I am not a lawyer. Nothing I write on this blog should be construed as legal advice. In fact, it is highly questionable whether anything I write here should be construed as any sort of advice. Still, Trump's fraud trial is an interesting one for us to discuss. The case, as I crudely understand it, accuses him of "inflating his net worth to dupe banks" and "issuing false financial statements every year between 2011 and 2021." And possibly some other things, too.
Now there are some people who are saying that there's nothing actually wrong with the way Trump conducts his real estate practice. Kevin O'Leary, for instance, was just on CNN saying, "every real estate developer everywhere does this." His position was that if you're going to fault Trump, then you need to go after every developer out there. Here's the video interview where he says this:
I am not a lawyer. Nothing I write on this blog should be construed as legal advice. In fact, it is highly questionable whether anything I write here should be construed as any sort of advice. Still, Trump's fraud trial is an interesting one for us to discuss. The case, as I crudely understand it, accuses him of "inflating his net worth to dupe banks" and "issuing false financial statements every year between 2011 and 2021." And possibly some other things, too.
Now there are some people who are saying that there's nothing actually wrong with the way Trump conducts his real estate practice. Kevin O'Leary, for instance, was just on CNN saying, "every real estate developer everywhere does this." His position was that if you're going to fault Trump, then you need to go after every developer out there. Here's the video interview where he says this:
https://youtu.be/80RZs9Fhz3Y?si=DSuCa0PwVWx_wbVe
Let's break this down. Kevin is right in that people who own real estate ordinarily want it to be worth as much as possible. This is true for individual homeowners and it's true for large real estate companies. And there are various reasons for this. One reason is that it maximizes your debt proceeds. For example, if you buy a building for $100 and the banks are willing to give you a loan based on a LTV (loan-to-value) of 70%, then you will get $70 in debt proceeds and you will need to put in $30 of your own cash equity.
However, if you buy a building for $100 and it ends up being worth ~$143, then this same 70% LTV will result in $100 of debt proceeds. This means that you won't need to put in any of your own cash and that, for all intents and purposes, you just got a building for "free." By most metrics, this would be considered a good real estate deal. (Of course, you could also buy a building for $100 and have it be worth only $50. And this would be much less fun than getting free real estate.)
One important question, though, is how does the building end up "being worth $143?" Well, one scenario could be that you just bought really well. It was an off-market transaction (i.e. it wasn't formally listed), the seller was highly motivated, and so you negotiated a below-market purchase price. You then went out and hired a reputable third-party appraiser who did a bunch of rigorous research and issued you a report that said, "your building is worth $143." And this would be perfectly fine.
But one can also imagine ways in which someone could lie and do nefarious things to try and convince people that their building is worth $143, even if it clearly isn't. Now, at the end of the day, I don't know the facts of this case. So I can't comment directly. But I did want to use this as an opportunity to add some nuance to Kevin's claim that "every real estate developer everywhere does this." Ultimately, that depends on what "this" is. Are we talking about doing customary things to maximize value creation? Or are we talking about fraud?
Do you believe that human action has caused and is causing negative outcomes with respect to the environment?
The New York Times published a feature piece this week on the flooding of the US east coast.
Associated with the article is a fantastic infographic that shows all of the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) tide gauges up and down the eastern seaboard. It then zooms in to a few locations and shows mean sea level rise (in inches) since 1950 and the number of days of “nuisance flooding.”
Here’s a sample screenshot:
If you don’t feel like reading the full article, at least
Last weekend over dinner, a friend of mine asked me what I thought about the Scarborough Subway Extension debate going on in Toronto right now. Costs are coming in higher than initially projected and the usual back and forth is taking place. Transit blogger Steve Munro has a good post on this called Spinning a Tale in Scarborough.
I haven’t written much about the Scarborough Subway, but I do have a strong opinion. I believe it’s a mistake. I am not saying that we shouldn’t be building higher order transit in Scarborough – we absolutely should – but it does not need to be an expensive subway line. There are more sensible solutions.
Here are a few things to consider:
Light rail transit (LRT) does not equal streetcar. As an avid user of the King streetcar, I’ll be the first to admit that something needs to be done to address the city’s busiest streetcar routes. They are broken. But this is not what was being previously contemplated for Scarborough. True LRT – which Toronto does not yet have – is far more effective at moving people.
Scarborough Centre is seeing almost no new residential and commercial development. In fact, the “Centres” in general are not seeing much development. The largest share is happening downtown, along the central waterfront, and along the “Avenues.” We shouldn’t ignore this when making our investment decisions. Transit and built form go hand in hand.
Let's break this down. Kevin is right in that people who own real estate ordinarily want it to be worth as much as possible. This is true for individual homeowners and it's true for large real estate companies. And there are various reasons for this. One reason is that it maximizes your debt proceeds. For example, if you buy a building for $100 and the banks are willing to give you a loan based on a LTV (loan-to-value) of 70%, then you will get $70 in debt proceeds and you will need to put in $30 of your own cash equity.
