Superrich buying farmland - the ultimate 'hard asset'

[Lord Beria3]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rtage.html

Jim Slater, a notorious asset-stripper from the Seventies, is growing genetically modified maize on Brazilian prairie once owned by the father of racing driver Ayrton Senna. City ‘superwoman’ Nicola Horlick is investing the pension funds of Hampshire and Merseyside councils in Brazilian farmland.

Meanwhile, feted bond trader Guy Hands bought cattle stations three times bigger than Wales from the estate of the legendary TV mogul Kerry Packer. And Joe Lewis, the owner of Tottenham Hotspur, has invested a chunk of the fortune he made betting against sterling two decades ago to buy a slab of scenic Patagonia.

Then there is Phil Edmonds, England’s wily Test bowler of the Eighties whom Wisden praised for his ‘aristocratic manner’. Maybe that manner helped him persuade the government of Mozambique to let him have 75,000 acres for growing sugar cane.

But some villagers claimed the land was used without their consent. When the scheme went belly-up, he bounced back with a beef ranch on an area recently cleared of land mines. Will the master of spin prove a better cow-puncher than sugar baron?

Investors say farmland is the new big thing because the world is running short of food. They insist their efforts will be good for Africa, too, because they bring much-needed investment.

These people aren't daft. With headlines warning of food riots due to the recent droughts in the States and the big trends in terms of population, rising energy costs and the rising affluence of the Asian consumer it is clear that farmland will be a important part of a rich person's portfolio in the coming decades. As it has historically always been.

What is less clear is whether these investors have thought through the geo-political risks in investing in these parts of the world. If you do want to invest in land, I would suggest sticking to more 'traditional' places with a strong tradition of political stability and property rights.

[RenewableCandy]

Quite.

Though were I a country like Cambodia I would consider inviting these people in and get them to sponsor landmine clearence in return for owning some land.

[peaceful_life]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rtage.html

Jim Slater, a notorious asset-stripper from the Seventies, is growing genetically modified maize on Brazilian prairie once owned by the father of racing driver Ayrton Senna. City ‘superwoman’ Nicola Horlick is investing the pension funds of Hampshire and Merseyside councils in Brazilian farmland.

Meanwhile, feted bond trader Guy Hands bought cattle stations three times bigger than Wales from the estate of the legendary TV mogul Kerry Packer. And Joe Lewis, the owner of Tottenham Hotspur, has invested a chunk of the fortune he made betting against sterling two decades ago to buy a slab of scenic Patagonia.

Then there is Phil Edmonds, England’s wily Test bowler of the Eighties whom Wisden praised for his ‘aristocratic manner’. Maybe that manner helped him persuade the government of Mozambique to let him have 75,000 acres for growing sugar cane.

But some villagers claimed the land was used without their consent. When the scheme went belly-up, he bounced back with a beef ranch on an area recently cleared of land mines. Will the master of spin prove a better cow-puncher than sugar baron?

Investors say farmland is the new big thing because the world is running short of food. They insist their efforts will be good for Africa, too, because they bring much-needed investment.

These people aren't daft. With headlines warning of food riots due to the recent droughts in the States and the big trends in terms of population, rising energy costs and the rising affluence of the Asian consumer it is clear that farmland will be a important part of a rich person's portfolio in the coming decades. As it has historically always been.

What is less clear is whether these investors have thought through the geo-political risks in investing in these parts of the world. If you do want to invest in land, I would suggest sticking to more 'traditional' places with a strong tradition of political stability and property rights.

You're right, not 'daft', it's a bit deeper than that.


'What is less clear is whether these investors have thought through the geo-political risks in investing in these parts of the world'

Ivory decays too ;-0)

[Catweazle]

What is less clear is whether these investors have thought through the geo-political risks in investing in these parts of the world.

Of course they have, and they consider investing money elsewhere to be just as risky, which tells you a little about our future.

[jonny2mad]

The ultimate hard asset is a machete or a AK47 and lots of people ready to do violence on your behalf.

In south Africa you have loads of farmers in place with legal title to their land and the blacks rape and torture them often for days, then cut off parts of their body's while still alive and leave them as part of ritual magic .

You don't own a damn thing unless you can defend it , pieces of paper will be found to be valueless, these people are the wrong skin colour are not part of the local culture, they don't control the resources on the ground and they are too weak .

This is a bad investment, they would do as well just gathering their money and burning it http://www.neo-genocide.com/farmitracker/

[rue_d_etropal]

just what I was thinking, but had not realised there as real evidence.
Land is a good investment, but only if you can look after it yourself. Most empires crumbled because they could not control things from a distance.
Maybe it is one big scam. Those making the first investments attracting others then selling out just before there is trouble.
I wonder if anyone has realised there is a similar potential problem with industrial/mining investment.

[postie]

In south Africa you have loads of farmers in place with legal title to their land and the blacks rape and torture them often for days, then cut off parts of their body's while still alive and leave them as part of ritual magic .

