3 ms·
> What you're describing sounds exactly like the housing market under the rule of cheap mortgages and speculative investment. People having a hard time getting
by conanbatt 9y ago
> What you're describing sounds exactly like the housing market under the rule of cheap mortgages and speculative investment. People having a hard time getting in, people having a hard time getting out without going bankrupt, these are all exactly what happened in the "free" housing market during the last decade.
I don't see the same effects you mention. If we talk pre-2008, getting in was too easy. Post-2008, to 2012 the market had a typical rebound curve, those were all good times to jump in. Now its expensive again, which means demand has to subsidize and start balancing out with the supply.
In 2009 i used to say argentina RE prices were too high for the population, and that some crash should happen. 2017 and it hasn't happened: its possible house prices as they are now are here to stay for a long time.
> Anyway I don't understand how this program "avoids" market behavior.
It tries to set its own prices by means of insurance. By making a fund that caps wins and losses, it doesn't prevent them, it just distributes them differently. There is pervasiveness to the concept of "you can't beat the market": it means that if you are, you are absorbing some risk or cost you don't see.
i.e.: What if a crisis happened that lowered house prices 40% across the board: 100% of the community wants to sell in the fund, which has capped losses, and then buy property again, to make a neat 15%. Moroever if the market goes up, as soon as the market shows 25% improvement, there is a great incentive to sell, because your gains are capped. So when you are close to that limit, your biggest interest is to sell, specially if property taxes adjust to a standard different from the one the fund uses.
Not to mention that you have to pay the people managing this fund one way or another: their labor does not come free.
These are all risks and consequences that exist on that management style alone.
> In your mind, is the free market somehow incomplete without a rentier class?
Not at all. And in this fund case, the fund managers are the rentiers.
- macawfish 9y agoI'm not sure if "capped at" was the right wording. "Reduced to" might have been clearer. If you bought a house through the trust at $100k, but now it's market value is $300k, you would only be able to sell it for an additional 25% of the appreciation ($50k). http://www.mncltc.org/faq.html http://www.mncltc.org/faq.html
- conanbatt 9y agoI see its a general structure as well. As an owner you own shares of the organization, more than the land itself. Im not saying its a bad idea, or uninteresting, but its definitely not going to be superior to the general market as it is (afaik).