smac97 Posted June 4, 2024 Posted June 4, 2024 I have previously noted that Ensign Peak Advisors seems to have some guidelines regarding investing in, shall we say, "problematic" industries. See, e.g., here: Quote From May 2022: LDS Church loses billions on stocks. See how much and how it did compared to the Dow. ... Quote The church has said Ensign Peak’s managers do not invest in industries that faithful Latter-day Saints consider objectionable, including alcohol, tobacco, coffee and gambling. ... Otherwise, Ensign Peak’s quarterly reports to federal regulators suggest it operates much like other broadly based, professionally managed portfolios of stocks and mutual funds. Interesting stuff. I have previously presented a number of factors that I think onlookers should take into account when evaluating the Church's financial behaviors: ... 2. Ensign Peak Foregoes Problematic Investments: Per the above article, Ensign Peak could invest in industries which, though often very lucrative, can be viewed as morally problematic according to the Church. But it doesn't. And here: Quote Now, if the Church had a practice of investing tithes in morally objectionable enterprises (from a Latter-day Saint perspective, anyway), and if the Brethren were secretive about this practice, then the abortion analogy would make a bit more sense. But the Church does not do this: No alcohol, tobacco, coffee or Coke stocks — a look at how the LDS Church has grown its wealth Quote The church has said Ensign Peak’s managers do not invest in industries that faithful Latter-day Saints consider objectionable, including alcohol, tobacco, coffee and gambling. Interestingly, though, of 30 large stocks that compose the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Ensign Peak has never invested in Coca-Cola. While some member shun caffeinated beverages, consuming drinks like Coke, Pepsi or Dr Pepper actually violates no teaching within the faith, including its Word of Wisdom health code. SEC documents show shares in the worldwide soft drink maker have not been part of its portfolio during the nine quarters it has reported to the agency, while every other Dow component — from Amgen, Boeing and Caterpillar to McDonald’s and Walmart — has drawn Ensign Peak investment interest at some point since late 2019. Also off the fund’s list are Coke rivals, PepsiCo and Keurig Dr Pepper, a conglomerate that also owns a prominent coffee brand. Ensign also seems to avoid most so-called pure-play coffee suppliers, such as Starbucks, as well as tobacco makers. See also here: LDS Church kept the lid on its $100B fund for fear tithing receipts would fall, account boss tells Wall Street Journal Quote Latter-day Saint officials kept the size of the church’s $100 billion investment reserves secret for fear that public knowledge of the fund’s wealth might discourage members from paying tithing, according to the top executive who oversees the account. For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, tithing — donating 10% of one’s income to the faith — “is more of a sense of commitment than it is the church needing the money,” Roger Clarke, head of Ensign Peak Advisors, which manages the denomination’s investing holdings, told The Wall Street Journal. ... In recent years, the church’s reserve fund has grown by about 7% annually, Clarke told The Journal, mainly from returns on existing investments, not member donations. The fund’s handlers are instructed not to invest in industries that Latter-day Saints consider objectionable — including “alcohol, caffeinated beverages, tobacco and gambling,” he said, alluding in part to the church’s health code known as the Word of Wisdom, which bars those substances (although caffeinated sodas are not part of that prohibition). Some of the stocks in which Ensign has invested millions include Apple Inc., Chevron Corp., Visa Inc., JPMorgan Chase, Home Depot, Amazon and Google, according to the article. EPA's investment guidelines will, in the end, often have a substantial "judgment call" component. JPMorgan's legal problems are legion, but EPA apparently still invests in it. Amazon has been criticized for some of the items it sells (Nazi stuff, gross-out stuff, "sexually exploitative products," etc.), and plenty of books critical of the Church, but EPA apparently still invests in it. Per this article, EPA has invested in various companies which manufacture weapons: Thoughts? Should EPA have such investments? Thanks, -Smac 1
ZealouslyStriving Posted June 4, 2024 Posted June 4, 2024 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: I have previously noted that Ensign Peak Advisors seems to have some guidelines regarding investing in, shall we say, "problematic" industries. See, e.g., here: And here: See also here: LDS Church kept the lid on its $100B fund for fear tithing receipts would fall, account boss tells Wall Street Journal EPA's investment guidelines will, in the end, often have a substantial "judgment call" component. JPMorgan's legal problems are legion, but EPA apparently still invests in it. Amazon has been criticized for some of the items it sells (Nazi stuff, gross-out stuff, "sexually exploitative products," etc.), and plenty of books critical of the Church, but EPA apparently still invests in it. Per this article, EPA has invested in various companies which manufacture weapons: Thoughts? Should EPA have such investments? Thanks, -Smac I don't like it, but I have no authority to steady the ark- so I'll just strive to become and stay Temple worthy. I just purchased "Approaching Zion" by Hugh Nibley. I'm only in chapter 2, but it is eye-opening. 3
