|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:I think the whole point is that if the total administrative expenses of the nonprofit were 50% of donations, that's a really exceedingly poorly run nonprofit and I think the donors would want to know about it. Does anyone know the national average or anything? 50% sounds like a ton, but is it that far off compared to other nonprofits?
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Does anyone know the national average or anything? 50% sounds like a ton, but is it that far off compared to other nonprofits? It's somewhat off compared to other non-profits; nonprofits can be ranked by factors like this, and when you do your giving, it's one of the things you should solicit or identify for yourself. CharityNavigator.org helps make sense of these financials if you want a 20,000 foot view. It shows up on a form called a "990" (which I think is required to be somewhere on a nonprofits website) if you want to actually look at the nonprofit's financials, and a "good" nonprofit uses 70% of its revenue toward charitable programs, with less than 25% toward administrative fees and fundraising. If administrative fees are higher than that, make sure they're identified on schedule "O" column "B" as program service expenses - this is especially true for nonprofits who provide a service instead of pure relief.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
It's important to be thoughtful in judging a non-profit on its spending, because different organizations and different goals will require different spending - you may find a charity that has a very low overhead on administration due in part to its nature and mission as well as good operation. For this reason it's probably a good idea to compare organizations that provide similar services or benefits rather than all charities against each other, so that you're not unduly penalizing ones that simply have higher costs due to the nature of their mission or operation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
I used to work for a non-profit that provided services to libraries. The place was small enough that everyone wore administrative and service hats. For example, I ran one of our products and maintained the company websites. Our 990 put 80-90% of expenses into staff costs and made it very difficult to parse out the line between administration and service.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
The other day at work I was fussing with someone about a donation he wanted to make for x purpose, and he said “well I don’t want them to use it just to pay the light bill or something.” Look, I get it, we all want to feel like our donation literally saved a person directly, but the organization can’t do the work in the dark. I think what it really is is people who donate money often feel like they know the best way for a nonprofit to spend their money. Obviously you don’t want it wasted, but they do this stuff professionally, and you shouldn’t give them money at all if you don’t trust them not to waste it on hookers and blow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:I think the whole point is that if the total administrative expenses of the nonprofit were 50% of donations, that's a really exceedingly poorly run nonprofit and I think the donors would want to know about it. It depends on how hard the non-profit is to administer. Something operating internationally with regulatory requirements, and/or using volunteer labour, will basically exist to coordinate activities, so they’re almost purely administrative. I imagine the Girl Guides to be in that bucket, and maybe MSF (their per diems are related to local cost of living, I believe), probably a lot of political action groups. It does depend on what you consider administrative expenses, though. Mineaiki posted:Obviously you don’t want it wasted, but they do this stuff professionally, and you shouldn’t give them money at all if you don’t trust them not to waste it on hookers and blow. This is also true of investment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Nicehash.com, something to do with crypto , just got hacked and lost $66m worth of users bitcoins. Whoops. But they will work on regaining customer trust in the upcoming days.quote:Unfortunately, there has been a security breach involving NiceHash website. We are currently investigating the nature of the incident and, as a result, we are stopping all operations for the next 24 hours. Get ready for all the related sad stories and gofundmes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Does anyone know the national average or anything? 50% sounds like a ton, but is it that far off compared to other nonprofits? Here is a charity my family is very involved with for comparison: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=14779 Program Expenses 76.2% Administrative Expenses 10.6% Fundraising Expenses 13.1% Fundraising Efficiency $0.12 Working Capital Ratio (years) 0.94 Program Expenses Growth 16.1% Liabilities to Assets 6.0% Compare that to another one that I used to donate my time to (fixing office equipment, etc) that spends drat near 100% of it's income on salaries. The building the operate out of was donated, the labor to repair it and keep their poo poo running is donated, the poo poo they give away is donated: all they need to pay for pretty much are people to staff it: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=561438138 They are very different and well run organizations, doing really good things in their communities but have wildly different and appropriate spending profiles. I don't think an average of salary/admin spending across different charities would be useful data.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Jake Mustache posted:Nicehash.com, something to do with crypto , just got hacked and lost $66m worth of users bitcoins. Whoops. But they will work on regaining customer trust in the upcoming days. 'Hacked' in this setting probably means 'Someone on staff took everything and ran', right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:'Hacked' in this setting probably means 'Someone on staff took everything and ran', right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Bitcoin may be securable, but yes it’s meaningless to talk about something being ~secure~ without describing what exactly it’s secure against.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:It depends on how hard the non-profit is to administer. Something operating internationally with regulatory requirements, and/or using volunteer labour, will basically exist to coordinate activities, so they’re almost purely administrative. I imagine the Girl Guides to be in that bucket, and maybe MSF (their per diems are related to local cost of living, I believe), probably a lot of political action groups. MSF is actually like 75% funds directly to aid. They're an exceedingly well run charity. I agree with what's been said about not having any clear bright line, and organizations that primarily coordinate needing (obviously) to pay salaries but when you're paying a 4 million dollar charity 8 directors > $200,000 salaries I'm going to have some hesitation about donation. That's why independent nonprofit evaluators compare organizations in the same space to find the best "bang for your buck."
