Finance
Dear Nonprofit Leaders: Values Alignment Matters in Finance Too
Tis the season: Quite soon, a slew of large public companies will be holding their annual shareholder meetings, which can feature voting on resolutions of all sorts of subjects and motivations—many of them advocating social and ideological causes that can be, intentionally, at odds with Judeo-Christian values and free-market principles.
Because of the controversial subject matter of these proposals (often given a spotlight courtesy of well-funded public relations efforts), they can and often do receive significant attention from the finance press.
And yet, despite the near-certain media attention and despite the controversy that can ensnare institutions—particularly religious denominations and non-profit advocacy groups—that own stocks and invested funds, there is widespread disinterest by faith-based groups in how they will deploy their moral standing, and investment muscle, in the realm of finance.
Why? This disinterest, for whatever its reason—lack of bandwidth, ignorance of the shareholder resolution process, ignorance of mission—can boomerang on faith-based groups. And it has.
Again, why? Because many organizations allocate their votes to third-party proxies, which can (and have) been cast in support of resolutions that are in direct opposition to the causes and mandates and beliefs of these nonprofits, especially of churches and religious orders.
It does not have to be that way. And so as the shareholder-resolution season approaches, it is time to level that prudent annual warning to nonprofit leaders that want their funds to be true to their principles.
It should be of central importance to nonprofit leaders to have clear values alignment with financial consultants and advisers. This is especially true for Christians responsible for church assets, endowments and foundations; retirement plans; operating capital; and other pools of money for churches, ministries, dioceses, religious orders, denominations, and religious schools.
There are consequences—spiritual and temporal—in neglecting values alignment.
Lack of Manager/Product Availability
It should come as no surprise that most advisory firms that do not specialize in managing Christian assets are not motivated to provide high-quality, Christian-aligned managers on their platform.
Recently, a leading private equity manager specializing in investments that promote human flourishing shared that most advisory firms, including major Wall Street banks, are not interested in allocating the time within their research teams to even begin the due diligence process required to make the strategy available. Consequently, their advisers often argue that products and managers that align with Christian values are just too few and far between, which is simply not true.
The fact: Quality Christian managers are far more numerous today than ever.
Proxy Voting
A values-aligned adviser/consultant should ensure the proxies are voted in alignment with Christian values.
Unfortunately, most advisers managing Christian portfolios have either ignored proxy voting or assumed they vote in line with the portfolio screening. However, proxy voting will not be Christian-aligned unless A. there is deliberate action to install a Christian proxy adviser or B. they are required to use formal Christian proxy guidelines, such as those created by The Catholic University of America.
The consequences of ignoring these stipulations are enormous and widespread: Corporate boards and, therefore, many an American C-Suite, have become intolerant, essentially casting Christians into the shadows, saying, “Jesus belongs only within the walls of your home and Church.”
In addition, there were five corporate resolutions adopted in 2025 supporting abortion benefits. Meanwhile the elimination by some firms of corporate matching donations to religious organizations have proven costly.
Determining Values Alignment
It does not have to be this way, for religious organizations or even for secular but un-woke nonprofits. Leaders of these organizations should take note of a wonderful resource, 1792 Exchange, which distributes reports that expose coercion and corporate bias. 1792 Exchange also evaluates thousands of companies “on their divisive problems, actions, and cancellation of business relationships based on viewpoints or beliefs.”
In addition to vetting legitimate concerns over investing assets and taking shareholder positions, we recommend nonprofit leaders engage in due diligence by asking financial advisers and third-party firms a series of questions about their own internal practices to determine if there is Christian values alignment. These questions should include:
- Do you pay for abortion, abortion travel, or transgender services in your benefit plan?
- Where does your firm or your foundation donate? Provide a list.
- How does your organization treat Christians in the workplace? Are they allowed to display religious items such as Bibles, crosses, or crucifixes?
- Do you have a statement of faith?
- If you have Employee Research Groups, and if so, do you have a Christian ERG?
- Describe your corporate culture. How do you ensure human flourishing in your workplace?
It is long past time for Christian fiduciaries to become more deliberate and intentional about their obligations. Christians responsible for Kingdom assets need to examine their adviser/consultant’s client list for comparable clients, speak with the adviser/consultant’s references, evaluate the adviser/consultant’s investment process and the qualifications of its professionals, and ensure the adviser/consultant is values-aligned and experienced in proxy voting.
Tis the season—always.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
Finance
Austin financial staff propose delaying bond to 2028
AUSTIN (KXAN) — The city of Austin has released its final bond recommendation to city council members and the mayor. It’s one of at least three base options city council is expected to consider later this month.
City staff ultimately recommended the city council not pursue a bond in 2026 — but rather in 2028 — citing the “decision tree” city council adopted earlier this year.
“Staff also recognizes that there are priority funding areas that will need to be considered in the FY 2027 budget process for programs within the existing bond propositions that have reached 90% of the funds expended,” staff wrote. Those areas include transportation, watershed protection and parks.
In a work session Tuesday, many city council members expressed they still wanted to move forward with a bond this year — especially one that focuses on parks.
“Parks are so central to the identity of Austin; they’re so valued by people here — almost uniquely — amongst so many communities that I know. They are essentially out of capital funds … and I do feel an obligation to continue to get them some capital dollars,” Mayor Pro Tem Chito Vela said.
The Bond Election Advisory Task Force proposal
There are at least two additional base proposals up for consideration: One from a task force that’s been working for roughly a year and a half to identify the city’s greatest needs and another from a group of five city council members that focuses on parks.
