If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Well, then those investment managers should take an exit along with former Bro Nielson. The DJIA itself rose at an average of around 6% each year since around 1997. A monkey with a typewriter could have turned $12 billion into $100 billion under those annual returns.
A response piece in the Deseret News suggested it’s actually under $40B.
Well, then those investment managers should take an exit along with former Bro Nielson. The DJIA itself rose at an average of around 6% each year since around 1997. A monkey with a typewriter could have turned $12 billion into $100 billion under those annual returns.
retail investments...as one who works for a firm that is closing most of the retail establishments worldwide my view is that this this probably wasn't a great long-term fiscal decision. Good thing there are plenty of reserves!
It would be interesting to know how much they really have into the retail side of things. I read somewhere (maybe here) that their investment was only in the residential/office side of things. I doubt that is entirely true, but I do wonder how exposed they are to losses on the mall part. There is a lot more than retail that is going on at City Creek. The Church is building a new 25-story office building across State street by Harmon's, which is also technically part of City Creek too I believe. I also think there were originally plans for some additional condos, but I'm not sure if that is still in the works or has been abandoned. There are a lot of people that work very close to the mall and the food court is always packed during the day. If the retail ultimately fails, I'm sure they'll find something useful to do with it.
The biggest takeaway of all of this is that the church has more than enough money to pay to have the churches professionally cleaned. And it's not not really a takeaway, as we all knew that anyway. But seriously, we give up most of our Sunday and 10% of our income. Let's just pay someone to clean the building and clean it well. Because let's face it--the churches were a lot cleaner back when they were being cleaned by someone who was getting paid to do it.
/gripe
raises left hand to the square, bows head, and says: YES!
I'm a great believer in hoarding cash (or cash equivalents), but I pay professionals to clean our home... the Church should too.
But how much is enough to stockpile? I don't think it is too much to ask for a little visibility into what the goals and plans are. $100B is a ton of freaking money. Are they waiting to get to $200B and then we will see significant outlays? What is the ultimate goal here?
Good question.
How solid is this $100B number? I am hearing people cast serious doubt.
Imagine that your neighbor dies and everyone blames you, but the next year you provide the critical funding that results in a cure for the ailment.
But how much is enough to stockpile? I don't think it is too much to ask for a little visibility into what the goals and plans are. $100B is a ton of freaking money. Are they waiting to get to $200B and then we will see significant outlays? What is the ultimate goal here?
That is my recollection of it as well. The Gateway didn't start dying until after City Creek went in. Basically, the blight was right on the doorstep of Temple Square, so the LDS church invested to push the blight elsewhere. It then went to Gateway. I'm not being critical of the church for this decision and it wasn't anything nefarious. It makes good sense to them to keep the area surrounding Temple Square nice.
Yeah for sure. I think the primary motivation of City Creek was to revitalize the temple square area. No doubt about it.
Yes and no. Imagine you're hoarding a fortune for a time that you can use it for good. While you're waiting for your Good Samaritan moment, your neighbors are dying from an ailment that is treatable (at significant cost), but you withhold your funds for a time when "it's really needed." Is the hoarding moral? Is this a sin of omission? It's definitely not cut and dried, but it certain raises moral questions.
Imagine that your neighbor dies and everyone blames you, but the next year you provide the critical funding that results in a cure for the ailment.
The ultimate determination of the morality of the money hoarding will depend on what they eventually do with it, no?
Yes and no. Imagine you're hoarding a fortune for a time that you can use it for good. While you're waiting for your Good Samaritan moment, your neighbors are dying from an ailment that is treatable (at significant cost), but you withhold your funds for a time when "it's really needed." Is the hoarding moral? Is this a sin of omission? It's definitely not cut and dried, but it certain raises moral questions.
Leave a comment: