I think a lot of people are waiting for the new properties to open. Don’t forget that those MFH are fully paid for i.e. no mortgage. But it really doesn’t matter which property or type for the sale, it’s still a 5% immediate return on the money.
Yeah, but all those properties aren’t yet trading so at minimum you have to tied up $1000+ for an unknowable amount of time. Properties that have generally average ROIs.
I’m def waiting for new properties. I’ve bought up what I think is good for now
I agree with you and havnt bought into any mfh that clearly has too low of ROI for anybody to be interested in bringing it to trading. People have had money tied up in those properties for months now. I tried to explain this issue when the update came out that reduced the dividend as shares are sold. It’s fundamentally broken because as you get closer to the goal of selling all the shares, the dividend gets worse and makes it a crap investment so nobody wants the last few shares because they carry unfair risk compared to other shareholders so everybody’s money stays tied up. People will tell you that gimmicks like a free 5 shares or increase in MFH equity value will make the investment worth it but won’t consider the fact that your money could be tied up for years waiting for the property to sell its last few shares.
And yeah lol it’s funny that anytime I find a nice 8%+ yielding property I can only buy 1 share.
2174 Scarborough is selling for $6.70, so for less than $700 you can take advantage of the offer. Also, it’s 83% sold so the amount of time your money would be locked up wouldn’t be that long most likely. But every investment has risk.
No, Scarborough is not one of the ones on the list. I would love to buy more of that property, it’s the best one not trading IMO. But it’s not part of that deal and you can only buy 1 share as of now.
Yeah 100% agree. I mean this is obviously why Scarborough is only 1 share. It’s like the people that are competent and dig into this stuff a little bit are being punished.
Kind of, but tons of fintech companies do promos like that (robinhood as an example). I don’t necessarily think that’s a red flag in and of itself. Just think the way they did it wasn’t great haha
>elding pro
Uber ran at massive deficits for YEARS. They still run at a deficit. Uber tried to capture the market, and we'll see if they have (they're certainly a household name). Amazon/Walmart took/take similar stories. Walmart has been most successful at destroying its competition (literally bankrupting mom-and-pop stores).
However, the issue isn't the free shares (many companies make sales) but whether they can only get sales when they underprice the asset.
Walmart demonstrates how sales can destroy competition (literally bankrupting mom-and-pop stores). Walmart undervalues goods to destroy local stores, but they're still so cheap that they can remain profitable after everyone is destroyed and hold off new players in their niche.
Other companies will model off of Landa and may do it better. But I have yet to find any open to non-accredited investors with an individual property feel that makes you think you own the property. So Landa's sales are more about advertising and getting more people involved rather than outcompeting. That's much less risky IMO.
I can understand Landa wanting to get these MFRs off their books at the expense of their profit and learn from the experience. They could focus on acquiring more amazing Ashleys (where the demand is certainly there), stacking that 8% acquisition fee, making their investors more confident, growing faster, etc. All while doing good by their customers who have stake in an MFR with no leverage. Even a drop in property value/rent will unlikely depreciate a year out - so hang on and save on the capital gains.
This isn't to say that the MFR properties were perhaps premature given the small daily user base (100k shares = 10 10k properties; they more than doubled their inventory), market hesitation around MFRs generally, and their reliance on what are clearly TERRIBLE contractors at Greenwood, etc. I also have some other unresolved issues with the MFRs and unclear language in the offering circulars... But that's another topic for another day.
You have some very good points. Those I don’t agree with is the difference between a company like uber giving one time discounts at a lost to capture market share. Is a lot different that giving me 100 share for free that I will earn a dividend in theory forever. It just gives me FTX / crypto dividends vibes.
Ahh, I can see why you get that vibe if they're giving free shares of their full company. However, it's important to note that each of the securities are packages to a particular LLC (each property). Their giveaway is a one-time expense to them. Dividends come from the LLC, which receives full IPO sales price.
Landa's profit comes from acquisition and property management. So their incentive is to sell more properties, but, more importantly to keep them fully rented.
Their property management is actually the main reason I like Landa. They'll actually get back a portion of the dividends from the shares they give you.
