Asgard Fencers Dba the Fencing Center
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 942879267
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012
- Location
- San Jose, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4082988230
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Amateur Sports Competitions
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $708,380
- Expenses
- $896,324
- Assets
- $374,472
- Liabilities
- $451,423
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PHIL MANN (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- WALBERT MENDOZA (COACH): $108,788 total reported compensation
- MICHAEL C BOTENHAGEN (TREASURER & COACH): $89,559 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Founded in 1981, we are a non-profit club dedicated to developing the art and sport of fencing at the local, regional, national, and international levels. Since 1981 we have grown from a small location to one of the ten largest clubs in north america. We are a three-weapons club; with epee, saber, and foil. In addition, we provide cardio and yoga classes for our students, members, and parents. Our goal is to provide the best (plush), healthiest and safest fencing experience to our fencers.
What it reported doing in 2024
Our goal is to grow well-rounded students. Mastery in fencing is as much about emotional prowess and resilience as it is about technique and physical skill. We are a three-weapons club, with epee, saber, and foil. We teach how to have fun, win graciously, develop sportsmanship, life and team skills, emotional mastery, and competitive fencing. In the hands of a good teacher, sports can teach some of the most important skills in life. Our facility is one of the largest west of the rockies and has state-of-the-art fencing strips and scoring equipment for its members and visiting fencers. Facility expenses and salaries are the largest expenses funded by our services. We also promote learn-to-fence classes and subsidize the initial cost for low-income families to participate in fencing. Through waiving class fees for financially identified candidates and our coaches volunteering private lessons, the organization is able to provide its services to families who would not otherwise be able to enjoy the sport.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 59
- Sustainability: 11
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 79.8%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -26.5%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.21; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 22.1%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 79.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $716K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $109K · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.