I was also thinking about getting this, but won’t the combined fees (of the fund and its sub-funds) be very high?
It appears that the fees is inclusive of fees of underlying funds. So i think 0.97% or 0.92% includes everything. At least this is what i understood. If you look at the details, it talks about Ongoing costs & not management fees.
Something to ponder
Tho the concern is mostly about single family home which is not what funds invest in.
1 Like
well, presumably a bunch of folks would move from apartments into houses if the houses get cheaper? (Obviously not perfect, I’d bet a lot of the less urban places are going to have stranded inventory)
It’s also a different market (less urban, less commonly rented out, etc.), I don’t think purchase price is the only criteria.
Yes, it isn’t a perfect replacement, but the markets aren’t completely isolated either.
Something the author doesn’t dig into:
Do owners of SFH have the same fertility as the rest of the population?
I highly doubt that, and nearly all of my friends-with-kids live in a house. There’s often more than one kid, and usually the house stays in the family when parents downsize - and helps the kids have offspring (grandkids) faster 
1 Like
Time will tell. If SFH are up for sale, then they can be broken down and built into Apartment buildings. In the end most of the value is in the land after long life of the house.
But the population & demographic will continue to surprise us. Demand for specific housing units keep changing & it takes time to replenish. For example Toronto has housing crisis but there are no buyers for so many Condos they built over the years.
I think there is a supply of SFH and demand largely from families. If fertility rates drop then maybe the supply/demand balance shifts, but I’m not sure whether it shifts so dramatically from extreme shortage to excess.
I don‘t see this as a big Problem for the real estate market. The big elephant in the room is that I expect a public vote by about ‚27 where we decide to not proceed with the next level of Eu integration. If this happens, the risk is that we then not only stop the next steps with Eu but actually abort the current Schengen/Dublin implementation. This would both give the Swiss Economy a major downer and over the next 5-10 years lead to a reduction of inhabitants by 1-1.5M.
If you ask me, the likelyhood of this happening is beyond 50%. It was higher before Trump took office, bit still beyond 50% now.
3 Likes
Why do you think it is likely that we’ll abandon Schengen/Dublin?
Most of the SVP proposals (e.g. the 10M initiative) have this underlying goal, as they try to get things to pass which explicitly contradict the existing international agreements (which means we would have to renounce existing bilaterals).
1 Like
We borderline the topics of politics, so I will not elaborate in Detail nor discuss. But key headlines are five trends:
- total GDP Growth vs GDP Growth per Capita plus distorted distribution of GDP per Capita Benefits (economic pressure on Hans Cheeseman)
- increasing Shortfall on Infrastructure like Public Transport, Roads, Housing, Medical Care, Nature (quality of life pressure on Hans)
- Cultural and Language Alienation, particularel in Cities/Rural Areas, Services Industry and Workplace (language identity pressure)
- Detoration of Values, cleanlyness, crime, … which has nothing to do with Immigration but gets wrongly attributed to Immigration (fear that boils in Hans)
- raising populismn and nationalismn, pretty much across the globe (confirmation to Hans that he feels he was on the right track)
If you ask me, the Eu Umbrella Agreement was a clear Fail before Trump. At the Moment, some people probably take a step back. Depending on how Eu and Switzerland both adress the Tax situation, things can go one way or another. Right now, it looks that the Eu was in no better book than Switzerland - so I anticipate that by the time we vote, the Trump effect is likely gone and we are back in a CHexit Scenario.
2 Likes
Exactly. And without commenting on whether I would support any of those or not. Its a matter of time until one of these SVP Initiatives gets accepted, or we simply reject the new Eu Contracts.
My guess is that the new bilaterals will also get a referendum as well (so should have a clear vote either way in the next few years).
Hi all (changing the topic back to RE funds). I’ve just started looking into Direct RE Funds, for now I bought a fairly small amount of DRPF on SQ. Looking at the Key Information Document, I noticed it says
Investors may terminate the fund contract with effect from the end of an accounting year, subject to a 12-month notice period by giving 12 months’ notice and demand payment of their share in the real estate fund in cash
Does anyone know what that actually implies? Will my broker prevent me from selling? Or will my order to sell only be effective 12 months after submitting it? And can I only liquidate the entirety of my share as that sentence seems to suggest? I don’t see anything preventing me from selling units on SQ only days after purchasing them (granted, haven’t actually tried clicking the “Sell” button, just got to the point where I was preparing my order). I plan to hold these funds for the longer term, but I’d still like to understand what I’m getting into ahead of time.
But wasn’t there already such a referendum a few years ago, I can’t remember exactly, it was on migration and I think it was essentially side-stepped/ignored so I expect the same would happen again.
That’s if you don’t go through the secondary market, so doesn’t matter for you.
3 Likes
Yea it was to limit immigration.
I think with what’s going on these days, it might not be very wise to destroy relationships with the biggest single market in the world (EU) and then become totally dependent on the other biggest market (USA)
But of course whatever people want at the ballot