The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Heh. If governments and civilization break down, $32B  won't do anyone any good.  As I understand it, however, that is going to happen "soon", in the runup to the Millennium. But until that time it would be wise to maintain such stock portfolios in order to foster the work of the Lord.

Yes, I’ve gone on record earlier in the thread saying that I believe there are likely good reasons to hold such a stock portfolio.  And there are great things that could be done with the, roughly $2+ billion in income it would produce each year. 

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, I’ve gone on record earlier in the thread saying that I believe there are likely good reasons to hold such a stock portfolio.  And there are great things that could be done with the, roughly $2+ billion in income it would produce each year. 

Could be done?  If only, alas!, you were in charge?

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Could be done?  If only, alas!, you were in charge?

Please try not to read a negative spin into my words.  That was not my implication at all. 

I wrote “could” because we don’t even know if the $32B portfolio is entirely owned by the Church. 

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It wasn’t sarcasm. 

I do sustain my leaders.  But that also doesn’t mean I have to agree 100% with every decision they make. 

What constitutes not sustaining them then?

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn’t that what fast offerings are for which haven’t been discussed?  I bet many reading this thread have made use of that money for food or utilities or mortgage. I have in the past a couple of times.

I mentioned fast offerings earlier. I don’t know if they are included in humanitarian aid totals. It has to be a considerable amount.  IMO they are one of the best things the Church does. No overhead, voluntary, based on ability to give and need to receive, potentially without impacting family budgets even of the poorest, temporary assistance, surplus can easily transferred without cost, etc. Can’t remember the year, but a Church President asked for an increase in FO donations,and in our ward at least, the increase was phenomenal. If other churches used the system, poverty could be eliminated. I once suggested to the US Postmaster an optional postage stamp that would cost $.05 more than the usual stamp with the extra amount going directly to funds for aiding the poor. Never heard back.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What constitutes not sustaining them then?

I like President (then Elder) George Albert Smith’s definition from 1919:  “The obligation that we make when we raise our hands … is a most sacred one. It does not mean that we will go quietly on our way and be willing that the prophet of the Lord shall direct this work, but it means … that we will stand behind him; we will pray for him; we will defend his good name, and we will strive to carry out his instructions as the Lord shall direct.”

[Meerkat]

On 5/30/2018 at 6:28 AM, stemelbow said:

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/#8b9ae6251c71

Browsing through the list of richest folks I see they typically give far more to charitable causes then the Church gives to the poor and needy.  

Regarding how the Church invests their money, I trust their businesses and investments generate more billions to contribute to hurricane victims, refugees, the Red Cross, Red Crescent, DI and other charities than if they took tithing, for example, and immediately distributed it all to the poor.

For example: Say a rental purchased in 2011 for $450,000 cash generated $4200 per month through 2012.  Today, the income from that appreciating asset is $5600 per month.  (For sake of example, ignore taxes and repairs.) The point is $450,000 given directly to the poor depletes that asset to zero.  $450,000 INVESTED generates at least $$504,000 every ten years.  30 years = a minimum of $1,500,000 to give to the poor from that piddly $450,000 investment.  And the asset continues to appreciate in value and spin off more and more cash for the poor and needy.

Stemelbow, your heart is in the right place wanting to care for the poor.  I'm glad the Church invests their money so it can do considerably more good than you would, if you had the chance.  No offense intended.  Just a different perspective.

P.S.

God bless those billionaires for any good they do.  There are MANY in the church whose financial contributions to the poor and needy never show up on a public balance sheet.  Those should be counted in the Church column, as charity is a fruit of the Gospel.  Add to that service hours gladly given. 🙄

Edited June 3, 2018 by Meerkat

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Stashed away - means stashed away.

The comparison is indeed valid. Stashed away does not necessarily mean hoarded. Individuals and institutions must have sufficient money to thrive. Stashing money under the mattress or in a bank vault is not as productive as investing it wisely to increase it’s potential future power for good purposes foreseen and unforeseen. Both are wise to have as much funding as possible to ensure that they can meet their obligations and to grow.

