Tacenda Posted March 12, 2021 Posted March 12, 2021 Just now, webbles said: How long ago was it that church members were asked to help fund the chapels? I think it was sometime in the 70s or 80s. How long has it been since the mission cost for single missionaries was standardized? 50s? 60s? 70s? I honestly don't know the answers to those questions but based on my guesses, it looks like the church is slowly reducing the financial requirements on things. Chapels are now built without any of the members needing to donate funds specifically for them. Same with temples. Single missionaries now have a standardized cost that is only affected by their country of origin, not their destination. I would expect that in the future, costs for senior missions will be standardized as well. Hopefully the seniors will get a break! I am old enough to remember being called in by the bishop and my husband and I being asked to donate for the ward building fund, we hadn't been married for long, but it was a big chunk of change, and we paid it.
Tacenda Posted March 12, 2021 Posted March 12, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, webbles said: As mentioned, they would need $200 billion in total investments. That includes land. We know about the $100 billion investment fund. Do they have another $100 billion in land that can be sold? Pretty darn sure it could surpass 100 billion with how much land has increased. And the worth of the businesses they own and the developments on the land such as housing, Florida for one if they start it up for 500,000 people by 2080. And another thing, I believe the church is saving the money to pay out on lawsuits. Which is sad in a lot of ways, why aren't the perps themselves sued. But that's another topic. All in all, maybe the church will save the USA one day, so that would be a good thing because I'm a US citizen, but sadly, the rest of the world may not get the help. But that's not the church's fault. Edited March 12, 2021 by Tacenda
webbles Posted March 12, 2021 Posted March 12, 2021 58 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Pretty darn sure it could surpass 100 billion with how much land has increased. And the worth of the businesses they own and the developments on the land such as housing, Florida for one if they start it up for 500,000 people by 2080. $100 billion in land is a LOT of land. The Deseret Cattle & Citrus Ranch in Florida had 312,000 acres in 1997 and was valued less than $1 billion (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,138108,00.html). So, let's assume that from 97 to now, land prices increased 10% a year (which is insane considering the two recessions we went through during that time) and let's assume that the land was worth $1,000,000. After 24 years of 10% growth per year, it would now be worth $9 billion. To have $100 billion in land, they would need to have more than 3 million acres. That's a lot of land. It's about as large as the state of Connecticut which has 3.5 million acres. 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: And another thing, I believe the church is saving the money to pay out on lawsuits. Which is sad in a lot of ways, why aren't the perps themselves sued. But that's another topic. I highly doubt this money is for lawsuits. The church has been sued for many years and so it is most likely already budgeted in every year. 1
Stargazer Posted March 12, 2021 Posted March 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Pretty darn sure it could surpass 100 billion with how much land has increased. And the worth of the businesses they own and the developments on the land such as housing, Florida for one if they start it up for 500,000 people by 2080. And another thing, I believe the church is saving the money to pay out on lawsuits. Which is sad in a lot of ways, why aren't the perps themselves sued. But that's another topic. All in all, maybe the church will save the USA one day, so that would be a good thing because I'm a US citizen, but sadly, the rest of the world may not get the help. But that's not the church's fault. With strong enough inflation the 100 billion could become 200 billion in 10 years, with no extra effort. Of course, that would make money worth half as much as it does now, so it wouldn't be an improvement... 1
Calm Posted March 12, 2021 Posted March 12, 2021 (edited) Quote Nowadays FO funds go immediately to the general church, along with tithing. This probably depends on the nation’s laws. Canada sends excess money to BYU because of laws restricting donating to foreign charities, an exception being educational institutions that have a certain number of Canadian students. Perhaps excess FO funds go into a national FO account in those cases? added: I went back and reread his post and Stargazer gives more details next paragraph. I claim brain fog as my excuse for missing that. Edited March 12, 2021 by Calm
Calm Posted March 12, 2021 Posted March 12, 2021 2 hours ago, webbles said: How long has it been since the mission cost for single missionaries was standardized? 50s? 60s? 70s? My youngest brother cost $40 a month, cheapest mission at the time (my dad said he must have been living right as I gathered my older brother’s was quite a bit more). It changed shortly after. He would have gone after I had my first so around 85 iirc.
