Guaranty Fund Management Services Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 042712442
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Boston, MA, USA
- Phone
- 6172277020
- Rating
- 47
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $7,535,338
- Expenses
- $8,488,351
- Assets
- $8,107,923
- Liabilities
- $11,902,442
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Barbara Law (President & CEO)
- Jeffrey Scott (Vice President Claims)
- Linda Angelone (Senior Vice President HR and Compliance)
- Dimitar Kotzev (Vice President IT)
- Andrea Rossi (Vice President Operations)
Highest reported compensation
- Barbara Law (President & CEO): $629,460 total reported compensation
- Jeffrey Scott (Vice President Claims): $332,977 total reported compensation
- Linda Angelone (Senior Vice President HR and Compliance): $285,926 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provides management and claims supervisory services to its member associations to assist them in the discharge of their respective statutory responsibilities to handle promptly and efficiently covered claims against insolvent property and casualty insurers. The Corporation has been formed to establish and maintain a single efficient management and claims service organization for its member guaranty associations. The objectives of the Corporation include, but are not limited to: (1) Providing management and claims supervisory services to insurance guaranty funds or associations created by statute; (2) Assisting guaranty associations in the discharge of their statutory responsibility to handle promptly and efficiently covered claims against insolvent insurers; (3) Furnishing related or compatible services to insurers and insurer organizations; and (4) Doing any and all things appropriate to accomplish the foregoing purposes.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 77
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 16
- 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -12.6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.47; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 31.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $629K · 19 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 11 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.