By itself, Cash has no value? Initially, a challenging assumption?
There is an argument that Cash is only a medium of barter, and has, by itself, no intrinsic value. It is only a stepping stone to ultimately get what we need or want. Nothing else.
As an example, we may trade in our old model car, plus add Cash to the transaction to drive away with that new model vehicle. Therefore, the transaction exchange to the new vehicle comes from both Cash equity and old vehicle equity. Or, we may drop by the convenience store and give Cash for a quart of milk. Cash is merely the exchange mechanism to get the milk we ultimately need.
In both cases, Cash is, in itself, of little value, except that it helps get us to what is actually wished for or required.
In essence, people or corporations actually want something of intrinsic or direct use or benefit for which the Cash can be offered for.
Therefore, if we know the ultimate goal/motivation of an entity disposing or acquiring a property, it is possible to exponentially multiply the opportunities to complete the transaction and achieve that entity’s objective/goal/need beyond seeking only a Cash transaction? Cash is almost always an intermediate step towards getting to the ultimate benefits required or wanted.
For discussion purposes only, below is a proposed “Ladder of Benefits” model, showing real estate and personal property equities from most desirable to least desirable.
CASH
1. Single tenant building, leased to Macdonald’s for 20 years
2. Free and Clear Houses/Condominiums
3. Free and Clear Income Property
4. Cash Flow Income Property
5. Mortgages and/or Notes
6. Free and Clear Developable Land
7. Free and Clear Personal Property
8. Break-Even Income Property
9. Free and Clear Non-Productive Land
10. Negative Cash Flow Income Property
11. Negative Cash Flow Development Land
12. Negative Cash Flow Cold Storage Land (simply holding the earth together)
For purposes of illustration only, we will stay with this model. However, its order could be debated. As an example, some may put good quality mortgages up to a #1 or #2 category, instead of down at #5. In the end, different preferences prevail.