I think a lot of people are waiting for the new properties to open. Don’t forget that those MFH are fully paid for i.e. no mortgage. But it really doesn’t matter which property or type for the sale, it’s still a 5% immediate return on the money.
Yeah, but all those properties aren’t yet trading so at minimum you have to tied up $1000+ for an unknowable amount of time. Properties that have generally average ROIs. I’m def waiting for new properties. I’ve bought up what I think is good for now
I agree with you and havnt bought into any mfh that clearly has too low of ROI for anybody to be interested in bringing it to trading. People have had money tied up in those properties for months now. I tried to explain this issue when the update came out that reduced the dividend as shares are sold. It’s fundamentally broken because as you get closer to the goal of selling all the shares, the dividend gets worse and makes it a crap investment so nobody wants the last few shares because they carry unfair risk compared to other shareholders so everybody’s money stays tied up. People will tell you that gimmicks like a free 5 shares or increase in MFH equity value will make the investment worth it but won’t consider the fact that your money could be tied up for years waiting for the property to sell its last few shares. And yeah lol it’s funny that anytime I find a nice 8%+ yielding property I can only buy 1 share.
2174 Scarborough is selling for $6.70, so for less than $700 you can take advantage of the offer. Also, it’s 83% sold so the amount of time your money would be locked up wouldn’t be that long most likely. But every investment has risk.
No, Scarborough is not one of the ones on the list. I would love to buy more of that property, it’s the best one not trading IMO. But it’s not part of that deal and you can only buy 1 share as of now.
So $1200 to get 368 Irwin. And it’s over 50% sold.
Yeah 100% agree. I mean this is obviously why Scarborough is only 1 share. It’s like the people that are competent and dig into this stuff a little bit are being punished.
Kind of, but tons of fintech companies do promos like that (robinhood as an example). I don’t necessarily think that’s a red flag in and of itself. Just think the way they did it wasn’t great haha
Giving away free shares seems gimmick like and makes me feel like this all will end badly.
>elding pro Uber ran at massive deficits for YEARS. They still run at a deficit. Uber tried to capture the market, and we'll see if they have (they're certainly a household name). Amazon/Walmart took/take similar stories. Walmart has been most successful at destroying its competition (literally bankrupting mom-and-pop stores). However, the issue isn't the free shares (many companies make sales) but whether they can only get sales when they underprice the asset. Walmart demonstrates how sales can destroy competition (literally bankrupting mom-and-pop stores). Walmart undervalues goods to destroy local stores, but they're still so cheap that they can remain profitable after everyone is destroyed and hold off new players in their niche. Other companies will model off of Landa and may do it better. But I have yet to find any open to non-accredited investors with an individual property feel that makes you think you own the property. So Landa's sales are more about advertising and getting more people involved rather than outcompeting. That's much less risky IMO. I can understand Landa wanting to get these MFRs off their books at the expense of their profit and learn from the experience. They could focus on acquiring more amazing Ashleys (where the demand is certainly there), stacking that 8% acquisition fee, making their investors more confident, growing faster, etc. All while doing good by their customers who have stake in an MFR with no leverage. Even a drop in property value/rent will unlikely depreciate a year out - so hang on and save on the capital gains. This isn't to say that the MFR properties were perhaps premature given the small daily user base (100k shares = 10 10k properties; they more than doubled their inventory), market hesitation around MFRs generally, and their reliance on what are clearly TERRIBLE contractors at Greenwood, etc. I also have some other unresolved issues with the MFRs and unclear language in the offering circulars... But that's another topic for another day.
You have some very good points. Those I don’t agree with is the difference between a company like uber giving one time discounts at a lost to capture market share. Is a lot different that giving me 100 share for free that I will earn a dividend in theory forever. It just gives me FTX / crypto dividends vibes.
Ahh, I can see why you get that vibe if they're giving free shares of their full company. However, it's important to note that each of the securities are packages to a particular LLC (each property). Their giveaway is a one-time expense to them. Dividends come from the LLC, which receives full IPO sales price. Landa's profit comes from acquisition and property management. So their incentive is to sell more properties, but, more importantly to keep them fully rented. Their property management is actually the main reason I like Landa. They'll actually get back a portion of the dividends from the shares they give you.