Tribune Article and New Details About The 100 Billion Fund

[Peppermint Patty]

The Salt Lake Tribune is now reporting more details:

 

1.  Only the First Presidency or Prophet has access to info about the EP fund;

 

2.  The EP fund refused Boyd K. Packer’s request for info; and

 

3.  BYU fudged the numbers so they wouldn’t have to disclose its connection to the EP fund.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/12/22/excerpts-show-how-lds/

Edited December 22, 2019 by Peppermint Patty

[canard78]

9 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

The Salt Lake Tribune is now reporting more details:

 

1.  Only the First Presidency or Prophet has access to info about the EP fund;

 

2.  The EP fund refused Boyd K. Packer’s request for info; and

 

3.  BYU fudged the numbers so they wouldn’t have to disclose its connection to the EP fund.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/12/22/excerpts-show-how-lds/

The Trib is blocked on my side of the pond (still scared of GDPR, several years after it came in).

Could you share more detail?

[provoman]

15 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

The Salt Lake Tribune is now reporting more details:

 

1.  Only the First Presidency or Prophet has access to info about the EP fund;

 

2.  The EP fund refused Boyd K. Packer’s request for info; and

 

3.  BYU fudged the numbers so they wouldn’t have to disclose its connection to the EP fund.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/12/22/excerpts-show-how-lds/

This information is all in the 74 page document.

It does not make sense to me to create an article about that has been known from the start. It is a curious thing to do.

Edited December 22, 2019 by provoman

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, provoman said:

This information is all in the 74 page document.

It does not make sense to me to create an article about that has been known from the start. It is a curious thing to do.

The answer is obvious, no? Not everyone will read those 74 pages. And that's plenty of pages for potential content that merit multiple articles focusing on specific parts.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Meadowchik

[provoman]

18 minutes ago, canard78 said:

The Trib is blocked on my side of the pond (still scared of GDPR, several years after it came in).

Could you share more detail?

Do you have access to the 74 page document?

Page 13, footnote W is the reference to President Packer not being told the amount of the fund. In terms of whistleblowing tax fraud, its seems non-relevant.

Page 11, foot note r, for the BYU/Deloitte allegation, also Exhibit O.2.

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by provoman

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Peppermint Patty said:

The Salt Lake Tribune is now reporting more details:

 

1.  Only the First Presidency or Prophet has access to info about the EP fund;

 

2.  The EP fund refused Boyd K. Packer’s request for info; and

 

3.  BYU fudged the numbers so they wouldn’t have to disclose its connection to the EP fund.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/12/22/excerpts-show-how-lds/

More details about allegations, not necessarily actual facts, let’s be clear. 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Peppermint Patty said:

The Salt Lake Tribune is now reporting more details:

 

1.  Only the First Presidency or Prophet has access to info about the EP fund;

 

So if the information access was that limited where did the whistleblower get his info?  

[Calm]

15 hours ago, provoman said:

This information is all in the 74 page document.

It does not make sense to me to create an article about that has been known from the start. It is a curious thing to do.

Most people won’t read it (the 74 page narrative plus exhibits).

Plus spreading it out extends interest in the story and gets them returning for more page views which has them hitting the freebie limit, so encouraging paying for a subscription. 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

The Trib is blocked on my side of the pond (still scared of GDPR, several years after it came in).

Could you share more detail?

Why is it blocked? I don’t know what “GDPR” means. 
 

Are you running up against the Trib paywall? That only means you have to buy a subscription. 

[Calm]

I have European friends who can't access free news articles, so unlikely just paywall.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr.asp

Quote

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a legal framework that sets guidelines for the collection and processing of personal information from individuals who live in the European Union (EU). Since the Regulation applies regardless of where websites are based, it must be heeded by all sites that attract European visitors, even if they don't specifically market goods or services to EU residents.

I assume this means that sites that don't comply with the GDPR get blocked.

