far as I can see. An additional $167,000? That's like asking each member to pay another $1,000 to line your pockets! Of course we can't do that, so we have to take a bigger market share from other corps. Anyone wanna challenge me on this? Cause I would love to be wrong!

Take the blue pill, Neo, and come back to reality.

We don't know what made up the increase in wages, and that's the point. We don't know. Maybe it was a full-time lawyer hired to defend the gaming operation. Maybe it was 4 new instructional staff to teach the B or C corps. Maybe it was Dave Gibbs, personally, who tried to hide that he's single-handedly sucking out all the assets of BD before his whole "Bernie Madoff" house of cards comes crashing down around him - Bwaaahhhaaaa! (in my best evil voice).

Seriously, Neo, we just don't know. The 990's are vague on source data, things get jumbled into categories that we can't explain.

But the fact is that $167,000 is 4.8% of BD's 2010 Revenue - a pittance if there was a systematic effort to pillage the organization. And your characterization that it's "the kids" that are being taken advantage of is a bit far-fetched, IMO. Without some evidence that BD's member dues were increased by a like amount, or more, your claim is not validated. And it can't be validated by the 990's because that data is not there.

In 2010, BD listed 111 employees; in 2008 they had 117. It could be that they eliminated lesser-qualified staff and hired higher-qualified staff.

As I said at the outset - and it's particularly true in an organization as deep as BD's and YEA!'s - there is a tendency to take numbers and craft a story, nefarious or not, that is not accurate or even close to accurate. Or maybe exactly accurate.

So, yeah, I'll challenge you on your assertion until you can show evidence that your claim is true. Until then it's nothing more than a supposition without substantiation.

[garfield]

but Hop does. look at pricing for YEA events vs. most TEP shows

And look at the profits of YEA! events v. TEP events.

I have no data from YEA! shows (if you have attendance and profit data, please post), but I don't recall hearing here that his shows are packing in the fans at higher ticket prices and he's walking away with record profits.

Too much data is missing for you to make this claim, IMO.

[garfield]

So, how is it that BD can lose, in one year, nearly the equivalent of most corps' total budget and still not only survive, but survive at the top of their game?

Assets, baby, assets. That pool of resources that BD has put back to cushion against an inevitable bad cash flow year, like 2010.

Assets, or what an org owns, and liabilities, what it owes, are shown on the balance sheet and it will be our last look at BD's 990s before we head off to the next corps.

If it's true that BD's gaming operations supports its show spending each year, it's also true that their balance sheet is what gives them depth enough to provide longevity.

This will be short and sweet.

[garfield]

Blue Devils Balance Sheet

Assets

Savings and temporary cash investments

2008: $915,263

2009: $1,763,969

2010: $1,257,424

2011: $1,262,138

Accounts Receivable declined from nearly $34,000 in 2008 to $15,000 in 2010. Apparently, they are very good at collecting money that's owed or promised to them. $15,000 is a remarkably low number for an org of BD's size. 2011: $67,903

Inventories for sale or use, and Prepaid expenses were stable and not meaningful over all three years.

Land, buildings, and equipment (less depreciation) increased from $396,236 in 2008 to $423,587 in 2010. 2011: $415,491

Total Assets

2008: $1,494,636

2009: $2,334,229 (plus $839,593 [56%] from 2008)

2010: $1,838,594 (minus $495,635 [21%] from 2009, plus $343,958 [23%] from 2008)

2011: $1,923,694

It appears that the majority of 2010's loss ($609,000) was paid for from savings and cash, which declined $506,545 in 2010.

I suspect that Gibbs, et al, nearly choked on the losses from 2010, but took a great amount of comfort in the fact that they had a cushion that allowed them to not only continue operations but also allowed them to do so without taking on debt.

Edited April 18, 2013 by garfield

[garfield]

Blue Devils Balance Sheet

Liabilities and Net Assets

Liabilities had only one meaningful entry across all three years - Accounts Payable. It was $136,684 in 2008, $65,725 in 2009, and $173,827 in 2010. 2011: $82,215

Total Net Assets and Fund Balances

2008: $1,357,952

2009: $2,269,504

2010: $1,664,767

2011: $1,841,479

Remember that net assets is what's left after annual revenue and spending are netted.

Although illiquid land and property holdings are part of their net assets and, presumably not available as a "cushion" to field a corps, their cash holdings ($1.2-million) is a substantial amount of what they spend to field a corps each year, exclusive of the net revenue they derive from their bingo operations.

Edited April 18, 2013 by garfield