bluebell Posted June 4, 2024 Posted June 4, 2024 36 minutes ago, smac97 said: I have previously noted that Ensign Peak Advisors seems to have some guidelines regarding investing in, shall we say, "problematic" industries. See, e.g., here: And here: See also here: LDS Church kept the lid on its $100B fund for fear tithing receipts would fall, account boss tells Wall Street Journal EPA's investment guidelines will, in the end, often have a substantial "judgment call" component. JPMorgan's legal problems are legion, but EPA apparently still invests in it. Amazon has been criticized for some of the items it sells (Nazi stuff, gross-out stuff, "sexually exploitative products," etc.), and plenty of books critical of the Church, but EPA apparently still invests in it. Per this article, EPA has invested in various companies which manufacture weapons: Thoughts? Should EPA have such investments? Thanks, -Smac All of those listed aren't nuclear weapons contractors though are they? Boeing does a lot that has nothing to do with weapons. Northrup Grumman does aerospace and not just weapons (I know a lot of Utah members who work for NG). I'm not sure about the others. I don't know if the church should invest in that kind of stuff or not. 1
blackstrap Posted June 4, 2024 Posted June 4, 2024 The Church " invests " in mother hood . Some will find that problematic. Side note : Boeing ? Hmmm !
smac97 Posted June 4, 2024 Author Posted June 4, 2024 23 minutes ago, bluebell said: All of those listed aren't nuclear weapons contractors though are they? I assumed they were, since the article lists them as "Nuclear Weapons Contractors." 23 minutes ago, bluebell said: Boeing does a lot that has nothing to do with weapons. True. But Keurig Dr Pepper's business includes a lot of products in addition to its coffee offerings, yet EPA has not invested in it. 23 minutes ago, bluebell said: Northrup Grumman does aerospace and not just weapons (I know a lot of Utah members who work for NG). There are a lot of Latter-day Saints who make their living, directly or otherwise, off the Las Vegas gambling industry. 23 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't know if the church should invest in that kind of stuff or not. Ambivalence is a fair position to take (I'm sort of there with you). Thanks, -Smac
bluebell Posted June 4, 2024 Posted June 4, 2024 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I assumed they were, since the article lists them as "Nuclear Weapons Contractors." True. But Keurig Dr Pepper's business includes a lot of products in addition to its coffee offerings, yet EPA has not invested in it. There are a lot of Latter-day Saints who make their living, directly or otherwise, off the Las Vegas gambling industry. Ambivalence is a fair position to take (I'm sort of there with you). Thanks, -Smac Thinking about it some more, making weapons and having them and being prepared to defend yourself doesn’t seem like a bad thing. It’s certainly supported all throughout the book of Mormon, for example. There are a lot of times when war is immoral, of course, but it’s not immoral automatically. That’s all theoretical stuff since we can’t really speak to the specifics of each company. With businesses this size there’s really no way to judge the morality of each one based off of what they make. I think one of the reasons that the church probably invests in these kinds of businesses but not in gambling or tobacco is because defense is not against our doctrine or principles. While gambling and smoking are. 3
Popular Post LoudmouthMormon Posted June 4, 2024 Popular Post Posted June 4, 2024 (edited) I think perhaps the most valid gripe against capitalism, is that it's nigh impossible to go about life doing business in ways that totally isolate the ne'er-do-wells of the world. This dawned on me in the '80's, when US patriotism was all about buying American, and filling our own energy needs, and not doing business with nations filled with people who hated us, and occasionally harbored and supported terrorists. There was an awful lot of "Don't do business with [oil company x], their oil comes from [Islamic regime Y]!" The more news that came out, however, the more it became clear that all the oil companies were part of an international framework of geopolitical trading partners. And American Fords had parts from Japan. And Levi blue jeans involved overseas production. Even if the church could just invest everything in good ol' God-fearin' real estate in the most religiously conservative counties, the governments/agents/banks that make money off the taxes/fees/commissions would end up spending some of that money on something unworthy of Zion. We're told that lucifer runs many elements of the show here in our mortal probation. Mediums of exchange, where humans figure out how to meet their needs and wants with other humans, is a prime example. No matter which -ism you're behind, no matter how pure the ideology or how practically honest the playing field, they all eventually end up with the few having the control over the many. Edited June 4, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon 5
ZealouslyStriving Posted June 4, 2024 Posted June 4, 2024 Should we contribute the amoral companies that contribute to the raising up of armies and navies, not for the good of the world but for the good of their wallets? Should we be contributing to the military industrial complex?
