Pope Leo Inherits Cleaned Up Vatican Bank That's Making Money
It's a pittance compared with the trillions shuffled around by the Goliaths in London or New York. But the stockpile of assets and portfolio investments is serving the higher purpose of putting a small dent in the financial strains that have squeezed the Catholic Church for years.
The Institute for Works of Religion, or the Vatican Bank as it's known, provides traditional banking services and oversees investments for institutions tied to the church. Last year, it continued to draw in new cash, increasing its assets under management to a 10-year high, and is seeking to build on the record by showing it can continue to beat its benchmarks even by sticking to investments in line with the ethics of the faith.
'Financial markets have no mercy,' de Franssu, the IOR's president, said in an interview. 'If IOR doesn't deliver what it is expected from IOR, we will be in serious trouble.'
The bank's profits rose about 7% to €32.8 million in 2024, according to figures released Wednesday. Those earnings, which are used to pay dividends to the church, won't make up for the hole left in the Vatican's budget due to declining worldwide donations, administrative costs and retirement bills.
But it indicates the bank is making some strides toward shedding the reputation for mismanagement and secrecy that resulted in several public scandals surrounding investment losses, criminal probes and clandestine love affairs. De Franssu and Mammì — a more than three-decade employee who has been director general since 2015 — said Pope Leo XIV has indicated that he intends to continue the process started by Pope Francis to clean up the institution that effectively serves as the family office for the world's largest faith.
De Franssu was brought in in 2014 after three decades of scandals, from the Banco Ambrosiano failure in the 1980s to the freezing of €23m by Italian prosecutors in 2010, tarnished the IOR's image and prompted Francis, to make financial transparency a priority.
Since then, it has it began publishing annual reports and revamped its management structure, ceding more oversight to lay people like de Franssu. It also adopted regulations aimed at bringing the bank into compliance with international financial standards, which led to the closure of thousands of accounts.
The IOR has also hired from investment banks including Citigroup Inc. and Intesa Sanpaolo SpA. Over the past three and five years, 10 of its 13 flagship investment funds outranked a majority of their peers, according to the report released Wednesday, and its executives are hopeful that the first American pope will encourage more US institutions affiliated with the church to shift their money to Rome.
'We have shown you can beat benchmarks with purely ethical investments,' Mammì said in the interview. 'If you want to speculate — if you want to reach that additional 2% in return — I suggest you go elsewhere.'
While The IOR is not part of the Holy See's core annual budget, it is one of the key institutions in the financial management of the Vatican. It shares responsibility with the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See for the management of the Holy See's real estate and movable assets.
For 2024, the IOR board proposed a €13.8 million dividend to the Commission of Cardinals, which uses it to pay for activities linked to religion and charity or as a contribution to the Holy See's coffers.
In the last few years the dividends have been lower than they were before 2014, which Mammì said reflects the bank's efforts to better control its finances. While the Holy See as a whole hasn't published a full budget report since 2022, the last set of accounts for year 2024 included a deficit of about €70 ($79.8m) deficit, according to Italian daily Repubblica.
'Our job as managers is to invest, make a profit, hand out a dividend,' Mammì said. 'It is up to the Cardinals to decide how to re-direct the money.'
