For Profit vs Non-Profit Form of Business
96For profit and not for profit (or non-profit) businesses are similar in many ways. Both are generally corporations in which assets are held and business transacted in the name of the corporation rather than the individuals involved. To survive and grow, both need to generate or bring in more revenue than they spend on operations. Both are involved in producing a good or service for society. And, of course, both are managed and run by the people who are employed by the corporation.
|
The One Page Business Plan for Non-Profit Organizations
Price: $21.92
List Price: $34.95 |
|
Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits (J-B US non-Franchise Leadership)
Price: $16.60
List Price: $29.95 |
|
Management Control in Non-profit Organizations
Price: $92.30
List Price: $92.30 |
|
You've Gotta Have Heart: Achieving Purpose Beyond Profit in the Social Sector
Price: $10.45
List Price: $24.95 |
|
Strategic Marketing for Non-Profit Organizations (7th Edition)
Price: $116.60
List Price: $178.60 |
|
Guide to Non-profits- From the Trenches: An Overview for Controllers, Treasurers, CPAs and CFOs
Price: $34.95
List Price: $34.95 |
|
Leaders Who Make a Difference: Essential Strategies for Meeting the Nonprofit Challenge (J-B US non-Franchise Leadership)
Price: $13.86
List Price: $36.95 |
|
Profits for Non-Profits: Running a Successful Non-Profit Gift Shop
Price: $18.52
List Price: $19.95 |
Differences Between For Profit and Not For Profit Businesses
The first, and most important difference between a for profit and non-profit business is the profit. As mentioned above, both have to generate a profit in order to survive and grow. Both have to generate money to pay their bills and, if the corporation is to acquire new assets and grow it needs profits both to use for this as well as to attract new investment (in the case of a non-profit, new investment takes the form of contributions from people or other corporations and people are just as reluctant to contribute money to a failing charity as they are to invest in a bankrupt corporation). In both cases some of the profits are re-invested in the organization (although laws, especially tax laws, place limits on how much non-profits are allowed to re-invest) either to replace aging and worn out assets (buildings, machinery, etc.) or to acquire new assets needed to expand the organization's operations (such as a religious group building a new and larger church to accommodate a growing congregation). However, it is the distribution of the remainder of the profits that is one of the differentiating characteristics between for profit and non-profit organizations. In a for profit organization the profits that are not re-invested in the organization are distributed to the owners of the corporation as cash. In the case of a non-profit organization the profits are used to provide goods or services to the group or groups the non-profit was formed to help. A religious organization may use the profits to help its members or others obtain food, medical care, education, etc. A university may use its profits to provide free or low cost education to some or all of its students. The point is that the profits of a non-profit organization always go toward supporting some cause that society deems as good and beneficial and not into the pockets of the investors.
The second difference, which explains the first, is ownership of the corporation. A for profit corporation is created when investors get together and transfer assets, money and/or talent to start the corporation. The corporation, which is actually a fictitious person in the eyes of the law, takes title and ownership of the assets, etc. and gives, in exchange for the assets, ownership shares in the company to those who contributed the assets. However, with a non-profit, individuals come together and provide assets, money and/or talent to start the corporation. But, these people who create the corporation do not receive any legal ownership in the corporation and, further, have no guarantee that they will be able to retain control of the corporation once formed. All of the assets are now to be used to advance that cause or provide the service for which the non-profit business was created as determined by the corporation's board of directors.
The composition of the board of directors is the third major difference between for profit and non-profit businesses. In both cases the original board is created by the same people who started the corporation and, in both cases, directors are given fixed terms. Things change when it comes time to re-elect or replace these board members. In the case of a for profit corporation each share of stock entitles its owner to one vote and owners of multiple shares have multiple votes. It is possible for the person or group owning 51% or more of the stock to control both the board and the business with their controlling votes. In the case of a non-profit corporation there are no shares and thus no owners of shares to vote. When a board member's term is up it is the remaining board members who decide to either re-elect that person to a new term or replace the person. (in organizations which have a defined membership, it is usually the members who elect the board but here each member only has one vote and membership does not give them an ownership right in the assets of the organization in the sense that they can sell it like a stock holder in a for profit corporation can sell their stock and the rights that go with it). It is the board of directors or members which makes the decisions and runs the corporation.
|
2008 TurboTax HOME and BUSINESS + Efile Turbo Tax
Current Bid: $16.95
|
|
EBAY BUSINESS EVERYTHING IN MY SHOP + RESELL RIGHTS DVD
Current Bid: $14.96
|
|
Office Business Telephone PBX Phone System - 32 Tel
Current Bid: $3400.00
|
|
SONY VAIO VGN-Z620D Z 2.4MHz 4gb 320gb Vista Business
Current Bid: $1499.99
|
|
Risky Business DVD Widescreen
Current Bid: $.99
|
|
WEDDING CAKE DECORATING EBAY HOME BUSINESS MAKE MONEY
Current Bid: $8.29
|
Goal of For Profit Business is to Make Money for Owners
For profit business generally have a single focus and that is to make money for their owners. Non-profits are more varied. Some are pure charities which are created solely to give money or services away to those in need. Churches and other charitable organizations are examples of this type of non-profit. Other non-profits are merely an efficient way for a group to accomplish a goal that is not directly concerned with making money for the members. An industry trade association would be an example of this. The goal is to promote the industry thereby increasing the sales, and profits, of the member businesses. However, the trade association itself is not designed to generate profits to be distributed to its members.
Business is concerned with the management of resources to meet society's needs and, since society's needs are numerous and varied, the tools used to accomplish this are also varied.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Very informative. Thanks
Nice hub,
In the end there is profit from non profit
Nicely done! So much to learn from both types!
Nice hub - I have linked one of mine on a similar topic to it or you
Chuck;
This is a good topic. Thanks.
I look at the difference between a nonprofit and a business as - the business can take out profit from the corporation, but a nonprofit can't. You are so right that both rely on income exceeding expense. Nonprofit sure doesn't mean negative profit or net loss. In a tough year like this, though, we see a lot of that. The first thing to go, unfortunately is charitable donations.
A nonprofit operates according to the charter it files with the IRS, and it determines its board rules which vary widely. That is assuming you are talking about the typical charity or 501 (c) (3). Foundations and churches are another thing altogether.
Great Hub. Nice information. Thanks for sharing it!
This depends with amount of capital you have, if its a parthnership or a company, alot has to considered. There4 anyone who needs be successful has to take your findings and apply them. Like the first difference was very clear because one makes abusiness with a goal which is profit. There4 the strategies you make should favour the limits.
Nice hub !
Another differnce is the complexity of the tax filing and the penalties are higher for a non profit. Feel free to check out my blog and post a comment with any questions you have:
Very enlightening hub. Thanks for the information
I've sold to non-profits but have never been involved with them otherwise. I assumed that they were run similarly yet different and had different tax breaks but I never put much thought into it beyond that, for example how the board is handled.
Thanks for expanding my knowledge.
For Profit vs Non Profit Form of Business
it Was very well written, I support you, welcome to my hub
Hey what a great hub loads of great information very well layed out will be back to see more hubs from you well done
this is so clear, nice one. so if i understand right, non-profits also look to make a decent profit, how exactly do they draw the line, because if they are looking to cover costs and break-even, is this majorly affected by workers wages in the company?
CD
Cellar Door - I'm glad you enjoyed this Hub and found it informative.
In answer to your question the "profit" (which for non-profit accounting purposes is usually referred to as the "surplus") that non-profit corporations need to make can be used in a number of ways.
Ideally, it should be used to help the target population that the non-profit was set up to help in the first place. While legally these organizations have to use the surplus to help the target group, "help" can be a broad term. The first thing to understand here is that, since there are no stock holders or owners of any other type, there is no way profits can be distributed to investors or owners as with a regular corporation.
Also, tax laws in must jurisdictions set additional limits on what the surplus can be spent on and how much of the surplus can be banked as reserves.
Depending upon the mission of the non-profit, the first place the surplus funds can be spent would be to increase the amount of cash or in kind aid (such as food, temporary housing, medical assistance) to the target group in the case of non-profits, like the Red Cross, United Way, certain religious charities, etc., whose mission includes helping disaster victims. Major disasters, like the typhoon that hit Asia a couple of years ago, Hurricane katrina, the 9/11 attack always bring a big influx of donations into these organizations, but initially the organizations have to dip into their reserves for their immediate response. Other non-profits, such as religious organizations, whose main mission is not direct disaster aid, will also dip into reserves to assist with major disasters.
Greater surplusses also allow a non-profit to increase the numbe of people in the target audiance they can help. In some cases this is simply a case of having more funds to hand out to a larger group. A non-profit that collects food for people in need can use the surplus to buy more food to deliver to more needy people.
They can also use the funds to increase their facilities and infrastructure. Rather than more food which it can't use due to the physical size of their facility, a soup kitchen may invest the surplus in buliding a larger structure or in adding additional table, ovens, etc. so as to be able to accomodate more people.
Increased facilities can also include more amenities for workers and management. This can be a little more difficult to justify because the amenities may simply be an added benefit for the workers, management and donors with no discernable benefit to the target group it is helping or it can be a tool to better motovate the workers and management to provide more and better service as well as inspire existing and new donors to contribute more.
Plush offices for top management along with high salaries for those at the very top (salaries and wages for the regular workers in non-profits are traditionally below average while it is not uncommon for people at the very top of the organization to have compensation that is close to that of their counterparts in the for profit sector). Sometimes this is strictly a case of top management using the non-profit as a vehicle to enrich themselves while most other times it is usually a case of doing what is needed to bringin more money for the mission. After all, if the non-profit can recruit a top executive who can tripple or quadruple the funds raised by offering that person twice the salary that such executives normally receive it can be seen as a good investment in terms of money raised for the mission. This is why it is a good idea for individuals considering donations to non-profit charitable organizations to study them before making their contributions in order to make sure that most of the money you are contributing goes to helping the target group and not simply enriching the top management of the charity. There are a number of organizations that study non-profits and provide this information and I have seen more than one Hub (although I haven't bookedmarked them so can link to them here) which describes and provides links to such oversight organizations.
