Post by kaya on Aug 27, 2017 16:16:11 GMT
There are 3 voting options: retain shares, sell out to the crowd, or sell the property. The propertymoose blog states: Each property is held for an initial fixed term (usually 3-years) after which the assumption is that the property will be sold unless 75% of investors vote to retain the property (by share proportion).
However, it seems to me that the voting procedure is skewed in favour of retaining the property - always good for PM, but not always good for investors (e.g. under-performing properties). How skewed? Because a vote to exit through the crowd (by relisting) is a vote to retain the property. There is a problem with this. If I vote to sell, but the property is retained, I will be exited anyway, through the crowd relisting - but that would not be what I voted for. I might vote to exit through selling, but if the voting result is to retain, then I may well prefer to stay invested. Why? Because exiting 'through the crowd' is generally very poor value - just check through all the info. Thus, a vote to sell should not be regarded as a vote to exit through relisting.
I believe there should be a two stage voting procedure, with the first vote being between selling the property, or retaining it. Once that result is known, only then can an informed choice be made between selling out to the crowd (at a marked down price) or retaining all shares.
Any thoughts or opinions anyone?
Also note - with SPV7 only 59.78% voted to retain the property - but it was still retained, in seeming contradiction of the policy stated in the moosenomics blog, and I suspect that it is now, in practice, just a 'majority' decision that is needed - and the word majority has been used by PM in this regard. Please correct me if I am wrong propertymoose.
However, it seems to me that the voting procedure is skewed in favour of retaining the property - always good for PM, but not always good for investors (e.g. under-performing properties). How skewed? Because a vote to exit through the crowd (by relisting) is a vote to retain the property. There is a problem with this. If I vote to sell, but the property is retained, I will be exited anyway, through the crowd relisting - but that would not be what I voted for. I might vote to exit through selling, but if the voting result is to retain, then I may well prefer to stay invested. Why? Because exiting 'through the crowd' is generally very poor value - just check through all the info. Thus, a vote to sell should not be regarded as a vote to exit through relisting.
I believe there should be a two stage voting procedure, with the first vote being between selling the property, or retaining it. Once that result is known, only then can an informed choice be made between selling out to the crowd (at a marked down price) or retaining all shares.
Any thoughts or opinions anyone?
Also note - with SPV7 only 59.78% voted to retain the property - but it was still retained, in seeming contradiction of the policy stated in the moosenomics blog, and I suspect that it is now, in practice, just a 'majority' decision that is needed - and the word majority has been used by PM in this regard. Please correct me if I am wrong propertymoose.
