adamhooper

They'll take a loss on their equity invested because the cost of continuing to feed the mortgage payments until they could lease the space is greater. Likely that they'd never generate enough rent even if full to meet debt obligations, so in that case you just basically hand the keys back and let the bank figure out what to do with it.

Having toured this building in '21, it's going to take a long time before the occupancy is high enough to cover any debt service.

Outskirts of core office location in Portland, terrible access, delivered the building right before COVID. Just a bad outcome and really unfortunate timing.

Desired distance in cm here I'm assuming?

My understanding is that even the disaster loans will still require collateral and personal guarantees. Unsure if they're waiving or changing those rules or plan to.

Disaster loans have been around long before COVID-19.

Again, this is different than the Paycheck Protection section of the CARES Act which covers 2.5X of the average monthly payroll from 2019 that is subject to loan forgiveness and does not require personal guarantees or collateral.

Also in PDX - where did you end up going out of curiosity? Casey?

Close - but Bob in your example also has to improve the basis of whatever he buys by 100% within a 30 month period. So that could be a major renovation of the house, building another unit on the property, scraping and rebuilding etc.

Unfortunately it's not as easy as parking money and riding off into the tax free sunset. As I mentioned down thread, we should hopefully have the first set of regs from Treasury even as soon as tomorrow which will clarify a lot of the loose ends as written in the initial legislation.

Some of what we're waiting to see is whether or not that basis improvement includes the land value or if you can split that out. If the home Bob purchases for $300k is on a lot worth $250k, does he have to spend the full $300k to improve it, or just $50k to improve the basis of the structure?

Lots of details to still work out but hopefully we'll know more shortly.

The benefit is for investing capital gains into OZ's, not necessarily from selling assets that are in existing OZ's. So if you had a gain on your house (beyond the homeowner exclusion) you could potentially invest the remainder of that gain into an OZ project and get those benefits.

There are all sorts of stipulations you need to follow to qualify however - not all of which are fully in place yet from Treasury. We should be getting the first version of the regs as soon as tomorrow (imminent we've heard from folks in DC) and then we'll know more. Things like having to improve the basis of whatever you invest in by 100% within a 30 month period exist, so you can't just buy something in an OZ and park it, you have to actually do some improvement to what you purchase.

How are you guys assessing the lookthrough in that case? If an entity is formed for the sole purpose of investing in your fund, I believe those investors count towards your limit.