International Valuation Standards Council
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 201290173
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Chicago, IL, USA
- Phone
- 3123354100
- Rating
- 53
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,247,511
- Expenses
- $2,098,261
- Assets
- $3,914,504
- Liabilities
- $1,523,462
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- NICK TALBOT (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- NICK TALBOT (CEO): $502,907 total reported compensation
- RICHARD STOKES (COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR): $198,528 total reported compensation
- ALEXANDER ARONSOHN (DIR OF TECHNICAL STANDARDS): $177,671 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of ivsc is to establish and maintain effective, high-quality international valuation standards, develop a framework of guidance on best practice for valuations of the various classes of assets and liabilities, and contribute to the development of the worldwide valuation profession for the benefit of the general public.
What it reported doing in 2024
Creating and ensuring an independent and transparent internationalvaluation standards setting process; developing and maintaining ahighly effective comprehensive set of high quality internationalvaluation standards that are understandable, practical toimplement and which protect the public interest; and identifyingwhere local or regional standards differ from the internationalvaluation standards and working toward greater compatability andharmonization between local or regional requirements and theinternational valuation standards
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 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 - Most voting board members are independent and revenue has grown recently. 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: 31
- Transparency & Controls: 53
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 29.5%; rating input score 29
- Program expense ratio: 30.9%; rating input score 31
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 21st 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: 6.6%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.87; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 51.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 29.5% of revenue deployed · 30.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $649K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $503K · 16 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 31/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.