Arizona Fund Managers Association
Legal name: Arizona Fund Manager Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 843327458
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 4806215800
- Rating
- 43
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $256,176
- Expenses
- $97,603
- Assets
- $253,924
- Liabilities
- $25,618
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
People named in this filing
- John Dunlap (Director)
- Kyle Brown (Director)
- Alex Chucri (Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Nurturing Arizona's fund manager ecosystem to ignite unprecedented growth in the state's investment management industry.
What it reported doing in 2024
Afmas events provide a platform to grow the fund ecosystem, rally support from local institutions, and market Arizona as a great place for fund managers. Every afma initiative supports industry transparency and inclusion for our members.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 60
- Sustainability: 75
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 61.9%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.6; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.