The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[Stargazer]

On 6/4/2018 at 2:08 PM, Analytics said:

According to what it actually says, if tithing revenue goes down by 35%, then expenditures must go down by 35%, too. That being the case, what's the need of the savings? It doesn't say.

It doesn't say, but why is it necessary to say? It seems obvious to me.  If I were saving money for retirement, or for generally for the future, and my income dropped, my expenditures would drop as well.  But there would come a point where I could not drop my expenditures any further due to the hard floor of such things as food, shelter and clothing.  I can economize in many areas, but my mortgagor will not accept any less than their contractual due, I cannot live off lawn clippings (yum!), and in winter I need heat.  Thus I would not dip into my savings unless my income dropped below the point where my income covered my needful expenses.  

On 6/4/2018 at 2:08 PM, Analytics said:

Hoarding money is saving more and more money into perpetuity for no other purpose than to have it.

Yes, I am saving for retirment. Pretty aggresively, as a matter of fact. That isn't horading.

Of course it isn't; that's wise and provident .  Your proposed definition of hoarding seems reasonable, but is that what the Church is doing?  Saving money for no other purpose than to have it?  

On 6/4/2018 at 2:08 PM, Analytics said:

What we're talking about here is $32 billion worth of publically traded stocks. According to IFRS and US GAAP accounting standards, such a portfolio is worth the market value of its components, is it not? IF not, what is it worth?

Yes, GAAP says this.  I'm somewhat familiar with the principles involved (having been in IT in financial affairs for much of my career).  I would not claim to be some kind of financial genius, but in my observation of financial matters, "market value" is a fiction, although a useful one, and we only speak of it in order to be able to make comparisons, predictions and plans.  A commodity or item is only worth the market value until it actually goes on the market, which is when we will discover what it is actually worth -- at the point of sale.  Over the past 10 or 15 years, my house has been worth anywhere from $105K to $325K. Yet the house itself has not changed one whit, except for its age, which is currently 123 years.  

On 6/4/2018 at 2:08 PM, Analytics said:

Fascinating stuff. But that doesn't mean a dollar isn't worth a dollar. Nor does it mean this has any relevency to my point.

Of course a dollar is worth a dollar, but what a dollar is worth is fluid.  Fifty years ago I could buy three gallons of gas for a buck.  Today I'd get considerably less. The value of the gas hasn't really changed, but the dollar has changed a lot.  

On 6/4/2018 at 2:08 PM, Analytics said:

You figured me out, lol. Let's keep the truth about my qualifications our little secret, okay? It would be devastating to my business if my clients found out.

Didn't know what business you're in, lol!  Am I, the retired computer hacker, trying to instruct the CPA on money and finances?  It might be enlightening if you were to say, generally, what your profession is. I was assuming that you were NOT a hedge fund manager.

On 6/4/2018 at 2:08 PM, Analytics said:

CFR that the LDS Church has less disposible wealth than the Gates Foundation.

I think I have to take back this statement: 

"...the LDS Church, which has enormously more physical plant to maintain, and considerably less disposable wealth."

On the face of it, my statement is incorrect, since the Gates Foundation's holdings is (as of 2014) worth less than the $32 billion under discussion, quite apart from the "market value" of 20,000+ rather large meetinghouses, temples, universities, and other facilities belonging to the LDS church.  What I meant by disposable, just for grins, is the wealth can be liquidated in a reasonable short period of time.  If the Church were to dissolve itself, and put all of its properties (aside from the $32 billion) on the market, it would take years to dispose of it all.  The Gates Foundation, however, could be liquidated in just a few weeks, as could the $32 billion portfolio.

Sorry, I misspoke.  

On 6/4/2018 at 2:08 PM, Analytics said:

 

No, you completely misunderstood my point. The LDS Church is in the process of always spending less than it takes in, and continuing to do so into the indefinite future. That is hoarding. I am in the process of spending less than I take in, but only until I retire. That is not hoarding. Gates and Buffett are in the process of giving away the bulk of their entire fortunes. That is the opposite of hoarding and the opposite of what the Church is doing. Being rich and having resources isn't hoarding. Having the institutional goal of perpetually increasing your resources rather than spending them on your mission is.

