Cathedral finances and the fallout

[oddoneout]

Of course it isn't irrelevant. The C of E has complicated finances, but it does have enormous resources. It might not regard them as enough, but isn't that always the way ?

But does it have the right people in place to manage those resources? Wasn't there a problem years ago with unwise and uninformed investing that went pear-shaped and caused much ill-feeling all round, not least those tiny already struggling congregations who were expected to increase their contributions to the coffer to try and deal with the fallout.

[Dafydd y G.W.]

I wonder how in Medieval times a cathedral or abbey church made its money from pilgrims flocking to see (for instance) a nail from the True Cross. Did they have turnstiles and charge a fee?

Pilgrims would make offerings (rather as people give "collection" at services today) but it's a mistake to think that shrines were highly profitable. Analysis if the surviving accounts shews that the immensely popular shrine of S. Thomas Becket at Canterbury was run at a loss and had to be subsidised by income from other sources.

[Dafydd y G.W.]

Of course it isn't irrelevant. The C of E has complicated finances, but it does have enormous resources. It might not regard them as enough, but isn't that always the way ?

Most of its resources are not of the kind that can easily be liquidated or harnessed for profit.

[teamsaint]

It could always achieve liquidity by selling some cathedrals.

But who would it sell them to?

Or it could have them moved to flourishing inner London parishes.

[teamsaint]

Most of its resources are not of the kind that can easily be liquidated or harnessed for profit.

I'm talking about its financial resources, which are indeed considerable. And their investments seem to be performing well.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/church-of-england-investment-fund-ranking-global-performing-return-cofe-annual-report-a7748681.html

[Dafydd y G.W.]

But does it have the right people in place to manage those resources? Wasn't there a problem years ago with unwise and uninformed investing that went pear-shaped and caused much ill-feeling all round, not least those tiny already struggling congregations who were expected to increase their contributions to the coffer to try and deal with the fallout.

That was the Church Commissioners, a body that holds assets on behalf of the Church, but is answerable to Parliament rather than the Church.

Their record as investors is no better and no worse than conventional asset managers. The fuss a few years ago was about assets whose book value fell precipitately, but as everyone knows, whilst it makes good headlines, that's not what counts - what matters is whether the income rises/falls and whether you make a profit/loss when you come to sell the asset. In the long term I don't think the Commissioners were greatly down (if at all).

The main problem (as so often with an organisation's finances) is the pension question.

Historically the Commissioners made a contribution to clergy salaries, provided pensions to retired clergy, and funded bishops and cathedrals. Over the years pension liabilities have ballooned to the extent that most of the Commissioners' resources go on paying pensions of retired clergy.

As a result, the Commissioners no longer make any contribution (at all) to the salaries of saving clergy, nor will they fund future clergy pensions. They fund bishops (outright), and make a contribution to cathedrals (but only a contribution, which one of the reasons cathedrals are now struggling financially).

Essentially the Commisioners have turned into a pension fund. I doubt that their assets could be managed more profitably to produce a surplus that could lead to better funding for cathedrals - for the simple fact that in the long run you can't beat the market.

[Dafydd y G.W.]

True, but largely irrelevant (see the posting I've just made), because of the liabilities (mostly pensions). It's back to the question of turnover vs profit. Short of killing off large numbers of retired clergy there's not much that can be done to reduce the "costs"!

In a good year there will be some money to spare. The policy is that this will go on special projects that will have a strategic impact (mission, growth, etc.). It's perfectly possible for a cathedral to bid for some of this money, but by its very nature such a bid/project will be a one-off, because there's no guarantee that you will always have a good years - nor would you expect to, because (as I've said) in the long run you can't beat the market, as Warren Buffet has so clearly demonstrated recently.

[Triforium]

I thought some cathedrals had large property portfolios.

[Alain Maréchal]

I really object to cathedrals (nowadays) charging a fee for admission.

I am unsure that you should object (although I am accustomed, here, to churches being open and free to enter because the state maintains them). If the purpose of the visit is to pray, or communicate with God, then there are usually parts of the cathedral open for that, and participation in a service is free. If the purpose is to examine the architecture, or the glass, or the tombs, or other treasures, then I do not see why one should not pay as one would pay to enter a municipal museum.

[teamsaint]

I am unsure that you should object (although I am accustomed, here, to churches being open and free to enter because the state maintains them). If the purpose of the visit is to pray, or communicate with God, then there are usually parts of the cathedral open for that, and participation in a service is free. If the purpose is to examine the architecture, or the glass, or the tombs, or other treasures, then I do not see why one should not pay as one would pay to enter a municipal museum.

Lots of our municipal museums are free , EG Bristol Museum.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Lots of our municipal museums are free , EG Bristol Museum.

- in Yorkshire, too.

[MrGongGong]

I thought some cathedrals had large property portfolios.

Some have tried rather dodgy things with old documents, taking them to Australia in an attempt to raise a bit of dosh (if you know what I mean )

[Alain Maréchal]

Lots of our municipal museums are free , EG Bristol Museum.

I suggest they should not be, so relieving the pressure on local taxes.
You could follow the French model, and have them maintained by the state, and free to enter. The logic is that the Church may have caused the buildings' existence, but they were paid for by the taxes (and the labour) of the people.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think they should not be, so relieving the pressure on local taxes.

I disagree.

Moreover, nobody appreciates that for which they do not pay.

Sex?

[ahinton]

It could always achieve liquidity by selling some cathedrals.

But who would it sell them to?

Donald Trump?