[Calm]

15 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

The EP fund refused Boyd K. Packer’s request for info; and

There is no source for this (error, Willes is the source, but it is not explained how or why he would know nor why he would share this info with D Nielsen), which is especially problematic since it has a quote.  Seems unlikely to have been a recorded conversation.  Would there have been any reason that Nielsen would have been present for this?  Or is it an office apocryphal story?

Quote

Boyd K. Packer—whenhe was next in line to succeed then-President of the COP, Thomas S. Monson—came to Mr.Clarke [president of EPA Iirc] wanting to know how much Ensign Peak had amassed and the details of its structure. Mr.Clarke told Mr. Packerthat he could not share such details. Mr. Packer said, “I think I should know. I’m the most senior Apostle and President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and I’m a breath away from being the next Prophet. I think I should be prepared.” Mr. Clarkereaffirmed that he had been instructed not to reveal that informationto Mr. Packer,whowent away perturbed and unsatisfied, as related to the whistleblower by Richard B. Willes, the Head of Fixed Income at EPA at the time.Mr. Packer died before he could join the First Presidency and know the value of EPA.

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

From the 74 page commentary:

Quote

The COP does not draw down on it, and it has no 38mission—no liability stream, no schedule of activities, no plans for use, and no efforts 39to even model the future.

This is incorrect by its own exhibits.  Purpose is equivalent to mission imo and there are 5 purposes listed below.

Posted before, but will repost for ease:

[Calm]

Quote

Exhibit A contains the full financial picture of EPA as of February 2018. 

My question is where the info for Exhibit A came from.  Where did David Nielsen get the numbers?  And how does he know it is the complete picture and he isn't missing fundamental info given Lars Nielsen insists only a few people know the full picture?

page 42 is the spreadsheet.  Everything abbreviated, so I only recognize a few like JPM being JPMorgan.  There is no explanation of what all this means.  Makes me wonder if Lars Nielsen even understands it as he just repeats 'full financial picture'.  Added:  it would appear as if there is more than tithing and tithing investment included here since the last column refers to real estate assets.  Total assets are marked in the header as 105.6 billion, of which 17.1 billion are attributed to ARI and PRI (agricultural and property real estate).  This appears to be yet another Exhibit that appears to  disprove the claim EPA only deals with tithing related funds.  Exhibit C iirc shows income is described as Contributions/Revenues as another example.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

EPA is a 501c3 and 509a3supporting organization.1355It made 0 distributions in the 56first 12 years of its existence. It has made 0 distributions in the past fiveyears. It did 57have two outflows in 22 years. Neither was planned, and neither went to the 58furtherance of EPA’s exempt purpose

(Lars is writing this and making the claims, but I assume he is making them based on what David told him, so "he" is an aggregate of the two of them for now)

How does he know neither was planned?  He wasn't working in 2009 when one was made.  The disbursement qualifies as one of the purposes listed, "backstop taxable entities".  No source for this statement is given.

Quote

Before going into further financial details, this analysis and exposé is not a legal 61conclusion; notwithstanding,it has been informed by considerable legal opinion....

No reference to whether or not this was done by an actual lawyer.

Quote

All of the owned-assets-under-management(OAUM) in EPAare purchased directly from recent tithing surplus or accrue from the capital gains in having invested tithing. They do not come from any other source including any for profit businesses...

No source for this declaration is given.

Quote

he COP was silently bailing out Beneficial Financial Group (BFG) to the tune of $600 million (Exhibit D).

I believe there were two published articles about this bailout in DeseretNews.  Will get links later.

Quote

Instead, EPA paid $600 millionexclusively using tithing dollars,76fpresumably to avoid the publicity and humiliation 77of a failed, church-owned, for-profit life insurance company. Is this outflow to BFG78part of the dedicated charitable purpose for which EPAobtained its tax-exempt 79status? No.

The problem for this statement is two part...first, it ignores the financial cost to the Church of a company going under as well as the cost to its employees and those who were using its services.  Second, backstopping taxable entities is explicitly listed as part of the purpose of EPA.  It is in the new staff orientation packet, so any employee should understand this from the get go.

