Optimism in view of lower interest rates

In November last year Jerome Powell, chairman of the FED (US central bank), said that there would be no more rate hikes and this triggered strong optimism, driving global stock indices to record highs. In fact, at the beginning of the year, investors were expecting up to 7 rate cuts by the Fed.

Today, after the economic recovery and the stubbornness of inflation to reach 2% has cooled the mood of the FED to lower rates. The market now expects 3 rate cuts instead of the 7 expected at the beginning of the year. Has this been reflected in market declines? Absolutely not. Take a look at this self-explanatory chart. 

The light blue line is the interest rates whose scale is on the right (it is inverse, it goes from higher to lower to better understand the graph) and the dark blue line is the most representative index of the American market, the S&P500. A correlation is observed until the end of January 24 and then they deviate from each other. What the chart means is that, due to a drop in rates, the market reacts by going up (from November to January) but then rates go up and the market does not go down. Why? I think there are two fundamental reasons, i) liquidity in the system continues and ii) something the Anglo-Saxons call FOMO (Fear of Missing Out), i.e. fear of missing out on the rise.

That liquidity is still in the system can be seen in the balance sheet of the FED (one of the liquidity measures), before the pandemic it was at $4.2Tn (many zeros) and today it is at $7.5Tn (still many zeros but almost double). Liquidity is like water that spills over and looks for a place, liquidity looks for profitability, and if there are no real profitable investments, the quickest way is financial assets.

On the other hand, what is this FOMO? I remember that, in the Spanish real estate boom at the beginning of the century, there were people who saw how neighbors (sometimes brothers-in-law) sold their houses well above what they had bought them for and invested in others to sell them quickly, which generated an anxiety not to be left behind. The question is, could it be happening now, perhaps, we see it in the second reason below. It leads me to recall the figure of Daniel Kahneman, who recently passed away at the age of 90. Kahneman was a psychologist who won a Nobel Prize in economics for his work based on how both emotional and cognitive biases affect us when making decisions (I recommend reading “Think Fast, Think Slow”). He said “The illusion that we understand the past, fosters overconfidence in our ability to predict the future” and we follow what he calls the “herd effect”, in short, we see an upward market trend that does not let up, it makes us anxious and we buy without really understanding what is going on but it reassures me to know that others do.

Optimism of technological innovation under the new era of AI (Artificial Intelligence).

As in previous months, the market is rising thanks to companies linked in some way to AI. Will it go on rising forever, is it a bubble? I don’t know, but at least we should be cautious. 

During the “.com” bubble at the turn of the century, companies were going up day by day. It seemed that the new paradigm, the Internet, meant that new technology companies would never go under, but something was wrong. The CEO of Sun Microsystems himself said that, if his company was trading at 10 times sales, it meant that, in order to return the money invested to shareholders, he had to wait 10 years of sales but assuming that he had neither costs nor expenses, in other words, an absurdity. Then the bubble burst, taking many technology companies with it.

Believe me, I don’t want to scare you, fortunately, we have a much better financial situation than that year but I think it is an important reference not to go crazy with what today is the new paradigm: AI. Of course, AI will change our lives as the Internet did more than 20 years ago. The problem is the valuation of many companies linked to AI.    

Look at this table of the market capitalization of the 7 companies that today they call the Magnificent 7 because they are the ones that are linked in some way to AI.

To put it in perspective, Spain’s GDP is $1.5Tn, below the top 5. To compare it with what the CEO of Sun Microsystems said, this is how these companies are quoted:

• Microsoft: 9.8 times sales
• Apple: 6.5 times 
• Amazon: 1.9 times
• Google: 4.5 times
• Target: 4.7 times
• Nvidia: 22 times. EYE
• Tesla: 6.4 times

Therefore, beware that some of them are trading at somewhat demanding multiples.

By this I do not mean that there will be a recession that will take everything by storm, the economy is doing more or less well, the banks are healthier and there are high-quality companies outside of these 7 trading at lower multiples.

You can continue to invest but with prudence and if you do not understand where you are investing, you should take a step back and analyze the possible alternatives.

You can read the previous month’s market review here.

1. Surrogate motherhood is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person.

The unity of marriage, as taught in Catholic tradition, is a sacred bond that encompasses both the relational and procreative dimensions of human life. This unity is based on the belief that marriage is meant to be a partnership that naturally leads to the creation of life within the context of the couple’s unique relationship. Surrogacy, however, introduces a third party into this intimate process, disrupting the unity that is intrinsic to marital love. By relying on an external individual to bear a child, surrogacy undermines the personal and spiritual connection that marriage seeks to uphold in the act of procreation.

2. Represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity, and of responsible motherhood.

The obligations of maternal love and responsible motherhood are central to Catholic teachings on family life and the upbringing of children. In this view, motherhood is not simply a biological process but a vocation that involves deep personal commitment and care for the child. When surrogacy is introduced, the responsibilities associated with motherhood can become fragmented, as the surrogate’s involvement is often limited to the gestational period, with no commitment to the child after birth. This compartmentalization of maternal responsibilities is seen as an “objective failure” in meeting the ethical obligations of motherhood. Thus, faith-based views argue that surrogacy fails to uphold the full commitment that parenthood and fidelity in marriage require.

3. It offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world, and brought up by his own parents.

The dignity of the child is a paramount concern in the Catholic tradition, which emphasizes that every child has the inherent right to be born from and nurtured by his or her biological parents. This right respects the natural order and the personal connection between parent and child, which begins in the womb and continues through upbringing.

Surrogacy disrupts this continuity, as the child is often conceived through artificial means and gestated by someone outside the marital relationship, distancing the child from the biological and emotional bond with the parents. This separation is seen as an offense to the child’s dignity, as it treats the child more as a product of contractual obligations than as a person who is part of a family.