I don't think I misunderstand your point, just that I disagree with it.  There are only two ways to go, when it comes to income vs outgo. That is either spend more than you take in, or spend less.  Achieving a perfect balance is going to be nearly impossible, although you can get close.  The principle of spending less than you take in is almost always to be preferred.  And any person and organization can take in more than it spends, until it suddenly starts taking in less than it must spend. And then the wealth goes into a negative accumulation.  Then one's "hoarding" doesn't resemble hoarding so much any longer, but looks more like provident preparation.

On 6/4/2018 at 2:08 PM, Analytics said:

 

According to them they are not keeping them. That is why they aren't hoarding.

https://givingpledge.org/Pledger.aspx?id=177

https://givingpledge.org/Pledger.aspx?id=199

 

The first time I remember noticing that Bill Gates was astronomically rich was when he was worth $40 billion.  He's now worth $92 billion.  If he's trying to get rid of it all, he's doing a really bang-up job of it, isn't he? This is not a criticism, as I realize he can give it all away in an eyeblink.  I just note that his wealth has gone on autopilot.

Who are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet?  Human beings whose lifetimes are not precisely known at this moment, but absent a huge medical breakthrough, will end some time before they reach 120 years old.  If they have pledged to divest themselves of their wealth by the time they die, well and good.  If that's what they want, more power to them. But the LDS church is not a human being.  It is a religious organization with 16 million human adherents, and because those humans are both dying and replicating themselves, and additional human beings are joining with it, it has a potentially perpetual life.  It is probably just me, but I believe that a growing, perpetual organization that allows its preparation for future eventualities to fail to keep pace with its growth, especially in good financial times, is being irresponsible.  

 

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You know your protests are about as bright as someone going on a country club website and telling all the people how stupid they are for spending tens of thousands of dollars to belong so they can put a little ball in a cup.

You see the benefits you pay the money that's all there is to it.

You don't see the benefits you don't pay the money it's your own business. And it's my business.

It's just plain rude, and ridiculously unconvincing.

I don't quite follow your country club analogy.  I know many country club members.  The pay their initiation fee and dues. And the club discloses their finances to them.  

Church members  pay tithing and other contributions (including me).  The Church leaders opt to not disclose the their finances to me or you.  

I think your analogy fails. 

 

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

No need for personal insults.

Voluntarily, yes.

My life if "tied to the Church," too.  But it's an entirely voluntary thing.  I could step away whenever I choose.  I just choose not to.

As for my "thoughts" about Church-related issues, I think I have plenty of "serious" ones.  I am persuaded of the truth claims of the LDS Church.  Not because I am forced to, but because I choose to.

The same, I think, can be said of Scott and many, many other observant Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

My comment to Scott was rude.  If he is reading this I apologize. 

[Tacenda]

I guess the church has by far the most money invested in stock out of the churches, even the Catholic church. http://fox13now.com/2018/05/30/mormonleaks-lds-church-controls-billions-of-dollars-in-investment-funds/

[PacMan]

On 5/30/2018 at 7:05 AM, FearlessFixxer said:

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/05/30/mormonleaks-compiles-information-connecting-mormon-church-to-32-billion-of-investments/

Before everyone jumps my bones and tries to tell me I am trying to make the church look bad....

This is about transparency.

This can be seen from a faithful perspective, a negative perspective, and a neutral perspective.

Personally, It matters not to me how much the church has in the stock market, but I think their tithe payers have a right to know.

 

Cheers
 

The moment a tithe payer made a voluntary contribution they relinquished the right to know because it is no long there's.  What you "think" is immaterial.

Study up on Isoroku Yamamoto.  If you waken the sleeping giant, you will, and should, end up in jail.