Makes me wonder just how much involvement David Nielsen had in creating this document.  Wondering if Lars has inflated his brother's role.  Did David really ask him to write an expose or maybe he just asked him for his opinion on what he should do?  I can see Lars taking the dozen or so EPA documents and the spreadsheets of his brother's and then constructing this himself with the alleged quotes of David's from remembered conversations.  Is there any evidence in the video of David's actual participation?

The problem is dividing up what David actually said from the claims Lars made when everything goes through Lars or a newspaper before it gets to us.  And given how Lars is using quotes in at least some fashion that there is a high probability he created, I see little reason to trust his accuracy at this point.

This is up to the third page of the 40 page commentary ( the rest of the 74 pages are exhibits, some have comments on them as well).  This many errors already indicates a very poorly constructed presentation.  If I was David trying to look credible to the IRS, I would be putting as much distance between this and myself as possible.

One more, than duty calls...

Quote

The COP-owned newspaper, Deseret News, reported in 2007: “Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve Inc., the church's real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures.”57It is true that PRI does receive some money from other real-estate ventures, but it also receives most of its money from tithing surplus (Exhibit C). It is truethat PRI did finance some of the City Creek Mall, but most of the financing came from EPA using exclusively never invested tithing dollars ($1.4 billion)

Huh?  Never invested tithing dollars?  The EPA fund according to Lars Nielsen consists of a little over $18 billion tithing surplus which leaves $82 billion of the alleged $100 billion as a result of invested tithing dollars.  (This is assuming he is correct that only tithing surplus is deposited with EPA, which hasn't actually been demonstrated.)

Exhibit C shows no numbers, it is simply a flow chart of the investment structure of the Church apparently.  I don't see how he can claim to know that PRI gets most of its money from EPA when as far as I can tell he has no info on PRI save where EPA would have received or dispensed funds to it.  PRI is involved in more than the City Creek Venture.  The 1.4 billion does appear to cover most of that, but at worst it could have come from the investments of tithing (if the fund never goes below $18 billion, in essence they aren't touching tithing funds, just money made off of them...which can be debated as appropriate or not).  

However, since it hasn't been demonstrated that EPA fund never come from the real estate venture profits, there is no way to determine if EPA got at least 1.4 billion over time from real estate and that part of the fund was designated as possible for putting back into real estate or something else.  I think it might be wise in the future if absolute statements such as money only coming from other real estate ventures to use a separate mechanism for transferring funds than the same mechanism used for tithing surplus investment if that is what happens so if in the future such information is made public, either voluntarily or through leaks, the pathway of funds is clearer.  But given my lack of knowledge of finance, that is probably a pretty useless piece of advice.  

Edited December 22, 2019 by Calm

[Stargazer]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why is it blocked? I don’t know what “GDPR” means. 
 

Are you running up against the Trib paywall? That only means you have to buy a subscription. 

 

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have European friends who can't access free news articles, so unlikely just paywall.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr.asp

I assume this means that sites that don't comply with the GDPR get blocked.

EU regulations require that websites accessed from an EU country conform to the consumer data protection regulations imposed by the EU, or else they are required to block EU sources from getting in.  Many non-EU web companies don't feel like doing this, since it costs them money to comply, and if they don't stand to profit from traffic from the EU, there's no financial incentive to comply. So they block EU addresses so as not to tick the EU regulators off -- because they might get hauled into some legal consequence.  

There are ways to get around this, such as using a VPN to spoof your actual location.  I do this myself so I don't get blocked when I try to access US sites.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

There is no source for this, which is especially problematic since it has a quote.  Seems unlikely to have been a recorded conversation.  Would there have been any reason that Nielsen would have been present for this?  Or is it an office apocryphal story?

