Claremont Investment Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823049880
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Claremont, CA, USA
Phone
9096218230
Rating
37
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$96,041,180
Expenses
$4,883,523
Assets
$2,189,577,689
Liabilities
$536,382,285

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES FLOYD (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
  • MICHAEL DENNY (VICE PRESIDENT (THRU 01/25))
  • ANDREW DORANTES (FORMER VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES FLOYD (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $1,393,195 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL DENNY (VICE PRESIDENT (THRU 01/25)): $761,480 total reported compensation
  • ANDREW DORANTES (FORMER VICE PRESIDENT): $518,345 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Claremont investment fund (the "fund") was organized to hold and manage the endowment assets of claremont mckenna college (the "college") and those members of the claremont colleges that may be approved by the college's board of directors from time to time. The fund's broad objective is to preserve and enhance its real (inflation-adjusted) purchasing power while providing a relatively predictable, stable, and constant (in real terms) stream of earnings consistent with the spending needs of the college and participating members of the claremont colleges. The fund is an affiliate of claremont mckenna college.

What it reported doing in 2024

Management of endowment investment assets for claremont mckenna college, harvey mudd college and the claremont colleges, inc.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

REVIEW - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 39
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 60

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; 68th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 94.9%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 448.36; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 24.2% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.4M · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $4.9M reported
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 6 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.