Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

[Fred McKim]

Re: Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

My other major priority is reaching into markets. And while we're at it there a couple of minor priorities too ...such as a trail membership. Trail memberships are also a proven successful strategy ...in more ways than one.

I assume you mean TRIAL memberships. We effectively do this already. It's called a Non-member Tournament Fee. Roughly 40% of a CFC membership.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

...the CFC should set priorities to excel high level championships.

That thinking is endemic to the current culture of the Chess Federation of Canada. It is why & how the Chess Fed is where it is. To excel at high level championships is a resultant of growth and NOT one of mere sustainability. To many negative factors can impact organization who merely want to 'survive'.

Under my presidency brand development becomes one of two major priorities. Everything flows from that. And from that dev, money needed for current, and new, programs will be there. It's a proven successful strategy, time and time again.

So, if you want to talk about event sponsorship, sponsors will see a ROI because of the exposure alone. Canadian Closed sponsorship included. Not merely at the event itself but mainly because of connectivity. As an example, Loblaws exposing their brand with the Canadian Cancer Society.

Next gen CFC ... well branded well placed.

My other major priority is reaching into markets. And while we're at it there a couple of minor priorities too ...such as a trial membership. Trial memberships are also a proven successful strategy ...in more ways than one.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

Net income of 10k on those terms is easily achievable today. Slash spending and don't allow for contingencies like setting aside money for next year's olympiad. We are a non profit which is not judged on its net income.

The hard part will be maintaining this in future years as there will be additional challenges this year and in the future.

N4P can generate income though over a long period it should not be a big plus. Example, a program to organize the Canadian Closed (back to thread topic LOL ) might set aside 10k one year, then the next year 20 k goes to Closed. imho, the CFC should set priorities to excel high level championships.

[Fred McKim]

Re: CFC Foundation - a good thing!

I was referring to the CFC's net income.

The quicker we can get past all this VM stuff the quicker it will get done. Develop the brand and brand placement is of the utmost importance. CFC has a ton of brand equity that has been left dormant for far too long! We both know that to be true.

But since you asked, I haven't regretted opening my folio to more American exposure.

I think you need to be thinking about gross income and what new programs it can go to fund - reducing the net income to something similar to what it is now.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

Net income of 10k on those terms is easily achievable today. Slash spending and don't allow for contingencies like setting aside money for next year's olympiad. We are a non profit which is not judged on its net income.

The hard part will be maintaining this in future years as there will be additional challenges this year and in the future.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: CFC Foundation - a good thing!

I was referring to the CFC's net income.

The quicker we can get past all this VM stuff the quicker it will get done. Develop the brand and brand placement is of the utmost importance. CFC has a ton of brand equity that has been left dormant for far too long! We both know that to be true.

But since you asked, I haven't regretted opening my folio to more American exposure.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: CFC Foundation - a good thing!

Neil, I would be quite interested in learning what investments you would make to increase revenue without excessive risk to capital. Perhaps I can apply them to my own personal investments as well. What is your strategy? Sector investments such as in energy or health care? Large versus small cap investments? Whether the stock offers a dividend? Do you invest in individual stocks or in ETFs? What would be your approach?

Here's what I think Neil might do:

(1) invest half of the Foundation assets in Trump real estate holdings

(2) for the other half, Neil would appear on Shark Tank (or Dragons' Den) as a "shark" or "dragon" and would invest in various pitches for the latest products / services being offered on the show. This would raise the profile of the CFC through the television exposure.

But Garland, in your spiel about Life Memberships and how the money that is paid into the Foundation gets magnified, you forgot to mention that each Life Membership reduces annual membership fees, for the lifetime of that member. So that has to be factored in to the returns.

Here's an interesting pair of calculations:

First, assume all current CFC adult members suddenly pay Life Memberships, and that current Juniors also buy Life Memberships in the year when they become "adults" as defined by the CFC. But not all Juniors, let's assume 75% of Juniors drop out of the CFC once they become adults. Calculate how this affects for the next 50 years (1) revenues from annual memberships, which would eventually go down to $0 if we assume no new adults join the CFC, and (2) annual revenues from the Foundation based on an average of returns from past years. At the end of the 50 years, find out the cumulative revenue total.

Then repeat the calculation, this time assuming NO adults buy Life Memberships and NO Juniors buy Life Memberships, and again, 75% of Juniors drop out of the CFC once they become adults. For this scenario, assume all adults stop paying annual memberships at average age 65 (you'd have to know each adult's current age for this to be calculable).

It would be interesting to know which path gives the CFC greater revenues, and by how much.

Of course, it assumes a lot. It assumes annual membership fees stay the same over the next 50 years, and it assumes Foundation returns maintain the average over the next 50 years. I think that second assumption is the bigger fly in the ointment. A major stock market correction and / or bond market collapse could really cause some lean years for the CFC. We are already in a very long bull market environment, so the likelihood of that continuing for 50 more years is extremely suspect.

