Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
I recently came across a real estate product called LandGlide. It's an app that provides parcel boundaries and detailed property information for over 99% of the US population. It's also "available" in Canada, but it doesn't tell you much about properties here. In the US, you can easily access things like:
Owner’s name or legal entity
Mortgage balance and terms
Assessed value and tax amounts
Square footage and year built
Granular details (even down to whether the home has a fireplace)
The reason for this difference is that in the US, property data is generally considered public record, whereas in Canada, we have stricter privacy laws. But it's not like we make this information strictly private. We just gate it and make it more cumbersome and costly to obtain through services like GeoWarehouse.
I know that some of you will argue that it's better to "sort-of-kind-of" restrict this data from being freely displayed online. But hear me out: this philosophical data difference is an important one that hurts innovation.
In Canada, property data is monopolized and, therefore, cumbersome and expensive to access. It's an unnecessary barrier to innovation. In the US, the same kind of data has become commoditized. It's easy and cheap to access, and so the barriers to building new ideas on top of it are significantly lower.
For example, Paul Crowe, who is the CEO of a Toronto-based real estate company called House Beat, responded to one of my tweets by saying, "For what I can get in the US for $0.15 / API call from one provider, [it] would cost over $18 per call in Canada, across 2-3 integrations."
What this suggests to me is that we're okay allowing some/all of this data to get out there; we'd just like it to be harder and more expensive to access. Why?
Information, as the saying goes, wants to be free, which is why I'm so bullish on blockchain technologies. Blockchains are public databases that make information widely accessible and allow anyone to innovate on top of them. As the world continues to move on-chain, we are going to see the enormous benefits that this brings.
Already, we can see what happens when you don't have or allow it.
Cover photo by Jakub Żerdzicki on Unsplash
I just saw The Real Estate God argue the following (on Twitter): "What people don't understand about the S&P is that every single person in the country who has money is also invested in it. When your money goes up 15%, so does everyone else's. You gained zero relative wealth. You need to outperform the S&P if you want to actually get ahead." The implication of this is that when you then go out and compete for a "fixed pool of high-quality assets" — such as a home — you have no comparative advantage against everyone else.
Yes, and no.
I think this tweet is true in a narrower, segmented sense. One of my personal life philosophies is that it's important to do things that others can't or aren't willing to do. It's important to be disciplined, make sacrifices, and put in the work; otherwise, you revert to the mean. You have to be different! It's one of the reasons that I've maintained a daily blog for nearly 13 years. I enjoy it and there are benefits to doing so, but it's also painfully difficult and not something most people care to do (perhaps rightly).
Small improvements and outperformance can also make a huge difference when looking at a long enough time horizon. Consider this simple table showing a starting balance of $100k and annual returns ranging from 10% to 15% per annum.
If 10% represents the expected return of "the market," look at how much of a difference even one percentage point (increase to 11%) can make. Over a 30-year period, it's more than half a million dollars. And between 14% and 15%, the delta is over $1.5 million! The simple and commonly discussed lesson here is that small incremental improvements compound and can make all the difference when applied with consistency and discipline.
I recently watched a few episodes of L'Agence on Netflix. I don't watch much TV, but it is somewhat shocking that I haven't gotten more into this show before. It's about beautiful real estate and all things French, which are unapologetically two of my favourite things.
Another great feature of the show is that everyone seems to be in their late 30s and shopping for a €6,000,000 apartment with a rooftop terrace and views of the Eiffel Tower. It's a great way to start questioning all of your life decisions.
In fairness, the buyers are varied, but I do find it interesting that there are some recurring purchase criteria. Many of them want something "central." Many of them have kids and have no hesitation about raising them in an apartment. And many of them have a non-negotiable desire to be able to walk out their door to amenities without having to drive.
All of this really resonates with me, but it obviously isn't true for everyone or for all geographies. "Luxury," which is the focus of this show, means different things to different people. What are your criteria?