The Nehor Posted June 4, 2024 Posted June 4, 2024 Boeing might just be a bad investment in general. Since their last major merger they have become more than a little problematic. 44 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said: I think perhaps the most valid gripe against capitalism, is that it's nigh impossible to go about life doing business in ways that totally isolate the ne'er-do-wells of the world. This dawned on me in the '80's, when US patriotism was all about buying American, and filling our own energy needs, and not doing business with nations filled with people who hated us, and occasionally harbored and supported terrorists. There was an awful lot of "Don't do business with [oil company x], their oil comes from [Islamic regime Y]!" The more news that came out, however, the more it became clear that all the oil companies were part of an international framework of geopolitical trading partners. And American Fords had parts from Japan. And Levi blue jeans involved overseas production. Even if the church could just invest everything in good ol' God-fearin' real estate in the most religiously conservative counties, the governments/agents/banks that make money off the taxes/fees/commissions would end up spending some of that money on something unworthy of Zion. We're told that lucifer runs many elements of the show here in our mortal probation. Mediums of exchange, where humans figure out how to meet their needs and wants with other humans, is a prime example. No matter which -ism you're behind, no matter how pure the ideology or how practically honest the playing field, they all eventually end up with the few having the control over the many. This is the “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” thing. Basically there is no way to survive without being part of the problems that capitalism creates. It was said to take the blame off the consumer from benefitting from exploitation since the individual consumer can’t avoid it. The TV show “The Good Place” mocked this in their afterlife system where…. WARNING! SPOILERS: ….each act a person did also too into account all the ramifications of that act. So if you bought a gift for your mom and that gift was made in a sweatshop or involved stolen resources or whatever you got negative points. They find out no one has gotten into the Good Place aka heaven since 1497 since to survive you basically profited individually off of unethical exploitation even when doing good things. 2
bluebell Posted June 4, 2024 Posted June 4, 2024 15 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said: Should we contribute the amoral companies that contribute to the raising up of armies and navies, not for the good of the world but for the good of their wallets? How do we tell, looking from the outside in, which companies are in it for the good of the world and not for the good of their wallets? 1
LoudmouthMormon Posted June 4, 2024 Posted June 4, 2024 (edited) 24 minutes ago, The Nehor said: This is the “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” thing. Indeed. The only issue I have with this line of thinking, is the folks pushing it never seem to compare their righteous judgments with whatever alternative they're pushing. As if alternatives under the Soviet Union or China (or Venezuela or Argentina or Cuba etc.) didn't involve forced labor, or stolen resources, or a powerful few running the show. I haven't watched The Good Place, but you say there were people getting in before 1497? Obviously the shows creators only read certain history books. (People get mad when I tell them I'm the descendant of slaves.) Man, if I had a nickel for every time I heard "That's not what we mean by socialism", I'd have an awful lot of nickels. Capitalism does it too, but it creates more millionaires than the other systems. And if you can make it so people have a certain amount of choice and ability to climb or fall from one class to another through their own efforts and merits, well, isn't that a bit more freedom than a system where you're in the class you were born into for life? Edited June 4, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon 3
the narrator Posted June 5, 2024 Posted June 5, 2024 20 hours ago, bluebell said: How do we tell, looking from the outside in, which companies are in it for the good of the world and not for the good of their wallets? The answer is simple. ALL of them are in it for the good of their wallets. Beyond getting initial development capital, all investment shares purely exist for profit. People like to focus on the supposed "evil" companies that produce weapons, porn, tobacco products, etc., but they fail to realize how investments in the other "non-evil" companies directly result in higher medical costs, higher insurance costs, more expensive food, more expensive rent and housing, etc. The Church invests in stocks that it hopes increase in value, and those values increase by stomping on workers and consumers. Romney's $billions often came from taking profitable companies and laying off their workforce, because that resulted in more $ for investors. While capitalism wasn't a thing in Jesus's day, his teaching that one cannot simultaneously serve God and wealth was rooted in the same issue. The pursuit of profit always comes to the detriment of others. But apparently Kirton McConkie found a loophole that enables the Church to put its full faith in Mammon in order to pursue it's worship of God. 1
