Well, extrapolating on current trends, we can predict that the Anglican church in the west has a lifespan of about three more generations before it becomes too small to sustain itself -- at which point presumably its assets will pass to the growing evangelical branches in the Third World. It's hardly surprising that Jensen decided to try and have one last fling at making a fortune before passing the leadership reins on to the Archbishop of Nigeria. He can hardly claim any other constructive accomplishments, after all.

Thanks for this interesting article, Bruce. The diocese may argue that it chose to maximise income now in order to invest substantially in people and outreach as an investment in the church's future. That is, its legacy to future generations would not be cash in the bank but a strong church (at a time when most mainline churches are struggling to hold their own). I understand the diocese had undertaken a significant outreach program with this purpose in mind. The issue in such a case would not be so much whether this was a prudent way to proceed financially, but whether that strategy was evaluated with all risks, costs and potential outcomes transparent to all parties. Your broader point about the diocese's apparent readiness to vary trust arrangements remains aposite - and a concern that should be taken seriously.

Thanks Bruce for opening the subject of church asset gearing and risk. The range of issues is very wide. Take these examples:
• A newly established congregation borrows to build a worship and education centre. A major source of repayment will be gifts from future members. The risk assumption is that the congregation will grow.
• The colonial church received a land grant for the purpose of providing income (technically, a glebe). The trustees borrowed to develop. When the property became debt free the rents were distributable income. Now the buildings are more than 100 years old. Should the trustees borrow again to redevelop on a much larger commercial scale, or maintain the buildings and continue to distribute relatively diminishing rents?
• The church wishes to engage with new low socio-economic communities through schooling. It borrows to buy land and develop infrastructure. Repayment is substantially from recurrent government funding. The basic assumption is that government funding at high levels will continue indefinitely.
In each of these cases trustees may protect the church over time with a gearing strategy. The benefit is local, while the risk of loss is borne by the whole church. This is OK on theological “body” principles argued in Paul’s letters to the churches. A parable of Jesus commends traders who took the high risk-high return road. Regrettably the context his story seems to have a finite end measurement point, and doesn’t deal with investment losses incurred.
The prudential trust issue is not primarily one of whether to gear or of allocating gearing risk between today and tomorrow, but a holistic assessment and allocation of risk and return and adoption of prudent risk mitigation strategies.

It might prove worthwhile for Churches to consider the probable "life" of the organisation with whom they invest. The Commonwealth Bank and Westpac as themselves or taken over will probably exist in 2400. Can the same be said of the Macquarie Bank?

When I worked at Westpac'c HO, I read its System Architecture Strategy document which stated that its mainframe installation must be IBM, because IBM was held to a the life of a Bank. Westpac, herein, did not buy Digital or Univac, ewven if the equipment was better because it was held these companies would not last centuries.

It would be good if the Christian Churches could in some way time share there resources, perhaps, all working through something like a multiplex. That way, the wealth could be released and given to the poor.