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Oh, I don’t mean to say that administrative overhead is not worth looking at (though maybe I did inadvertently say that!). I just mean that a purely quantitative analysis can be misleading, depending on the function of the charity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:It's somewhat off compared to other non-profits; nonprofits can be ranked by factors like this, and when you do your giving, it's one of the things you should solicit or identify for yourself. CharityNavigator.org helps make sense of these financials if you want a 20,000 foot view. It's quite variable and at some level, if there is not enough money allocated to administration the nonprofit is similarly performing sub-optimally. Subjunctive posted:Oh, I don’t mean to say that administrative overhead is not worth looking at (though maybe I did inadvertently say that!). I just mean that a purely quantitative analysis can be misleading, depending on the function of the charity. This is extremely true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:That and PSLF, although I wouldn't count on a Trump administration actually honoring it. I've been following the developments pretty closely, and I know of at least one person who has made their 120 payments and has submitted the paperwork and been conditionally approved by FedLoan Servicing, and had the application forwarded to the Department of Ed. Their loans have been put on forbearance and now they're playing the waiting game. You can read about them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/StudentLoans/comments/7akwvv/pslf_debt_forgiveness/ I may be deluding myself but I feel like if some of these first qualifying people successfully get their loans forgiven, they probably can't just cancel the program for the rest of us currently in the middle of the process. For new borrowers, maybe. Who knows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Sirotan posted:I may be deluding myself but I feel like if some of these first qualifying people successfully get their loans forgiven, they probably can't just cancel the program for the rest of us currently in the middle of the process. For new borrowers, maybe. Who knows. We have had this discussion a couple of times, but because of the language in the master promissory notes for loans issued UP TO THIS POINT, it would SEEM to be breach of contract NOT to pay PSLF fulfilled by the terms stated for YEARS on the DoE website. However, certainly going forward for new borrowers they are planning to 86 this program, and will probably do so quite easily. If you are not yet approved for PSLF, make sure that you apply for it ASAP if you intend to fulfill your payments that way, as it can take quite some time to "get approved," and they might try to stop that process from happening as soon as June 2018 (I don't have a cite on this but have read it a few places). Of note, it does not appear that forgiveness will be taxable at this time, but it obviously may given the tax overhaul.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
werdnam posted:This woman's smug bootstraps platitude makes me irrationally angry. You mean, all it takes to pay off a massive debt is to have your parent hire you at an above market salary, gift you a six-figure asset that you can turn into passive income, and let you live rent-free (and probably feed you too)? Based on the article, it's actually pretty safe to say her husband is pulling in $200k or so a year. So marry someone with high income is the real take away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Moneyball posted:If people could just be as good with money as this woman, we wouldn't need this thread. I hope her mother gets hosed by the IRS for not paying her at arm's length or something. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Randler posted:I hope her mother gets hosed by the IRS for not paying her at arm's length or something. Why would the IRS insist on arm’s length? That would gently caress most family businesses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Why would the IRS insist on arm’s length? That would gently caress most family businesses. 501c3 has a lot more rules than a for profit. Most family businesses are not 501c.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:501c3 has a lot more rules than a for profit. Most family businesses are not 501c. Does 501c3 have an arms-length rule for employment, then? I can’t find anything other than for the board.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Moneyball posted:If people could just be as good with money as this woman, we wouldn't need this thread. Jesus loving christ. How could someone put that in an article and not realize it belongs in the Onion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-ebony-horton-paid-off-220000-worth-of-student-loans-in-3-years-2017-3 Here's the link if you want it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Does 501c3 have an arms-length rule for employment, then? I can’t find anything other than for the board. No clue there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Ahh, this is the good stuff:
