The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Well, here's the Sorcerer to help out his Apprentice ;-)
The reason the "Land Partnership" changes the game entirely is that it enables that bundle of rights and obligations we think of as "property" to be bundled and shared around in entirely new ways.
ie an entirely new form of tenure of indefinite duration - an "evergreen lease" - whereby for as long as you rent the Land and the Capital invested in it you pay an agreed "Capital Rental".
It also means that "Real Property" need never be bought and sold again, although "Occupiers" and "Managers" of it, and Investors in it, may change over time.
The key is that the "freehold" is put into "Trust" with a "Custodian" Member of the LLP or LLC - exactly in the same way that massive firms like State Street and Northern Trust act as "custodians" of shares while the "beneficial interest" is traded increasingly furiously on the casino's we call Stock Exchanges.
Having done this it is merely a question of who lives in the property, who invests in it, who manages it and what the relationships are between them.
French Law is interesting in respect of inheritance, and it would be interesting to see how this structure would intersect with it, with the property itself in trust.
This wrapper offers a neat IHT mechanism in that it is possible to transfer "Equity Shares" to one's kids and then to pay a "Capital Rental" to them (if you don't the Revenue will tax you on the benefit) and continue to live there.
But hey, that's no problem if you actually pay them not in cash but in more "Equity Shares".
The problem comes when you want to move. You have to convince the new "Occupier" to take on this radical new mechanism.
Well, when you tell him that all he needs to pay is an agreed "Capital Rental" - that if he pays more he starts buying "Equity Shares" in the property and that the outcome is much cheaper in cash terms - BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE TO REPAY LOAN PRINCIPAL - then who knows, you might even get people interested.
If not, just rent it out conventionally and rent somewhere else. The model interfaces perfectly well with the existing mechanisms. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
The owner pays his "Capital Rental" not in cash but in more "equity shares".
If you run the spreadsheets the result is much less toxic than the other options: "reversions" (where the investor takes a punt on how long Granny is going to live) and "roll-up" mortgages at 2% over building society base rate, where the interest rolls up and (at today's rates) the mortgage doubles in 10 years.
So in the perfect world a pensioner could go to his pension fund and have it invest in his home.
For the pension fund it's a REIT clone (LLP's being tax transparent), but simpler and without the management conflicts of the REIT's the Treasury came up with.
Each pension fund could have stakes in a "pool" of its pensioners' properties.
For the pensioner it's the most equitable form of equity release there is.
It's a pity the Chancellor made it impracticable for UK pension funds (I won't bore you with the technicalities).
But that leaves the field wide open for overseas funds - particularly petrodollars looking for a GENUINELY Islamic home - unlike most of the hypocritical crap sold as "Islamic" investment at the moment.
There is over £1 trillion in UK property owned by the over-65's free of mortgage, much of it (unlike public housing rapidly being brought up to "Decent Homes" standards)falling into disrepair because the occupants can hardly afford to live, never mind maintain their homes in good repair.
In Newham, I understand maybe 40% of properties fall into this category. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
Suppose you can run a small Yoga studio on the following (average) annual budget:
Revenue: £100k (fees) Expenses: £85k (£45k teachers' wages, £20 admin costs, £18k space rental, £2k maintenance) Profit: £15k
Alternatively, you can buy the space for, say, £250k and pay the £18k/yr in mortgage payments.
Is there a non-toxic way to raise the £250?
One could value the business at £750k put it in trust, sell £250k worth of "equity shares" to buy the property, and pay 1/3 of the revenue (the total of "rent" and "profit" above) to the holders of the equity shares.
At the other extreme, one could value the business at £1.39M, put it in trust, keep £210k worth of equity shares for oneself, and sell £250k worth of equity shares to outside investors. This results in paying 18% of the revenue to the external holders of the equity shares, and 15% to oneself.
In the first case, the equity shares have an expected return of 13.3%, and in the second of 7.2%
Am I totally off?
The problem, in any case, is finding people who, collectively, have £250k to spare. The mortgage solution just requires (say) £25k, together with the "bank magic" of (say) 10% "reserve requirement". "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 29 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 56 comments
by Oui - Sep 12
by Oui - Sep 1010 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 103 comments
by Oui - Sep 10
by Oui - Sep 9
by Oui - Sep 84 comments
by Oui - Sep 75 comments
by Oui - Sep 72 comments
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 43 comments
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 329 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 114 comments
by Oui - Sep 1108 comments
by Oui - Sep 11 comment