Interesting piece on Livestrong

[frenchfry]

Australian FY ends June 30... It's September 30 in the US isn't it?

I would imagine that in the US (like in most developed countries) you can choose your fiscal year-end.

I took a look at the Livestrong site to see what fiscal period they use, and discovered their audited financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2010. This, of course, confirms that their year-end is December 31.

http://www.livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/2010

Therefore, at this point in time, they are not behind in publishing their financial statements.

I think the Hog owes an apology to Livestrong!

 

[ChrisE]

I would imagine that in the US (like in most developed countries) you can choose your fiscal year-end.

I took a look at the Livestrong site to see what fiscal period they use, and discovered their audited financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2010. This, of course, confirms that their year-end is December 31.

http://www.livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/2010

Therefore, at this point in time, they are not behind in publishing their financial statements.

I think the Hog owes an apology to Livestrong!

Be prepared to be painted a "fanboy" for pointing this out.

You didn't get the memo; everything associated with LA is fraudulent, against the rules or law, harmful to kittens, destroys the rainforest, causes grandma to lose her savings, etc.

You shouldn't try to find anything about LA that does not support that reality, else you will be banished to the fanboy corner with me. I'm sorry.

 

[frenchfry]

Be prepared to be painted a "fanboy" for pointing this out.

You didn't get the memo; everything associated with LA is fraudulent, against the rules or law, harmful to kittens, destroys the rainforest, causes grandma to lose her savings, etc.

You shouldn't try to find anything about LA that does not support that reality, else you will be banished to the fanboy corner with me. I'm sorry.

In order to redeem myself, and to fuel the flames of unrepentent hate, I would like to point out that Livestrong spent $6,166,990 on legal and professional fees in 2010, or 17.6% of total functional expenses. I wonder what that was for?

Overall, there was $16m spent on salaries + benefits, legal and professional fees and advertising to distribute $9m of grants and awards. Before digging further, that doesn't look very healthy to me.

On the other hand, only $5,321 on entertainment. Has the Yellow Rose gone out of business yet?

Functional expenses for the year ended December 31, 2010 consisted of the following:

Grants and awards 9,058,100
Salaries, wages, and benefits 7,005,814
Legal and professional 6,166,990
Advertising 3,238,511
Technology 1,677,669
Travel 1,222,754
Guidebook and merchandise giveaway 942,722
Other rent 713,865
Contract services 651,311
Depreciation and amortization 569,755
Bank service fees 432,892
Printing and publications 429,796
Payroll taxes 429,111
Postage and supplies 361,808
Professional fundraising fees 312,619
Retirement plan contributions 166,644
Occupancy 151,429
Insurance 122,667
Telephone 93,252
Bad debt/taxes/miscellaneous 66,732
Permits 29,520
Entertainment 5,321
Other 1,012,708
Total Program expenses $34,861,990

 

[doolols]

Interesting. Just over 25% of the "program expenses" were in Grants. The rest went into operating costs. $1.2m in travel? $1.6m in technology? Doesn't seem a very efficient charity to me.

 

[doolols]

Mind you, the year before it was just 14%

 

[Race Radio]

Mind you, the year before it was just 14%

You don't get it, Livestrong is not about "Programs" it is about "Raising Awareness".....and selling t-shirts

 

[ChrisE]

In order to redeem myself, and to fuel the flames of unrepentent hate, I would like to point out that Livestrong spent $6,166,990 on legal and professional fees in 2010, or 17.6% of total functional expenses. I wonder what that was for?

Overall, there was $16m spent on salaries + benefits, legal and professional fees and advertising to distribute $9m of grants and awards. Before digging further, that doesn't look very healthy to me.

On the other hand, only $5,321 on entertainment. Has the Yellow Rose gone out of business yet?

And whose fault is it that they had to spend $6 million on legal fees? That's right, it is the govt's witchunt and the hate filled crusade that has caused Livestrong to use that money on something other than good deeds.

You, RR, and your hate filled posse contribute to that fact that there was $6 million less for cancer awareness in 2010. I would be in perpetual depression if I knew my hate caused that much damage.

 

[Race Radio]

And whose fault is it that they had to spend $6 million on legal fees? That's right, it is the govt's witchunt and the hate filled crusade that has caused Livestrong to use that money on something other than good deeds.

