Leong Sze Hian/

I refer to the reports “Charity sector to get public confidence boost” (Channel NewsAsia, Jun 25)and
Donations to charities up 13% to S$776m in 2010” (Channel NewsAsia, Jun 17).

The latter states that:

“… the sector remained dominated by charities earning less than S$250,000. They made up 42 per cent of the charity population last year, but accounted for less than one per cent of the total income of the charity sector”.

After a hiatus of five years, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) has started raising funds again, starting with its charity dinner event, which raised $818,658.

According to NKF’s website, the Ratio of reserves to annual operating expenditure is 5.07.

However, this is based on the assumption that there are no donations, grants or investment gains or income in the future.

In this connection, donations, grants and investment income for last year was 20, 5 and 6.8 million, respectively.

Its Total Funds also increased from 278 to 284 million, and its operating surplus was 6.7 million.

This means that it has about 20 million more in its reserves (Total Funds) now than when the NKF scandal broke in 2005, as its Total Funds for the year ended 2005 was $263 million.

If donations, grants, investment income and any increase in the Total Funds (of which the bulk is invested) are included, what would its Ratio of reserves to annual operating expenditure be?

If we deduct the total of $32 million from donations, grants and investment income, from the Total Expenditure of $53 million, the figure is $21 million.

So, does it mean that on this basis, the Ratio of reserves to annual operating expenditure is about 13?

Does this mean that it has reserves to last about 13 years, instead of 5?

If we include the Programme fees of $26 million, which it received from dialysis patients, does it mean that it may have reserves to last forever?

So, is there really a need to start raising finds again as the NKF is still the largest (by reserves) Voluntary Welfare Organisation (VWO) in Singapore, considering that many charities may still be reeling from the economic recession the previous year, given its relatively sound financial situation?

——

The above is actually a follow-up and update to the article “NKF – the neverending need to raise funds?” (Jul 9, 2010 ), which is reproduced below.

How many years of reserves does the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) have? Well, going by what is reported, it is hard to tell.

Last year, in November 29, 2009, the chairman of the NKF, Mr Gerard Ee [picture left] was reported to have said: “The charity has enough reserves to last for about five years.”

Its annual report for 2010 says that the current reserves are projected to last for about seven years, adjusted for inflation and projected capacity increase.

On 8 July 2010, NKF’s chief executive Janice Tay said: “[Based] on the calculations that we have on our reserves, our current reserves, we could last up to four years….if there were no donations coming in”
Confused? We are.

I refer to the article “NKF short of money and nurses” (ST, Jun 5).

Even if NKF continues to have an annual net deficit of $0.9 million like last year, its surplus of $9 million for the previous year may be enough to cover about 10 years of deficits.

The main reason for its investment income falling from $15.4 million in 2006 to $6.6 million last year, may be because the global investment markets for the last year, was the worst in the last 60 years or so, due to the financial melt-down.

With reserves of $247 million, if the rate of return on its reserve funds increase by just 0.4 per cent per annum, compared to the last year, the increased investment income may be enough to offset the annual deficit of $0.9 million.

Another way of looking at it is that the $247 million reserves may be sufficient to cover 274 years of its annual $0.9 million deficit.

With $247 million reserves now, compared to the $263 million in 2005 when the NKF scandal unfolded, I understand that the NKF is still the charity with the largest amount of reserves.

As its total funds is $278 million, if we include the Restricted Fund of $26 million and Endowment Fund of $4 million, does it mean that it now actually has more funds than in 2005?

With many charities still reeling from the economic recession last year, I feel that there may really be no real need for NKF to sound the alarm bells now to appeal for more donations, given its relatively sound financial situation.

Its annual report says that the current reserves are projected to last for about seven years, adjusted for inflation and projected capacity increase.

In my view, this reserves ratio may be somewhat pessimistic, as it assumes that that there will be zero donations for seven years.

Since the bulk of NKF’s funds – $200 million are managed by two fund managers on a capital guaranteed mandate – is it also assumed that there will be no investment income for seven years?

Given that it had $18.5 million donations for the last year, in the midst of Singapore’s worse economic recession, and that what perhaps riled Singaporeans most when the NKF scandal broke, was the issue of whether the NKF had three years of reserves or 30 years of reserves, I would like to suggest that the calculation of its reserves ratio be further clarified to include projected donations and investment income in the future.

Finally, as the current financial year ended on 30 June 2010, surely there are already some indication as to whether this year’s investment income, donations and net operating deficit, have increased or decreased compared to last year.

I am somewhat puzzled as to why NKF told the media that it was short of money and in the red in June, only to turn into the black just one month later, with a surplus of $5.8 million which is more than six times the previous year’s $0.9 million deficit?

So, how long actually can NKF’s reserves last – 5 years (Nov 29,2009), 4 years (Jul 8, 2010), 7 years or longer?

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Chiam’s finest hour (part two): the government responds

“I think the detention is politics, nothing to do with the security of Singapore.”

【读者来函】外国病患来狮城求医或成趋势 建议政府外包医疗技术

我国医学水平在武汉冠状病毒(Covid-19)爆发后再次获得世界承认,同时也吸引了其他国家患者到我过来求医,引起了我国民众的关注,甚至询问道,我国除了收费,是否有准备其他的措施。网友同时建议了将检测冠毒的技术向外承包,或许可以改善目前的状况,和减少未来的忧虑。 署名Beacon的网友来函举例,第152例病患是一名65岁的印度尼西亚籍男子,3月2日在印尼雅加达一家医院就医,五天后就选择前来新加坡,结果3月8日在新确诊。“这病例似乎预示了,本区域的患者,就算不是全球,也可能会因为我国尚没有出现死亡病例,并且拥有高标准和高品质的医疗基础设施,而选择到我国来求医。” “我认为这样的发展,对我国的防疫体制可能造成压力。” 若疫情剧增,恐对防疫体制构成压力 Beacon指出,问题不是在于来求医者是否需要付费,事实上,有能力负担、且愿意寻求治疗的外国人不在少数。 “我们已经目睹一些国家,因为冠毒的突发性爆发且病患遽增,出现医疗体系超负荷甚至崩溃的情况。因此即使他们并不贫穷,却不一定获得治疗。” 网友指出,若我国没有在这个时候做出应对措施,那么不久之后,国民可能就必须和外国人竞争有限的隔离病房和医疗器材,且可能不仅限于政府医院,就连隔离房和急症室比政府医院少的私人医院也会被牵连。 “若真如此,整个国家社会都会感受到竞争影响,尤其是当我国的社区传染病例越来越普遍时。” 网友促请政府尽快在大批求医的患者涌入我国之前,尤其是在社区传染后确诊病例日渐增加的目前,制定公平、透明的政策。“我知道给予有许多其他的相关问题需要解决,以便让随之产生的政策得以确实有效实施,政府需要做出艰难的决定。” 然而他认为,现在是时候让政客和官僚们分享他们的远见,以便能够周到且全面地紧急解决这个问题,避免发生混乱,毕竟冠毒虽然不是大流行病,但是也可能持续到2020年下半旬。 影响健康游客和出差国人 Beacon也提醒到,别忘了,我国医疗吸引冠毒病患前来求医,也间接影响了健康旅客来新的决定,毕竟要和冠毒患者同乘一架飞机还是有被感染的风险。…

ComfortDelGro taxi burst into fire at Simei Station

A ComfortDelGro taxi was seen burning at Simei Station 1 on Tuesday…