4. It sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological, and moral elements that constitute those families.

Families are built on complex relationships that involve physical, emotional, and moral bonds among members. According to Catholic teachings, these bonds are meant to be interconnected, forming a stable foundation for family life. Surrogacy, however, introduces a division in these elements, as the physical process of carrying the child is outsourced to another person, while the psychological and moral responsibilities of parenting are retained by the biological parents. This separation can weaken the family’s unity, creating confusion and division around roles and responsibilities. By maintaining that the family should be an integrated unit, Catholic teaching cautions against practices like surrogacy that divide essential family roles, as stated in Domun Vitae. [1]

Additionally, Pope Francis stated last week:

“In this regard, I deem deplorable the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood, which represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs. A child is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract,”

In recent years, the corporate world has seen a surge in benefits programs supporting employees financially in their surrogacy journeys. Companies have expanded their benefits to cover surrogacy expenses, yet it is crucial to question the moral stance these actions convey.

As professionals and individuals, we hold the power to choose which practices and companies we support with our investments.

The alignment between our values and our investments should be reflective of our commitment to uphold human dignity and ethical standards.

[1] (DONUM VITAE  Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and  on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day 22 February 1987)

About this Catholic Investment Platform

Arimathea, accessible at www.arimatheainvesting.com, is designed to empower investors with a virtue-based investment strategy, allowing Catholic investors to align their financial aspirations with their faith. We recognize the common struggle faced by Christian investors—balancing professional investment management with moral principles.

Altum Faithful Investing provides the moral screening behind Arimathea, with a very clear mission: to provide Catholic investors the freedom to choose investment portfolios consistent with their faith. Borja Barragan, Altum’s CEO and Founder, emphasizes the significance of our parternship with GSAM: “Collaborating with an entity such as Golden State, which is committed to offering investment solutions faithful to the Magisterium, is an important step in enabling American investors to build professional portfolios without compromising their integrity.”

While Altum focuses on delivering Catholic Screening Research, the financial and investment strategy falls under the expertise of Golden State Asset Management. Daniel R. Catone, CEO and Founder of Golden State, shares our excitement about the partnership: “Our goal is to meet the needs of those American investors who want to be consistent with their faith, willing to prioritize their long-term financial goals and align their investments with the Catholic Church’s mission to create a more ethical, moral and just society.”

Arimathea’s portfolios will soon be available on Golden State’s digital advisory platform, offering American investors an opportunity to invest with a set of criteria that goes beyond ESG and stays true to the Magisterium.

For more information about Arimathea and to explore its virtue-based investment strategy, we invite you to visit https://arimatheainvesting.com/.

Founder of Altum Faithful Investing, Borja Barragan, together with a team of professionals both young and old, helps and advises religious institutions in the field of investment and financial asset management with a criterion based on the Social Doctrine of the Church.

How can a religious institution or a diocese professionally manage an investment portfolio, and is it possible to know whether the companies or funds in which they invest are fully aligned with the Magisterium of the Church? To answer and help with these questions Altum Faithful Investing was born, a financial advisory firm that combines solid and stable wealth growth and the application of Catholic principles founded by Borja Barragán.

The idea was born out of Barragán’s awareness of his own personal and matrimonial vocation. As he points out in this interview with Omnes, he was surprised to learn about the abusive commissions charged to religious for these services and the lack of alignment of some investments with the Social Doctrine of the Church.

How was a company like Altum Faithful Investing born? – Borja Barragán

-Seven or eight years ago, I was studying for a Master’s degree in Family Pastoral Care at the John Paul II Institute. For me, on a personal level, it was an absolute rediscovery of the vocation to marriage: God is once again at the centre of your vocational married life… And, therefore, the rest of things are also coming into order.

Among the Master’s students there were also religious men and women. They knew that I was involved in financial matters, because I have always worked in investment banking, financial markets, investment portfolios, etc., and they consulted me on these matters. In that respect, there were two things that really caught my attention. The first was the issue of commissions, the very high commissions charged to religious people. On the other hand, there was also the lack of coherence between some of the portfolios of the religious and the faith professed. This was not due to bad intentions, but because they trusted those who had “advised” them.

I believe that one of the first aspects that we have to take into account in the logic of the gift is to manage it correctly. Many religious institutions have a large part of their patrimony derived from donations made by the people and, faced with the gift received, you have the task of managing it well.

I noticed a vacuum. There was no one who had the vocation and the will to try to manage this heritage in a way that was coherent with the faith in order to help religious institutions in a professional way. Because we are very clear that being “Catholic” does not exempt us, on the contrary, from being very professional.

From that point on, there was a powerful process of discernment. I spoke with my wife, with several priests and also in front of the Tabernacle, thinking about how to put my talents, what I am good at – financial management – at the service of institutions that have accompanied me throughout my life.

Until relatively recently, it was rare to hear the terms “investments – Church” combined. Do you think there is professionalism in this field or is there still a long way to go?
-I believe that management in dioceses, religious institutions, etc., is done in the best possible way. The fact that there are trained bursars at the head of these institutions is already an achievement. It is true that there are very big cultural differences between the Anglo-Saxon or Central European world and the one that has existed for a long time in Spain.

The approach is completely different in Anglo-Saxon culture. For them, from the “gift received”, for example, of wealth, comes the obligation to manage and administer it in the best possible way, with professional people.

On the ethical side, the push has come in recent years. In 2018, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life published “Economy at the service of Charism and Mission” and, also in 2018, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for the Service of Integral Human Development published “Oeconomicae et Pecuniariae Quaestiones. Considerations for an ethical discernment on some aspects of the current economic and financial system“. Those were the first major steps that were later developed in the recent document “Mensuram Bonam“.