You, RR, and your hate filled posse contribute to that fact that there was $6 million less for cancer awareness in 2010. I would be in perpetual depression if I knew my hate caused that much damage.

And we have a Winner!

Polish is going to be mad that you are stealing his lines

 

[Cobblestoned]

And whose fault is it that they had to spend $6 million on legal fees? That's right, it is the govt's witchunt and the hate filled crusade that has caused Livestrong to use that money on something other than good deeds.

You, RR, and your hate filled posse contribute to that fact that there was $6 million less for cancer awareness in 2010. I would be in perpetual depression if I knew my hate caused that much damage.

Didn't some smart person in the internet point out that legal fees were mainly spent on copright issues ?

That Stiller.....he must really love the cancer. Stillerstrong. Livewrong.

 

[doolols]

And whose fault is it that they had to spend $6 million on legal fees?

And the $9.5m the year before (2009)? Was the 'witchunt' under way then?

 

[thehog]

I would imagine that in the US (like in most developed countries) you can choose your fiscal year-end.

I took a look at the Livestrong site to see what fiscal period they use, and discovered their audited financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2010. This, of course, confirms that their year-end is December 31.

http://www.livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/2010

Therefore, at this point in time, they are not behind in publishing their financial statements.

I think the Hog owes an apology to Livestrong!

Interesting to note the site only displays the 2009 - Where the money goes data at 81% on Programs from donated funds. $37m with $31m on Programs.

http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do/Our-Approach/Where-the-Money-Goes

2010 buried in the reports we find this number reduced to $35m in donations for $28m on programs.

http://www.livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/LIVESTRONGAnnualReport2010

Now that travel & legal fees have risen substantially over this period but still rolled into "program's" you can see the funny math going on. $7m listed under program expenses alone. Hefty chunk of the pie on travel & legal.

Nothing illegal but ethnically? I'm not sure.

Now that Outside magazine has debunked the "research" myth the organisation really doesn't contribute a hell of a lot. Feel good factor maybe but not a lot else.

That is all.

 

[doolols]

Ha! And look how small the 7% "admin" is in relation to that HUGE yellow pie. Someone being creative with the graphics? Under what circumstances does the teeny black circle become 7% of the BIG FAT yellow circle? Probably its diameter, guessing.

 

[doolols]

Of course, it's worse than that. The big yellow thing is 81% of the whole. So the black thing should be approx. 1/12 of the size of the yellow thing. Appearance is all.

 

[thehog]

Of course, it's worse than that. The big yellow thing is 81% of the whole. So the black thing should be approx. 1/12 of the size of the yellow thing. Appearance is all.

Bit naughty isn't it!

Important to note that admin is admin but still within "Programs" are "Admin" type costs. Allocation will require breaking it down between the two.

Read the following for a good explanation: http://www.lgt-cpa.com/resources/ev...2010/Cynthia_Kelly_Functional_Allocations.pdf

The misconception and this is relevant for all non-profits is Programs is not solely fundraising. It includes 95% admin related charges in running "programs".

It's not research. It's not charity work. It's a program which includes travel, legal, IT, salaries etc.

The problem with Livestrong is they keep throwing in the phrase "cancer research" when the Foundation has nothing to do with research.

 

[Race Radio]

One point that was made in the Outside piece is that order fulfillment counts as a "Program Cost".....Yup, a T-Shirt or wristband "Raises Awareness" so shipping it to a groupie is a program costs. That "Program" cost $3.5 million in 2010 alone

To clarify the legal costs are actually legal AND professional services. Livestrong outsources most of its programs and events so the professional services are high. Legal is less then $1 million

Outside also points out that in 2009 Livestrong spent over 20% ($6 millions) of its program funds on ONE party in Dublin. While it was a great promotion for Armstrong and his comeback it's value toward fighting cancer was questionable. The head of the American Institute of Philanthropy said

You wonder if they just gave that money to cancer research if it would generate as much great publicity for lance Armstrong?

 

[thehog]

One point that was made in the Outside piece is that order fulfillment counts as a "Program Cost".....Yup, a T-Shirt or wristband "Raises Awareness" so shipping it to a groupie is a program costs. That "Program" cost $3.5 million in 2010 alone

To clarify the legal costs are actually legal AND professional services. Livestrong outsources most of its programs and events so the professional services are high. Legal is less then $1 million

Outside also points out that in 2009 Livestrong spent over 20% ($6 millions) of its program funds on ONE party in Dublin. While it was a great promotion for Armstrong and his comeback it's value toward fighting cancer was questionable. The head of the American Institute of Philanthropy said

Very interesting.

