Church fined by SEC

[OGHoosier]

15 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Many members have shown repeatedly they suck with financials, and this board would be inundated with bitter morons who sunk their life savings into mirroring the church’s investments.

Yeah, even if the church says not to mimic its financial structure, I am downright certain there would still be "Ensign Peak portfoliomaxxing" going on in various quarters.

Edited February 21, 2023 by OGHoosier

[SteveO]

Just now, OGHoosier said:

Yeah, even if the church says not to mimic it's financial structure, I am downright certain there would still be "Ensign Peak portfoliomaxxing" going on in various quarters.

Oh you KNOW it would.  And think of the bitterness that would needlessly cause…

[bsjkki]

20 minutes ago, SteveO said:

An oversight.  I’m more annoyed they had to waste $5 million paying a fine. 
 

I’d rather they not disclose their investments. Many members have shown repeatedly they suck with financials, and this board would be inundated with bitter morons who sunk their life savings into mirroring the church’s investments.

So true. I can see a whole grift based on following the church’s investment plan.

[OGHoosier]

Just now, bsjkki said:

So true. I can see a whole grift based on following the church’s investment plan.

"The Rodney Meldrum Maximal Inspiration Investment Plan".

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You think?  The only reason to do things like this is to hide things.  

Is this being honest in dealing with your fellow men?

Hiding stuff is not equivalent to dishonesty. I hide a lot of stuff because it isn’t anyone else’s business or because I just don’t want to deal with the hassle of people giving me uninformed advice or pity I don’t really want or even just because I don’t want to spend energy on expressing gratitude for their kind wishes even if it makes me feel good in other ways.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Oh you KNOW it would.  And think of the bitterness that would needlessly cause…

I wonder how much bitterness is felt because someone doesn’t invest in something that does well and then later learns the Church did invest?

My guess is this is a damned if they do and damned if they don’t situation.

[cacheman]

11 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Yeah, even if the church says not to mimic its financial structure, I am downright certain there would still be "Ensign Peak portfoliomaxxing" going on in various quarters.

I wonder if there is there historical precedent for this?  I know that I came across something a while back where church investments were put to a vote by the membership.  I believe that was about 100 years ago though.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So true. I can see a whole grift based on following the church’s investment plan.

Now this is a very good reason in my view.  Scam artists already make use of the Church, why give them another way?

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I’m sure the church and leadership would tire at having to explain

Now this I can relate to, lol.

[ksfisher]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

Also 

https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2023/2/21/23602967/church-settles-case-with-sec-over-financial-reporting

I would love if whoever made this decision came clean on the reasoning, apologized and it was made clear (as in shared company policy) that is wasn’t going to happen again….I don’t see that as likely though.  

I believe that it was stated, in one article I read (and I don't remember which), that Ensign Peak corrected the problem in 2019.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

"The Rodney Meldrum Maximal Inspiration Investment Plan".

Sounds about right.

We fall for far dumber investment strategies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Mine

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Yeah, well I’m sure the church and leadership would tire at having to explain for the millionth time why the Lord isn’t personally picking and choosing stocks when a ticker is down 15%, and Brother Jones is freaking out because he gambled with his rent money for the month.  I can see it happening all over the church.  What a mess.

Wait, the church has been publicly filing these in accordance with the law for almost four years now. Do you have one iota of evidence that this has been going on? Where are the “bitter morons” inundating this board with complaints. 
 

If it’s merely your vivid imagination, perhaps you should keep it to yourself? Put up or shut up as they say. 

[SteveO]

31 minutes ago, SteveO said:

An oversight.  

Actually, now that I’m reading…

It’s kind of clear it wasn’t an oversight.  They did indeed get caught. All the LLCs were shell companies, not subsidiaries.  And because they weren’t subsidiaries but still granting full voting rights to the church…that’s what screwed them.  

To be fair I think they probably didn’t think it was overtly illegal and was a way to skate around the edges of legality.  But their intention was to obfuscate their assets from public knowledge 100%.  And as I already pointed out, I think their reasoning was probably justified.  
 

Someone probably needs to lose their job.

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Yeah, well I’m sure the church and leadership would tire at having to explain for the millionth time why the Lord isn’t personally picking and choosing stocks when a ticker is down 15%, and Brother Jones is freaking out because he gambled with his rent money for the month.  I can see it happening all over the church.  What a mess.

Historically we keep doing this even after the First Presidency denounces bad investments peddled via priestcraft and this continues even after the people behind it are excommunicated.

[OGHoosier]

8 minutes ago, cacheman said:

I wonder if there is there historical precedent for this?  I know that I came across something a while back where church investments were put to a vote by the membership.  I believe that was about 100 years ago though.

