Association of Asian American Investment Managers

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611929006
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,921,346
Expenses
$1,705,316
Assets
$2,228,584
Liabilities
$390,500

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jim Park (CEO)
  • Catherine Canlas (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jim Park (CEO): $354,882 total reported compensation
  • Catherine Canlas (Vice President): $100,368 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 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 2024

Research and Education) Since our initial study in 2020 with Bella Private Markets, AAAIM continues to expand its research efforts to bring awareness of the barriers faced by AAPI professionals in the investment management industry. Our 2024 research introduced two groundbreaking reports: The State of AAPIs in Venture Capital and Opportunities for AAPI Emerging Managers in Institutional Investment. Through these two reports, we build upon previous findings and examining further the representation at each stage of ones career across the investment management industry. The State of AAPIs in Venture Capital study, in partnership with UC Berkeley Sutardja Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology (SCET) and DECODE, explored the representation and experiences of Asian American professionals in the Venture Capital industry, bringing to light the disparities and underrepresentation in leadership, funding access, and career progression. Some revelations from our research include a low, single-digit percentage of representation ? only 3.3% of VC funds are AAPI owned and that the path to promotion and becoming an investing partner takes 41% longer (AAPI professionals worked in junior roles for an average of 3 years, 10 months. Non-AAPI professionals were promoted in 2 years, 9 months). Our final research from 2024, Opportunities for AAPI Emerging Managers in Institutional Investment, in partnership with Bella Private Markets, revealed a concerning issue on allocation and access from institutional investors to emerging manager programs, specifically those of AAPI identity. Our key findings from the report state that AAPI-owned firms are often not explicitly included in emerging manager programs with diversity criteria, at 30%, in addition to only 2.7% are actively AAPI-owned fund investments in portfolios of investors with emerging manager initiatives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% 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: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.1%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 62.7%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.2%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.31; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 34% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 39.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.5% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.1% of revenue deployed · 62.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 16 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $355K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • 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.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.