JustAnAustralian Posted March 12, 2021 Posted March 12, 2021 6 hours ago, Teancum said: It is still an asset and has value You can't buy food at a shop using a share in zoom communications.
rongo Posted March 12, 2021 Posted March 12, 2021 2 hours ago, Calm said: Perhaps excess FO funds go into a national FO account in those cases? added: I went back and reread his post and Stargazer gives more details next paragraph. I claim brain fog as my excuse for missing that. Bishop Burton (presiding bishop) explained to us at a stake conference meeting of just bishops that the Church only has one checking account. All tithing, fast offerings, donations, etc. go into that one checking account. This was in answer to my question about shortages in fast offering accounts, money transfers, etc. He said there are no transfers --- there is just the one account. The internal categories are simply so that people can keep track of certain things (especially expenditures). This is how they knew, for instance, that North America is a net fast offering consumer while Africa is a net fast offering provider (more donations than expenditures), but overall, there is no "deficit" anywhere because the annual income is so massive. I'm not sure how it works internationally, but I'm sure it all gets funneled into the Church's account, with exchange rates and fees. Elder Anderson has said that one of many obstacles for the Church in China is that the government doesn't want any donations leaving the country.
JustAnAustralian Posted March 12, 2021 Posted March 12, 2021 31 minutes ago, rongo said: I'm not sure how it works internationally, but I'm sure it all gets funneled into the Church's account, with exchange rates and fees. Here at least, each ward has its own local bank account top deposit tithing into (for those few people that still pay using the envelopes). We would previously pay reimbursements (by cheque) from these local accounts also. However all reimbursements here are now electronic, so the need for the local account is fast diminishing. I would assume that it gets swept into a country level account at some stage to make managing reimbursements easier, but I'm not sure how often this happens. 1
rongo Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 29 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said: Here at least, each ward has its own local bank account top deposit tithing into (for those few people that still pay using the envelopes). We would previously pay reimbursements (by cheque) from these local accounts also. However all reimbursements here are now electronic, so the need for the local account is fast diminishing. I would assume that it gets swept into a country level account at some stage to make managing reimbursements easier, but I'm not sure how often this happens. I think that the local ones in the States have their local ones as well. Ours is Wells Fargo right now, but it used to be a local small bank when our town only had 2000 people in it twenty years ago. The deposits into the local banks all get swept up into the Church's account, though, and the Church has full access to these accounts. In Utah, it was always through Zion's Bank (no surprise there).
Rain Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 7 hours ago, webbles said: How long ago was it that church members were asked to help fund the chapels? I think it was sometime in the 70s or 80s. How long has it been since the mission cost for single missionaries was standardized? 50s? 60s? 70s? 90s or later. I came home in 1990 and it wasn't standardized yet. 7 hours ago, webbles said: I honestly don't know the answers to those questions but based on my guesses, it looks like the church is slowly reducing the financial requirements on things. Chapels are now built without any of the members needing to donate funds specifically for them. Same with temples. Single missionaries now have a standardized cost that is only affected by their country of origin, not their destination. I would expect that in the future, costs for senior missions will be standardized as well. 1
Rain Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 (edited) From what I understand with the couples paperwork they put in their budget. If that is the case and their missions cost more than they can handle then they either didn't figure the right amount of their budget or the church is mistaken on how much the area should cost. I know it worked fine for my in-laws, but she was really good with her budget and they were not inclined to spend on unnecessary things. I suspect that most couples who have a hard time with having enough either spend on what is more than a need or overestimate on how much they can safely spend. Edited March 13, 2021 by Rain 1
Calm Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 29 minutes ago, Rain said: 90s or later. I came home in 1990 and it wasn't standardized yet. Wiki says 1990 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_missionary 1
Rain Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 9 minutes ago, Calm said: Wiki says 1990 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_missionary Interesting. I came home in September and knew nothing of it. I wonder if they just said it would be happening soon (like they said with the cost increase before 2020, or if they started it after I left or rolled it out and hadn't hit my mission yet.
