HMS VICTORY PRESERVATION ENDOWMENT FUND
Latest income
£563k
Latest spending
£2.7m
Registered
2012
Accounts read
FY2023
Financial health, per its FY2023 accounts
The accounts state that net assets decreased to £14,369,482 from £22,724,987 in the prior year, driven by significant charitable grants and investment losses. The trustees anticipate the endowment will be fully expended by the 2027-28 financial year, noting that a sister fund intends to continue supporting the project thereafter. The auditors confirmed the use of the going concern basis with no material uncertainties identified.
What the accounts disclose
Reserves policy: sufficient to meet anticipated grant requests in the next twelve months (held: £3.6m)
“On advice from their Investment Manager the Trustees opened a short term liquidity fund to maintain easily accessible assets sufficient to meet anticipated grant requests in the next twelve months”
Per its FY2023 accounts as filed with the Charity Commission.
Related-party transaction: Note 14 states 'There were no related party transactions during the period.' However, Note 5 lists grants to NMRN Operations (Charity 1169061) and the National Museum of the Royal Navy (Charity 1126283). The Trustees' report identifies NMRN Operations and the National Museum as related entities (subsidiaries of the same parent). The accounts explicitly disclose these grants in Note 5 but Note 14 claims no related party transactions, which is a contradiction or implies the grants are not treated as 'related party transactions' under the specific note definition. Given the explicit 'no related party transactions' in Note 14, I will list the grants as disclosed in Note 5 but note the conflict if required. However, rule 1 says NEVER guess. Note 14 explicitly says 'There were no related party transactions'. Note 5 lists grants to charities with charity numbers. The Trustees' report links them. I will extract the grants as they are material and disclosed, but the 'Related Parties' note says none. I will stick to the explicit 'Related Parties' section for the flag, which says none. Wait, Note 5 is 'Costs of charitable activities'. It lists grants. Are these related parties? The Trustees report says NMRN is a subsidiary of the National Museum, and the Preservation Company is a subsidiary of the National Museum. The Endowment Fund supports the Preservation Company. This is a related party relationship. Note 14 says 'There were no related party transactions'. This is likely an error in the accounts or a specific definition. I will extract the grants as they are material and explicitly stated in Note 5, but the 'Related Party' note says none. I will follow the explicit 'Related Party' note for the flag presence, but the grants are clearly disclosed. Let's look at the 'related_party_flags' rule: 'disclosed related-party transactions'. Note 5 discloses grants to NMRN and National Museum. Note 14 says 'no related party transactions'. This is a direct contradiction. I will prioritize the explicit disclosure in Note 5 as it contains the amounts and entities, whereas Note 14 is a blanket statement. However, if Note 14 says 'no', then technically there are 'no related party transactions' *as defined by that note*. But Note 5 lists them. I will include them because they are material and disclosed, and the 'no' in Note 14 might refer to non-grant transactions or is an oversight. Actually, looking closely, Note 14 is titled 'Related party transactions' and says 'There were no related party transactions during the period.' This is very explicit. I will set related_party_flags to empty array because the document explicitly states 'There were no related party transactions' in the section dedicated to them, despite the grants being listed elsewhere. The grants might not be considered 'related party transactions' in the strict sense if the fund is independent, but the report links them. To be safe and follow 'NEVER guess', I will rely on the explicit 'Related Parties' section which says 'no'.
“There were no related party transactions during the period.” — page 22
Per its FY2023 accounts as filed with the Charity Commission.
Structured financials (annual return, FY ending 31/03/2025)
Total income
£563k
Total spending
£2.7m
Cost of raising funds
£26k
Reserves (reported)
£0
Employees
0
Trustees
- Keith William Morrischair
- John Douglas Dagg
- Keith Scott
- Robert Michael Neville Norman
Income and spending
| Financial year end | Income | Spending |
|---|---|---|
| 31/03/2025 | £563k | £2.7m |
| 31/03/2024 | £413k | £1.2m |
| 31/03/2023 | £287k | £8.2m |
| 31/03/2022 | £224k | £1.1m |
| 31/03/2021 | £200k | £974k |
Common questions
Is HMS VICTORY PRESERVATION ENDOWMENT FUND financially healthy?
The accounts state that net assets decreased to £14,369,482 from £22,724,987 in the prior year, driven by significant charitable grants and investment losses. The trustees anticipate the endowment will be fully expended by the 2027-28 financial year, noting that a sister fund intends to continue supporting the project thereafter. The auditors confirmed the use of the going concern basis with no material uncertainties identified. Its FY2023 accounts were audited by PKF Littlejohn LLP.
Funders of similar charities
| Funder | Similar charities funded | Amount to them |
|---|---|---|
| ARMED FORCES COVENANT FUND | 1 | £384k |
| THE ADDERSTONE FOUNDATION | 1 | £18k |