garfield Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 The Mandarins Statement of Functional Expenses (Note: Each expense line item can be categorized in one or more of three definitions: "Program Service Expense (PSE)", "Management and Other Expense (MGE)", or "Fundraising Expense (FRE)".) (Note: There are only a dozen or so line items on Mandarins Expense report. I'll list the common, or significantly changed, items here.) Advertising and Promotion 2009: PSE: $0, MGE: $0, FRE: $812, Total: $812 2010: PSE: $8,188, MGE: $12,258, FRE: $0, Total: $20,446 Occupancy 2009: PSE: $0, MGE: $13,805, FRE: $161,751, Total: $175,556 2010: PSE: $840, MGE: $21,036, FRE: $0, Total: $21,876 Travel 2009: PSE: $338,257, MGE: $0, FRE: $0, Total: $338,257 2010: PSE: $228,380, MGE: $4,809, FRE: $0, Total: $233,189 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 The Mandarins Statement of Functional Expenses Supplies 2009: PSE: $58,664, MGE: $14,504, FRE: $111,344, Total: $184,512 2010: PSE: $70,723, MGE: $5,635, FRE: $0, Total: $76,358 Instructors 2009: PSE: $75,980, MGE: $0, FRE: $0, Total: $75,980 2010: PSE: $112,299, MGE: $0, FRE: $0, Total: $112,299 Booster Club 2009: PSE: $0, MGE: $48,534, FRE: $0, Total: $48,534 2010: PSE: $0, MGE: $49,656, FRE: $0, Total: $49,656 Equipment Rental and Maintenance 2009: PSE: $34,860, Total: $34,860 2010: PSE: $24,904, Total: $24,904 Total Functional Expenses 2009: $978,263 2010: $604,317 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) 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 Mandarins Expense "efficiency" (as defined above) 2009: Of $978,263 in Total Expenses, $533,669 (54,5%) was PSE 2010: Of $604,313 in Total Expenses, $467,656 (77.3%) was PSE Edited January 6, 2013 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 So it looks like Mandarins use the bingo game to, if not exactly live within their means, to not spend into a debt spiral either? Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 So it looks like Mandarins use the bingo game to, if not exactly live within their means, to not spend into a debt spiral either? Mike Yep, you've got it right, Mike. And, as soon as I finish making dinner (garfields_kid and I cook on Sundays; Mom's day off) I'll show the balance sheet, and you'll see that Mandarins have an impressively high percentage of their yearly Program Service Expenses in cash and savings. And wait until you see their Liabilities... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 The Mandarins Balance Sheet Assets Cash and Savings 2009: $249,831 2010: $177,765 Land, buildings, and equipment (at cost less accumulated depreciation) 2009: $199,262 2010: $199,262 Total Assets 2009: $459,766 2010: $387,946 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 The Mandarins Balance Sheet Liabilities 2009: $0 2010: $18,694 (Yep, that's it.) Net Assets 2009: $459,766 2010: $369,252 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 That ends our quick look at the Mandarins. Thoughts and comments from the brain trust are now expected, and welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 That additional 2009 money seems to be in the Occupancy and Supplies categories. Did they buy a bingo hall or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 It appears to me that, on the expense side of the ledger, those two items were major drags. What's interesting is that both jumps were in the Fundraising Expense category. I suspect they spent significantly to upgrade or maintain their bingo operation (could have been normally scheduled expenses). The purchase of a bingo hall would show up in assets and, likely, liabilities (as a bank loan); I don't think that's the explanation because no such indication shows up. More likely that, if they're related, "Occupancy" would be rent paid to the bingo hall. Their asset of Land, buildings, and equipment might suggest that they own a building but, at only $199,000, it could also be trucks, horns, and drums. What's more interesting is the jump in revenue in '09 and the subsequent decline in '10. It could be that they had a banner bingo year and spent the extra income on supplies and equipment for their gaming operation. The entry for Program Service Accomplishments shows they spent more on the corps in 2009 (about $130,000 more than in 2010) so not all of their revenue increase went to FRE for the bingo operation. Another hint is the difference in "efficiency" from '09 to '10; they spent only 55% of their revenue on the drum corps in '09, and 77% in 2010. I'd be most interested in how the '09 increase in revenue came about, and why it was not duplicatable in '10. Perhaps some exogenous event that they took advantage of, or something temporary that allowed them to have a one-time pop in bingo participation. 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.