bluebell Posted June 5, 2024 Posted June 5, 2024 11 minutes ago, the narrator said: The answer is simple. ALL of them are in it for the good of their wallets. Beyond getting initial development capital, all investment shares purely exist for profit. People like to focus on the supposed "evil" companies that produce weapons, porn, tobacco products, etc., but they fail to realize how investments in the other "non-evil" companies directly result in higher medical costs, higher insurance costs, more expensive food, more expensive rent and housing, etc. The Church invests in stocks that it hopes increase in value, and those values increase by stomping on workers and consumers. Romney's $billions often came from taking profitable companies and laying off their workforce, because that resulted in more $ for investors. While capitalism wasn't a thing in Jesus's day, his teaching that one cannot simultaneously serve God and wealth was rooted in the same issue. The pursuit of profit always comes to the detriment of others. But apparently Kirton McConkie found a loophole that enables the Church to put its full faith in Mammon in order to pursue it's worship of God. That’s certainly one way to look at it. I think the church’s views would differ. 2
phaedrus ut Posted June 5, 2024 Posted June 5, 2024 I worked in institutional money management and private wealth management. We handled investment funds from many institutions from around the world. For example when investing the funds of a Muslim sovereign wealth nation we would be constrained by sharia finance rules which were basically no alcohol, weapons, pork, or interest bearing instruments. The investment allocations we received from Ensign and the church directly had no such restrictions. I also was the assigned private wealth advisor to someone who was then President of the Church. His portfolio also contained no such investment constraints. Phaedrus
CV75 Posted June 5, 2024 Posted June 5, 2024 On 6/4/2024 at 12:25 PM, smac97 said: I have previously noted that Ensign Peak Advisors seems to have some guidelines regarding investing in, shall we say, "problematic" industries. See, e.g., here: And here: See also here: LDS Church kept the lid on its $100B fund for fear tithing receipts would fall, account boss tells Wall Street Journal EPA's investment guidelines will, in the end, often have a substantial "judgment call" component. JPMorgan's legal problems are legion, but EPA apparently still invests in it. Amazon has been criticized for some of the items it sells (Nazi stuff, gross-out stuff, "sexually exploitative products," etc.), and plenty of books critical of the Church, but EPA apparently still invests in it. Per this article, EPA has invested in various companies which manufacture weapons: Thoughts? Should EPA have such investments? Thanks, -Smac I think most people do not find the weapons/defense/military industry objectionable, and evidently the saints are like most people in that regard. In other areas ("alcohol, caffeinated beverages, tobacco and gambling" etc.) they may not be like most people. In the case of Coke, it is not a Word of Wisdom concern from a Church policy standpoint but apparently most saints find it objectionable. So, investing a relatively small portion of the $100B in the companies listed seems to be a case of the investors figuring out what the "voice of the people" might be. 1
Analytics Posted June 7, 2024 Posted June 7, 2024 On 6/4/2024 at 12:25 PM, smac97 said: Per the above article, Ensign Peak could invest in industries which, though often very lucrative, can be viewed as morally problematic according to the Church. But it doesn't. According to modern investment theory, your claim that investing in sinful company xyz “is often very lucrative” is false. If investing in xyz were lucrative, that would raise the price of the security to the point it wasn’t exceptionally lucrative anymore. The return of a security is driven by four components: the risk-free rate of borrowing money, alpha, beta, and epsilon. Alpha is how lucrative the security is expected to be compared to the market as a whole, and the efficient market hypothesis says it must be zero (that is what “seeking alpha” alludes to). Beta is how sensitive the stock price is to the market as a whole, and epsilon represents random gains or losses of an individual