Navidad Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 11 minutes ago, smac97 said: When was that? 1995 or 1996? No, it was probably early 2018. His first name was Taylor. I tried messaging you privately, but it wouldn't let me.
Analytics Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes, yes. But what do you mean by it? Are you finding fault with the Church for accumulating money? Living within its means? Spending it on religious / educational / philanthropic / humanitarian endeavors? The whistle blower complaint is for Ensign Peak Advisors not spending it on religious/educational/philanthropic/humanitarian endeavors. He claims that not only have they spent zero dollars and zero cents on religious/educational/philanthropic/humanitarian endeavors in their entire 22 year history as their asset portfolio accumulated to about $125 billion ($100 billion liquid), the First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric has indicated that they have zero plans to ever spend a cent on religious/educational/philanthropic/humanitarian endeavors. Rather, they just add another billion or so dollars to the kitty year in and year out. I suppose that is their prerogative, but I'm sure you can see the legal argument for why Ensign Peak Advisors should have their tax-exempt status revoked. Edited December 17, 2019 by Analytics 1
smac97 Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 Just now, Navidad said: No, it was probably early 2018. His first name was Taylor. I tried messaging you privately, but it wouldn't let me. Yep. That's my dad!
The Nehor Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 Just now, ttribe said: How they've handled themselves is irrelevant if they are telling the truth, though. Not entirely irrelevant, I am still allowed to dislike them even if they are right. Telling the truth about what though? They are alleging illegalities when one of the things they are alleging is not illegal and the other they have almost no information about.
stemelbow Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you itemize, you shift the burden to those who don’t itemize, not to those who do. Well he is wrong to assume I do. I don't. Never have. So it may be that he does? If so, then he too has shifted the burden onto me.
The Nehor Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Analytics said: The whistle blower complaint is for Ensign Peak Advisors not spending it on religious/educational/philanthropic/humanitarian endeavors. He claims that not only have they spent zero dollars and zero cents on religious/educational/philanthropic/humanitarian endeavors in their entire 22 year history as their asset portfolio accumulated to about $125 billion ($100 billion liquid), the First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric has indicated that they have zero plans to ever spend a cent on religious/educational/philanthropic/humanitarian endeavors. Rather, they just add another billion or so dollars to the kitty year in and year out. I suppose that is their prerogative, but I'm sure you can see the legal argument for why Ensign Peak Advisors should have their tax-exempt status revoked. Nope. If they say it is in reserve for a disaster situation or lean times or the Second Coming or whatever that is what the non-profit is for. It is fulfilling its mission. If it were later used to buy a football team or private jets for all the apostles then yes, they should lose their exemption. As is, it is being saved. If someone started a nonprofit organization to stockpile medicine or supplies for a possible pandemic would you judge them a failure if they spent nothing because there was no pandemic that year. You could call it unwise but it is not dishonest or illegal. 3
ttribe Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Not entirely irrelevant, I am still allowed to dislike them even if they are right. Telling the truth about what though? They are alleging illegalities when one of the things they are alleging is not illegal and the other they have almost no information about. Irrelevant as to the evidence. As to your other comments, I didn't know you were a Department of Treasury investigator and had the background and information to make those determinations. My apologies.
Calm Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 18 minutes ago, ttribe said: I (as a CFE) am a strong proponent of protecting whistleblowers I think protecting them is essential and would suggest significant support. Giving them a percentage of what they bring in...feels more like bounty hunting or salvage businesses (not sure of what they are called where finders get to keep a percentage). I get with higher levels of fraud, there may be more risks for a whistleblower...such as ever being hired again, so more incentive is needed, but it feels in essence that some whistleblowers are benefiting from fraud rather than trying to stop it. 1
The Nehor Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Well he is wrong to assume I do. I don't. Never have. So it may be that he does? If so, then he too has shifted the burden onto me.
bluebell Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 23 minutes ago, ttribe said: I never said "all" whistleblowers are altruistic. However, as whistleblowers do (on the whole) have a role in rooting out fraud and other criminal activity, I (as a CFE) am a strong proponent of protecting whistleblowers. Not to mention that dismissing the entirety of the allegations based solely on one's perception of his motives is intellectually lazy and shows no willingness to consider the actual evidence as it becomes available. I don't think anyone has dismissed the claims based solely on the perception of his motives. Is it o.k. to include the perception of his motives as part of the reason that his claim might seem sketchy?