Quote

Boyd K. Packer—whenhe was next in line to succeed then-President of the COP, Thomas S. Monson—came to Mr.Clarke [president of EPA Iirc] wanting to know how much Ensign Peak had amassed and the details of its structure. Mr.Clarke told Mr. Packerthat he could not share such details. Mr. Packer said, “I think I should know. I’m the most senior Apostle and President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and I’m a breath away from being the next Prophet. I think I should be prepared.” Mr. Clarkereaffirmed that he had been instructed not to reveal that informationto Mr. Packer,whowent away perturbed and unsatisfied, as related to the whistleblower by Richard B. Willes, the Head of Fixed Income at EPA at the time.Mr. Packer died before he could join the First Presidency and know the value of EPA.

 

So Clarke told Willes who told Nielsen.  Several questions occur to me:  Is that a dependable source sequence?  Did the Lord give a final comeuppance to Pres Packer for daring to demand info on EPAdvisorsr?  Are the financial details so closely held that even the Twelve is not trusted with them?

Edited December 23, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

The Salt Lake Tribune is now reporting more details:

1.  Only the First Presidency or Prophet has access to info about the EP fund;

2.  The EP fund refused Boyd K. Packer’s request for info; and

3.  BYU fudged the numbers so they wouldn’t have to disclose its connection to the EP fund.

...............................

This only confirms the need for transparency.  Don't know whether there was actually any fudging of any kind, but administrators who know that there will be a public audit are unusually honest about not fudging on anything.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

................... It is true that PRI did finance some of the City Creek Mall, but most of the financing came from EPA using exclusively never invested tithing dollars ($1.4 billion).........................

Since the tithing money is fungible (mixed and indistinguishable from other tithing), the question of "never invested tithing dollars" would be a false distinction.  Tithing dollars are indistinguishable from each other.  Any EPA financing with tithing dollars would therefore be generic and legal.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So Clarke told Willes who told Nielsen.  Several questions occur to me:  Is that a dependable source sequence?  Did the Lord give a final comeuppance to Pres Packer for daring to demand info on EPAdvisorsr?  Are the financial details so closely held that even the Twelve is not trusted with them?

Oops, I missed Willes being the alleged source...still that has all the problems you point out plus the fact it is written as a quote, which is highly unlikely that was exactly what was said.  If it was shared as an amusing story, it could well have be embellished...and why would Clarke (.assuming hectold Willes) have shared it except for that reason?

Edited December 23, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

EU regulations require that websites accessed from an EU country conform to the consumer data protection regulations imposed by the EU, or else they are required to block EU sources from getting in.  Many non-EU web companies don't feel like doing this, since it costs them money to comply, and if they don't stand to profit from traffic from the EU, there's no financial incentive to comply. So they block EU addresses so as not to tick the EU regulators off -- because they might get hauled into some legal consequence.  

There are ways to get around this, such as using a VPN to spoof your actual location.  I do this myself so I don't get blocked when I try to access US sites.

I’m starting to understand better the Brexit rationale. 

[canard78]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why is it blocked? I don’t know what “GDPR” means. 
 

Are you running up against the Trib paywall? That only means you have to buy a subscription. 

 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I have European friends who can't access free news articles, so unlikely just paywall.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr.asp

I assume this means that sites that don't comply with the GDPR get blocked.

Scott, Calm, lovely to see you both still actively involved in your passion (this board I mean, not European data protection law 😄 ). Hope you’re both keeping well. 

Calm is quite right, the Trib (as a local paper carrying local ads) hasn’t bothered to update its cookie policy for European readers. 

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

The Salt Lake Tribune is now reporting more details:

 

1.  Only the First Presidency or Prophet has access to info about the EP fund;

 

2.  The EP fund refused Boyd K. Packer’s request for info; and

 

3.  BYU fudged the numbers so they wouldn’t have to disclose its connection to the EP fund.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/12/22/excerpts-show-how-lds/

1. Questionable. The Council of the disposition of the Tithes includes all 15 apostles and the Presiding Bishopric. Why would the investment fund be secret? Is it a subtle dig that the First Presidency does not trust the 12?

