Church fined by SEC

[T-Shirt]

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

They violated the regulations and seemed to know they were violating the regulations.

But did they know? I don't think there is any way to know this. This whole thing started with President Hinckley. His counselors were Elder Monson and Elder Faust. It is apparent that, at least, President Hinckley asked if there was a way for them to hide their full portfolio from the public and legal advice was given. That's about where what we know ends. Lawyers proposed setting up multiple LLCs for reporting purposes, which is not improper or illegal. It is apparent that, at least, President Hinckley okayed the plan. However, what evidence is there that President Hinckley, or any other senior leader knew that on the forms filed by each LLC, under the section, "Investment discretion", those preparing the forms typed in "Sole" rather than one of the two other options? And, in the remote possibility that they even knew how the forms were being filled out, would they even have known what it means or if it was against the rules? Furthermore, what evidence is there that President Nelson, some twenty years later, had any idea, until 2019, that anything was wrong with how things were being reported?

Edited February 27 by T-Shirt

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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

To some degree I have defended the Church's Internal Audit Department in the past. I think it's clear to me now that their concerns can and will be overridden if their opinions are inconvenient. I believe an outside auditor would be more effective in preventing this kind of thing going forward. Assuming the SEC's statement of events is accurate, and I have no credible reason not to believe it's accurate, I believe I would have found myself with a serious ethical dilemma had I been in their shoes when these decisions were being made.

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How about you just let me own mine?

Do you realize that you are dealing with a human being who is a believer in your faith who has specifically said he is struggling with this situation and your response has been to attack his posts and statements of concern? You are plainly putting loyalty to the Brethren above the needs of a struggling member. Do you consider that effective apologetics?

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Malc said:

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.

I still don't understand.  The Church is taking responsibility for, and apologizing, and has taken steps to rectify the things that arose from, its "mistakes."

29 minutes ago, Malc said:

Quote

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?

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

Quote

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?  

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

Who is "they?"  What "informed decisions" are you referencing here?

EPA "received and relied upon legal counsel regarding how to comply with its reporting obligations while attempting to maintain the privacy of the portfolio."  Are you suggesting that this "they" (by which I assume you mean the First Presidency) knew that the reporting approach used by EPA was problematic?  That they nevertheless made "informed decisions" to proceed with that problematic approach?

29 minutes ago, Malc said:

Quote

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? 

4. For "errors of the organization", perhaps not.

Are you suggesting that EPA's failure to comply with SEC guidelines regarding Column 8 of the "Information Table" appended to EPA's 13F reports was . . . not an organizational error?  What are you saying here?

29 minutes ago, Malc said:

But that is not the sum of all of the allegations made by the SEC.

If you can show me the part of the SEC Order that implicates deliberate and calculated malfeasance ("informed decisions," as you put it) by the First Presidency, please do so.

29 minutes ago, Malc said:

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.

First, the Church had "accept{ed} responsibility for such."

Second, your previous statement spoke of "personal responsibility."

29 minutes ago, Malc said:

And, yes, that means personal responsibility for decisions that that person made after being informed of the possible consequences.

This "informed of the possible consequences" think being the 2014 audit, correct?  The one in which the CAD did not recommend any changes to the church’s LLC structure?

29 minutes ago, Malc said:

Especially so if the organization set for itself and its adherents a high standard for personal honesty.

Sigh.  

Making an honest mistake (while relying on legal advice, no less) in complying with the regulatory complexities of the Administrative State does not implicate "personal honesty."

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

But did they know? I don't think there is any way to know this. This whole thing started with President Hinckley. His counselors were Elder Monson and Elder Faust. It is apparent that, at least, President Hinckley asked if there was a way for them to hide their full portfolio from the public and legal advice was given. That's about where what we know ends. Lawyers proposed setting up multiple LLCs for reporting purposes, which is not improper or illegal. It is apparent that, at least, President Hinckley okayed the plan. However, what evidence is there that President Hinckley, or any other senior leader knew that on the forms filed by each LLC, under the section, "Investment discretion", Ensign Peak typed in "Sole" rather than one of the two other options? And, in the remote possibility that they even knew how the forms were being filled out, would they even have known what it means or if it was against the rules? Furthermore, what evidence is there that President Nelson, some twenty years later, had any idea, until 2019, that anything was wrong with how things were being reported?

Do you think decisions makers didn't know that having employees who had no idea what they were doing sign false documents was inherently dishonest?

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Making an honest mistake (while relying on legal advice, no less) in complying with the regulatory complexities of the Administrative State does not implicate "personal honesty.”

It does if the auditors were ignored. 

[Calm]

5 hours 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.

 

I suspect that there would be a rejection by many, but I also suspect many faithful members would feel better about the situation.  I personally think it would be a net positive.  I don’t need an apology myself, but even so I think I would appreciate hearing it for the legal and maybe even moral (because I believe the choice to hide the wealth was made for several good reasons and the deceptions do not appear to have hurt anyone), but still deceptive practices that weren’t absolutely necessary and definitely for what I believe (if description is accurate) was a very difficult position business managers were put in by being told to sign stuff they hadn’t been able to read.

Edited February 27 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

EPA "received and relied upon legal counsel regarding how to comply with its reporting obligations while attempting to maintain the privacy of the portfolio."  Are you suggesting that this "they" (by which I assume you mean the First Presidency) knew that the reporting approach used by EPA was problematic?  That they nevertheless made "informed decisions" to proceed with that problematic approach?

For my part I think it very likely that the FP and presiding bishopric were informed that there was compliance risk in structuring their reporting the way they did. The SEC report supports this (including the mention of internal audits), and the church’s statement does not in anyway address it, let alone deny it. 

[why me]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Do you think decisions makers didn't know that having employees who had no idea what they were doing sign false documents was inherently dishonest?

Who knows? I think that those involved may have be quite innocent of it all. Or perhaps they screwed up a little. We need to remember that people do not work forever for one corporation or one employer. Workers move around from job to job and I am sure that the LDS church would know this. And they would have known that they could be ratted out at any moment. So, why bother with it at all. The church was fined a small amount of money. However if they instructed someone to do something wrong and this person became a whistle blower, the church should be fined 5 hundred million for stupidity.

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Do you think decisions makers didn't know that having employees who had no idea what they were doing sign false documents was inherently dishonest?

I don't know, maybe. What we know of this is very little. I don't know what legal direction was given or by whom. Mangers do not fill out IRS or SEC forms, they just sign them, that is their job. If they hired managers to sign forms, then having them sign forms is not necessarily dishonest. Whoever filled out the forms, may or may not have known that the information on the forms was not fully accurate, it depends on who fed them the information. It is entirely possible that those at Ensign Peak who hired the managers had no idea that the forms contained errors. Somebody obviously knew that the word, "Sole" entered into the forms was not entirely accurate. How widespread this knowledge was is not entirely clear nor is it clear that whoever it was that gave the legal advice to do this was making a blatant attempt to break the rules or if they just felt it was a mere technicality that, in the long run, didn't matter all that much as all investment information was still being reported.

Regardless, in all of this, people are saying the "Church" has been dishonest and I am saying that Ensign Peak and attorneys are not the Church. I would be surprised if President Hinckley had any idea of all of the bureaucratic stuff going on behind the scenes and would be even more surprised if President Nelson had any knowledge that this had been going on for some twenty years before he came on the scene. Is it possible, sure. But I think to charge the "Church" with lying is premature and likely inaccurate and I seriously question whether any senior leader ever knew that anything was being done against the rules.

Edited February 27 by T-Shirt

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, T-Shirt said:

I don't know, maybe. What we know of this is very little. I don't know what legal direction was given or by whom. Mangers do not fill out IRS or SEC forms, they just sign them, that is their job. If they hired managers to sign forms, then having them sign forms is not necessarily dishonest. Whoever filled out the forms, may or may not have known that the information on the forms was not fully accurate, it depends on who fed them the information. It is entirely possible that those at Ensign Peak who hired the managers had no idea that the forms contained errors. Somebody obviously knew that the word, "Sole" entered into the forms was not entirely accurate. How widespread this knowledge was is not entirely clear nor is it clear that whoever it was that gave the legal advice to do this was making a blatant attempt to break the rules or did they feel it was a mere technicality that, in the long run, didn't matter all that much as all investment information was still being reported.

Regardless, in all of this, people are saying the "Church" has been dishonest and I am saying that Ensign Peak and attorneys are not the Church. I would be surprised if President Hinckley had and idea of all of the bureaucratic stuff going on behind the scenes and would be even more surprised if President Nelson had any knowledge that this had been going on for some twenty years before he came on the scene. Is it possible, sure. But I think to charge the "Church" with lying is premature and likely inaccurate and I seriously question whether any senior leader ever knew that anything was being done against the rules.

Did you actually read the Order? The SEC specifically fined the Church $1M for causing the acts. It's very plain. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

Did you actually read the Order? The SEC specifically fined the Church $1M for causing the acts. It's very plain. 

What would you know about it? It’s not like your education and career have any bearing on this. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

What would you know about it? It’s not like your education and career have any bearing on this. 

Naturally. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

"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?