security. If you buy a diversified portfolio, this forces epsilon on average to equal zero. So from a professional’s perspective, the only thing the Church needs to worry about is how much in total it wants to spend vs. invest, and how risky it wants its investment portfolio to be compared to the market as a whole, which is generally simplified to how much it wants to invest in stocks vs. bonds. A constraint that there are a few dozen stocks that are no-no’s is irrelevant to the decisions that matter, and the church isn’t forfeiting a dime by avoiding those securities. Of course we are all free to pick stocks that we think will beat the market, but the fact remains that over any given time period, half will do better than the market as a whole and half will do worse than the market as a whole. Of the 5,000+ stocks on the market, refraining from purchasing +/- 100 stocks that are sinful companies is irrelevant to maximizing your portfolio’s objectives; it is a constraint without a cost. 4
Stargazer Posted June 7, 2024 Posted June 7, 2024 I was about to write "There's nothing wrong with nuclear weapons, unless they are used inappropriately." But then I thought that some of ya'll would have a conniption over it, so never mind. 1
carbon dioxide Posted June 7, 2024 Posted June 7, 2024 The Church should invest in any company that is going to make a good return rate. Nothing wrong with investing in companies that make weapons. The reason there as not been a large war between the major powers is the existence of nuclear weapons. Without nukes, there is no incentive not for Russia, China, or the US to go to war. In fact, as of this day, no wars have broken out between two countries that have nuclear weapons. Get rid of nukes and wars become safer to fight among the great powers of the day. 4
carbon dioxide Posted June 7, 2024 Posted June 7, 2024 (edited) On 6/5/2024 at 11:36 AM, the narrator said: The pursuit of profit always comes to the detriment of others. Not always. In fact, many of the things that exist today that we enjoy exist because of the pursuit of profit. Nobody builds a business so that it does not make money. Apple, Google, Amazon, Walmart, Nvidia, and thousands of other companies and the products they produce would not exist if it was not for the pursuit of profit. We would have an economy more like North Korea. I like companies that make a lot of profits. My retirement income is based largely on people working to make profit. If they stop making profits, that is going to make my retirement years much more difficult. Edited June 7, 2024 by carbon dioxide 2
Stargazer Posted June 7, 2024 Posted June 7, 2024 On 6/5/2024 at 7:36 PM, the narrator said: The pursuit of profit always comes to the detriment of others. With all due respect, that is a load of hogwash. How do you earn your upkeep? Do you labor for your income - or in other words do you trade your labor for compensation of some kind? Then you are profiting from the exchange. And to whose detriment do you do this? Are you forcing your employer to pay you for your labor? Do you buy and sell commodities or services and live off the difference between expense and income? Then you are profiting from the exchange. Unless you are forcing your suppliers to sell to you and/or customers to buy from you at gunpoint, you both benefit from the exchange, and there is no inherent detriment to either. Do you participate in helping others start businesses by lending money or joining with them in part ownership (via shares)? Then you may profit from the exchange (via interest, profit-sharing, or increased value), and so are they. Assuming their business survives and thrives. Do you lend money to others so that they may buy high-value items they would not otherwise be able to buy, and receive interest in exchange? Then you probably profit from it, and those to whom you loan money are able to enjoy something they otherwise might not. These are all voluntary exchanges. They do not generally occur unless both parties are satisfied they receive good value. The only way you can live without such voluntary exchange is if you live off the land with no contact with any other person. You grow and eat your own food, you clothe yourself from your own efforts (hunt fur-bearing animals, or weave cloth from cotton or flax you grow yourself, for instance) you build your own shelter from rocks, wood, and other materials you find in your own environment, and make your own tools from materials what you can find around you. Now, as to detriment, if you want to list all the ways that people can cheat others in these voluntary exchanges, you'd have to pack a lunch because you'd be at it all the livelong day. But the pursuit of profit does NOT inherently come to the detriment of others. If it did, we would not have a civilization, we would have chaotic anarchy, and the law of the jungle. Or in other words, no law at all.
