Wilnor Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 941683301
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2016
- Forms available
- Form 990 2016
- Location
- Pasadena, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3232583512
- Rating
- 43
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $524
- Expenses
- $0
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MS TERESA COOK (PRESIDENT)
- MS DONNA DAVIS (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- MS TERESA COOK (PRESIDENT)
- MS DONNA DAVIS (VICE PRESIDENT)
- MR JOSEPH GUSMEROTTI (SECRETARY)
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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Wilnor corporation operated wilshire christian manor, an apartment complex, for the social and physical welfare of persons 62 years of age or older.
What it reported doing in 2016
Wilnor corporation (corporation) was formed june 16, 1966, to acquire an interest in real property in los angeles, California and to construct and operate thereon wilshire christian manor, an apartment complex project (project) of 287 units, under section 202 of the national housing act.in august 2013, the corporation entered into an agreement to sell the project's land and building. On march 14, 2015, the corporation completed the sale of the project's land and building for $8,500,000 to wilshire towers, lp, a California limited partnership with housing corporation of america, a Utah nonprofit corporation, its general partner. A gain of $7,544,044 was realized. As part of the sale, the mortgage payable balance to hud of $391,239 was repaid in advance. In accordance with section 811 of the american homeownership and economic opportunity act of 2000, hud has agreed to allow the corporation to prepay the section 202 direct loan, provided the buyer continues to operate the project on terms at least as advantageous to existing and future tenants as those required by the original section 202 direct loan agreement, and, where applicable, by section 8 or any hud rental assistance payments contract, and all applicable federal regulations, for not less than twenty years following the maturity date of the original section 202 direct loan. Accordingly, the use agreement shall remain in effect until november 1, 2037.in the later half of 2016, the organization distributed its cash assets, net of expenses, to various legally recognized public charities serving in the senior housing sector.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- Distribution model
- No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: NotEnoughData
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- 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: Limited
- Total-asset coverage ratio: Limited
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: Limited
Growth
- Program expense growth: -81.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -20.7% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 10 of 10 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2012 to 2016
- 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.
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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.