No, because you give nothing to pogi besides attention and therefore you are not likely being manipulated to do anything by his failure to disclose his private information.

Quote

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.

The point of manipulation is to not let the person you are attempting to manipulate know you are manipulating them.  Knowing someone is manipulating you is not a prerequisite to actually being manipulated.

Edited February 27 by Calm

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sigh.  

Making an honest mistake (while relying on legal advice, no less) in complying with the regulatory complexities of the Administrative State does not implicate "personal honesty."

Thanks,

Do the Business Managers live in and work in Utah or not?  Seems like a simple question.  No confusing "complexities" there.  Hard one to make an "honest mistake" on every quarter for years.  A lot of what they did can't be explained away by confusing "regulatory complexities".

After getting after me about stating conclusory accusations and "facts" about the matter (which I never did), you seem to be stating the "honest mistake" comment as a conclusory fact despite the allegations.  Ironic. 

 "Honest mistakes" huh?  Does that mean that their expression of regret over mistakes made is speaking only to "honest mistakes"?   And you think that somehow is sufficient to addresses my specific concerns over the allegations?

"They said they regret [honest] mistakes so get over it!"

 

Edited February 27 by pogi

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Facile.  

Bull pucky.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, from the PSM article:

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

I think your political paranoia is on display.  And I spend my entire work life it tax law so I think I have some idea about regulatory agencies.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

More wild and crazy rhetoric.  See two can play this game. How fun.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

 

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  I respect and value the Government, but I do not repose in it any particular "presumption of basic honesty and professionalism," particularly the "Administrative State" and its unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats.

For me but not for thee. Got it.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

For the same reason I do give the benefit of the doubt to the Church: experience.

I know the Brethren.  I have long experience with them (and no small number of people whom I know and trust personally have far more experience with them, often extensive and in person) .  I trust them.  I see them as overwhelmingly deserving of that trust.  I see the Church having some problems arising from bureaucratic complexity / inertia / inefficiencies / dysfunctions, but nothing close to the corruptions and coercive abuse of power so regularly manifest by the State (again, particularly the Administrative State).

I also know the Administrative State.  I know about its lack of accountability, its lack of meaningful oversight, its arbitrariness, and tendency toward favoritisim (and, as a corollary, disfavoritism), its sometimes politicized decisionmaking processes, and so on.  I neither know nor have any particular reason to trust its unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats.

Again, I find it grimly amusing that you repose so much trust, and give so much deference, to the organs of the State, particularly the Administrative State.  I suspect this is mostly arising as a manifestation of the special pleading fallacy.  That is, you are lauding the SEC simply because it is in a position to speak adversely to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  If and when you or someone you care about ever end up in the crosshairs of the Administrative State, I really doubt you would insist upon this same sort of obsequious deference to the goodness and competency of its various regulatory agencies.  But as long as its pronouncements can be used as a brickbat against a religious group you dislike....  

Sarcasm, but no actual answers to questions that, I think, are pretty pertinent to the issue of the Church's compliance with SEC regulations.

It is interesting that you cite the CFR as "the actual law," while making no reference to the U.S. Code.

Are you familiar with the United States Code? 

Do you know what "CFR" stands for?

Do you know the relationship between, say, 15 U.S. Code § 78c(a)(35) and 17 CFR § 240.13f-1?

I would normally explain, but you are dodging my efforts substantively address the law, so I'll defer for the moment.  But I will drop a hint: The former was passed by an elected body, the constituent members of which were answerable to the electorate.  In contrast, the latter was written by an group of unknown, unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats within the Administrative State.

My experience as an attorney has been mostly with private parties in "private" litigation (that is, both parties are private).  However, I have had plenty of opportunities to research and study the effects of the Administrative State on those private parties.  And the results have been . . . sobering.  My experience is reflected rather well in this article: Confronting the Administrative State

Some excerpts:

I think the corrosive effects of the Administrative State go largely unnoticed by the electorate, so much so that we even have members of the electorate praising it as presumptively competent, fair, and benevolent.

These decisions are worth a read.

Also, a big part of the whole "defer to an agency's interpretation of federal law" arises from . . . the CFR.

450 agencies.  2.7 million employees.  

Thousands of new "rules," amounting to tens of thousand of pages, are created every year.  All drafted by unknown, unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats within the Administrative State.

Golly, what could go wrong with that?  

I encourage you to read the entire article.

I think concerns about, and generalized mistrust as to the competency and accountability of, the various organs of the Administrative State are . . . pretty justified.