[Garland Best]

Re: CFC Foundation - a good thing!

Neil, I would be quite interested in learning what investments you would make to increase revenue without excessive risk to capital. Perhaps I can apply them to my own personal investments as well. What is your strategy? Sector investments such as in energy or health care? Large versus small cap investments? Whether the stock offers a dividend? Do you invest in individual stocks or in ETFs? What would be your approach?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

To increase returns you have to take more risks. It is not appropriate for a non-profit to take on those types of risks. As president, I have no input into how the funds are managed beyond receiving a quarterly summary of results. The president would not be able to make changes to the "Foundation" without the support of the board and ultimately the voting members which would have to ratify any changes in Foundation operations. The current board has no interest in changing the way the "Foundation" trustees operate or at least none that I am aware of.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

It does not donate to itself. Income from the investment account which comes from the life membership fees are returned to the CFC to make up for the lost yearly membership fees due to life memberships.

There are two layers of protection for the funds in the "Foundation". One is the trustees and the other is the fact that if someone tried to raid the foundation by disposing of the assets it would trigger the regular non-voting members being able to vote on the disposal of assets. This is the reason we did not change the name of the members to participants as was proposed by some when we went through the NFP process. Currently they are non-voting members.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: CFC Foundation - a good thing!

In a nutshell, the Foundation is an investment fund. Life memberships go into the fund, which is managed by the trustees. Paul Leblanc, myself, Lloyd Lombard, Hugh Brodie, and Hans Jung are the current fund trustees (PS: Kudos to Paul who does the heavy lifting here). Revenue from the fund investments is then returned to the CFC to fund different activities.

By doing so, Life Memberships do not simply show up as a lump sum in the CFC coffers, never to be seen again. They generate revenue for the CFC year after year. In terms of finances, this is something that the CFC has managed well, and is something that the voting members have actively contributed to.

Those of you who are long time CFC Members, I strongly recommend buying a life membership. Not only will you save money in the long run, your life membership contribution will be magnified over the years.

John, you ain't kidding!

So, the revenue from CFC's own investment fund (Chess Foundation) returned is NOT a 'donation' ...ok, I got it. Thanks. I do the same with my investment funds.

In my first year as CFC pres the net income will be no less than 10k.

This is easy stuff folks! I can't believe the bar is set so low.

[Garland Best]

CFC Foundation - a good thing!

In a nutshell, the Foundation is an investment fund. Life memberships go into the fund, which is managed by the trustees. Paul Leblanc, myself, Lloyd Lombard, Hugh Brodie, and Hans Jung are the current fund trustees (PS: Kudos to Paul who does the heavy lifting here). Revenue from the fund investments is then returned to the CFC to fund different activities.

By doing so, Life Memberships do not simply show up as a lump sum in the CFC coffers, never to be seen again. They generate revenue for the CFC year after year. In terms of finances, this is something that the CFC has managed well, and is something that the voting members have actively contributed to.

Those of you who are long time CFC Members, I strongly recommend buying a life membership. Not only will you save money in the long run, your life membership contribution will be magnified over the years.

[John Coleman]

Re: Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

Neil, if you really want to understand this stuff, you have to get a deerstalker hat, and polish-up your magnifying glass. An MBA wouldn't hurt, not to mention a forensic accountant.

4. Chess Foundation of Canada
The Chess Foundation of Canada is effectively controlled by The Chess Federation of Canada since the
Federation appoints the Foundation's Board of Trustees. The Foundation was established as a trust to
financially help the Federation promote and develop chess.

Life membership fees of $8,460 ( 2015 - $ 1,890) have been paid into the Foundation from the Federation.
The Foundation has contributed $ 9,582 (2015 - $ 9,436) in support of the Federation's general operations
and $ 923 (2015 - $923) towards the Kalev Pugi junior program.

The Foundation has not been consolidated with the Federation's financial statements. Financial summaries of the unconsolidated Chess Foundation of Canada as at April 30, 2016 and 2015 and the years then ended were prepared internally.

BALANCE SHEET 2016 2015
Assets $ 2 95,916 $ 3 08,561
Liabilities 11,519 10,505
Net Assets $ 2 84,397 $ 2 98,056

STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
Revenue $ 19,979 $ 12,395
Expenditure 11,519 10,505
Net revenue for the year $ 8,460 $ 1,890

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

I like to say that the Chess Foundation is what we call our bank/investment account. It is not a separate entity. The CFC owns it.

If the Chess Foundation is not a separate entity ...how can the CFC 'donate' to itself?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

I like to say that the Chess Foundation is what we call our bank/investment account. It is not a separate entity. The CFC owns it.