ttribe Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 Just now, Calm said: I think protecting them is essential and would suggest significant support. Giving them a percentage of what they bring in...feels more like bounty hunting or salvage businesses (not sure of what they are called where finders get to keep a percentage). I get with higher levels of fraud, there may be more risks for a whistleblower...such as ever being hired again, so more incentive is needed, but it feels in essence that some whistleblowers are benefiting from fraud rather than trying to stop it. Given what this whistleblower did for a living, I find it very unlikely he would ever be hired in his chosen profession ever again. Investment houses are notoriously unforgiving about letting out their clients' information. 1
Calm Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yep. That's my dad! So cool!
SeekingUnderstanding Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 14 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes, yes. But what do you mean by it? Are you finding fault with the Church for accumulating money? Living within its means? Spending it on religious / educational / philanthropic / humanitarian endeavors? Are you suggesting that the Church is mis-spending its money? If so, on what? Are you suggesting that the Church is not spending enough? If so, what metric do you use? Thanks, -Smac I am saying there is no reason I can fathom to have 100 billion in a money bin collecting interest. The church without ever touching its principle, and while continuing to grow its endowment could easily spend 5 billion a year supporting some worthwhile cause in the world. That it accumulates wealth for the sake of accumulating wealth is immoral. There is no purpose for it. 1
The Nehor Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: Irrelevant as to the evidence. As to your other comments, I didn't know you were a Department of Treasury investigator and had the background and information to make those determinations. My apologies. Apology accepted. 1
smac97 Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, Analytics said: The whistle blower complaint is for Ensign Peak Advisors not spending it on religious/educational/philanthropic/humanitarian endeavors. He claims that not only have they spent zero dollars and zero cents on religious/educational/philanthropic/humanitarian endeavors in their entire 22 year history as their asset portfolio accumulated to about $125 billion ($100 billion liquid). Per the Church's statement: “Claims being currently circulated are based on a narrow perspective and limited information. The church complies with all applicable law governing our donations, investments, taxes and reserves. We continue to welcome the opportunity to work with officials to address questions they may have.” This doesn't sound like spin, or deflection, or evasion. It sounds like the Church is pretty comfortable that it has complied with the law. 7 minutes ago, Analytics said: I suppose that is their prerogative, but I'm sure you can see the legal argument for why Ensign Peak Advisors should have their tax-exempt status revoked. Actually no, I don't see it. What a disgruntled former member of the Church things the Church "should" do with its funds is not a "legal argument." A disgruntled former member of the Church asking the IRS to punish the Church by revoking its tax exemption is not a "legal argument." Thanks, -Smac 4
The Nehor Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said: I am saying there is no reason I can fathom to have 100 billion in a money bin collecting interest. The church without ever touching its principle, and while continuing to grow its endowment could easily spend 5 billion a year supporting some worthwhile cause in the world. That it accumulates wealth for the sake of accumulating wealth is immoral. There is no purpose for it. Uhhhh......lean times ahead, a boom in membership in undeveloped nations, bribing the Illuminati to get a seat at the table, etc. There are all kinds of potential purposes that seers might see. 2
Calm Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: Given what this whistleblower did for a living, I find it very unlikely he would ever be hired in his chosen profession ever again. Investment houses are notoriously unforgiving about letting out their clients' information. I wouldn't hire him even though I have no intent to commit fraud in the future and would applaud an employee who pointed out where I got something wrong in that area, I hope. Most of that gut feeling is attached to how he and his brother are publicizing it outside of the IRS involvement.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Well he is wrong to assume I do. I don't. Never have. So it may be that he does? If so, then he too has shifted the burden onto me. He’s making an analogy to show how fallacious your argument is when you accuse the Church of shifting its tax burden. And are you actually arguing with a straight face that people who itemize their deductions to pay less in taxes are wrong to do so? That one of the zaniest things I’ve heard. Edited December 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