Financial independence is laudable. I would like to be independent. I really wish my schools and my symphony orchestra had such a huge investment portfolio that they didn’t have to go begging for donations and increased tax levies all the time. Donations to the orchestra can have specific purposes to fund positions such as guest artists and conductors, the concertmaster, first chair trumpet, a children’s concert series, or to the general budget for the salaries and benefits of the members, the library, and facilities. Either way they help the group prosper and beautiful music is the product. Having that secured for perpetuity would be a great blessing. With enough of a stash, concerts could be free. I’m certain all institutions hope and wish for financial independence.

 Recently the Church announced that two programs that aid the poor, the Perpetual Education and Temple Patron Assistance Funds, are flush and donations to them can go elsewhere. That’s fantastically cool. Go Church, go!

Edited June 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I posted earlier on this and the business and tax benefits of having a private foundation and though I do not know Mr. Gates' or how sincere his charitable intent is, the purpose of any foundation is seldom if ever to "do good".

Without a foundation, his tax on any amount over about 20 million could run as high as 40% of his total wealth.

I don't think he would like that going to the government, as charitable as he might be. 

That discussion can be found on page 23 of this thread starting with this post:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70618-the-church-has-32-billion-in-the-stock-market/?do=findComment&comment=1209823613

 

Unless I've missed something, the US government doesn't tax wealth, per se. If you have $10 billion in your pocket on January 1st, unless you spend some of it during the year, you will not have to give any of it to the government by April 15th the next year, and you'll still have $10 billion. The government only taxes movement of money - except for some forms of property, such as real estate, or sometimes property used in the conduct of business.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Question for everyone.  Does salvation have anything to do with humanitarian work?  Should it?

Yes, and everyone should do some. But the ultimate humanitarian work is bringing souls to Jesus Christ.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, I’ve gone on record earlier in the thread saying that I believe there are likely good reasons to hold such a stock portfolio.  And there are great things that could be done with the, roughly $2+ billion in income it would produce each year. 

The Church is historically conservative, especially fiscally. Conservative fiscal practices focus primarily on asset preservation and growth, not income. Some forms of conservative holdings, such as corporate or government bonds,  produce little income, but preserve value. Your estimate of $2 billion is almost certainly very overoptimistic.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The Church is historically conservative, especially fiscally. Conservative fiscal practices focus primarily on asset preservation and growth, not income. Some forms of conservative holdings, such as corporate or government bonds,  produce little income, but preserve value. Your estimate of $2 billion is almost certainly very overoptimistic.

Have you reviewed the descriptions of the LLC’s listed in the leak?  My estimate of a 7% return isn’t over optimistic.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Regarding how the Church invests their money, I trust their businesses and investments generate more billions to contribute to hurricane victims, refugees, the Red Cross, Red Crescent, DI and other charities than if they took tithing, for example, and immediately distributed it all to the poor.

For example: Say a rental purchased in 2011 for $450,000 cash generated $4200 per month through 2012.  Today, the income from that appreciating asset is $5600 per month.  (For sake of example, ignore taxes and repairs.) The point is $450,000 given directly to the poor depletes that asset to zero.  $450,000 INVESTED generates at least $$504,000 every ten years.  30 years = a minimum of $1,500,000 to give to the poor from that piddly $450,000 investment.  And the asset continues to appreciate in value and spin off more and more cash for the poor and needy.

Stemelbow, your heart is in the right place wanting to care for the poor.  I'm glad the Church invests their money so it can do considerably more good than you would, if you had the chance.  No offense intended.  Just a different perspective.

P.S.

God bless those billionaires for any good they do.  There are MANY in the church whose financial contributions to the poor and needy never show up on a public balance sheet.  Those should be counted in the Church column, as charity is a fruit of the Gospel.  Add to that service hours gladly given. 🙄

So what do you think is being done with the roughly $2 billion in annual returns that a $32 billion stock portfolio ought to be producing?

[Stargazer]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Have you reviewed the descriptions of the LLC’s listed in the leak?  My estimate of a 7% return isn’t over optimistic.

I can't say that I have expertise to make a reasonable estimate, sorry! Perhaps you are, but I'm hardly in a position to know what you know, or think you know.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

I like President (then Elder) George Albert Smith’s definition from 1919:  “The obligation that we make when we raise our hands … is a most sacred one. It does not mean that we will go quietly on our way and be willing that the prophet of the Lord shall direct this work, but it means … that we will stand behind him; we will pray for him; we will defend his good name, and we will strive to carry out his instructions as the Lord shall direct.”

