MISSION:
Friends of AKIM USA (FAU), www.akimusa.org provides funding
for AKIM Israel. AKIM is an acronym for the Hebrew words
which, translated, means Association for the Habilitation of the
Mentally Handicapped in Israel. AKIM, founded over 54 years
ago, is the largest organization in Israel caring for mentally
handicapped, Down Syndrome and developmentally disabled
children and adults. Over 30,000 mentally handicapped and
120,000 members of their families benefit from these services.
AKIM cares for all Israelis, including Christians and Moslems in
need of AKIM services. AKIM's early intervention and follow
through eases the burden for families, providing real hope for the
future for mentally handicapped infants and children.
FINANCIAL EVALUATION:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, FAU has an overall
rating of one star (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of FAU based on 990 tax returns through
2006:
Overall Rating: One star *
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: One star *
Program Expenses: 67.2
Aministrative Expenses: 16.7%
Fundraising Expenses: 15.9%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.13
(FAU spends $0.13 to raise $1.)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: One star *
Primary Revenue Growth: -12.8%
Program Expenses Growth: -13.0%
Working Capital Ratio (years): 1.47
(FAU can sustain itself for 1.47 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its Executive Director, James Knee, was
$51,923 which represents 9.4% of expenses. For comparison
purposes, compensation for the President of the American Jewish
World Service, Ruth Messinger, was $191,000 which represents
0.79% of expenses.
As of fiscal year 2006, FAU had net assets of $832,665. FAU had
investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest
bearing investments of $251,398 and savings and temporary cash
investments of $0. It had pledges receivable of $521,596. FAU had
fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated
depreciation of $3,976. In fiscal year 2006, FAU operated with an
excess of $97,794. It was able to award a grant of $338,100 to AKIM
Israel.
As of fiscal year 2007, FAU had net assets of $510,952. FAU had
investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest
bearing investments of $197,492 and savings and temporary cash
investments of $0. It had pledges receivable of $251,596. FAU had
fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated
depreciation of $2,291. In 2007, FAU operated at a deficit of $321,713. It was able to award a grant of $413,150 to AKIM Israel.
DISCUSSION:
1) As of fiscal year 2007, FAU had 37% of its total assets in liquid
cash investments. This is less than what FAU needs for one year’s administrative and fundraising expenses. 48% of its total assets were
in the form of pledges receivable with no allowance for doubtful
accounts. In the present economic environment, FAU will not be able
to count on these pledges, thus, FAU will have difficulty surviving the
present economic downturn.
2) In 2007, FAU operated at a deficit of $321,713. In spite of this
deficit, in 2007 FAU actually increased its support of AKIM Israel.
Continuing this support may be difficult in the current economic
downturn. FAU will have much difficulty realizing its commitment
to AKIM Israel. It cannot continue to function at a deficit.
3) ANY had no exposure to Madoff investments.
4) FAU’s mission statement says that it helps over 30,000 “mentally
handicapped” persons are benefiting from AKIM Israel. In fiscal year,
FAU gave $413,150 to AKIM Israel. This works out to a little less
than $15 per person. It is misleading for FAU to say that it is helping
the “mentally handicapped.”
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff
scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and
non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and
more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are
transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its
donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about
their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, FAU
should be more transparent about its finances.
FAU should provide the following information on its web site:
1) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
2) Since FAU has done a superb job in keeping most of its assets in
cash, it was probably able to avoid taking a big hit in its total assets.
Accordingly, FAU should provide its investment philosophy and
a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff
investments on the homepage of website, especially since it had
NO exposure to Madoff.
4) FAU must update its website. The last news event on its website
was an event held in July, 2007.
5) Donors who want their giving to help the mentally challenged
of Israel should consider giving their money to Ezer Mizion.
Ezer Mizion helps the Israel’s sick and disabled and has received
an overall four star rating from Charity Navigator. Such a
donation would be a more efficient and effective use of donors’
giving dollars.
Next Week's Blog: Jewish National Fund
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
AISH HaTorah New York
MISSION:
Aish New York (ANY), www.aishny.com provides cutting-edge
social and learning opportunities for young Jewish professionals
in New York City in a warm, welcoming, and open atmosphere.
Whether you want business networking events, a crash course in
Hebrew, Jewish wisdom for living, or the Israel adventure of a
lifetime, Aish New York offers you access to more of the value
in being Jewish. Since 1974, Aish has been dedicated to
revitalizing the Jewish world by reintroducing Jews everywhere
to their heritage. Today it is a dynamic, rapidly expanding Jewish
social and educational network committed to a worldwide
renaissance of the Jewish people.
FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY EVALUATION:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, ANY has an overall
rating of four stars (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of ANY based on 990 tax returns through
2006:
Overall Rating: Four Stars ****
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: Three stars ***
Program Expenses: 89.6%
Administrative Expenses: 5.5%
Fundraising Expenses: 4.8%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.10
(ANY spends $0.10 to raise $1.)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: Four stars ****
Primary Revenue Growth: 1.9%
Program Expenses Growth: 15.2%
Working Capital Ratio (years): 1.44
(ANY can sustain itself for 1.44 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its Executive Director, Kenneth Greenman,
was $143,823 which represents 2.41% of expenses. For comparison
purposes, compensation for the President of the American Jewish
World Service, Ruth Messinger, was $191,000 which represents
0.79% of expenses.
As of fiscal year 2006, ANY had total assets of $10,311,117. Of
this figure ANY had investments of publicly traded securities
of $0, cash-non-interest bearing investments of $339,298 and
savings and temporary cash investments of $8,852,169. It had
pledges receivable of $0. ANY had fixed assets of land, buildings
and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $941,977. In fiscal
year 2006, ANY operated at a deficit of $2,642,724.
As of fiscal year 2007, ANY had total assets of $11,189,280. Of
this figure ANY had investments of publicly traded securities of
$161,842, cash-non-interest bearing investments of $348,925 and
savings and temporary cash investments of $8,625,984. It had
pledges receivable of $0. ANY had fixed assets of land, buildings
and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $1,921,502. In
fiscal year 2007, ANY operated with an excess of $912,800
Its 990 2007 tax return Line 54a: Investments of publicly traded
securities “A- Beginning of the year"(2007) should agree with
its 2006 line 54a “B End of the year"(2006); these should be the same
figures; they are not: it is 0 in 2006 and it is $122,678 in 2007.
DISCUSSION:
1) As of fiscal year 2007, ANY had 77% of its total assets in liquid
savings and temporary cash investments. This is more than one
year’s expenses without generating any new support. Thus, ANY will
be able to survive the present economic downturn.
2) In 2006, ANY operated at a deficit of $2,642,724. In 2007, ANY
greatly increased its public support and turned the deficit into an
excess of $912,800. Continuing this support may be difficult in the
current economic downturn.
3) ANY had no exposure to Madoff investments.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff
scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and
non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and
more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are
transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its
donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about
their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, ANY
should be more transparent about its finances.
ANY should provide the following information on its web site:
1) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
2) Since ANY has done a superb job in keeping most of its assets in
cash, it was probably able to avoid taking a big hit in its total assets.
Accordingly, ANY should provide its investment philosophy and
a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff
investments on the homepage of website, especially since it had
NO exposure to Madoff.
4) ANY should publicize its overall four star rating from Charity
Navigator.
Aish New York (ANY), www.aishny.com provides cutting-edge
social and learning opportunities for young Jewish professionals
in New York City in a warm, welcoming, and open atmosphere.
Whether you want business networking events, a crash course in
Hebrew, Jewish wisdom for living, or the Israel adventure of a
lifetime, Aish New York offers you access to more of the value
in being Jewish. Since 1974, Aish has been dedicated to
revitalizing the Jewish world by reintroducing Jews everywhere
to their heritage. Today it is a dynamic, rapidly expanding Jewish
social and educational network committed to a worldwide
renaissance of the Jewish people.
FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY EVALUATION:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, ANY has an overall
rating of four stars (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of ANY based on 990 tax returns through
2006:
Overall Rating: Four Stars ****
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: Three stars ***
Program Expenses: 89.6%
Administrative Expenses: 5.5%
Fundraising Expenses: 4.8%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.10
(ANY spends $0.10 to raise $1.)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: Four stars ****
Primary Revenue Growth: 1.9%
Program Expenses Growth: 15.2%
Working Capital Ratio (years): 1.44
(ANY can sustain itself for 1.44 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its Executive Director, Kenneth Greenman,
was $143,823 which represents 2.41% of expenses. For comparison
purposes, compensation for the President of the American Jewish
World Service, Ruth Messinger, was $191,000 which represents
0.79% of expenses.
As of fiscal year 2006, ANY had total assets of $10,311,117. Of
this figure ANY had investments of publicly traded securities
of $0, cash-non-interest bearing investments of $339,298 and
savings and temporary cash investments of $8,852,169. It had
pledges receivable of $0. ANY had fixed assets of land, buildings
and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $941,977. In fiscal
year 2006, ANY operated at a deficit of $2,642,724.
As of fiscal year 2007, ANY had total assets of $11,189,280. Of
this figure ANY had investments of publicly traded securities of
$161,842, cash-non-interest bearing investments of $348,925 and
savings and temporary cash investments of $8,625,984. It had
pledges receivable of $0. ANY had fixed assets of land, buildings
and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $1,921,502. In
fiscal year 2007, ANY operated with an excess of $912,800
Its 990 2007 tax return Line 54a: Investments of publicly traded
securities “A- Beginning of the year"(2007) should agree with
its 2006 line 54a “B End of the year"(2006); these should be the same
figures; they are not: it is 0 in 2006 and it is $122,678 in 2007.
