Church Acquires Commercial Property in Texas

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It's not.  You'll notice from my post that I said while it should be a matter of public record, I am not inclined to research it.

OK. But my question recognized that already. You aren't interested in researching it, but you are satisfied with estimating it, so there is interest in the estimate. Hence my question, "Why is the estimated purchase price of interest to you? "

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, MorningStar said:

What if your father invested in properties for your future financial security and it didn't take him away from his family?  Would you be annoyed if he had more money vs. less money available to you?  What are we losing out on by the church investing?  

Their voice in the monies they are investing.

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would prefer for my church by have more teachers, philosophers, theologians on staff than they do bankers and MBA's who are focused on growing wealth.

As in a paid clergy?  Or are you suggesting that our prophets, seers, and revelators hire private philosophers and professional theologians as personal tutors?  I can imagine the headlines now..."The prophet pays philosophers for spiritual advise!"  "The prophet, taking his cues from the philosophies of men..."  "Follow the prophet...who is following paid philosophers and theologians."  "Where does the prophet turn for spiritual guidance?  God?  Think again!"  "The Mormon prophet, or the Mormon puppet?"  "When revelation comes with a price...literally"

It is not about wealth.  No GA is getting rich off of these investments.  By investing in the future of the church, they are only investing in the future of its people and its long-term welfare mission.  This is inspired by the 4 fold mission of the church.  The more financial secure we are, the better we can fulfill our mission.

Sure we could spend all of our money on today's poor, but then who would pay for tomorrows? 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I was in Dallas, TX recently and think I may have driven past the place the church bought.

I heard recently that the church owns more commercial entities than any other church. I'd like to see the church doing more on the humanitarian side also. I know they do, but could do so much more with the billions.  

 

So it is wrong to invest billions to make more billions to take care of humanity as needed in the future, right?

It would be better to put the money under a mattress until needed, right?  Commercial property with a single tenant like that investment is by far the most prudent thing you can do with money today in market like this one which could go either way instantly.   This is a solid investment- I wish I could afford to make more like this one myself.  I would take them every day of the week.  Free and clear property with a highly dependable tenant paying me like clockwork while I hold the property for appreciation in the future?   Are you kidding me?  Pure gold!

That will be there to be liquidated at any time necessary.  It is literally far far better than a savings account.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

As in a paid clergy?  Or are you suggesting that our prophets, seers, and revelators hire private philosophers and professional theologians as personal tutors?  I can imagine the headlines now..."The prophet pays philosophers for spiritual advise!"  "The prophet, taking his cues from the philosophies of men..."  "Follow the prophet...who is following paid philosophers and theologians."  "Where does the prophet turn for spiritual guidance?  God?  Think again!"  "The Mormon prophet, or the Mormon puppet?"  "When revelation comes with a price...literally"

It is not about wealth.  No GA is getting rich off of these investments.  By investing in the future of the church, they are only investing in the future of its people and its long-term welfare mission.  This is inspired by the 4 fold mission of the church.  The more financial secure we are, the better we can fulfill our mission.

Sure we could spend all of our money on today's poor, but then who would pay for tomorrows? 

As one educated in philosophy, let me tell you philosophy is done.  This is exactly why I left academic philosophy.  I see my job as doing what little I can to clean up their mess, philosophically.  This from the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/was-wittgenstein-right/

 

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I was in Dallas, TX recently and think I may have driven past the place the church bought.

I heard recently that the church owns more commercial entities than any other church. I'd like to see the church doing more on the humanitarian side also. I know they do, but could do so much more with the billions. 

What is a more rational way to do that? Sell all you own and give it to the poor thus helping just a few poor, or investing that money and using the profits to help many more poor?

[stemelbow]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

OK. But my question recognized that already. You aren't interested in researching it, but you are satisfied with estimating it, so there is interest in the estimate. Hence my question, "Why is the estimated purchase price of interest to you? "

I think he indicated he works in the field.  That is likely why he is interested--he knows something about it.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

To be fair, I think the lines clearly blur for the Church on this. 

