Church fined by SEC

[SteveO]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sorry, I didn't see your first post.  

From what I am seeing and hearing is that the church's wealth is a problem among some of the membership.  Not a problem for others.  I don't think anyone has any data on what those numbers are.  What has been documented is the exiting of a lot of members because of past hiding of information about the history of the Church and not presenting an honest narrative.  Trust is a factor for a lot of people.  That we know.

I am not ever sure what percentage of the Church even knows how much wealth the Church has. This current exposure of how Church leaders hid that wealth from the members just happened.  How it will affect those in the Church?  Guess we will soon see.  

I know there is a variety of reasons for people leaving the Church.  I think this will only add to those numbers.  

 

Okay, so you just know “anecdotally”.  Doesn’t really tell me how widespread or pervasive the problem is compared to anything else. That’s fine. I think your point is valid that *some* people just want transparency from the church and aren’t actually going to do any investing from that knowledge. There will be people upset either way that the church is investing at all. But I just wish you wouldn’t wave your hand and dismiss the reason because you think it’s self evidently silly.

If I wanted to, I could get DAILY trades of Cathie Woods’ ARK investments.  And a lotta people are angry with her for losing them money, because they did follow her trades.  You know what I get with Ensign Peaks?  I get quarterly reports.  As far as I know, I can’t view their trades in real time.  Because they don’t promote them or send out push alerts advertising their trades.  That doesn’t do a whole lotta good for a retail investor.  It’s like Warren Buffet telling me over 50% of his portfolio is Apple…gee thanks Warren, I’ll go and invest $10K in apple and buy ~100 shares and sit on a 5% yearly return, if I’m lucky in this market.
 

The Church takes great pains not to be a Market Maker, or at least not be viewed as such. And I think they’ll probably continue to report the absolute bare minimum.  So you and seeking understanding’s point about stock mirroring, to me, still remains a hypothetical, because it’s still not an realistic possibility.

 

[Nofear]

Since 2019 the Church has reported an aggregate form. Where was/is the outrage at Ensign Peak Advisors since then?

It seems some of the Church's discomfort at making its wealth and investments "public" knowledge because of an SEC form*, at least on this front, was unfounded.

 

* Just writing that sentence made me giggle a little at the ludicrous supposition of it.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Nofear

[SteveO]

8 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Since 2019 the Church has reported an aggregate form. Where was/is the outrage at Ensign Peak Advisors since then?

It seems some of the Church's discomfort at making its wealth and investments "public" knowledge because of an SEC form*, at least on this front, was unfounded.

 

* Just writing that sentence made me giggle a little at the ludicrous supposition of it.

“wHEre’S tHE oUtRaGe?”

that made me giggle and chortle a bit

[Malc]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It would, I suspect, be followed by an ideal opportunity for an ad hoc and arbitrary rejection of that explanation, and I have every expectation that such an rejection will be presented.

The Church has already presented an explanation for what happened, expressed "regrets" for "mistakes made," has taken remedial measures to ensure compliance with SEC guidelines, and so on.  And yet it's not enough because . . . reasons.

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I totally agree:

If the sole purpose of an apology is to try to satisfy every possible critic, and defuse every possible criticism,
and
you have already decided that that is not possible
then an apology makes no sense.

If you think that a press release  including "regrets" for "mistakes made" and a possible GC apology actually accepting personal responsibility are equivalent
and
you've already published the press release
then an apology makes no sense.

OTOH, if these are your reasons for not actually apologising, you run the risk of having your behaviour dictated by a bunch of perpetual Malc-ontents.

Long-term and short-term, pros and cons, costs and benefits.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Malc said:

I totally agree:

If the sole purpose of an apology is to try to satisfy every possible critic, and defuse every possible criticism,
and
you have already decided that that is not possible
then an apology makes no sense.

If you think that a press release  including "regrets" for "mistakes made" and a possible GC apology actually accepting personal responsibility are equivalent
and
you've already published the press release
then an apology makes no sense.

