Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would guess that the whistleblower was employed by the church directly or via a subsidiary. Knowing many people who work for the Mormon church, it is likely the whistleblower lost their job and their pension. You will lose your job and pension if you stop regularly attending church services or giving 10% of your paycheck back to the church ('tithing'). I can't imagine they don't take a harder approach to this. To b…
I've been around the Church for a long time (and interacted a very little bit with senior leaders), and was a Church employee before health issues ended that. I very highly doubt that anyone "will lose your ... pension if you stop regularly attending church services or giving 10% of your paycheck back to the church". But job, yes. They want people who are devoted, if they are going to pay them to further the work. To…
SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
161–170 of 232 posts
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#162Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#163anti-Church pitchforks come out pretty fast here? it shows that some people simply want to eliminate Church itself, and use bad news to propel that point of view. why not address the actions themselves, specifically; plenty of crooks in the investment game, some of them use Church money it seems.
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#164However, specifically, a form 13-F is a mandatory report for (mostly) mutual funds and similar institutional investors to report in public whatever strategy they're using for investment by dumping a quarterly balance sheet (gross simplification please don't shoot the mostly accurate messenger). Only mutual funds are not permitted privacy when investing, because I donno. You and I do not have to publish our stock ownership (unless you or I are mutual funds)
There's a lot of static about the 13F because the reporting interval is too long for short term investment and too short for long term investment so as a regulatory tool it's quite useless and eliminating the entire thing wouldn't really change anything in the market for anyone. Its one of those bureaucracy tax things that we can't get rid of because it makes the middlemen money and provides a barrier to entry for smaller operators while not actually providing any useful service to anyone other than some jobs.
Hilariously I can't recall any 13F related stock scams over the past couple decades. Every ponzi or fraud in the last couple decades has been accompanied by completely useless 13F filings. My understanding is this form of busywork is very handy to publicize aggressive regulatory activity while not actually regulating anything. Great job SEC, at making sure Madoff and FTX filed their completely useless 13F forms. Thank God the SEC was busy enforcing 13F filings while ignoring what was going on at FTX.
Part of the justification for the fines being miniscule is there's not really much point to the entire process. Not filing a 13F is right up there with smoking weed WRT being a victimless crime.
I don't understand the point of the 13 shell companies because if they were actually trying to conceal information they'd have created somewhat over 330 shell companies to stay under the $100M reporting limit as I understand the entire portfolio is worth $32B. So clearly they're not "up to no good" or if they are, they're unimaginably incompetent. The press is doing the usual propaganda spin on the shell companies which is pretty funny to the people of some financial sophistication (which is probably approx none of the general public). My guess is the "shell" companies are some kind of legit strategy that failed. If you reorg to try to get outside investment using tighter categories, but your sales team is crap, resulting in minimal new investments, technically that reorg can make you a financial criminal under some weird circumstances. Thanks SEC, doin a great job keeping us safe!
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I get pulled over in a Bentley with an expired sticker, I pay the same price as someone in a Kia. That meets an intuitive definition of fairness, but the realpolitik story there is you don't have a lot of power to make trouble for the municipality by tying them up in court for a half-decade arguing how your Bentley was actually operated legally because the definitions of "sticker" and "driving" and "expired" are…
Yeah, that didn't happen. The SEC brought this enforcement action in 2019.
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#166anti-Church pitchforks come out pretty fast here? it shows that some people simply want to eliminate Church itself, and use bad news to propel that point of view. why not address the actions themselves, specifically; plenty of crooks in the investment game, some of them use Church money it seems.