That you keep publishing gooey paeans to the virtues and wonderfulness of the SEC is, I think, situational.  The situation is that the SEC made an adverse ruling against a religious group you dislike, ergo the SEC is the coolest thing ever.  But if and when you or someone you care about ends up in its crosshairs, all your blather about the SEC's presumptive benevolence will disappear like a burp in the wind.

Your cynicism and judgmentalism are duly noted.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I won't say that.  There is no evidence that the Church did not "want to file Form 13F."  To the contrary, it did file the forms.

I'm not talking about the Church. I'm talking about a hypothetical--something I called "my scheme." For reference, I said:

Say I call up you and ask your legal advice on a way I could manage all of these assets and legally not file. Here is my scheme:

1. Set up two LLC's, and have a couple of my employees be the "Manager" of each of them.
2. Give each manager "investment discretion" to manage $90,000,000 of the aggregate portfolio.
3. Have each of them use their "investment discretion" to delegate management back to me.
4. Since these two "Managers" of the two LLC's each manage less than $100,000,000 of assets, we don't need to fileForm 13F

In your opinion, would this scheme comply with the letter of the law?

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

It appears to.

If that scheme would really comply with the law code, then every company that doesn't want to file a Form 13F could jump through the hoops of creating shell LLC's and giving each of them a hypothetical level of "discretion" over less-than $100,000,000 of the portfolio and bingo! Nobody has to file Form 13F anymore.

Somehow, I don't think a cute scheme like that would fly with the SEC or the courts. There is a reason nobody does this scheme. Arguing with you about it in minute legal detail seems to be an exercise designed to make you feel smart because of your legal training, and designed to shift the focus of the thread away from the SEC Order. I'm not interested in that discussion.

[Calm]

3 hours 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.

Would this kind of stuff be that publicized much though?  How many outside my neighborhood know one of my neighbors absolutely hates the Church and caused big issues in his family because of his anger over a business deal with the Church that went badly?  My guess is very few besides those in the Church hierarchy that he sent his complaints to.

If a person invested a couple of thousand in the market based on the Church’s portfolio and lost it all, I can see it likely there might be face to face complaints or letters to church leaders as I hear happened with my neighbor, but no news outlet is going to pick it up as a story.  And there might be some who go online and blame the Church, but it’s not going to go viral.  More likely they will be told they were foolish (or worse) and to shut up as no one cares.

—-

Plus (serious question) has there been any big losses in the past few years in the Church’s portfolio that would not have occurred elsewhere (most things took a hit for a short time at least with the pandemic affecting things, but haven’t recovered for the most part?  Maybe those who chose to mimic the Church have done okay so far.  My understanding is EPA chooses typically conservative, safe investments.

Edited February 27 by Calm

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Disagreement is not rudeness.

Ok.  I am sure you are not helping POGI.  Your mode of operations is just put your attorney hat on and defend, defend, defend.  I doubt that helps in such situations but carry on.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Disagreement is not a lack of decency.

Yea sometimes it is.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

  If it were, think of where that would put you and your incessant disagreements with the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well I am labeled ans hostile and all sort of other things here. But I am not here to try to help the Church nor its believers.  You allegedly are.

[T-Shirt]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Did you actually read the Order? The SEC specifically fined the Church $1M for causing the acts. It's very plain. 

The Church hired the attorneys and the investment managers and it was their goal to shield their full portfolio from the public eye, so yes they bear some responsibility. Their goal in this was not illegal, unethical or wrong, but the way it was accomplished by the bureaucrats was apparently against the rules. What evidence is there that the First Presidency ever knew that the forms contained incorrect information? Do you not think it is significant that of the fine of five million (a relatively tiny amount) the Church was only fined one million?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do the Business Managers live in and work in Utah or not?  Seems like a simple question. 

Does the physical office address of an LLC used for registering/maintaining an LLC matter or not?

Not.

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

No confusing "complexities" there. 

What is it you think that is damning about designating an address in Glendale, CA as the office of the LLC?

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Hard one to make an "honest mistake" on every quarter for years. 

Easy to make, actually.  It's the same "mistake," just repeated quarterly.  The Powers-that-Be at EPA obtained legal advice as to how to structure the reporting approach, so they did.  And since the approach called for them to list the Glendale address, they did.

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

A lot of what they did can't be explained away by confusing "regulatory complexities".

Such as?

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

After getting after me about stating conclusory accusations and "facts" about the matter (which I never did), you seem to be stating the "honest mistake" comment as a conclusory fact despite the allegations.  Ironic. 

Well, the SEC presented no findings of fraud, or insider trading, or marked manipulation, or seeking "fiscal leverage," or anything "criminal" in nature, etc., nor did the SEC even make allegations to that effect, nor did the SEC require an admission of wrongdoing as a condition of settlement.

