[Moderated]JREF Loss $79,859 FY 2006

[rjh01]

If Randi is in his 80s he could retire and look after his grandchildren and great grandchildren. This could give him a great deal of satisfaction. At his age he should have a good nest egg to live on.

 

[AspenMama]

JREF financial records for FY 2006 highlights:

Randi's salary $175k.

If you take a closer look at the break down of Randi's salary you will see this:

Program Services: $113,574
Management & General: $38,813
Fundraising: $22,613

It is not an uncommon practice to divide up an executive's salary among those above functions to reflect the actual percentage of time the executive spends doing those things.

The total functional expenses are as follows:
Program Services: $477,130
Management & General: $122,243
Fundraising: $65,138
Total: $644,511

So, the total percentage spent on Fundraising and Administrative is about 29% of Total Expenses. That's not bad at all.

 

[Zygar]

If Randi is in his 80s he could retire and look after his grandchildren and great grandchildren. This could give him a great deal of satisfaction. At his age he should have a good nest egg to live on.

I could be wrong, but I am fairly certain Randi has no descendents.

 

[Pookster]

JREF is an "educational foundation".

Spending on salaries: 51% of income
Spending on education: 0.36% of income

I'm playing a little catchup with this thread. So some of this may have been covered. It seems you're excluding salary expense from education expense when comparing it with total income. Why? The comparison is nonsense if you're trying to say none of the salaries can be allocated to program activities. Being an educational organization, I'd expect a very significant portion of "education" (ie. program activities) expenses to be salary. The better comparison is how much is spent on administration versus program activities.

So, how much of Randi's salary is allocated to admin expenses, and how much to program activities expenses?

 

[Pookster]

If you take a closer look at the break down of Randi's salary you will see this:

Program Services: $113,574
Management & General: $38,813
Fundraising: $22,613

It is not an uncommon practice to divide up an executive's salary among those above functions to reflect the actual percentage of time the executive spends doing those things.

The total functional expenses are as follows:
Program Services: $477,130
Management & General: $122,243
Fundraising: $65,138
Total: $644,511

So, the total percentage spent on Fundraising and Administrative is about 29% of Total Expenses. That's not bad at all.

I should've read further into the thread. Good info.

 

[Pookster]

... So, the total percentage spent on Fundraising and Administrative is about 29% of Total Expenses. That's not bad at all.

Looking at just the "Management and General" expenses, it makes up about 18.4% of total expenses, which is quite good for that size and type of organization.

Again, thanks for posting the info you did. The OP was misleading with the data that was presented. It shows what cherry picking info can do without understanding the whole picture.

 

[The Atheist]

The OP was misleading with the data that was presented. It shows what cherry picking info can do without understanding the whole picture.

What an interesting couple of back-to-back points you make there.

The OP may have been misleading in one figure only - the percentage of expenses dedicated to "education". And then, it's only misleading if we know what the "education" you're talking about consists of. Preaching to the faithful at TAM is pretty unquantifiable - spending money on scholarships and education material (you know, the kind of stuff other educational foundations actually do) is not.

But you're happy to cherry-pick that one percentage figure out of the OP and say the OP's data is misleading.

 

[Pookster]

What an interesting couple of back-to-back points you make there.

Hey, thanks, man.

The OP may have been misleading in one figure only - the percentage of expenses dedicated to "education".

The OP (opening post) mentions nothing about the percentage of expenses dedicated to education. Maybe you should read my couple of interesting points again ... as well as your opening post. Just a thought.

And then, it's only misleading if we know what the "education" you're talking about consists of. Preaching to the faithful at TAM is pretty unquantifiable - spending money on scholarships and education material (you know, the kind of stuff other educational foundations actually do) is not.

You used the word "education" in your post ... that I did quote. I went on to describe it as "program activities". Education can take many forms. I find it very odd that you seem to believe the "faithful" can't be educated, as if they have nothing new to learn. Is this what you believe? Can we dismiss the church choir before the sermon so they can get to lunch before everyone else? Please, do explain what you mean.

