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.
A question for people who have been participated in capital raises for direct real estate funds below
Post here defines the terms for ERRES capital raise.
I have never participated in IPO or capital raises before. So the question I have is what is how does this actually work?
Would these subscription rights be only available to people who already own the fund or to everyone who wants to buy them? I was thinking that existing owners can subscribe at the fixed offer price but not sure if this is how it works
In addition - How should I evaluate if the subscription price is interesting or not. I am wondering what metrics to consider? Price is close to NAV of the fund and much lower than market price of ERRES
P.S -: I own few shares of ERRES on IBKR
Yeah the warrants are usually tradable, but then it should be arbitraged so that they trade at the delta from fund NAV (or close to it).
If you plan on increasing your allocation on that fund, you should exercise. If not you sell them.
(maybe also monitor the price if somehow nobody is arbitraging, might be worth it to have a limit – both buy and sell – order in case people are not rational which does happen when markets are not liquid)
I see.
So this means I would not be able to exercise the rights at fixed price ? It would depend on what others are willing to pay for these rights?
It is a bit weird that existing shareholders do not have first right.
If you hold shares, you’ll get the warrant and will be able to exercise it at a fixed price. It doesn’t depend on what others are doing.
(but you can also sell the warrants if you don’t want to exercise, if properly arbitraged/liquid market, you’d expect the value of the warrant to be roughly equal to the delta between fixed price and trading price)
(and if the warrants are mispriced, you could potentially also buy them and exercise them at the fixed price for cheaper than buying the fund directly, or vice versa)
Thanks
Now it’s clear
So I can sell my rights if I want. But I will have first choice.
Clear.
Let’s see how IBKR makes it available.
Just make sure to sell it if you’re not going to use them
I will use them most likely. My plan is to keep about 7-8% in Swiss RE funds. Hopefully they are properly priced.
Would try to see what happens on trading, if market price of these subscriptions drop then maybe they are over priced
it should always be compared to the current price of the fund. It could also be investors that don’t want to increase their exposure and want to sell the warrants. (in which case it can be an opportunity for someone who would want to increase exposure)
But wouldn’t there be some sort of price drop due to dilution?
Or you mean current price will also drop on the day when subscriptions are launched?
First time 
for me. But when it launches I will come for tips
hmm not sure it counts as dilution, it’s a capital increase so the NAV will increase accordingly.
Potentially you could have moves in premium/discount but that’s probably somewhat independent and would likely be already priced if so.
(I don’t think RE fund shares are meant to behave like company shares, so direct comparisons are not applicable)
UBS was sued for their fund merger since these were unrelated funds with a different focus: https://archive.ph/NiIyG
Curious what will come out of this, the merger seemed pretty weird to me since they had completely different premiums and investment goals.
I am not surprised
This was exactly my reaction too. Merging high quality funds with low quality funds is like a wealth transfer from one to another. It also reduces the options for investors who might want specific things.
CSLP & DRPF are quite different than the other two.
I think UBS can still have synergies in terms of management and costs. But I never understood the purpose of putting everything together.
I only have DRPF and I was happy it was taken out of the mix