DISCUSSION:
1) As of fiscal year 2007, ANY had 77% of its total assets in liquid
savings and temporary cash investments. This is more than one
year’s expenses without generating any new support. Thus, ANY will
be able to survive the present economic downturn.
2) In 2006, ANY operated at a deficit of $2,642,724. In 2007, ANY
greatly increased its public support and turned the deficit into an
excess of $912,800. Continuing this support may be difficult in the
current economic downturn.
3) ANY had no exposure to Madoff investments.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff
scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and
non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and
more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are
transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its
donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about
their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, ANY
should be more transparent about its finances.
ANY should provide the following information on its web site:
1) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
2) Since ANY has done a superb job in keeping most of its assets in
cash, it was probably able to avoid taking a big hit in its total assets.
Accordingly, ANY should provide its investment philosophy and
a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff
investments on the homepage of website, especially since it had
NO exposure to Madoff.
4) ANY should publicize its overall four star rating from Charity
Navigator.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
National Jewish Outreach Program
MISSION: The National Jewish Outreach Program (NJOP), www.njop.org was founded in 1987, by Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald, in response to the urgent need to prevent the loss of Jews to Jewish life due to assimilation and lack of Jewish knowledge. NJOP has become one of the largest and most successful Jewish outreach organizations in the world, reaching out to Jews by offering them positive, joyous, Jewish educational opportunities and experiences. NJOP programs are presently offered at more than 3,665 locations across North America, and in 37 countries worldwide. NJOP has successfully reached close to 1,040,000 North American Jews and engaged them in Jewish life.
FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY EVALUATION:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, NJOP has an overall
rating of two stars (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of NJOP based on 990 tax returns through
2007:
Overall Rating: Two Stars **
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: Two stars **
Program Expenses: 73.4%
Administrative Expenses: 12.8%
Fundraising Expenses: 13.7%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.13
(NJOP spends $0.13 to raise $1.)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: Two stars **
Primary Revenue Growth: 5.1%
Program Expenses Growth: -0.2%
Working Capital Ratio (years): 0.35
(NJOP can sustain itself for 0.35 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its Director, Ephraim Buchwald,was $128,052 which represents 6.05% of expenses. For comparison purposes, compensation for the President of the American Jewish World Service, Ruth Messinger, was $191,000 which represents 0.79% of expenses.
As of fiscal year 2006, NJOP had total assets of $722,020. Of this figure NJOP had investments of publicly traded securities of $19,158 (in 2005, this figure was $200,174) and cash non-interest bearing investments of $100 and savings and temporary cash investments of $167,833. It had pledges receivable of $492,121. NJOP had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $18,784. Thus, in fiscal year 2006, NJOP operated at a deficit of $128,139.
As of fiscal year 2007, NJOP had total assets of $883,944. Of this figure NJOP had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $100 and savings and temporary cash investments of $406,190. It had pledges receivable of $437,253. NJOP had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $18,617. Thus, in 2007, NJOP operated at an excess of $84,059.
DISCUSSION:
On the 13th anniversary of the Shabbat Across America/Canada
event, NJOP should be acknowledges for its financial insight.
1) NJOP was prescient about the financial crisis of 2008. Between
2005 and 2007, it completely reduced its investments in publicly
traded securities and increased its investments in its liquid savings
and temporary cash investments.
2) As NJOP moved out of risky investments in securities, it moved
from operating at a 2006 deficit to operating with an excess in 2007.
3) NJOP had no exposure to Madoff investments.
4)However, NJOP’s ability to withstand the present economic downturn is questionable as 49% of its 2007 total assets are based on pledges. Donors’ ability to fulfill on past commitments is uncertain due to the unknown effects of the economic downturn on individual donors.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, NJOP should be more transparent about its finances.
NJOP should provide the following information on its web site:
1) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
2) Since NJOP did a superb job at predicting the economic downturn, it should provide its investment philosophy and a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff investments on the homepage of website, especially since it had NO exposure to Madoff.
In conclusion, website visitors need to be made award of NJOP’s prescient economic forecasting.
FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY EVALUATION:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, NJOP has an overall
rating of two stars (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of NJOP based on 990 tax returns through
2007:
Overall Rating: Two Stars **
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: Two stars **
Program Expenses: 73.4%
Administrative Expenses: 12.8%
Fundraising Expenses: 13.7%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.13
(NJOP spends $0.13 to raise $1.)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: Two stars **
Primary Revenue Growth: 5.1%
Program Expenses Growth: -0.2%
Working Capital Ratio (years): 0.35
(NJOP can sustain itself for 0.35 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its Director, Ephraim Buchwald,was $128,052 which represents 6.05% of expenses. For comparison purposes, compensation for the President of the American Jewish World Service, Ruth Messinger, was $191,000 which represents 0.79% of expenses.
