does anyone know carms' yearly operating costs?

[GrouchoMarx]

see above

[la marzocco]

9 minutes ago, GrouchoMarx said:

see above

https://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2017-AR-EN-1.pdf - page 15. Operating costs are about $5.91M. Revenues are about $7.85M. They put a bulk of the surplus (~$1.67M into reserves in the form of investments) to hedge against potential future operational losses.

[rmorelan]

1 hour ago, la marzocco said:

https://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2017-AR-EN-1.pdf - page 15. Operating costs are about $5.91M. Revenues are about $7.85M. They put a bulk of the surplus (~$1.67M into reserves in the form of investments) to hedge against potential future operational losses.

I wonder how much is actually in the reserve at this point. 

 

[la marzocco]

8 minutes ago, rmorelan said:

I wonder how much is actually in the reserve at this point. 

Probably amassed quite a bit I would imagine.. but as an NFPO, they cannot continuously display annual surpluses year after year. Effectively, they must manage the monies in a way that it nets approx. $nil each year. I imagine the amount of reserves they have amassed overtime forced them to reduce fees for the 2018 R-1 match: 

"We have doubled the number of program applications included in the R-1 Main Residency Match participation fee, to eight from four. This means that 2018 R-1 match applicants will be able to apply to eight programs at no additional cost. Any additional programs will be subject to the regular program application fee of $30.50 each. We have also reduced the match participation fees by 2 per cent for the 2018 R-1 match, the 2018 Medicine Subspecialty Match, the 2018 Family Medicine / Emergency Medicine Match, the 2018 R-1 Main Residency Match and the 2019 Pediatric Subspecialty Match."

Would be interested to see their statements next year.

[sangria]

By far, the largest expense goes to salaries for 4.19 million dollars. Is that a lot?

 

The second page reads: Fairness. Objectivity. Reliability. Transparency. I actually laughed out loud.

[brady23]

Can they not save costs by removing interviews?

I understand the value of them, but at the end of the day, there was a vigorous screening process for medical school, and is there really a significant difference between the top applicants you'd pick based on paper and the ones that you interview? +/- a few individuals, I don't think so.

This money can be invested elsewhere

[jlkhhylyiluh6]

1 hour ago, brady23 said:

Can they not save costs by removing interviews?

I understand the value of them, but at the end of the day, there was a vigorous screening process for medical school, and is there really a significant difference between the top applicants you'd pick based on paper and the ones that you interview? +/- a few individuals, I don't think so.

This money can be invested elsewhere

interviews are for the school, carms is for the match itself. Itd be sort of ridiculous to commit to training someone for 5+ years without even meeting them...

[rmorelan]

3 hours ago, brady23 said:

Can they not save costs by removing interviews?

I understand the value of them, but at the end of the day, there was a vigorous screening process for medical school, and is there really a significant difference between the top applicants you'd pick based on paper and the ones that you interview? +/- a few individuals, I don't think so.

This money can be invested elsewhere

a lot of programs swear by the interview - and yeah having gone through a few of these there can be a ton of movement based on an interview. 

This is a 5 year job contract - can you imagine any other employer in any other field that would accept someone for 5 year professional level job with high stakes without even bothering to interview that person? 

plus on a purely cost level - who is paying for the interviews? How much does it cost a program to run an interview day really?

[PetiteAgour]

deleted. wrong forum!

[TheBoss]

On 3/23/2018 at 5:06 PM, beeboop said:

interviews are for the school, carms is for the match itself. Itd be sort of ridiculous to commit to training someone for 5+ years without even meeting them...

You might think so, but often they have met the candidate, and a 30 minute interview with a random faculty member (who may not even end up working the candidate for a larger program) can seem pretty pointless when often the program has already worked the person for weeks if they came for elective. If not, you at least have references from people in your specialty who have done so, in the form of reference letters and clinical evals. Indeed, there are specialties where rumour has it that interviews hold little no weight in ranking, and the traditional interview formats used by most residencies are poorly validated by research.

[ana_safavi]

On 3/23/2018 at 4:51 PM, sangria said:

By far, the largest expense goes to salaries for 4.19 million dollars. Is that a lot?

 

The second page reads: Fairness. Objectivity. Reliability. Transparency. I actually laughed out loud.

Considering that they have only 12 employees? Yes, I would say that is a lot. It's also nearly double what it was just 5 years.

Even worse though are the following line items:

• 336k for rent
• 315k for 'governance'
• 76k for travel
• 153k for office expenses
• 12k and 51k for bank fees and brokerage charges (???)
• 104k for translation services ('translation services' also appears as a *revenue stream* to the tune of 216k )
• 108k for 'professional fees'
• capital assets: 101k for computer equipment and 137k for leasehold improvements
• 156k for "obligations under capital lease" (???)

Looks like some *highly* creative accounting at work, here. Then again, looking at the Board of Directors page, I can't exactly say I'm surprised.

If I were an unmatched applicant, I would totally apply to work there, though: check out the incredible perks. And these are just the perks they publicly advertise!

