Pericles,

Your interpretation of the figures shows either an ineptitude so deep that you should never be let near a cheque book, or a deliberate attempt to distort the truth.

If you include all the running costs of the organisation as administration (incl fundraising and operational costs), and neglect the surplus funds banked for future use then you get the figures you presented.

Your proposal that fundraising should require no advertising or organisation may work for your local community centre, but to apply it to a large organisation that has an impact on foreign communities globally where it is needed, is so ridiculous that I would not expect it of a grown man.

Rob P.

The accounts are audited, and as a public organisation you have access to them if you are really interested.

It's always a good sign when you resort to snide remarks, Shadow Minister, it clearly indicates you are uncomfortable with your own arguments.

As indeed you should be.

>>If you include all the running costs of the organisation as administration (incl fundraising and operational costs), and neglect the surplus funds banked for future use then you get the figures you presented.<<

Well of course I do, silly. The numbers came straight from the audited accounts of the businesses themselves. And I didn't describe them as "administration", that's your invention. I put them in a bucket called management expenses, in order to differentiate them from the money that actually finds its way to the needy.

It is a practice widely used in insurance, for example, an industry that has a number of similarities with a charity. Premiums (donations) are collected, claims (disbursements) come out of this pot, with the residue going to management expenses and the surplus over that into reserves. Traditionally, the "cut" in the middle is called (I hope you are following all this) management expense, and the efficiency of the organization as a whole measured on the Management Expense Ratio.

>>Your proposal that fundraising should require no advertising or organisation may work for your local community centre, but to apply it to a large organisation that has an impact on foreign communities globally where it is needed, is so ridiculous that I would not expect it of a grown man.<<

Again, the product of your imagination. Nobody is suggesting that a charity shouldn't advertise. Nor that an organization is somehow surplus to requirements.

But the numbers speak for themselves, there's a lot of fat clogging those charitable arteries. Take a look yourself, instead of sneering. The accounts are freely available - some harder to track down than others - but they're there.

>>Your interpretation of the figures shows either an ineptitude so deep that you should never be let near a cheque book, or a deliberate attempt to distort the truth.<<

If you're not careful, I'll start counting the "unsubstantiated claims" that you are so fond of.

Pericles

Your statement"It is a practice widely used in insurance, for example, an industry that has a number of similarities with a charity."

Well there in lies the problem. Your comparison is inappropriate.

The expenses in trading goods etc which are included are not at all similar. Your analysis would give Coles an "management expense of about 80%"

Fund raising and generating awareness of the plight of others you would consider "fat". Sitting by the phone would not generate either awareness or donations.

Next time try and compare like with like. You evidently have absolutely no concept of running a charity, and are simply fabricating an excuse not to donate.

Shadow Minister,

"The accounts are audited, and as a public organisation you have access to them if you are really interested."

I'm not that interested per se in the accounts of any one NGO. Only that propriety and fairness are followed. Like anyone else, I've seen things I've disliked, or seen honest people being gouged one way or another by others in a variety of forms. I just want to see thieves in all their guises being exposed and run out of town. I'm not making a particular judgement about NGOs but saying that to the extent thieving/misrepresentation/etc exists within these organisations, it should be excised.

The important thing in your comment above is that the accounts are audited by a reputable and independent third party and not just by the company itself or by an accounting firm that is on the payroll of the NGO in question. That way, it's more likely a more holistic view will be formed of the operation of the charity.

Is it my imagination, Shadow Minister, or are your protests getting fainter by the day?

>>Well there in lies the problem. Your comparison is inappropriate<<

Careful now. That's an unsubstantiated claim.

And I would be quite interested in your rationale, as I believe the parallels to be significant.

In order to stay competitive, an insurance company has to pay out as much in claims as it is able to do - otherwise it will be seen to have priced itself out of the market. Armies of actuaries work on the ratios, to make sure that the fine line between paying out too much and too little is not breached.

In between the input (premium income) and output (payment of claims) there are management expenses - sales, finance (including those actuaries), admin - that together form the key measure of their organizational efficiency.

For both insurance and charities the inputs and outputs are cash, with a proportion of "in kind" when it comes to the charities.

Sounds pretty similar to me.

And we can also quickly set aside this red herring:

>>Your analysis would give Coles an "management expense of about 80%"<<

Not at all. Coles have a very clear item in their P&L called "Cost of Goods Sold", which sits immediately beneath the Revenue line. (I hope I'm not going too fast for you. This bit is important). In most circumstances this is the amount they pay to their suppliers, and accounts for upwards of 75% of their revenues.

Now, at this point it may have occurred to you - hey, charities don't have COGS.

And you'd be right.

>>Fund raising and generating awareness of the plight of others you would consider "fat". Sitting by the phone would not generate either awareness or donations.<<

You do insist on making stuff up, don't you? Fund-raising is a key requirement, and I have not anywhere suggested otherwise..

>>You evidently have absolutely no concept of running a charity, and are simply fabricating an excuse not to donate<<

Couldn't resist one last snide remark, could you?

Sad.

Pericles

Your comment "Now, at this point it may have occurred to you - hey, charities don't have COGS."

Maybe you would care to read their financial statement OOPS There is such a line. Your detailed explanation has just proved my point. Your drivelings are getting more feeble.

The comparison between the insurance industry is purlle.

MER is used almost exlcusively in the financial industry of which insurance forms a part. And even within this industry different values are high and low.

For managed funds 1% would be normal, for the insurance industry 3-10% would be more appropriate.

Thus the managed funds people using your logic (similar industries) could point at the insurance business and say that they were a bunch of over paid leeches.

If you want to be taken seriously, wake up and realise that the whole world does not measure itself against the money market, and that some people do more than shuffle paper.