OTOH, if these are your reasons for not actually apologising, you run the risk of having your behaviour dictated by a bunch of perpetual Malc-ontents.

Long-term and short-term, pros and cons, costs and benefits.

Good points you make, what is the solution?😔

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

In this thread, the issue has been a narrow one, namely, the Church's compliance with complex and arcane reporting requirements relative to the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

The rules really are not all that complex and arcane and certainly not for a multi billion $ managed fund.  And pay experts.  And again your comparison to a private individual disclosing information in nonsensical.  If you are going to play in certain spaces play by the rules or don't play.  Publicly traded companies have to publish audited financial statements. They file quarterly reports with the SEC as well.  NFPs, except for Church's, have to file a Form 990 as well as file public financials if over a certain size.  When I am in that space I will comply.  Till then the comparison in ludicrous.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

In this thread, the issue has been a narrow one, namely, the Church's compliance with complex and arcane reporting requirements relative to the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

The rules really are not all that complex

Right.  That's why "{a}bout 5% of investment funds are fined by the SEC each year."  Because the rules are simple and easy to understand, and investment funds enjoy paying fines to the SEC ($4.19 billion in 2022 alone).  For kicks and giggles, I suppose.

 

Actually, they are complex.

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

and arcane

Again, they are.  Per the PSM article: "The regulatory systems in place by the SEC are very complex—according to one lawyer, 'some of the most complex disclosure regimes found anywhere on the planet.'"

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

and certainly not for a multi billion $ managed fund.  And pay experts. 

Meh.  I've addressed this a number of times.

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And again your comparison to a private individual disclosing information in nonsensical. 

No, not really.  The general principle is there, and it's apt.

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If you are going to play in certain spaces play by the rules or don't play. 

C'mon.  Nobody has suggested the Church is excused from "play{ing} by the rules."  To the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that the Church is subject to the laws of the land, just like everyone else.

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Publicly traded companies have to publish audited financial statements.

Okay.  So what? 

The Church's finances are audited, and the Church has a very good record of complying with its obligations under the law.

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

They file quarterly reports with the SEC as well.  NFPs, except for Church's, have to file a Form 990 as well as file public financials if over a certain size.  When I am in that space I will comply.  Till then the comparison in ludicrous.

I think it works quite well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 27, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Malc said:

I totally agree:

If the sole purpose of an apology is to try to satisfy every possible critic, and defuse every possible criticism, and you have already decided that that is not possible then an apology makes no sense.

The Church has issued a public statement which acknowledges and expresses regret for its mistakes.

23 minutes ago, Malc said:

If you think that a press release  including "regrets" for "mistakes made" and a possible GC apology actually accepting personal responsibility are equivalent and you've already published the press release then an apology makes no sense.

Um, who is it that you think ought to "accept personal responsibility"?

Are you expecting the functionaries at EPA to speak at General Conference?

23 minutes ago, Malc said:

OTOH, if these are your reasons for not actually apologising,

They are not.

23 minutes ago, Malc said:

you run the risk of having your behaviour dictated by a bunch of perpetual Malc-ontents.

Well, we run that risk no matter what we do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Malc]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Good points you make, what is the solution?😔

Thanks, Tacenda.

Within the current structure and culture of the church I see no real solution. I believe that the kind of public acceptance of responsibility that would precede a true apology would likely result in wholesale destruction of testimonies.

For the 'senior leaders' of the church to repeat publicly, in plain language and without weasel-words, what the SEC press release and Order said, would, I believe, be devastating.

And I believe that this is at least part of the reason that the church wants to consider the matter closed. IMO, it's best for the church for the smallest number of people possible to think about the implications of the agreement.

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The rules really are not all that complex and arcane and certainly not for a multi billion $ managed fund.  And pay experts.  And again your comparison to a private individual disclosing information in nonsensical.  If you are going to play in certain spaces play by the rules or don't play.  Publicly traded companies have to publish audited financial statements. They file quarterly reports with the SEC as well.  NFPs, except for Church's, have to file a Form 990 as well as file public financials if over a certain size.  When I am in that space I will comply.  Till then the comparison in ludicrous.

