5 ms·

Why wouldn't ownership be public? See the recent uproar[0] over the semi-anonymous purchase of land near Travis AFB. This is a clear case where market ineffic

Why wouldn't ownership be public? See the recent uproar[0] over the semi-anonymous purchase of land near Travis AFB. This is a clear case where market inefficiency is bad; individual sellers need to know when markets are changing and a single entity is willing to pay above assumed market rates for a large contiguous region. Anyone in favor of strong markets should favor full transparency of real estate ownership and transactions. My fear is that otherwise we'll revert to de facto feudalism where the wealthiest entities can acquire and lease out virtually all real property. [0] https://www.kqed.org/news/11957208/near-1-billion-land-purchase-around-california-air-base-under-investigation https://www.kqed.org/news/11957208/near-1-billion-land-purch...

beebmam 3y ago
Why should real estate have MORE stringent requirements on ownership disclosure than stock ownership?
- tomtheelder 3y ago
  It shouldn’t, but real estate disclosure isn’t the problem there.
- pc86 3y ago
  This is an argument to make stock ownership more public, not to make real estate ownership less public.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  Why should stock ownership have LESS stringent requirements on ownership disclosure than real estate?
- j33zusjuice 3y ago
  Funny how often we allow shitty practices in one area because we already allow shittier practices in another. Why not have good policies instead of accepting bullshit all the time?
  - beebmam 3y ago
    Is your argument that everyone's assets should be public information? How do you square this with people interested in blackmail, or abusive families?
    - kyawzazaw 3y ago
      What do you think about Norway's public salary record?
- cykros 3y ago
  Significant stock ownership is pretty public through 8k forms. The SEC doesn't require reporting every trade of a few million dollars because it generally doesn't make a difference anyway. And you CAN access time and sales data in most brokerage platforms to see the size of many of those trades. The big exception there being those done on dark pools. And while perhaps you could argue against dark pools, most would agree that illiquidity is a bad thing in markets. Dark pools do a good job of addressing this allowing for large positions to be massaged into a market they'd otherwise disrupt fairly heavily.
bredren 3y ago
It’s not just private citizens that have benefitted from this. Los Angeles was able to snag land key to its early water supply due to lack of transparency around land acquisition. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/american-history-tellers/id1313596069?i=1000463337719 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/american-history-telle...
vlovich123 3y ago
Why should disclosure be forced upon the vast majority of people at significant harm when you can enforce disclosure only if you own more than X properties or some % of an area?
- Tagbert 3y ago
  What is the significant harm that is being forced on vast numbers by open records? I could see harm to a small number of people but for the true “vast” number, there is no impact.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    The amount of spam and scam that starts heading your way when you purchase a house is insane.
    - Tagbert 3y ago
      Most of that drops off after the first year and then you just get the usual volume of spam. I keep a recycling bin near the front door for fast triage. Many days it all goes into the bin.
    - philipwhiuk 3y ago
      Maybe we should fix that rather than the disclosures?
snapplebobapple 3y ago
You are very wrong on your analysis of the travis afb land purchase. You would be correct if someone could easily get into their entire land position they need for their project all at once but it never happens that way, you are always legging into positions and run the risk of massive extortion if what you are doing is known because holdouts can capture excess payouts due to their monopoly power. Secrecy is required to get a deal done otherwise no deals get done due to landowner greed.
- hgs3 3y ago
  > holdouts can capture excess payouts Isn't that capitalism working as intended? If you have a desirable asset then why shouldn't you charge more for it?
  - figassis 3y ago
    It is, and so is secrecy. Capitalism does not require publishing every business dealing. Capitalism is not just competition between a buyer and a seller, it is also between buyers and between sellers. Sellers with better access to info win, but access to info is not a property of capitalism. That being said, while capitalism should definitely be regulated, I actually don’t think land ownership needs to be public bc I don’t think it will stop feudalism. I can buy however much land I want whether you know it or not.
  - snapplebobapple 3y ago
    No, that is exercising market power and it causes dead weight loss (basically the worst thing that can happen in economics). When you have a project that needs x amount of land the project is a go as long as the cost of everything is less than the present value of the expected profits. The spread between the cost and the expected payout should be whittled away to a small number in an efficient market. In an inefficient market with market power that is whittled away to potentially zero by holdouts abusing their position to get extra payout far in advance of the value of their land. The efficient market results in lower end costs and more stuff for us all, which is pretty much always a benefit to society. The inefficient market costs us output and makes us all worse off. Since you are legging into the real estate the secrecy pretty much always gets you closer to the efficient outcome rather then transparency because the efficient outcome has the land purchased at the current value, not the value based on market power abuse from knowing what the future private development plan for the land is.