webbles Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 11 hours ago, Tacenda said: Hopefully the seniors will get a break! Calm linked to a wiki article that then took me to a Salt Lake Tribune article from 2011 about changes to Senior Missionary service: https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=51975755&itype=CMSID. It looks like back in 2011, the church started to cap the amount that Senior Missionaries had to pay: Quote The church's announcement also included another significant change: how much senior missionaries must pay for overseas housing. Instead of footing the entire bill, senior couples now will have their lodging expenses capped at $1,400 a month, no matter where they serve. That limit, church officials say, is intended to free couples from cost constraints and allow for more predictable expenses. 1
Tacenda Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 https://seniormissionary.churchofjesuschrist.org/srsite/ft/search?lang=eng Take a look at these jobs that missionaries pay to do. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/ldsorg/callings/missionary/senior-missionary/senioropportunities.pdf On page 14 they list the cost of the missions. But it also mentions the cap of $1,400. I'm confused because in the list they run up to almost 4,000 for some places. So how does that work I wonder. Not being snarky, just curious how it would work. Housing is capped off to be 1,400 but what about the lists of the missions being far more? It's late I guess.
JustAnAustralian Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 20 minutes ago, Tacenda said: just curious how it would work. Living costs vary a lot. Looking at your first link: Looking at "mission health advisor" (english language speaking) Czech/Slovak USD $2,390 / Month per Couple HOUSING USD $1,068 PERSONAL USD $365 TRANSPORT USD $249 INSURANCE USD $708 Florida USD $3,919 / Month per Couple HOUSING USD $1,400 PERSONAL USD $1,360 TRANSPORT USD $451 INSURANCE USD $708 Straight up you're looking at $1000/month difference in "personal" costs, a couple of hundred in transport costs, and around 350 in housing costs. 1
Teancum Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 19 hours ago, webbles said: I don't know if you've read up on the 4% rule but it has been shown that to survive for at least 30 years, you can only live on 4% of your principal at the beginning of your retirement. See https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/four-percent-rule.asp and https://www.thebalance.com/dont-confuse-these-two-retirement-rules-of-thumb-453920 for some quick takes on it. And, per those articles, some people worry that 4% is too risky. That's why some are talking about reducing it to 3.5% or even 3%. So, the church can't live on the earnings alone and never touch the principal. $100 billion wouldn't last 30 years if we keep having recessions like we had in the last 20 years. They would need to shrink the costs from $6 billion to $3-4 billion if they want to live on the earnings alone. I know what the 4% rule is. You do it if you want to die with your entire retirement account intact. If I have a million the assumption is I will just live off the earnings and not touch the principle. That is a safe way to do it of course. But there is nothing wrong with tapping into principle as long as you are cautious. That is unless you want to leave your retirement principle to your children. And you assume that the church funds will only earn 4% on average per year. That is likely a faulty assumption. The church could likely fund their operations into perpetuity with this amount. And that assumes this is all they have which is likely not the case
Teancum Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 15 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said: You can't buy food at a shop using a share in zoom communications. No kidding. But the Zoom stock is still an asset that is easily liquidated.