Clearly the Church is realising that there is a patrimony to manage well and it is not for religious to buy Ferraris. But because, in order to do good, you need goods. You have to see how to make those goods bear fruit in the best possible way.

The main difference with the Anglo-Saxon world is that they have been working for 300 years with the concept of endowment.

Before setting up Altum, I went to Harvard for training. There I got to know the concept of endowment in depth. In the case of universities, for example, the endowment is managed with the needs of students in 50 years’ time in mind, so that they have the same opportunities as today’s students. Something similar happens in the congregational and diocesan world: these assets are there to meet the needs of vocations in 50 years’ time. In order to take care of such a long time horizon, the tolerance for risk has to be greater.

If we look at which assets have performed best, which have given the best returns, in the long term there is no doubt that the assets that have best withstood inflation are equities, not bonds. That is where financial science comes in to help religious entities to have a balanced management of their assets. It is not saying that everything should go into equities and that all risk should be taken, but that they should be able to take a risk appropriate to their own risk tolerance. In line with their capacity and, above all, good for their time horizon.

If we are short-sighted and focus only on taking on risk-free portfolios, the objective of guaranteeing the same opportunities in 50 years’ time, I guarantee you, will not be achieved. Inflation will simply eat up that wealth.

And is this idea of avoiding short-termism and taking on risk catching on?
-Little by little. Our own clients tell us so. Many come from the “deposit world” before 2008. In 2008, with the big crisis, interest rates disappeared, nobody gave anything for the money. Now they can give a little more for these deposits, and the request they make is to see how to assume a little more risk in order to be able to look beyond 5 years.

Another thing we see is that, more and more, the people who are in charge of the administration of these types of institutions are looking to be prepared. They are asking for training to be able to have a conversation on an equal footing with the banks they sit down with.

Don’t you think that, even so, words like “risk” or “profit” in the Church give rise to some hesitation?
-The word risk in the Church can be a bit scary, but it is the missionaries, the religious, who have taken a bag and, without a euro in their pocket, have crossed the world to go on missions in hostile countries. For me, that is a risk.

In any case, we should be more concerned, not so much about whether Church institutions make a profit on investments, because we know that this profit is to be invested in the upkeep of churches, in aid to charity, etc., but about how this profit is obtained and what it is being used for.

You have recently launched a system of certification of funds under criteria based on the Social Doctrine of the Church. How do you carry out this certification?
-You cannot analyse a company by the private life of its CEO or the behaviour of its employees. To do it in an objective way – we are talking about investments – we have to look at two aspects.

The first is to know whether the activity of the company conflicts with the Magisterium of the Church or not. We are looking for companies to be what they are. Not that they should be flying the cross and praying the Angelus, but that they should provide a series of goods, services, quality products, at affordable costs, that they should treat their employees well and pay them, and so on. That is what is required of a company. This is what we mean when we say that the activity it carries out does not conflict with the Magisterium. The second part refers to the practices of the company as a company and whether or not they conflict with the Social Doctrine of the Church. For example, we can invest in a company that makes tables; something that, at first glance, does not conflict with the Social Doctrine of the Church. But what if this company’s philanthropic policy includes making large donations to Planned Parenthood; does it make sense for me, as a Catholic, to be financing a company that donates to projects that are clearly contrary to the Church’s morals and Magisterium?

The first step is to analyse the companies, through a whole methodology that we have and through Altum’s investment guidelines, so that neither the practices nor the activities conflict with the Social Doctrine of the Church. We work mainly through direct dialogue with companies, which is called engagement. In 2022 we made more than 600 engagements with companies to “walk in truth”. When faced with controversial information from a company, we want to know their opinion. Not because we are the fairest but because, also in our methodology, we are guided by the see – judge – act approach that the Social Doctrine of the Church supports. In order to judge and act, in our case, we first have to see.

What points are important for an institution when it comes to investment advice?
-I think there are three key points.

The first is trust – independence. They have to have full confidence in the person who is going to advise them. That trust has to come from independence. In many cases, financial advisors are paid by the banks, or in the case of non-independent entities, they are paid by the banks and the investment funds they place with the client, and there is a clear conflict of interest: what is offered to the client, what suits him best or what generates the most commission for the bank or banker?

In addition to this, professionalism must be added to this first point. Any financial advisor must be an advisor regulated by the Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (National Securities Market Commission) in the case of Spain.

Secondly, not everything goes. When the banker comes along and presents investment products, socially responsible investment is sold a lot to religious people, but the current approach to socially responsible investment can conflict with the Magisterium. For example, you can have a company that has a very good ESG (environmental, social and governance) rating because it has no toxic emissions, the shareholder board is 50/50 male and 50/50 female and all stakeholders are delighted. But if that company is doing embryonic stem cell research, should we invest there? No. Not everything goes, and this is one of the reasons why investment fund managers have asked us for this qualification.

Thirdly, real estate. In many cases, you have to let go of past attachments to be able to look to the future. Houses or communities have to be closed to ensure the survival of the institute for the next 100 years. This management, in which we find assets that are complicated from an urban planning point of view, but also very juicy for investment funds, requires professional accompaniment, unless they are experts in real estate issues.

Perhaps less well known but equally striking is your involvement in projects such as Libres. A new patronage?
-Within the large multinationals, there is the possibility of charities, acts of donation. When I worked in banking, I always found that when I wanted to donate to religious institutions, the answer was “No”. Why? Because they are religious. I thought that, when I had my company, I wanted to help religious life, which helps me so much.

In Altum we have the Altum100x1 programme: As a company, the dividends that would be paid to the shareholders (I am the only one), are donated to evangelisation projects that have to have at least one of these three characteristics: promotion of prayer, promotion of the mission and the formation of vocations.

We have been supporting projects for several years now and in the case of Libres it was absolutely natural. From a seed, a production such as Libres has come out, which makes known the lives of those people who, quietly, support us and it is a way of promoting all this.

