Fintech Open Source Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472041883
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
6506659773
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,325,890
Expenses
$1,325,890
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • GABRIELE COLUMBRO (EXECUTIVE DIR.): $498,000 total reported compensation
  • TOSHA ELLISON (COO): $255,000 total reported compensation
  • EDWIN OH (CFO): $35,745 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide an independent setting to deliver software and standards that address common industry challenges and drive innovation. Open source adoption is essential to growth of the financial services industry.

What it reported doing in 2020

2020 was a very successful year for finos and its community with several notable achievements. In october 2020, finos recorded a record number monthly commits breaking its previous record by 40%. Large investment banks made significant contributions to finos, several for the first time, indicating a significant increase in the acceptance of open source and open standards as key tools for collaboration in the financial services industry. The foundation launched special interest groups (sigs) as another form of collaboration including a sig focused on engaging regulators, ensuring that we have the full ecosystem involved as we drive innovation in financial services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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 most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.4%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 64.4%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 27; 27th 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: 59.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.4% of revenue deployed · 64.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $854K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $498K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.