Dont give to charity.

[Linford]

Since you will not answer, I presume you did simply make them up - shame on you !

I do have a life outside this forum (surprisingly)
They have a huge pension deficit which they are meeting out of fundraising. They have now moved to close their pension scheme to limit their liabilities, but when they rattle the tin, and people give willingly thinking that they are going to be helping train and fund guide dog operations, where a good proportion of this money is going is in padding out the very generous pensions scheme for the charidees employees.
If they are also paying out £40 million in staff wages, then where does the £50 million for dog training come from which you just quoted, and also isn't the staff wages for just that purpose ?
I think you need to take a look at your sums again

Pension deficit
The latest pension scheme valuation for FRS 17 purposes was carried out at 31 December 2011 and valued the deficit at £46.2m, up from £35m in 2010. During 2010 and 2011 Guide Dogs paid an extra £6.7m to help cut the deficit and agreed four further annual payments of the same amount. The defined benefit scheme was closed to new entrants on 31 March 2011.
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finan.../guide_dogs_ceo_defends_huge_drop_in_reserves

 

[ufkacbln]

It is really down to personal choice, and with all such things it doesn't matter so long as the choice is informed.

If you don't like the fact that the people collecting clothes for a cancer charity are in fact making a huge profit and donating only a small part of thet - don'tdonate

If you don't like the fact that the Chugger trying t get you to "Save the Goldfish" is in fact being paid a wage that is a pittance of the charge the agency has made to the charity then walk away

Look into the Charity decided whether you like it and then help... or even better find a local charity and give your time. Often far more valuable than a couple of quid

 

[srw]

The GOSH charities are some of the richest in the country. They also have a history of being badly run. It's one charity group I would never give money to.

And it has paid staff... 156 of them. And in 2011/12 their staffing costs (including agency staff) was over £14 million. Their accounts are here.

0/10 for accuracy.

You got in there before me. Whereas the larger general hospital just up the road has a charity staff of 12, adminstering a fund of about half the size.

(Although the person responsible for the website might like to note that the link to the CC has broken - it looks as if the problem's at their end.)

 

[srw]

They have a huge pension deficit which they are meeting out of fundraising. They have now moved to close their pension scheme to limit their liabilities, but when they rattle the tin, and people give willingly thinking that they are going to be helping train and fund guide dog operations, where a good proportion of this money is going is in padding out the very generous pensions scheme for the charidees employees.
If they are also paying out £40 million in staff wages, then where does the £50 million for dog training come from which you just quoted, and also isn't the staff wages for just that purpose ?
I think you need to take a look at your sums again

I take it you understand IFRS 17 and the impact of the current historically unprecedented persistent negative real yields on those figures? And the obligations placed on pension trustees by UK pension law?

Essentially, the charity has no choice but to fund its pension obligations. And because it's a charity it's only got one source of income.

 

[Linford]

I take it you understand IFRS 17 and the impact of the current historically unprecedented persistent negative real yields on those figures? And the obligations placed on pension trustees by UK pension law?

Essentially, the charity has no choice but to fund its pension obligations. And because it's a charity it's only got one source of income.

Obviously I do...they are contractually bound...but that still doesn't makes it any better for people being hassled by chuggers to know that a good proportion of whatever they give will line the pockets of people who no longer have any involvement with helping to provide the services.

Don't you think it important that people know how much of the money they give will actually be spent directly to the benefit of those who need it ?

 

[Firestorm]

I do have a life outside this forum (surprisingly)
They have a huge pension deficit which they are meeting out of fundraising. They have now moved to close their pension scheme to limit their liabilities, but when they rattle the tin, and people give willingly thinking that they are going to be helping train and fund guide dog operations, where a good proportion of this money is going is in padding out the very generous pensions scheme for the charidees employees.
If they are also paying out £40 million in staff wages, then where does the £50 million for dog training come from which you just quoted, and also isn't the staff wages for just that purpose ?
I think you need to take a look at your sums again

Two things . They were the audited accounts not some sums on a forum and a pension deficit is not the same as the annual payment into the fund...

 

[Linford]

Two things . They were the audited accounts not some sums on a forum and a pension deficit is not the same as the annual payment into the fund...

They put in an additional £6.7 million (on top of their regular £4. something million contribution) to the pension fund to help reduce the deficit.

Am I missing something here ?

