A number of recent posts have speculated about Rawat's declining following. Although I don't doubt that in simple numbers of 'students' (sic) the Rawat cult is on the way down, this is by no means the best way to assess the future prospects of the 'inspirational speaker'.

I understand why most of Rawat's critics choose to make their criticisms referenced to a religious cult context - after all it is where most of us encountered Rawat,  nevertheless from when I first encountered EPO and began to question the history of Rawatism I've never found the 'religious cult model' particularly satisfactory in explaining the performance of the Rawat cult.

In my view the performance of Rawatism has, from at least 1975, if not earlier, far more closely conformed to a relatively standard business model.

Of course the 'business' has been obscured by the ephemeral nature of the product, the vacuousness of its delivery, the definition of the promoting organisations as having religious and or charitable and or educational purpose, and (IMO) the essential lie at the heart of the whole business that something unique and beneficial is conferrable on the consumer by the provider. But behind all the frontage, window dressing and marketing hype is a very basic operation - money comes in, and in return the consumer receives an apparent 'reward'.

Judging the success or failure of a business operation may involve quantifying its total number of customers, however a far more secure method is to look at profitability per customer. Walmart needs millions of customers because it makes tiny amounts of profit per transaction. Gucci needs far fewer customers because each transaction yields greater profit. The prospects for Rawat's business remains good so long as the profit yield from those customers he does retain, increases in proportion to the overall loss in numbers. (The claims for increased student numbers are largely irrelevant to the business because they include many poor recruits from south Asia).

Essentially so long as Rawat's remaining followers increase their individual contributions to the global income of the Rawat business, that business will remain profitable.

 The only secure information that is available comes via Rawat's UK operation - Elan Vital's UK accounts can now be viewed online at :

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/AccountListing.asp?charitynumber=1016818

Only the two most recent sets of figures are available - but comparison with those available on EPO http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/EVUKreport01.htm shows that income is stable at around £2 million per annum 2005 values. How many students are required to maintain this figure is anyone's guess but the UK figure probably represents around 20% of the global income, with the same amount again coming from Europe, the same again from Australia, Africa, Asia and South America, and double that from North America. Income therefore probably stands at around £10 million per annum with operating costs of around £7 million. On top of that £3 million probably goes toward the leasing and fuelling of the GSV and on accommodation for the 'speaker'.

The structure of the Rawat business does not require payment of a dividend nor the maintenance of a positive balance, so it can successfully continue on an annual 'break even' strategy.

As galling as this picture may be, nothing about it seems to be 'illegal' although it must bring into question just how adequate taxation and charitable regulation is within numerous countries.  Still, until a larger number of premies actually withdraw funding Prem should be able to continue his mission at present day levels for some time to come.

Nik