[randy]

I may find myself in a small minority here...but I have had, and still have...complete and total confidence in the leadership of the Church with respect to financial decisions for the Church.  I guess for me it always boils down to whether I have a testimony of the truthfulness of this gospel which I have embraced (I do), and IF I do...then I can rest easy and assured that "All is well in Zion".   I am reminded at moments such as this of Elder Andersons talk entitled "It's True Isn't It? What else matters?"  That pretty much always sums things up for me.  I guess I'm lucky in that regard.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, randy said:

I may find myself in a small minority here...but I have had, and still have...complete and total confidence in the leadership of the Church with respect to financial decisions for the Church.  I guess for me it always boils down to whether I have a testimony of the truthfulness of this gospel which I have embraced (I do), and IF I do...then I can rest easy and assured that "All is well in Zion".   I am reminded at moments such as this of Elder Andersons talk entitled "It's True Isn't It? What else matters?"  That pretty much always sums things up for me.  I guess I'm lucky in that regard. 

I don't think they're doing anything unethical with it. But have you ever had a bishop make bad decisions? No one at any level of the church is immune. It does not follow from "the gospel is true" that "the money is being used correctly."

[Ahab]

This thread has been going on for a while now.  Does our Mother Church still have 32 billion dollars in the stock market?  Or is it less now? Maybe more? 

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think they're doing anything unethical with it. But have you ever had a bishop make bad decisions? No one at any level of the church is immune. It does not follow from "the gospel is true" that "the money is being used correctly."

It's interesting (and possibly telling) where most people's thoughts seem to go when you ask for financial disclosure from the church.

I think that letting members know the financial dealings of the church should be incredibly unifying and faith affirming.  We are doing great things with these sacred funds - why not let the members in on a bit of that knowledge?  Why not let members understand all the money they are saving (and putting to better use) by cleaning our own meetinghouses?  Why not let members understand all that goes into building and maintaining churches and temples so we all have a better understanding/appreciation?  Why not let missionaries (and their financial supporters) understand that the $400 per month they contribute is just a fraction of the cost?

 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

This thread has been going on for a while now.  Does our Mother Church still have 32 billion dollars in the stock market?  Or is it less now? Maybe more? 

Certainly more... it's been a good week on the stock market.  I have a smidgen less than $32 billion but I still made money in my stock and mutual fund accounts since the time that this leak occurred.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

My comment to Scott was rude.  If he is reading this I apologize. 

No worries. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I don't think they're doing anything unethical with it. But have you ever had a bishop make bad decisions? No one at any level of the church is immune. It does not follow from "the gospel is true" that "the money is being used correctly."

You knowing about the finances of the church wouldn't impact whether or not the money is being used correctly though.  That's why I don't understanding this line of reasoning.  

The church already keeps track of it's money very carefully, and audits all areas to make sure that money is being used in accordance with the rules and bounds that the Brethren have set.   You and I don't need to know all the particulars in order for the church to make sure that the money is being used correctly.  Us not knowing doesn't mean that other people don't know.

It seems like all financial transparency would do is to allow each member to see if the money was being used in a way that they agree with.

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's interesting (and possibly telling) where most people's thoughts seem to go when you ask for financial disclosure from the church.

I think that letting members know the financial dealings of the church should be incredibly unifying and faith affirming.  We are doing great things with these sacred funds - why not let the members in on a bit of that knowledge?  Why not let members understand all the money they are saving (and putting to better use) by cleaning our own meetinghouses?  Why not let members understand all that goes into building and maintaining churches and temples so we all have a better understanding/appreciation?  Why not let missionaries (and their financial supporters) understand that the $400 per month they contribute is just a fraction of the cost?

 

Hmmm… it is interesting and possibly telling when someone uses “should” instead of “would.” I think there is an element of expectation to control in the difference between using the two terms.

Some tend to let their money go with the consecration of it to the Lord, and others have a need to control what happens with sacred funds even though they don’t participate in tithes and offerings (we are all members of the Church whether we give or not). Control is related to trust, and in this case some trust the law of tithing and as a result appreciate the blessings and build faith, while others trust only what they can see and evaluate once the funds are in the Church’s hands before they can appreciate. And unity is built on common faith and trust (just like common consent! ). I do think the matters you mentioned (costs of building and maintenance and missions) are discussed quite often in principle if not precise detail, enough to satisfy those of a less controlling and more trusting and appreciative temperament.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I don't think they're doing anything unethical with it. But have you ever had a bishop make bad decisions? No one at any level of the church is immune. It does not follow from "the gospel is true" that "the money is being used correctly."

