OK, so maybe Vatican officials were corrupt. Or maybe they were innocent lambs deceived by a wolfish investor. Either way, wouldn't it have been better for the money to have just been put in some index fund?
I'm completely serious. I realize there's upside to investing in London real estate or Angolan oil, but--as we all can see--there's a lot of downside too. Why not keep it simple?
Also, index funds need at least a decade of not touching them before a decent return is seen. That is why they are so effective, because they’re boring.
Unfortunately it seems like men (in general) have a much higher tolerance for risk and when someone presents you with the kind of returns from ‘prestige’ kind of investments and combined with flattering sales pitches of how clever, savvy etc the investor is, it’s a pretty difficult combination to resist. Celibate men don’t have the benefit of constraining dependants or a female ear to point out those risks… not that married men always heed those concerns. They are a prime target for these kinds of people obfuscatingly complex investment schemes especially when it’s not actually their personal money.
Thank you, Pillar (Ed, I think?), for your dogged persistence in this financial saga. I always enjoy reading your evaluations of this situation, in particular, even if the metrics indicate that that enjoyment is not shared.
Thank you for this. Thank you for writing in a way that an ordinary person can understand what was going on. Well, except for one thing. I really truly do not understand what Vatican officials were doing making property investments in the first place.
Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, play the markets?
Let God manage the future. The only thing the Vatican should be investing in is the state of people's souls.
This I think will be a real test for the Vatican’s criminal trial integrity. Aside from possible biases from different legal procedural culture (adversarial v. inquisitorial) the Brits are brutally fair. I think Mincione is taking an enormous risk with this litigation. At best, he comes out as the pasty of the fraud conspiracy (the guy that the bad guys were always going to pin the blame on) which doesn’t exactly restore his reputation as a safe or savvy money man... At worst, the Vatican’s case is upheld and he’s back to nowhere good with costs.
Thank you so much for this reporting. I'm shocked by the number of companies, firms, etc. who are being allowed to parasitically wheel-and-deal in the name of the Church, and for what? A commentator already mentioned: Why the heck not just place the money in conservative, diverse investments? I get that because of the nature of finances today, Vatican money might need to keep apace with the global economy, but what's being described in this article is wild speculation. Taking out high-interest credit lines to make speculative investments? This isn't even money the Vatican had at the time to make such investments!
These people were playing the markets, knowing that the responsibility would ultimately fall back on the Church. I see no reason why this should be allowed. I'd rather the Vatican go bankrupt than continue this immoral, scandalous nonsense.
Also, we need to continue looking at the Church's past teachings on usury. The world has become far too comfortable with being ruled by financiers.
OK, so maybe Vatican officials were corrupt. Or maybe they were innocent lambs deceived by a wolfish investor. Either way, wouldn't it have been better for the money to have just been put in some index fund?
I'm completely serious. I realize there's upside to investing in London real estate or Angolan oil, but--as we all can see--there's a lot of downside too. Why not keep it simple?
Because it's harder to skim money off the top if it's simple?
Also, index funds need at least a decade of not touching them before a decent return is seen. That is why they are so effective, because they’re boring.
Unfortunately it seems like men (in general) have a much higher tolerance for risk and when someone presents you with the kind of returns from ‘prestige’ kind of investments and combined with flattering sales pitches of how clever, savvy etc the investor is, it’s a pretty difficult combination to resist. Celibate men don’t have the benefit of constraining dependants or a female ear to point out those risks… not that married men always heed those concerns. They are a prime target for these kinds of people obfuscatingly complex investment schemes especially when it’s not actually their personal money.
Thank you, Pillar (Ed, I think?), for your dogged persistence in this financial saga. I always enjoy reading your evaluations of this situation, in particular, even if the metrics indicate that that enjoyment is not shared.
Thank you for this. Thank you for writing in a way that an ordinary person can understand what was going on. Well, except for one thing. I really truly do not understand what Vatican officials were doing making property investments in the first place.
Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, play the markets?
Let God manage the future. The only thing the Vatican should be investing in is the state of people's souls.
This I think will be a real test for the Vatican’s criminal trial integrity. Aside from possible biases from different legal procedural culture (adversarial v. inquisitorial) the Brits are brutally fair. I think Mincione is taking an enormous risk with this litigation. At best, he comes out as the pasty of the fraud conspiracy (the guy that the bad guys were always going to pin the blame on) which doesn’t exactly restore his reputation as a safe or savvy money man... At worst, the Vatican’s case is upheld and he’s back to nowhere good with costs.
"You cannot serve both God and Mammon."
Thank you so much for this reporting. I'm shocked by the number of companies, firms, etc. who are being allowed to parasitically wheel-and-deal in the name of the Church, and for what? A commentator already mentioned: Why the heck not just place the money in conservative, diverse investments? I get that because of the nature of finances today, Vatican money might need to keep apace with the global economy, but what's being described in this article is wild speculation. Taking out high-interest credit lines to make speculative investments? This isn't even money the Vatican had at the time to make such investments!
These people were playing the markets, knowing that the responsibility would ultimately fall back on the Church. I see no reason why this should be allowed. I'd rather the Vatican go bankrupt than continue this immoral, scandalous nonsense.
Also, we need to continue looking at the Church's past teachings on usury. The world has become far too comfortable with being ruled by financiers.