Forum menu
The Church Commissioners is the investing arm of the CofE. It's a registered charity that is managing 8.9bn worth of assets including 100,000s of acres of land and property (it owns Hyde Park and leases to the London Stock Exchange). It has charity status to essentially pay clergy their retirement. It donated about 10% of its 1bn profit in the last year to charity. Much of the land it owns it doesn't do a great deal with. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently blasted the likes of Amazon for not paying its fair share of taxes. Amazon is one of the CC's biggest stock ownerships. Its portfolio of assets has been growing substantially. Hats off to them, I didn't realise the church was so good at making money. Anyone else thinks this stinks to high heaven?
I didn’t realise the church was so good at making money.
Not a student of history, then? 🙂
Not a student of history, then?
I can't claim to be. I was referring to the recent returns on their investments.
Anyone else thinks this stinks to high heaven?
Yes, that level of assets and investments does stink.
Eye of a needle.
Rochester in Kent here. They own massive amounts of land and property around here.
Given the diminishing amount of practicing Christians I can't but help think it really is about money more than religion these days. Perhaps it always was.
To clarify, I have no problem with religion, Christianity or otherwise. As usual, it's mans interpretation that leaves much to be desired.
What are they not paying taxes on?
It's not about tax though is it, unless we do simply deem it to be a business corporation just out to make money? If that's the case then it is just about tax.
I'd like to think it (the C of E) should be about more than that.
What are they not paying taxes on?
Given they're a registered charity, I'd imagine they're doing a good job of avoiding tax, in comparison with a commercial, for-profit asset manager. At least I hope the increasing focus on environment, social and governance investing regs will force them to invest more ethically. That size of portfolio has the potential to do some good in the world.
Hyde Park is one of the royal parks and nothing to do with the CoE.
Secondly, The Church Commissioners’ investments pay for the upkeep of thousands of historically important buildings. The Tax point is I believe a mute one for the simple reason that the state should probably make a greater contribution to maintain the buildings that are key to our rich history.
Secondly, The Church Commissioners’ investments pay for the upkeep of thousands of historically important buildings.
I'd sooner they invested however they need to for this rather than take it from the public purse.
Church Commissioners own Hyde Park Estate, not the park itself.
What did you think organised religion was ? It's for accumulating wealth, nothing more.
I didn’t realise the church was so good at making money.
One way or another making money is their primary purpose, whether under the guise of scaring people to donate with stories of devils and purgatory or as you rightly point out, clever investment. Any cultural or community benefits are a secondary benefit which helps their corporate social record.
I’m more comfortable with how the Anglican Church/Church of England handles its money and assets than how the Catholic Church does.
And let’s not get into American Evangelicals, their involvement with US politics and their obscene wealth.
The c church has always been about money and power. For an organisation that is so wealthy they seem to do so out of begging when a church roof needs maintenance etc. Surely the whole point of these funds should be to pay for this. If it’s not then what if it for?
If it’s not then what if it for?
To pay pensions to priests and other employees, the church still has offers a defined benefit pension. Most churches are expected to be self financing and are required to pay a certain amount to the "centre" every year for provision of priest and to cover central costs
What did you think organised religion was ? It’s for accumulating wealth, nothing more.
Oh right. I missed that but.
One way or another making money is their primary purpose, whether under the guise of scaring people to donate with stories of devils and purgatory
No more ‘Horrible Histories’ for you, I’m afraid. 🤨
The Church Commissioners’ investments pay for the upkeep of thousands of historically important buildings.
This is accurate.
To pay pensions to priests and other employees, the church still has offers a defined benefit pension. Most churches are expected to be self financing and are required to pay a certain amount to the “centre” every year for provision of priest and to cover central costs
As is this.
The land is essentially an inherited asset, do something with it and people moan
They have running costs which they try and find via investments which means a drive for higher returns, essentially justifying poor decisions for the greater good
CofE has a crisis, it needs priests on the ground yet is investing in a bloated middle management. Congregations have collapsed so no money coming in. Churches are expensive to run, inner city deprivation has the highest need and lowest income.
They need to be radical yet retain identity, a hard problem to solve
It's an easy one to solve. Dissolve the church and eliminate their influence on weak minds and negate the money issues at the same time. Job jobbed.
They have running costs which they try and find via investments
Come on, have you seen how much the commissioners' investments are raking in? Who sees the benefit of the majority of this? Only a fraction goes back into the church and through their "charity".
