Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2015 5:26:59 GMT -5
There should always be a discipline of transparency and accountability. However, this does not mean that the financial business should be made known to every individual church member, but every church member should have right of access. I hardly think Bert disagrees with that? what about individuals who are not church members? such as the many who are demanding such on here Church is a family matter, Virgs. You know that. If you want to know family business, join the family. That saideth, I'm sure most folks are really pointing out that family members do not have access to family matters (if they so desired). |
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Dec 22, 2015 11:04:17 GMT -5
Did you have trouble cashing the check? I assume the check was made out to you, but maybe that wasn't the case. The reason I ask is that several of the workers I knew said they had trouble cashing checks as they didn't have checking account, and one told me she used her Mom's account to cash her "monthly" check (which I presume was SS) and didn't know what she would do when her Mom passed away. I once had to jump through hoops to get a bank to cash a $100 check, so with this one, I didn't even try. It was made out to me. I asked a local elder if I could endorse it and have him cash it for me, and he did so. That makes sense. I was pretty sure you'd hit a brick wall if you tried to do it otherwise.  Banks being all about not taking risks and all that. |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 22, 2015 13:50:38 GMT -5
There should always be a discipline of transparency and accountability. However, this does not mean that the financial business should be made known to every individual church member, but every church member should have right of access. I hardly think Bert disagrees with that? ~ I'm sure you know, that's common practice in outside churches and there is no problem regarding full disclosure of where funds have been channeled if inquiry is made by membership. This information is also available at church business meetings, for anybody who has interest in knowing where the money is funneled or allocated and for what purposes it is used. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2015 14:07:18 GMT -5
There should always be a discipline of transparency and accountability. However, this does not mean that the financial business should be made known to every individual church member, but every church member should have right of access. I hardly think Bert disagrees with that? ~ I'm sure you know, that's common practice in outside churches and there is no problem regarding full disclosure of where funds have been channeled if inquiry is made by membership. My only problem with outside churches is that they do not tithe to me! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2015 15:07:56 GMT -5
what about individuals who are not church members? such as the many who are demanding such on here Church is a family matter, Virgs. You know that. If you want to know family business, join the family. That saideth, I'm sure most folks are really pointing out that family members do not have access to family matters (if they so desired). who's the head of the family brother? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2015 15:08:46 GMT -5
Church is a family matter, Virgs. You know that. If you want to know family business, join the family. That saideth, I'm sure most folks are really pointing out that family members do not have access to family matters (if they so desired). who's the head of the family brother? No it's usually the father! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2015 15:30:15 GMT -5
who's the head of the family brother? No it's usually the father! sorry wrote that wrong. who's the head of the family? brother i was calling you brother |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 22, 2015 15:35:08 GMT -5
There is another thread currently active, on this topic: professing.proboards.com/thread/22327/money-matters-challenge-overseers-workers?page=1The purpose of this one here, however, is not to challenge but to provide the opportunity for openness. Building trust in money matters depends on such. It is human nature to treat with suspicion matters that are handled in secrecy. If church money matters are being handled honestly, let's hear about it. It is no big deal, if it is all above board and can withstand scrutiny in the light. The big deal comes when things are done in secrecy, for whatever reasons.