But you're happy to cherry-pick that one percentage figure out of the OP and say the OP's data is misleading.

I might be happy to cherry pick something if it was there, although I doubt it. Maybe you can get a Mod to insert it in your opening post, and then we can see. Your call.

 

[The Atheist]

You used the word "education" in your post ... that I did quote. I went on to describe it as "program activities". Education can take many forms. I find it very odd that you seem to believe the "faithful" can't be educated, as if they have nothing new to learn. Is this what you believe?

The faithful can certainly be educated - whether there's any value in it is questionable at the very least. If the purpose of the JREF is to educate the cheerleaders, then it's probably meeting its goals fantastically well.

I might be happy to cherry pick something if it was there, although I doubt it. Maybe you can get a Mod to insert it in your opening post, and then we can see. Your call.

Yes, I see my mistake, I was combining a couple of posts.

What, exactly then, is misleading about the OP, since it's directly taken from the 990?

 

[CFLarsen]

The faithful can certainly be educated - whether there's any value in it is questionable at the very least.

Really?

Then, why do you purport to be a skeptic, if you don't see the value of educating the faithful?

 

[Antiquehunter]

My understanding of TA's post Claus was that he was suggesting that it was more important to be educating the masses - attempting to perform some outreach, versus 'preaching to the converted' (an unfortunate analogy).

-AH.

 

[CFLarsen]

My understanding of TA's post Claus was that he was suggesting that it was more important to be educating the masses - attempting to perform some outreach, versus 'preaching to the converted' (an unfortunate analogy).

-AH.

The faithful are the masses.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Umm... isn't that the problem?

 

[CFLarsen]

Umm... isn't that the problem?

Yes. Hence my question.

 

[Pookster]

The faithful can certainly be educated - whether there's any value in it is questionable at the very least. If the purpose of the JREF is to educate the cheerleaders, then it's probably meeting its goals fantastically well.

Questionable value in teaching the "faithful"? Possibly. But just because they're the "faithful" doesn't in and of itself make it questionable. If so, we could do away with post-graduate schools of all kinds that involve their "faithful". But, you've yet to demonstrate where it is questionable in this case. Can you? If not, then your claim comes across as just whining.

Yes, I see my mistake, I was combining a couple of posts.

What, exactly then, is misleading about the OP, since it's directly taken from the 990?

It's not misleading in and of itself. It becomes that way with your following posts regarding CEO salaries, especially when you amazingly separate all salaries out of "education" or program activities. In that light, I found it so cute that you questioned someone else's "business acumen" on page one as well. While Randi may be the CEO or Manager, he wears several hats, including participating in program activities which involve educating. According to the 990, he's not paid $175k to be the CEO of the JREF. It was in the context you (and possibly others) out of ignorance or knowingly presented the selected info in the OP that made it misleading.

 

[MG1962]

The biggest problem you have with the JREF is James Randi - without him, the fund has no profile, no goodwill, no recognition.

Lets say I launch a coup and take over the organisation - How much interest will anyone have in the MG1962EF - The answer is obvious - none.

So although the percentage may seem high against other such organisations - It seems fairly obvious without his involvment, there is no organisation

 

[zooterkin]

The faithful are the masses.

Literally speaking, perhaps, but in the context of this discussion, the "faithful" was originally used to refer to those already attending TAM.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Literally speaking, perhaps, but in the context of this discussion, the "faithful" was originally used to refer to those already attending TAM.

Well, *this* is going to be a fun 25 pages.







/gets popcorn, places bets on when Merriam Webster arrives.

 

[CFLarsen]

Literally speaking, perhaps, but in the context of this discussion, the "faithful" was originally used to refer to those already attending TAM.

If that is the case, then it would be a good idea if TheAtheist attended TAM.

He will find that quite a lot of people learn quite a lot there.

 

[The Atheist]

Then, why do you purport to be a skeptic. ...

Completely incorrect - no surprise.

