Shark Savers Inc Co Wildaid

What it reported doing in 2014

Shark fin soup campaign: reducing demand for shark fin soup is the most important thing we can do to protect sharks from being driven to extinction. This demand has created the unsustainable, virtually unrestrained killing of sharks. Tens of millions of sharks a year are killed for the shark fin trade. Shark savers launched its campaign to reduce consumption of shark fin soup in 2009. The current campaign is called "i'm finished with fins" and is reaching people throughout asia where shark fin soup consumption is prevalent. The shark fin soup campaign was shark savers' first partnership with wildaid, and has led to our merger. The results of our combined efforts in china and the rest of asia to reduce consumption of shark fin soup are significant: various media and trade sources estimate around 50-70% reduction due to our campaign and subsequent government ban on shark fin at state banquets substantiated by up to 80% reduction in fin prices at the dock leading to cancellation of commercial shark fishing trips. In early august 2014, wildaid released our new report "evidence of declines in shark fin demand - china", that indicated the following:1) 82% decline in sales reported by shark fin vendors in guangzhou, china and a decrease in prices (47% retail and 57% wholesale) over the past two years.2) 85% of chinese consumers surveyed online said they gave up shark fin soup within the past 3 years. 2/3 of these respondents cited awareness campaigns, 28.2% cited the government banquet ban as a reason.3) 24 airlines, three shipping lines, and five hotel groups have officially banned shark fin from their operations.4) of 20 beijing restaurant representatives interviewed in a study to be published in the journal conservation and society, 19 reported a significant decline in shark fin consumption. All agreed that wildaid psas featuring yao ming had "definitely raised awareness among customers."

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 20.9%; rating input score 21
• Program expense ratio: 24.4%; rating input score 24
• Fundraising efficiency: $12.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: Limited
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: Limited
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 26th percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
  • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Missing
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

• Operating margin: 17.3%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
• Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: -190.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: -33.4% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: -27.9% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings