garfield Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 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? The Madison Scouts Program Service "efficiency" (as defined above) 2009: Of $612,892 in Total Expenses, $515,352 (84%) spent on PSE 2010: Of $774,382 in Total Expenses, $693,827 (89.5%) spent on PSE 2011: Of $904,105 in Total Expenses, $802,497 (88.7%) spent on PSE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 The Madison Scouts Balance Sheet Assets Cash 2009: $24,947 2010: $47,994 2011: $15,963 Accounts Receivable 2009: $70,215 2010: $56,685 2011: $29,622 Inventories for Sale or Use 2009: $12,954 2010: $16,173 2011: $39,168 Other Assets were NM and less than $20,000 in each year. Total Assets 2009: $146,114 2010: $217,353 2011: $195,683 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) The Madison Scouts Balance Sheet Liabilities Note: Secured Mortgages and Notes Payable and Unsecured Notes and Loans Payable are combined here. 2009: $279,266 2010: $350,937 2011: $343,688 Note: The corps has been carrying, and paying down, unsecured loans from three individuals with initial amounts of $90,000. As of 2011 those loans balances to be paid were down to $41,370. Total Liabilities 2009: $366,166 2010: $443,428 2011: $442,257 Total Net Assets or fund balances 2009: ($220,022) more liabilities than assets 2010: ($226,075) ditto 2011: ($246,574) ditto Edited December 12, 2012 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 This ends the look at The Madison Scouts. My impression: although they've taken on some debt obligations (presumably to keep going during their financial difficulties prior to 2009), they seem to be spending not much more than revenue and, at the same time, paying down some of their debt. It seems apparent that staying in the top-12, and advancing, can have a significant impact on their revenue and, if they can refrain from spending all the revenue to compete, they should be able to make a dent in their debt. Comments? Questions? Eye drops? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Comments? Glass of wine for me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 This ends the look at The Madison Scouts. My impression: although they've taken on some debt obligations (presumably to keep going during their financial difficulties prior to 2009), they seem to be spending not much more than revenue and, at the same time, paying down some of their debt. It seems apparent that staying in the top-12, and advancing, can have a significant impact on their revenue and, if they can refrain from spending all the revenue to compete, they should be able to make a dent in their debt. Comments? Questions? Eye drops? sounds accurate to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyRyder_FMM Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Comments? Losses the past two years, increasing debt to fund the losses, and liabilities that are approximately 2 times assets. It seems your summary paints a different picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 Losses the past two years, increasing debt to fund the losses, and liabilities that are approximately 2 times assets. It seems your summary paints a different picture. I sure can't argue with you in your view - to the penny. But my assessment was based on the changes from 2010 to 2011, which seem small in comparison to the overall budget and balance sheet. Yes, there are losses, but they're not getting worse and, while liabilities are twice assets, the vast majority of the debt is listed as land, equipment, etc. (Does Madison own a building? Anyone?) About $75,000 of their liabilities are loans from individuals for "operations"; the balance is tied up in land or equipment, which really aren't usable for show production anyway. I would be more concerned if the losses or net liabilities were accelerating appreciably (which is tough to tell anyway over a 3-year timeframe). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 "Please welcome to the field, from La Crosse, Wisconsin, The Blue Stars!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 The Blue Stars Gross Receipts 2009: $907,778 2010: $1,130,727 2011: $1,216,725 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.