It’s very cheap in Valais/Wallis, it’s possible it’s more expensive on the plateau. The returns are also very low so it’s possible for the valuations to be quite high despite the low price. There can also be some maintenance costs depending on where the plot of land is located.
At least in Valais/Wallis, agricultural land and forests used to be worth a good amount of money. The only game in town since the 80s (?) is to get it zoned to have the value skyrocket it is way less likely now that land is more taken out of the building zone than new parcels are zoned. Higher prices for agricultural land and/or forests may come again, or not.
Betting on higher prices in the future would be a bet, albeit a potentially cheap but not hasslefree one (agricultural land is protected and aimed at being exploited productively, there would be pressure for a farmer to be able to use them and if there is one, their interests might rank higher than yours - forest is honestly, in my opinion, very unlikely to be worth more in the future. Maybe less so on the plateau where growing wood for carpentry could be less of a hassle (trees tend to not grow very straight on steep slopes).
I always found venture capital interesting, not necessarily for the returns but more to support people with ideas and to encourage people to do the same. Also to support some companies that may grow significantly and ultimately employ many people (hopefully in CH). But apart from financing I don’t think I would have much to offer to these startups (network, business development, personal involvement). US and Sweden do this well.
ammo (as the owner of the gunshop I frequent told me: buy as much as you can as long as you can store it OK, because it’s not going to get any cheaper!)
drugs (I have no ideal what’s legal in Switzerland vs. over the limit)
What are current prices / to what are you comparing it?
In CH there are only few possibilities to buy farmland, but price development would be positive. Forestry in switzerland also isnt so interesting imho but PM if you you are interested to buy some.
With agricultural land in other countries, I wiuldnt expect to skyrocket prices per Se. There are many ares with important droughts and by thus very small productivity. And where it makes pleasure, big corps are already invested big time.
2.- per m2 for forest / mountain agricultural land to up to 10.- per m2 for more productive land on the Rhône plain. I don’t have the full picture, some might be more expensive but those are prices I’ve seen.
Edit: my personal stance is that it isn’t an investment worth the price (as an investment. Feel free to buy your dream garden/barbecue area). Farmland should stay with farmers, is already protected (prices are checked by the State and farmers have priority to buy most farmland) and if food availability pressure grows, the restrictions for non farmers will only grow.
Forest is very strongly protected and I don’t see the restrictions that apply becoming more lax anytime soon.
I think we are drifting off into the territories of „wannabe diversification". It won’t gelp you to buy land shares instead of stocks.
The one and only diversifixation that truly works (trump speach, i know) is when you hold both Assets that are subject to liquidity as well as assets that are NOT subject to liquidity.
When shit hits the fan, the correlations of pretty much all assets that depend on liquidity goes to 1. everything just drops when everyone walks out of these assets.
The only asset that holds its value in these days is an asset that:
had no market price as such (as market price in case of no liquidity went down)
had no duration risk as such (as a liquidity crisis increases interest rates one way or another and combined with duration this as well drowns asset prices)
what does this mean: hold assets that are very illiquid by definition (this is NOT Watches, Art, …) or buy nominal assets with close to zero duration - denominated in either strong currency or with inflation adjustment.
So that means: CHF Cash, Short Term TIPS, and maybe something as crazy as farm land in a Zone that was of no value to industrial farming / farming at scale.
The one thing I haven’t yet given up on is litigation finance.
I have a few 1000 in Axia Funder. It invests in legal cases in the UK. The potential returns are high, but it’s very risky and highly illiquid. They have a transparent good track record, though I managed to invest in one of the few cases where I lost my capital.
I have also been looking into closed end funds by Pershing Square that have performed very well, but in the end I decided not to do it because my life is already complicated enough. To be fair, it’s still on the stock market, but it is kind of edgy.
Other than that: Spend on energy saving equipment for our home.
To sum up:
No alternatives to a World ETF that I consider worthwhile for anyone with a life.
The problem is, that every process that can be monetized gets incorporated. And if there is any way to scale that, you will have a public company that is part of the index at roughly the same expected returns.
So what is left? I think, you can still do certain businesses directly. You can of course actually run a classical business. But you could also just provide capital where there are larger risk premia.
There is good evidence for:
Stock factors (e.g. as long only combination of market plus factors)
Trend (e.g. managed futures)
Cat Bonds and other ILS (e.g. as a fund)
Leverage with diversification (e.g. combining stocks with the above and other, less performant, assets for lower volatilty than just stocks)
It is important to keep fees low, though. Else only the managers and brokerages will eat well.
So yes, there are good alternatives at the price of some additional complexity.
Of course, a public company could do those things too, but a company has a very long horizon, its valuation is strongly influenced by the future of that process they monetize. It is not a fund, you can not access its gains directly. So, it would not diversify well against a stock index.
Additionally, companies and funds normally have a size advantage that reduces certain frictions (e.g. relative cost of having a lawyer draft a contract) . But on the other hand, increases other frictions (e.g. agent-principal problems, strategy capacity).
You can not compete with Google Ads with your meagre assets, but the gap in the areas I mentioned above is much smaller.
I love their stories. The last 2 are litigation finance companies, with Burford being well known. I believe in spreading my $$ and de-risk whenever a stock has doubled or trippled.
Mit dem Lesen und der Teilnahme an diesem Forum bestätigst du, dass du die Forum-Richtlinien gelesen hast und damit einverstanden bist sowie den Haftungsausschluss auf http://www.mustachianpost.com/de/ akzeptierst.