Ya know...I let here far too rapidly. I really wish I'd said what a bunch of right wing extremist bastards many of you are...

The above quote... in one of the first threads I've read on here since I thought it was waaaaay too right wing.. is enough to convince me I made the right decision.

Oi... Johnny.. prove it. Yeah.. there's a land grab... but prove what you say. Put up the links about "and the blacks rape and torture them often for days, then cut off parts of their body's while still alive and leave them as part of ritual magic ." Or is it just the modern day crap... where you can come out with outrageous crap and it's "true" cos it's on the internet?

AND.. F--k you.. white farmers..with "legal title"? From land grabbed from people at the barrel of a gun generations back?
F--k the whites moaning about blacks taking back their ancestral land. Bollocks to any of it. I'm more worried about idiots like you dressing it up as something it aint. ****.

I'd love to be banned for that.. this site is a bunch of right wing nutters.. you've seen I aint been here for a long while.. but without the nutters, you aint got anything. bye.. again.

[biffvernon]

Welcome back Postie. Actually there's only about three or four real right wing nutters on PowewSwitch. We should be able to laugh at their silliness or just ignore them.

[nexus]

Yeah Postie, don't go, there's plenty of non racists on here, mostly we try and challenge J2M but dunno about anyone else, I'm a bit tired tonight. Please stay tho' we need level heads on here.

[hodson2k9]

+1 to both of the last 2 comments!

As for the spartan loving J2M hes just a a**e hole pure and simple! Dont let the complete nonsense he spouts bother you.

[Little John]

In south Africa you have loads of farmers in place with legal title to their land and the blacks rape and torture them often for days, then cut off parts of their body's while still alive and leave them as part of ritual magic .

Ya know...I let here far too rapidly. I really wish I'd said what a bunch of right wing extremist bastards many of you are...

The above quote... in one of the first threads I've read on here since I thought it was waaaaay too right wing.. is enough to convince me I made the right decision.

Oi... Johnny.. prove it. Yeah.. there's a land grab... but prove what you say. Put up the links about "and the blacks rape and torture them often for days, then cut off parts of their body's while still alive and leave them as part of ritual magic ." Or is it just the modern day crap... where you can come out with outrageous crap and it's "true" cos it's on the internet?

AND.. **** you.. white farmers..with "legal title"? From land grabbed from people at the barrel of a gun generations back?
**** the whites moaning about blacks taking back their ancestral land. Bollocks to any of it. I'm more worried about idiots like you dressing it up as something it aint. ****.

I'd love to be banned for that.. this site is a bunch of right wing nutters.. you've seen I aint been here for a long while.. but without the nutters, you aint got anything. bye.. again.

Erm, excuse me...

I am a proud left-wing extremist bastard by the way.....

[adam2]

I try to avoid politics except when directly relevant to other matters.

As regards land ownership, it should be noted that virtually ALL land was taken at gunpoint* from someone else, if you look back far enough !

Whilst there may be something to be said for returning land to its "rightfull" owners, such as the native black peoples in Africa, how far back do you go ? Remembering that records in many countries only go back a couple of generations, but that prior to that, the land may have changed hands many times by way of sale or conquest.
Records in the UK go back 1000 years or more in many cases, but often the land was obtained by by force of arms, or by purchase from someone who obtained it by force of arms, or by grant from the Sovereign who obtained it by conquest.

A reasonable compromise might be that if legal title to land or property goes back 100 years or more, then it is to be considered legitimate for ever more.

If the land was obtained less than 100 years ago, by purchase, grant, or seizure, then the present owner should be aware of the chance of it reverting to the original owner, unless there is reasonable evidence that all was done legitmatly.

*or more primitive weapons than firearms if you go back far enough

[emordnilap]

this site is a bunch of right wing nutters.. you've seen I aint been here for a long while.. but without the nutters, you aint got anything. bye.. again.

Postie, where on earth did you get that from? Sure, there's several objectionable posters on here who are well worth ignoring but it's nothing compared to other sites. Where do you go on the web that doesn't have them?

[extractorfan]

People who see the world in terms of right wing / left wing are behind the times. These terms don't mean much at all any more.

There are racists who believe in socialism too you know. There are many capitalists who (possibly due to their only being concerned with money) are not at all racist.

besides, you're going to come accross people with prejudices all the time, you may not even know them, wouldn't you rather know who you were dealing with "up-front" as it where?

We all have (should have) the right to be offended, as well as to offend.

[Catweazle]

I hope I won't be called a racist bastard for posting this link;

http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

3000+ white farmers and over 60,000 whites living in urban areas have been murdered since 1994. People are regularly shot for mobile phones, cars, bicycles etc. etc. or just because they are white. The SA government has now changed the crime recording methods so as not to include race.

The President was recently filmed singing the "Kill The Farmer, Shoot The Boer" song at a rally., witnesses have reported murderers singing this as they hack up their victims.

Is anyone going to suggest that this is acceptable ?