Patrick O'Donnell wrote:
> What do other clubs collect dues for? Is this the same as
> member contributions?
>
> Thanks

Wow. I have been away for a while and missed many of the
discussions on the the Dues, Fees, Payments and Fees topic.
So I am posting this under Dues topic where I first made a
reply.

One of the good things about this forum is the intelligent
way people respond. I have gotten very good suggestions
from Ira Smilovitz, Rip West, Jim Thomas, Laurie
Frederiksen, and others.

In a previous post, I explained how our club uses Fees
instead of Dues and because of the way they are used, it
fits our club. Ira came up with the only downside so far in
that if timely payment is not made, there is a potential
inequality. In our case, that is not a serious issue because
the fees are relatively small compared to the value of the
club and we tend to control late payments.

Before bivio, we called our monthly contributions "Dues',
but changed the name to "Fees" because the way bivio treats
Dues. Our members were accustomed to their shares being in
round numbers did not like the idea of their shares numbers
changing with the Dues method. Since our fees are
proportional to the member's share of the club, the share
percentage does not change with the payment of fees.

A former treasurer had suggested we discontinue monthly
fees/dues because of the accounting hassle. This sparked
quite a discussion and the main reason for keeping monthly
contributions had nothing to do with the amount or the
accounting issues. It was a consensus that regular monthly
contributions promoted regular participation in the club,
and that seems to have worked for 40 years.

If ours was a new club, I would certainly recommending using
the bivio method of purchasing shares. However, if I were
to try that now, I think it would be back to the spreadsheet
accounting for me. Keep in mind that several of our members
are retired executives who are accustomed to getting their
way. Besides, I like the way bivio works in general. It
has the flexibility to acommadate various club structures
without forcing a preset structure. If the prefferred bivio
structure is not used, I think it is up to the club to
assure that the variation is fair, equal and legal. This
forum certainly helps.

For Laurie Frederiksen and Jim Thomas, if a club sets up
regular monthly contributions for its members, for whatever
reason, it becomes necessary to track the status of who has
paid in advance, on time or is in arrears. This is an area
where I feel bivio could be improved. Otherwise, our
broker account tracks most items except member status. The
main advantage to bivio would then be year end tax
accounting.

Laurie, I will try to send you an e-mail when I get time
detailing this issue as it applies to our club.

Thanks

Roy Williams

Rip West wrote:
> Roy,
>  
> I am still waiting patiently, although not quite as patiently as the first
> three times <g>, for an explanation of why buying units is such a bad idea
> for your members. As I have stated, with your method of contributing fees in the
> ratio of your ownership, you will end up with exactly the same result if you
> just processed your monthly contributions as regular payments.
>  
> Rip West
> Saint Paul, MN

Hi Rip

Sorry. Been away. Because of the way the threads are on
this subject, I am not sure I have read all the posts yet.

You are correct in that the purchase of shares with our fees
would yield the same results as not purchasing shares since
all monthly contributions are proportional to the members
ownership either way.

The difference is the preferences of our members. They have
been using our current procedure for nearly 40 years and do
not feel they should change to fit a computer program. If we
were a new club, I would certainly go with the flow and use
the bivio prefferred method.

Fortunately, bivio is flexible enough to accomadate us as
long as the current method of "fees" does not change.
Hence, my concern over the recent change in the method of
"fee" entry. So far, it is just harder to find. That is ok
as long as it does not disappear or change how it works.

I have verified that the "Fees" method retains proper share
ownership, cost basis, and taxable gains/losses. The only
downside was pointed out by Ira. If a member is late in
paying their fees, there is a temporary inequality that is
corrected either when they pay or if the were to resign, the
fees are collected before they cash out. SInce we limit how
late a member can be, the time value of the money in this
case is trivial and I believe not worth pursueing.

When I made my original reply, I was interested in areas
where I may have overlooked something important. So far,
Ira's comment is the only one that I needed to check out.
Most comments have been along the line of changing our
current method to use the bivio approach of buying shares
with our monthly contributions, and I am afraid our club
would vote to drop bivio before they would change. I like
the year end tax features of bivio so I would not like to
see that happen.

Thanks for the helpful comments.

Roy Williams
NAM Treasurer

Hi Roy.

Your club has been doing what you're doing for 40 years. I
doubt what I say here will change your mind. My comments
are more for those who are listening in on the conversation.

Roy Williams wrote:
> Our members were accustomed to their shares being in
> round numbers did not like the idea of their shares numbers
> changing with the Dues method.

This point Roy makes seems to be the heart of the matter.
The club members care about the number of units they hold in
the club. Twenty years ago round numbers of units served a
valuable purpose to a club: round numbers made accounting
by hand less error prone. These days letting bivio do the
math is less error prone. Units are an excellent tool for
ensuring that club income and expenses get distributed among
the club members fairly (and per IRS instructions) -- in
proportion to percentage ownership. Use them to
double-check our math if you want. Otherwise, ignore the
units. Your club's time is better spent monitoring and
evaluating the portfolio.

