Midwest Winter Sports Reps Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061668837
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082172934
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$192,134
Expenses
$302,261
Assets
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRUCE MARSH (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SCOTT LYNCH (EXECUTIVE DI)
  • BRUCE MARSH (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID OLSON (VICE PRESIDE)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose of this association is to promote winter sports, in the midwest area, by providing service and assistance to the winter sports industry, its representatives and dealers; and to facilitate dealers and winter sports representatives in their buying and selling efforts by sponsoring working markets.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mwsra is a trade association of manufacturers sales representatives who cooperate in order to provide their customers, retail stores who cater to the snowsports and outdoor markets, with resources they can use to help their businesses succeed. These resources primarily consist of trade shows for sales presentations, and mwsra also uses a website as a central hub for connecting the retail stores with the sales people who handle the brands they need.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Transfer-based 990-EZ. The 990-EZ reports grants or member benefits, but it does not separate enough spending to show the nonprofit’s full delivery mix.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 4
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.1%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -57.3%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.1% of revenue deployed
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 4 of 4 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.