IRS "Whistleblower" David A. Nielsen to Appear on 60 Minutes

[smac97]

Sam Brunson weighs in: 60 Minutes, David Nielson, and Ensign Peak Advisors

Quote

Sunday night, 60 Minutes aired a 13-minute segment on Ensign Peak Advisors. And honestly, if you’ve been following the story closely (I have!), there’s not a lot of new information here.

But not a lot isn’t no new information. And, in any event, the piece featured David Nielson, the whistleblower from 2019, speaking publicly for the first time, as well as Bishop Waddell, First Counselor in the Presiding Bishopric representing the church’s point of view. (It also featured an interview with Phil Hackney, a law professor at Pitt and, full disclosure, a friend, colleague, and coauthor of mine.)

I’m not going to give a full rundown of the piece. I’ve written about the tax and securities issues previously. And anyway, at 13 minutes (half that if you watch it at 2x speed!), watching it isn’t a heavy lift. Instead, I’m going to highlight a couple things that I found interesting and important.

So far, so good.

Quote

Beneficial Life

In 2019, Nielson wrote that the church had “silently bail[ed] out Beneficial Financial Group … to the tune of $600 million[.]” It had “paid $1.4 billion … to shore up cost over-runs … in the construction of the opulent City Creek Mall[.]” And beyond those two things, it had “distributed 0% of its assets in each of the other 16 years since it was hastily incorporated[.]”

Early in the 60 Minutes segment, Nielson says, “Like, I’m not an expert on charities. But I’ve been around the block enough to know that charitable organizations can’t bail out for-profit businesses and maintain their charitable status.”

And he’s right, kind of. That is, once you donate money to a tax-exempt organization, that money can’t just be transferred to a for-profit organization. Rather, it has to stay in the tax-exempt world.

Sometimes a tax-exempt organization stops operating and shuts down. When it does that, its remaining assets have to go to other tax-exempt organizations; it can’t just distribute them to individuals or for-profit organizations. And sometimes a tax-exempt organization decides to transform into a for-profit entity (think especially nonprofit hospitals, which often enjoy huge amounts of revenue). Without getting too deep in the weeds, this generally involves the nonprofit selling its assets to the for-profit. But then, the nonprofit has to distribute the sales proceeds to other charitable organizations.

But that doesn’t mean that a tax-exempt organization can’t ever give money to a non-exempt person or organizations. My employer is a tax-exempt, nonprofit university. But it pays me a salary. And it’s not just that it pays me a salary: it pays, for instance, Microsoft, a very for-profit corporation, for the right to use Office 365.

And it’s not just that: tax-exempt organizations can invest in for-profit entities. And honestly, that take City Creek off of the board in terms of potential wrongdoing. In his interview, Waddell is clear on this, explaining that “[t]he mall was not a bailout. The mall was an investment.” There is absolutely no question that the church can make investments.

"That take{s} City Creek off the board in terms of potential wrongdoing."

Was City Creek ever on the board?  It seems not.  The closest we get is the Huntsman "Hey, they defrauded me" angle.  And as we've seen, that one did not pan out.

Quote

But what about the payment to Beneficial Life, the one Nielson originally alleged represented a silent bailout? Well, Waddell also characterizes it that way: “The church actually owned Beneficial Life. And fortunately, the church had the resources to bail out Beneficial Life during the financial crisis, 2008,. 2009.” He goes on to say that most of that money has been repaid.

Honestly, it depends on what Waddell means by a “bailout.” If it had been a capital contribution, there would likely be no problem (especially as a wholly-owned subsidiary—if there were other noncontributing shareholders, that could present a problem). If it were a loan, it would probably be fine. There are IRS has acknowledged that tax-exempt organizations can make loans (though there may be tax consequences to the receipt or non-receipt of interest under certain circumstances). But if it’s just a transfer of money to a for-profit organization, it’s not permissible, as Hackney points out.

Phil and I are attorneys. As such, we appreciate—and strive for—specificity in language. But here, the language of “bail-outs” doesn’t provide that kind of specificity. I suspect, based on Waddell’s statement, that this was a loan from EPA to Beneficial Life. But he’s not careful with his language and, without more information, I can’t be certain.