It was in the context you (and possibly others) out of ignorance or knowingly presented the selected info in the OP that made it misleading.

Ah, now I understand - you have nothing to say so created a strawman about what I might have meant.

S'ok, you can stop now, Claus is here, he does strawmen by the dozen.

If that is the case, then it would be a good idea if TheAtheist attended TAM.

See, already changing the subject.

Have no fear, Claus, when I decide to come to a Tim-Tam, you'll be the first to know.

(Psst - you do realise Randi himself accepts the Tim-Tams are earners, not learners?)

 

[Pookster]

... Ah, now I understand - you have nothing to say so created a strawman about what I might have meant.

S'ok, you can stop now, Claus is here, he does strawmen by the dozen. ...

Strawman? Hardly. It wasn't about what you might have meant, it's about what you clearly stated. You posted Randi's $175k salary figure in your OP and proceeded to refer to it as his CEO salary in your posts following it. This is false and misleading at best. You were either being deceptive or showing off your own "business acumen". Either way, it doesn't bode very well for your credibility and/or character.

But no matter. Please, do carry on. Your agenda is shining through quite brightly.

 

[The Atheist]

Strawman? Hardly. It wasn't about what you might have meant, it's about what you clearly stated. You posted Randi's $175k salary figure in your OP and proceeded to refer to it as his CEO salary in your posts following it.

What planet are you on?

Randi is the CEO, unless you'd like to dispute that.

CEOs generally work for their salary. In an organisation with 2 1/2 employees, the CEO is obviously going to be working on the goals of the organisation - e.g. education. Are you really so thick that you'd think the "CEO" next to someone in an organisation that size sits around and gets paid for twiddling his thumbs?

And the n00b with 200 posts knows what my agenda is? You just keep setting fire to your strawmen.

 

[Pookster]

What planet are you on?

Randi is the CEO, unless you'd like to dispute that.

CEOs generally work for their salary. In an organisation with 2 1/2 employees, the CEO is obviously going to be working on the goals of the organisation - e.g. education. Are you really so thick that you'd think the "CEO" next to someone in an organisation that size sits around and gets paid for twiddling his thumbs?

And the n00b with 200 posts knows what my agenda is? You just keep setting fire to your strawmen.

On my planet, we know how to do cost accounting. You know, allocate expenses and stuff. It happens in non-profits and even for-profits all around my planet. I hope it comes to a planet near you some time soon. Let us know if it does, won't ya? As I said in my prior posts, Randi wears several hats. One of them is as CEO. His salary expense as a CEO are cost allocated in the 990 ... just as it would be for ANY non-profit. His "CEO portion" of his salary isn't the total $175k. It's cost allocated to be (as posted from the 990 by AspenMama) ...

Program Services: $113,574
Management & General: $38,813
Fundraising: $22,613

Try reading for comprehension next time.

And yes, it doesn't take any more than my 200 posts to see your agenda. The question is, how many more posts will it take by you to realize your pants are down in this thread. I'm not placing any bets.

 

[The Atheist]

On my planet, we know how to do cost accounting.

Ah, and over there, I assume that the total doesn't add up to the $175k as correctly stated in the OP?

You're missing the point by so much it's laughable, but please do carry on.

 

[Pookster]

Ah, and over there, I assume that the total doesn't add up to the $175k as correctly stated in the OP?

You're missing the point by so much it's laughable, but please do carry on.

Sure it adds up to the total. The problem is that you're trying to compare that $175K in your posts that follow the OP as if it's all CEO costs only and not program activity costs as well. You're trying to compare that $175K to other organizations CEO costs. You simply can not do that. It's apples and oranges. Your opening post becomes misleading because it isn't what you portray it to be in later posts. Randi's salary is not just CEO costs.

It's become quite clear that you either don't understand the principles of cost allocation, or else you're purposely just trying to be obtuse to be an ass.

 

[The Atheist]

Sure it adds up to the total.

At last - you can count!.