In a series of four recently published articles, Altum Faithful Investing takes an in-depth look at the 2030 Agenda and compares it with the Social Teaching of the Church with a very clear intention: to help the Catholic investor discern which aspects conflict with the Magisterium and why.

ReL interviews Borja Barragán, founder of Altum, to delve a little deeper into the analysis they have carried out. You can read more articles published in ReL about Altum here.

In the articles it is mentioned that investing in line with the 2030 Agenda may conflict with Christian morality. Could you explain why?

-There is a potential conflict between Christian morality and Agenda 2030 due to fundamental differences in the vision of the human being. While the Social Teahing of the Church gives primary prominence to the person and his or her dignity, Agenda 2030 seems to be based on a concept of development in which the human being can be used as a means to that end.

“This raises ethical concerns. A clear example is when developing countries are required to adopt anti-birth policies in order to receive development aid, under the justification of promoting reproductive health. This is in direct conflict with the Christian principle of respecting the life and dignity of every human being, from conception to natural death. The imposition of measures that limit procreation, such as the promotion of abortion or forced sterilisation, contradicts Church teaching and poses a serious moral conflict.

-What are the alternatives for a Christian who wishes to invest in a manner consistent with his or her faith, given these concerns?

-It is important for Christians, when investing, to look for options that are aligned with their values and principles. One alternative would be to explore investment funds that adhere to ethical principles and promote morally responsible initiatives. These funds often consider criteria such as respect for life, protection of the environment and transparency in business practices. In this way, Christians can be consistent with their faith and contribute to the integral development of the person without compromising their moral convictions.

-What is the real effectiveness of the 2030 Agenda in promoting true integral human development?

-While the 2030 Agenda seeks to address important issues and has goals that are positive in principle, it is valid to question its effectiveness in achieving integral human development. At times, this agenda can become a universal declaration to “appease consciences” with solemn and pleasant words, without achieving concrete and significant changes. It is essential that the actions and policies promoted under the 2030 Agenda really transform people’s living conditions, promoting their dignity and respecting their fundamental rights.

-What is the importance of analysing the meeting points between the Social Teaching of the Church and the 2030 Agenda, especially in the area of investment?

-As investors (and, of course, also as consumers), the importance of analysing the intersections between the Social Teaching of the Church and the 2030 Agenda lies in the need to align our moral and ethical principles with our financial decisions. The 2030 Agenda seeks to address global challenges, which is positive, but some of its approaches conflict with the Church’s core values.

“By looking at these meeting points, we can assess whether our investments are in line with our faith and principles, avoiding supporting practices that are contrary to human dignity, the protection of life and the promotion of the family. It is an opportunity to be consistent in all areas of our lives, including investment.

-Could you give us concrete examples of how these points are implemented in the 2030 Agenda?

-Of course, we can see how in SDG 3, it seeks to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health services, including contraception and the integration of reproductive health into national programmes. This has led to legal reforms in some countries, such as Spain and France, which facilitate access to abortion and contraception. In addition, the Agenda promotes the incorporation (and in many cases an imposition) of a gender perspective (as mentioned numerous times throughout the preamble of the Agenda 2039 adoption document), which departs from the Christian conception of sexuality and the family.

-What is the Holy See’s position on these aspects of the 2030 Agenda?

-There is a document from the Holy See regarding the approach of Agenda 2030 written in 2016 by the nuncio in Spain Bernardito Auza that is worth reading. It expresses reservations about some approaches and emphasises, for example, that the concept of health must include the most vulnerable, including the unborn.

“From the Catholic magisterium, sexuality is understood as a gift with a unitive and procreative character, and methods that dissociate these dimensions are not supported. Furthermore, the Holy See has warned about the denaturalisation and instrumentalisation of sexuality and the family, as can be read in Laudato Si, Amoris Laetitia or the document published in 2019 “Man and Woman He Created Them”.

-How does this affect the investment world and what can Christian investors do in the face of this situation?

-The implementation of the 2030 Agenda is reflected in corporate activism campaigns carried out by many companies. Some of them support laws that threaten religious freedom and take clear positions in favour of access to abortion and contraception. Christian investors need to reflect on which SDGs the investment funds and companies they invest in are pursuing, and whether they respect the religious freedom of all those involved. The investment world cannot be blind to moral values.

-What is the conclusion we can draw about the 2030 Agenda and its compatibility with Christian morality?

-The 2030 Agenda has positive goals, but it is crucial to question whether the means used to achieve these ends are moral. The points of conflict mentioned raise doubts about the compatibility between the Agenda and Christian morality.

-In your articles you mention that states and corporations are becoming “moral arbiters” in relation to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Could you elaborate on this statement?

-Indeed, we are witnessing how both states and companies are taking on an increasingly prominent role as “moral arbiters”. States, through legislation and policies that impose certain ideologies, seek to influence the individual consciences of citizens. For their part, companies, especially large corporations, adopt the Sustainable Development Goals as part of their corporate strategy, thus imposing moral criteria on their stakeholders.

What is the impact of this trend on society and on investors’ decision-making?

-The impact is significant, as this trend can generate ethical conflicts for investors. For example, a Catholic investor is faced with the question of whether it makes sense to invest in companies that cooperate openly and directly with abortion, either through their activity or their philanthropic policies. Furthermore, the question arises as to whether the investment world should simply bow to consensus or whether it has a responsibility to consider the principles of natural law when making investment decisions.

-What is the role of moral law as opposed to majority consensus in the implementation of actions?

Moral law acts as a necessary anchor in decision-making. It is not enough for an action to be consensual or supported by a majority, but it must be in accordance with the dignity of the human person and the dictates of right reason. History has taught us that consensus may change over time, but the fundamental values and principles of natural law remain as elements of an objective moral law.

-What is the challenge for investors and society at large in the face of the moral influence exerted by states and corporations?

-The challenge is not to be blindly swayed by the moral influence imposed by states and corporations, but to be aware of the coherence between moral values and investment decisions. Investors must question to what extent it makes sense to invest in companies with positions contrary to natural law and whether authority is above the moral order. Society at large must also reflect on the importance of preserving core human and moral values in a context where consensus can fluctuate and change.

-In the face of the widespread acceptance of the 2030 Agenda, what should be the approach and position of Christians?

-In my humble opinion, Christians, not only in the face of the 2030 Agenda but in the face of any situation in our daily lives, cannot remain anaesthetised as mere spectators… we must consider our moral responsibility to offer an alternative that allows us to live in coherence with our faith in all the areas around us (from the professional to friendships to leisure).

-In your articles you often mention the concept of a “creative minority”. How can Christians be a “creative minority” in society?

-Being a creative minority means offering an alternative that is centred on the person and on fundamental values. In the area of finance and investment, for example, one can seek a morally responsible choice that promotes life, family, human dignity and care for creation.

-What initiatives has Altum developed to be a creative minority?

-Altum has developed projects such as Altum App, an application for investors and consumers that verifies whether companies comply with the Church’s magisterium. We also have Altum Explorer, a tool that allows you to create investment portfolios consistent with Christian morals, and Altum Certified, a system for certifying investment vehicles. In addition, we have the Altum 100×1 programme to support prayer, mission and vocations.

-What should our true north be in the midst of these circumstances?

-Our true north should go beyond the 2030 horizon and look to the year 2033, where we will celebrate the event that really changed the world: the resurrection of the Lord. I invite everyone to build their own agenda for that year, seeking to generate a Christian culture centred on the person.

In the last three articles we have been explaining that, although the 2030 Agenda has positive aspects, accepting it implies direct conflicts with the moral approach of the Church. In the face of the widespread acceptance of the Agenda, the question arises: what now, what should Christians do, where should our focus be?

Benedict XVI spoke on several occasions about the importance of non-negotiable principles: protection of life, recognition and promotion of the structure of the family and protection of the right of parents to educate their children[1]. These principles are not truths of faith, but principles inscribed in the nature of man and therefore destined for all people and essential for just and peaceful coexistence.

Faced with this situation, the Christian cannot remain a spectator in society and we must ask ourselves whether we have the moral responsibility to offer an alternative that is consonant with these non-negotiable principles, in the words of John Paul II:

” A new state of affairs today both in the Church and in social, economic, political and cultural life, calls with a particular urgency for the action of the lay faithful. If lack of commitment is always unacceptable, the present time renders it even more so. It is not permissible for anyone to remain idle”.[2]

Offering this alternative means being creative minorities in all areas. Benedict XVI has stressed on several occasions the importance of the Church as a creative minority. The creative minority is like yeast in the dough: it is capable of transforming the laws and properties of the dough, but it does so from within, as part of it[3]. Thus, in the face of the current proposal to detach all social aspects from transcendence, being a creative minority implies offering an alternative: placing value on the person.

Placing man at the center, the first social structure we encounter is the family. In all the literature surrounding Agenda 2030, the family is barely mentioned if not to undermine it through “family planning” rather than to promote it. However, the family remains one of the cornerstones for the development of a healthy society. On the one hand, because it is the one that generates human capital and, on the other hand, because it is the school where we learn to live, where we learn to love.

At Altum we have set ourselves the goal of being a creative minority in the world of finance and investment. Our way of doing this is to offer a morally responsible alternative to the current “sustainable investment” by introducing four pillars when selecting investments that put the person at the center: the promotion of life, of the family, of human dignity and the care and protection of creation for future generations? This has resulted in projects that have come to light in the last 5 years:

• Altum App: an app aimed at all investors and consumers, regardless of their wealth, to be able to check whether companies comply with the magisterium of the Church.
• Altum Explorer: a tool that allows professional investors to create portfolios consistent with Christian morals for their clients.
• Altum Certified: a system for certifying investment vehicles to enable investors to know to what extent the assets in which a fund invests do not conflict with the Magisterium.
• Altum 100×1: our program, framed within reciprocity and the logic of gift, to support Prayer, Mission and Vocations by promoting initiatives such as the recently published documentary “Libres” (Free).

We are all called to creativity, to generate new things, it is what man has done since he is man. We invite the reader of this article to stop and think about how he, together with others, can be a creative minority, wherever the Lord has planted each one of us, to continue generating a Christian culture centered on the person.

Because… where should our north really be? Our north should look beyond the 2030 horizon to just 3 more years, to the year 2033, when we will celebrate the event that really changed the world: the resurrection of the Lord.

Do you dare to build your own agenda for 2033?

Always duc in altum.

[1] Benedict XVI, Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the members of the European People’s Party on the occasion of the study days on Europe, 2006. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060330_eu-parliamentarians.html

[2] John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, 1988, n.3. Available at:

[3] Granados, Luis y Ribera, Ignacio, Minorías Creativas: El Fermento del Cristianismo, Editorial Monte Carmelo, 2011, p.22.

The 2030 Agenda has an undeniable state-run character since it is originated by States and supranational organizations. However, the global nature of the agenda also puts the focus on the private sector, with companies being key players in its implementation. Having analyzed in the two previous articles the different anthropological bases and the specific objectives that conflict with the Magisterium, in this article we will look deeper into the role that the State and corporates should have in social life in comparison to the approach offered by the UN SDGs.

