There are a number of home equity startups in the marketplace today.

A few years ago I wrote about an alternative product to HELOCs or home equity loans, called Point. And earlier this year, I wrote about a startup, called Landed, that is helping "essential professionals," such as teachers, with their down payments. They'll contribute up to 10% of the value of a home in exchange for a share in any future gains, or losses.

Today, another startup in the space -- Patch Homes -- announced a $5mm Series A round. From what I can tell, it appears to be similar to Point in that it involves the fractional sale of home equity. Though, to be clear, the model is distinct from the fractional homeownership that is popular in many high demand vacation destinations. Here's a bit more on how the product works (source):

The Patch model enables homeowners to “tap into” their home equity by selling 20–40% to Patch’s affiliate, Patch Capital, which shares in both the upside and downside. The homeowner remains in control of her or his home for the life of the relationship and exits via a sale or refinances in 7–10 years.

While this product is not for all homeowners, it provides a new and important financing option. The Fed estimates that home equity ownership in the US is $15 Trillion. It makes no sense that the only financing options are additional debt or a complete sale of the property. Patch gives homeowners the option to de-lever their personal balance sheet or otherwise raise cash. Clients have used Patch proceeds for numerous reasons, the most popular of which are to pay off debt, increase liquid savings and finance home improvements.

I am not surprised to see this gaining momentum. The biggest benefit is that it gives you partial liquidity (i.e. cash up to $250,000), without having to sell your property or take on additional debt service payments. It's equity, not debt. Fred Wilson, an investor in the company, calls it fractionalizing home equity.

"Cities have become the basic platforms for global innovation and economic growth, supplanting the corporation as the fundamental organizing unit of the contemporary economy." -Richard Florida

Richard Florida and Patrick Adler of the Martin Prosperity Institute here in Toronto have been doing some research on what they are calling "urban tech." They define it as encompassing the following industry sectors: co-living and co-working; mobility; delivery; smart cities; construction tech; and real estate tech.

Here are the largest urban tech startups based on the amount of VC investment they have received:

Below is how the space breaks down by sector. Mobility / ride hailing is the behemoth, receiving 61% of all VC investment. Food delivery is next. And "proptech" is at the bottom.

Finally, here are the top "urban tech" cities. Beijing is right up there with San Francisco.

For more information on the study, click here.

Tables: CityLab

Today was the 2019 Land & Development Conference here in Toronto. I was on a panel in the morning about Proptech. I then sat in on a discussion about construction costs. But after that I had to get back to the office to prepare for a couple of meetings.

Here are my tweet takeaways (from the back of the room) during the construction cost session. You may need to click through to see the full thread.

The construction cost escalations that we have seen over the last 2-3 years have had a significant impact on new construction in this region. Niall Finnegan's view is that we are 85% of the way through this "storm."

From his experience, it takes 18 months or so for hard costs to respond to changes in demand. And so the storm we are currently in is a result of elevated condo sales from 2017-2018.

The general consensus from the panel was that costs should start to moderate sometime soon, though maybe not this year. Nobody really knows when that will happen. But if/when hard costs do adjust, it typically happens quickly.

One comment that didn't make it into my tweets, but that I found interesting, was about how uncertainty and volatility in the market -- like what we are seeing today with construction costs -- could actually stifle innovation.

Because it creates additional project risks, it limits people's appetite for other kinds of risks -- like trying new things. I can see that.