beebmam 3y ago

Why should real estate have MORE stringent requirements on ownership disclosure than stock ownership?

tomtheelder 3y ago
It shouldn’t, but real estate disclosure isn’t the problem there.
pc86 3y ago
This is an argument to make stock ownership more public, not to make real estate ownership less public.
kwhitefoot 3y ago
Why should stock ownership have LESS stringent requirements on ownership disclosure than real estate?
j33zusjuice 3y ago
Funny how often we allow shitty practices in one area because we already allow shittier practices in another. Why not have good policies instead of accepting bullshit all the time?
- beebmam 3y ago
  Is your argument that everyone's assets should be public information? How do you square this with people interested in blackmail, or abusive families?
  - kyawzazaw 3y ago
    What do you think about Norway's public salary record?
cykros 3y ago
Significant stock ownership is pretty public through 8k forms. The SEC doesn't require reporting every trade of a few million dollars because it generally doesn't make a difference anyway. And you CAN access time and sales data in most brokerage platforms to see the size of many of those trades. The big exception there being those done on dark pools. And while perhaps you could argue against dark pools, most would agree that illiquidity is a bad thing in markets. Dark pools do a good job of addressing this allowing for large positions to be massaged into a market they'd otherwise disrupt fairly heavily.

bredren 3y ago

It’s not just private citizens that have benefitted from this. Los Angeles was able to snag land key to its early water supply due to lack of transparency around land acquisition. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/american-history-tellers/id1313596069?i=1000463337719 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/american-history-telle...

vlovich123 3y ago

Why should disclosure be forced upon the vast majority of people at significant harm when you can enforce disclosure only if you own more than X properties or some % of an area?

Tagbert 3y ago
What is the significant harm that is being forced on vast numbers by open records? I could see harm to a small number of people but for the true “vast” number, there is no impact.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  The amount of spam and scam that starts heading your way when you purchase a house is insane.
  - Tagbert 3y ago
    Most of that drops off after the first year and then you just get the usual volume of spam. I keep a recycling bin near the front door for fast triage. Many days it all goes into the bin.
  - philipwhiuk 3y ago
    Maybe we should fix that rather than the disclosures?

snapplebobapple 3y ago

You are very wrong on your analysis of the travis afb land purchase. You would be correct if someone could easily get into their entire land position they need for their project all at once but it never happens that way, you are always legging into positions and run the risk of massive extortion if what you are doing is known because holdouts can capture excess payouts due to their monopoly power. Secrecy is required to get a deal done otherwise no deals get done due to landowner greed.

hgs3 3y ago
> holdouts can capture excess payouts Isn't that capitalism working as intended? If you have a desirable asset then why shouldn't you charge more for it?
- figassis 3y ago
  It is, and so is secrecy. Capitalism does not require publishing every business dealing. Capitalism is not just competition between a buyer and a seller, it is also between buyers and between sellers. Sellers with better access to info win, but access to info is not a property of capitalism. That being said, while capitalism should definitely be regulated, I actually don’t think land ownership needs to be public bc I don’t think it will stop feudalism. I can buy however much land I want whether you know it or not.
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  No, that is exercising market power and it causes dead weight loss (basically the worst thing that can happen in economics). When you have a project that needs x amount of land the project is a go as long as the cost of everything is less than the present value of the expected profits. The spread between the cost and the expected payout should be whittled away to a small number in an efficient market. In an inefficient market with market power that is whittled away to potentially zero by holdouts abusing their position to get extra payout far in advance of the value of their land. The efficient market results in lower end costs and more stuff for us all, which is pretty much always a benefit to society. The inefficient market costs us output and makes us all worse off. Since you are legging into the real estate the secrecy pretty much always gets you closer to the efficient outcome rather then transparency because the efficient outcome has the land purchased at the current value, not the value based on market power abuse from knowing what the future private development plan for the land is.