See, the point has nothing to do with cost accounting, or where Randi's salary is allocated to, but whether or not a loss of $80k is significant. Quibbling over which amount of money gets allocated where is just that - quibbling.

I take it you're a good skeptic.

 

[Pookster]

At last - you can count!.

See, the point has nothing to do with cost accounting, or where Randi's salary is allocated to, but whether or not a loss of $80k is significant. Quibbling over which amount of money gets allocated where is just that - quibbling.

I take it you're a good skeptic.

I never miscounted. Also, it might be your point, but my point all along is you're comparing apples and oranges. You picked numbers from the 990 and then misused them, either on purpose or out of ignorance. The rest has just your bluster to ignore that point.

 

[The Atheist]

I never miscounted. Also, it might be your point, but my point all along is you're comparing apples and oranges. You picked numbers from the 990 and then misused them, either on purpose or out of ignorance. The rest has just your bluster to ignore that point.

And yet more quibbling...

I've misused nothing. You started with a claim about misleading statements and I accepted that the percentage spend on education might be misleading, but the actual point of the thread is the loss by JREF. It doesn't matter what expenses are allocated to, the loss remains the same. Arguing about which part of Randi's income is attributable to which area of operation is about as sensible as refusing to use a fire extinguisher because it's the wrong colour.

As I intimated - typically "skeptical" to focus on irrelevancies.

Please feel free to keep playing.

 

[Pookster]

And yet more quibbling...

I've misused nothing. You started with a claim about misleading statements and I accepted that the percentage spend on education might be misleading, but the actual point of the thread is the loss by JREF. It doesn't matter what expenses are allocated to, the loss remains the same. Arguing about which part of Randi's income is attributable to which area of operation is about as sensible as refusing to use a fire extinguisher because it's the wrong colour.

As I intimated - typically "skeptical" to focus on irrelevancies.

Please feel free to keep playing.

No quibbling. You're the one that used Randi's total salary in a comparison with CEOs. You're the one that couldn't even keep up with your own OP in your initial reply to me. It's no wonder you can't focus on my point at all now. You posted on page one ...

... Certainly is. Quite amusing that such a tiny organisation spends the same on CEO salary as a whopping big one. Darat's graph shows that for a salary of $175k, the expenses would be somewhere in excess of $13.5M, well over 10x that of JREF ...

Yes, the loss remains the same. I've said nothing about the loss. I just replied to your lack of "business acumen" in this and another of your posts that I quoted earlier. But please continue showing off your ... "business acumen" concerning the JREF loss. It should be fun for a giggle, based on your posts so far in this thread.

 

[rjh01]

And yet more quibbling...
<snip>as sensible as refusing to use a fire extinguisher because it's the wrong colour.
<snip>

I am a fire warden. If the fire extinguisher is the wrong colour then it can be deadly to use. Fire extinguishers are certain colours to tell you what type they are.

Now where is the popcorn?

 

[The Atheist]

No quibbling. You're the one that used Randi's total salary in a comparison with CEOs. You're the one that couldn't even keep up with your own OP in your initial reply to me.

No, you're confusing a lack of interest in minor detail with facts.

Yes, the loss remains the same. I've said nothing about the loss.

Isn't that odd - a thread about the loss which you've made multiple posts to and never even mentioned the point! You are truly a skeptic.

I just replied to your lack of "business acumen" in this and another of your posts that I quoted earlier. But please continue showing off your ... "business acumen" concerning the JREF loss. It should be fun for a giggle, based on your posts so far in this thread.

Thank you, honey. When you start a thread about my business acumen, we can maybe discuss the reasons why cost accountants make bloody awful CEOs.

Meanwhile, please do keep playing the wrong tune at the wrong time. You're not related to Claus Larsen are you? He frequently has the same problem.

I will thank you for keeping the thread at the top of the page, though.

I am a fire warden. If the fire extinguisher is the wrong colour then it can be deadly to use. Fire extinguishers are certain colours to tell you what type they are.

