Back in the fall of 2006, almost twenty years ago, Sam Zell's Equity Office Properties Trust announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Blackstone Real Estate Partners, in a transaction valued at approximately US$36 billion. This was a massive deal at the time, so much so that Sam Zell would later come to the University of Pennsylvania, where I was in grad school at the time, to talk to real estate students about how smart he was.

The transaction closed in 2007 and, in hindsight, it looked like he had timed the peak of the real estate market perfectly. But in all fairness, when asked about his clairvoyant timing, his response was that he had no idea (probably with a strong expletive somewhere in the middle). His honest answer was that Blackstone simply offered him a price for the portfolio that was greater than their own internal valuation, and so he accepted it.

Another question that he was asked went something like this: "Blackstone is likely going to break up the portfolio, sell off the assets individually or in chunks, and make boatloads of money. Why didn't you just do that?" Despite the peak-market timing, this statement ended up being true. Blackstone generated something like a $7 billion profit on the deal.

But Sam's response was that he couldn't. He cited an esoteric IRS rule that stipulates that once a REIT decides to sell all of its assets and formalizes a liquidation plan, it has a 24-month window to do so, or else get hit with additional corporate taxes. Regardless of the specific IRS section, his reasoning was simple: you never want to be a seller when buyers know you need to sell by a certain time.

This is, of course, intuitively true. Negative leverage is bad in negotiations. In other words, it is highly unlikely that Sam could have generated the same $7 billion profit. I mean, as far as I can tell, Blackstone didn't sell the last office building from the portfolio until 2018, over a decade later.

I was reminded of this principle when reading Prime Minister Carney's speech to the World Economic Forum this week. (This entire post was the best real estate segue I could come up with.) If you haven't read or heard it yet, I would strongly encourage you to do so. Leverage is crucial in negotiations, and it's best to do everything you can to manufacture it.

Cover photo by Kyle Fritz on Unsplash

I am deeply skeptical of our federal government getting into the real estate development business, and I think a lot of the industry shares this sentiment. However, there are aspects of Carney's housing platform that do make sense. Here's a recent article by Frances Bula in Storeys citing industry reactions:

Do not create a federal housing developer, empower the private sector to do its thing

Multi-Unit Residential Building (MURB) program (which previously existed from 1974 to 1981 and spurred a lot of new rental housing)

Capital gain deferral on funds immediately re-invested back into housing (something akin to the 1031 exchange in the US)

Remove the federal ban on foreign investors

Dramatically reduce / eliminate municipal development charges (though, there's the important question of how exactly this gets done)

Expand the no HST on new housing (Carney's current plan is to only eliminate it for new homebuyers and for new homes under $1 million)

Tax credits for investors in affordable housing (This is not currently proposed, but I like it too. The US has something called Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, which HUD calls their most important resource for creating new affordable housing.)

Create policies that will outlast the current government, and don't make them convoluted

There are, of course, many other things that need to be done to improve the delivery of new housing in this country, including a lot at the micro level. On this blog, we regularly talk about everything from single-stair buildings to streamlining environmental permissions.

If you have anything else you'd like to add, please leave a comment below. Let's keep the pressure on.

Cover photo by Charan S on Unsplash

This past week I listened to two podcasts in preparation for Canada's upcoming federal election. I listened to Prime Minister Mark Carney with Scott Galloway and I listened to Pierre Poilievre with Brian Lilley of the Toronto Sun. If any of you have any other recommendations for an interview that I should listen to, please share it in the comment section below.

Here's what I would say. Carney came across as more measured and less direct. But naturally very capable when it comes to understanding the economic implications of our shifting global order. He wasn't forceful when talking about oil and gas pipelines, but I understand that he fully supports them. This is critical to diversifying our trade and frankly gaining more market power.

I'm skeptical of government being able to act as any sort of big developer and/or stimulate a thriving prefab construction industry. The latter is being worked on by a lot of the private sector; what is needed are dramatically lower fees and less barriers to development. I was, however, comforted by the fact that Carney did seem to reduce government's role to an enabler for private enterprise.

Both are promising dramatic cuts to development charges, which is essential. Poilievre is promising to eliminate the federal sales tax on all new homes priced under $1.3 million, whereas Carney wants to do it for homes under $1 million and only for first-time buyers. Carney also focused a lot on increasing construction trade capacity as a way to dramatically increase overall supply.

Broadly, Poilievre was more focused on "axing the tax" and removing the barriers to developing new housing. As we have talked about many times before on this blog, upwards of 30% of the price of a new home in Canada can be attributed to government fees and taxes. This is unsustainable, as we have seen, and it needs to change if we are going to improve housing affordability.

That said, Poilievre did make a specific comment that I didn't care for. He was talking about family formation and housing affordability and he said, "how can you start a family without a backyard and driveway?" He went on to say that, "people want detached single-family houses." Now, there's some statistical truth to this claim, but it's not like it's enshrined in our DNA.

It's an anti-urban statement. There are lots of cities around the world where kids are raised, just fine, without a backyard and/or driveway. They walk to school, they play in wonderful city parks, and they generally enjoy a high quality of life in an urban environment. I'm not suggesting that this has to be for everyone, but I do believe in removing our cultural biases and letting the market ultimately decide.

This is a pivotal moment for Canada. Regardless of who is successful on April 28, the status quo cannot continue. We must become a global superpower. And when it comes to housing, I would encourage whoever wins to give me a call after the election. Prime Minister: I'll walk you through a development pro forma and explain what it will take to make housing more affordable, and get lots of it built.

Cover photo by Hermes Rivera on Unsplash

Back in the fall of 2006, almost twenty years ago, Sam Zell's Equity Office Properties Trust announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Blackstone Real Estate Partners, in a transaction valued at approximately US$36 billion. This was a massive deal at the time, so much so that Sam Zell would later come to the University of Pennsylvania, where I was in grad school at the time, to talk to real estate students about how smart he was.

The transaction closed in 2007 and, in hindsight, it looked like he had timed the peak of the real estate market perfectly. But in all fairness, when asked about his clairvoyant timing, his response was that he had no idea (probably with a strong expletive somewhere in the middle). His honest answer was that Blackstone simply offered him a price for the portfolio that was greater than their own internal valuation, and so he accepted it.

Another question that he was asked went something like this: "Blackstone is likely going to break up the portfolio, sell off the assets individually or in chunks, and make boatloads of money. Why didn't you just do that?" Despite the peak-market timing, this statement ended up being true. Blackstone generated something like a $7 billion profit on the deal.

But Sam's response was that he couldn't. He cited an esoteric IRS rule that stipulates that once a REIT decides to sell all of its assets and formalizes a liquidation plan, it has a 24-month window to do so, or else get hit with additional corporate taxes. Regardless of the specific IRS section, his reasoning was simple: you never want to be a seller when buyers know you need to sell by a certain time.

This is, of course, intuitively true. Negative leverage is bad in negotiations. In other words, it is highly unlikely that Sam could have generated the same $7 billion profit. I mean, as far as I can tell, Blackstone didn't sell the last office building from the portfolio until 2018, over a decade later.

I was reminded of this principle when reading Prime Minister Carney's speech to the World Economic Forum this week. (This entire post was the best real estate segue I could come up with.) If you haven't read or heard it yet, I would strongly encourage you to do so. Leverage is crucial in negotiations, and it's best to do everything you can to manufacture it.

Cover photo by Kyle Fritz on Unsplash

I am deeply skeptical of our federal government getting into the real estate development business, and I think a lot of the industry shares this sentiment. However, there are aspects of Carney's housing platform that do make sense. Here's a recent article by Frances Bula in Storeys citing industry reactions:

Do not create a federal housing developer, empower the private sector to do its thing

Multi-Unit Residential Building (MURB) program (which previously existed from 1974 to 1981 and spurred a lot of new rental housing)

Capital gain deferral on funds immediately re-invested back into housing (something akin to the 1031 exchange in the US)

Remove the federal ban on foreign investors

Dramatically reduce / eliminate municipal development charges (though, there's the important question of how exactly this gets done)

Expand the no HST on new housing (Carney's current plan is to only eliminate it for new homebuyers and for new homes under $1 million)

Tax credits for investors in affordable housing (This is not currently proposed, but I like it too. The US has something called Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, which HUD calls their most important resource for creating new affordable housing.)

Create policies that will outlast the current government, and don't make them convoluted

There are, of course, many other things that need to be done to improve the delivery of new housing in this country, including a lot at the micro level. On this blog, we regularly talk about everything from single-stair buildings to streamlining environmental permissions.

If you have anything else you'd like to add, please leave a comment below. Let's keep the pressure on.

Cover photo by Charan S on Unsplash

This past week I listened to two podcasts in preparation for Canada's upcoming federal election. I listened to Prime Minister Mark Carney with Scott Galloway and I listened to Pierre Poilievre with Brian Lilley of the Toronto Sun. If any of you have any other recommendations for an interview that I should listen to, please share it in the comment section below.

Here's what I would say. Carney came across as more measured and less direct. But naturally very capable when it comes to understanding the economic implications of our shifting global order. He wasn't forceful when talking about oil and gas pipelines, but I understand that he fully supports them. This is critical to diversifying our trade and frankly gaining more market power.

I'm skeptical of government being able to act as any sort of big developer and/or stimulate a thriving prefab construction industry. The latter is being worked on by a lot of the private sector; what is needed are dramatically lower fees and less barriers to development. I was, however, comforted by the fact that Carney did seem to reduce government's role to an enabler for private enterprise.

Both are promising dramatic cuts to development charges, which is essential. Poilievre is promising to eliminate the federal sales tax on all new homes priced under $1.3 million, whereas Carney wants to do it for homes under $1 million and only for first-time buyers. Carney also focused a lot on increasing construction trade capacity as a way to dramatically increase overall supply.

Broadly, Poilievre was more focused on "axing the tax" and removing the barriers to developing new housing. As we have talked about many times before on this blog, upwards of 30% of the price of a new home in Canada can be attributed to government fees and taxes. This is unsustainable, as we have seen, and it needs to change if we are going to improve housing affordability.

That said, Poilievre did make a specific comment that I didn't care for. He was talking about family formation and housing affordability and he said, "how can you start a family without a backyard and driveway?" He went on to say that, "people want detached single-family houses." Now, there's some statistical truth to this claim, but it's not like it's enshrined in our DNA.

It's an anti-urban statement. There are lots of cities around the world where kids are raised, just fine, without a backyard and/or driveway. They walk to school, they play in wonderful city parks, and they generally enjoy a high quality of life in an urban environment. I'm not suggesting that this has to be for everyone, but I do believe in removing our cultural biases and letting the market ultimately decide.

This is a pivotal moment for Canada. Regardless of who is successful on April 28, the status quo cannot continue. We must become a global superpower. And when it comes to housing, I would encourage whoever wins to give me a call after the election. Prime Minister: I'll walk you through a development pro forma and explain what it will take to make housing more affordable, and get lots of it built.

Cover photo by Hermes Rivera on Unsplash