I would not really want to participate in to financial discussions,
since I am somehow more interested
in technology and science. But before crying NSF, US Government and
whatever to help. I am
paraphrasing first and foremost Joe. If one does not like how IEEE is
run, one should get organized.
Get elected to board of governors, or help other likely minded people
get there. Although I somewhat
agree that IEEE has become more like a corporation, nevertheless it is
still strongly governed by
elected officers who can affect.
But to the another issue on the surplus, reserve etc. It is no good to
look just one year, or even two
year balances. Sometimes the fluctuations are *very* large in big
corporation (foundations). Moreover,
operational profit (cash-flow) does not necessarily mean that you are
safe. I am not really into going
to check IEEE books and finances at this season, but could not stop my
self looking quickly auditors
report and IRS filings. So referring huge 10M USD surplus is not a full
view.
* The operational surplus was in 2008 indeed 12.5 million USD. However,
this was offset by
investment losses and other losses at the level of 101.1 million USD.
[This includes 16.4 MUSD
net investment revenus decrease, and losses on the value of investments
etc.]. So in true financial
terms total net loss of IEEE in 2008 was 88.6 million USD.
* If you wonder how IEEE was able to survive 88.6 million USD losses,
that is because it had due
to many so wonderful years overall net assets ("reserves") of 246,7
million USD, which sadly were
reduced down to 158.1 million USD in the end of the 2008. My guess is
that year 2009 has not
been financially much better.
* To put this into perspective the total membership revenues were only
62,7 million USD. Also to look
about the level of fluctuations: the net assets lost value in 2008 at
the level of 88.6 million USD, in 2007
net net asses made plus mark at the level of 37.3 million USD.
* Expenses side are more difficult to read from public documents
(rightly so), and I do not have time.
But in quick check:
(a) Expenses for Membership and public imperatives were 90,7 million USD
vs. 62,7 million USD membership fees
(b) For operations profit makers were: Periodicals (ca. 13,5M -- 11%);
Conferences (22M -- 16,7%;), and
standards (2.6M; 11,4%).
(c) As the cost of general & administrative. Those were 9,6 million USD
(2,8% of revenues). Which is probably hardy
on the level of IEEE general office flying in the first class all over
the world.
* Just for fun I had also look on ACM (2008 Fiscal Year). They had
revenues from conferences at the level of
25,3 million USD and conference expenses of 22,1 million USD, i.e.
surplus is 3.2 million (12,6% vs. 16,7% of IEEE).
Supporting Services and General administration of ACM costs 8,9 MUSD,
which is 16,4% from their revenues (2,8%
in the case of IEEE) -- but the GA and Supporting Services comparison is
known to be difficult without being an auditor.
* Overall ACM net assets in the end of FY2008 were 56,9 million USD (I
checked FY2009 number at it had jumped up
to 82 million USD ... so you could say that they have made thus 25.1
MUSD surplus against IEEE's whooping losses).
In order not to become chartered accountant, and I am not really
interested in currently on these sort of issues, I will
stop. But my main message is that before anyone is making a strong
legalistic comments about excessive profits etc.
(which in my opinion even do not fit well to this emailing list), or
decides to run to IEEE board of governors in order
to change IEEE, it is useful to check facts. I do not claim to have all
the fact, maybe I even have wrong facts. But my
current looking is that, yes, there are surplus from conferences, but
the claims of making all the time huge profits at
IEEE level does not seem to hold...year 2008 was, in fact ,a very bad
year in accounting terms.
But as I said, I do not have any plans to become accountant, nor even
running to be an elected officer (or should I ?),
so I do not want to use more of my time for numbers and information like
this. Note, I was only looking information
quickly and only as a grass-root member. My plan was not to protect any
elected IEEE officers, nor I hold any such
office.
Once more, I think Joe has tried to keep discussion focused, and he has
even promised to get some numbers for
people. Lets give him time, and have a fact instead of rapid impressions
without facts (the above numbers are facts
as those are audited numbers).
Petri
> Dear all:
> In a separate thread, Joe mentioned the NSF. This important institution
> has not prominently figured in this discussion. I submit that it should.
> What we are discussing is very much relevant to the NSF mission, and its
> fiduciary obligations to the US tax payer.
>
> Much of the money at stake is actually "NSF money", in some sense. For
> example, if conferences are significantly more expensive than they
> should (for some of the reasons mentioned in this discussion, such as
> the alleged IEEE 20% conference mark-up, the alleged US$300/hour charges
> to conferences for IEEE staff, non-cost-efficient venue choices, lack of
> accounting transparency, etc. etc) much of the over-spent money is NSF's.
>
> Thus, it would be illustrative and very much pertinent to read the NSF's
> "take" on this matter. Particularly welcome would be an opinion from
> their legal office (if any) discussing relevant legal aspects,
> especially whether the NSF (and similar agencies) may be legally
> entitled to a refund from the IEEE end-of-year 'surplus' (apparently ca.
> 10 million USD per year, recently).
>
> Possible grounds for such refund may be (1) the IEEE legal status as a
> "not-for profit" institution --- which gives it some substantial tax
> benefits (isn't the IEEE tax exempt?) but also imposes certain
> constraints on its legally acceptable behaviour --- , as well as, (2)
> the contracts between researchers and the NSF which may render invalid
> certain transactions leading to the IEEE surplus.
>
> Wmbr,
>
> Virgilio
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment