2008 Party Financials: NDP Most Solvent, Least Liquid; Liberal Statement Unavailable
At the end of last year the NDP was the most solvent of the parties but the least liquid, 2008 party financial returns show. Liberal figures are not yet available, but the NDP was the only party posting a positive Net Worth ($952K). However it also showed the largest gap in Net Current Assets (-$3.46M).
The Conservative Party reported a negative Net Worth of -$1.29M, but showed Net Current Assets of $464K. The Bloc Québécois shows a slightly negative Net Worth of $-9.8K, and slightly negative Net Current Assets of -$16.3K, while the Green Party reported a negative Net Worth of -$887K, but Net Current Assets of $355K.
The major difference for the NDP was the book value of their building on Bank Street at Laurier Avenue in Ottawa rated at $3.76M, but apparently with a much higher appraised market value, according to party spokespeople last year.
The returns for every major party but the Liberals have now been posted to the Elections Canada website. Based on Liberal Party national director Rocco Rossi's interview with Susan Delacourt of the Toronto Star published yesterday, the Liberals filed their return late Tuesday, thus missing the evening upload. [UPDATE: Some people have erroneously been interpreting this sentence to mean that the Liberal Party was late in filing their return. For clarity, perhaps I should have written this sentence to read "filed their return late IN THE DAY ON THE Tuesday DEADLINE, thus missing the evening upload". I hope this makes the situation clearer for all concerned, and apologize if my choice of words caused some folks to be led astray.]
None of the parties had received their election rebates by year-end, but receivables were expected to cover virtually all their current and long-term bank loans, with the exception of the Green Party, which has taken on $1.3M in long-term debt, and the NDP which would have had another $2 million to repay from other sources. The NDP and Conservatives, however, had some other fairly large outstanding payables on the books as well ($3.85M for the NDP and $5.97M for the Conservatives). Comparable figures for the Bloc and Greens were $419K and $425K. These would be deferred payments either to suppliers or to constituency associations.
Details of the parties' loans and lines-of-credit were also reported:
Interestingly, the Conservative totals for contributions of $200 and under don't vary much from year to year (they usually stay around $8M), but their contributions over $200 tend to increase during election years and fall off between-times. The other parties reporting to date tend to see increases both over and under $200 during election years.
For the latest in financial updates, you can now follow the Pundits' Guide on Twitter.
The Conservative Party reported a negative Net Worth of -$1.29M, but showed Net Current Assets of $464K. The Bloc Québécois shows a slightly negative Net Worth of $-9.8K, and slightly negative Net Current Assets of -$16.3K, while the Green Party reported a negative Net Worth of -$887K, but Net Current Assets of $355K.
The major difference for the NDP was the book value of their building on Bank Street at Laurier Avenue in Ottawa rated at $3.76M, but apparently with a much higher appraised market value, according to party spokespeople last year.
The returns for every major party but the Liberals have now been posted to the Elections Canada website. Based on Liberal Party national director Rocco Rossi's interview with Susan Delacourt of the Toronto Star published yesterday, the Liberals filed their return late Tuesday, thus missing the evening upload. [UPDATE: Some people have erroneously been interpreting this sentence to mean that the Liberal Party was late in filing their return. For clarity, perhaps I should have written this sentence to read "filed their return late IN THE DAY ON THE Tuesday DEADLINE, thus missing the evening upload". I hope this makes the situation clearer for all concerned, and apologize if my choice of words caused some folks to be led astray.]
None of the parties had received their election rebates by year-end, but receivables were expected to cover virtually all their current and long-term bank loans, with the exception of the Green Party, which has taken on $1.3M in long-term debt, and the NDP which would have had another $2 million to repay from other sources. The NDP and Conservatives, however, had some other fairly large outstanding payables on the books as well ($3.85M for the NDP and $5.97M for the Conservatives). Comparable figures for the Bloc and Greens were $419K and $425K. These would be deferred payments either to suppliers or to constituency associations.
Details of the parties' loans and lines-of-credit were also reported:
- The Conservatives' borrowed $15M from the CIBC at between 5.5% and 6.25% (reported as Prime+1.5% in their financial statements)
- The NDP borrowed $14M from the Citizens' Bank of Canada at 3.5%
- The Bloc renegotiated its current line of credit to a maximum of $1.1M at Prime+1%, and arranged for an additional election line of credit worth $3.5M at the same interest rate, guaranteed by their election rebate
- The Greens borrowed $1.15M from TD Canada Trust at 5.75%, and another 35 loans from individuals totalling $1.57M at rates from 4.75% to 7%.
Contribution Amounts, Counts and Average Contribution Size, by Party and Donor Category, 2008 Financial Year (Lib data n/a)
| 2008 | Lib | NDP | Grn | BQ | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $ TOT num $ avg | -- | 5,412,940 29,732 $182.06 | 1,621,532 17,288 $93.80 | 713,085 7,445 $95.78 | 21,179,483 112,184 $188.79 |
| $ < $20 num $ avg | -- | 878 101 $8.69 | 107 20 $5.35 | -- | -- |
| $ <= $200 num $ avg | -- | 2,040,925 21,763 $93.78 | 840,492 15,479 $54.30 | 421,280 6,760 $62.32 | 8,494,070 86,149 $98.60 |
| $ > $200 num $ avg | -- | 3,371,137 7,969 $423.03 | 780,933 1,809 $431.69 | 291,805 685 $425.99 | 12,685,412 26,035 $487.24 |
Interestingly, the Conservative totals for contributions of $200 and under don't vary much from year to year (they usually stay around $8M), but their contributions over $200 tend to increase during election years and fall off between-times. The other parties reporting to date tend to see increases both over and under $200 during election years.
For the latest in financial updates, you can now follow the Pundits' Guide on Twitter.
Labels: Conservatives, Greens, NDP, Party Finance
posted by The Pundits' Guide at
9:22 AM
6 Comments:
"None of the parties had received their election rebates by year-end, but receivables were expected to cover virtually all their current and long-term bank loans, with the exception of the Green Party, which has taken on $1.3M in long-term debt, and the NDP which would have had another $2 million to repay from other sources."
And with the exception of the late reporting Liberals: who, even if you believe their rosy statements of where they are NOW, implicitly acknowledge that at year end they owed several million more than the incoming rebate.
So the Greens now have what amounts to a structural debt of $1.3M. IE, debt they have no means of paying off.
That may not sound like a lot, but it is 50% of thier current annual revenues [and with no guarantee they can maintain the high contribution levels of 2008].
Most of that- about $1M- was added in 2008. And the indications are that they plan to spend equivalent amounts, if not more, given the increasingly do or die nature of Mays statements about her determination to win a seat next time.
This structural component of the debt- and anything added to it- is financed by a shell game of revolving loans shifted among private indidviduals. Albeit, a shell game that needs new entrants as the total amount financed grows. Which I guess makes it something of a Ponzi scheme. Although my guess is that most, if not all, of the loan providers know what they are getting into.
It looks like Elections Canada is enforcing a standardization that parties provide for the EC website details of ALL their loans.
Past years it was spotty what would be there, and there was [is] no standardization in the parties financial statements.
I'm guessing that you made use of this PG in that you referred to the GPC's "long term debt" as $1.3M, rather than the figure for that given in the GPC financial staement.
With the new transperency/standardization on the EC website, we can now easily see that the TOTAL debt of the GPC is $2.7M. Subtract the rebate due and you get the $1.3M figure.
According to accounting standards parties can legitimately split between Current and Long Term debt. But I don't think there is any practical differentiation.
Which is why I called that $1.3M GPC a 'structural debt'.
