覺得最後的選擇2,3不現實或者互相矛盾:
“perimeter of the group project, lets say, it be a MFU apartment complex, with 30% minimum discount compare to market, area will be TX. at this point, we are not considering amount of money need to invest. exist strategy be, sell out or refi after 5 years, if refi, partners can choose to sell their shares or continue in partnership.
1. not interest in it at all.
2. interest in it if with guanrantee rate of return plus profit sharing.
3. interest in it if partnership offers guanrantee buy back after 5 years.
矛盾的地方在於:沒有人能夠guarantee rate of return plus profit sharing和guarantee buy back after 5 years。因為partnership屬於所有投資者。繼續留下在partnership的投資者如何能夠預先承諾買回要退出的投資者的股份呢?這不是預先自己向自己承諾嗎?5年後有投資者想退出隻有一個可能,就是partnership裏麵留下來的投資者願意接受其股份或者全體留下者願意平方。這種狀況下還有個重要前提,就是這個project盈利或者可能轉向盈利。要是情況相反,恐怕就沒人願意接受了。其次,所有投資者期望有預計的回報,當然也應該承受風險。假如不能承受風險就不應該投入。所有另一方麵說,也不需要有guarantee存在。
網友Cupertino枇杷認為:不矛盾
“這是managing partners 對sleeping partners而言的。還是用那個例子,如果一年後某個sleeping partner 不幹了,managing partners 可以自掏腰包buy out at discount (投10萬還8萬:)
這樣說, managing partners承諾?但是又有什麽東西可以保證這個Managing partners的guarantee有效呢?比如這個project的結果5年後不如理想,或者Managing partners自己沒現金、甚至自己已經破產,又能如何擔保呢?這裏有到時Managing partners是否願意和是否有能力兩方麵問題。
我總的意思是說,投資者“願賭服輸“,不應該期望有擔保,要求擔保也不現實。