Association of Asian American Investment Managers

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030594209
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cultural, Ethnic Awareness

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$817,109
Expenses
$558,072
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Grace Reyes (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Grace Reyes (President): $184,167 total reported compensation
  • Diana Liu (Director): $11,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Founded in the Year 2006, the Association of Asian American Investment Managers (AAAIM) is a national trade association dedicated to the advance of AAPIs (Asian Americans & Pacific-Islanders) in the asset management industry. AAAIM supports those trying to access top positions at major investment firms while also promoting an entrepreneurial route for investment managers that start their own firms. AAAIM is committed to providing an association that creates an educational forum for sharing expertise within the AAPI investment community; to build a pipeline of next generation leaders by encouraging more AAPI students to enter the field; and to serve as a catalyst for strategic relationships between AAPI managers and institutional investors.

What it reported doing in 2019

Emerging Leaders program - 160 attendees participated in the one day Emerging leaders program to help cultivate young and diverse professionals in the industry.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.2%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 70.5%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 31.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.2% of revenue deployed · 70.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 15 board members independent · 0 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $393K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $184K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.