Hypertransport Technology Consortium

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
743012224
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Phone
4087494203
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$34,985
Expenses
$54,234
Assets
$12,350
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN HOLDEN (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARIO CAVALLI (GENERAL MANAGER): $45,349 total reported compensation
  • DEEPIKA SARAI (Treasurer): $2,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Hypertransport technology consortium's mission is to foster an advanced interconnected technology community in which members may both share and tap - royalty free - a common pool of collective hypertransport related patents. At the same time, the advanced nature of hypertransport technology and the industry stature of companies that have invested in it, compelled the consortium, from its very inception, to ensure that the patent portfolios of its member companies are properly safeguarded.

What it reported doing in 2015

Hypertransport technology consortium is a membership based non-profit organization responsible for managing, licensing and promoting hypertransport technology as an open high-performance technology standard industry-wide and worldwide.hypertransport technology consortium members include more than 50 industry leading companies and academic institutions across the globe. Membership is open to any company interested in royalty-free commercial licensing of hypershare technology, hypertransport link technology and/or hypertransport consortium trademarks, or to academic and non-profit research institutions interested in hypertransport technology for their research projects.the consortium is member-driven and operates on a parliamentary process. By participating in the consortium's executive committee (board of directors), technical working group and/or technical task force meetings and activities (depending on membership level), members can influence and vote on all consortium decisions pertaining to technology direction and developments. A win-win process, in which members have the power to drive our technology direction, while the consortium benefits from its members' expertise.as a return-on-investment for their membership, consortium members gain extensive technical support benefits that minimize product development effort and time-to-market. In addition, they can tap into powerful, high dollar value business/product promotion services toward the global industry and media at no additional cost. All benefits being proportional to membership level and far outweighing the membership fee in roi value. In essence, the hypertransport consortium is not just a technology and trademark licensor, but a true business partner to its members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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: 100
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 0

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; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th 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: -55%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 87.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -25.5% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -47.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.