The Bond Election Advisory Task Force (BEATF) has identified a package that would cost the city roughly $767 million and would tackle major projects in affordable housing, parks, transportation and flood mitigation.
The BEATF proposal puts money in the following buckets:
- $200 million: Affordable housing
- $175 million: Parks and open space
- $106 million: Facilities (libraries, museums, the Austin animal center)
- $25 million: Homeless Strategy Office (helping fund a new 1,200 bed shelter)
- $147 million: Transportation
- $113 million: Storm and flood mitigation infrastructure
You can find the full list of recommended projects here.
The ‘parks’ proposal
Last month, a group of city council members proposed an additional 2026 bond idea, worth more than $400 million, but that also includes a second bond ask in 2028. The focus of that bond is parks.
In a message board post, five council members pitched the following for a 2026 bond:
• $250-$260 million for parks projects, not including any maintenance facilities
• $50-$60 million for community facilities, such as libraries and cultural arts
• $75-$80 million for active transportation projects
“Should this option ultimately be pursued, we would then use the work of the BEATF and staff for the non-parks categories as the starting point for a 2028 bond discussion,” the council members said.
The BEATF then reworked that additional option — which is not their preferred proposal, but satisfies the ask from some council members — that would come in at $436 million.
The breakdown is:
- $225 million: Parks and open space
- $106 million: Facilities
- $25 million: Homeless Strategy Office
- $80 million: Transportation
You can find the breakdown of that option here.
City staff also put forward a version of this scenario which would cost roughly $390 million.
The breakdown of that alternate proposal is:
- $92 million: Transportation
- $250 million: Parks and Recreation
- $48 million” Community facilities
What happens next?
Council members and the city will now need to narrow down which of these proposals — if any of them — will be the final proposal.
In a work session, council members suggested they would not be able to have a decision made by the end of the month (staff initially put a placeholder for that vote on the May 28 council agenda). Mayor Pro Tem Vela told staff he would like to see a vote happen in July.
The deadline to call an election is in August and voters would have the ultimate say in November.
How much would these cost you?
City staff previously said that for every $100 million in additional debt the city takes on, the average Austin homeowner will see their bill go up by $14.34 annually.
It’s worth noting that your property tax bill will go up over the next several years regardless of whether a bond is approved or not in 2026. City staff say the city still has more than $2 billion in outstanding debt.
Finance
Aussie suburbs with the largest superannuation losses from collapsed funds: ‘Still unaware’
There are still thousands of Australians who have lost retirement savings in their superannuation accounts that likely don’t realise. The Australian securities regulator is urging people to double check their account to make sure you’re not impacted by the high-profile collapse of two investment funds.
Some 12,000 Aussies had their superannuation funds switched into Shield and First Guardian. But years later about 9,000 still haven’t made an official complaint with the financial ombudsman, with only about 3,000 seeking compensation so far.
“In our view that’s not enough,” ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland told Yahoo Finance.
“We suspect a lot of people are still unaware.”
RELATED
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has shared postcode data with Yahoo Finance, showing the suburbs with the worst loses stemming from the $1 billion disaster.
Of the top postcodes across the country, four are in Queensland – 4740 Mackay, 4350 Toowoomba, 4670 Bundaberg and 4209 Coomera Pimpama.
Four are in Victoria – 3029 Truganina, 3064 Craigieburn, 3030 Werribee/Hoppers Crossing and 3977 Cranbourne/Cranbourne East/Cranbourne North.
While two others are in Western Australia – 6112 Armadale and 6171 Baldivis.
“Queensland, Victoria and WA are over represented,” Kirkland said.
“But really what we’re trying to say with releasing this data is that there are people who are affected by this in every part of the country.”
The top postcodes for each Australian jurisdiction
|
NSW |
2259 |
Wyong · Tuggerah · Lake Munmorah. |
|
VIC |
3977 |
Cranbourne · Cranbourne North · Cranbourne East |
|
QLD |
4740 |
Mackay · North Mackay · West Mackay |
|
SA |
5114 |
Smithfield · Craigmore · Blakeview |
|
WA |
6112 |
Armadale · Piara Waters · Harrisdale |
|
TAS |
7250 |
Launceston · Riverside · Newstead |
|
NT |
0830 |
Palmerston City · Durack · Gray |
|
ACT |
2620 |
Queanbeyan · Googong · Karabar |
Aussies urged to reach out to their superannuation fund
Many people may still not realise they were invested in Shield and First Guardian, because the funds sat behind well-known platforms or financial advisers. So if you happen to be in one of these postcodes and have not looked at your super in a few years, it is really worth checking, he said.
“If they’re not sure weather they invested in Shield or First Guardian they should reach out to the superannuation fund and ask about that,” Kirkland urged.
Finance
Lending Momentum Builds for 2026
-
Movie Reviews11 minutes agoJack Ryan: Ghost War review – Amazon’s Tom Clancy series spawns middling movie
-
World23 minutes ago
Judge orders mental health evaluation for the woman accused of attempting to murder Rihanna
-
Lifestyle1 hour agoAre psychedelics getting a tech rebrand? : It’s Been a Minute
-
Education1 hour agoVideo: The Police Clash with Anti-Government Protesters in Bolivia
-
Technology1 hour agoMercedes’ electric AMG GT 4-door coupe can go 0-60 in 2 seconds
-
World1 hour agoWHO head ‘deeply concerned’ over ‘scale and speed’ of Ebola spread, says emergency committee will meet
-
Politics2 hours agoGeorgia Republicans head to runoff in secretary of state race defined by 2020 election claims
-
Health2 hours agoCould Ebola spread to the US? WHO emergency sparks fears after American infected in Congo