As of fiscal year 2006, NJOP had total assets of $722,020. Of this figure NJOP had investments of publicly traded securities of $19,158 (in 2005, this figure was $200,174) and cash non-interest bearing investments of $100 and savings and temporary cash investments of $167,833. It had pledges receivable of $492,121. NJOP had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $18,784. Thus, in fiscal year 2006, NJOP operated at a deficit of $128,139.
As of fiscal year 2007, NJOP had total assets of $883,944. Of this figure NJOP had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $100 and savings and temporary cash investments of $406,190. It had pledges receivable of $437,253. NJOP had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $18,617. Thus, in 2007, NJOP operated at an excess of $84,059.
DISCUSSION:
On the 13th anniversary of the Shabbat Across America/Canada
event, NJOP should be acknowledges for its financial insight.
1) NJOP was prescient about the financial crisis of 2008. Between
2005 and 2007, it completely reduced its investments in publicly
traded securities and increased its investments in its liquid savings
and temporary cash investments.
2) As NJOP moved out of risky investments in securities, it moved
from operating at a 2006 deficit to operating with an excess in 2007.
3) NJOP had no exposure to Madoff investments.
4)However, NJOP’s ability to withstand the present economic downturn is questionable as 49% of its 2007 total assets are based on pledges. Donors’ ability to fulfill on past commitments is uncertain due to the unknown effects of the economic downturn on individual donors.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, NJOP should be more transparent about its finances.
NJOP should provide the following information on its web site:
1) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
2) Since NJOP did a superb job at predicting the economic downturn, it should provide its investment philosophy and a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff investments on the homepage of website, especially since it had NO exposure to Madoff.
In conclusion, website visitors need to be made award of NJOP’s prescient economic forecasting.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
President Obama’s Plan to Reduce the Charitable Deduction
Once in a blue moon, Jupiter is aligned with Mars. Presently,
liberals and conservatives are in alignment over President
Obama’s recent proposal to reduce itemized charitable
deductions. Liberals, who run most of America's non-profits,
and conservatives, who oppose raising taxes, are both opposed
to the president’s proposal.
President Obama’s budget proposal for 2010 includes a
provision to raise the tax rate on the two highest income tax
brackets from 35 % to 39.6% and from 33% to 36% respectively
and to lower the tax benefit from itemized deductions for these
two brackets to 28%. This includes the benefit for charitable
deductions. The money garnered by these changes will be used
to help create a $630 billion fund to be used to fund the
envisioned new health care system.
Non-profits are concerned that this change will cause donors to
give less money to charity. The White House budget chief,
Peter Orszag, responded to this concern by offering the following
example on his blog: “If your’re a teacher making $50,000 and
decide to donate $1,000 to the Red Cross or United Way, you enjoy
a tax break of $150. If you are Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and
you make that same donation, you get a $350 deduction – more
than twice the break as the teacher.” According to the editorial
page of the Wall Street Journal (3/10/09), the administration is
turning “…philanthropy into a class issue.”
Instead of wealth redistribution by choice, wherein a donor
chooses what charity to support, this tax change is a step down a slippery slope toward forced redistribution wherein the
government chooses where to direct one's money As taxes increase and itemized deductions decrease, private citizens will become
acclimated to the notion that it is the responsibility of the state to support the less fortunate; private citizens will gradually become less inclined to support the less fortunate on their own initiative.
Government responsibility for the less fortunate is the method of
philanthropy that is prevalent in a welfare state. The nadir of this
slippery slope is best exemplified by the nations in Europe. In
Europe, very few private citizens give to charity. It is worth
noting that greater than 70% of Americans give to charity.
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University just published
an analysis of how changes in the tax rate will impact itemized
charitable deductions. It estimated that had the proposed changes
been in affect in 2006, the total itemized contributions from the
4 million highest income households would have dropped off 4.8%
or $3.8 billion. At the time, these high income tax filers accounted
for $81.2 billion out of a total of $186.6 billion that was claimed by
all tax returns with itemized charitable deductions.
The proposed change in reducing the charitable deduction is not
taking place in a vacuum. It is taking place at a time that the economy, according to Warren Buffet, has fallen off a cliff. It is taking place at a time when there have been mega-changes in personal wealth and income. The changes in wealth and income play a larger role in charitable giving than changes in tax rates. The structural changes in the role played by the government in the economy, as recently engineered by the Congress, may lead to long
term changes in wealth and personal income. These structural changes may create a permanent debt for future generations with concomitant changes in the way Americans support the less fortunate.