I think it does follow from "the gospel is true" that "I will tithe correctly" and "I trust the Lord will make things right." That is how you can pay tithe and not assume accountability for funding the terrible things the occasional  Church leader might do. Or should you cease paying your tithe knowing that in some way it supports the building and operational costs within which someone might get hurt?

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Hmmm… it is interesting and possibly telling when someone uses “should” instead of “would.” I think there is an element of expectation to control in the difference between using the two terms.

Some tend to let their money go with the consecration of it to the Lord, and others have a need to control what happens with sacred funds even though they don’t participate in tithes and offerings (we are all members of the Church whether we give or not). Control is related to trust, and in this case some trust the law of tithing and as a result appreciate the blessings and build faith, while others trust only what they can see and evaluate once the funds are in the Church’s hands before they can appreciate. And unity is built on common faith and trust (just like common consent! ). I do think the matters you mentioned (costs of building and maintenance and missions) are discussed quite often in principle if not precise detail, enough to satisfy those of a less controlling and more trusting and appreciative temperament.

You are making the mistake of thinking that a desire for financial transparency is desiring to know what is happening with one’s donations.  That is not the case. 

I pay to tithing the church. I do that because it is a commandment.  And I do it regardless of what the church does with it.  My obligation to tithe exists even if the Brethren flushed it down the toilet. 

My desire for the church to disclose its finances rests with my desire to understand how we are building the kingdom of God and fulfilling the mission of the church using what the Lord has consecrated to us. 

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You knowing about the finances of the church wouldn't impact whether or not the money is being used correctly though.  That's why I don't understanding this line of reasoning.  

The church already keeps track of it's money very carefully, and audits all areas to make sure that money is being used in accordance with the rules and bounds that the Brethren have set.   You and I don't need to know all the particulars in order for the church to make sure that the money is being used correctly.  Us not knowing doesn't mean that other people don't know.

It seems like all financial transparency would do is to allow each member to see if the money was being used in a way that they agree with.

Perhaps the Brethren could then share the standard to which the auditors are auditing. 

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 I pay to tithing the church. I do that because it is a commandment.  And I do it regardless of what the church does with it.  My obligation to tithe exists even if the Brethren flushed it down the toilet

In some ways, this shows a lot of commitment to an organization and/or those leading it.  I think this can be seen as admirable in may ways.  Very dedicated.

Would you take this principle of unquestioned obedience to an extreme?  If, for example, you learned for a fact that the first presidency was using tithing money to fund their drug addictions, or a myriad of other indulgent sins (use your imagination), would you continue to tithe as you are?  Cut a check to the LDS church?

Or, would you find a more charitable way to us that 10% of your money that you’ve dedicated to obediently giving to serve others?

I realize that this is an extreme hypothetical - and highly unlikely - but I’m trying to better understand the principles of those who give without caring what it’s used for.  It’s a big step for some to have your faith in an organization.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

In some ways, this shows a lot of commitment to an organization and/or those leading it.  I think this can be seen as admirable in may ways.  Very dedicated.

Would you take this principle of unquestioned obedience to an extreme?  If, for example, you learned for a fact that the first presidency was using tithing money to fund their drug addictions, or a myriad of other indulgent sins (use your imagination), would you continue to tithe as you are?  Cut a check to the LDS church?

Or, would you find a more charitable way to us that 10% of your money that you’ve dedicated to obediently giving to serve others?

I realize that this is an extreme hypothetical - and highly unlikely - but I’m trying to better understand the principles of those who give without caring what it’s used for.  It’s a big step for some to have your faith in an organization.

You have caught me in an exaggeration... because you make a good point - if I knew the Brethren were flushing tithing money down the toilet (my example) or using it to fund their drug addictions (your example), I would send my tithes elsewhere. 