So a giveaway of $ is not permissible, but a loan is.

"Bailout" is not a legal term, so its use here does not illuminate much, as it could arguably be used to describe a giveaway or a loan.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

A bailout is when the government gives financial support to rescue a company that is in financial trouble and possibly at risk for bankruptcy.  The bailout enables the survival of the company.  The need for a bailout often arises out of a financial crisis or national emergencies that particularly effects certain industries.  For example, after the terrorist attack on 9/11, the airline industry was especially hard-hit and received an 18.6-billion-dollar bailout. The bailout support can come in the form of cash that does not have to be paid back, loans with favorable terms for the entity receiving the funds, bonds, and stock purchases. Typically, the government also sets higher regulation and oversight of the company, requiring them to restructure the company or cap salaries of executives for a time period.  Governments provide bailouts in order to maintain regulation of the overall market and economy, and to avoid further collapse of the financial system.

In Chicago Unbound, Eric A. Posner writes  about bailout regulation in his journal article, A Framework for Bailout Regulation. He defines a bailout as follows: “A bailout occurs when the government makes payments (including loans, loan guarantees, cash, and other types of consideration) to a liquidity-constrained private agent in order to enable that agent to pay its creditors and counterparties, when the agent is not entitled to those payments under a statutory scheme.” His last comment means that the agent (or recipient receiving the bailout) is not entitled by law to receive those payments, yet does anyway.  This makes some people uncomfortable because they see it as encouraging risky or irresponsible behavior. Businesses that operate on the private market are expected to manage their debts to make sure they can pay the debts they acquire.  That is why Congress wanted to end bailouts in the 2010 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  The Act states that emergency lending should be done only to provide liquidity when there is enough security for the loan to protect taxpayers and not to aid a failing financial company. 

So "bailout" typically refers to governmental action (here, the Church - a private entity - was the source of the funds).

Also, “A bailout occurs when the government makes payments (including loans, loan guarantees, cash, and other types of consideration) to a liquidity-constrained private agent..."   I read this as saying that, in some cases, the funds can be provided as a loan, which is expected to be repaid by the recipient. In other cases, it can be structured as a grant or financial assistance that does not need to be repaid.

So "bailout" is ambiguous.  However, Bishop Waddell's subsequent remark ("He goes on to say that most of that money has been repaid") would seem to indicate a loan, rather than a giveaway.

Quote

And this leads us to my second thought:

Bishop Waddell

Look, there’s no nice way to put this: Waddell went in unprepared and did a terrible job. It’s not just him characterizing the transfer from EPA to Beneficial Life as a bailout. At one point, the interviewer asks Waddell about the idea that “secrecy builds mistrust.” He replies, “We don’t believe it’s being secret. We believe it’s being confidential.” She proceeds to ask the logical follow-up question: what’s the difference between secret and confidential. And he’s stumped.

A bit of information about Bishop Waddell:

Quote

Wayne Christopher Waddell was born in Los Angeles, California, in 1959. He married Carol Stansel in July 1984 in the Los Angeles California Temple. They are the parents of four children and have three grandchildren. He has been a counselor in the South America Northwest Area Presidency and will stay in Peru for a short time.

Bishop Waddell received a bachelor’s degree in 1984 from San Diego State University. He also did postgraduate work in the Executive MBA program at BYU. Beginning in 1984 he worked with Merrill Lynch, where he became first vice president of investments.

I agree he could have addressed this better.  And perhaps he should have been prepped (not unlike how attorneys prep witnesses for being questioned during a deposition or trial).

I think Bishop Waddell could have said that there is a difference in keeping a secret for the sake of secrecy, versus not disclosing private information where there is no duty to disclose.  But in the end, journalists are (or should be) in the business of asking hard questions, and sometimes the answer will be unsatisfactory regardless of prep.

Quote

The thing is, this isn’t any kind of gotcha question. He posited a meaningful difference between the two words, but had no explanation of what that difference entailed. Which, to me, suggests that he went into the interview either unprepared or, at least, underprepared.