Cover photo by Alexander Kagan on Unsplash
I recently came across a real estate product called LandGlide. It's an app that provides parcel boundaries and detailed property information for over 99% of the US population. It's also "available" in Canada, but it doesn't tell you much about properties here. In the US, you can easily access things like:
Owner’s name or legal entity
Mortgage balance and terms
Assessed value and tax amounts
Square footage and year built
Granular details (even down to whether the home has a fireplace)
The reason for this difference is that in the US, property data is generally considered public record, whereas in Canada, we have stricter privacy laws. But it's not like we make this information strictly private. We just gate it and make it more cumbersome and costly to obtain through services like GeoWarehouse.
I know that some of you will argue that it's better to "sort-of-kind-of" restrict this data from being freely displayed online. But hear me out: this philosophical data difference is an important one that hurts innovation.
In Canada, property data is monopolized and, therefore, cumbersome and expensive to access. It's an unnecessary barrier to innovation. In the US, the same kind of data has become commoditized. It's easy and cheap to access, and so the barriers to building new ideas on top of it are significantly lower.
For example, Paul Crowe, who is the CEO of a Toronto-based real estate company called House Beat, responded to one of my tweets by saying, "For what I can get in the US for $0.15 / API call from one provider, [it] would cost over $18 per call in Canada, across 2-3 integrations."
What this suggests to me is that we're okay allowing some/all of this data to get out there; we'd just like it to be harder and more expensive to access. Why?
Information, as the saying goes, wants to be free, which is why I'm so bullish on blockchain technologies. Blockchains are public databases that make information widely accessible and allow anyone to innovate on top of them. As the world continues to move on-chain, we are going to see the enormous benefits that this brings.
Already, we can see what happens when you don't have or allow it.
Cover photo by Jakub Żerdzicki on Unsplash
I just saw The Real Estate God argue the following (on Twitter): "What people don't understand about the S&P is that every single person in the country who has money is also invested in it. When your money goes up 15%, so does everyone else's. You gained zero relative wealth. You need to outperform the S&P if you want to actually get ahead." The implication of this is that when you then go out and compete for a "fixed pool of high-quality assets" — such as a home — you have no comparative advantage against everyone else.
Yes, and no.
I think this tweet is true in a narrower, segmented sense. One of my personal life philosophies is that it's important to do things that others can't or aren't willing to do. It's important to be disciplined, make sacrifices, and put in the work; otherwise, you revert to the mean. You have to be different! It's one of the reasons that I've maintained a daily blog for nearly 13 years. I enjoy it and there are benefits to doing so, but it's also painfully difficult and not something most people care to do (perhaps rightly).
Small improvements and outperformance can also make a huge difference when looking at a long enough time horizon. Consider this simple table showing a starting balance of $100k and annual returns ranging from 10% to 15% per annum.
If 10% represents the expected return of "the market," look at how much of a difference even one percentage point (increase to 11%) can make. Over a 30-year period, it's more than half a million dollars. And between 14% and 15%, the delta is over $1.5 million! The simple and commonly discussed lesson here is that small incremental improvements compound and can make all the difference when applied with consistency and discipline.
I recently watched a few episodes of L'Agence on Netflix. I don't watch much TV, but it is somewhat shocking that I haven't gotten more into this show before. It's about beautiful real estate and all things French, which are unapologetically two of my favourite things.
Another great feature of the show is that everyone seems to be in their late 30s and shopping for a €6,000,000 apartment with a rooftop terrace and views of the Eiffel Tower. It's a great way to start questioning all of your life decisions.
In fairness, the buyers are varied, but I do find it interesting that there are some recurring purchase criteria. Many of them want something "central." Many of them have kids and have no hesitation about raising them in an apartment. And many of them have a non-negotiable desire to be able to walk out their door to amenities without having to drive.
All of this really resonates with me, but it obviously isn't true for everyone or for all geographies. "Luxury," which is the focus of this show, means different things to different people. What are your criteria?
Cover photo by Alexander Kagan on Unsplash
But to find alpha in this way (outperformance), you arrive at a subset of "being different." To outperform the market, you generally need to be right about something that most people think is incorrect. Because if everyone believes something to be true, it's not being any different; it's just "the market" and there's no alpha in that.
