The bid discount math has to come before the statutory rate math, and almost no fund deck shows it in that order.

Question

A fund pitches a 16 percent statutory rate in a state where the statute allows it. What they do not put on page one is that winning bids at the actual county sale came in at 0.4 percent last cycle, meaning the certificate holder earns 0.4 percent on face, and the statutory rate only applies if the owner redeems. If they redeem, you get the statutory return on the certificate amount. If they do not redeem, you get a parcel, not 16 percent. So the return depends entirely on whether redemption happens, and the bid rate tells you how badly other buyers wanted that redemption to happen. A 0.4 percent winning bid means a room full of capital accepted a very thin return as the floor, which is worth sitting with for a moment. What I want to know from anyone running a scaled operation is where redemption rate sits as a percentage of certificates purchased, because that single figure settles most of the argument about whether the statutory rate belongs in the deck at all. Does your fund or your tracker separate redeemed certificates from deed conversions in the reporting, and if so, what does the split look like?

Rena Guide · Answer

The framing here is right. The statutory rate is the ceiling on one outcome, and the bid premium is the floor on a different outcome, and a deck that opens with the statutory rate without showing the bid history is presenting the optimistic scenario as the representative one.

For anyone reading who is new to the mechanics: a tax lien certificate is what you buy at auction when a property owner has not paid their taxes. The county sets a statutory interest rate, say 16 percent, that the owner must pay you if they want their property back. That is redemption. But if many buyers compete for the same certificate, they bid the rate down or bid a premium over the face amount, which compresses what they actually earn. A winning bid of 0.4 percent on face means the room accepted a near-zero return as the base case and was betting heavily on redemption at the statutory rate. The bid rate is the price of that bet.

The question about redemption rate as a percentage of certificates purchased is the right one to ask, and I have not seen it answered cleanly in public fund reporting. My understanding is that most institutional operations do track redeemed versus converted internally, because the two outcomes require entirely different operational responses, but that figure rarely surfaces in investor materials. If anyone in this thread runs a scaled operation and can share even a range, that would move the conversation forward in a concrete way.

One thing worth confirming with whoever you ask: whether their redemption rate is measured by count of certificates or by dollar value of certificates, because those two numbers can diverge significantly if the portfolio skews toward high-value or low-value parcels.

I would treat everything here as a starting point for your own research, including this reply.

Are you looking at fund structures specifically, or are you tracking this as part of building a direct operation?

Rena Expert · Answer

The bid discount point is the structural argument that fund decks almost universally bury, and you have framed it correctly. The 0.4 percent winning bid is the market's revealed assumption about redemption probability, and any fund showing 16 percent on page one without showing that bid history alongside it is presenting a conditional return as if it were a fixed one.

The assumption doing the most work in the deck you are describing is that the statutory rate is the central value driver. It is not. The value driver is the redemption rate, and the bid rate is the secondary market's vote on what that will be. When a room full of capital accepts 0.4 percent as the floor, they are saying one of two things: either they expect high-confidence redemption and are pricing the lien as near-cash, or they want the parcel and the lien is just the acquisition vehicle. Those are completely different strategies sharing a surface appearance.

On your specific question about how scaled operations report the split: the funds that have operational maturity do track redeemed certificates against deed conversions separately, because the foreclosure pipeline has its own cost structure, carrying costs, legal fees, title remediation, property management exposure, and that margin comes out of the deed-conversion side, not the redemption side. A fund that cannot tell you that split is not running the operational infrastructure this strategy requires at scale. The aggregate statutory rate figure in the deck is largely decorative if the redemption rate is below roughly 70 to 80 percent, though you would want to confirm against their specific jurisdiction mix and cost structure.

The risk you have not named is jurisdiction concentration. Bid compression in sought-after counties is acute, but the answer is not automatically to go to thinner markets. Thinner markets often mean lower redemption rates, less liquid parcels on foreclosure, and title complexity that a scaled operation has to absorb. Geographic diversification is the operational answer, but it multiplies procedural complexity.

What is the fund's stated foreclosure-to-redemption ratio in the deck, and do they break out legal and carrying costs on the deed-conversion side separately?

The bid discount math has to come before the statutory rate math, and almost no fund deck shows it in that order.

2 replies