admin I couldn't agree more with this statement above. However, hasn't secrecy been the name of the game within the 2x2 fellowship since its inception? Why would they want to change now?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2015 15:35:10 GMT -5
No it's usually the father! sorry wrote that wrong. who's the head of the family? brother i was calling you brother I know Virgs. I was just being stupid. However, I gave you the right answer! I'm Scottish remember? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2015 15:43:20 GMT -5
sorry wrote that wrong. who's the head of the family? brother i was calling you brother I know Virgs. I was just being stupid. However, I gave you the right answer! I'm Scottish remember? you gave the right answer indeed do you think that the father of the family would mainly call the shots on what we need to know and not need to know? there is nothing wrong with the Scot's, my sister in law is Scottish, such a lovely person |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2015 15:46:33 GMT -5
I know Virgs. I was just being stupid. However, I gave you the right answer! I'm Scottish remember? you gave the right answer indeed do you think that the father of the family would mainly call the shots on what we need to know and not need to know? Depends how far you take this Virgs. Everyone is given earthly government of some kind and are required to apply it wisely. This does not include beating up one's wife! |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 22, 2015 17:27:40 GMT -5
All of you know our history. You know how William Irving, JL and company went out in faith. Why would you act as though this is a conspiracy? We were a two bit company 100 years ago. Barely had enough money to eat. Keeping track of where money went wasn't even considered. There wasn't anything to keep track of except what was in their thin little wallets. You also know that our money handling has not changed since we were a two bit company. This is not a conspiracy theory. We just have not changed. But the number of F&W have changed. So has the amount of money coming in. Should our money handling system change? Maybe. But its not a conspiracy. There is no reason we do it the way we do other than the above. ~ I never indicated a conspiracy theory was in the making. What I shared from the earlier article I posted (from TLT) was only allegations made against a senior worker or overseer by members within your group regarding his alleged sexual misconduct over the years. There was also the mention of some emptied trust fund accounts within that state, too. However, until these sensitive matters are brought up in Court of law and a decision is reached, it's just allegations, whether there is truth backing it up or not, I would like to point out. Since I'm no longer a member of the 2x2's and have been gone for over 20 years, perhaps it's inappropriate for me to even comment here? However, when questions do arise within any group about such unethical behavior, don't you feel it should be properly addressed by the leadership in charge of such a church organization?  Also, in regards to Nathan's recollection about an instance in Greece where some of the friends money held in trust went missing, this article on Cherie's TTT site explains what happened to the missing money and how it was possibly invested in the end. As to whether this particular financial loss was reported to proper authorities, I rather doubt it, since the workers don't like calling attention to their financial affairs. I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions from the information provided below? www.tellingthetruth.info/history_divisions/greece.php Divisions in Greece |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Dec 22, 2015 19:52:56 GMT -5
All of you know our history. You know how William Irving, JL and company went out in faith. Why would you act as though this is a conspiracy? We were a two bit company 100 years ago. Barely had enough money to eat. Keeping track of where money went wasn't even considered. There wasn't anything to keep track of except what was in their thin little wallets. You also know that our money handling has not changed since we were a two bit company. This is not a conspiracy theory. We just have not changed. But the number of F&W have changed. So has the amount of money coming in. Should our money handling system change? Maybe. But its not a conspiracy. There is no reason we do it the way we do other than the above. ~ I never indicated a conspiracy theory was in the making. What I shared from the earlier article I posted (from TLT) was only allegations made against a senior worker or overseer by members within your group regarding his alleged sexual misconduct over the years. There was also the mention of some emptied trust fund accounts within that state, too. However, until these sensitive matters are brought up in Court of law and a decision is reached, it's just allegations, whether there is truth backing it up or not, I would like to point out. Since I'm no longer a member of the 2x2's and have been gone for over 20 years, perhaps it's inappropriate for me to even comment here? However, when questions do arise within any group about such unethical behavior, don't you feel it should