5 ms·
Non-profits can still make money and not even the Vancouver Aquarium itself claims that "All proceeds are directed back into rehabilitation and education progra
by jamesgagan 9y ago
Non-profits can still make money and not even the Vancouver Aquarium itself claims that "All proceeds are directed back into rehabilitation and education programs". In 2015, only 15% of revenues went to Conservation, Research and Education.
http://www.vanaqua.org/annualreport2015/assets/dist/pdfs/annualreport2015.pdf http://www.vanaqua.org/annualreport2015/assets/dist/pdfs/ann...
- placeybordeaux 9y agoA non-profit can't produce profit, however they can pay their mgmt too much money. Is that what you're accusing the Vancouver Aquarium of doing?
- mikeyouse 9y agoNot OP, but I work in nonprofit finance -- Their financials are here: https://www.charitydata.ca/charity/vancouver-aquarium-marine-science-centre/119282119RR0001/ https://www.charitydata.ca/charity/vancouver-aquarium-marine... It looks pretty innocent as far as these things go. They do ~$40M in revenue / expenses every year, spend $1.2M on fundraising, and their management expenses are high but not unreasonable. The biggest red flag I see is a large ($15M) loan that's costing them upwards of a million/year in interest. Compensation seems pretty typical too, there's a more detailed compensation schedule on the Canada Revenue Agency's website but the link doesn't work externally. In short, there's 1 staff member making between $250k-$300k, there are 3 between $200k-$250k, and 6 between $120k-$200k.
- derefr 9y agoYour argument is vacuous because you aren't translating between "revenue" and "profit." If that "15% of revenue" was also "100% of profit", then they're doing exactly what you'd expect a non-profit to do. The real questions are: 1. how much un-needed overhead their expenses consist of, beyond the minimum costs required to run the facility; 2. the dollar-amount of donations that reach the relevant causes by having this type of facility operating, vs. the dollar-amount of donations that would be given to the same causes if this facility did not exist, or if it tried to operate on slimmer margins (by e.g. only being a marine-wildlife gift shop or somesuch.) My own suspicion is that the answer to #1 is "not much", and the answer to #2 is "a far larger amount." (Under the argument: people don't bother to donate money to wildlife preservation if they're not being actively reminded of the existence of wildlife in need of preservation. That "15% of revenue" still likely ends up as a larger absolute dollar-figure than the total amount of donations to the same causes made by all other individuals or organizations in the area.) Even if you don't agree with my suspicions, I think those two questions are the only good ones to be debating here.
- jamesgagan 9y agoOP said "All proceeds are directed back into rehabilitation and education programs." This is not true.
- derefr 9y ago"Proceeds" is a synonym for profits, not for revenues. That was my point: "15% of revenues" might very well be the entirety of the proceeds, making their statement true. You have to do some accounting to prove or disprove that.
- mthoms 9y agoPedantry fail. You know very well what "proceeds go to charity" means. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proceeds.html http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proceeds.html Nearly every non-profit in the world has expenses to cover first.