Frankly, as a practicing member of the church, I’m not shocked. I’ve been to too many Stake Conferences where a visiting General Authority gives a 40-minute talk that is clearly extemporaneous and unprepared. And almost inevitably, it’s terrible, rambling, and pointless.

And that’s not unexpected. Most of us aren’t good at speaking without preparation. And honestly, we’re nice people and we don’t boo them.

But this idea that they can speak off-the-cuff, without significant preparation, comes back to bite them when they’re not talking to an audience that won’t call them on it.

Yep.

We have, of course, had "media savvy" leaders.  Pres. Hinckley was really good.  Pres. Oaks and Elder Holland also seem to do well in speaking off-the-cuff.

Quote

I don’t litigate, but I know litigators. And litigators who argue in front of the Supreme Court inevitably moot their argument beforehand. That is, they get a number of their colleagues to play the part of Justices and ask them hard questions. They do that both to try to determine what kinds of questions the Justices will have and practice their responses. (Heck, whenever I get an email from a journalist, I spend at least half an hour or an hour refreshing myself about whatever topic they’re asking about.)

All of the 60 Minutes questions could easily have been anticipated. Waddell could have prepared. But, for whatever reason, he chose not to.

Perhaps so.  Or perhaps the prep was insufficient or too deferential.  

Quote

That’s not the only thing, though: right after I watched it, a friend messaged me about the piece. My friend, who is not a member of the church but is, frankly, tremendously friendly to the church, wrote, among other things, that he came across as “[p]atronizing, know-it-all, mildly creepy.”

In short, he was unprepared for inevitable questions. He came across poorly. And he seems to have lacked understanding about the transactions he was there to talk about. That kind of lack of preparation isn’t ideal for Stake Conference talks. But it’s far worse for communications with people who aren’t inclined to give our spokespeople the benefit of the doubt in all things.

Ouch.  Ah, well.  I hope we do better next time.

Sam's critique of Nielsen is, I think, the most illuminating part:

Quote

Nielson Undercut His Assertion

Finally, Nielson’s big argument that EPA had violated its tax-exempt status is that it had never used its assets for charitable purposes.

Waddell disagreed—he said that the church takes money out of EPA 8 or 9 times a month.

And the thing is, Nielson agreed with that assertion! But, he said, ‘Money’s going in and out of the cash accounts all the time. But Ensign Peak’s funds were never used for any charitable purpose, to my knowledge, the whole time I was there.’

There are a couple things to unpack here. First, I have to admit I don’t have any idea what Nielson means by “cash accounts.” I looked it up on the SEC’s website: a cash account is a brokerage account that doesn’t let you buy securities using borrowed money. That’s clearly not what Nielson is talking about. (Also, for tax reasons, tax-exempt organizations don’t borrow money to make investments.)

Nielson does give a metaphorical example of what he means: he compares this cash account to a checking account, as opposed to the body of the investments, which is like a savings account. But that really doesn’t do anything to help his assertion. I have savings and checking accounts, too. I pay for stuff out of my checking account. But when I need more cash there, I transfer it from my savings account. And when I have more than I need in my checking account, I transfer it to my savings account.

In fact, for purposes of allowing the church to use the invested money charitably, it’s necessary to have an account filled with cash. EPA generally isn’t going to distribute securities to the church; in most situations, it will sell the securities and distribute cash.

And that’s the thing: if making charitable distributions is a requirement for an integrated auxiliary like EPA (and I would argue that, whether or not it should be, under current law it is not), if money is going out of EPA accounts to the church “all the time” (again, Nielson’s words), then that money is, in fact, being used for charitable purposes. Which undercuts his big argument for why EPA violated its tax exemption.

"{I}f money is going out of EPA accounts to the church 'all the time' ... then that money is, in fact, being used for charitable purposes ... {w}hich undercuts his big argument for why EPA violated its tax exemption."

That seems about right.

Quote

Final Thoughts

I’m not trying to impugn Nielson’s or Waddell’s good intentions here. I have no doubt Nielson legitimately feels like EPA violated tax law (and he’s right that it violated securities law).

