American Coalition of Stock Plan Administrators
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 451180247
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2014
- Forms available
- Form 990 2012, Form 990-EZ 2014
- Location
- Pleasanton, CA, USA
- Phone
- 6503805591
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Business and Industry
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $86,476
- Expenses
- $154,354
- Assets
- $2,262
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CARINE SCHNEIDER (President)
People named in this filing
- CHRIS DOHRMANN (Chairman)
- MICHAEL BOESE (Treasurer)
- JENNIFER J LOPEZ (Executive Dir.)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The American Coalition of Stock Plan Administrators (ACSPA) is an industry trade association focused specifically on the US equity compensation plan administration industry. Collectively, we administer the interests of over thousands of plan sponsors and millions of participants within corporate plans.
What it reported doing in 2014
Promoted 1) awareness among regulators, law-makers and key industry constituencies to the needs and callenges of plan sponsors and the impact of potential changes in policy, laws or regulations, 2) industry standardization that promotes greater effectiveness and value of stock plans for both participants and corporations, 3) education standards that support a common set of industry knowledge that is shared by plan sponsors, adminstrators and other related third parties, and 4) efficient adminstration in emerging practices through early and open dialogue with key industry constituents including industry groups, plan designers and consultants.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 5
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -78.5%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 60.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -44.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -86% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2014
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.