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
20 minutes ago
- Economic Times
US may lose 150,000 international students this fall, risking $7 billion in revenue
Agencies American universities may see international student enrollment decline by as many as 150,000 this fall, a development that could cost the US higher education sector nearly $7 billion and threaten over 60,000 jobs. This estimate comes from a new analysis by NAFSA: Association of International Educators and JB International, based on recent data from the US Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) and the State Department. The report attributes the expected drop to recent visa disruptions, executive orders, and scrutiny measures introduced by the Trump administration. Unless student visa issuances rebound sharply by August, the study warns of a 15% drop in total international enrollment. In the academic year 2023–24, US colleges hosted 1,126,690 international students — the highest number recorded, according to the Institute of International Education's Open Doors report. These students made up 6% of the total US college population and included those on optional practical training (OPT), who stay for temporary employment related to their studies. International student numbers had recovered post-pandemic, increasing by 200,000 since the 2020 decline. But the new forecast signals that this growth could reverse. Key states face major financial losses According to the NAFSA report, a 30–40% drop in new foreign students would significantly impact several US states. California alone could lose over $1 billion, while New York's losses may be close to that figure. Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida could each see losses exceeding $200 million. Four factors behind the projected fall: Suspension of Visa Interviews: Student visa interviews were suspended between May 27 and June 18, 2025 — a peak period for issuances. Interviews have resumed, but consulates are now directed to scrutinize applicants' social media accounts more closely. Appointment Shortages: Limited or no visa appointments were reported in countries that are key sources of international students — including India, China, Nigeria, and Japan. Declining Visa Issuance: F-1 visa grants fell 12% year-on-year from January to April 2025 and 22% in May. Though June data is pending, a decline of up to 90% is anticipated. Visa Bans: A presidential executive order issued on June 4, 2025, imposed restrictions on applicants from 19 countries. A further 36 countries may be added, the report highlighted that international students often pay full tuition fees at private institutions and out-of-state fees at public universities. Their financial contribution helps US colleges subsidize costs for domestic said, 'The projected losses confirm higher education leaders' concerns that anti-immigration policies would have a chilling effect on enrollment and revenue.' Trump vs international students In the past few months, the Trump administration has revoked or terminated visas of hundreds to thousands of international students, particularly those perceived as sympathetic to pro‑Palestinian viewpoints. By April 2025, over 1,000 visas had been canceled, and the administration implemented a 'catch and revoke' strategy—scrutinizing social media for signs of support for groups like Hamas or antisemitic activity—to revoke existing student visas and block renewals. One high‑profile case involved Palestinian student Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident, who was arrested by ICE without a warrant, drawing criticism for potential First Amendment late May 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the US would 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those connected to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields,' accompanied by enhanced social media vetting for F, M, and J visa applicants. At US consulates, student visa interviews were suspended temporarily during late May–mid June re‑opening with stricter rules, such as requiring applicants to make their social media profiles public for government review. These policies have heightened fears among prospective and current international students and contributed to a chilling effect on international academic engagement in the US. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Can Coforge's ambition to lead the IT Industry become a reality? BlackRock returns, this time with Ambani. Will it be lucky second time? Amazon is making stealthy moves in healthcare, here's why! The trader who blew the whistle on Jane Street Stock Radar: Globus Spirits breaks out from 9-month consolidation; check target & stop loss for long positions Weekly Top Picks: These stocks scored 10 on 10 on Stock Reports Plus These large-caps have 'strong buy' & 'buy' recos and an upside potential of more than 25% Stock picks of the week: 5 stocks with consistent score improvement and upside potential of up to 36% in 1 year
India Today
22 minutes ago
- India Today
Why is Trump threatening India over Russian oil? Here's the real reason