No, the requirement that the person who signs the form must be the person who actually manages the fund is neither complex nor arcane. I understand that some people think that keeping church funds from public knowledge is a good thing, but IMO it doesn't justify filing false information, as was done in this case. Is this a serious example of fraud? Nope, but it certainly wasn't wholly honest. And there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. Frankly, to most people, the idea that an organization's decisions, legal or not, are above criticism or inquiry is a huge red flag, especially the idea that being troubled by such things is a moral or spiritual failure. As I've said many times, I've never understood the need to justify every last thing the church does. Even at my most devout, it never would have occurred to me to simply shut up and ignore wrongdoing just because it was the church doing it. 

We're not talking massive fraud or other criminal activity, just an unnecessary act of minor dishonesty. That some people can't even accept that it was wrong is, well, bizarre. 

[Malc]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church has issued a public statement which acknowledges and expresses regret for its mistakes.

Um, who is it that you think ought to "accept personal responsibility"?

Are you expecting the functionaries at EPA to speak at General Conference?

They are not.

Well, we run that risk no matter what we do.

Thanks,

-Smac

And I've already said that I don't think that a vague, passive statement of that sort is effective. Was it Tricky ****y Nixon who famously said that "Mistakes were made", as if no actual identifiable persons made them?

The SEC has identified the 'senior leaders' as those who made the informed decisions that led to the allegations. They (the First Presidency, and the Presiding Bishopric) are the people who I think ought to "accept personal responsibility". It's a 'the buck stops here' kind of thing. So, no - no need for any EPA functionaries to speak at GC.

Sometimes you have to run risks in order to achieve your goals.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Malc said:

And I've already said that I don't think that a vague, passive statement of that sort is effective.

I don't know what you mean by this.  "Effective" in what sense?  "Effective" at doing what?  "Effective" according to whom?

2 minutes ago, Malc said:

Was it Tricky ****y Nixon who famously said that "Mistakes were made", as if no actual identifiable persons made them?

I don't understand.  Are you saying you want the Church to "name names"?  To specifically identify the EPA employees, accountants, attorneys, etc. who were involved in developing, implementing, and maintaining the reporting processes that were in place from 2003 to 2019?  For what purpose?

2 minutes ago, Malc said:

The SEC has identified the 'senior leaders' as those who made the informed decisions that led to the allegations.

Okay.  So . . . 

2 minutes ago, Malc said:

They (the First Presidency, and the Presiding Bishopric) are the people who I think ought to "accept personal responsibility".

Really?  Why is that?  

2 minutes ago, Malc said:

It's a 'the buck stops here' kind of thing.

Should every leader of every large organization should accept personal responsibility for the errors of the organization? 

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

This thread reminds me of an old song. I may look like a Mormon and in some ways talk like a Mormon, but I’m definitely a foreign body these days. 

https://youtu.be/dbwQ0Wy3ljQ

Edited February 27, 2023 by jkwilliams

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

And his comments - as is often the case - merit some attention:

I thought his comments were rather mundane and not that profound.

 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think this perspective is being missed or overlooked by some.

The leaders of the Church are, in the main, very decent.  The implied - and overt - claims of dishonesty, betrayal of trust, etc., are - in my view - pretty overwrought.

Who said they were not decent.  The main point is they took steps that were not in compliance with the rules to keep their assets hidden from the public view.  They violated the regulations and seemed to know they were violating the regulations.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The principal disconnect for me is A) the total absence of any allegation of fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, "fiscal leverage," etc., and B) the allegations that the Church "lied," was "dishonest," betrayed the trust of its members, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

d

Who here has made this accusation?

[Malc]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1. Malc: "And I've already said that I don't think that a vague, passive statement of that sort is effective."

smac97: I don't know what you mean by this.  "Effective" in what sense?  "Effective" at doing what?  "Effective" according to whom?

