4 ms·
A good observation. However, I can't imagine that people who want that kind of power and influence would move into apartments owned by this REIT. It seems mor
by c-linkage 4y ago
A good observation.
However, I can't imagine that people who want that kind of power and influence would move into apartments owned by this REIT. It seems more likely that such people would prefer luxury apartments or condos.
It should also be possible to prevent centralization of power by having only one class of share (no special voting rights) and limiting the number of shares one can purchase.
Finally, the REIT would have a managing board to put together the investment plans and perform the hiring / firing of property management companies, so no one would be taking on "extra" work. The tenants would, of course, have to participate in the annual meeting and voting, but the board would be doing the day-to-day operations and would draw salaries from the rent payments. The activities of the board would be constrained by the charter (that is, focus on affordability and not profit maximization).
The board could potentially act in their own self-interest, but the shareholders could vote them out.
- jqpabc123 4y agoThe board could potentially act in their own self-interest, but the shareholders could vote them out. I would suggest starting with the assumption that given an opportunity, everyone acts in their own self-interest. Voting influence is included in this. I've seen this in homeowner's associations before. The "shareholders" may not even be aware of any of this happening when they are detached from the day to day operations.