The 2030 Agenda is based on a consensus decided by the heads of state, which is not necessarily bad. For a consensus or action voted by majorities to be recognized and respected, it must promote essential human and moral values which, as the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states “derive from the very truth of the human being and which express and protect the dignity of the person“[1].  These values are not based on consensus or majorities that can modify or destroy them but are simply recognized and respected as elements of an objective moral law. The problem arises when the majority or consensus chooses to carry out an action that is contrary to these “human values” and is contrary to the natural law. There are several historical examples of consensuses that have changed over time. While slavery was widely accepted and even legally protected in the 18th and 19th centuries in the United States, it was not morally right because it was consensual. Therefore, an action is not good because it is consensual, but because it conforms “to the dignity of the human person and to the dictates of right reason“[2]. On the Day of Peace in 2009, Benedict XVI stressed the importance of a moral law that acts as an anchor: “ a ‘common code of ethics’ is needed, whose norms are not merely the fruit of agreements, but are rooted in the natural law inscribed by the Creator in the conscience of every human being “[3].

As we have seen in previous articles, the 2030 Agenda conflicts in some of its approaches with the dignity of the person. Additionally, if we consider what was stated in the previous paragraph, one might wonder: are States becoming the “moral authority”? Does it make sense that they become promoters and impose certain ideologies on the individual consciences of citizens?

From a business perspective, companies and especially large corporations play a very important role in the implementation of the Agenda (as already announced in the resolution of adoption of the Agenda[4]). As of today, there are many companies that have adopted, if not all, some SDGs as a pillar of their corporate strategy. We can also see a proliferation of investment funds focused on meeting the SDGs without (apparently) understanding the full implications of the SDGs.

These investment funds invest in companies that impose moral criteria on their stakeholders. One of the most striking recent cases is the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 where 14 states banned the practice of abortion in their territories. This situation triggered a wave of publicly traded companies that modified their internal policies to cover the costs of their employees’ travel to other states to facilitate the access to abortion.

All in all, we are seeing how, progressively but at an increasing speed, companies and states are using their social positioning to become moral “authorities” that determine how society should act in certain situations. This fact raises questions in the consciences of faithful investors:

– Does it make sense to invest in companies that cooperate openly and directly with abortion?

– Should the investment world simply surrender to consensus?

– To what extent does it make sense to invest in companies with positions contrary to natural law? 

– Is authority above morality?

[1] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 2019, p. 199 (n.394).

[2] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 2019, p. 201 (n.398).

[3] Pope Benedict XVI, Message pf his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the celebration of the World Day of Peace 1 january 2009, The Holy See, 2009, n.8, Vatican Publishing House. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20081208_xlii-world-day-peace.html

[4] UN, Draft resolution referred to the United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda by the General Assembly at its sixty-ninth session. ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, 2016, p.3. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf

Michael Novak (1933-2017) undertook the task of reconciling capitalism with Christian values by defending this system from the perspective of morality. Advisor to St. John Paul II and correspondent at the Second Vatican Council, Michael Novak was an American philosopher and theologian whose work has had a great impact on the economic thought of the last decade.

At a time in history when socialism was triumphing in the world, Novak understood the importance of reconciling Christian values with economic freedom. Novak’s great contribution is The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (1982), which proposes the model of “democratic capitalism” based on freedom and social responsibility. Concepts that at first glance may seem opposed are in fact two sides of the same coin since freedom always implies responsibility for one’s actions. For Novak, the market is not an end, but a means, and as such, it must be placed at the service of human benefit[1]. This point is reaffirmed by John Paul II in Centesimus Annus[2] when he states that companies constitute a group at the service of society[3].

Novak’s perspectives expanded our conceptual grasp of economic liberty beyond dry formulas to include a more complete picture of the creative, human, and virtuous nature of entrepreneurship[4]. A vision he inherits in some ways from Ludwig Von Mises (1881-1973) and Israel Kirnzer (1930) and is fully consonant with the “creative human action” developed by John Paul II in his doctoral thesis Person and Action (1969)[5]. That human action is the entrepreneurial initiative of individuals and their consumption and investment decisions in the market. This positive vision of the market is the foundation of his theory of democratic capitalism: a social order favorable to inventiveness, discovery, and entrepreneurial creativity[6].

In this sense, Novak understood capitalism as a gear composed of three parts[7]:

1. A political system composed of governmental institutions.
2. A moral/cultural system composed of schools, churches and.
3. An economic system composed primarily of businesses.

Each of these parts interacts in such a way that each system controls the other and they need each other to function properly. Thus, Novakian capitalism is not a set of formal principles, but has a moral content: all decisions and actions that take place in the market have a meaning. Individuals, influenced by the moral/cultural system, through their consumption or investment decisions, influence the activity of companies, making it not a “ruthless system” but a system that pivots around morality.

Anyone could argue that the vision provided by the American thinker is naïve or idealistic, however, Novak, in one of his most famous quotes, acknowledges how capitalism, like any human institution, is not without flaws:

“Capitalism is neither the Kingdom of God nor without sin. Such hope as we have for alleviating poverty and for removing oppressive tyranny – perhaps our last, best hope – lies in this much despised system“[8]

Novak’s work shows a notable influence of the Austrian thinker par excellence F.A. Hayek (1899-1992), and in turn a clear influence of the School of Salamanca, of which we spoke in last month’s article. Hayek also inspired John Paul II in the writing of Centesimus Annus, as Novak himself, who witnessed their meeting, revealed[9].

Novak’s contribution is yet another example of the concern for morality in the field of economics, demonstrating that they are not watertight compartments. Thus, this reconciliation between Christian values and capitalism can guide us in the consumption and investment decisions we make, since it is these decisions that control the activity of companies.