be properly addressed by the leadership in charge of such a church organization? Also, in regards to Nathan's recollection about an instance in Greece where some of the friends money held in trust went missing, this article on Cherie's TTT site explains what happened to the missing money and how it was possibly invested in the end. As to whether this particular financial loss was reported to proper authorities, I rather doubt it, since the workers don't like calling attention to their financial affairs. I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions from the information provided below? www.tellingthetruth.info/history_divisions/greece.php Divisions in Greece Hi Faun, You had said this: "Hberry ~ I wonder if the absence of a checking account by workers wasn't another stipulation among the overseers to avoid a paper trail in the case of an investigation into their finances?" And my point was, there was nothing planned. It was just a continuation of how we have always done things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2015 2:48:31 GMT -5
I know Virgs. I was just being stupid. However, I gave you the right answer! I'm Scottish remember? you gave the right answer indeed do you think that the father of the family would mainly call the shots on what we need to know and not need to know? there is nothing wrong with the Scot's, my sister in law is Scottish, such a lovely person Hi virgo, you have to get to know and understand the Scottish humour of our Scottish friend ram. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2015 14:55:37 GMT -5
you gave the right answer indeed do you think that the father of the family would mainly call the shots on what we need to know and not need to know? there is nothing wrong with the Scot's, my sister in law is Scottish, such a lovely person Hi virgo, you have to get to know and understand the Scottish humour of our Scottish friend ram. to true  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2015 16:38:36 GMT -5
Trusting anyone for anything is still nothing more than trusting another human being. No one can know what someone else is thinking and planning, and it has already happened that trusting people have discovered that the money they've given to the workers went for personal enrichment rather than necessities of the ministry. According to the law, that is fraud -- people go to prison for that. but if you notice i portraid my trust is in God Yes Virgo, I see where you are Coming from, but there is this belief in human nature that money is the root of all evil, hence this concentration and focus on money matters even in the fellowship; money can be a temptation to the weak minded and devious folks.Trust or lack of trust/doubt are the operative words here; we can put our trust in God, but we cannot always unquestionably or unquestioningly put our trust in man; if there is nothing to hide, then I have no objections to the opening of the books for scrutiny/transparency. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2015 17:14:38 GMT -5
but if you notice i portraid my trust is in God Yes Virgo, I see where you are Jcoming Coming, but there is this belief in human nature that money is the root of all evil, hence this concentration and focus on money matters even in the fellowship; money can be a temptation to the weak minded and devious folks.Trust or lack of trust/doubt are the operative words here; we can put our trust in God, but we cannot always unquestionably or unquestioningly put our trust in man; if there is nothing to hide, then I have no objections to the opening of the books for scrutiny/transparency. the point i was trying to make was if someone had Christ ruling and reigning in their lives would not those temptations be over ruled? i have the objection to the opening of books if there are any to any other than those in the fellowship if required on an individual bases there is absolutely no need for them to be opened here |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2015 17:32:37 GMT -5
Yes Virgo, I see where you are Jcoming Coming, but there is this belief in human nature that money is the root of all evil, hence this concentration and focus on money matters even in the fellowship; money can be a temptation to the weak minded and devious folks.Trust or lack of trust/doubt are the operative words here; we can put our trust in God, but we cannot always unquestionably or unquestioningly put our trust in man; if there is nothing to hide, then I have no objections to the opening of the books for scrutiny/transparency. the point i was trying to make was if someone had Christ ruling and reigning in their lives would not those temptations be over ruled? i have the objection to the opening of books if there are any to any other than those in the fellowship if required on an individual bases there is absolutely no need for them to be opened here Yes I understand the point you are making, those outside of the fellowship including those on this forum have no right to demand an inspection of the books, that right is reserved for members within the fellowship if they are any doubts in their minds. That seems fair and reasonable to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2015 18:35:21 GMT -5