---

2. Malc: "Was it Tricky ****y Nixon who famously said that "Mistakes were made", as if no actual identifiable persons made them?"

smac97: I don't understand.  Are you saying you want the Church to "name names"?  To specifically identify the EPA employees, accountants, attorneys, etc. who were involved in developing, implementing, and maintaining the reporting processes that were in place from 2003 to 2019?  For what purpose?

---

3. Malc: "The SEC has identified the 'senior leaders' as those who made the informed decisions that led to the allegations. They (the First Presidency, and the Presiding Bishopric) are the people who I think ought to "accept personal responsibility".

smac97: Really?  Why is that?  

---

4. Malc: "It's a 'the buck stops here' kind of thing."

smac97: Should every leader of every large organization should accept personal responsibility for the errors of the organization? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry - I'm having difficulty figuring out how the quote-in-a-quote feature works on this board. smac97, are you willing to help me out with a few pointers? I'd much appreciate it.

In the meantime, numbered point-by-point:

1. Effective as an apology, because it conceals rather than illuminates responsibilities.

2. Clearly not what you are suggesting. See 3.

3. Because they made the informed decisions on which the allegations were based. Sorry, but I thought that was quite clear.

4. For "errors of the organization", perhaps not. But that is not the sum of all of the allegations made by the SEC.

I think it would be a good thing for a leader of an organization of any size who made informed decisions that led to serious allegations, and then made a settlement on these allegations, would accept responsibility for such. And, yes, that means personal responsibility for decisions that that person made after being informed of the possible consequences. Especially so if the organization set for itself and its adherents a high standard for personal honesty.

I'm failing to see what could be controversial about this idea.

----

Hmmmm, I wonder if I just need to use the QUOTE button on the toolbar for the quote-in-quote.

 

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I thought his comments were rather mundane and not that profound.

I actually thought it was pretty classic DCP. All the usual rhetorical devices were there, and I wasn't disappointed. 

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think your "concerns" are more properly construed as conclusory accusations.

Nevertheless, you asked for "a simple acknowledgement" after having received one.  You find it lacking.

I think you are being unreasonable, in a few ways.

First, I think you are shifting the goalposts.

Second, you are being emotional.  Here I am, having had extensive interactions with you, and yet you claim I "don't want to hear" your concerns.  That is unfair and inaccurate.  And I think that unfair and inaccurate approach is more broadly evidence in your criticisms of the Church.

Third, the Church issued a formal statement which included a fairly extensive Q&A: Church Issues Statement on SEC Settlement

Fourth, the Church included in its statement an explanation of its position relative to the SEC investigation,

• an explanation that EPA "received and relied upon legal counsel regarding how to comply with its reporting obligations while attempting to maintain the privacy of the portfolio," and also
• that EPA - consequent to the SEC's investigation - "adjusted its approach" to complying with reporting requirements,
• that EPA and the Church "worked with the SEC for years to come to this settlement,"
• that the Church affirmed its "commitment to comply with the law,"
• that the Church "regret{s} mistakes made," and
• that the Church "now consider{s} this matter closed."

Fifth, your dissatisfaction with the foregoing statement is a pretty good demonstration of why I find calls/demands for public "apologies" and the like to be unreasonable.  There is no way the Church will ever be able to placate or satisfy such demands.

Here's what you want:

I think this is addressed in the Church stating that it "regret{s} mistakes made."

This is like you saying "I understand that some folks have concerns about I, pogi, skinning puppies for skin and profit."  Would you feel comfortable publishing that to the world?  

I think the Church might actually do well by educating here, rather than knuckling under.  Again, there is no allegation of fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, seeking "fiscal leverage," etc.  The SEC did not require any admission of wrongdoing (which it had the option of requiring as a condition of settlement).

