The DCI 990s

[GUARDLING]

I got to hand it to you numbers people. You get so excited over numbers . My own accountant ( I could never do it ) their eyes glaze over in excitment when talking about spread sheets, numbers, solving issues, etc etc. I look at them like they have 2 heads...lol.Thank God for the numbers people and thank GOD I'm not one of them...lol

[Fred Windish]

I have the utmost respect for DCI. I am MORE than impressed by Dan Acheson and believe he's exactly what DCI needs. My concern is with 'numbers,' for the sake of numbers. Somewhere, 'deep down in there' is (for example only) $800 to Joe Schmo. MANY reading such expense will be incensed. That's too bad, because whatever Joe Schmo provided could have paid back to DCI several times over. 'Joe' might well have been a brilliant investment. But, the number assigned to 'Joe' has a real chance to be misinterpreted. That's the concern I have.

[Fred Windish]

Wait, Fred. Does your contention make sense, really?

Isn't it more possible that the numbers do make sense on their own and, when they appear to not make sense, a footnote is written to explain them?

In my experience (such that it is) the numbers tell the truth. It's only when the numbers DON'T make sense that a background explanation is necessary.

footnotes?

Not really. If you do footnotes, you are a better man than most, I think.

[garfield]

I have the utmost respect for DCI. I am MORE than impressed by Dan Acheson and believe he's exactly what DCI needs. My concern is with 'numbers,' for the sake of numbers. Somewhere, 'deep down in there' is (for example only) $800 to Joe Schmo. MANY reading such expense will be incensed. That's too bad, because whatever Joe Schmo provided could have paid back to DCI several times over. 'Joe' might well have been a brilliant investment. But, the number assigned to 'Joe' has a real chance to be misinterpreted. That's the concern I have.

That's all speculation, Fred, and I've tried pretty hard to not go down that path. If someone wants to contend that DCI shouldn't have paid something to somebody because it would have been better used elsewhere, the next step is to take it up with DCI, not to speculate here why it is so.

Again, I've asked many times and have had no replies: What motivation would DCI have to mischaracterize these numbers to hide the fact that they paid Joe Schmoe instead of used that money elsewhere? Who does DCI answer to, anyway? Us? The IRS? (No, in both cases). The G7? (Don't go there.)

Please, someone (not you specifically, Fred, but it is your contention) explain to me how, in the absence of malfeasance, the simple numbers shown in the DCI 990's can be made to present a different tale of the health of the organization!

I'm not buying the contention and, until someone presents even a supposition of how it would benefit DCI or the activity, I'm going to proceed as if these numbers are accurate and categorized correctly.

[garfield]

footnotes?

Not really. If you do footnotes, you are a better man than most, I think.

You DO know that the footnotes to a financial filing are the FIRST thing you read, don't you?

Again, they explain WHY the numbers don't seem to make sense on their surface. That's my point.

Many people suggest that the lack of explanatory footnotes means the numbers don't make sense to the layman. I believe that the presence of a footnote is, in fact, the single indicator that maybe the number needs to be looked at a little more closely and NOT taken on its surface.

The 990's have supplemental forms that DCI uses to expound on numbers.

[Fred Windish]

You see, garfield . . .

I really don't care what DCI spent at Staples. I really don't care if DCI should have spent the same amount at Office Depot (are they even still in business). I really don't care what DCI spent for envelopes, or printer cartridges. What I care about is, is it all working? My point is, numbers are just numbers. They really don't tell the whole story. The whole story transcends just numbers. Nothing sinister here.

[Fred Windish]

You DO know that the footnotes to a financial filing are the FIRST thing you read, don't you?

Again, they explain WHY the numbers don't seem to make sense on their surface. That's my point.

Many people suggest that the lack of explanatory footnotes means the numbers don't make sense to the layman. I believe that the presence of a footnote is, in fact, the single indicator that maybe the number needs to be looked at a little more closely and NOT taken on its surface.

The 990's have supplemental forms that DCI uses to expound on numbers.

Honestly, garfield, I really don't care what someone tells me via footnote. I make my own assessment.

[garfield]

You see, garfield . . .

I really don't care what DCI spent at Staples. I really don't care if DCI should have spent the same amount at Office Depot (are they even still in business). I really don't care what DCI spent for envelopes, or printer cartridges. What I care about is, is it all working? My point is, numbers are just numbers. They really don't tell the whole story. The whole story transcends just numbers. Nothing sinister here.

Ok, so we believe differently (I'll be sure to watch for your name at the bottom of the financials I read ).

So, it seems to be working (seems, that is, if you can believe the numbers). You could have stopped reading at the first post of the thread and gone away happy that it is, apparently, working.

So, I take it you won't be back, right? Seen enough, right? It's working fine, right? Nothing to see here then. Move along.

(Really, I hope you stick around just to see how WEIRD these DCI numbers really are! [/sarcasm about the numbers] )

[garfield]

Honestly, garfield, I really don't care what someone tells me via footnote. I make my own assessment.

Heh! Then you'd have a heck of a time reading an actually complicated balance sheet, my friend!

But, you're probably very good at what you do during the day.

[Fran Haring]

This is pretty funny, Fran (the first time that is), and I get where you're coming from.

But part of my particular problem is that I work in the investment business, which is HIGHLY regulated. If I summarize each 990 with a single comment (LOVE the train wreck descriptor!) it could be interpreted that I, personally, am endorsing, or not, a particular corps. That's flies very close to the flame of "advice", and any time I'm providing "advice" (or qualified opinion as to the quality of an organization) the regulators (FINRA, if anyone's interested) believe I need to be regulated, disclosed, approved by compliance, copied four different ways, filed in Washington, and held to the standard of "advisor".

Because I do drum corps and DCP for fun and not profit, I don't want to fly anywhere close to that flame. That's why you'll likely never see me say "IS", or "IS NOT" and, instead, I use "could be", or "maybe", or "it looks like in my opinion". And even that could be a problem because "IMO" means "in my professional opinion" (whether I mean it to be professional or not) which means it's my profession and, hence, is regulated.

Besides, it's more fun to form your own opinion and then argue it on these threads. We're all pretty good at that here, eh?

Of course I know you can't provide specific advice. I was just joshin'. Both times.

You're right.... you provide the numbers, the rest of us either marvel at them, agree with them, trash them, dismiss them outright, etc. LOL.