I'll be interested to see who the Liberals borrowed their $14-$15M [or more] from before the election. Could they get that much from commercial lenders?
And its interesting to see that not only was the NDP able to borrow $14M, but did so at more than 2% less than the other parties. Saved them I would estimate in the neighbourhood of $150,000 in interest. Not bad for a bunch of wooly headed socialists.
Ken,
I'm not sure it's correct at all to say that the Liberals filed "late". The deadline would have been end of business Tuesday, I presume, or perhaps even midnight Tuesday. If they did not file in time for the first Elections Canada upload of data to the public website, I don't think we should read anything into that.
As to your second comment, Elections Canada is just enforcing reporting changes mandated by Parliament as part of the Accountability Act, I believe, when they ask parties to submit details of loans post-2007. I've noticed that the terms of lines-of-credit do not seem to be included in this requirement, however, as the Bloc report them in the notes to their financial statements, but not on Part 2c of their return.
When I was referring to the $1.3M number for the Green Party, it was in the context of this statement: "receivables were expected to cover virtually all their current and long-term bank loans, with the exception of the Green Party, which has taken on $1.3M in long-term debt", because their other loan payable and the current portion of their long-term debt appeared to be more or less covered off by their current receivable. I was doing an overall eyeball for each of the parties to see the extent to which their loans payable were greater than their receivables, in the context of pointing out that none of them had received their rebates by year-end.
As to the variability in interest rates, I'm sure this was one of the intentions of making such loans reportable. If an interest rate were thought to be substantially below market rates, I believe a question would be raised as to whether the difference ought to be considered a corporate (and therefore unallowed) contribution. I looked up the prevailing interest rates at the time at the Bank of Canada site just now, and while that rate is on the low side of what was being charged, it was competitive. Presumably having it secured by a building rather than a government subsidy made part of the difference, and I also note that this loan was not taken until October 14, whereas other parties' loans were taken earlier when rates were higher.
Thank you for taking the time to make these detailed comments.
You watch EC more closely than me PG, and my knowledge of the Accountability Act is very thin, but I have a slightly different take on their concern with interest rates.
I think it is driven by the HUGE grey area around the private loans. If the Accounability Act addressed that, it did so only obliquely... and my interpretation is that EC is trying to use existing broad powers of implementation to tighten it up as much as they can.
For example, through year-end 2007 the GPC still had some of their loans with individuals at no interest. And lord knows what the terms were with those Liberal leadership contest loans.
And you are right about the Liberals filing- we do not yet know that they were late.
What I said was based on my own expectation that they have indeed not filed yet- that the ill will of EC for being a little late is worth it for putting off the bad news into the sleepy summer season.
PG, from your blogpost update about the filings:
"[The Liberals] had until midnight Tuesday to submit it, and were not granted an extension. Thus, as we previously assumed, it must be in the process of getting ready to be posted."
Alternatively, the cynic's expectation: that they wanted to submitt it as late as possible, and knew that they would no basis to argue for an extension.... but it was worth it to just be late, and live with the ill will from EC that earns them. :)
Admittedly, I am only making an educated guess that in practice there are no concrete sanctions for being 'a bit late'.
And since I'm really curious to see their filing- geek's early christmas- I'll be happy to be proved wrong when/if the upload appears on the site within the next day.
Well, as I say, things got taken out of context badly enough that Elections Canada had to put out a news release for goodness' sake.
I really do try to give people the benefit of the doubt here, because all the nastiness, partisanship and ad hominen attacks in the Commons these days are bad enough.
We all know that human beings are imperfect. I, for one, could have written the fourth paragraph of this blogpost more clearly the first time around. But I appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt, as I'm sure others do just as much.
Sure, we can notice how parties are pre-announcing things, but we recognize that they're doing that in a certain climate as well.
Having just spent a day on the streets of Ottawa wishing every stranger Happy Canada Day, I'd like to carry that spirit forward here too.
Thanks as always for your comments.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home