觉得最后的选择2,3不现实或者互相矛盾:
“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.
矛盾的地方在于:没有人能够guarantee rate of return plus profit sharing和guarantee buy back after 5 years。因为partnership属于所有投资者。继续留下在partnership的投资者如何能够预先承诺买回要退出的投资者的股份呢?这不是预先自己向自己承诺吗?5年后有投资者想退出只有一个可能,就是partnership里面留下来的投资者愿意接受其股份或者全体留下者愿意平方。这种状况下还有个重要前提,就是这个project盈利或者可能转向盈利。要是情况相反,恐怕就没人愿意接受了。其次,所有投资者期望有预计的回报,当然也应该承受风险。假如不能承受风险就不应该投入。所有另一方面说,也不需要有guarantee存在。
网友Cupertino枇杷认为:不矛盾
“这是managing partners 对sleeping partners而言的。还是用那个例子,如果一年后某个sleeping partner 不干了,managing partners 可以自掏腰包buy out at discount (投10万还8万:)
这样说, managing partners承诺?但是又有什么东西可以保证这个Managing partners的guarantee有效呢?比如这个project的结果5年后不如理想,或者Managing partners自己没现金、甚至自己已经破产,又能如何担保呢?这里有到时Managing partners是否愿意和是否有能力两方面问题。
我总的意思是说,投资者“愿赌服输“,不应该期望有担保,要求担保也不现实。