What makes Americans give almost $200 billion to charity each year
is not pressure from government mandates, but “…a diversity of
interest, freely chosen and passionately pursued.” (Naomi Riley,
Wall Street Journal op-ed page 3/3/09) In order to prevent the
Europeanization of American philanthropy, conservatives and liberals
must work together in order to keep American philanthropy unique
and effective in supporting the least fortunate throughout the world.
liberals and conservatives are in alignment over President
Obama’s recent proposal to reduce itemized charitable
deductions. Liberals, who run most of America's non-profits,
and conservatives, who oppose raising taxes, are both opposed
to the president’s proposal.
President Obama’s budget proposal for 2010 includes a
provision to raise the tax rate on the two highest income tax
brackets from 35 % to 39.6% and from 33% to 36% respectively
and to lower the tax benefit from itemized deductions for these
two brackets to 28%. This includes the benefit for charitable
deductions. The money garnered by these changes will be used
to help create a $630 billion fund to be used to fund the
envisioned new health care system.
Non-profits are concerned that this change will cause donors to
give less money to charity. The White House budget chief,
Peter Orszag, responded to this concern by offering the following
example on his blog: “If your’re a teacher making $50,000 and
decide to donate $1,000 to the Red Cross or United Way, you enjoy
a tax break of $150. If you are Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and
you make that same donation, you get a $350 deduction – more
than twice the break as the teacher.” According to the editorial
page of the Wall Street Journal (3/10/09), the administration is
turning “…philanthropy into a class issue.”
Instead of wealth redistribution by choice, wherein a donor
chooses what charity to support, this tax change is a step down a slippery slope toward forced redistribution wherein the
government chooses where to direct one's money As taxes increase and itemized deductions decrease, private citizens will become
acclimated to the notion that it is the responsibility of the state to support the less fortunate; private citizens will gradually become less inclined to support the less fortunate on their own initiative.
Government responsibility for the less fortunate is the method of
philanthropy that is prevalent in a welfare state. The nadir of this
slippery slope is best exemplified by the nations in Europe. In
Europe, very few private citizens give to charity. It is worth
noting that greater than 70% of Americans give to charity.
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University just published
an analysis of how changes in the tax rate will impact itemized
charitable deductions. It estimated that had the proposed changes
been in affect in 2006, the total itemized contributions from the
4 million highest income households would have dropped off 4.8%
or $3.8 billion. At the time, these high income tax filers accounted
for $81.2 billion out of a total of $186.6 billion that was claimed by
all tax returns with itemized charitable deductions.
The proposed change in reducing the charitable deduction is not
taking place in a vacuum. It is taking place at a time that the economy, according to Warren Buffet, has fallen off a cliff. It is taking place at a time when there have been mega-changes in personal wealth and income. The changes in wealth and income play a larger role in charitable giving than changes in tax rates. The structural changes in the role played by the government in the economy, as recently engineered by the Congress, may lead to long
term changes in wealth and personal income. These structural changes may create a permanent debt for future generations with concomitant changes in the way Americans support the less fortunate.
What makes Americans give almost $200 billion to charity each year
is not pressure from government mandates, but “…a diversity of
interest, freely chosen and passionately pursued.” (Naomi Riley,
Wall Street Journal op-ed page 3/3/09) In order to prevent the
Europeanization of American philanthropy, conservatives and liberals
must work together in order to keep American philanthropy unique
and effective in supporting the least fortunate throughout the world.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
OneFamily Fund
Mission:
The OneFamily Fund (OFF), www.onefamilyfund.org, provides much-needed assistance to thousands of terror victims throughout Israel on a daily basis. We collect not only money, but all human resources - bringing together people who have suffered through terror attacks, along with caring people who thankfully haven't. We connect people in Israel with people in almost every country around the world. OneFamily provides direct financial, legal, and emotional assistance to victims of terrorism in Israel. In addition, OneFamily provides the family network for world Jewry to express and actuate their natural sense of brotherhood by facilitating direct contact, relationships, and interaction between survivors and world Jewry as individuals, communities, and organizations.
Financial Efficiency Evaluation:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, OFF has an overall
rating of one star (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of OFF based on 990 tax returns through
2006:
Overall Rating: One Star *
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: 1 Star *
Program Expenses: 63.3%
Administrative Expenses: 21.6%
Fundraising Expenses: 15.0%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.16
(OFF spends $0.16 to raise $1)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: One Star *
Primary Revenue Growth: -13.3%
Program Expenses Growth: -17.6%
Working Capital Ratio: 0.01
(OFF can sustain itself for 0.01 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its Chief Executive Officer, Gary Kenzer, was $40,000 which represents 1.28% of expenses. For comparison purposes, compensation for the President of the American Jewish World Service, Ruth Messinger, was $191,000 which represents 0.79% of expenses.
As of 2006, OFF had net assets of $259,677. Of this figure,
OFF had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $$37,091 and savings and temporary cash investments of $71,818. OFF had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $205,970. It operated at a deficit of $250,489.
