Ok good, but does it say what happens to their existing inventory? Does this only stop them from further aquisitions, or do they have to divest their current assets?
Without a liquidation clause, im concerned they'll just hold current stock in perpetuity and theyll become locked from circulation.
In addition, this doesnt stop them from forming realestate conglomerates to just do the same thing theough them, or does it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember when this was first brought up, there was something like heavy taxes or "fees" to continued holding of existing inventory.
Their existing inventory seems to be some of the ugliest most ridiculous looking boxes of a house Ive ever seen, probably should just tear them all down
Ok good, but does it say what happens to their existing inventory? Does this only stop them from further aquisitions, or do they have to divest their current assets?
Without a liquidation clause, im concerned they'll just hold current stock in perpetuity and theyll become locked from circulation.
In addition, this doesnt stop them from forming realestate conglomerates to just do the same thing theough them, or does it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember when this was first brought up, there was something like heavy taxes or "fees" to continued holding of existing inventory.
That would definitely be one way to address the issue, and i would support it.
Likewise it would solve the issue of banks acquiring mortgage default properties, at least for as long as is needed to sell off at auction.
I suppose the best way to figure out is if there is an EO or ruling or something we could check, read the wording and see what is actually happening.
Their existing inventory seems to be some of the ugliest most ridiculous looking boxes of a house Ive ever seen, probably should just tear them all down