• Work/life balance
• Flexible work schedule with a 37.5 hour work week
• Self-directed professional development fund
• Industry-leading defined contribution pension plan
• Comprehensive employer-paid benefits: life insurance, extended health care, dental, vision care, Employee Assistance Program
• Competitive market-based pay aligned with individual performance
• Learning and development opportunities
• Attractive modern work environment
• Social committee
• Staff retreats
• Competitive vacation policy
• Maternity leave top up

Sadly: No current job opportunities.

[ana_safavi]

On 3/23/2018 at 1:17 PM, la marzocco said:

https://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2017-AR-EN-1.pdf - page 15. Operating costs are about $5.91M. Revenues are about $7.85M. They put a bulk of the surplus (~$1.67M into reserves in the form of investments) to hedge against potential future operational losses.

You guys are reading it wrong. They did not post a surplus -- they posted a deficit of 281k. And they didn't *add* that 1.67M into their reserve. They removed it!

Looks like I'm getting myself roped into yet another project...

[la marzocco]

On 4/9/2018 at 8:24 PM, ana_safavi said:

You guys are reading it wrong. They did not post a surplus -- they posted a deficit of 281k. And they didn't *add* that 1.67M into their reserve. They removed it!

Looks like I'm getting myself roped into yet another project...

No, it isn't - they posted a $1.9M surplus*. They did in fact add $1.67M to their reserves lol

The $281K decrease is not a deficit; it is just a net decrease in the cash balance on their balance sheet year over year. 

People get confused because the first two lines are income measures (i.e., done on an accrual basis), whereas the remaining lines are done on a cash basis. This presentation is just abridged. To be technical, they should have had two separate statements - an income statement and a cash flow statement. But for expedience, they did an abridged version merging the two.

[A-Stark]

I seem to recall something about their dropping fees for the next calendar year. 

[ana_safavi]

13 minutes ago, la marzocco said:

No, it isn't - they posted a $1.9M surplus*. They did in fact add $1.67M to their reserves lol

I'm not an accountant; I just added the numbers together.

Total Revenue Uses = 8.1M while total Revenue Sources = 7.8M

How do you get a surplus from that? Because I get a deficit of 281k, which matches the line item at the bottom (Net increase/Decrease in cash or cash equivalents).

And how do you get to 8.1M in "Revenue Uses" without adding 1.67M to the expenses?

[ana_safavi]

13 minutes ago, A-Stark said:

I seem to recall something about their dropping fees for the next calendar year. 

 

Quote

 

CaRMS fee reduction

August 02, 2017

As the 2018 match cycle gets underway, CaRMS is pleased to announce that incoming applicants will benefit from reduced fees for this year’s matches.

We have doubled the number of program applications included in the R-1 Main Residency Match participation fee, to eight from four. This means that 2018 R-1 match applicants will be able to apply to eight programs at no additional cost. Any additional programs will be subject to the regular program application fee of $30.50 each.

We have also reduced the match participation fees by 2 per cent for the 2018 R-1 match, the 2018 Medicine Subspecialty Match, the 2018 Family Medicine / Emergency Medicine Match, the 2018 R-1 Main Residency Match and the 2019 Pediatric Subspecialty Match.

As a non-profit fee-for-service organization, CaRMS is committed to providing exceptional service to our clients at the lowest possible cost. Over the course of the last four years, the average number of program applications for Canadian medical graduates in the R-1 match has grown, resulting in applicants bearing an increased cost burden. These fee changes implemented by CaRMS’ Board of Directors, which includes representation from learner groups, faculty, medical associations, educators and regulators, are intended to reduce some of this burden.

The new fee structure, which also includes a 2 per cent reduction in institutional fees, has been made possible by new operating efficiencies we have introduced over the past year, and we hope it will help to reduce some of the financial pressures associated with the match process.

https://www.carms.ca/en/match-process/your-application/fees/

 

The biggest burden, IMO, is that they charge a separate application fee for every single site within a family medicine program. Given that people are increasingly backing up with family...I still think their 'fee reduction' is complete BS.

Also...2%?? That's just insulting.

[kiterunner]

5 minutes ago, ana_safavi said:

I'm not an accountant; I just added the numbers together.

Total Revenue Uses = 8.1M while total Revenue Sources = 7.8M

How do you get a surplus from that? Because I get a deficit of 281k, which matches the line item at the bottom (Net increase/Decrease in cash or cash equivalents).

And how do you get to 8.1M in "Revenue Uses" without adding 1.67M to the expenses?

I am an accountant. @la marzocco is right. A surplus or deficit is defined as annual revenues less annual operating costs. In this vein, they did post a surplus of $1.9M. They do not look at purchases of new equipment and movements to the reserve fund - those are uses of cash not expenses. They did put $1.6M into the reserve based on the financial statements. 