'India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian oil, they are then, for much of the oil purchased, selling it on the open market for big profits,' Donald Trump posted on Truth Social. 'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA.'advertisementOn the surface, it reads like outrage. But Trump's threat to slap higher tariffs on Indian goods isn't just about Ukraine, or even Russia. It's about crude calculations in an election year: shielding US oil interests, redirecting energy trade, and flexing economic muscle over strategic INDIA LOVES RUSSIAN OILSince the Ukraine war began, India has become one of Russia's biggest energy buyers. Between January and June 2025, Indian refiners purchased over 1.75 million barrels of Russian crude per day—covering nearly 36-40% of the country's total oil demand. The move has helped India manage inflation and cut import bills, even as it drew criticism in Washington. The irony? Back in 2022 and 2023, US officials had privately nudged India to keep buying Russian oil to 'ensure global price stability.' That line has now REASON WHY TRUMP IS UPSETAt the core of Trump's pressure campaign is a push to boost American oil exports. His campaign is backed heavily by US fossil fuel giants, and his latest tax package offers nearly $18 billion in new incentives for the oil and gas sector, per The New York is already a rising customer. US crude shipments to India surged over 50% in the first half of 2025, now making up 8% of India's oil imports, according to the US Energy Information more India leans toward American oil and LNG, the more it strengthens US energy clout, and helps Trump's backers USING TARIFFS AS BARGAINING CHIPSTrump's tariff warning isn't just about punishing India for its energy choices. It's US takes in nearly a fifth of India's exports. A tariff hike would strike at key sectors—textiles, pharmaceuticals, auto parts, and electronics. Analysts say Trump is using tariffs not as a blunt-force weapon, but as a calculated tool to redirect India's trade and energy IT MEANS FOR INDIA?If India is forced to slash Russian oil imports and pivot to costlier alternatives, its annual crude bill could climb by $11 billion, say experts. That would feed into inflation and hit if Trump's tariff threat materialises, India's export sectors could take an $18 billion annual hit, cutting into margins, raising prices, and endangering jobs across small and mid-sized POSITIONThe Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), responding to Trump's remarks, said India turned to discounted Russian oil after traditional suppliers shifted exports to Europe. At the time, the US had supported India's purchases to stabilise global markets."India's imports are meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer. They are a necessity compelled by global market situation," the MEA said. It also pointed out that the EU's trade with Russia in 2024 was significantly larger than India's, and the US continues to import uranium, palladium, and fertilisers from the MEA asserted, will act in accordance with its national interest, and efforts to single it out ignore broader trade realities. Its energy choices are based on economic security and pragmatic Trump's playbook blends oil politics with trade pressure. His latest warnings reflect not just anger at Moscow, but America's wider push to redraw energy alliances and corner strategic warning is less about Moscow and more about Washington's desire to redraw energy alliances. By linking oil and tariffs, he's drawing a hard line, one aimed at securing economic advantage, not defending global norms.- Ends advertisement
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
22 minutes ago
- First Post
Tariffs on India: Why Donald Trump's foolishness betrays Ronald Reagan's wisdom
(File) President Ronald Reagan shows his boot following the signing of his tax bill at his California vacation home, Rancho del Cielo, near Santa Barbara, Ca., Aug. 13, 1981. AP When Ronald Reagan spoke about tariffs, he didn't just offer a policy position — he delivered a warning grounded in history, principle and a genuine understanding of economics. His words, echoing the painful memory of the Great Depression, were not just aimed at short-term political applause. Reagan believed in protecting American prosperity not through isolation, but through responsible engagement with the global economy. In stark contrast, Donald Trump's threat to impose 'substantially' higher tariffs on Indian goods — driven by accusations that India profits off Russian oil — is not only economically unsound but strategically shortsighted. This approach reveals Trump as a president wielding power without the wisdom or foresight of his Republican predecessor. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD President Donald Trump talks with reporters as he meets with members of the Juventus soccer club in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025, in Washington. AP Reagan's pragmatism: Lessons from history Reagan's views on tariffs were shaped by the catastrophe of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised US tariffs on thousands of imported goods. Rather than protect American jobs, it triggered a trade war, deepening the Great Depression. Reagan explained: 'High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition.' He took protectionism, while politically tempting, as economically destructive. He warned that businesses would grow complacent, relying on government protection rather than innovation. The result, he said, would be collapsing markets, shuttered industries and 'millions of people losing their jobs.' What made Reagan's approach wise was not just that he opposed tariffs — he understood the domino effect. Retaliatory tariffs would hurt American exporters and sabotage global supply chains. He also viewed trade as more than economics: it was a tool of diplomacy, soft power and mutual prosperity. Trump's reactionary tariff threats Trump's proposed 25 per cent tariff on Indian imports is not based on an economic assessment — it is a geopolitical tantrum. His rationale is tied to India's purchase and re-export of Russian oil, a practice he characterises as profiteering from human suffering in Ukraine: 'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine… Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA.' In this, Trump demonstrates neither a consistent principle nor a strategic objective. His argument disregards the broader global context — India began purchasing discounted Russian oil not to turn a profit, but because Western markets redirected their own imports. India stepped in to stabilise its energy needs, something the US itself encouraged in 2022 to prevent global price shocks. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Furthermore, Trump's characterisation of India as part of a 'dead economy' and his threat of an unspecified 'penalty' betrays his tendency to use trade as a weapon of personal grievance. But unlike Reagan — who considered the long-term ripple effects of protectionist measures — Trump reduces complex geopolitical dynamics to a simplistic punishment-reward framework. India: A partner, not a pawn India is not a geopolitical lightweight or a trade manipulator. It is the world's most populous country and a major economic force, and its neutrality in the Ukraine conflict reflects its strategic autonomy. As India's Ministry of External Affairs in its official response, 'India's imports are meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer. They are a necessity compelled by global market situation.' The statement further notes that the US and EU themselves continue significant trade with Russia. Europe's imports of LNG from Russia hit a record high in 2024, and US continues importing Russian uranium and palladium. Yet Trump singles out India, ignoring these facts — a move that reeks of political theatre rather than coherent policy. More importantly, India is a crucial partner in counterbalancing Chinese influence in Asia. Damaging India-US trade relations undermines America's strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific. Reagan, a staunch believer in US alliances and coalitions, would have seen this. Trump, in contrast, alienates allies to serve his own political narratives. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Reagan: Leadership based on economic responsibility Reagan was not afraid of confronting unfair trade practices, but he did so with surgical precision, not a sledgehammer. He resisted the political pressure to erect broad tariffs, even when it was unpopular: 'There are those in the Congress… who want to go for the quick political advantage, who risk America's prosperity for the sake of a short-term appeal to some special interest group…' He understood that more than five million American jobs were tied directly to exports and that even more were linked to imports — a reality Trump often disregards in his unilateral declarations. While Reagan was strategic, Trump is scattershot. While Reagan sought prosperity through global engagement, Trump seems to use trade policy as an extension of personal vendetta. Tariffs as political theatre Trump's tariff threats appear to be more about showmanship than strategy. His attacks on India coincide with his political campaign, where populist posturing and nationalist rhetoric score quick applause. Yet, as Reagan warned: 'Sometimes, for a short while, [tariffs] work, but only for a short time.' Any short-term political gain from appearing 'tough on India' comes at the cost of long-term economic damage. Higher tariffs on Indian imports will likely trigger reciprocal measures from New Delhi, harm American exporters, raise consumer prices and strain a vital bilateral relationship. If Reagan believed tariffs should be a last resort, Trump uses them as a first instinct. This reveals not just a difference in policy, but a difference in temperament — one guided by history and humility, the other by impulsiveness and antagonism. A question of wisdom What separates a president from a statesman is the ability to look beyond the next election cycle. Reagan governed with the memory of the Depression and with an eye toward global stability. Trump, by contrast, seems governed by instinct and anger. Reagan warned against 'subsidising inefficiency and poor management' through tariffs. Trump, ironically, now wants to penalise an efficient Indian oil trade that is legally supplying refined fuels to Western markets — including US — because it offends his view of the Ukraine war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Such contradictions show that Trump is not applying a coherent policy but reacting emotionally. That makes him, at best, just a president — someone who wields the office, but without the measured leadership or wisdom of another Republican who once sat in the Oval Office. Pragmatism vs populism The difference between Reagan and Trump is not simply a matter of ideology — both were Republicans, both campaigned on strong leadership and both sought to protect American interests. But Reagan did so with prudence and perspective. Trump, on the other hand, does so with provocation and unpredictability. Reagan stood firm against protectionism not because it was easy but because it was right. He knew that tariffs could destroy prosperity. Trump, by contrast, seems content to use tariffs as weapons — often pointed not just at adversaries, but at allies like India. It's one thing to be a president. It's another to be a leader with the maturity and vision to steer a superpower through complex global realities. In that comparison, Trump falls well short of Reagan.