I don't think this is about wanting to poke our noses into how much money there is or isn't in the coffers. But rather, about a wish for accountability to be satisfied that the money donated, however much, is getting to where it is intended (for the gospel's sake). Is this really true? I would have thought a major point (and one that interests me) is to have some understanding of the amounts in the funds so that we can gauge whether the church is struggling for money or has more than enough. Re your second sentence, I take it you are talking here of the 'trust' funds rather than the day to day spending of workers in the field (that's what I understand from your other posts). These 'trust' funds come mainly from estates. When i consider the last 3 deaths that i know of where money went to the work, the individuals concerned would have no consideration for where the money should go other than to the work (to be used as the Head worker sees fit). If they had concerns they probably wouldn't have given it. So as things stand i think the money is used as the givers intended (i.e. any way the workers wish) . |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Dec 23, 2015 18:57:27 GMT -5
I don't think this is about wanting to poke our noses into how much money there is or isn't in the coffers. But rather, about a wish for accountability to be satisfied that the money donated, however much, is getting to where it is intended (for the gospel's sake). Is this really true? I would have thought a major point (and one that interests me) is to have some understanding of the amounts in the funds so that we can gauge whether the church is struggling for money or has more than enough. Re your second sentence, I take it you are talking here of the 'trust' funds rather than the day to day spending of workers in the field (that's what I understand from your other posts). These 'trust' funds come mainly from estates. When i consider the last 3 deaths that i know of where money went to the work, the individuals concerned would have no consideration for where the money should go other than to the work (to be used as the Head worker sees fit). If they had concerns they probably wouldn't have given it. So as things stand i think the money is used as the givers intended (i.e. any way the workers wish) . I can't say I completely agree with this. The person leaving the money is assuming that all trust money is being used to further the gospel. If said worker, referred to above, decided to empty the trust fund to use for his own benefit, retirement, or to hide for a rainy day for himself, I doubt that would be its indented use, even though it would be as you say, used as the Worker sees fit. I'm pretty sure this is the concern. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2015 19:42:56 GMT -5
Is this really true? I would have thought a major point (and one that interests me) is to have some understanding of the amounts in the funds so that we can gauge whether the church is struggling for money or has more than enough. Re your second sentence, I take it you are talking here of the 'trust' funds rather than the day to day spending of workers in the field (that's what I understand from your other posts). These 'trust' funds come mainly from estates. When i consider the last 3 deaths that i know of where money went to the work, the individuals concerned would have no consideration for where the money should go other than to the work (to be used as the Head worker sees fit). If they had concerns they probably wouldn't have given it. So as things stand i think the money is used as the givers intended (i.e. any way the workers wish) . I can't say I completely agree with this. The person leaving the money is assuming that all trust money is being used to further the gospel. If said worker, referred to above, decided to empty the trust fund to use for his own benefit, retirement, or to hide for a rainy day for himself, I doubt that would be its indented use, even though it would be as you say, used as the Worker sees fit. I'm pretty sure this is the concern. if is a very suggestive word but doesn't give a definite yes it's true or no it's not true answer do you know exactly for a fact that what you are saying is the absolute truth? or are you just using it as a scenario/ conjecture/ hypothetical.? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2015 20:23:45 GMT -5
Hi Elizabeth
I hope you don't mind me questioning aspects of this . The idea of having transparency is one I am comfortable with, but I would really like to query some of your beliefs expressed here. I haven't taken all you post, but just the bits I want to comment on. Truth: The workers do what they accuse the “worldly” churches of doing, but do it in secret. They take collections via private visits and deceased estates. Actually, people give them money during private visits and via deceased estates Far from taking only what they require for their day-to-day needs, there is strong evidence of a stockpiling of resources that has been going on for many years. Is it strong evidence or is it a case of you strongly suspect? Money is put in bank accounts secretly, and those who are entrusted with this knowledge also have to keep it secret. The only real difference between the Two-by-Twos and most other churches is the accountability.