I don't know one way or another about that, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Kirtland Safety Society looms large in the minds of Church leadership on this question.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Actually, now that I’m reading…

Always best to read first? Comment second?

[SteveO]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Always best to read first? Comment second?

Someone wake up cranky this morning?  

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Always best to read first? Comment second?

On the internet?

BURN THE HERETIC!!!!!!

Edited February 21, 2023 by The Nehor

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I believe that it was stated, in one article I read (and I don't remember which), that Ensign Peak corrected the problem in 2019.

I am not talking about this single behaviour though.  Let’s say the reason the Church wants to keep its investments private is indeed to protect members from making stupid decisions for themselves based on knowing these investments.  There could be other mistakes made in the future for this same reason, but it is a decent reason and so no reason to drop it from the decision making process, just need to take care not to be misled by good intention.    

The Church is currently guarding against error by taking legal advice.  It didn’t work in this case.  Not sure how to reasonably guard against making the error of trusting the wrong legal advice…maybe have a double layer of asking for outside input on decisions?  Thankfully not my stewardship.  

It might be useful if it was shared they no longer employ the person/company that provided this bad advice or if they had an otherwise stellar record and so the Church didn’t want to terminate the relationship, that the individual or company went back for a refresher course and passed with flying colors…

Edited February 21, 2023 by Calm

[Dr. Welby MD]

A bunch of LDS members and anti- and Ex-Mo Sad Sacks on this site.

Read the comments at ZeroHedge. At least there are members and non-members defending the Church.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/sec-charges-mormon-church-concealing-32-billion-portfolio

 

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Wait, the church has been publicly filing these in accordance with the law for almost four years now. Do you have one iota of evidence that this has been going on? Where are the “bitter morons” inundating this board with complaints. 
 

If it’s merely your vivid imagination, perhaps you should keep it to yourself? Put up or shut up as they say. 

So you agree the church has been transparent with their financials?

[Teancum]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m glad to know that they fixed it when they became aware of the problem.  What more can we ask of any organization?

Umm they knew what they were doing. Setting up shell LLCs to limit reporting requirements is not an act of omission.

[Teancum]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hiding stuff is not equivalent to dishonesty.

Yes it is when you know you are trying to hide things you are supposed to legally report.

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I hide a lot of stuff because it isn’t anyone else’s business or because I just don’t want to deal with the hassle of people giving me uninformed advice or pity I don’t really want or even just because I don’t want to spend energy on expressing gratitude for their kind wishes even if it makes me feel good in other ways.

Well when you are subject to security law reporting you have different standards. Thus your analogy totally fails.  Ask @ttribeabout this. He is a forensic accountant and deals with this stuff all the time.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Welby MD said:

A bunch of LDS members and anti- and Ex-Mo Sad Sacks on this site.

Read the comments at ZeroHedge. At least there are members and non-members defending the Church.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/sec-charges-mormon-church-concealing-32-billion-portfolio

 

Why don’t you share some of the wisdom here? Or at least share why that board has higher quality comments.  Is it a collection of tax experts perhaps?

[webbles]

The SEC order gives a pretty good historical rundown on what happened - https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf

Quote

7. By at least 1998, senior management at Ensign Peak was aware of Ensign Peak’s
requirement to file Forms 13F and communicated this requirement to senior leadership of the
Church.
8. To prevent disclosure of the securities portfolio managed by Ensign Peak, the
Church approved Ensign Peak’s plan of using other entities, instead of Ensign Peak, to file Forms
13F. The Church was concerned that disclosure of the assets in the name of Ensign Peak, a known
Church affiliate, would lead to negative consequences in light of the size of the Church’s portfolio.
Ensign Peak did not have the authority to implement this approach without the approval of the
Church’s First Presidency.

 

Quote

11. On March 15, 2005, the Church became aware that the public might link this first
LLC to the Church because the person signing the Forms 13F was listed in a public directory as a
Church employee. To address this issue, on March 21, 2005, the senior leadership of the Church
approved a new reporting entity to be created with “better care being taken to ensure that neither
the ‘Street’ nor the media [could] connect the new entity to Ensign Peak.”

(I'm curious where the quoted section comes from.)

 

Quote

15. In 2015, Ensign Peak became aware that a third party appeared to have connected
the holdings of various LLCs back to Ensign Peak. Ensign Peak brought this issue to the attention
of the Church. The senior leadership of the Church approved Ensign Peak’s recommendation to
“gradually and carefully adapt Ensign Peak’s corporate structure to strengthen the portfolio’s
confidentiality.”
16. On November 6, 2015, the senior leadership of the Church approved Ensign Peak’s
plan for the creation of additional Clone LLCs to further prevent disclosure of the Church’s
holdings managed by Ensign Peak. Ensign Peak formed six additional Clone LLCs, bringing the
total to twelve.