Development land, as we often talk about on this blog, should be the residual claimant in a pro forma. Meaning, start with your revenue, subtract your costs and required margin, and then see how much money is leftover to pay for the land. This is, in theory, how you should value land.

It's also the most disciplined way to go about your underwriting. In fact, it can be beneficial to not know the asking price or broker guidance for a new site until you've completed this exercise. That way you won't bias yourself.

However, in practice, it can be difficult to do all of this. In a rising market, you might find that there's always some other developer who is willing to be more aggressive on their assumptions, which means they will be willing to pay more for the same piece of land.

And so if you want to be in the game, you might find yourself doing the exact opposite: starting with the land price and then trying to figure out how to make the rest of your model work. We've all been there.

During this stage of the cycle, you get punished for being conservative and disciplined -- you don't win sites. But when the market turns, discipline and conservatism get rewarded handsomely. You then become thankful for the deals you didn't do. And I'm sure that many prudent risk managers are feeling this way right now.

It is very challenging to underwrite new sites today. Many of the assumptions that go into a pro forma are unclear and unknowable. And so the spread between what developer's models are telling them to pay and what landowners want to sell for is often significant. That is why everyone is trying to find "creative deal structures" that can be used to close this gap.

At some point, though, the gap will actually close; things will once again feel clear and knowable. I have absolutely no idea when that will happen, but I do know that when it does, it will then be too late from a maximum opportunity standpoint.

Because that's how risk works. Once the uncertainty is gone, it's no longer a risk. And if it's no longer a risk, then you're not going to be paid for bearing it.

Jeremiah Shamess of Colliers made the claim this week that land values in some areas of the Toronto region are down 25%. He then shared a chart from Alan Leela showing how various factors have increased or decreased land values since 2020.

Broadly speaking, a revenue increase and/or more development density should increase land values; whereas something like inclusionary zoning, which is a cost to the project, should decrease land values. Indeed, this is one of the arguments in favor of inclusionary zoning: "Don't worry about the additional cost to the project because landowners will simply pay for it through reduced land prices."

In theory, all of this is correct.

Land is (or should be) the residual claimant in a development pro forma. Start with your revenue, subtract your costs, and then see what is left over for the land. (Though keep in mind that what is left over for the land could be $0 or even a negative number.)

But as I have argued before in the context of inclusionary zoning, I don't think things always play out so neatly in the market. Put differently, if the cost impact of inclusionary zoning is something like $44 psf, I don't think all landowners suddenly drop their prices accordingly -- especially in a rising market where developers are competing fiercely for land.

They don't care about your residual value model. Many or most will just hang on to their number and wait for someone to pay it.

So what I am saying with all of this is that, yeah, there are factors that put either downward or upward pressure on land values. But how it all actually plays out in the market tends to depend on the macro environment and what else is going on at the time. And right now we are at a point in the cycle where there is clearly downward pressure on land values.

As is the case every quarter, Bullpen Research & Consulting and Batory Management have just published their latest Greater Toronto Area land insights report (for Q3-2022). The average price per buildable square foot (pbsf) in this report remains the same as in Q2 at $95.

But once again, it's important to keep in mind that this represents a fairly small sample size (34 land sales in the quarter versus 46 in Q2); that the range in land pricing can be significant across the GTA (here it is $24-274 pbsf); and that there can sometimes be a lag between a deal being struck and actual closing. Here is the summary data:

Another interesting data point from the report is land price compared to building height. The average price for high-rise development land was $88 pbsf, and the average price for mid-rise development land (5-15 storeys) was $131 pbsf.

This once again speaks to the cost differential between high-rise and mid-rise housing. The mid-rise scale is certainly a desirable form of infill, but it is also a more expensive form of housing.