My charge against the Workers: The Two-by-Two Ministry does not operate “by faith” any more than the average church. Really? I hope we agree that the first workers went out with more faith than most. But even coming more up to date , consider the last 10 workers who have left the work. I know several who have come out in late middle age- no savings, homes, pension. i don't think they begrudge what's happened, but please consider their situation compared with other ministers. They went in the work knowing the possibility existed they'd come out with nothing - there is faith in that.That aspect shouldn't be overlooked It just operates with far more secrecy and far less accountability. Two-by-Two Money Philosophy:
- - Worldly paid ministers are just in it for the mone y I don't hear that, and to say it's a general truth of the 2x2x money philosophy is wrong in my view , and are hirelings Two-by-Two Reality:
- We take your money 'People give us money', but always secretly - We take far more than we need 'We may be given more or less than we need' , and stash it in bank accounts Presumably this is aimed at one worker only (the overseer) and the other workers are not being attacked on this? Many workers have less than they need at any point in time and get sent money ad-hocly from other workers (as Nathan has described) - We aren’t accountable to anyone, you just have to trust us - We always know exactly how much you give I think this is trash. Each can speak for themselves but i don't think anyone knows what people give. The workers in the field know the offerings they are getting from people but they aren't logging it. if you had gone in the work would you have gone in thinking I'm going to log what people give? No, neither would I. Estates on death would be known. Large money can be given at convention time but these are commonly given incognito. Special Meeting time extra money may be given , money may be given to workers who aren't from the field - don't think they'll be reporting in to someone what was paid. If money is given to the 'saint' who is organising the Special Meeting Hall , this is not communicated on, Money sent to overseas workers - not communicated on etc. Think if you were in the work - what would you really know of people's giving?? Very little, i suggest.- If you ask any questions about how much money we have or what we do with it, you have the wrong spirit. This depends very much on how the question is asked and what they consider the motive behind the question. Two-by-Two positives:
- You don’t have to give money (though this is not Biblical, and if you don't the workers will know) The last point in brackets isn't correct as the workers won't know the full picture (as described above). Also, consider if you were in the work and if you felt someone wasn't giving, would you not consider your own thinking was awry. So would I. I don't think we are the only ones who think that way.- Convention is free for attendees (though this must cost a lot from stockpiled money/private contributors) Most people contribute Two-by-Two negatives:
- The workers always know exactly who gives money and how much, This in incorrect (see above) because it is given directly by hand, or via deceased estates. If you don’t give, the workers will know. If you give a lot, the workers will know. This is incorrect (see above) It is highly likely that this will inevitably affect their view (and treatment) of you. This is incorrect . Again, think if you were in the work. Would what people give, affect your view of them? Surely not. - The workers claim to live “by faith”, following the model of the New Testament where Jesus sent them out with only what they needed for their imminent needs. However, this is far from the case with the Two-by-Two ministry as we see it. There are potentially vast sums of money stockpiled in secret bank accounts and trusts. It is hidden from members because: the reality would vastly undermine the perpetuated myth that the homeless workers go forth "by faith".This is where transparency would be good to understand how vast 'vast' is ! Could be small or big. But your description here is well short of reality. If there are your vast sums of money then probably one (maybe 2 or 3 at most?) worker (the overseer) knows. I'm surprised that you include the other workers in this - as said above they may leave the work with just a couple of suitcases at most (even at death). Could be at any time of life. Their day to day needs have been met - no more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2015 20:39:57 GMT -5
Is this really true? I would have thought a major point (and one that interests me) is to have some understanding of the amounts in the funds so that we can gauge whether the church is struggling for money or has more than enough. Re your second sentence, I take it you are talking here of the 'trust' funds rather than the day to day spending of workers in the field (that's what I understand from your other posts). These 'trust' funds come mainly from estates. When i consider the last 3 deaths that i know of where money went to the work, the individuals concerned would have no consideration for where the money should go other than to the work (to be used as the Head worker sees fit). If they had concerns they probably wouldn't have given it. So as things stand i think the money is used as the givers intended (i.e. any way the workers wish) . I can't say I completely agree with this. The person leaving the money is assuming that all trust money is being used to further the gospel. If said worker, referred to above, decided to empty the trust fund to use for his own benefit, retirement, or to hide for a rainy day for himself, I doubt that would be its indented use, even though it would be as you say, used as the Worker sees fit. I'm pretty sure this is the concern. I think it will depend very much on the person giving the money. Consider a common example. A person has 4 children say, one of who is in the work. The parents die. Historically , a reasonably common approach has been to split the estate into 4 with one quarter to each child (with one quarter ending up in the work's funds). i imagine very few parents would bother putting a caveat on the the funds going into the work, just as they don't tend to control how their other children will spend their inheritance. Remember that those who give to the work at death probably trust the overseer every bit as much as their own children. I'm not saying this is what should happen, but it is what does happen. |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Dec 23, 2015 21:50:59 GMT -5