pogi Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Greetings time traveler from the 1800s! The future welcomes you. Yay! 23 TRILLION in debt and a private bank that prints our monopoly money for us that we pay interest on! All I see is unsustainable financial practices and eventual total collapse. The future sucks...just wait. Edited December 17, 2019 by pogi
ttribe Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't think anyone has dismissed the claims based solely on the perception of his motives. Is it o.k. to include the perception of his motives as part of the reason that his claim might seem sketchy? Perhaps I misread alter idem's post to which I was originally responding. In evaluating the evidence dispassionately, the source is irrelevant if it is true. That being said, none of us are the ones with the whole picture; I'll just hope the Department of Treasury evaluates the evidence dispassionateky in making its determinations. I have no such hopes for the public at large 2
smac97 Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 1 minute ago, ttribe said: Perhaps I misread alter idem's post to which I was originally responding. In evaluating the evidence dispassionately, the source is irrelevant if it is true. That being said, none of us are the ones with the whole picture; I'll just hope the Department of Treasury evaluates the evidence dispassionateky in making its determinations. I have no such hopes for the public at large Lars Nielsen was certainly thinking of "the public at large." He's looking for a massive pound of flesh. Thanks, -Smac 1
carbon dioxide Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Analytics said: The whistle blower complaint is for Ensign Peak Advisors not spending it on religious/educational/philanthropic/humanitarian endeavors. He claims that not only have they spent zero dollars and zero cents on religious/educational/philanthropic/humanitarian endeavors in their entire 22 year history as their asset portfolio accumulated to about $125 billion ($100 billion liquid), the First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric has indicated that they have zero plans to ever spend a cent on religious/educational/philanthropic/humanitarian endeavors. Rather, they just add another billion or so dollars to the kitty year in and year out. I My problem is the claim that hard to believe. 100 or 125 billion over 22 years? The people who work in that unit must be some of the best money managers and investors in the world. This is Warren Buffett levels of money managing and investing. Perhaps Ensign might be doing some wrong things but these numbers I have having a hard time with. They just don't seem realistic to me. Edited December 17, 2019 by carbon dioxide
hoo rider Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 58 minutes ago, smac97 said: The Nielsens claimed that Ensign Peak made two payments from the fund that violate federal tax rules. They claimed that in 2009 Ensign Peak bailed out Beneficial Financial Group, a life insurance company owned by the church’s for-profit arm, Deseret Management Corp., which also owns the Deseret News. They alleged that Ensign Peak delivered $600 million to Beneficial in 2009. In fact, Beneficial made full disclosure to the Utah Department of Insurance that Deseret Management Corp., its owner, provided $594 million to Beneficial during the 2008 financial crisis to strengthen its balance sheet. Those public filings are on file with Utah Department of Insurance and were reported in two articles published by the Deseret News at the time. Since 2009, Beneficial has paid dividends of almost a half billion dollars back to Deseret Management Corp., according to public filings at the Utah Department of Insurance. So was this bailout illegal? It seems . . . not. Not sure I follow here. Per the article, Deseret Management Corp made the investment/bail-out to Beneficial Financial. Is Ensign Peak and Deseret Management Corp the same entity (perhaps a DBA)? If not, why is it important to Ensign Peak that Deseret Management made an investment in Beneficial Financial?
bluebell Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, ttribe said: Perhaps I misread alter idem's post to which I was originally responding. In evaluating the evidence dispassionately, the source is irrelevant if it is true. That being said, none of us are the ones with the whole picture; I'll just hope the Department of Treasury evaluates the evidence dispassionateky in making its determinations. I have no such hopes for the public at large I agree with the bolded part. However, before something has been proven true, it's reasonable to use the evidence provided, including the source, when trying to gauge the credibility of the accusations. 1
Amulek Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 19 minutes ago, Analytics said: David Nielson was a senior portfolio manager for Ensign Peak Advisors from September 2010 to September 2019; 10 years. Um...September 2010 to September 2019 = 9 years. Not 10. He was there for a good while though. That much is true. Of course, when he put in his notice and indicated he could stay on for another month, it didn't take them more than two business days to decide they would (as we sometimes euphemistically say) release his talent to the competition.
Recommended Posts