garfield Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 YEA! Revenue Program Service Revenue Drum Corps Shows: 2009: $238,613 2010: $245,001 (plus $6,358 [2.6%] from 2009) 2011: $404,812 (plus $159,811 [65.2%] from 2010, plus $166,199 [69.6%] from 2009) My hunch is that DCI payments fall into this category, along wih revenue from Cadets-hosted shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 YEA! Revenue Program Service Revenue Appearance Fees: 2009: $210,141 2010: $221,531 2011: $204,485 Essentially unchanged over the three years. The description suggests that this is revenue from appearances other than drum corps shows (parades, stand-stills, etc?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 I'm going to come back to Expenses in a bit and, instead, show the bottom line, the Net, now. YEA! Revenue less Expenses 2009: $289,405 2010: $70,827 (minus $218,578 [75.5%] from 2009) 2011: $247,326 (plus $176,499 [249%] from 2010, minus $42,079 [14.5%] from 2009) So, it doesn't appear that the impressive increases in revenue shown above consistently translated into an equal increase in the bottom line. Obviously, Expenses made the difference so, next, let's see if we can spot why that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithHall Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Sorry to tick some off on this post. Was I wrong? Maybe but I was just speaking my mind. I do have too much time on my hands (Not the Styx song) in the morning before I get down to doing my lesson plans. I know many of you like this so apologies to you. As for my posts on the Historical section.....talking about "olden times" is wrong? Hmmmm For some of you pups out there you don't know what it was like as we really don't know what it's like today. However, good communicationamongst all of us would be nice. That being said, alot of my generation have been bashing all the changes in corps. I personally don't like it but everyone has an opinion. I wish I could see in the future to say our activity will get better but as time goes by....I don't think it will. Maybe Hopkins, Gibbs and others see the future and that is why the G7 thing came up. I don't know Hopkins personally and I wasn't a fan of his for the longest time BUT I see why he does what he does. Sorry for irritating you all, I will crawl away now! Happy Thanksgiving!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I'm going to come back to Expenses in a bit and, instead, show the bottom line, the Net, now. YEA! Revenue less Expenses 2009: $289,405 2010: $70,827 (minus $218,578 [75.5%] from 2009) 2011: $247,326 (plus $176,499 [249%] from 2010, minus $42,079 [14.5%] from 2009) So, it doesn't appear that the impressive increases in revenue shown above consistently translated into an equal increase in the bottom line. Obviously, Expenses made the difference so, next, let's see if we can spot why that is. At first blush, the increase in revenue (in part) may be from the influx of dues and fees generated by the increase allowable in the corps membership size on the performance field. With that, the increase in the performance membership also adds to the expenses of supporting that larger membership. In addition, it appears in at least one fiscal year the ED was given a 10% bonus (of salary), which added an additional plus 15k to expenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 At first blush, the increase in revenue (in part) may be from the influx of dues and fees generated by the increase allowable in the corps membership size on the performance field. With that, the increase in the performance membership also adds to the expenses of supporting that larger membership. In addition, it appears in at least one fiscal year the ED was given a 10% bonus (of salary), which added an additional plus 15k to expenses. Don't pop the balloon, bill. Wait for it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) For some reason I thought the Cadets and each of their other units would be separate non-profits under the umbrella non-profit YEA. But I couldn't find the Cadets listed separately on Guidestar. This certainly makes more sense for the corps, since it's a huge savings on filings. Still, I'm surprised the IRS doesn't want some kind of paperwork at least from each distinct subunit, to make it harder to hide things. Sorry, I was too busy banging out numbers and missed this. There are a couple of numbers coming up that show the raw Revenue and Expenses for each of YEA!'s business units but, in general, the numbers are consolidated for the whole organization. I was taught that the notes to the annual reports is always where you start an analysis, because the notes explain the numbers in real english. But 990's are usually very thin on explanatory notes. Remember that what the IRS is primarily interested in whether or not an org is not qualifying as a tax-exempt by not fulfilling a minimun support of their stated goal (education, music, whatever), in hopes that disqualifying them brings in some tax revenue. To establish that fact, the preparer of the form must answer if they've met the "1/3" test, then show income and expense in the "related" or "not related" categories. If the preparer does that and passes, there's no benefit to the IRS seeing all the operating units broken apart completely in the reporting. (Disclaimer: Sounds like I'm practicing tax law here, but I'm not. I really have no idea what I'm talking about. ) Edited November 16, 2012 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFPDrums Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 This has been really informative so far, and I would gladly shake your hand were it near. That said, I wanted to ask if it would be possible to do a side by side comparison of DCI, BoA (make music), and WGI? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Before we finish up, one final detail about Expenses. Many people compare charitable organizations based on the amount of money that actually gets to the charitable purpose of the organization vs. the administrative expenses used to get the money there. The 990's provide a look at this comparison by requiring expenses to be categorized into two categories, Program Service Expenses and Management and General Expenses. For 2011, Total expenses were $9,429,827. Of that amount, $6,555,032 (69.5%) went to Program Service Expenses and $2,874,795 (30.5%) went to Management and General Expenses. In 2010, Total Expenses were $8,875,705. Of that, $5,768,844 (65%) was Program Service and $3,106,861 (35%) was Management and General. In 2009, Total Expenses were $8,542,134. $5,373,139 (62.4%) were Program Service and $3,168,985 (37.6%) were M&G. (Sorry, just realized the order by year is reversed from prior posts.) If this is a representation of efficiency, these numbers look pretty good. Seven percent more of DCI's Revenue was spent on Program Service in 2011 than in 2009, and Management and General expenses consumed less of the Revenue over these three years. This would be a good thing depending on where you stand and what's behind the numbers. More money going into Program (show) expenses could mean more money is being paid out to corps, or it could mean more money went into show production (like venue costs, etc). Anecdotally, I have noticed a decline in the number of attendants guarding the entrys to prevent fans from entering or leaving during a show. Those savings in venue costs (if my observation is a true representation) may mean the corps make more but the fans suffer more disruptions, for example. Without an explanation of Program Expenses there's no way to tell who got the benefit of DCI's greater management "efficiency". EDIT: If it's reasonable to presume that the corps benefited most from this increase in effeciency, I have to ask: What the heck are they complaining about? With all that DCI does to produce a tour (venue, rights, travel, etc) is it reasonable to think that a "Music in Motion" tour could be produced more efficiently? because the pie can only be split 7 ways, not 23. thats why they want it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 The biggest changes in the Assets category from 2009 to 2011 were: Accounts receivable: 2009: $955,556, 2011: $1,332,183 Inventories: 2009: $347,878, 2011: $558,572 Investments: 2009: $302,562, 2011: $122,601 Other Assets: 2009: $0, 2011: $375,000 (Huh? What was this?) A little deeper in the "Other Assets" explanation is this notation: "Photo Collection", book value $375,000 Then, a little deeper under "Noncash Contributions", an entry in "Collectibles" shows an appraisal of $375,000 for one contribution. So it appears that the majority of the bump in assets was from a donation by one contributor of a photo collection worth $375,000. I remember hearing something about Steve Vickers at Drum Corps World making a donation of historical items, but I don't know if this was that donation or someone else. Regardless, a Thank You is obviously in order. that would have been the DCW collection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.