In the absence of any such findings or allegations (by the SEC) or admission of wrongdoing (by the Church), coupled with the presence of the fine, "honest mistake" seemed pretty apt.

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

 "Honest mistakes" huh? 

Yes.

Again, there is zero evidence of fraud or other "moral" misconduct.  Instead, EPA ended up being one of the 5% of investment funds that are fined each year by the SEC.  

Step back from your conclusory deprecations for a moment.  What is it that you think the Church and EPA was doing that was morally problematic?  I am really not understanding your basic grievance.

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Does that mean that their expression of regret over mistakes made is speaking only to "honest mistakes"?   

Well, yes.  Didn't you read the SEC Order?   "{W}ithout admitting or denying the findings herein..."

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

And you think that somehow addresses my specific concerns over allegations of dishonesty? 

I don't understand your "allegations of dishonesty."  Honest.

Creating LLCs is not "dishonest."

Using them in an protracted effort to comply with SEC reporting requirements is not "dishonest."

I will grant that the allegations about withholding the 13F forms from the managers of the LLC is potentially problematic, but we know essentially nothing about who authorized/ordered that, or why.  And since the SEC settled the matter, and since the allegations were not admitted by the Church, I am not sure how far we can go to use this as a basis for burning the Church's honesty in effigy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

"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?

No, because you give nothing to pogi besides attention and therefore you are not being manipulated to do anything by his failure to disclose his private information.

Nobody was being "manipulated" by the Church's putatively flawed efforts to comply with SEC reporting requirements.

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

The point of manipulation is to not let the person you are attempting to manipulate know you are manipulating them.  Knowing someone is someone is manipulating you is not a prerequisite to actually being manipulated.

My point, though, is that nobody was "actually being manipulated."

If pogi can demonstrate that he made his tithes or service in the Church contingent upon the Church's efforts to comply with SEC reporting requirements, then I will concede the point.  Until then....

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For my part I think it very likely that the FP and presiding bishopric were informed that there was compliance risk in structuring their reporting the way they did.

So much "risk," in fact, that the CAD recommended . . . no changes to the reporting approach.

Huh.

In any event, this is hugely speculative.

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The SEC report supports this (including the mention of internal audits),

The audits that made no recommendations to change the reporting approach?

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

and the church’s statement does not in anyway address it, let alone deny it. 

Incorrect.  The SEC includes a statement that the Church neither admits nor deny the allegations in the SEC Order.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

The Church hired the attorneys and the investment managers and it was their goal to shield their full portfolio from the public eye, so yes they bear some responsibility. Their goal in this was not illegal, unethical or wrong, but the way it was accomplished by the bureaucrats was apparently against the rules. What evidence is there that the First Presidency ever knew that the forms contained incorrect information? Do you not think it is significant that of the fine of five million (a relatively tiny amount) the Church was only fined one million?

Did you, or did you not, read the Order yourself? We can't even have this discussion unless you've read it. It's not that long: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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

Could you quote that please?  I just remember reading the church auditing department said there was a high risk that the SEC might not agree with the way they chose to thread the needle.

Edited February 27 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I suspect that there would be a rejection by many, but I also suspect many faithful members would feel better about the situation.  

I think those who are predisposed to be skeptical, accusatory, etc. towards the leaders of the Church will continue to do their thing, and those predisposed towards giving them the benefit of the doubt will do their thing.

For those who generally fall into the latter category but - as to this issue - are upset or have suspicions, etc., I can understand their angst.  The SEC Order was intended to be risible and conclusory.  Sam Brunson fanned the flames of anger.  This thread has been chockablock full of negative assumptions, conclusory accusations, and so on, with precious little consideration given to patience, reasoned (rather than emotionally-charged) analysis and commentary, and - dare I say it - a bit of grace to the folks who often sacrifice an awful lot in their service to the Church.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I personally think it would be a net positive.  

Honestly, I don't.  Judging from the contents of this thread, minds were made up almost instantly.  The Church's public statement has been brushed aside in No True Scotsman fashion as insufficient.

I wouldn't mind a further statement or explanation, but I am not calling for it, and in a sense I hope the Church doesn't do it.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don’t need an apology myself, but even so I think I would appreciate hearing it for the legal and maybe even moral (because I believe the choice to hide the wealth was made for several good reasons and the deceptions do not appear to have hurt anyone), but deceptive practices and definitely for what I believe (if description is accurate) was a very difficult position business managers were put in by being told to sign stuff they hadn’t been able to read.

I don't know what you mean by "deceptive practices" (apart from the "signature page" issue, which I agree looks problematic).

Thanks,

-Smac