Eric Dobbs
bivio Software, Inc.

Quick Question: Were any of their stocks on a DRiP system? The shares
would not always be in round numbers at the time dividends were disbursed.
How did they handle that?

Just curious. Myrelle



-----Original Message-----
From: club_cafe@bivio.com [mailto:club_cafe@bivio.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Dobbs
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 3:42 PM
To: club_cafe@bivio.com
Subject: club_cafe: Re: Dues?

Hi Roy.

Your club has been doing what you're doing for 40 years. I
doubt what I say here will change your mind. My comments
are more for those who are listening in on the conversation.

Roy Williams wrote:
> Our members were accustomed to their shares being in
> round numbers did not like the idea of their shares numbers
> changing with the Dues method.

This point Roy makes seems to be the heart of the matter.
The club members care about the number of units they hold in
the club. Twenty years ago round numbers of units served a
valuable purpose to a club: round numbers made accounting
by hand less error prone. These days letting bivio do the
math is less error prone. Units are an excellent tool for
ensuring that club income and expenses get distributed among
the club members fairly (and per IRS instructions) -- in
proportion to percentage ownership. Use them to
double-check our math if you want. Otherwise, ignore the
units. Your club's time is better spent monitoring and
evaluating the portfolio.

Eric Dobbs
bivio Software, Inc.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.31/2116 - Release Date: 05/15/09
06:16:00

Eric Dobbs wrote:
> Hi Roy.
>
> Your club has been doing what you're doing for 40 years. I
> doubt what I say here will change your mind. My comments
> are more for those who are listening in on the conversation.
>
> Roy Williams wrote:
> > Our members were accustomed to their shares being in
> > round numbers did not like the idea of their shares numbers
> > changing with the Dues method.
>
> This point Roy makes seems to be the heart of the matter.
> The club members care about the number of units they hold in
> the club. Twenty years ago round numbers of units served a
> valuable purpose to a club: round numbers made accounting
> by hand less error prone. These days letting bivio do the
> math is less error prone. Units are an excellent tool for
> ensuring that club income and expenses get distributed among
> the club members fairly (and per IRS instructions) -- in
> proportion to percentage ownership. Use them to
> double-check our math if you want. Otherwise, ignore the
> units. Your club's time is better spent monitoring and
> evaluating the portfolio.
>
> Eric Dobbs
> bivio Software, Inc.

Hi Eric

You are correct that our club was setup in a by gone era.
The use of bivio does not need to change the operating
method. I believe all calculations are correct using the
"Fees" vs "Dues" methods when properly done. This forum has
mostly confirmed that although most of the posts say "why
don't you change your ways?"

Thanks for the omments

Roy Williams

myrelle wrote:
> Quick Question: Were any of their stocks on a DRiP system? The shares
> would not always be in round numbers at the time dividends were disbursed.
> How did they handle that?
>
> Just curious. Myrelle

Hi Myrelle

If I understand your question correctly, if our stocks were
in DRiP program, we would not have a round number of shares.
That is correct as far as the number of shares of a
particular stock is concerned. These dividend disbursements
would be calculated into the overall value of the club.
The members own round number shares of the club, not
individual stocks, which is different. The club does not
pay dividends and therefore does not have a DRiP program.

Hope this answers your question.

Roy Williams

>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: club_cafe@bivio.com [mailto:club_cafe@bivio.com] On Behalf Of Eric
> Dobbs
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 3:42 PM
> To: club_cafe@bivio.com
> Subject: club_cafe: Re: Dues?
>
> Hi Roy.
>
> Your club has been doing what you're doing for 40 years. I
> doubt what I say here will change your mind. My comments
> are more for those who are listening in on the conversation.
>
> Roy Williams wrote:
> > Our members were accustomed to their shares being in
> > round numbers did not like the idea of their shares numbers
> > changing with the Dues method.
>
> This point Roy makes seems to be the heart of the matter.
> The club members care about the number of units they hold in
> the club. Twenty years ago round numbers of units served a
> valuable purpose to a club: round numbers made accounting
> by hand less error prone. These days letting bivio do the
> math is less error prone. Units are an excellent tool for
> ensuring that club income and expenses get distributed among
> the club members fairly (and per IRS instructions) -- in
> proportion to percentage ownership. Use them to
> double-check our math if you want. Otherwise, ignore the
> units. Your club's time is better spent monitoring and
> evaluating the portfolio.
>
> Eric Dobbs
> bivio Software, Inc.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.31/2116 - Release Date: 05/15/09
> 06:16:00