I don't think Nielsen had securities laws in mind when he filed his IRS complaint.

Quote

And I have no doubt Waddell believes that the church acted appropriately. But neither of them manages to make a strong case for their view. And that’s my takeaway from Sunday’s 60 Minutes.

For Further Reading

Plenty of other people have written about this too. On RNS, Jana Riess wrote about six things that we might now know about the church’s wealth.

Over on the Nonprofit Law Prof Blog, my coblogger and friend Darryll Jones wrote what I find to be a remarkably (and unsurprisingly) fair and thoughtful reaction to the segment.

Jones' comments here are worth a read.  Some excerpts:

Quote

Although the Church ran afoul of SEC laws by its own admission, I still don't see much from a tax exemption standpoint.  Presumably the church lost money when it "bailed out" (we don't know exactly what that means) its wholly own insurance company.  The Church might have fully recouped whatever it transferred to its insurance company.  The insurance company would be an unrelated business if operated by the Church itself, but hardly a substantial one.  Nothing prohibits the Church from losing money on an insubstantial unrelated business or even from passive investments.  Nor do I think the bailout created a private benefit problem if the Church owns the business all by itself.  There could be a private benefit problem if there were private minority owners who benefited from the bailout.  Sam stresses that the the Church may not be speaking precisely when it uses the term "bailout" so we can't know for sure.  I don't think it matters.    

Huh.  So Sam's "giveaway v. loan" distinction may be irrelevant.

Quote

The other issue is that Ensign Peak is sitting on a mountain of money estimated at $150 billion, some of which is invested in for-profit businesses (like a store in the mall).  That seems another "so what" fact for me.  Churches can do whatever they want with their tax exemption, I think I've mentioned that before.  I am in a distinct minority on that point but I still think its true. 

I think he's correct on the law here.

Quote

Anyway, so I have one quibble with Phil's suggestion that choppy political waters are what's keeping TE/GE's powder dry.  Those folks might be scared to death to do their jobs, we all know why, but in this case there is nothing they should even be concerned about.  The Church can horde all its wealth 'til Kingdom Come, as far as church tax exemption is concerned.  So can its integral part subsidiary, Ensign Peak.  Churches don't have to spend money dispensing secular charity for tax exemption, they just need to be churchy.  

I think this is also correct.

Quote

Still, it was 60 Minutes and so even in the absence of anything sinister, any Church would be concerned enough to defend itself.  Which is what the Church does in this article:

Quote

 

On Sunday night, the CBS news program “60 Minutes” aired a segment about the financial assets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The story rehashed widely reported items about the church’s investments and spending and one man’s criticisms, a self-described “whistleblower” who once worked with church investments.

What the “60 Minutes” segment about the church’s finances and other reports often miss is the sweeping and at times poverty-ridden history that helps explain the church’s finances and decision-making today, including its modern-day record of self-sufficiency that sustains a global church.

 

The long article describes the Church's history of poverty and deprivation leading to its frugal ways [insofar as what the whistleblower refers to as a "clandestine hedge fund"], its early and middle aged financial struggles, and it also sets forth some convincing arguments concerning its charitable efforts:

Quote

The church provides more than $1 billion in charitable contributions to an extensive multi-campus worldwide educational system (including its flagship university, BYU) and another $1 billion a year in humanitarian offerings. Meanwhile, it funds 30,000 congregations, a global missionary effort, as well as thousands of meeting houses, hundreds of temples and extensive free genealogical services — all part of the church’s religious mission to invite people to follow Jesus Christ.

That's just for starters according to the article.  The Church coulda just said "none of your dadgum business, fella" and I might have even advised them to allow the story to die quietly rather than give it more legs by responding.  It can't be faulted, though, for instead commissioning a full throated defense and explanation.

I think the Deseret News piece does a pretty good job (the Church's press release, not so much).

Back to Sam Brunson's piece:

Quote

The Salt Lake Tribune believed that Nielson came off well, while the church didn’t. (To be fair, while Nielson undercut his allegation, he did come across as measured and confident.)