But if it did, I suspect folks like you would become even more dissatisfied.  I think you have indicted the Church, and you want the Church to cop to that.  However, I think your condemnatory characterization of the Church, both as to its conduct which precipitated the SEC investigation, its cooperation and remedial efforts during the investigation, and its press release following the investigation is, in the main, substantively inaccurate, overwrought, unfair, and way beyond your stewardship.

I don't think the Church should tacitly or impliedly cop to serious accusations that are neither established nor even warranted under the circumstances here.

Same as above.  This is loaded language.  Inapproprirate.

More loaded language.

"I, Spencer Macdonald, have concerns about pogi hiding information from me.  I don't know his real name, or his home address, or his email and bank logins, or his SSN.  I don't know his salary, his assets and liabilities.  I feel manipulated by his failure to disclose these things to me."

Would you buy that?

Absent a duty to disclose, characterizing the Church as "hiding" stuff is poppycock.  

What what is the "feel manipulated" nonsense?  Members "feel manipulated" by the Church's failure to properly fill out Column 8 of the "Information Table" appended to the 14F Form promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission?  Nonsense.  None of us knew a thing about any of this prior to last week, and so we cannot accuse the Church of "manipulating" us about it.

And that is worlds apart from the Church's obligation to properly fill out Column 8 of the "Information Table" appended to the 14F Form promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Many things will always be "left unsaid," particularly when there is no duty to disclose, and also when there is good and ample justification for not disclosing.

No.  No.  Again, the Church should not cop to serious accusations that are neither established nor even warranted under the circumstances.

More loaded language.  Emotionalistic nonsense.  Contrived twaddle.  Again, none of use knew anything about any of this until last week.

You can say what you "may have felt," but I don't think you can presume to say that "many" feel this way.

You don't want an explanation.  You want a pound of flesh.  You want the Church to cop to your accusations.  I the the Church's press release, in tandem with the SEC Order, is sufficient, and I do not want the Church to acquiesce to overwrought characterizations of its errors in this matter.

More loaded language.

You are angry.  I get that.  But it is unreasonable for you to take your angry and emotional stance on this story as factual and accurate, and to impose it on the Church, and then to vilify the Church for not kowtowing to your accusatory denunciations.

Meh.  More loaded language.

More loaded language.

I reject your proposal.  I find it roundly unfair, inaccurate, unreasonable, and unwarranted.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

How about you just let @pogi own his concerns.  I know there is hardly anything the church or its leaders could do to shake you up.  Others don't feel the same.  Their "we made a mistake and the matter is now closed" is, IMO a bogus apology and certainly does not show any contrition.  Pogi seems as much of a believer as you.  Turn your attorney mode off. 

[bsjkki]

Summary of SEC violations 2022.

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-206

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Right.  That's why "{a}bout 5% of investment funds are fined by the SEC each year."  Because the rules are simple and easy to understand, and investment funds enjoy paying fines to the SEC ($4.19 billion in 2022 alone).  For kicks and giggles, I suppose.

A multi billion $ has the resources to comply.  But they actually knew they were supposed to comply and took intentional steps to not comply.  That is dishonest.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

No, not really.  The general principle is there, and it's apt.

No it is not but I am sure you will keep repeating it. Ad nauseum.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

C'mon.  Nobody has suggested the Church is excused from "play{ing} by the rules."  To the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that the Church is subject to the laws of the land, just like everyone else.

Okay.  So what? 

The Church's finances are audited, and the Church has a very good record of complying with its obligations under the law.

I think it works quite well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Really?  THe church's finances are audited?  By whom?  Oh wait. Their internal auditors.  🤣🤣

[smac97]

Just now, Teancum said:

How about you just let @pogi own his concerns. 

How about you just let me own mine?

Just now, Teancum said:

I know there is hardly anything the church or its leaders could do to shake you up. 

I'm not sure what "shake you up" means.

None of this touches on the truth claims of the Church.  If that is what you mean by "shake you up," then you are correct.  

Just now, Teancum said:

Others don't feel the same. 

I acknowledge that.