2. I have all kinds of doubts about the President Packer story. In the expose direct quotes are given by President Packer but it is incredibly unlikely the whistleblower would have been in any meeting with President Packer if he had shown up out of nowhere and asked for info. Sounds like water cooler gossip and not a credible story. Critics have always had a special hatred of President Packer and he is also conveniently dead and cannot correct any accounts so sticking in a fun story about him being humiliated when he is refused access would warm the cockles of the hearts of many enemies. This goes along quite well with the writer shoving in all those other irrelevant anti talking points into a supposed complaint to the IRS.

3. Also dubious.

I admit no surprise that a writer at the Tribune is assuming the expose is accurate.

[Analytics]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

1. Questionable. The Council of the disposition of the Tithes includes all 15 apostles and the Presiding Bishopric. Why would the investment fund be secret? Is it a subtle dig that the First Presidency does not trust the 12?

Actually, this is undoubtedly true. A few years ago, some documents were leaked, including the Church's Financial Standard #6230, which was signed by the Church's Controller on June 3, 2013. This document shows who in the Church are allowed to see various components of the Church's finances. According to this document, the apostles are allowed to see reports on most income and expense items (e.g. Tithing donations, fast offering donations, project expenditures, operations expenditures, etc.), but "only for departments/areas under their stewardship." The apostles are not authorized to see most of the balance sheet items including Cash, Investment securities, Investment properties, Other assets, Liabilities, or Net assets. They also aren't authorized to see personnel data (salary, etc.).

There are only seven people who are fully authorized to see the books: the three members of the First Presidency, the three members of the Presiding Bishopric, and the Controller. A few others, such as auditors and employees in the auditing department and the Global Service Center are allowed to see things in all categories, but only based on the individual's role and responsibilities.

Financial Standard #6230 is on the Internet at the following location:

https://archive.org/stream/MormonDocumentsLDSChurchInternalLeaks/25-AccessingAndSecuringFinancialInformation#page/n3/mode/2up

It would seem the First Presidency does not trust the 12. My guess is that if the 12 saw how much is socked away for a rainy day, they'd use that to argue that more money be spent on this or that. The First Presidency and/or Presiding Bishopric doesn't want apostles arguing that money be spent on this or that, so the amount is withheld from them.

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

2. I have all kinds of doubts about the President Packer story. In the expose direct quotes are given by President Packer but it is incredibly unlikely the whistleblower would have been in any meeting with President Packer if he had shown up out of nowhere and asked for info. Sounds like water cooler gossip and not a credible story. Critics have always had a special hatred of President Packer and he is also conveniently dead and cannot correct any accounts so sticking in a fun story about him being humiliated when he is refused access would warm the cockles of the hearts of many enemies. This goes along quite well with the writer shoving in all those other irrelevant anti talking points into a supposed complaint to the IRS.

According to the story, the whistle blower heard about the event from Richard B. Willes, the head of fixed income at EPA, who quite plausibly would have been in the meeting with Packer and heard it directly. It is unlikely the whistleblower would say he heard this from Richard B. Willes if it weren't true.

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

3. Also dubious.

Also probably true.

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I admit no surprise that a writer at the Tribune is assuming the expose is accurate.

Assuming it is true or doing good investigative journalism and finding the corroborative evidence?

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is that a dependable source sequence? 

Probably.

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Did the Lord give a final comeuppance to Pres Packer for daring to demand info on EPAdvisorsr? 

Who knows.

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are the financial details so closely held that even the Twelve is not trusted with them?

Yes. See my post above.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

but it is incredibly unlikely the whistleblower would have been in any meeting with President Packer

It specifies the whistleblower was not at the meeting as it has the source as Willes...so not even Clarke, the one who allegedly said it.  I find it unlikely that the Presiding Bishop and his counselors know, but not the Twelve.  If decisions are based on unity, it seems to me likely the Twelve are informed if only for convenience.

Added:  I see Analytics responded already.  I will have to check out the info provided later...likely tomorrow...to see if that changes my mind.  I had forgotten about that claim as I didn't studied it when it came out iirc.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Calm