The church issued a press release saying it was “unfortunate ‘60 Minutes’ sought to elevate a story based on unfounded allegations by a former employee who has a different view on how the Church should manage its resources.” (I have to confess I have little patience for this kind of after-the-fact press release; 60 Minutes gave the church a full opportunity to respond and explain its side of the story. It’s not the show’s fault that the church flubbed its response.)

I'm fine with after-the-fact press releases as a "rebuttal" of sorts.  But here, the Church's statement was pretty anemic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Diamondhands69]

Another critique of the SEC order is that there is no admission of guilt so it is debatable if anything illegal happened. Much debate has been had as to the content of the order whether it is true, honest, a oie, made up allegations etc. 

If someone reads it it is obvious from much of the commentary there was an investigation and many people were interviewed. Once the investigation is complete the SEC then meets with the church attorneys and probably a few others to present their findings and what they plan to do with them. Likely the evidence was enough to go further that the church elected to pay the fine and move on as the curry of public opinion after Lodi g a trial would have made what is going on now  look like child’s play. 
 

Many have expressed doubt as to the details in the report. I guarantee each interview was recorded by both sides so any allegation in the order is true and the church has no way of avoiding it because they have an employee or church leader on tape admitting what happened. Long story short- the church agreed to this order in exchange for not going to court. The church had enough money to protect its integrity in a courtroom if it values it so the notion of them selling it away for $5mil is ridiculous. This was the best option. 
 

There is a reason the church is offering little to no pushback as to the content of the order and the clearly dishonest behavior by Ep employees snd our First Presidency. All these details are either easily proven with documents (13f) and recorded interviews with key players. The church can push back but they better be right as a recorded rebuttal is likely available and that could probably revoke the settlement and the church into a courtroom for public evisceration. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Sam Brunson weighs in: 60 Minutes, David Nielson, and Ensign Peak Advisors

So far, so good.

"That take{s} City Creek off the board in terms of potential wrongdoing."

Was City Creek ever on the board?  It seems not.  The closest we get is the Huntsman "Hey, they defrauded me" angle.  And as we've seen, that one did not pan out.

So a giveaway of $ is not permissible, but a loan is.

"Bailout" is not a legal term, so its use here does not illuminate much, as it could arguably be used to describe a giveaway or a loan.  See, e.g., here:

So "bailout" typically refers to governmental action (here, the Church - a private entity - was the source of the funds).

Also, “A bailout occurs when the government makes payments (including loans, loan guarantees, cash, and other types of consideration) to a liquidity-constrained private agent..."   I read this as saying that, in some cases, the funds can be provided as a loan, which is expected to be repaid by the recipient. In other cases, it can be structured as a grant or financial assistance that does not need to be repaid.

So "bailout" is ambiguous.  However, Bishop Waddell's subsequent remark ("He goes on to say that most of that money has been repaid") would seem to indicate a loan, rather than a giveaway.

A bit of information about Bishop Waddell:

I agree he could have addressed this better.  And perhaps he should have been prepped (not unlike how attorneys prep witnesses for being questioned during a deposition or trial).

I think Bishop Waddell could have said that there is a difference in keeping a secret for the sake of secrecy, versus not disclosing private information where there is no duty to disclose.  But in the end, journalists are (or should be) in the business of asking hard questions, and sometimes the answer will be unsatisfactory regardless of prep.

Yep.

We have, of course, had "media savvy" leaders.  Pres. Hinckley was really good.  Pres. Oaks and Elder Holland also seem to do well in speaking off-the-cuff.

Perhaps so.  Or perhaps the prep was insufficient or too deferential.  

Ouch.  Ah, well.  I hope we do better next time.

Sam's critique of Nielsen is, I think, the most illuminating part:

"{I}f money is going out of EPA accounts to the church 'all the time' ... then that money is, in fact, being used for charitable purposes ... {w}hich undercuts his big argument for why EPA violated its tax exemption."

That seems about right.

I don't think Nielsen had securities laws in mind when he filed his IRS complaint.

