btw the main thing about it, is that if I understand correctly you would be paid at NAV if the share is trading at a discount (and you’re willing to wait 1y).
Happened for some folks holding STA iirc, tho in the meantime this trades above NAV so they still lost more than if they would have kept it for 1y and sold 
That’s why the 10M initiative (and all their similar initiatives I presume) now has an explicit clause about leaving the agreements in case negotiations fail. It wasn’t present in the initiative that was voted at the time, and the government argued that the vote wasn’t a mandate to quit Schengen.
If the permanent resident population of Switzerland exceeds the limit value set out in Art. 73 a , para. 1, the Federal Council and the Federal Assembly shall take all measures at their disposal to ensure compliance with the limit value. Para. 1 shall apply. However, the international agreements referred to in para. 1 must be denounced as soon as possible, in particular the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration of 19 December 2018 (UN Global Compact for Migration), provided that Switzerland has signed it. If, two years after it was first exceeded, the limit value set out in Art. 73 a , para. 1, is still not respected, and if no exception or safeguard clause allowing compliance with the said limit value could be negotiated or invoked within this period, the Agreement of 21 June 1999 between the Swiss Confederation, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, on the free movement of persons (Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons) 3 must also be denounced as soon as possible.
And talking about the last vote 10 years ago that was accepted with a tiny margin only. Since that, there was ankther 10 years on the trends I kisted above (Particularely Infrastructure / Real Estate). At the same time to @Abs_max point: the benefit of trade with the Eu is both diluted over a larger number of inhabitants (GDP dilution per Capita) and unevenly distributed. Meaning that this will likely be a consideration but I doubt anyone would give this too mich weight. Long story short - I do see a scenario where the real estate market changes quite a bit.
I do buy Swiss RE funds, but clearly I don‘t buy RE as such. Meaning that I buy a bit every year, and not on material leverage.
I’m interested in direct funds to reduce my taxable wealth, does anyone know if this also affects the AHV contribution when unemployed? It would make sense that it does but I wanted to double check with the community.
Yes, it takes your taxable wealth into account
An interesting article about the parallels of the british and swiss housing squeeze.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/aging-society/is-switzerland-repeating-englands-property-mistakes/89510670?utm_source=multiple&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=bundle-front1_en&utm_content=o&utm_term=wpblock_teaser-bundle
It discusses at a length the effect of the LAT (loi d’amenagement du territoire) on the housing in Switzerland. To me this is a must-read if you want to understand the real estate market here.
Is the spatial planning what is preventing densification in cities? The article wasn’t clear about it.
(Because that’s where the shortage is acute, and that’s where it impacts real estate funds the most, if feel like the article is partly about availability of single family homes, which to me is a totally different issue and also has a lot of political implications, eg around land use)
I understood he’s referring to the zoning process, where after-LAT it is not possible in principle to declass areas from agricultural purposes to construction (my wording might be wrong).
The densification of cities I believe is under other constraints which might be more dependent on local authorities (canton+commune).
In some sense, what was said in the article about densifying London must also be relevant for Switzerland: protected buildings, maximum height for constructions, etc.