[1] Novak, Michael, Juan Pablo II: La Nueva Ética Empresarial, 1992. Available at: https://www.ancmyp.org.ar/user/CONTINUACION-ANALES/14_TOMO%20XXI.PDF

[2] Acton Institute, Autor Michael Novak, 2023. Available at: https://www.acton.org/about/author/michael-novak

[3] Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 1991, n.35. Avbailable at: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html

[4] Robert, James M., Michael Novak, Friend of Economic Freedom, 2017, Heritage Foundation. Available at: https://www.heritage.org/economic-and-property-rights/commentary/michael-novak-friend-economic-freedom

[5] Huerta de Soto, Jesús., La doctrina social de la Iglesia Católica y la aportación de Kirzner, 2023. Available at: https://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/articulos/articulos-en-ingles/ethics-capitalism/6-the-social-doctrine-of-the-catholic-church-and-kirzners-contribution/

[6] Robert, James M., Michael Novak, Friend of Economic Freedom, 2017, Heritage Foundation. Available at: https://www.heritage.org/economic-and-property-rights/commentary/michael-novak-friend-economic-freedom

[7] Tiemstra, John P. “Economic Analysis and the Spirit of Democratic Capitalism” CrossCurrents, vol. 43, no. 4, 1993, pp. 545–49. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24459455

[8] Novak, Michael, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalsim, 1982.

[9] Huerta de Soto, Jesús., La doctrina social de la Iglesia Católica y la aportación de Kirzner, 2023. Available at: https://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/articulos/articulos-en-ingles/ethics-capitalism/6-the-social-doctrine-of-the-catholic-church-and-kirzners-contribution/

Altum Faithful Investing

Having analyzed the conflict at its root in the first article, it is necessary to analyze, from a more practical point of view, which SDGs put forward postulates that are difficult for Christians to accept. Starting from a different conception of “person” and “human dignity”, the SDGs that mainly come into direct conflict are those that call into question the Christian conception of family, religious freedom (of any creed) as well as those that actively promote gender ideology, contraception and abortion. Throughout this article, we will analyze the most problematic issues that the Christian investor may encounter when investing in companies that promote the 2030 Agenda.

First of all, one of the major issues at the center of the 2030 Agenda is health. Where in principle, anything that implies an improvement in health is positive, the means proposed by the 2030 Agenda to reach that end seem to focus on contraception and the promotion of free access to abortion. For example, in SDG 3, target 3.7 seeks to “ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health services, including family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programs”[1]. Likewise, target 5.6 of SDG 5 seeks to “ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights”[2]. We can see that these declarations do not remain only at the theoretical level but are implemented in a very concrete manner. Let’s look at several examples: on the one hand, regarding everything that affects abortion and contraception, Spain has outlined the reform of the Organic Law 2/2010 on Sexual and Reproductive Health and the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy, with a clear impact on the achievement of target 5.6 of SDG 5[3]. France, on the other hand, has implemented a strategy to facilitate real access to abortion and contraception with full coverage of the entire process (consultations, analysis and ultrasound), free and confidential access to contraception for minors aged 15 to 18 years, the free morning-after pill at university and the increase of local abortion centers throughout the country[4].

In this regard, the Holy See, through the press release of Archbishop Bernardito Auza on the first anniversary of the adoption of the SDGs, strongly emphasizes that the concept of “health” must be broad, including the most vulnerable and, of course, the unborn[5]. The right to health comes from the right to life, and therefore, to use it to end life would be a contradiction in terms. Not only for the termination of life but also the instrumentalization of it. From the Catholic magisterium, sexuality is understood as a gift that simultaneously harbors a unitive and procreative character[6], hence the Church does not support methods that detach sexuality from these two dimensions.

Secondly, the 2030 Agenda has a clear focus on the promotion and implementation of gender ideology, which is in an opposite side to the concept of the Christian family and whose imposition can enter into a clear conflict with religious freedom or conscientious objection. In the preamble of the act of adoption of the SDGs, the importance of “the systematic incorporation of a gender perspective in the implementation of the Agenda”[7] is specified. The interpretation of the term “gender” in the United Nations refers to the roles, characteristics and opportunities defined by society, a product of the relationships between people and subject to change in time and place[8]. However, in one of the latest allusions of Pope Francis to gender ideology, “a distinction can be made between biological sex and the sociocultural role of sex (gender), they can be distinguished, but not separated”[9]. The positioning of the 2030 Agenda regarding the family goes against the invitation made by the Vatican document “Man and Male He Created Them”[10] when it states:

“Gender theories indicate – especially the most radical ones – a progressive process of denaturalization or estrangement from nature towards a total option for the decision of the emotional subject. With this attitude, sexual identity and family become dimensions of postmodern ‘liquidity’ and ‘fluidity’: founded only on a misunderstood freedom of feeling and wanting, rather than on the truth of being; on the momentary desire of the emotional impulse and on individual will.”

How are companies implementing these SDGs? Given that companies do not have the power to create laws, the implementation of these points of the 2030 Agenda by the corporate world can be seen very clearly in the lobbying campaigns being carried out by many companies. To give just a few examples, in 2016 in the United States more than 533 companies formed The Business Coalition for the Equality Act[11] to support the Equality Act, a law that in the name of tolerance threatens the ability to make decisions based on religious and anthropological convictions. In relation to access to free abortion and contraception more than 800 companies (including well-known brands such as Levi Strauss & Co, Netflix or Ben & Jerry’s) have positioned themselves in favor of abortion through campaigns such as Don’t Ban Equality[12]. 

In conclusion, the 2030 Agenda sets out a series of very positive goals and targets, but like any act, it is appropriate to ask whether the means used to reach that end are moral. It would be interesting to invite the Christian investor to reflect: What specific SDGs are pursued by the investment funds and companies in which I invest? Do these decisions by companies respect the religious freedom of stakeholders (investors, employees, customers, etc.)? Is the investment world blind to moral values?

