AMC Action Plan for 2025-30

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Another vote for downscaling the huts to self service.

Not likely to happen, as full service at the huts is the AMC’s cash cow, a major part of their revenue stream. I am not an accountant, but a rough calculation of a maximum of 51,720 bunk nights (capacity of the eight huts times full service nights per season) times the quoted $150 per quest in the article yields about $7.75 mil per year revenue.

Subtract from that say $300/week salary per croo member times 50 croo members times 18 weeks average full service at the eight huts yields about $260k.

No idea what groceries for full service cost, but guessing under $500k doe the season? The AMC probably could cut the huts staff to 30 croo for self service, but that along with the dollar savings from groceries would be minuscule compared to the lost full service revenue.

The last time I looked, cost of self service was $25/person/night, so roughly one sixth of full service, which would generate about $1.30 mil revenue per year, yielding a total loss of about $5.70 mil per year for the AMC to quit full service. Just not gonna happen.

 

[skiguy]

Not likely to happen, as full service at the huts is the AMC’s cash cow, a major part of their revenue stream. I am not an account, but a rough calculation of a maximum of 51,720 bunk nights (capacity of the eight huts times full service nights per season) time the quoted $150 per person in the article yields about $7.75 mil per year revenue.

Subtract from that say $300/week salary per croo member times 50 croo members times 18 weeks average full service at the eight huts yields about $260k.

No idea what groceries for full service cost, but guessing under $500k? The AMC probably could cut the huts staff to 30 croo for self service, but that along with the dollar savings from groceries would be minuscule compared to the lost full service revenue.

The last time I looked, cost of self service was $25/person/night, so roughly one sixth of full service, which would generate about $1.30 mil revenue per year, yielding a total loss of about $5.70 mil per year for the AMC to quit full service. Jut not gonna happen.

Thank you for saying that and for doing those off the top of your head calculations. You only are reinforcing the lack of dynamic adaptability and narrow mindedness that the AMC exhibits. They could also could be downscaling the expenditure side of their economic model and therefore enabling an existence that does not need the huts as a cash cow. It's not the 1960's anymore. With their present model and their self induced need to expand they are not thinking outside the box not to mention their ever-increasing impact on the environment. They have gotten too big for their own britches. It is time for change and not limping along with their antique architecture. Like I have said earlier in this thread their efforts still seem to be a net gain but they could be doing better.

 

[KRooney]

The AMC also has lodging sites in Maine. Probably should include the income and expenses from those sites,

 

[DayTrip]

Not likely to happen, as full service at the huts is the AMC’s cash cow, a major part of their revenue stream. I am not an accountant, but a rough calculation of a maximum of 51,720 bunk nights (capacity of the eight huts times full service nights per season) times the quoted $150 per quest in the article yields about $7.75 mil per year revenue.

WOW. That is a much larger number than I imagined. I agree they're not giving that up any time soon.

 

[JoshandBaron]

The AMC also has lodging sites in Maine. Probably should include the income and expenses from those sites,

https://cdn.outdoors.org/wp-content...21-AMC-Form-990-Open-to-Public-Inspection.pdf

 

[KRooney]

https://cdn.outdoors.org/wp-content...21-AMC-Form-990-Open-to-Public-Inspection.pdf

Thanks for posting that. Doesn't look like the AMC is in any danger of declaring bankruptcy in the near future ...

 

[KRooney]

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/46001677

Here's link to a site with more up-to-date tax forms.

 

[Yury]

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/46001677

Here's link to a site with more up-to-date tax forms.

Why do they hoard so much money ($200M)?

 

[skiguy]

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/46001677

Here's link to a site with more up-to-date tax forms.

Great info. Thank you for the research. Well I guess the Pandemic and all it's pain for The AMC has worked itself out considering their net assets have increased close to 86 million dollars in the last ten years.

 

[skiguy]

Why do they hoard so much money ($200M)?

Well they have to put it somewhere otherwise their donors with the big bucs would lose out on their tax write offs.

 

[JoshandBaron]

Why do they hoard so much money ($200M)?

I'm sure part of that is land/facilities/equipment.

 

[jdhill08]

I'm far from an expert in reading and analyzing annual 501c3 reports, but the most recent one I could find on the AMC website, which covers 2023, broke down their assets roughly this way:

Total Assets: $216m
--
Cash: $14m
Property & Equipment: $95m
Investments: $98m

There are some other line items, but none more than $4m.

Again, from my limited expertise in reading these types of documents, it looks like about 60% of those investment assets are mutual funds, about 10% are in hedge funds, and 30% in some sort of private equity investment funds.

 

[NHClimber]

Well they have to put it somewhere otherwise their donors with the big bucs would lose out on their tax write offs.

No such thing as a write-off (said Johnny Rose...). If you donate $10K to a 501(c)(3), you deduct it from gross income and have still given away $10K but have saved $4K in taxes, for a net give-away of $6K. Good for the charitable organization and you get a meaningful tax break. But you still are out of pocket net $6K. We should encourage the availability of the deduction otherwise people will donate a lot less. As my taxes increase, I certainly reduce my charitable giving.

 

[maineguy]

Something like 90% of filers take the standard deduction, so they don't save anything on taxes with their charitable giving.

