Wise Men Inc C/o Christina Pretto Hudson Advisors

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061727741
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2017
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2128499662
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$40,652
Expenses
$44,568
Assets
$5,755
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CATHERINE MATHIS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PATRICK REILLY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTINA PRETTO (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JOLIE HUNT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PETER TRUELL (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • GERARD MEUCHNER (CHAIRPERSON)
  • NICHOLAS ASHOOH (CHAIR EMERITUS)
  • GEORGE JAMISON (CHAIR EMERITUS)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the organization is to provide a forum where senior corporate public relations executives can meet with opinion leaders and journalists to discuss important issues and develop best practices in public relations and other types of business communications.

What it reported doing in 2017

During fiscal 2018, wise men inc sponsored seven dinners at which the following speakers spoke/activity took place: adena friedman, president & ceo of nasdaqlinda greenhouse - ny times supreme court journalistpeter marks - staff writer for the Washington postjon birger, author - date-onomics: how dating became a lopsided numbers gamezerlina maxwell - msnbczak dychtwald, author - young china: how the restless generation is changing their country & the worldjoanne lipman, author - that's what she said: what men need to know about working together

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.6%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -42.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2013 to 2017
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.