Snodgrassian Posted June 7, 2024 Posted June 7, 2024 So, if the church should not invest in the companies listed above, what about accepting tithing from employees of the listed companies? I personally don’t have an issue with the church investing in the military industrial complex, but I can understand some peoples reservations with it. I have also heard members complain about Marriott hotels and the fact that they sell alcohol and have offered pornography on the televisions. does the church have Marriott stock?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 7, 2024 Posted June 7, 2024 (edited) 14 hours ago, Stargazer said: There's nothing wrong with nuclear weapons, unless they are used inappropriately I’d say there is nothing wrong with nuclear weapons, unless they are used. Of course one could argue that their appropriate “use” is deterrence and I’d agree. The only time they were actually deployed was against an enemy without the ability to respond in kind. Edited June 7, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
the narrator Posted June 7, 2024 Posted June 7, 2024 13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Not always. In fact, many of the things that exist today that we enjoy exist because of the pursuit of profit. Nobody builds a business so that it does not make money. Apple, Google, Amazon, Walmart, Nvidia, and thousands of other companies and the products they produce would not exist if it was not for the pursuit of profit. We would have an economy more like North Korea. I like companies that make a lot of profits. My retirement income is based largely on people working to make profit. If they stop making profits, that is going to make my retirement years much more difficult. That's a good chunk of words you got fighting a strawman. I did not say that nothing good comes from it.
the narrator Posted June 7, 2024 Posted June 7, 2024 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: With all due respect, that is a load of hogwash. How do you earn your upkeep? Do you labor for your income - or in other words do you trade your labor for compensation of some kind? Then you are profiting from the exchange. And to whose detriment do you do this? Are you forcing your employer to pay you for your labor? Do you buy and sell commodities or services and live off the difference between expense and income? Then you are profiting from the exchange. Unless you are forcing your suppliers to sell to you and/or customers to buy from you at gunpoint, you both benefit from the exchange, and there is no inherent detriment to either. Do you participate in helping others start businesses by lending money or joining with them in part ownership (via shares)? Then you may profit from the exchange (via interest, profit-sharing, or increased value), and so are they. Assuming their business survives and thrives. Do you lend money to others so that they may buy high-value items they would not otherwise be able to buy, and receive interest in exchange? Then you probably profit from it, and those to whom you loan money are able to enjoy something they otherwise might not. These are all voluntary exchanges. They do not generally occur unless both parties are satisfied they receive good value. The only way you can live without such voluntary exchange is if you live off the land with no contact with any other person. You grow and eat your own food, you clothe yourself from your own efforts (hunt fur-bearing animals, or weave cloth from cotton or flax you grow yourself, for instance) you build your own shelter from rocks, wood, and other materials you find in your own environment, and make your own tools from materials what you can find around you. Now, as to detriment, if you want to list all the ways that people can cheat others in these voluntary exchanges, you'd have to pack a lunch because you'd be at it all the livelong day. But the pursuit of profit does NOT inherently come to the detriment of others. If it did, we would not have a civilization, we would have chaotic anarchy, and the law of the jungle. Or in other words, no law at all. You could have saved considerable time by noticing that I did not say that nothing good comes from the pursuit of profit. You would have also benefited from recognizing that I was focusing on corporate capitalism, not merely market exchanges. 1
smac97 Posted June 7, 2024 Author Posted June 7, 2024 14 hours ago, Stargazer said: I was about to write "There's nothing wrong with nuclear weapons, unless they are used inappropriately." But then I thought that some of ya'll would have a conniption over it, so never mind. Good think you didn't say it, then. Thanks, -Smac
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now