So in this sense, if you want a high degree of relative wealth creation, if you want to retire early with a yacht in Monaco, and you don't want to wait for the decades of compounding to start delivering the bulk of its fruit, then yes, you will likely need to look beyond just the S&P and take on additional risk to get there.
This is the "yes" part. Now let's consider the "no."
It is estimated that about 40% of Americans have no exposure to the stock market, that the wealthiest 10% own roughly 93% of all outstanding stock shares, and that the wealthiest 1% own about 50% of the market. Canada exhibits a similar story of high concentration, although it's less extreme, and Canadians tend to be more invested in residential real estate compared to stocks and business equity.
Regardless, there is a question of allocation. When the market goes up 15%, it doesn't affect everyone equally, and it actually increases overall inequality given the above concentrations. Though if you're competing for a €6M apartment in Paris, you are admittedly competing within your narrow socio-economic band against people who probably have exposure to equity markets.
There's also a behavior gap. If you buy the S&P 500 and hold it for 30 years, you would be an extreme statistical outlier. Most people don't do this. They get emotional, they sell when it falls, and they try to time the market. Here, for example, is a study that found that in 2024 the average equity investor earned 16.54%, compared to the S&P 500's 24.02%.
Despite strong performance in the equity markets, investors continued to underperform due to their behavior. Withdrawals from equity funds occurred in every quarter of 2024, with the largest outflows taking place just before a major return surge.
So even if you are just buying the S&P 500, there are still ways to be different and achieve relative outperformance. You just have to be patient and have the right temperament.
That said, even if you were extremely disciplined and you behaved for, say, 30 years, it would still be mathematically impossible to achieve something like Elon Musk-level wealth. You could be a multimillionaire with Monaco yacht level wealth, but not a centibillionaire. For that, you'll need to actively take on more risk and, yes, outperform the market.
Cover photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash
But to find alpha in this way (outperformance), you arrive at a subset of "being different." To outperform the market, you generally need to be right about something that most people think is incorrect. Because if everyone believes something to be true, it's not being any different; it's just "the market" and there's no alpha in that.
So in this sense, if you want a high degree of relative wealth creation, if you want to retire early with a yacht in Monaco, and you don't want to wait for the decades of compounding to start delivering the bulk of its fruit, then yes, you will likely need to look beyond just the S&P and take on additional risk to get there.
This is the "yes" part. Now let's consider the "no."
It is estimated that about 40% of Americans have no exposure to the stock market, that the wealthiest 10% own roughly 93% of all outstanding stock shares, and that the wealthiest 1% own about 50% of the market. Canada exhibits a similar story of high concentration, although it's less extreme, and Canadians tend to be more invested in residential real estate compared to stocks and business equity.
Regardless, there is a question of allocation. When the market goes up 15%, it doesn't affect everyone equally, and it actually increases overall inequality given the above concentrations. Though if you're competing for a €6M apartment in Paris, you are admittedly competing within your narrow socio-economic band against people who probably have exposure to equity markets.
There's also a behavior gap. If you buy the S&P 500 and hold it for 30 years, you would be an extreme statistical outlier. Most people don't do this. They get emotional, they sell when it falls, and they try to time the market. Here, for example, is a study that found that in 2024 the average equity investor earned 16.54%, compared to the S&P 500's 24.02%.
Despite strong performance in the equity markets, investors continued to underperform due to their behavior. Withdrawals from equity funds occurred in every quarter of 2024, with the largest outflows taking place just before a major return surge.
So even if you are just buying the S&P 500, there are still ways to be different and achieve relative outperformance. You just have to be patient and have the right temperament.
That said, even if you were extremely disciplined and you behaved for, say, 30 years, it would still be mathematically impossible to achieve something like Elon Musk-level wealth. You could be a multimillionaire with Monaco yacht level wealth, but not a centibillionaire. For that, you'll need to actively take on more risk and, yes, outperform the market.
Cover photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