Jones' comments here are worth a read.  Some excerpts:

Huh.  So Sam's "giveaway v. loan" distinction may be irrelevant.

I think he's correct on the law here.

I think this is also correct.

I think the Deseret News piece does a pretty good job (the Church's press release, not so much).

Back to Sam Brunson's piece:

I'm fine with after-the-fact press releases as a "rebuttal" of sorts.  But here, the Church's statement was pretty anemic.

Thanks,

-Smac

I still can't get over Pres Hinckley saying that the church finances information belongs only to those that donate to it, not those exact words, but sad that he was dishonestly making it seem that members know this.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Another critique of the SEC order is that there is no admission of guilt so it is debatable if anything illegal happened. Much debate has been had as to the content of the order whether it is true, honest, a oie, made up allegations etc. 

If someone reads it it is obvious from much of the commentary there was an investigation and many people were interviewed. Once the investigation is complete the SEC then meets with the church attorneys and probably a few others to present their findings and what they plan to do with them. Likely the evidence was enough to go further that the church elected to pay the fine and move on as the curry of public opinion after Lodi g a trial would have made what is going on now  look like child’s play. 
 

Many have expressed doubt as to the details in the report. I guarantee each interview was recorded by both sides so any allegation in the order is true and the church has no way of avoiding it because they have an employee or church leader on tape admitting what happened. Long story short- the church agreed to this order in exchange for not going to court. The church had enough money to protect its integrity in a courtroom if it values it so the notion of them selling it away for $5mil is ridiculous. This was the best option. 
 

There is a reason the church is offering little to no pushback as to the content of the order and the clearly dishonest behavior by Ep employees snd our First Presidency. All these details are either easily proven with documents (13f) and recorded interviews with key players. The church can push back but they better be right as a recorded rebuttal is likely available and that could probably revoke the settlement and the church into a courtroom for public evisceration. 

There were other threads where the SEC fine has been discussed in length. I think there are other viable options for why the church quickly paid the fine rather than fight the findings. Such as a desire not to have to disclose financial information that it would likely have to disclose were it to take it to trial. Since keeping that information private seems to be a priority to our church leadership.

But I also don’t have a problem with the church having believed that they were in a gray area that they could make fly, learning that they were wrong, and paying the fine because they had been wrong.

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I still can't get over Pres Hinckley saying that the church finances information belongs only to those that donate to it, not those exact words, but sad that he was dishonestly making it seem that members know this.

If you are thinking of the Mike Wallace interview, President Hinckley admitted to having reservations about it. “If it turns out to be favorable, I will be grateful,”  “Otherwise, I pledge I’ll never get my foot in that kind of trap again.”

[helix]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't think you really know much about the site nor who has put it together. It is not one person.  It is made up of many persons who have experience in financial matters.  

I'll start to change my criticism of Widows Mite when they discover what a citation is. It's been years and they still haven't learned how to use a citation or understand why citations are helpful. That's a sign of a terribly amateur operation. I don't give them much hope. 

When also they stop trying to mix in op-eds and attacks in the middle of their analysis, then I'll reconsider their efforts.

Edited May 17, 2023 by helix

[helix]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

There were other threads where the SEC fine has been discussed in length. I think there are other viable options for why the church quickly paid the fine rather than fight the findings. Such as a desire not to have to disclose financial information that it would likely have to disclose were it to take it to trial. Since keeping that information private seems to be a priority to our church leadership.

But I also don’t have a problem with the church having believed that they were in a gray area that they could make fly, learning that they were wrong, and paying the fine because they had been wrong.

Ya, the 13F form issue seems rather cut-and-dry. Ensigned goofed here. They had no legal footing to argue back.

Interestingly, the fine/settlement was normal. If you go look at other 13F fines, and calculate $ fine per $ invested, they all come out to be roughly similar. So my guess is when church agreed to settle with the SEC, they just went with past precedence. "Here is what people have been fined in the past, let's give you the same."  They pulled out a calculator, the number was close to $5 million, so they rounded it off.