However, if you buy a building for $100 and it ends up being worth ~$143, then this same 70% LTV will result in $100 of debt proceeds. This means that you won't need to put in any of your own cash and that, for all intents and purposes, you just got a building for "free." By most metrics, this would be considered a good real estate deal. (Of course, you could also buy a building for $100 and have it be worth only $50. And this would be much less fun than getting free real estate.)
One important question, though, is how does the building end up "being worth $143?" Well, one scenario could be that you just bought really well. It was an off-market transaction (i.e. it wasn't formally listed), the seller was highly motivated, and so you negotiated a below-market purchase price. You then went out and hired a reputable third-party appraiser who did a bunch of rigorous research and issued you a report that said, "your building is worth $143." And this would be perfectly fine.
But one can also imagine ways in which someone could lie and do nefarious things to try and convince people that their building is worth $143, even if it clearly isn't. Now, at the end of the day, I don't know the facts of this case. So I can't comment directly. But I did want to use this as an opportunity to add some nuance to Kevin's claim that "every real estate developer everywhere does this." Ultimately, that depends on what "this" is. Are we talking about doing customary things to maximize value creation? Or are we talking about fraud?
Do you believe that human action has caused and is causing negative outcomes with respect to the environment?
The New York Times published a feature piece this week on the flooding of the US east coast.
Associated with the article is a fantastic infographic that shows all of the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) tide gauges up and down the eastern seaboard. It then zooms in to a few locations and shows mean sea level rise (in inches) since 1950 and the number of days of “nuisance flooding.”
Here’s a sample screenshot:
If you don’t feel like reading the full article, at least
Last weekend over dinner, a friend of mine asked me what I thought about the Scarborough Subway Extension debate going on in Toronto right now. Costs are coming in higher than initially projected and the usual back and forth is taking place. Transit blogger Steve Munro has a good post on this called Spinning a Tale in Scarborough.
I haven’t written much about the Scarborough Subway, but I do have a strong opinion. I believe it’s a mistake. I am not saying that we shouldn’t be building higher order transit in Scarborough – we absolutely should – but it does not need to be an expensive subway line. There are more sensible solutions.
Here are a few things to consider:
Light rail transit (LRT) does not equal streetcar. As an avid user of the King streetcar, I’ll be the first to admit that something needs to be done to address the city’s busiest streetcar routes. They are broken. But this is not what was being previously contemplated for Scarborough. True LRT – which Toronto does not yet have – is far more effective at moving people.
Scarborough Centre is seeing almost no new residential and commercial development. In fact, the “Centres” in general are not seeing much development. The largest share is happening downtown, along the central waterfront, and along the “Avenues.” We shouldn’t ignore this when making our investment decisions. Transit and built form go hand in hand.
. The increase in nuisance flooding for some cities – such as Wilmington, N.C. (shown above) and Annapolis, MD – is astounding.
What’s frustrating about the whole climate change debate is that it remains not only a debate, but an ideological debate. Here’s a quote from the article that stood out for me:
“I’m a Republican, but I also realize, by any objective analysis, the sea level is rising,” said Jason Buelterman, the mayor of tiny Tybee Island, one of the first Georgia communities to adopt a detailed climate plan.
In other words: I’m not supposed to think this way, but I do.
Politics.
I also do not buy the argument that we are building this subway in anticipation of demand 50 or 100 years from now. We are not in a position to be proactive about our infrastructure. We are desperately playing catch up and there are already lots of high growth and high density areas in the city which today are completely underserved by higher order transit.
Finally, a new subway line with low ridership will mean higher operating cost subsidies to keep it afloat. And at the rate that Scarborough Centre is growing today, this would likely continue for many years into the future. Not only is this debate about spending money today, it is about spending money well in the future, month after month.
So let’s be clear: the Scarborough Subway Extension debate is about politics. It is not about transportation planning.
. The increase in nuisance flooding for some cities – such as Wilmington, N.C. (shown above) and Annapolis, MD – is astounding.
What’s frustrating about the whole climate change debate is that it remains not only a debate, but an ideological debate. Here’s a quote from the article that stood out for me:
“I’m a Republican, but I also realize, by any objective analysis, the sea level is rising,” said Jason Buelterman, the mayor of tiny Tybee Island, one of the first Georgia communities to adopt a detailed climate plan.
In other words: I’m not supposed to think this way, but I do.
Politics.
I also do not buy the argument that we are building this subway in anticipation of demand 50 or 100 years from now. We are not in a position to be proactive about our infrastructure. We are desperately playing catch up and there are already lots of high growth and high density areas in the city which today are completely underserved by higher order transit.
Finally, a new subway line with low ridership will mean higher operating cost subsidies to keep it afloat. And at the rate that Scarborough Centre is growing today, this would likely continue for many years into the future. Not only is this debate about spending money today, it is about spending money well in the future, month after month.
So let’s be clear: the Scarborough Subway Extension debate is about politics. It is not about transportation planning.
