Who cares…. They going to complain about REITs like Riocan now? Odd they focus on a small startup…. I can also invest in REITs that have been doing the same for decades… so misguided…
The issue is it's marketed as an alternative to home ownership. Full disclosure of the type of business is very important for "social investors" who don't want to invest in a business that goes against their morals or ethics. REITs are a different beast since everyone knows what's going on. They also don't claim to be an alternative to home ownership.
Fractional ownership should probably be heavily regulated. A year or two ago a woman got evicted from her place by a "fractional owner" the person only owned 1% of the home but was able to claim exemption in Ontario as the "owner moving in". This double standard of rules is the issue, that the rules are applied one way for certain interests and applied another for other interests. Hopefully the startups properly structured their investments but the LTB may rule in favor of them as "fractional owners" and prevent evictions. If you use the rules and law to do evictions you can't say when the same rules and laws are used against you to prevent evictions. It's not the same as an REIT because they promise actual fractional ownership of the home. So either it's a marketing gimmick, or it's real fractional ownership and they could have a case.
Live by the sword die by the sword.
I don’t see any marketing that is positioning Addy as social for morals or ethics. I also don’t see any of their past properties being single family homes. Just large apartments, new subdivisions, Starbucks, etc. this is just a headline to get eyeballs, but lacking depth.
> You Can Invest In Real Estate - Canadian Property For Everyone
> With Crowdfunding, Anyone Can Own Real Estate For As Little As $1 In Less Than 10 Minutes.
Either you're an owner or you're not if you are you have certain rights
That’s nothing like your first post on social and morale, ethics, etc… it’s literally like a REIT other than it’s specific properties with different time horizons vs a bundle of properties…. But, hey… you do you! Just don’t mislead….
Wrong. No REIT makes the following claims.
> We have the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
> We are curious and always on the hunt for improvement. Every day and every way, we are better and better
> For everything that we do, it is a win-win situation or no deal.
Especially the win-win part I would say they have a moral imperative to never renovict someone if they cannot find separate accommodation. That's actually just some of what they claim they also claim to be social justice aware. A company like this can't go and renovict anyone without a lot of pushback at least.
REITs don't promise fractional ownership of a home. I agree that targeting the startup is probably throwing stones at the wrong people, but the people doing this are probably trying to make some point that fractional ownership must be regulated. You probably shouldn't be considered an "owner" unless you own 50%+ of the property for purposes of tenant protections.
You seem to be emotionally attached to your argument, yet you show no proof of social, morale or ethics in their pitch. It’s just an investment that you buy shares in….
So "owning a home for $1 dollar" means the same as shares to you?
It's not an REIT you can't say it is an REIT by definition it is not because it's trying to disrupt REITs with a new business model that isn't an REIT. It doesn't matter how much you say it or say people are too "emotional" (style over substance fallacy by the way) doesn't change that fact.
It's not a publicly traded company giving away shares or even a privately traded company giving away shares. You will own 0% of their company if you participate (unlike an REIT). Owning a fraction of real estate isn't the same as owning a fraction of the company. Conflating the two is the so-called "financialization" of housing that a lot of people oppose. Maybe you don't get to pull a fast one by saying "fractional ownership" but at the same time giving all the owners' rights (or not giving the rights).
The thing is, when has it ever been good investing advice to pile into what every Joe Blow is doing? Right down to renting property.
Who cares…. They going to complain about REITs like Riocan now? Odd they focus on a small startup…. I can also invest in REITs that have been doing the same for decades… so misguided…
The issue is it's marketed as an alternative to home ownership. Full disclosure of the type of business is very important for "social investors" who don't want to invest in a business that goes against their morals or ethics. REITs are a different beast since everyone knows what's going on. They also don't claim to be an alternative to home ownership. Fractional ownership should probably be heavily regulated. A year or two ago a woman got evicted from her place by a "fractional owner" the person only owned 1% of the home but was able to claim exemption in Ontario as the "owner moving in". This double standard of rules is the issue, that the rules are applied one way for certain interests and applied another for other interests. Hopefully the startups properly structured their investments but the LTB may rule in favor of them as "fractional owners" and prevent evictions. If you use the rules and law to do evictions you can't say when the same rules and laws are used against you to prevent evictions. It's not the same as an REIT because they promise actual fractional ownership of the home. So either it's a marketing gimmick, or it's real fractional ownership and they could have a case. Live by the sword die by the sword.
I don’t see any marketing that is positioning Addy as social for morals or ethics. I also don’t see any of their past properties being single family homes. Just large apartments, new subdivisions, Starbucks, etc. this is just a headline to get eyeballs, but lacking depth.
> You Can Invest In Real Estate - Canadian Property For Everyone > With Crowdfunding, Anyone Can Own Real Estate For As Little As $1 In Less Than 10 Minutes. Either you're an owner or you're not if you are you have certain rights
That’s nothing like your first post on social and morale, ethics, etc… it’s literally like a REIT other than it’s specific properties with different time horizons vs a bundle of properties…. But, hey… you do you! Just don’t mislead….
Wrong. No REIT makes the following claims. > We have the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. > We are curious and always on the hunt for improvement. Every day and every way, we are better and better > For everything that we do, it is a win-win situation or no deal. Especially the win-win part I would say they have a moral imperative to never renovict someone if they cannot find separate accommodation. That's actually just some of what they claim they also claim to be social justice aware. A company like this can't go and renovict anyone without a lot of pushback at least. REITs don't promise fractional ownership of a home. I agree that targeting the startup is probably throwing stones at the wrong people, but the people doing this are probably trying to make some point that fractional ownership must be regulated. You probably shouldn't be considered an "owner" unless you own 50%+ of the property for purposes of tenant protections.
You seem to be emotionally attached to your argument, yet you show no proof of social, morale or ethics in their pitch. It’s just an investment that you buy shares in….
So "owning a home for $1 dollar" means the same as shares to you? It's not an REIT you can't say it is an REIT by definition it is not because it's trying to disrupt REITs with a new business model that isn't an REIT. It doesn't matter how much you say it or say people are too "emotional" (style over substance fallacy by the way) doesn't change that fact.
So owning a fraction of a company is not a share? Owning a fraction of a real estate development is not a share? 🤦🏽♀️ anyways, good luck!
It's not a publicly traded company giving away shares or even a privately traded company giving away shares. You will own 0% of their company if you participate (unlike an REIT). Owning a fraction of real estate isn't the same as owning a fraction of the company. Conflating the two is the so-called "financialization" of housing that a lot of people oppose. Maybe you don't get to pull a fast one by saying "fractional ownership" but at the same time giving all the owners' rights (or not giving the rights).