I know LAF actually split out a separate foundations called "Lance Armstrong Foundation Merchandise" which perhaps tried to "hide" away such expenses.

They also set up another foundation called "events" which as you say was outsourced.

Right you say in regards to the Dublin event; The blurred lines of Livestrong comes into play. What what was really being promoted? The foundation and cancer awareness or Lance Armstrong & Livestrong.com.

 

[Anonymous]

Ha! And look how small the 7% "admin" is in relation to that HUGE yellow pie. Someone being creative with the graphics? Under what circumstances does the teeny black circle become 7% of the BIG FAT yellow circle? Probably its diameter, guessing.

it should look like this

of course, thats based on 31m being spent on programs, when in reality only 9m was spent on actual programs..

what it should look like is this

 

[ChrisE]

And the $9.5m the year before (2009)? Was the 'witchunt' under way then?

That was just from lawyering up in anticipation of something like this, with their finger on the pulse of the hate crowd. You should be ashamed.

Let me drop some emoticons in here for you.

 

[Velodude]

To be fair, financials aren't prepared until the following year. Therefore it is less than a year since the 2010 financials should be available and of course the 2011 financials will not be expected for a few months.

The period in question isn't almost 3 years but less than a year.

TheHog was partly correct.

Right through 2011 until recently the LA Foundation did not upload to the website the 2010 financials. Last financials were to 2009.

It was apparent they did not want the detail scrutinised and provided the 2010 financials only to individual requests. They must have recently changed to appear to be more transparent after the blowtorch comments.

The detailed financials of previous years have served to provide flak to Livestrong's operating costs as an industry comparative. Maybe with the knowledge of a possible critique of the unholy LA/Livestrong cohabitation would be coming out in Outside Magazine they relented.

 

[mewmewmew13]

That was just from lawyering up in anticipation of something like this, with their finger on the pulse of the hate crowd. You should be ashamed.

Let me drop some emoticons in here for you.

"Lawyering up in anticipation"?? That first sentence is total deflection and the point being... ??

"You should be ashamed"
ashamed of what???


"Let me drop some emoticons in here for you. "
Purpose of last sentence..?

 

[thehog]

TheHog was partly correct.

Right through 2011 until recently the LA Foundation did not upload to the website the 2010 financials. Last financials were to 2009.

It was apparent they did not want the detail scrutinised and provided the 2010 financials only to individual requests. They must have recently changed to appear to be more transparent after the blowtorch comments.

The detailed financials of previous years have served to provide flak to Livestrong's operating costs as an industry comparative. Maybe with the knowledge of a possible critique of the unholy LA/Livestrong cohabitation would be coming out in Outside Magazine they relented.

Thank-you. The website still shows the 2009 graphic for the simplified finical breakdown. And yes the 2010 data was late along with the 2010 report being dramatically shortened and simplified.

"Here's a man who took close on a million dollars of others peoples money"

 

[red_flanders]

Ha! And look how small the 7% "admin" is in relation to that HUGE yellow pie. Someone being creative with the graphics? Under what circumstances does the teeny black circle become 7% of the BIG FAT yellow circle? Probably its diameter, guessing.

It is. See Tufte and how to lie with charts.

Apparently the lying is pervasive in that org.

 

[Polish]

Sorry guys, but that chart is perfectly accurate.
No reason to say "not drawn to scale".

You just need to think Globally. Global Awareness.
Or planetary awareness if that makes you feel better.

Planets are measured and compared by their diameter.
Scientific Fact. Newtonian. Not lies.
And Planet Yellow would dwarf Planet Black exactly as pictured.
Of course, Planet Armstrong is the biggest of them all.
Canis Majoris. Big Dog.

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>
Canis Majoris. Big Dog.

He'll soon be eating his own faeces too then.

 

[thehog]

Back in the day on forums I used to get thrown back me: "80% of donations goes to research".

There was no telling them although I suspect many were paid to argue the toss.

I don't think anything illegal is going on I just think there is a massive difference between what they say they do and what they actually do.

it should look like this

of course, thats based on 31m being spent on programs, when in reality only 9m was spent on actual programs..

what it should look like is this