Is this a "when you don't have the facts or the law on your side, pound the table!" kind of situation? Or do you have actual facts providing actual clarity? You know, do you not, that you just accused the Church of tax fraud?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

OK. But my question recognized that already. You aren't interested in researching it, but you are satisfied with estimating it, so there is interest in the estimate. Hence my question, "Why is the estimated purchase price of interest to you? "

Because I am a commercial real estate investor and broker by trade.  My post just reflected my thoughts on the acquisition.

[mnn727]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm having a difficult time understanding the church's focus on investment and wealth accumulation. The more I see stories of church investments and business dealings, the more it bothers me.

 

Acquiring an outside revenue stream to further the work of the Church bothers you?

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

To be fair, I think the lines clearly blur for the Church on this. 

https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/warrior-spirit/Content?oid=4802182

There was also some involvement from Elder Hamula:

not to get us off topic but that other thread is closed.  perhaps this is part of what has gotten Hamula in trouble.

No, that don't blur at all; in fact, they are very distinct.  An investment organization, particularly one of this nature, has a very clear mandate and its managers have a fiduciary responsibility - i.e. they are personal liable - to fulfill the guidelines for the investment fund.  The fact that the Board of Directors may consist of individuals that also have roles within the LDS Church is irrelevant.  You are forcing a square peg into a round hole due to ignorance of investment management companies and their guidelines.  That is not an insult, but a statement of apparent fact.  No one in the industry would ever make the assumptions you are making.  I was in the industry and it was my career spending a lifetime doing it.  

I will not participate in speculation about Brother Hamula.  

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Because I am a commercial real estate investor and broker by trade.  My post just reflected my thoughts on the acquisition.

I understood that -- so why is the estimated purchase price of interest to you as a professional commercial real estate investor and broker?

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes... as noted in the article I linked:  "It's been purchased by Property Reserve Inc., a real estate and investment arm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Irrelevant to whom?  Obviously it is important to some parties.  As I stated earlier in the thread, it is most likely a cap rate investment in the 5% to 6% range.

I have no doubt.

Then let us not gloss over that significant fact that it is NOT the Church making an acquisition.  

What is the average cap rate on similar properties in this location or in other comparable markets?  This is the kind of speculation that only appeals to the ignorant.  Do you understand role of real estate in the entire investment portfolio? Have you reviewed any of these documents? Do you know the performance consultant for the funds?  Do you know the investment strategy for the Property Reserve?  See, when you don't know jack you lead others in speculation on things not a single one of us has any knowledge nor should we.  

[stemelbow]

47 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Is this a "when you don't have the facts or the law on your side, pound the table!" kind of situation? Or do you have actual facts providing actual clarity? You know, do you not, that you just accused the Church of tax fraud?

I'm not sure if you looked at the quote and read the link I gave.  It suggests that the church organized a fireside of sorts for the saints in New Zealand, in a few areas.  It was less a fireside, or spiritual feeding as those who went were those from very company that Storm Rider referenced.  This shows a blurring of lines, without question.  So I'm not sure what your issue is. 

[mnn727]

I work about 3 miles from this building and the area is growing fast, they've built over 10,000 higher end housing units (mostly condos) in the last 2 years within ~5 miles and more are being built., many many businesses are moving in (Office buildings and manufacturing). This is a Hot Market and investments are rising.

 

Very Smart move, especially with a long term tenet like Raytheon who is a major major employer in the area. This will provide an income stream for the Church far into the future.

Edited August 11, 2017 by mnn727

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure if you looked at the quote and read the link I gave.  It suggests that the church organized a fireside of sorts for the saints in New Zealand, in a few areas.  It was less a fireside, or spiritual feeding as those who went were those from very company that Storm Rider referenced.  This shows a blurring of lines, without question.  So I'm not sure what your issue is. 

So ... you acknowledge it was your opinion it was "clear."

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, that don't blur at all; in fact, they are very distinct.  An investment organization, particularly one of this nature, has a very clear mandate and its managers have a fiduciary responsibility - i.e. they are personal liable - to fulfill the guidelines for the investment fund.  The fact that the Board of Directors may consist of individuals that also have roles within the LDS Church is irrelevant.  You are forcing a square peg into a round hole due to ignorance of investment management companies and their guidelines.  That is not an insult, but a statement of apparent fact.  No one in the industry would ever make the assumptions you are making.  I was in the industry and it was my career spending a lifetime doing it.  

