Church mortgage bonds are corporate debt securities issued by non-profit organizations that have a stated Christian mission, including local churches, denominations and associations, educational institutions, para church and other Christian mission-related organizations for purposes including construction, purchase or refinancing of existing real property. The bond issuers operate in a variety of geographic regions in the U.S.A. The Fund will only invest in church mortgage bonds that are secured by a first position trust deed or mortgage on the issuer’s real property.

Because church mortgage bonds do not have an active secondary market and are illiquid, they are typically issued with yields that are higher than those of corporate bonds of similar credit quality and maturity.

Which helps explain why they’d have a higher yield than other funds.  These are still real estate investments, but I suppose the risk profile of a church wouldn’t be very similar to typical individual borrowers nor corporate borrowers.  Of course the churches don’t have to worry about rising real estate taxes.  It will be interesting to see how they do.

$350,000/year implies the sign, or rather the right to place it on that building, is worth something like $4-$6 million.

The County Assessor’s web site says that 3701 N. Kenmore is parcel number 14-20-219-026-0000 and has a total market value of $854,000 (The “assessed value” is $136,640).  So if the right to place a sign is worth, say $4 million, even pretending that the building has no value at all, the assessment is far too low, only 3.4% of market value.

I want the Assessor to assess my house at 3.4% of the value of the right to put a sign on the roof.

So far unlike other markets where the company does business, Silicon Valley land costs have not gone down

–Steve Wethor, western region president for homebuilder Taylor Morrison.

From Denver(!) Business Journal, Sept 12 2008

In the first half of this decade, farmland appreciated mostly for reasons unrelated to farming; that is, value from ag production played a comparatively static role. More important during this period was demand for open land for nonfarm purposes—in many cases, to build homes during the recent housing boom. But even comparatively rural areas saw secondary demand for farmland, often from investors seeking to diversify their holdings or for recreational purposes like hunting.

Tax laws which allow deferral of tax on real estate profits when the proceeds are invested in other real estate also played a role.  But as demand for housing and other nonagricultural uses slackened

[M]ajor commodities produced in the district—like corn, soybeans, wheat and milk—have commanded prices that farmers will talk about for years (see Chart 2). Specialty crops such as lentils, dry edible beans and peas, flaxseed, sunflowers and safflower—all of which have a significant presence in the district—also saw strong prices in 2007. Said one Minnesota farmer, “There’s potential in just about anything if you can grow a crop.”

“The market has changed dramatically in the last six months,” rising by 20 percent on top of a year-over-year increase of 10 percent,” says one farmland broker. Land near Grafton, ND attracted ten bidders and sold for $5800/acre.

Many of the buyers at these higher prices are prosperous farmers looking to expand their holdings.  They’re not highly leveraged, so paying the mortgage might not be a serious problem when the cycle turns.

it appears that farmers, as a group, are in better financial position to weather a downturn in land values, the ag economy or both. The balance sheets of farms nationwide and in the district show modest debt levels and very strong asset and equity levels. Commonly used measures of financial health, like ratios of farm debt to both assets and equity, are at their best levels in at least three decades

A sidebar article notes that rising land prices aren’t so great for those looking to become farmers, and high commodity prices are a problem for cattle and beef producers.  My own guess is that a rise in land prices almost always leads to a bubble and crash, but perhaps not very soon.