Just now, Teancum said:

Their "we made a mistake and the matter is now closed" is, IMO a bogus apology and certainly does not show any contrition. 

The No True Scotsman fallacy.  And/or moving the goalposts.

Gotta love it.

• A: "I think the Church should apologize!"
• B: "The Church did apologize.  It issues a press release acknowledging that it made "mistakes," that it has fully cooperated with the SEC's investigation, that it reaffirms its commitment to obey the law, and that it has reached a resolution with the SEC which includes remediating EPA's reporting approach."
• A: "No, that's a bogus apology and certainly does not show any contrition."
• B:"'Contrition' is not shown in 'We affirm our commitment to comply with the law, regret mistakes made..."?
• A: "No."
• B: "Why not?  Isn't 'regret' a synonym for 'contrition'?"
• A: "Certainly not."
• B: "Oh.  And isn't 'regret' also a synonym for 'apology'?"
• A: "Certainly not."

Yes, indeedy.  Lots of reasonableness going on in this thread.

Just now, Teancum said:

Pogi seems as much of a believer as you.  Turn your attorney mode off. 

Turn my legal skills off in favor of what, emotions and vitriol?  Over a technical violation with SEC reporting requirements?

Thanks, but no.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How about you just let me own mine?

Ok.  Feel free to keep being rude to your fellow believer.

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what "shake you up" means.

I am sure you do.

 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

None of this touches on the truth claims of the Church.  If that is what you mean by "shake you up," then you are correct.  

I acknowledge that.

The No True Scotsman fallacy.  And/or moving the goalposts.

Meh...

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Gotta love it.

• A: "I think the Church should apologize!"
• B: "The Church did apologize.  It issues a press release acknowledging that it made "mistakes," that it has fully cooperated with the SEC's investigation, that it reaffirms its commitment to obey the law, and that it has reached a resolution with the SEC which includes remediating EPA's reporting approach."
• A: "No, that's a bogus apology and certainly does not show any contrition."
• B:"'Contrition' is not shown in 'We affirm our commitment to comply with the law, regret mistakes made..."?
• A: "No."
• B: "Why not?  Isn't 'regret' a synonym for 'contrition'?"
• A: "Certainly not."
• B: "Oh.  And isn't 'regret' also a synonym for 'apology'?"
• A: "Certainly not."

Yes, indeedy.  Lots of reasonableness going on in this thread.

Turn my legal skills off in favor of what, emotions and vitriol?  Over a technical violation with SEC reporting requirements?

Thanks, but no.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

No just be a decent human to another human who is struggling with this issue.  Maybe that is tough for you?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

A multi billion $ has the resources to comply. 

Facile.  

Again, from the PSM article:

Quote

Does the evidence suggest that Ensign Peak Advisors purposely violated the SEC’s disclosure requirements? Are Ensign Peak Advisors and/or the Church of Jesus Christ culpable for breaking the law?

The SEC’s announcement included nothing of the sort. And these regulations don’t really work that way. As this same lawyer said, “Yes, there are rules that dictate how money managers disclose the existence of funds. But there is no culpability requirement to trigger a penalty or a violation of these rules. Sometimes mistakes are made, and often inadvertently are, but that doesn’t mean there was any intention in the violation and certainly does not mean a crime has been committed. Most penalties imposed by the SEC are the result of unintentional violations.”

The regulatory systems in place by the SEC are very complex—according to one lawyer, “some of the most complex disclosure regimes found anywhere on the planet.” Even very sophisticated financial professionals don’t always fully understand the nuances of those regulations. A large number of fines take place simply because of a misunderstanding of various overlapping rules.  

The Church and EPA obviously hire experts and have to rely upon those experts to give advice regarding compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including SEC regulations. 

I think you seriously fail to grasp the regulatory complexity and arbitrariness inherent in the Administrative State.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But they actually knew they were supposed to comply and took intentional steps to not comply.  That is dishonest.