[1] UN, Sustainable Development Goals, 2023. Available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/health/

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ministry of Social Rights and Agenda 2030, Progress Report 2022 of the 2030 Sustainable Development Strategy, 2022, p.159. Available at: https://www.mdsocialesa2030.gob.es/agenda2030/documentos/IP22_AC.pdf

[4] UN, Report on the Implementation by France of the Sustainable Development Goals, 2016, p. 23. Available at: https://sdgtoolkit.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/10726Report-SDGs-France-2.pdf

[5] Archbishop Bernardito Auza, Note Of The Holy See On The First Anniversary Of The Adoption Of The Sustainable Development Goals, Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, 2016, p. 6. Available at: https://holyseemission.org/contents/statements/5806914667987.php

[6] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 2019, p. 120, 121.

[7] UN, Draft resolution referred to the United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda by the General Assembly at its sixty-ninth session. ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, 2016, p.7. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf

[8] UN, Gender and Health, 2018. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/gender-and-health

[9] Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia: Apostolic Exhortation on Love in the Family, 2016, point 56. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

[10] Congregation for Catholic Education of Institutes of Studies, Male and Female Created Them, 2019, p.11. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20190202_maschio-e-femmina_en.pdf

[11] Human Rights Campaign, Business Coalition for the Equality Act, 2023. Disponible en internet: https://www.hrc.org/resources/business-coalition-for-equality

[12] Don’t Ban Equality, 2023. Disponible en internet: https://dontbanequality.com/

Since its origin, the Church has never been indifferent to the social realities and problems that spur mankind. From “Rerum Novarum” through “Caritas in Veritate” to Laudato Si and Fratelli Tutti, the Church has always demonstrated its concern for integral human development. As an international actor, the Church is no stranger to the attempts to advance along the path of development. In this sense, Catholic Social Teaching is necessary at all stages of human dialogue with the world[1].

The most recent, and perhaps most significant, milestone in that effort by States to reach consensus is undoubtedly the 2030 Agenda. In 2015, the States of the United Nations unanimously enacted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While many of these goals are praiseworthy[2] and perfectly acceptable from a Christian point of view  (in fact are presented as “an important sign of hope”[3]), there are others that are radically opposed to the Magisterium and where the Holy See has openly expressed its reservations (it is worth reading the document of the then permanent observer of the Holy See, Archbishop Bernardito Auza called “Note from the Holy See on the First Anniversary of the Adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals“). In that document we can see that where the 2030 Agenda and the Social Catholic Teaching (SCT) may seem to be two sides of the same coin, there are discrepancies whose origin lies in the vision of mankind.

On one hand, the Social Teaching of the Church is based on personalism, a philosophical trend that gives protagonism to the person and, as such, to its dignity. On the other, the 2030 Agenda is based on the so-called “ethics for development” defined by the UN in 1991, which has as its main objective:

“expanding opportunities for individuals which cannot be achieved if people are not truly free to choose what they want to be and how they want to live”.[4]

In other words, the 2030 Agenda seems to be based on a consensual concept in which the protagonist is not the person and its intrinsic dignity, but the concept of development. This is important because if the ultimate goal is mere development, the person can be “used” simply as a means to an end, which can lead to situations where, for example, anti-natalist measures are imposed in exchange for funding to achieve this supposed development. An example of this would be African countries, where in order to receive development aid they must adopt anti-natalist policies under the name of “reproductive health” (as has been denounced by Obianuju Ekeocha in several publications and in her documentary “Strings Attached”). 

The investment world is not immune to the 2030 Agenda. According to the latest available data, investment funds reporting SDGs have increased 6-fold from 2017 to 2020[5] and presumably that amount will already be much higher by 2023. In the face of this growth, there are questions that arise for a faith-consistent investor that are worth considering:

• Does the 2030 Agenda respond to a vision of man consistent with the Magisterium?
• Does the 2030 Agenda really seek integral human development?
• As the Holy See’s notes[6] introduce, is the 2030 Agenda reduced to a universal declaration to “appease consciences” with solemn and pleasant declarations? Is it really effective in promoting true development?
• What are the alternatives for Christians to invest in a way that is consistent with their faith?

After this brief introduction to Agenda 2030 and SCT, in the coming weeks we will publish several articles in which we will analyze the meeting points between the SCT and 2030 Agenda. We will analyze with greater emphasis the most controversial points, trying to explain from Christian anthropology, what incompatibilities arise with the approach of certain SDGs and we will ask ourselves: what can a Christian do to maintain and generate a Christian culture, also in the investment world?

We hope it will be of interest to you… duc in altum.

[1] Katarzyna Cichos, Jarosław A. Sobkowiak, Ryszard F. Sadowski, Beata Zbarachewicz, Radosław Zenderowski, Stanisław Dziekoński, Sustainable Development Goals and the Catholic Church: Catholic Social Teaching and the UN’s Agenda 2030, Routledge, 2021, p.2.

[2] Archbishop Bernardito Auza, Note Of The Holy See On The First Anniversary Of The Adoption Of The Sustainable Development Goals, Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, 2016, p. 2. Available at: https://holyseemission.org/contents/statements/5806914667987.php

[3] Pope Francis, Visit to the United Nations: Address of the Holy Father September 25, 2015., The Holy See, 2015, Vatican Publishing House. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa-francesco_20150925_onu-visita.html

[4] UN, Human Development: 1991 Report, Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 21. Available at: https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/hdr1991encompletenostatspdf.pdf

[5] UN Principles for Responsible Investment, Investing with SDG Outcomes: A Five-Part Framework, 2020, p.10. Available at: https://www.unpri.org/download?ac=10795

[6] Archbishop Bernardito Auza, Note Of The Holy See On The First Anniversary Of The Adoption Of The Sustainable Development Goals, Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations, 2016, p. 2. Available at: https://holyseemission.org/contents/statements/5806914667987.php