Multefire Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
475483637
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fremont, CA, USA
Phone
5103924909
Rating
31
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$45,225
Expenses
$489,568
Assets
$1,145,195
Liabilities
$25,542

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ed Tiedemann (President)

People named in this filing

  • Geng Wu (Director)
  • Stephan Litjens (Director)
  • Said Tatesh (Director)

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

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

Overview

Mission

MFA is an international organization that is championing the global industry adoption of private networks using MFA-defined MulteFire specifications for LTE and Uni5G Technology Blueprints for 5G. With Uni5G or MulteFire, enterprises can efficiently deploy their own optimized, reliable and secure private network in unlicensed, shared, or locally licensed spectrum.

What it reported doing in 2024

Increased and eased deployment and enhanced operation of private networks by: a. Serving as a source of information on private networksb. Providing tools that are needed by those deploying private networks (e.g., Uni5G technology blueprints, network identifier access, spectrum availability information, etc.)c. Providing advice built upon gained experience from the certification programd. Helping to identify and support spectrum allocationsparticularly common allocationsworldwidee. Helping to coordinate and identify any supporting capabilities that might be needed by industriesf.Developing a library of lessons learned from deployments and analyze potential pitfalls to determine whether an industry solution can improve and is possible

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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

REVIEW - 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: 50
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 20

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: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -982.5%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.34; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -19.1% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $337K reported
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.