Thanks again for your comment and question.
Chuck
I have been influenced to believe that a CEO of a Mers Goodwill makes more than 450,000 annually. Can this be possible based on how the profits are to be distributed.
Keith, Thanks for your comment.
Pay, including CEO pay is a business expense, not profit. Some non-profits that generate high revenues do use them to provide high compensation to their top management. This may be good or may be bad depending upon how effective the CEO is in raising money for the organization.
The question that has to be asked is are the revenues being diverted to high executive salaries and thus not being used to support the stated mission of the organization or, are the high salaries being used to attract people who are able to greatly increase revenues so that the organization has more money for its mission?
A non-profit CEO being paid $450,000 is earning ten times what one making $45,000 per year is paid. But if the CEO with the big salary is bringing in ten times more donations, then the organization has a lot more money to spend on its mission so the extra salary is worth it.
Non-profits have to publish their financial statements and it is always a good idea to take a look at them to see what their overall ratio of expenses to contributions is. If a small percent of contributions goes to expenses it is an indication that the organization is well run while if a very large percent of the contributions go to expenses then this is probably not a good place to contribute since most of each contribution will go to overhead. Instead of focusing on CEO salary only, look at the revenue to expense ratios and how they are using the money they collect before making a judgment about how the organization is operated.
Thanks again for the comment.
Chuck, I've heard that reporting requirements for non-profits are very difficult to meet, expecially if you don't have the income to hire a CPA. Is that true?
Aya Katz - I don't know what is involved with the reporting requirements for non-profits as I have never been involved in preparing these reports. I would think that the complexity would vary with the size and scope of the organization but I don't think that it would be any more complex than for a for profit corporation of similar size. Of course, the regulator requirements will vary from state to state and this can be more complex in one state than in another.
Are there any other hubbers who have experience in the details of financial and other regulatory reporting for non-profits that can elaborate on this?
Great Hub! Here's one of mine: http://hubpages.com/hub/gossiptraps
Very imformative hub Chuck, I have been involved in both non-profit and profit organisations and both has it pros and cons, but both require lots of time and effort. Thanks again
Regards
Neil Ashworth
Do you think the borrowing system should be the other way around? (People/companies who can afford to pay a higher rate will pay it, but people/companies who can't afford a high rate will pay less.) Or do you think the riskier the loan the higher the rate?
Kapitall - Interest rates are the cost of borrowing money. As such, the main function of interest rates is to allocate a scarce resource which, in this case, is loanable funds.
In addition to the pure cost of money aspect of interest rates which is determined by supply and demand (historically this part of an interest rate has averaged around 2%) interest rates also reflect the risk on the loan. A high risk borrower pays a higher rate than a low risk borrower because the chances of default among high risk borrowers is much higher than with low risk borrowers. Because of this, high risk borrowers pay a higher rate and this higher rate portion of the interest rate goes to offsetting the losses resulting from the higher default rate for this class of borrowers.
In the absence of the government nationalizing the banking system and using their power to tax to raise funds to loan, the result of such a system that you propose would be a large decrease in lending and/or schemes to get around the rules.
Raising rates on any group, rich or poor, will reduce the demand for loans by that group. While lowering the rate for any group will result in an increase in demand for loans by that group. At the same time, high rates will result in an increase in supply of loanable funds being made available while low rates will reduce the supply of loanable funds.
In the scenario that you are suggesting, we would have a surplus of loanable funds for those who could afford to pay higher rates as lenders (which include you and I and everyone else who puts money into a bank savings account, mutual fund money market account, invests in bonds, etc. expecting to get a return on our money) will rush forward with funds to loan while wealthier borrowers will reduce their borrowing.
In the case of the low rates for those who can't afford higher rates the opposite will be true absent subsidies by government which raises funds through forced taxation or charitable organizations who generally specify specific uses for money given to those for whom they are offering a subsidized rate.
Lenders and borrowers will also try to find ways around these obstacles to rates that can be charged. In the case of households and businesses that can afford higher rates, a business could set up a marginally profitable wholly owned subsidiary to borrow for them (some large companies do something similar to avoid the high mandatory cost of government run unemployment insurance by using one subsidiary to hire people and pay the high premiums for layoffs while keeping rates low for the company as a whole). Households could do the same thing in cases where there is a large difference in income between the two spouses. In this case they would have separate credit and finances with the lower income spouse doing all the borrowing while the higher income spouse owns all of the income producing assets.
Lenders could also try to get around the rate limits by charging higher loan origination fees, higher late charges, stiff pre-payment penalties, etc. to lower income borrowers while doing things like offering higher rate borrowers a longer term than requested and then giving a rebate for paying early, etc.
Sandilyn says:
2 years ago
Good article. I just started a non-profit foundation with a group of people. There is so much to learn!!! You presented it in a nutshell very well. Filling out the paperwork is so time consuming. Our foundation deals with providing technology to the blind and visually impaired, as well as other disabled people.
Now I need help with Grant paperwork! :)
Sandi