I personally wouldn't mind eliminating every religious organization, since religion is not any specific organization, but rather a personal belief system and a way to live your own life. Large groups of people (the execs that run the orgs) deriving income and wealth from that personal experience is demented. Christians and others shouldn't be afraid of their religion being destroyed, just the corrupt organizations th…
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I get pulled over in a Bentley with an expired sticker, I pay the same price as someone in a Kia. The fine should scale with the size of the infraction. If you sticker expires on your car, the infraction is the same severity, no matter the car [0]. ~Hiding a few million vs. hiding a few billion in taxes is a whole different level.~ EDIT: They just hid it for information purposes. Not to avoid tax. Therefore, thi…
Right, I agree. But they didn't hide millions from taxes. They availed themselves of more privacy than the SEC allows for fund managers. If we can articulate the manner in which that inflicted more than 5MM in harm, I think we have a strong case for the fine being too low. But I have no intuition for how to work out the harm these bad filings caused. Do you? As for deterrence: it appears as if the SEC successfully de…
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But what kind of staff or funding does it take to say literally different words out of your mouth like, you are fined $5B instead of $5MM? Because we don't live in an autocracy, and government fines can (and are) successfully challenged in court. It takes an immensely greater effort, and immensely greater resources, to enforce a $5B fine vs a $5M fine.
How do you get away with defending tax fraud to the point where the fine is pointless? Does the SEC not get to keep the winnings to use for their future cases so they can hire a ton of lawyers? I guess the real problem is why are judges (presumably everywhere?) lettings companies and organizations get away with this or is there a specific set of judges that only handle SEC cases? Perhaps the first step to getting big…
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#169Here's a related random fact: Fidelity, the well-known investment firm, runs donor-advised charitable funds for rich clients that in aggregate constitute America's charity [1]. The three largest recipients from those funds? Harvard University, Stanford University, and the Mormon Church...organizations that aren't in any way hurting for money. I guess people fund what they are familiar with and for prestige. 1- https:…
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#170There's a section in Bloomberg's Matt Levine column about this. That's useful to understand what they were doing with the shell companies. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-02-21/amc-ap...
Paywall, not resolved by archive.org
> If you don’t like this, there are reasonably standard solutions. The rule is actually that you have to file Form 13F if you “exercise investment discretion” over your stocks — meaning basically that you decide what stocks to buy and sell — so the trick is not to do that. If you have $1 billion to invest in the stock market, you go to a big institutional investment manager and say “hi, here’s $1 billion, please buy some stocks for me.” You agree on some investment criteria — the mandate for your investment — and you pay the manager some fees, and the manager buys the stocks for you. This saves you all sorts of aggravation — picking the stocks, doing the trading, setting up custody arrangements, etc. — but it also probably saves you from filing a Form 13F, if that’s your goal. Instead, the investment management firm files a Form 13F showing all of the stocks that it owns — that it “exercises investment discretion” over — for its various clients, including you. You are just an anonymous client; your data is aggregated with the rest of the clients.
> Presumably if you’re a big enough account, and interested enough in the markets, you might end up doing some kibbitzing about what your investment manager is buying. The manager’s mandate for your account might be narrow and customized for your interests; if you are, for instance, a fund that invests money for a religious group, you might tell the manager to avoid certain sorts of sin stocks. You might chat periodically with the manager about what they’re up to, and you might give them some input, without quite “exercising investment discretion” over the account. The manager makes the investing decisions, but with your preferences in mind.
> You could push this further. Hire an “investment manager” to buy and sell stocks for you, but just tell them exactly what to buy and sell. They’re not really in the business of making the investment decisions; they’re just in the business of sitting between you and the public Form 13F requirement. This way you get exactly the stocks you want, and presumably a fake investment manager is cheaper than a real one.
> This is illegal, though you can see how you might feel justified in doing it. “Why should random strangers get to know what stocks I own,” you might think. That seems to have been what the Mormon Church thought.
[..]
> “The Church was concerned that disclosure of the assets in the name of Ensign Peak, a known Church affiliate, would lead to negative consequences in light of the size of the Church’s portfolio,” says the complaint, and you can see their point. The effect of the 13F rules here is mostly to make public that the church has a lot of money. But the rules are the rules, and setting up 13 shell LLCs to pretend to manage your money for you doesn’t really work to get around them.