Cfa Society of Rochester

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
160977751
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Pittsford, NY, USA
Phone
5855123103
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$106,818
Expenses
$102,907
Assets
$291,793
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JORDAN MILLNER (PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW KELLEY (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • GERRY GUGGER (DIRECTOR)
  • CHRISTIAN SCHULITZ (DIRECTOR)
  • MATTHEW TORPEY (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To deliver educational programming, and promote the chartered financial analyst designation for the benefit of finance professionals in greater rochester.

What it reported doing in 2024

Every other year, the cfa society of rochester sponsors the cfa institute's research challenge for the western New York area. The challenge is a contest where about 10 colleges and business schools with teams of about 10 students each compete to produce the best investment analysis and research paper and live presentation. The challenge is a way to raise the professional acumen of future investment analysts and managers. The competition occurs over several months. The society provides the venues, judges, and materials for the challenge. The winner proceeds to a national and then world competition. The research challenge was last held in fiscal 2024.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.4%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 58.1%; rating input score 58

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.7%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.84; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.4% of revenue deployed · 58.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $60K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.