mebendazole

Valuation of deworming gets more complicated – the IRS gets involved

It’s not just two big-time reporters and this teeny-tiny blog looking at the mebendazole issue anymore. 

It is now obvious that the IRS has been paying attention for quite some time.  On Monday their involvement hit the papers.

Two articles appeared:

William P. Barrett, from Forbes magazine, posted  IRS Audit: Big Charity Filed Misleading Tax Return

Caroline Preston, of The Chronicle of Philanthropy posted IRS Levies Fine on Food for the Hungry Over Drug Valuations.

If you have any interest in the issue of valuing GIK meds, you will want to read both articles.

(more…)

Jim Ulvog

Impact on GIK values form change in accounting rules – Part 4 – A few final observations

Previously I’ve discussed the impact of new accounting rules on valuing of deworming medicine.  Have been looking at Feed the Children financial statements to quantify the impact.

I am not picking on Feed the Children.

I’m using their 2010 financial statements because they have the best disclosures in their financial statements that I’ve seen for the impact, plus there is public information on what per-pill valuation amounts they have been using.  It is to their credit that they have this amount of background available in their financial statements.

It is my guess, just a guess, that the same underlying valuation issues and impact on supporting services ratio that I have described previously here and here, would also be present in the financial information for other organizations that have large volumes of deworming medicine.  If I can find good info, I’ll do some calculations on other sets of financials.

I have a few more observations and then one more set of calculations.

(more…)

Jim Ulvog

Impact on GIK values from change in accounting rules – part 3 – change in Feed the Children financials

Previous post quoted disclosures made by Feed the Children in their 2010 audited financial statements. Essence of that note is that deworming medicine valued in the 2009 financial statements at $544M would have been valued at $21M if the 2009 financial statements had used the pricing information that was in use for 2010.

This post will look at the 2008, 2009, and 2010 financial statements through the lens of the two different valuation rates.

(more…)

Jim Ulvog