In the Reserve Study industry, the Percent Funded range of 70-130% is described as the "strong" range. So why shoot to be 100% Funded and not the lower (more attainable) target of 70% Funded?
I recently had a client have us investigate the contribution differences between our recommendation to Fully Fund their Reserves, and only Baseline Fund their Reserves.
According to National Reserve Study Standards (see complete standards here), an evaluation of Reserve Fund Strength is one of the three primary results from a Reserve Study (the current component list, the current strength of the Reserve Fund, and the current recommendation for Reserve contributions).
I was recently contacted by an association explaining their strategy of not funding their Reserves according to the recommendation in their Reserve Study. They looked at that recommendation, then decided on a smaller contribution rate that they felt was reasonable (about half, they explained).
Why are components “Lumped Together” in a Reserve Study?
This was a good question asked recently by a client. They wanted to see all the separate items in their equipment shed in their Reserve Component List, not all the mowers grouped together, or the small runabouts grouped together.
Why Reserve for 30 yrs instead of 20 yrs (or less)?
It is true that accuracy of Reserve projections increases as the projected expense approaches. An expense expected in the next five years (Remaining Useful Life of 0-4 yrs) is much more certain in timing and cost than an expense projected 25 or so years away.