Discussion:
OFF is a financially inefficient non-profit institution. This conclusion is based on the following facts:
1) Charity Navigator has given OFF an overall rating of one star
including an efficiency rating of one star. Too much of its revenue
is spent on administrative and fundraising expenses; and too little
of its revenue is spent on its target – families victimized by terror.
2) OFF has a working capital ratio of 0.01 years. It has no margin
safety against future financial uncertainty as exists right now. OFF
has a limited ability to withstand the present economic downturn.
3) OFF had no exposure to Madoff investments.
Recommendations: The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, OFF should be more transparent about its finances.
OFF should provide the following information on its web site:
1) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
2) It should provide its investment philosophy and a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff investments on the homepage of website, especially since it had NO exposure to Madoff.
Next Week’s Blog: Obama’s Plan to Reduce the Charitable Deduction
The OneFamily Fund (OFF), www.onefamilyfund.org, provides much-needed assistance to thousands of terror victims throughout Israel on a daily basis. We collect not only money, but all human resources - bringing together people who have suffered through terror attacks, along with caring people who thankfully haven't. We connect people in Israel with people in almost every country around the world. OneFamily provides direct financial, legal, and emotional assistance to victims of terrorism in Israel. In addition, OneFamily provides the family network for world Jewry to express and actuate their natural sense of brotherhood by facilitating direct contact, relationships, and interaction between survivors and world Jewry as individuals, communities, and organizations.
Financial Efficiency Evaluation:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, OFF has an overall
rating of one star (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of OFF based on 990 tax returns through
2006:
Overall Rating: One Star *
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: 1 Star *
Program Expenses: 63.3%
Administrative Expenses: 21.6%
Fundraising Expenses: 15.0%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.16
(OFF spends $0.16 to raise $1)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: One Star *
Primary Revenue Growth: -13.3%
Program Expenses Growth: -17.6%
Working Capital Ratio: 0.01
(OFF can sustain itself for 0.01 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its Chief Executive Officer, Gary Kenzer, was $40,000 which represents 1.28% of expenses. For comparison purposes, compensation for the President of the American Jewish World Service, Ruth Messinger, was $191,000 which represents 0.79% of expenses.
As of 2006, OFF had net assets of $259,677. Of this figure,
OFF had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $$37,091 and savings and temporary cash investments of $71,818. OFF had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $205,970. It operated at a deficit of $250,489.
Discussion:
OFF is a financially inefficient non-profit institution. This conclusion is based on the following facts:
1) Charity Navigator has given OFF an overall rating of one star
including an efficiency rating of one star. Too much of its revenue
is spent on administrative and fundraising expenses; and too little
of its revenue is spent on its target – families victimized by terror.
2) OFF has a working capital ratio of 0.01 years. It has no margin
safety against future financial uncertainty as exists right now. OFF
has a limited ability to withstand the present economic downturn.
3) OFF had no exposure to Madoff investments.
Recommendations: The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, OFF should be more transparent about its finances.
OFF should provide the following information on its web site:
1) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
2) It should provide its investment philosophy and a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff investments on the homepage of website, especially since it had NO exposure to Madoff.
Next Week’s Blog: Obama’s Plan to Reduce the Charitable Deduction
Sunday, March 1, 2009
American Friends of the Open University of Israel
MISSION:
The American Friends of the Open University of Israel (AFOUI) www.afoui.org works to expand the curriculum and facilities for the distance learning center at the Open University in Israel, and to provide scholarships to its students. Distance teaching and the self-study method provide conditions that meet the constraints of individuals who work, raise a family, manage a household or serve in the military. The various aspects of distance education developed by the Open University, along with the University's open admission policy, aim to open the world of higher education to all, irrespective of age, sex, place of residence or occupation, in order to enable every individual to realize his or her academic ability.
FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY EVALUATION:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, AFOUI has an overall
rating of four stars (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of AFOUI based on 990 tax returns through
2006:
Overall Rating: Four Stars ****
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: 4 Stars ****
Program Expenses: 82.2%
Administrative Expenses: 9.0%
Fundraising Expenses: 8.7%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.03
(AFOUI spends $0.03 to raise $1)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: Four Stars ****
Primary Revenue Growth: 21.0%
Program Expenses Growth: 2.6%
Working Capital Ratio: 2.53
(AFOUI can sustain itself for 2.53 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its President, Ingeborg Rennert,
was $0. For comparison purposes, compensation for the
National Executive Director of the American Friends of
Hebrew University, Peter Willner, was $370,253 which
represents 0.85% of expenses - a very low figure
percentage-wise for non-profits. .
As of 2006, AFOUI had net assets of $5,778,180. Of this figure, AFOUI had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $0 and savings and temporary cash investments of $398,110. It had pledges receivable of $4,327,626. AFOUI had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $1,052.
As of 2007, AFOUI had net assets of $4,632,895. Of this figure AFOUI had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $48,954 and savings and temporary cash investments of $1,905,606 It had pledges receivable of $2,649,233. AFOUI had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $1,548. Thus, in 2007, AFOUI had a deficit of $1,145,285.