 

[skiguy]

No such thing as a write-off (said Johnny Rose...). If you donate $10K to a 501(c)(3), you deduct it from gross income and have still given away $10K but have saved $4K in taxes, for a net give-away of $6K. Good for the charitable organization and you get a meaningful tax break. But you still are out of pocket net $6K. We should encourage the availability of the deduction otherwise people will donate a lot less. As my taxes increase, I certainly reduce my charitable giving.

Thank you for the clarification. I do see the difference and did mean deduction and not write-off. Where we do disagree is that The AMC is lining their pockets while taking advantage of non profit status. As Yury mentioned why do they hoard so much. Because they are greedy. They also create a guise around there financial operation always claiming they are in need. Just take a look at the financial info posted above. During the pandemic they were screaming about just how much financial need they were in. Their overall picture and wealth has grown substantially over the last ten years. Including during the pandemic years. They have drank too much of their own toxic Koolaid. If The AMC downsized they would not need as much in donations. While also creating less impact on the environment. Do as I say not as I do.

 

[NHClimber]

Thank you for the clarification. I do see the difference and did mean deduction and not write-off. Where we do disagree is that The AMC is lining their pockets while taking advantage of non profit status. As Yury mentioned why do they hoard so much. Because they are greedy. They also create a guise around there financial operation always claiming they are in need. Just take a look at the financial info posted above. During the pandemic they were screaming about just how much financial need they were in. Their overall picture and wealth has grown substantially over the last ten years. Including during the pandemic years. They have drank too much of their own toxic Koolaid. If The AMC downsized they would not need as much in donations. While also creating less impact on the environment. Do as I say not as I do.

No disagreement on AMC. I was speaking in general terms about the benefits of the tax deduction to charitable orgs. And not that you were suggesting this, but the media hypes tax shelters and the charitable deduction tropes all the time when the fact is there is no such thing as either. You know how you avoid paying taxes? Either don't earn anything or give it all away to others. Otherwise, you are paying taxes. Sure, you might get cap gains and therefore a lower effective tax rate than someone who is purely salaried, but that's because Congress decided long ago that cap gain treatment encourages longer term investment. To be clear, there are some loop holes that trouble some folks (like carried interest), but in general terms you cannot avoid paying taxes unless you give your money away. Apologies for the rant!

 

[skiguy]

To be clear, there are some loop holes that trouble some folks (like carried interest), but in general terms you cannot avoid paying taxes unless you give your money away. Apologies for the rant!

Unless your a non-profit like The AMC.Although their employees pay taxes on their earnings. IMO the Big Donors have been donating for a long time to The AMC. Why? Maybe some out of the goodness of their own heart. But a lot to get the deduction. And the AMC gladly provides that conduit to their benefit. These folks are aging out of the huts but still want to get out in the woods. A major underlying reason for the proposed hut in Crawford Notch within a State Park.Easier accessibility. Which fortunately got shot down. Only one example of their self perceived eliteness and misdirected fiscal responsibility. Again a lack of adaptability for the common good in exchange for the benefit for the inner circle of their own. By the way The AMC’s net worth has grown nearly $100 million in the last ten years alone. No apologies for ranting. I see it as lively discussion. Which a lot more of should occur in order for some things that need change. But you know. In the end The AMC always knows best.

 

[helmethiker]

If the AMC has $200M then they have ZERO reason to change their model. You may not like what they do, but there it is.

My understanding is that the truly wealthy have no income so they pay no income tax. They in simplistic terms live on a margin account paying prime rate based on their appreciating assets, and since the assets are appreciating, they can keep borrowing more to cover the "small" amount of interest. This works when the loan interest rate is lower than the income tax rate. When the person dies, then a piece of the assets can be sold to cover the debt with no tax consequences due to the adjustment in basis at death.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Why do they hoard so much money ($200M)?

The AMC is not “hoarding” the now $213 mil in net assets (2023 financials). About $95 mil is properly and equipment, about $99 mil is endowment, and the remaining $19 mil or so a bunch of other items. The AMC expends part of its interest and dividends revenue from their endowment investments each year to cover part of their annual budget expenses. But the income generated by their full-service huts operation is their primary revenue source. To convert from full-service to self-service during the 20-week extended summer season would be financially irresponsible for them.

Nearly all non-profits hold sizable endowments (investments) from which they typically tap the interest and dividends each year to help cover expenses. A CEO’s main priority in a non-profit is increasing the institution’s endowment, which determine’s the institution’s financial stability and sustainability. For example, Phillips Exeter Academy has a $1.6 bil endowment, Yale $40.7 bil, and Harvard $50.7 bil. So, the AMC’s endowment is “small peanuts” by comparison to these prestigious academic institutions, which offer large aid grants to students in financial need.

Unlike the AMC, the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and many other non-profit environmental organizations do not make public their endowments, but the Sierra Club’s minimum donation amount for a named endowed fund is $250k. Therefore, I think that the AMC is a much better example than these others for full disclosure of their financial operations.

As far as environmental stewardship is concerned at the huts, the AMC has made vast improvements since I worked in the huts during the late 1960’s when food waste was discarded in “gaboons” and tin cans were flattened and dumped in “can pits” away from the huts. All of that is flown out by helicopter now, along with the human waste as noted earlier. Converting to self-service would not reduce any of this waste in the huts, which would still need to be flown out.