I will not participate in speculation about Brother Hamula.  

Ok if you think it's not blurring the lines to set up a spiritual feeding type meeting and then making it into an effort to promote the development, then you and I are disagreeing about very basic premises here.  I'm not even sure how you object at all, by touting your expertise.  It makes no sense. 

[stemelbow]

Just now, USU78 said:

So ... you acknowledge it was your opinion it was "clear."

Of course.  When I say something is clear, I'm saying so based on my opinion--each and every time--goes without saying.  I don't know how anyone would take it differently. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm having a difficult time understanding the church's focus on investment and wealth accumulation. The more I see stories of church investments and business dealings, the more it bothers me.

It makes me think of the father who neglects his children because he works at the office 12 hours a day to provide for them. Of course the children benefit financially from their workaholic, money-focused father, but church members receive what? Access to church internet resources? Access to ancestry.com? The father may have great intentions and truly wish to support his family and provide them with financial security, but there are opportunity costs.

So the Church will not give me as many hugs?  

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm having a difficult time understanding the church's focus on investment and wealth accumulation. The more I see stories of church investments and business dealings, the more it bothers me.

It makes me think of the father who neglects his children because he works at the office 12 hours a day to provide for them. Of course the children benefit financially from their workaholic, money-focused father, but church members receive what? Access to church internet resources? Access to ancestry.com? The father may have great intentions and truly wish to support his family and provide them with financial security, but there are opportunity costs.

Has the Church neglected you Happy? If so, how so? 

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I understood that -- so why is the estimated purchase price of interest to you as a professional commercial real estate investor and broker?

Sorry, I thought that was clear.  I spend my days involved in the purchase and sale of commercial property.  Anytime I see or read about a commercial property transaction my mind naturally wonders about the numbers behind it.

I also have an interest in following the investments of the Church.  They've built a fascinating portfolio and do a lot of development -- both of those are of interest to me professionally and even from a personal interest perspective.

[mfbukowski]

57 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Because I am a commercial real estate investor and broker by trade.  My post just reflected my thoughts on the acquisition.

And obviously one needs to know both the net income and price paid to determine the cap rate and whether or not it was a good deal.    Knowing the church I can guarantee it was a good deal.  But it's probably on Co-Star.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So it is wrong to invest billions to make more billions to take care of humanity as needed in the future, right?

It would be better to put the money under a mattress until needed, right?  Commercial property with a single tenant like that investment is by far the most prudent thing you can do with money today in market like this one which could go either way instantly.   This is a solid investment- I wish I could afford to make more like this one myself.  I would take them every day of the week.  Free and clear property with a highly dependable tenant paying me like clockwork while I hold the property for appreciation in the future?   Are you kidding me?  Pure gold!

That will be there to be liquidated at any time necessary.  It is literally far far better than a savings account.

I don't see any of Jesus' teachings in this. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm having a difficult time understanding the church's focus on investment and wealth accumulation. The more I see stories of church investments and business dealings, the more it bothers me.

It makes me think of the father who neglects his children because he works at the office 12 hours a day to provide for them. Of course the children benefit financially from their workaholic, money-focused father, but church members receive what? Access to church internet resources? Access to ancestry.com? The father may have great intentions and truly wish to support his family and provide them with financial security, but there are opportunity costs.

A beautiful story!   I am about to cry!  A little projection going there?  

I see a wonderful dad who spends time with his large family because he bought investment real estate and now just collects checks and does church service.  You know, like many general authorities.

I like my bedtime story much better!

Oh wait.  You got me going on a sexist line there.  Make it a Mom instead. 

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course.  When I say something is clear, I'm saying so based on my opinion--each and every time--goes without saying.  I don't know how anyone would take it differently. 

Nothing "of course" about it: when one uses "clear" in such a context others necessarily take it as a declaration of objective clarity obviating any argument. Nice to know you had a nonstandard use in mind.