[Tacenda]

Seriously, I wish the church would just ease off the expense of their productions. Plus it's bad for the environment. Where do all the clothes go? Or scenary that is built for the Christmas Devotionals? Why didn't they just wear street clothes for the recent Be One celebration? Like the Von Trapp family? 😉 

 

 

[mrmarklin]

37 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Seriously, I wish the church would just ease off the expense of their productions. Plus it's bad for the environment. Where do all the clothes go? Or scenary that is built for the Christmas Devotionals? Why didn't they just wear street clothes for the recent Be One celebration? Like the Von Trapp family? 😉 

 

 

See?

 

Based on the sniping by some of you, if I were the Church, I would never disclose any details. The Bretheren cannot make everyone happy it’s impossible.😳

Someone, I don’t remember whom, griped about the cost of vases in our temples.  Sheesh. 

[Tacenda]

Just now, mrmarklin said:

See?

 

Based on the sniping by some of you, if I were the Church, I would never disclose any details. The Bretheren cannot make everyone happy it’s impossible.😳

Someone, I don’t remember whom, griped about the cost of vases in our temples.  Sheesh. 

That would be me, haha.

I think it's evident the church spends a lot of $. But at least our church leader/leaders don't live extravagant lives, far from it. And the monies go to the people for the most part, such as teaching manuals, auxiliaries, beautiful temples, churches and they do a lot for countries that have disasters befall them. Did you see the wink after one of my comments. I guess I'm pretty bipolar when it comes to deciding if what/how the church spends the $ on is good/bad sometimes. And agree that the church wouldn't be able to make everyone happy.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

In some ways, this shows a lot of commitment to an organization and/or those leading it.  I think this can be seen as admirable in may ways.  Very dedicated.

Would you take this principle of unquestioned obedience to an extreme?  If, for example, you learned for a fact that the first presidency was using tithing money to fund their drug addictions, or a myriad of other indulgent sins (use your imagination), would you continue to tithe as you are?  Cut a check to the LDS church?

Or, would you find a more charitable way to us that 10% of your money that you’ve dedicated to obediently giving to serve others?

I realize that this is an extreme hypothetical - and highly unlikely - but I’m trying to better understand the principles of those who give without caring what it’s used for.  It’s a big step for some to have your faith in an organization.

Give me a break.

You believe in Golden Plates and the Book of Mormon, but suddenly think they are using your money to snort coke with absolutely no evidence ever?

Very strange.

And now you are saying that if there was evidence they were snorting Coke that we would still keep contributing?

Where do you get this stuff?

Where do you get the idea that this is unquestioned obedience?

I have direct evidence that the law of tithing works. You don't have to believe it but I have direct evidence.

[SouthernMo]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

You have caught me in an exaggeration... because you make a good point - if I knew the Brethren were flushing tithing money down the toilet (my example) or using it to fund their drug addictions (your example), I would send my tithes elsewhere. 

A little hyperbole to make a point isn’t always a bad thing! 😊

Point taken - you seem to be willing to put more trust/faith in the leadership of the church than some other contributors to this thread who are asking for more transparency.

[SouthernMo]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Give me a break.

You believe in Golden Plates and the Book of Mormon, but suddenly think they are using your money to snort coke with absolutely no evidence ever?

Very strange.

And now you are saying that if there was evidence they were snorting Coke that we would still keep contributing?

Where do you get this stuff?

 Where do you get the idea that this is unquestioned obedience?

 I have direct evidence that the law of tithing works. You don't have to believe it but I have direct evidence.

Relax, man!  Try and be less emotional, and more pragmatic.  Pragmatism is a great tool for finding truth. I’m just trying to better understand others’ positions who have the ability to put a lot more trust in men than I am.

Re-read my response to @rockpond. I’m very clear that my hypothetical situation is far from plausible.  Hypothetical questions are great mental exercises to test ideas! 😊

[Gray]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think it does follow from "the gospel is true" that "I will tithe correctly" and "I trust the Lord will make things right." That is how you can pay tithe and not assume accountability for funding the terrible things the occasional  Church leader might do. Or should you cease paying your tithe knowing that in some way it supports the building and operational costs within which someone might get hurt? 

I think that's reasonable. I just think we should all have the expectation that any church leader at any level can make errors in any area of their stewardship - including very serious errors.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Gray