I can see now why the ARP were so popular in London 1939-1945!

 

[Pookster]

No, you're confusing a lack of interest in minor detail with facts.

I'm sure you'd now love to consider it a minor detail, even though you participated in a discussion about it. You even specifically stated the CEO info was highly relevant data, and went on with your absurd comparison of Randi's salary with other CEOs. It's soooo cute how it becomes a minor detail now. Heh.

Isn't that odd - a thread about the loss which you've made multiple posts to and never even mentioned the point! You are truly a skeptic.

Not really. There was a significant discussion about Randi's salary that you participated in. I just pointed out how you were incorrect in your comparisons. I can certainly understand why you would want to minimize your discussion of it now though.

Thank you, honey. When you start a thread about my business acumen, we can maybe discuss the reasons why cost accountants make bloody awful CEOs.

No problem, cupcake. If you don't want a discussion to occur about your business acumen in this thread, then I suggest you understand what you're posting about when discussing a 990 and the business health of a non-profit organization. You obviously don't.

Meanwhile, please do keep playing the wrong tune at the wrong time. You're not related to Claus Larsen are you? He frequently has the same problem.

I will thank you for keeping the thread at the top of the page, though.

It's a discussion forum. If you didn't want a discussion about Randi's salary, you shouldn't have posted about it and then compared it to other CEO's in this thread. I can't help it that you don't like the music now. You assisted greatly in selecting the tune. Get over it.

Now, about the JREF loss ... you stated here ...

Sorry, but you're just showing a lack of business acumen here.

When expenditure exceeds income, that is known as a "loss". Refer to IRS for further details.

I note that the increase in assets after the loss is offset by an increase in "deferred income" of $96k. No explanation is given for what income is being deferred.

The balance sheet clearly shows an increase, not a loss. Yes, the actual expenses incurred exceeded revenues received and counted for the year on Part One of the 990. The balance sheet shows deferred revenue that hasn't been counted as revenue in the reporting year. It's counted as a liability on the balance sheet. This isn't unusual for this kind of organization where accounting activities for events can overlap two different fiscal periods. Depending on the timing of when some expenses are incurred related to revenue generation, you could show a loss in the current reporting period that will be offset in the next period when the revenue is finally counted (no longer a liability). This is far from unusual. You've ignored or either blown this off the several times it was posted to you before. SpitfireIX was among those that explained it quite well ...

... Finally, 2006 was the first year for The Amazing Adventure; the JREF undoubtedly incurred significant additional expenses incident to TAA 1. However, for TAA 2 the JREF actually chartered a ship for the Galapagos cruise. Although in accounting[,] expenses are generally matched to revenues as far as possible, sometimes the principle of conservatism requires that expenses be recognized before associated revenues. I suspect that the JREF had to pay a significant amount of the charter fee up-front as a nonrefundable deposit on the ship. However, until January 15, 2007, everyone who had prepaid for the cruise was entitled to cancel at no penalty, and receive a full refund. Therefore, as has been noted, all of the payments collected were classified as "Deferred Revenue." I noticed that "Deferred Expenses" actually went down, so I doubt that any deposit on the ship was classified as such. This situation would create the appearance of a significant deficit, when in fact the JREF was likely to come out ahead on TAA 2. ...

You (The Atheist) admitted you have no idea what the tax laws are for non-profits in USA. Therefore, I'm not at all surprised to see you stumbling and bumbling over your own "business acumen". You've admitted that you're quite ignorant about what you're trying to discuss. You had little clue about what you were posting about from the very beginning of this thread.

Given the above, you seem to be purposely cherry picking numbers from the 990 to show what you want ... or either your "business acumen" is showing yet again ... or both. None of the options are very flattering for you.

 

[The Atheist]

The balance sheet clearly shows an increase, not a loss. Yes, the actual expenses incurred exceeded revenues received and counted for the year on Part One of the 990. The balance sheet shows deferred revenue that hasn't been counted as revenue in the reporting year. It's counted as a liability on the balance sheet. This isn't unusual for this kind of organization where accounting activities for events can overlap two different fiscal periods. Depending on the timing of when some expenses are incurred related to revenue generation, you could show a loss in the current reporting period that will be offset in the next period when the revenue is finally counted (no longer a liability). This is far from unusual. You've ignored or either blown this off the several times it was posted to you before. SpitfireIX was among those that explained it quite well ...

Love it!

Give a fool enough rope and she'll surely hang herself. Thanks!

Go back and check the previous years' reports then try again.

(handy hint: start with 2004 when the surplus was $300k, and then note that the deferred income is a gross figure; that should assist you.)

 

[Pookster]

Love it!

Give a fool enough rope and she'll surely hang herself. Thanks!

Go back and check the previous years' reports then try again.

(handy hint: start with 2004 when the surplus was $300k, and then note that the deferred income is a gross figure; that should assist you.)

Tsk tsk. You're stumbling and bumbling again. But, if nothing else, it's now completely obvious that you have no clue what you're discussing. JREF is incurring expenses which it claimed in 2006 ... for revenue it collected in 2006 but can't claim as revenue until 2007. That's what deferred revenue is. They have it in 2006, but can't count it as revenue in 2006. Nothing you're referring me to look at now will change that. You've cherry picked numbers to try to show JREF is losing money. You've failed, sir.

As I said before though, it's fun for a giggle. So, please, do carry on. Tell me how the above is not correct.

 

[HarryKeogh]

This accounting throw-down is quite entertaining. Much more so than the two accounting courses I had to take in college.

 

[The Atheist]

You've cherry picked numbers to try to show JREF is losing money.

Yeah, right. Fortunately, most people can read. I'll leave it to the readers to check.

2006
2005
2004
2003
2002

 

[Pookster]

Yeah, right. Fortunately, most people can read. I'll leave it to the readers to check.

2006
2005
2004
2003
2002

Non-responsive to my post.

Again ...

Tsk tsk. You're stumbling and bumbling again. But, if nothing else, it's now completely obvious that you have no clue what you're discussing. JREF is incurring expenses which it claimed in 2006 ... for revenue it collected in 2006 but can't claim as revenue until 2007. That's what deferred revenue is. They have it in 2006, but can't count it as revenue in 2006. Nothing you're referring me to look at now will change that. You've cherry picked numbers to try to show JREF is losing money. You've failed, sir.

As I said before though, it's fun for a giggle. So, please, do carry on. ...

The five "D's" of dodge ball aren't going to do you a bit of good when it comes to replying to me. Again, please, tell me how the above is not correct.

 

[tsig]

Yeah, right. Fortunately, most people can read. I'll leave it to the readers to check.

2006
2005
2004
2003
2002

Well Atheist from where I'm sitting Pookster has got a no-hitter going against you.

You made a big deal about the salary then when you had the accounting explained said it was no big deal.

It's better for people to show what the are than say what they are. You've shown nothing and said a lot.

 

[hodgy]

Great thread - Pookster finishes well ahead I'd say.

Sorry, The Atheist, but I think it was clear you should have retired gracefully a while a go.

 

[The Atheist]

Well Atheist from where I'm sitting Pookster has got a no-hitter going against you.

Nope, she's just talking across me - her points have virtually no relevance outside of cost accounting, while I live in the real world, but take it as you will.

If you bother to go and read the returns for yourself, you'll see which way the finances are headed.

You made a big deal about the salary then when you had the accounting explained said it was no big deal.

How is it not? Randi is paid $150k and that's a fact. How it's accounted for has no relevance whatsoever.

What Pookster has done is bring along a red herring. If people choose to dine it, it's no skin off my nose. If I were a financial supporter of JREF I'd be concerned, but since I'm not, it's over to those who do to decide whether a turnround in profitability/excess revenue of over $300k in two years is a good thing. Clearly, Pookster, yourself and a few others think it is.

Let's just sit back and talk about it again in six months' time and see how the finances look.