Indeed, a good article. Mainly, I was still wondering about the idea that the ultimate decision-making power and responsibility for valuations would lie with real estate appraisers. I don’t disagree that this is how it should be, but according to current regulation (i.e., the EU directive), outsourced valuations come with such stringent responsibility that no appraiser wants/is able to bear it. Or then the price of real estate appraisal would be something entirely different than it is today. Of course, the article’s point was also that regulation should be changed, but in this respect, it doesn’t seem to be even in the hands of the parliament, unlike, for example, the real estate fund act, from which, as I understand it, the dividend payment obligation comes.
And due to costs, I would not, in principle, mandate commissioning several parallel valuations. Instead, mandatory rotation would be very welcome; many fund companies probably already do this, but certainly not all.
and also share buybacks.
However, it’s pointless to expect huge timber sales revenues from that plot.
More than half of the people left/were sent away from Sentica already a year or two ago when the new fund didn’t materialize. So, in that sense, this was probably a way to get the last benefit out of the name. That listing plan is indeed very likely; otherwise, a share exchange would hardly have been acceptable.