delete repeated post, have a nice day
Printable View
delete repeated post, have a nice day
Apologies if it seemed like I was implying capital gain sharing would be top priority - that’s not what I mean’t. I meant in an “all other things being equal” situation - a capital gains sharing plan would be a huge bonus, and quite possibly the deal maker or breaker when deciding between several providers.
now might be a time when sharing the capital gain might not be so expensive.... not that I expect this to gain traction as it would change the model completely
there is an actual benefit to not sharing the capital gain though , and that is a lessening of risk. Ownership involves risk. Sure , no one knows about downside risk in NZ but it does exist. eg leaky homes. And as you get closer to the end you should under normal rules become more risk averse. So despite it being perceived as a one way street it should not be - there are some benefits to Licenses to Occupy
The right to occupy model means that the buyer has no rights to the capital value of the asset. Changing that right to share the value of the asset could be more complicated legally, not less. It would have to include sharing a loss should that eventuate.
I’m all for residents or their beneficiaries getting paid out quickly, less deferred maintenance, but as a part owner of the asset, I see no reason or obligation to share gains or losses on the asset.
I don't disagree with the overall thrust of what you've said mate but the facts that I have highlighted do not give any encouragement that what you are hoping for will come to fruition.
The trend downwards in the rate of those increases is crystal clear and in the last 2 years are nowhere near keeping up with annual average wage cost inflation prevailing at OCA that's averaged nearly 8% per annum since it listed.
RYM's CEO (Gordon McLeod's) concerns that something has to give are very real but as this stage, looking at those figures, all you can conclude is that the Govt thinks the retirement village sector will have to keep sucking it up in an ever increasing way. The reality of the situation is really quite stark. Cindy is quite happy to trample over landlords rights to achieve the right look for her socialist agenda so it should be clear that in the short term there's no political capital for Cindy in acquiescing to retirement village companies demands.
................website playing up again with double post.
Look over the ditch to see widespread neglect being uncovered from their royal commision.
We're perhaps world leading in retirement care. More should be spent on keeping people out of these homes in my view.
People don't want to be in a retirement village if they can help it.
It can be provided outside the retirement village format I think if people want more social support.