[ana_safavi]

13 minutes ago, kiterunner said:

I am an accountant. @la marzocco is right. A surplus or deficit is defined as annual revenues less annual operating costs. In this vein, they did post a surplus of $1.9M. They do not look at purchases of new equipment and movements to the reserve fund - those are uses of cash not expenses. They did put $1.6M into the reserve based on the financial statements. 

Oh ok, I understand now. Thanks for the explanation!

BTW, since you are an accountant, can you answer the following questions for us?

1. Can a NPO have shareholders? Can an NPO pay out dividends?
2. Is an NPO allowed to pay its directors? Would that fall under the 'salaries & benefits' line item?
3. They charge fees from universities -- does that mean that they are (indirectly) receiving public funds?

Edit: one more -- why are they paying 51k in brokerage charges? What is that?

[kiterunner]

14 minutes ago, ana_safavi said:

Oh ok, I understand now. Thanks for the explanation!

BTW, since you are an accountant, can you answer the following questions for us?

1. Can a NPO have shareholders? Can an NPO pay out dividends? NFPOs cannot have shareholders. They cannot pay dividends because they have no shareholders to pay dividends to.
2. Is an NPO allowed to pay its directors? Yes, they are allowed to pay those who sit on the board for their work and time in their capacity as directors. Would that fall under the 'salaries & benefits' line item? Yes - that would be a good logical assumption. But, it may also be sitting under governance. It is unfortunate that their statements are very abridged and they don't fully provide the full set of audited financial statements. What I mean by a full set is they should have: (a) a statement of operations; (b) a statement of cash flows; (c) a balance sheet; and (d) a statement of changes in net assets. 
3. They charge fees from universities -- does that mean that they are (indirectly) receiving public funds? Not sure about this one.

Edit: one more -- why are they paying 51k in brokerage charges? What is that? Could be fees paid used to manage the funds in the reserves. I imagine they invest the cumulative surplus so the costs to execute transactions to purchase, divest, etc. fall under brokerage fees. That's my guess.

 

[ana_safavi]

One more!

They have a GST number, and collect HST on all the fees they charge. Shouldn't the tax they remit show up as a line item somewhere? Or are the amounts listed in that financial statement net revenues?

[la marzocco]

30 minutes ago, ana_safavi said:

One more!

They have a GST number, and collect HST on all the fees they charge. Shouldn't the tax they remit show up as a line item somewhere? Or are the amounts listed in that financial statement net revenues?

Most NFPOs ignore sales taxes on their statements because they are just pass through. They get GST/HST input credits for purchasing equipment etc.

[ana_safavi]

1 hour ago, kiterunner said:

 It is unfortunate that their statements are very abridged and they don't fully provide the full set of audited financial statements. What I mean by a full set is they should have: (a) a statement of operations; (b) a statement of cash flows; (c) a balance sheet; and (d) a statement of changes in net assets. 

"CaRMS also supports and enhances the Canadian medical education system through regular research collaboration with universities and other medical and governmental organizations. We are also pleased to accommodate data requests from stakeholders in the medical education community and other interested parties."

https://www.carms.ca/en/about/services/research-and-data-services/

Do you think if I did a resident research project comparing the cost-effectiveness of CaRMS vs. NRMP, they would be pleased to accommodate my data request for their full set of audited financial statements? 

It would be an excellent CanMEDs learning activity. Specific competencies covered: LE 2.1 & 3.2; HA 2.3; SC 4.2 & 4.3; PF 1.4, 2.1 & 4.3

[kiterunner]

32 minutes ago, ana_safavi said:

"CaRMS also supports and enhances the Canadian medical education system through regular research collaboration with universities and other medical and governmental organizations. We are also pleased to accommodate data requests from stakeholders in the medical education community and other interested parties."

https://www.carms.ca/en/about/services/research-and-data-services/

Do you think if I did a resident research project comparing the cost-effectiveness of CaRMS vs. NRMP, they would be pleased to accommodate my data request for their full set of audited financial statements? 

It would be an excellent CanMEDs learning activity. Specific competencies covered: LE 2.1 & 3.2; HA 2.3; SC 4.2 & 4.3; PF 1.4, 2.1 & 4.3

I don't think you need to specify the reason for your request. Not sure what the relevant legislation says (Access to Information Act?) and whether CaRMS is considered an eligible entity under which one can enforce the Access to Information Act. To be honest, as an NFPO with so many external stakeholder groups they should disclose the full set of audited financial statements. I also just read the auditor report, and it says that they only audited the summary information so they probably don't even have the full set of financial statements audited. This is really an anomaly. Based on what I have seen in practice, most NFPO disclose the full set. A note in the audit report says that: "The information selected by management for presentation in the Summarized Annual Financial Statement has been identi ed as being the most pertinent and useful nancial data for inclusion in the CaRMS annual report." 

WRT your research project comparing cost-effectiveness between CaRMS and NRMP, there will likely be many challenges: for one, size factor the NRMP match is much greater in size than CaRMS so a lot of costs are overhead that are not dependent on volume (i.e., fixed costs). I don't think you will get that much granularity to decipher the fixed costs of the organization.