 

[GuardTwin]

The GOSH charities are some of the richest in the country. They also have a history of being badly run. It's one charity group I would never give money to.

And it has paid staff... 156 of them. And in 2011/12 their staffing costs (including agency staff) was over £14 million. Their accounts are here.

0/10 for accuracy.

Fair enough, thanks for the link too.... "They take their bit of the money for their living to my knowledge." Now I am up to date lol

 

[buggi]

you get what you pay for. If you want a CEO worth his weight in gold the you have to ... er... pay his weight in gold or they simply go elsewhere and you're left with the scrapings of the barrel. There are managers at our place probably on more than that.
as long as the charity is transparent about it, then you can decide for yourself whether to give or not. You may think its high but those people could prob earn 10 times that in the private sector.

 

[DiddlyDodds]

I give to who I want when I want thank you very much.
I have supported Unicef for many years and will continue to do so.

 

[srw]

They put in an additional £6.7 million (on top of their regular £4. something million contribution) to the pension fund to help reduce the deficit.

Am I missing something here ?

Yes. The law. I'm not a real pensions expert, but here goes. Basic contributions (the £4m) are designed to pay off the deficit over the working lifetime of all pension fund members. However, because interest rates are currently historically extremely low the cost of those pensions looks extremely high. There are now rules that say that the deficit must be fully funded over the next few years (5 or 10 or so), so all pension schemes are having to stump up extra money - hence the £6.7m.

You can argue about whether the charity should have closed its pension fund to new members earlier - but reducing people's promised benefits is not an easy thing to do, as politicians often find. Now it's got into a particular position it's only got one way of sorting itself out. If interest rates normalise in the next few years (as most people expect) it will find itself with a pension surplus in due course. At the very least it will find itself with an adequately funded scheme. The easy way out would have been to shut down the charity.

In general, I think people think that Guide Dogs does a good job, and it's the only charity in the UK that provides a particular essential mobility tool to the disabled. I don't think its fair to let a temporary blip in funding its pensions get in the way of that.

 

[asterix]

. If interest rates normalise in the next few years (as most people expect) it will find itself with a pension surplus in due course. ..

In the 80's there was a period when the economy was up and pension funds very often had a surplus. It was not unheard of for some companies (including one my brother worked for) to take a 'pension contribution holiday' or even to use the pension fund for cheap money. Obviously any reserves that might have been useful in harder times were then no longer available.

Are pension fund holders now safeguarded from such actions by the trustees?

 

[nappadang]

I am secretary for a small, local conservation group. Not one person is paid a penny out of our funds, we are all volunteers. In all honesty, it costs our volunteers both in time and financially to participate in our projects.
To carry on our work we depend upon donations and fund raising events so it is important that a clear differentiation is made between small, local concerns and some of the bigger charities. We have often faced this sort of negative attitude toward our fund raising efforts, due in no small part to scaremongering stories about the amounts paid to charity workers.
There will always be corruption where money is concerned but let's not forget that the vast majority of charities are making a significant difference in areas where there is little or no public funding available.

 

[asterix]

Isn't it rather more about what you think that multiple is? I know what the multiple of CEO pay against mean and median and lowest salaries are at my workplace and I know what they were (excluding bonuses etc) at my two previous commercial billets. The charity one isn't even in the same ballpark as the others.

EDIT: AFLCIO* say avg UK commercial sector CEO earns nearly $4 million vs avg worker in their company earns $45k. You do the maths.

*Average United Kingdom CEO pay amounts are calculated in U.S. dollars based on 2012 or 2011 CEO pay levels for companies from the FTSE 100 available in the S&P Capital IQ database. CEO-to-worker pay ratios for United Kingdom are calculated using 2011 average annual wages in U.S. dollars as reported by the OECD.Stat database.

Nah, that's CAD territory, I don't do that no more, even p1ss1ng into the wind is more fun.

 

[Longshot]

The real issue here is not about corruption, it's about returns. Big charities are no different to big businesses - they need skilled people to run them effectively. However, again like big business, some of them are more efficient than others. It's very difficult to gauge performance and make a judgement.

I'd like to see a requirement for all registered charities to publish a number showing the actual percentage of their annual funds that goes directly to the cause they are supporting. I know many will argue that it's too simplistic, but it would make for interesting reading.

I've worked with many charities, big and small and I have very rarely ever doubted the intentions or good-heartedness of the people that run them. I have however had several occasions to question their judgement on financial and operational issues.