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:Ahh, this is the good stuff:  There's no way that's real. It's a joke account made specifically for this thread right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
I don't doubt that the perfect, stable cryptocurrency where nobody ever gets scammed would be a wonderful thing. I highly highly doubt that the real players in this world will let the internet nerds win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Buttcoin transactions literally destroy the planet through wastage of electricity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Man what is it with libertarians and central banking anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
They're tired of living under a global zionist conspiracy. Not because they're racist though, they just don't want to serve blacks in their restaurants or travel all the way to Thailand to have sex with children.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Man what is it with libertarians and central banking anyway. Regulatory capture is kind of a legitimate concern. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/business/27geithner.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
The solution to regulatory capture is better regulation, not internet funny money, though. Crazy libertarians gonna crazy libertarian, I guess. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Holy poo poo why is it that every financially illiterate human being feels compelled to - within the first 100 words on a topic - bring up Charles loving Ponzi. There are other more-relevant examples of financial malfeasance, it's not the Holocaust of finance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Motronic posted:
Meals on Wheels has the same problem, they only spend money on organizing the free drivers and it make their ratios poo poo to the point that states pull their grants and hire for profit delivery companies that deliver significantly less meals. God Bless America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
My take on nonprofits is that we should look at the actual work they get done and mind our own goddamn business otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:The solution to regulatory capture is better regulation, not internet funny money, though. Yeah, but "better regulation" is a really facile solution. It's like saying "Just cheer up!" is a solution to clinical depression. The capture occurs because the people who are in charge of creating the regulations are human and thus assholes. If you posit a solution that relies on non-rear end in a top hat human beings being in charge, that's not all that realistic. Another entirely legitimate concern about central banks is the whole economic calculation problem. Things like "interest rates" are like *prices*, they are supposed to convey information. Think of the difference between a thermometer and a thermostat: the thermometer gives you information about what the temperature is, the thermostat is a control you use to set what you'd like the temperature to be. In the case of an interest rate, the information it's supposed to convey is about the time value of money: what people are prepared to pay in the future for money today. But the Fed uses it as a thermostat, which means the Fed (and everybody else) is deprived of information about the economy, and so the decisions it makes when it sets that thermostat are missing important information which leads to bad choices, like trying to pick the "correct" interest rate in the aftermath of the dot-com bubble collapse which directly inflated the aggregate demand bubble that led to, among other things, the housing crisis. Even today the stock market is grievously overvalued. I'm talking about the Fed here, but the same concerns apply to central banking in general. Japan's Lost Decade would also be a good example of this kind of thing. quote:Crazy libertarians gonna crazy libertarian, I guess. Yep. https://www.facebook.com/officialmcafee/posts/932445076911673
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Mineaiki posted:My take on nonprofits is that we should look at the actual work they get done and mind our own goddamn business otherwise. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" rarely works out, non-profit or otherwise. If you're just saying that us goons should mind our business and let the regulatory agencies that are responsible for regulating non-profits do their job I don't disagree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
A good friend of mine texted me yesterday and asked if I knew anything about buttcoins. I told him not to buy any but it was too late. Luckily he only put in $100 and has the right mindset (it's too just gently caress around with, and is equating it to gambling...)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
The Slack Lagoon posted:A good friend of mine texted me yesterday and asked if I knew anything about buttcoins. to be fair... buttcoins do sound like something to just gently caress around with
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 17:20
|
|
