Summit County Council is holding a special meeting this week to vote on the acquisition of an 8,576-acre property next to Jeremy Ranch and around the corner from Parkview Mountain House.

The County Manager has recommended approval of the deal and these are the terms:

- $55 million total purchase price (about $6,413 per acre)

- Structured through a $15 million three-year option to purchase, with a right to extend for another year for an additional $5 million (option fees to be applied toward the purchase price)

- During the option period, the County will have control of the property and pay $5,000 per month in rent

Another way to look at this deal is that Summit County needs to initially come up with $15 million of equity. This is because they are getting seller financing for the remaining $40 million. (Implied loan-to-value of about 73%.)

After 3 years, they will have to put in another $5 million, which lowers the implied LTV to about 64%. But in both cases, and assuming the $5k per month is all the County needs to pay, there’s effectively no interest on this 4-year “financing”. ($60k per year on $40-45 million.)

The purchase price is also only ~$6k per acre, which should tell you that this is not development land. Its value is what you see here:

And this is exactly what Summit County intends to do with the land: conserve it. As one of the last contiguous mountain ranches in the area that is privately owned, this sure seems like a win for the community. It’s a pretty good deal, too.

Images: Summit County, Utah

Blair Welch, co-founding partner of Slate Asset Management, was recently interviewed by Don Wilcox of RENX about the company's recent acquisition of the Commercial Real Estate Business of New York-based Annaly Capital Management. As part of the deal, we also acquired $0.4 billion of grocery-anchored real estate assets across the US. These were purchased by Slate Grocery REIT (TSX: SGR.UN). What some of you maybe don't know, though, is how we as a company view these kinds of assets as being essential food infrastructure, more so than as being retail assets. So here are a few excerpts from the article and quotes from Blair that explain why, in our view, this distinction matters.

“We started buying grocery-anchored real estate in a big way in the financial crisis and I think we always looked at grocery-anchored real estate as food logistics, rather than a retail play,” Welch explained. “In the pandemic it’s really proven the local food store, or the spoke in the hub, is just as valuable as the hub itself.”

Despite an increase in online grocery shopping (to about 10 per cent in the U.S.), people are still going to the stores. Or, at least, (are) getting their products from the local stores. Again, think “food logistics.”

“That (10 per cent bought online) means 90 per cent is done in store,” Welch observed. “Now, here’s the interesting thing. Over 90 per cent – probably closer to 95 per cent – of the online sales are done at the local store.

“So what we are saying is over 99 per cent of all the sales are done at the local stores, whether it is click and collect, or someone delivers. You are not changing the distribution pattern.”

Here are a few more words and a comparison to what Amazon is and has been doing when it comes to food logistics:

“If I’m Kroger or Walmart if I have to pay $10 (per square foot) for my warehouse what’s the difference if I’m paying $10 for my store? It’s the same cost, they just look at it as a distribution cost,” he said.

However, those stores are in the middle of most neighbourhoods. Exactly where Amazon wants to be.

“I think Amazon is an amazing company. I think their acquisition of Whole Foods and others is actually to get closer to the consumer. And the Whole Foods (acquisition) was just under 400 grocery stores in a market of 35,000 stores.

“If I am Walmart with 5,000 stores or Kroger with about the same under different banners, that infrastructure is extremely valuable.”

Slate will soon own more of it.

For the full article, click here.

This week the FT reported that Amazon is in "advanced talks" to acquire the self-driving startup Zoox. This would be Amazon's first acquisition in the space, though it did lead a $530M funding round in Aurora in early 2019.

Zoox last raised two years ago and was valued at $3.2 billion. Rumor has it that its valuation will be less than that today. Some of its investors, according to FT, include Breyer Capital and the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board.

The move seems reasonable. Amazon wants to build out its (driverless) logistics capabilities. It's also in keeping with what we have been seeing from big tech. Companies that can are using this environment to be acquisitive, invest in the future and, hopefully, gain market share. It's probably also inevitable that the self-driving space will see some consolidation going forward.

If you go back to this post from earlier this year, Zoox and Aurora weren't near the top in terms of R&D spending on autonomy. And it has become increasingly clear that this a giant problem/opportunity requiring giant funding capabilities. It's going to take time.

I recently heard Chamath Palihapitiya refer to Jeff Bezos as the greatest investor of our time -- even more so than Warren Buffet. Why? Because he is consistently, and sometimes exclusively, investing in the future. Is this one of those moments?