There was an excellent documentary series a few years back that touched on this.
They tell fairy tales to the weak minded. Do you you expect them to be ethical in all other areas?
Dissolve the church and eliminate their influence on weak minds and negate the money issues at the same time.
Except, as Trumpism and the pandemic have shown, a lot of people need "something" to believe in when they feel things are outside their control, and the modern CofE is nowadays amongst the lesser of the evils.
For all its many faults in its many guises, nearly all the food banks and free accessible family support services around here are run by religious organisations, and don't just exist for the believers.
OP wait until you find out about private schools charitable status...
If their fund is, as you say, about £9Bn, then I'm just astonished at how tiny it is.
Really, just not worth worrying about.
This thread is discussing this as though that's some giant amount of money, but it isn't.
To put it in context, it's about 1 year of EU contributions, or about 25% of Peloton's market cap.
Yes, this charity you're complaining about is worth substantially less than a company that makes static bicycles.
It’s an easy one to solve. Dissolve the church and eliminate their influence on weak minds and negate the money issues at the same time. Job jobbed.
Just the CofE or all denominations? Just Christians or all religions from pagans to Zoroastrian?
Well if they have £9bn kicking about then they can't be spending that much on their historical buildings. Also if they are so good at the upkeep and maintenance of them then why do most churches up and down the country seem to have continual begging campaigns going on to fix the church roof? They're sat on £9bn and still asking pensioners for a couple of quid every Sunday.
But they do take care of their assets that's for sure. A mate of mine lives next door to a vicarage. He wanted to build an extension to his house to have a completely dedicated space to look after his severely disabled son and the CofE blocked the planning permission because they were concerned it would impact on the value of the property too much. It's true. The Lord does work in mysterious ways.
or about 25% of Peloton’s market cap
Hmmm.
Have Peloton considered clergy led sessions?
You could have Imam / Rabbi / Vicar led HIIT classes all whilst pumping out the relevant religious doctrines and even some music - Guide Me O Thou Great Redeemer?
And reserve some spaces in churches / mosques/ synagogues for some spin bikes in place of pews etc.
Could alter religious demographics, drive some revenues.
Irony is that Peloton is far more exclusive than any religion yet is worth four times more than the church’s pension fund.
Making money from investments is a lot better than covering up child abuse.
On the list of shitty things done in the name of God, making money isn't that high on the list.
Yes, this charity you’re complaining about is worth substantially less than a company that makes static bicycles.
You've misunderstood peleton - its not a company that makes bikes (I would be surprised if they even make the bikes themselves). They are far more of a threat to the gym chains than any bike manufacturer. They are a company that has a recurring base of revenue of relatively affluent customers who will be sitting in front of a peleton screen for prolonged periods... and they've managed to do it at a time when traditional gym use is taking a covid hit. Their valuation is however crazy!
But they do take care of their assets that’s for sure. A mate of mine lives next door to a vicarage. He wanted to build an extension to his house to have a completely dedicated space to look after his severely disabled son and the CofE blocked the planning permission because they were concerned it would impact on the value of the property too much. It’s true. The Lord does work in mysterious ways.
Loss of value isn't a planning issue, the council officer would have stated that.
If the councillors took note of the church's objection without declaring an interest then your friend should be taking his complaint up with the council standards officer and the head of planning
Making money from investments is a lot better than covering up child abuse.
On the list of shitty things done in the name of God, making money isn’t that high on the list.
Making money work is actually a key parable. Obviously it was in an ethical context but the church doesn't have to apologize for making its assets work. The quantum of the assets is a different issue as you enter the arguments around sustainable funding of good works
Yes, this charity you’re complaining about is worth substantially less than a company that makes static bicycles.
Market value and asset value - I suspect they are somewhat different...
With the type of revenue that level of assets and investments brings in, they shouldn’t be asking any congregation for contributions or asking for donations to maintain properties. If you have those kind of assets and investments - you seriously do not need tax exemption on any income frame that as part of charitable status. You have to question as well, what they are doing investing in businesses that avoid tax e.g. Amazon.
The Church Commissioners is the investing arm of the CofE. It’s a registered charity that is managing 8.9bn worth of assets including 100,000s of acres of land and property (it owns Hyde Park and leases to the London Stock Exchange). It has charity status to essentially pay clergy their retirement. It donated about 10% of its 1bn profit in the last year to charity.
A good few years ago I was a trustee of a household name charity. I didn't sit on the investments committee but they reported back to the main charity council (Board) which I was part of. It takes a bit of getting your head around the amount of cash involved, and that we are celebrating Mrs Miggins running a coffee morning and jumble sale that raised £1000 whilst our stock portfolio was raising that every fifteen minutes.
I'm no fan of the church. But I'm not quite sure I understand what most of the OP's objection was.
Much of the land it owns it doesn’t do a great deal with.
there may be many reasons for this. What is it you would like them to do with their land?
The Archbishop of Canterbury recently blasted the likes of Amazon for not paying its fair share of taxes. Amazon is one of the CC’s biggest stock ownerships.
During my time as a charity trustee, we set up ethical investment policies and divested from Arms investments (if you knew which charity it would be particularly ironic that this has ever even been a possibility), but couldn't persuade the money people that we should divest from tobacco, or nestle (during their peak baby milk scandals). The problem is that the charity has an obligation to manage its assets as effectively as possible - and manage risk by having a diverse portfolio. Which 20 companies should the Church invest in which are (a) squeaky clean (b) actually good investments (c) different from each other enough that one failure doesn't impact on others. We used a lot of managed funds - but if we implemented "investment policies" we needed to apply those policies to those as well and that can really limit your choices. I'd certainly imagine that finding a fund that only invested in companies who were more generous with their taxes than they needed to be would be very difficult!
It is right however to call out and question the church if they have hypocritical pronouncements - slagging Amazon whilst investing in them is probably not even close to top of that list, but perhaps it is not the holding the investment which is wrong, but rather the public criticism of corporations?
It is right however to call out and question the church if they have hypocritical pronouncements – slagging Amazon whilst investing in them is probably not even close to top of that list, but perhaps it is not the holding the investment which is wrong, but rather the public criticism of corporations?
If only there was some kind of historical record or document that was promoted by the said organisation meant to provide some kind of ethical guidance for this type of thing - from the point of view of the organisations original proponents...?
Imagine, an example it might include that hinted at the attitude of the organisations founders to the use of assets to facilitate money-making, or the use of investment to provide revenue, or even the attitude of the rich to the assistance of the poor... That could be so useful.
I’m not quite sure I understand what most of the OP’s objection was.
They're involved in food banks, helping the homeless, giving back to communities but my point is this is hypocracy when they're only giving less than 10% of what they make through these very worthwhile activities. I haven't got an issue with them making money but it’s hyprocracy when they're keeping hold of the vast majority of it whilst peddling their holier than thou crap. Why can't vicars fund their own pensions and they free up most of what they're sitting on to charitable causes? To the vast majority of modern society, vicars don't provide a worthwhile public service so why should they get a free pension? Or maybe they should declare themselves a profit making organisation that has a religious charitable arm. In any case, in my opinion, it just stinks to keep projecting a raison d'etre of being for the greater good.
Money and power.
That's all really.
Not forgetting that the CofE exists because 1 fat man didn't want the incumbent bunch of money-and-power snake oil preachers telling him what he couldn't do from their palaces in Rome.
Much of the land it owns it doesn’t do a great deal with
dead assets?
Why can’t vicars fund their own pensions and they free up most of what they’re sitting on to charitable causes?
Because a vicar doesn't get paid enough to invest in a pension on his own. Even with a house provided, he is still responsible for basic upkeep, council tax, and utilities - bills which can be ridiculously high when the vicarage is a huge, draughty Victorian pile.
vicars don’t provide a worthwhile public service so why should they get a free pension?
Maybe have a look at the sort of thing that goes on in our neighbourhoods every day, but stays under the radar:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-55133081
if you knew which charity it would be particularly ironic that this has ever even been a possibility)
You are talking about save the children arent you? That is not a secret that they have huge amounts of investment money in things like tobaco and booze.
Much of the land it owns it doesn’t do a great deal with.
Round here, quite a lot of it is farm land, so it generates rent, and in turn generates (a few) jobs, income etc.
Not sure what else you could do with it....
What is totally bonkers is that their 'offer' (of absolution?) is so appealing that they can freeload on the goodwill of congregations and underpaid staff.
What is totally bonkers is that their ‘offer’ (of absolution?) is so appealing that they can freeload on the goodwill of congregations and underpaid staff.
Good grief.
Who’s supposedly benefitting from all this freeloading?