So criticizing their use of money while you have no clue about what their plans are, and cannot know because of confidentiality is "carrying out their instructions"?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Unless I've missed something, the US government doesn't tax wealth, per se. If you have $10 billion in your pocket on January 1st, unless you spend some of it during the year, you will not have to give any of it to the government by April 15th the next year, and you'll still have $10 billion. The government only taxes movement of money - except for some forms of property, such as real estate, or sometimes property used in the conduct of business.

Inheritance taxes not income tax!

Read the thread I'm not going to repeat it.

[Meerkat]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

So what do you think is being done with the roughly $2 billion in annual returns that a $32 billion stock portfolio ought to be producing?

Well, you have building maintenance and welfare needs for a large worldwide church.  You have church, Temple, office building sites to purchase and maintain as well as recreation properties.  Utility expenses.  You have salaries and benefits for a relatively modest human resource infrastructure.  You have Family History centers, Temples and associated expenses.  You have charitable distributions mentioned earlier.  Throw in legal expenses, counseling.  How about local church library expenses and classroom materials?  Then there is the need for an ample rainy day fund for emergencies, increased welfare needs when there is a downturn in the economy, national and international disasters, etc.  (The Church is usually among the first responders with money, labor and other resources.) We've seen such emergencies before, and the Church has been there, thanks to wise planning.

I'm sure there are a multitude of other justifiable expenses that our church leaders allow on occasion.  I also know they are careful in their stewardship over the Lord's resources.  There may be a bad apple occasionally in the organization that draws attention.  That's what you get with human beings and families.  

What do you think are worthy expenses for the Lord's Church by His authorized representatives?

Edited June 3, 2018 by Meerkat

[Stargazer]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Inheritance taxes not income tax!

No kidding? Really? Duh!

Inheritance is movement, Mark.

Unless the money's under control of an entity, like a trust or foundation. That's how the smarties preserve their wealth from "death and taxes".

 

[Bernard Gui]

56 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Well, you have building maintenance and welfare needs for a large worldwide church.  You have church, Temple, office building sites to purchase and maintain as well as recreation properties.  Utility expenses.  You have salaries and benefits for a relatively modest human resource infrastructure.  You have Family History centers, Temples and associated expenses.  You have charitable distributions mentioned earlier.  Throw in legal expenses, counseling.  How about local church library expenses and classroom materials?  Then there is the need for an ample rainy day fund for emergencies, increased welfare needs when there is a downturn in the economy, etc.  We've seen it before, and the Church has been there, thanks to wise planning.

I'm sure there are a multitude of other justifiable expenses that our church leaders allow on occasion.  I also know they are careful in their stewardship over the Lord's resources.  There may be a bad apple occasionally in the organization that draws attention.  That's what you get with human beings and families.  

What do you think are worthy expenses for the Lord's Church?

All this plus the Church is self insured. If a building or property is burned or damaged, the Church pays the repair or replacement costs. 

 

[mrmarklin]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Unless I've missed something, the US government doesn't tax wealth, per se. If you have $10 billion in your pocket on January 1st, unless you spend some of it during the year, you will not have to give any of it to the government by April 15th the next year, and you'll still have $10 billion. The government only taxes movement of money - except for some forms of property, such as real estate, or sometimes property used in the conduct of business.

Just wait until you die. 

Ever heard of the Estate Tax?

Actually, the US is fairly benign in this area. Tax doesn’t start until you have over $10MM. But in mNy countries it is much worse and rates are confiscatory. Rates in the US are too high as well. 

 

Yeah, technically it’s a transfer tax, but what governments are really doing are taxing a lifetime of work and saving.

Thats right, work hard, save your money and then the government gets its hand out. No good deed goes unpunished. 

Edited June 3, 2018 by mrmarklin
Additional facts

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/2/2018 at 11:10 AM, Jeanne said:

Thank you.  Should there be a priority or justification for ignoring one for the other?  That is, should the church concentrate on sin and directing those to gospel covenants...or should there be a devotion of giving?

 

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  They should be worked on in tandem.

I think the Church should fulfill its mandates as to the spiritual and temporal salvation of men.  At the same time.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

23 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I agree...so why don't they?

 

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that they don’t. 

Jeanne, there is a CFR on the table that you appear to have ignored. You asked an are-you-still-beating-your-dog kind of question insinuating that the Church of Jesus Christ ignores its responsibility to provide for the temporal needs of others. I want you to document the insinuation or withdraw it. 

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

 

Jeanne, there is a CFR on the table that you appear to have ignored. You asked an are-you-still-beating-your-dog kind of question insinuating that the Church of Jesus Christ ignores its responsibility to provide for the temporal needs of others. I want you to document the insinuation or withdraw it. 

I told you they do a lot..the church does a lot..but with billions in their pockets that may be accessible...why aren't those funds directed to the ones who are in need..I mean there is more to do!  You don't need a CFR to know that there are members who are not being taken care of...and all those who are non mormons..what else do you need?  Jesus said to help the poor and needy...he didn't say how much..but he didn't say build a mall or invest the Saints dollars either.   Ban me from the thread..if you want..but it is so obvious that the priorities are not in line with the gospel.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Jeanne

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

No kidding? Really? Duh!

Inheritance is movement, Mark.

Unless the money's under control of an entity, like a trust or foundation. That's how the smarties preserve their wealth from "death and taxes".

 

Sorry that I don't understand your point to bring it up.

My point was that the foundation was set up to continue business ad infinitum and save taxes not primarily to take care of people.

I quoted one article which showed that the business interests of part of the foundation were more important than the humanitarian causes.

I'm just missing the point here.

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I told you they do a lot..the church does a lot..but with billions in their pockets that may be accessible...why aren't those funds directed to the ones who are in need..I mean there is more to do!  You don't need a CFR to know that there are members who are not being taken care of...and all those who are non mormons..what else do you need?  Jesus said to help the poor and needy...he didn't say how much..but he didn't say build a mall or invest the Saints dollars either.   Ban me from the thread..if you want..but it is so obvious that the priorities are not in line with the gospel.

Smac said: “I think the Church should fulfill its mandates as to the spiritual and temporal salvation of men.  At the same time.” 

You replied: “I agree. So why don’t they?”

Despite the absolutist assertion implied in your question, it now appears you grudgingly admit the Church does pursue these responsibilities, just not to the extent or in the manner that meets your approval. 

You said, “Ban me from the thread..if you want..but it is so obvious that the priorities are not in line with the gospel.”

I lack both the power and the inclination to do that, but I reject your assertion that the priorities of the Church are not in line with the gospel. It strikes me as unrighteousness judgment, in fact. 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes.   And I was pointing out that in the Kings passages that you cited, the King had to take the responsibility away from the priests who were not doing what they were supposed to do with sacred funds.  

Similarly, in Malachi 3, the priests were accused of robbing God for not using tithes appropriately. 

Given these examples combined with the Lord’s warnings in the D&C and the mandate of common consent, I’m not sure why we wouldn’t expect financial disclosure by the Brethren.  Was any explanation ever given for why they stopped doing it in the 50’s?

While each of the passages does involve corrupt priests as a backdrop (as much of the Old Testament lessons do!), the principle of reckoning is not a feature in either their corruption or the scribes’ faithfulness, even when the king transfers fiscal responsibility from the priests to other officials. On the contrary, reckoning is explicitly proscribed!

I think you need to offer specific scriptural examples of fiscal transparency in the kingdom of God on earth, especially since the books or records in heaven and earth are not reconciled until Jesus returns and judgement is rendered. Offer some scriptural examples to support you case. Vague references to the Lord’s warnings and your suggestion of a mandate for common consent in accepting fiscal paperwork aren’t enough unless you’re just stating what you feel and believe on the topic without further exploration or discussion, but that’s just rhetoric and polemics.

To answer your question, I think given the absence of fiscal transparency requirements in the canon, no official explanation was required for why a level of reporting was stopped in the 50’s, or why it began for that matter. People used to raise their hands to pray, adults were ordained deacons, and general conference was broadcast by telephone too!

Edited June 3, 2018 by CV75