Patently, wildly, flagrantly false.  From the Church's statement:

Quote

Since 2000, Ensign Peak received and relied upon legal counsel regarding how to comply with its reporting obligations while attempting to maintain the privacy of the portfolio. As a result, Ensign Peak established separate companies (LLCs) that each filed Forms 13F instead of a single aggregated filing. Ensign Peak and the Church believe that all securities required to be reported were included in the filings by the separate companies.

In June 2019, the SEC first expressed concern about Ensign Peak’s reporting approach. Ensign Peak adjusted its approach and began filing a single aggregated report. Since that time, 13 quarterly reports have been filed in full accordance with SEC requirements.

Once more, with feeling: "Ensign Peak received and relied upon legal counsel regarding how to comply with its reporting obligations while attempting to maintain the privacy of the portfolio."

That is . . . pretty standard stuff.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Really?  THe church's finances are audited?  By whom?  Oh wait. Their internal auditors.  🤣🤣

Sigh.  From the April 2022 General Conference:

Quote

Dear Brethren: Directed by revelation, as recorded in section 120 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes—composed of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric—authorizes the expenditure of Church funds. Church entities disburse funds in accordance with approved budgets, policies, and procedures.

Church Auditing, which consists of credentialed professionals and is independent of all other Church departments and entities, has responsibility to perform audits for the purpose of providing reasonable assurance regarding contributions received, expenditures made, and safeguarding of Church assets.

Based upon audits performed, Church Auditing is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2021 have been recorded and administered in accordance with Church-approved budgets, accounting practices, and policies. The Church follows the practices taught to its members of living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving against a time of need.

Respectfully submitted,

Church Auditing Department

Jared B. Larson

Managing Director

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok.  Feel free to keep being rude to your fellow believer.

Disagreement is not rudeness.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No just be a decent human to another human who is struggling with this issue.  Maybe that is tough for you?

Disagreement is not a lack of decency.  If it were, think of where that would put you and your incessant disagreements with the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

2 hours ago, SteveO said:

Okay, so you just know “anecdotally”.  Doesn’t really tell me how widespread or pervasive the problem is compared to anything else. That’s fine. I think your point is valid that *some* people just want transparency from the church and aren’t actually going to do any investing from that knowledge. There will be people upset either way that the church is investing at all. But I just wish you wouldn’t wave your hand and dismiss the reason because you think it’s self evidently silly.

If I wanted to, I could get DAILY trades of Cathie Woods’ ARK investments.  And a lotta people are angry with her for losing them money, because they did follow her trades.  You know what I get with Ensign Peaks?  I get quarterly reports.  As far as I know, I can’t view their trades in real time.  Because they don’t promote them or send out push alerts advertising their trades.  That doesn’t do a whole lotta good for a retail investor.  It’s like Warren Buffet telling me over 50% of his portfolio is Apple…gee thanks Warren, I’ll go and invest $10K in apple and buy ~100 shares and sit on a 5% yearly return, if I’m lucky in this market.
 

The Church takes great pains not to be a Market Maker, or at least not be viewed as such. And I think they’ll probably continue to report the absolute bare minimum.  So you and seeking understanding’s point about stock mirroring, to me, still remains a hypothetical, because it’s still not an realistic possibility.

 

Ok. I can agree with this.  I just see no evidence of mirroring since 2019 as being a big enough issue to use it as an excuse to hide the Church's assets into shell companies.  From what I have read, the reasons for hiding assets have been pretty clearly revealed. 

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Facile.  

Again, from the PSM article:

I think you seriously fail to grasp the regulatory complexity and arbitrariness inherent in the Administrative State.

Patently, wildly, flagrantly false.  From the Church's statement:

Once more, with feeling: "Ensign Peak received and relied upon legal counsel regarding how to comply with its reporting obligations while attempting to maintain the privacy of the portfolio."

That is . . . pretty standard stuff.

Sigh.  From the April 2022 General Conference:

Thanks,

-Smac

My reading of the SEC complaint is that said credentialed auditors told church leaders they were violating SEC regulations and were ignored.