Edited May 17, 2023 by helix

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, JAHS said:

If you are thinking of the Mike Wallace interview, President Hinckley admitted to having reservations about it. “If it turns out to be favorable, I will be grateful,”  “Otherwise, I pledge I’ll never get my foot in that kind of trap again.”

I think it is difficult for bystanders to understand just how difficult media interviews can be.  I have no experience in that field, but I have extensive experience in state and federal courts, including appellate arguments.  I have the advantage in court hearings to know that the judge is, or is supposed to be, impartial.  Media folks are far less predictable.  Also, court hearings are also fairly structured and focused, whereas media interviews can be wide-ranging, no-holds-barred kinds of things.  

In other words, media interviews are tough.  Off-the-cuff responses might have some element of inaccuracy, or are poorly-worded, or may come across as evasive (as they sometimes are).  

Pres. Hinckley was, nevertheless, really good at media interviews overall.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

dup

Edited May 17, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

This goes back to the initial whistleblower report in about 2019. 

Where did the Whistleblower report in 2019 mention SEC filings?

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where did the Whistleblower report in 2019 mention SEC filings?

I don't think it did.  Hence Nielsen's current attempt to hitch his grievance wagon to the SEC issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

There were other threads where the SEC fine has been discussed in length. I think there are other viable options for why the church quickly paid the fine rather than fight the findings. Such as a desire not to have to disclose financial information that it would likely have to disclose were it to take it to trial. Since keeping that information private seems to be a priority to our church leadership.

But I also don’t have a problem with the church having believed that they were in a gray area that they could make fly, learning that they were wrong, and paying the fine because they had been wrong.

Why wouldn’t the church think the decision to file as they had been doing was in compliance since the government didn’t call them out on it for twenty long years? Common sense would indicate that Ensign Peak Associates likely thought they were doing nothing wrong because the government watchdogs didn’t indicate anything was amiss for all that time, and this even though the church should have caught their fixed attention because it was bringing in billions of dollars every year! You’d think an institution of such vast wealth would automatically call for very close scrutiny by government auditors? Could it be that earlier government examiners did investigate and decided to allow the church to continue to file as it had been doing, and this is now being covered up so as not to embarrass the government and make it’s case against the church hold more weight?

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Where did the Whistleblower report in 2019 mention SEC filings?

I thought the 60 Minute piece said that the SEC contacted Nielsen.

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Why wouldn’t the church think the decision to file as they had been doing was in compliance since the government didn’t call them out on it for twenty long years? Common sense would indicate that Ensign Peak Associates likely thought they were doing nothing wrong because the government watchdogs didn’t indicate anything was amiss for all that time, and this even though the church should have caught their fixed attention because it was bringing in billions of dollars every year! You’d think an institution of such vast wealth would automatically call for very close scrutiny by government auditors? Could it be that earlier government examiners did investigate and decided to allow the church to continue to file as it had been doing, and this is now being covered up so as not to embarrass the government and make it’s case against the church hold more weight?

Could it be that an angel with a flaming sword had to appear to the Ensign Peak employees to get them to falsify reports?

 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Why wouldn’t the church think the decision to file as they had been doing was in compliance since the government didn’t call them out on it for twenty long years? Common sense would indicate that Ensign Peak Associates likely thought they were doing nothing wrong because the government watchdogs didn’t indicate anything was amiss for all that time, and this even though the church should have caught their fixed attention because it was bringing in billions of dollars every year! You’d think an institution of such vast wealth would automatically call for very close scrutiny by government auditors? Could it be that earlier government examiners did investigate and decided to allow the church to continue to file as it had been doing, and this is now being covered up so as not to embarrass the government and make it’s case against the church hold more weight?

I wondered this myself. I’m assuming that the SEC functions like the IRS, where people can get away with a lot until they are audited.

I’m assuming that there wasn’t any real oversight by the SEC other than making sure some basic laws were being followed, until they decided to dig deeper. 

