The more I’ve learned about this, the less thrilled I’ve become. Looking it at from my 2 points of reference (first, my own personal beliefs on how affective it will be; and second as an analyst that works with high net worth individuals) I believe this falls flat. As a tool to improve areas of need by increasing capital spending, I do think this law has many merits and will bring in some new capital. BUT, I believe that it is more affective to spend money towards the goal you are trying to achieve instead of creating a complex law that aims to accomplish your goal. The smarter people will always sit on the private side of the desk and will always find ways around the original intention. This is not to say it won’t help, I truly believe it will, but why get cute about it when you can be direct. From the point of view as an advisor, it seems to only help a very select group of people in very certain circumstances. As an advisor, I take out my personal views and look at what is best for my clients interests. I believe it would be unethical, as a fiduciary, to not find the best legal/ethical outcomes for my client even if I disagree personally with the law. (Side note: I am only referring to legal and ethical means, I would never break laws or even drift too deeply in the “gray” area). Anyways back to my rant, the slight deferral if taxes seems pretty in insignificant if that is the only reason for investment into the opportunity zone. The math honestly just doesn’t work out. However if a developer has been looking for a new project and is sitting on extremely low tax basis, yes this tax break would make a ton of sense; or maybe someone is looking to pass wealth on to the next generation within the next 5-10 years - boom all of a sudden it makes sense. Beyond those few exceptions there isn’t huge upside. Hopefully this works and new money is invested in needing areas, but I’d guess that it will be a mixed bag of shady wealth transfers and some positive outcomes.