Teancum Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 (edited) 16 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said: You can't buy food at a shop using a share in zoom communications. By the way is your Super Annuation Fund all in cash? If not will you be able to live on it when you retire? Does it have value? Edited March 13, 2021 by Teancum
webbles Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 1 hour ago, Teancum said: I know what the 4% rule is. You do it if you want to die with your entire retirement account intact. If I have a million the assumption is I will just live off the earnings and not touch the principle. That is a safe way to do it of course. But there is nothing wrong with tapping into principle as long as you are cautious. That is unless you want to leave your retirement principle to your children. And you assume that the church funds will only earn 4% on average per year. That is likely a faulty assumption. The church could likely fund their operations into perpetuity with this amount. And that assumes this is all they have which is likely not the case No, the 4% isn't so that you can keep your entire retirement account intact. In some of the scenarios, you'll definitely tap into the principle. In the worse case scenario, you will die penniless after 30 years. The best case scenario, you'll have more than you retired with. Here's the link to the trinity study: https://www.aaii.com/files/pdf/6794_retirement-savings-choosing-a-withdrawal-rate-that-is-sustainable.pdf If you look at table 3, it shows the inflation-adjusted success rate. At 4% for a 50/50 split, 30 years has a 95% success rate. That means that 5% of the time, you'll be penniless before 30 years is up. If you withdraw 5%, the success rate goes down to 76%. If you withdraw 6%, it is 51%. Even if they did 100/0 split (no bonds which would be crazy), 4% is still 95%, 5% is 85%, and 6% is 68%. If they only have this $100 billion, they would need to do a 6% withdrawal. The church has a 49-32% of being completely penniless in 30 years with that withdrawal. That's horrible odds. 1
Teancum Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 13 minutes ago, webbles said: No, the 4% isn't so that you can keep your entire retirement account intact. In some of the scenarios, you'll definitely tap into the principle. In the worse case scenario, you will die penniless after 30 years. The best case scenario, you'll have more than you retired with. Here's the link to the trinity study: https://www.aaii.com/files/pdf/6794_retirement-savings-choosing-a-withdrawal-rate-that-is-sustainable.pdf If you look at table 3, it shows the inflation-adjusted success rate. At 4% for a 50/50 split, 30 years has a 95% success rate. That means that 5% of the time, you'll be penniless before 30 years is up. If you withdraw 5%, the success rate goes down to 76%. If you withdraw 6%, it is 51%. Even if they did 100/0 split (no bonds which would be crazy), 4% is still 95%, 5% is 85%, and 6% is 68%. If they only have this $100 billion, they would need to do a 6% withdrawal. The church has a 49-32% of being completely penniless in 30 years with that withdrawal. That's horrible odds. What is the average rate of return for the stock market over 100 years? If you are averaging only 4% you need a better money manager.
Tacenda Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 9 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said: Living costs vary a lot. Looking at your first link: Looking at "mission health advisor" (english language speaking) Czech/Slovak USD $2,390 / Month per Couple HOUSING USD $1,068 PERSONAL USD $365 TRANSPORT USD $249 INSURANCE USD $708 Florida USD $3,919 / Month per Couple HOUSING USD $1,400 PERSONAL USD $1,360 TRANSPORT USD $451 INSURANCE USD $708 Straight up you're looking at $1000/month difference in "personal" costs, a couple of hundred in transport costs, and around 350 in housing costs. I get it, thanks!!
webbles Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Teancum said: What is the average rate of return for the stock market over 100 years? If you are averaging only 4% you need a better money manager. That study used each 30 year period between 1926 and 1995 (41 different periods). They used historical data. The numbers came out as I described above. You have to take into account inflation, depressions, recessions, etc. People have also done updated trinity studies. https://thepoorswiss.com/updated-trinity-study/ shows the rate of success using historical data between 1871 and 2020 and also has charts showing with more years. If you look at the last chart (Updated Trinity Results - 50 years - 1871 - 2020 - Inflation), a 6% withdrawal rate (which is what the church would have to do) has a success rate of less than 50% for all the stock/bond splits in the study. Edited to add: That updated study also has the code and data available if you want to check it. It can be found at https://github.com/thepoorswiss/swr-calculator Edited March 13, 2021 by webbles 1
JustAnAustralian Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, Teancum said: But the Zoom stock is still an asset that is easily liquidated. Yes, but that's the point. You can't use the value until you lose the item. 5 hours ago, Teancum said: If not will you be able to live on it when you retire? Does it have value? Superannuation has value in the same way that anything can have value. People are willing to pay for the stuff that you have. But unless you are being payed from a cash reserve that the superannuation company has, then it would require liquidation at some point and thus a reduction in the investment to realise the increase in investment value. Edited March 13, 2021 by JustAnAustralian
Recommended Posts