I can't say I completely agree with this. The person leaving the money is assuming that all trust money is being used to further the gospel. If said worker, referred to above, decided to empty the trust fund to use for his own benefit, retirement, or to hide for a rainy day for himself, I doubt that would be its indented use, even though it would be as you say, used as the Worker sees fit. I'm pretty sure this is the concern. if is a very suggestive word but doesn't give a definite yes it's true or no it's not true answer do you know exactly for a fact that what you are saying is the absolute truth? or are you just using it as a scenario/ conjecture/ hypothetical.? Absolutely not, I hope I didn't insinuate that I did. It was strictly a hypothetical. |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Dec 23, 2015 21:55:00 GMT -5
I can't say I completely agree with this. The person leaving the money is assuming that all trust money is being used to further the gospel. If said worker, referred to above, decided to empty the trust fund to use for his own benefit, retirement, or to hide for a rainy day for himself, I doubt that would be its indented use, even though it would be as you say, used as the Worker sees fit. I'm pretty sure this is the concern. I think it will depend very much on the person giving the money. Consider a common example. A person has 4 children say, one of who is in the work. The parents die. Historically , a reasonably common approach has been to split the estate into 4 with one quarter to each child (with one quarter ending up in the work's funds). i imagine very few parents would bother putting a caveat on the the funds going into the work, just as they don't tend to control how their other children will spend their inheritance. Remember that those who give to the work at death probably trust the overseer every bit as much as their own children. I'm not saying this is what should happen, but it is what does happen. Yes, I agree, and most are very trust worthy. Very few are not. I think X was being used as an example. One that took some funds for his retirement. I have no knoledge whether this is true or not. My example was purely hypothetical. We are dealing with human beings. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2015 0:06:55 GMT -5
if is a very suggestive word but doesn't give a definite yes it's true or no it's not true answer do you know exactly for a fact that what you are saying is the absolute truth? or are you just using it as a scenario/ conjecture/ hypothetical.? Absolutely not, I hope I didn't insinuate that I did. It was strictly a hypothetical. the trouble with writing things which are hypothetical some are going to take it as being truth, made through suggestion trouble with believing things made through suggestion is that it will cause some to judge which in turn would be false judgment if anyone in the fellowship believed that which was hypothetical passed from one to another through gossip it would/could become a stumbling block to them unknowingly the risk is to great and this is why i say it must be left in God's hand and we should not interfere |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 24, 2015 0:57:21 GMT -5
I think it will depend very much on the person giving the money. Consider a common example. A person has 4 children say, one of who is in the work. The parents die. Historically , a reasonably common approach has been to split the estate into 4 with one quarter to each child (with one quarter ending up in the work's funds). i imagine very few parents would bother putting a caveat on the the funds going into the work, just as they don't tend to control how their other children will spend their inheritance. Remember that those who give to the work at death probably trust the overseer every bit as much as their own children. I'm not saying this is what should happen, but it is what does happen. Yes, I agree, and most are very trust worthy. Very few are not. I think X was being used as an example. One that took some funds for his retirement. I have no knoledge whether this is true or not. My example was purely hypothetical. We are dealing with human beings. Unfortunately too many people have not developed past the skill of taking hints, to the skill of understanding the purpose of hypotheticals. It has to do with foresight -- people with no foresight have no need for hypotheticals. |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 24, 2015 1:09:55 GMT -5
What surprises me is the lack of discernment amongst the faithful. Despite several incidences over the years where the workers have shown they cannot be trusted anymore than any other group of people some people still have faith in them and faith that their God is leading them. If they were shown to be untrustworthy in other settings, why trust them in this. Their God was not leading them when they commited criminal acts in other spheres so why the trust in this.
Beats me but it reminds me watching a horse with blinkers on.
|
|
Banks being all about not taking risks and all that.