[Diamondhands69]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Where did the Whistleblower report in 2019 mention SEC filings?

https://web.archive.org/web/20221026143011/https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=Investment_Portfolios_Connected_to_the_Mormon_Church

 

http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/IRS-Letter-Final.pdf

 

[Diamondhands69]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

There were other threads where the SEC fine has been discussed in length. I think there are other viable options for why the church quickly paid the fine rather than fight the findings. Such as a desire not to have to disclose financial information that it would likely have to disclose were it to take it to trial. Since keeping that information private seems to be a priority to our church leadership.

But I also don’t have a problem with the church having believed that they were in a gray area that they could make fly, learning that they were wrong, and paying the fine because they had been wrong.

The form is clear. Greg areas pop up when you are lying.

See the form and instructions here:

https://www.sec.gov/pdf/form13f.pdf

[Diamondhands69]

Just now, Diamondhands69 said:

The form is clear. Greg areas pop up when you are lying.

See the form and instructions here:

https://www.sec.gov/pdf/form13f.pdf

Grey areas.. sorry bout typos I’m on phone with fat fingers

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

https://web.archive.org/web/20221026143011/https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=Investment_Portfolios_Connected_to_the_Mormon_Church

 

http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/IRS-Letter-Final.pdf

 

I am aware of the 2018 Mormonleaks material.  The IRS letter is 74 pages, on which page does it refer to the SEC filings?

[helix]

43 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Why wouldn’t the church think the decision to file as they had been doing was in compliance since the government didn’t call them out on it for twenty long years? Common sense would indicate that Ensign Peak Associates likely thought they were doing nothing wrong because the government watchdogs didn’t indicate anything was amiss for all that time, and this even though the church should have caught their fixed attention because it was bringing in billions of dollars every year! You’d think an institution of such vast wealth would automatically call for very close scrutiny by government auditors? Could it be that earlier government examiners did investigate and decided to allow the church to continue to file as it had been doing, and this is now being covered up so as not to embarrass the government and make it’s case against the church hold more weight?

Form 13F is largely useless

This article hits it hard:

>Form 13F reporting is widely regarded as one of the least meaningful tools that the SEC has to monitor institutional investment managers and securities market risk.

> A 2010 report by the SEC’s Office of Inspector General noted that “despite Congressional intent that the SEC would be expected to make extensive use of the Section 13(f) information for regulatory and oversight purposes, no SEC division or office conducts any regular or systematic review of data filed on Form 13F.”

While Ensign should have filled out 13F properly to follow the laws of the land, the form itself today is effectively bureaucratic red tape for the sake of meeting archaic regulatory requirements. Once you submit a form 13F, the SEC doesn't use the data it gathers. Instead, the forms are unceremoniously tossed into into SEC's equivalent of an old cardboard box down in a musty basement, never to be used again.

Edited May 17, 2023 by helix

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I thought the 60 Minute piece said that the SEC contacted Nielsen.

Exactly

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think it did.  Hence Nielsen's current attempt to hitch his grievance wagon to the SEC issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

So why is Diamondhands claiming it goes back to the 2019 report?

Edited May 17, 2023 by Calm

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, helix said:

I'll start to change my criticism of Widows Mite when they discover what a citation is. It's been years and they still haven't learned how to use a citation or understand why citations are helpful. That's a sign of a terribly amateur operation. I don't give them much hope. 

When also they stop trying to mix in op-eds and attacks in the middle of their analysis, then I'll reconsider their efforts.

Ok. I find their site and data fairly reliable.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Teancum

[Diamondhands69]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am aware of the 2018 Mormonleaks material.  The IRS letter is 74 pages, on which page does it refer to the SEC filings?

Page 23 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am aware of the 2018 Mormonleaks material.  The IRS letter is 74 pages, on which page does it refer to the SEC filings?

So far as I can tell, the only references to the SEC in the Letter to an IRS Director are as follows:

1. Page 7, Line 62: Any legal wrongdoing is for the IRS, the SEC, and Senate Oversight Committees to determine through subpoenas, hearings, and depositions.
2. Page 15, Line 205, Footnote aa: Does the SEC care that brokers and custodians are circumventing industry best practices to make a buck with EPA?

Neither of these have anything to do with the 13F matter that the SEC ultimately settled with the Church.

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by Amulek