Discussion:
AFOUI is a financially efficient and effective non-profit institution. This conclusion is based on the following facts:
1) AFOUI was prescient about the financial crisis of 2008. Between 2006 and 2007, it increased its investments in its liquid savings and temporary cash investments.
2) AFOUI has received an overall four star rating from Charity Navigator. It has a working capital ratio of 2.53 years. AFOUI’s working capital ratio of 2.53 years is a measure of its reserve of liquid funds in excess of current liabilities that is available as a margin of safety against future financial uncertainty.
3) AJHS had no exposure to Madoff investments.
However, AFOUI’s ability to withstand the present economic downturn is questionable as 56% of its 2007 net assets are based on pledges. Donors’ ability to fulfill on past commitments is uncertain due to the unknown effects of the economic downturn on individual donors.
Recommendations: The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, AFOUI should be more transparent about its finances.
AFOUI should provide the following information on its web site:
1) Though its website homepage states that it received an overall four star rating from Charity Navigator, many donors do not know what this means. AFOUI should explain the meaning of this rating.
2) It should provide its investment philosophy and a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
4) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff investments; AFOUI had NO exposure to Madoff investments.
5) AFOUI should state that it does not compensate its president.
Next week’s blog: One Family Fund
The American Friends of the Open University of Israel (AFOUI) www.afoui.org works to expand the curriculum and facilities for the distance learning center at the Open University in Israel, and to provide scholarships to its students. Distance teaching and the self-study method provide conditions that meet the constraints of individuals who work, raise a family, manage a household or serve in the military. The various aspects of distance education developed by the Open University, along with the University's open admission policy, aim to open the world of higher education to all, irrespective of age, sex, place of residence or occupation, in order to enable every individual to realize his or her academic ability.
FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY EVALUATION:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, AFOUI has an overall
rating of four stars (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of AFOUI based on 990 tax returns through
2006:
Overall Rating: Four Stars ****
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: 4 Stars ****
Program Expenses: 82.2%
Administrative Expenses: 9.0%
Fundraising Expenses: 8.7%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.03
(AFOUI spends $0.03 to raise $1)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: Four Stars ****
Primary Revenue Growth: 21.0%
Program Expenses Growth: 2.6%
Working Capital Ratio: 2.53
(AFOUI can sustain itself for 2.53 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its President, Ingeborg Rennert,
was $0. For comparison purposes, compensation for the
National Executive Director of the American Friends of
Hebrew University, Peter Willner, was $370,253 which
represents 0.85% of expenses - a very low figure
percentage-wise for non-profits. .
As of 2006, AFOUI had net assets of $5,778,180. Of this figure, AFOUI had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $0 and savings and temporary cash investments of $398,110. It had pledges receivable of $4,327,626. AFOUI had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $1,052.
As of 2007, AFOUI had net assets of $4,632,895. Of this figure AFOUI had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $48,954 and savings and temporary cash investments of $1,905,606 It had pledges receivable of $2,649,233. AFOUI had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $1,548. Thus, in 2007, AFOUI had a deficit of $1,145,285.
Discussion:
AFOUI is a financially efficient and effective non-profit institution. This conclusion is based on the following facts:
1) AFOUI was prescient about the financial crisis of 2008. Between 2006 and 2007, it increased its investments in its liquid savings and temporary cash investments.
2) AFOUI has received an overall four star rating from Charity Navigator. It has a working capital ratio of 2.53 years. AFOUI’s working capital ratio of 2.53 years is a measure of its reserve of liquid funds in excess of current liabilities that is available as a margin of safety against future financial uncertainty.
3) AJHS had no exposure to Madoff investments.
However, AFOUI’s ability to withstand the present economic downturn is questionable as 56% of its 2007 net assets are based on pledges. Donors’ ability to fulfill on past commitments is uncertain due to the unknown effects of the economic downturn on individual donors.
Recommendations: The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, AFOUI should be more transparent about its finances.
AFOUI should provide the following information on its web site:
1) Though its website homepage states that it received an overall four star rating from Charity Navigator, many donors do not know what this means. AFOUI should explain the meaning of this rating.
2) It should provide its investment philosophy and a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
4) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff investments; AFOUI had NO exposure to Madoff investments.
5) AFOUI should state that it does not compensate its president.
Next week’s blog: One Family Fund
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Abraham Joshua Heschel School (NYC)
Mission: Founded in 1983, The Abraham Joshua Heschel School (AJHS), www.heschel.org is an independent school named in memory of one of the great Jewish leaders, teachers, and activists of the 20th century. Unaffiliated with any single movement or synagogue, The Heschel School sees as essential the creation of a community with families from a wide range of Jewish backgrounds, practices and beliefs. The Heschel School is dedicated to the values and principles that characterized Rabbi Heschel's life: integrity, intellectual exploration, traditional Jewish study, justice, righteousness, human dignity, and holiness. It regards the texts of the Jewish tradition and the history of the Jewish people as fundamental resources for developing ideas, beliefs, behaviors and values to shape and inspire the lives of individuals.
FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY EVALUATION:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, AJHS has an overall
rating of four stars (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of AJHS based on 990 tax returns through
2006:
Overall Rating: Four Stars ****
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: 3 Stars ***
Program Expenses: 77.9%
Administrative Expenses: 19.3%
Fundraising Expenses: 2.6%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.15
(AJHS spends $0.15 to raise $1)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: Four Stars ****
Primary Revenue Growth: 14.5%
Program Expenses Growth: 21.1%
Working Capital Ratio: 1.23
(AJHS can sustain itself for 1.23 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its Head of School, Roanna Shorofsky,
was $401,880 which represents 1.71% of expenses.
For comparison purposes, compensation for the
Head of School of the Dalton School, Ellen Stein, was
$438,600 which represents 1.01% of expenses.
As of 2006, AJHS had net assets of $60,897,802. Of this figure, AJHS had investments of publicly traded securities of $14,403,396 and savings and temporary cash investments of $7,650,699 and cash non-interest bearings investments of $133,572. AJHS had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $40,532,811.
As of 2007, AJHS had net assets of $77,362,414. Of this figure, AJHS had investments of publicly traded securities of $9,971,728 and savings and temporary cash investments of $10,479,580 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $567,217. AJHS had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $57,024,601.
Discussion:
AJHS is a financially efficient and effective non-profit institution and is in excellent financial shape to weather the present economic downturn. This conclusion is based on the following facts:
1) AJHS was prescient about the financial crisis of 2008. Between 2006 and 2007, it reduced its exposure to publicly traded securities and concomitantly increased its investments in both savings and temporary cash investments and in fixed assets.
2)Between 2006 and 2007, AJHS increased its net assets by over 25%.
3) AJHS has received an overall four star rating from Charity Navigator. It has a working capital ratio of 1.23 years. AJHS’s working capital ratio of 1.23 years is a measure of its reserve of liquid funds in excess of current liabilities that is available as a margin of safety against future financial uncertainty.
4) AJHS had no exposure to Madoff investments.
Recommendations: The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors,AJHS should be more transparent about its finances.
AJHS should provide the following information on its web site:
1) It has received an overall four star rating from Charity Navigator.
2) It should provide its investment philosophy and a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
4) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff investments; AJHS had NO exposure to Madoff investments.
FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY EVALUATION:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, AJHS has an overall
rating of four stars (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of AJHS based on 990 tax returns through
2006:
Overall Rating: Four Stars ****
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: 3 Stars ***
Program Expenses: 77.9%
Administrative Expenses: 19.3%
Fundraising Expenses: 2.6%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.15
(AJHS spends $0.15 to raise $1)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: Four Stars ****
Primary Revenue Growth: 14.5%
Program Expenses Growth: 21.1%
Working Capital Ratio: 1.23
(AJHS can sustain itself for 1.23 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its Head of School, Roanna Shorofsky,
was $401,880 which represents 1.71% of expenses.
For comparison purposes, compensation for the
Head of School of the Dalton School, Ellen Stein, was
$438,600 which represents 1.01% of expenses.
As of 2006, AJHS had net assets of $60,897,802. Of this figure, AJHS had investments of publicly traded securities of $14,403,396 and savings and temporary cash investments of $7,650,699 and cash non-interest bearings investments of $133,572. AJHS had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $40,532,811.
As of 2007, AJHS had net assets of $77,362,414. Of this figure, AJHS had investments of publicly traded securities of $9,971,728 and savings and temporary cash investments of $10,479,580 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $567,217. AJHS had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $57,024,601.
Discussion:
AJHS is a financially efficient and effective non-profit institution and is in excellent financial shape to weather the present economic downturn. This conclusion is based on the following facts:
1) AJHS was prescient about the financial crisis of 2008. Between 2006 and 2007, it reduced its exposure to publicly traded securities and concomitantly increased its investments in both savings and temporary cash investments and in fixed assets.
2)Between 2006 and 2007, AJHS increased its net assets by over 25%.
3) AJHS has received an overall four star rating from Charity Navigator. It has a working capital ratio of 1.23 years. AJHS’s working capital ratio of 1.23 years is a measure of its reserve of liquid funds in excess of current liabilities that is available as a margin of safety against future financial uncertainty.
4) AJHS had no exposure to Madoff investments.
Recommendations: The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors,AJHS should be more transparent about its finances.
AJHS should provide the following information on its web site:
1) It has received an overall four star rating from Charity Navigator.
2) It should provide its investment philosophy and a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
4) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff investments; AJHS had NO exposure to Madoff investments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
