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
This is a fascinating interview with John Andrew Entwistle, the founder of vacation rental company Wander. The way to understand Wander is that it is a vertically integrated travel company. So unlike Airbnb, for example, Wander owns all of their real estate (vacation homes in top destinations), they property manage, they asset manage, and they are building out the technology required to connect all of this stuff.
They have also created what they are calling the first ever vacation rental REIT, which means that you can buy a piece of their real estate portfolio (currently 13 properties). In addition to being a source of cash, this creates an interesting flywheel effect where maybe you stay in a Wander and then decide to become an investor in their REIT, or vice versa.
Eventually though, Wander hopes to be just as asset light as Airbnb (which again, doesn't own any real estate; they're a booking platform). The idea is that REIT unit holders will ultimately own the real estate and they will be the asset manager / technology platform that sits on top. But that they will still control the entire travel experience.
One of the ways that you can turn a traditional real estate company into more of a web3 company is talk about how you're going to tokenize the ownership of real assets. But what does that even mean and how would it work?
Here is one example that I recently discovered (but of course there are countless others and I'm not suggesting that you should use their product). Bricknest is a startup that is focused on buying vacation apartments in popular tourist destinations. They then split the ownership into 365 non-fungible tokens that live on the Solana blockchain.
Each token is intended to correspond to a day. And so if you own 1 token, you own 1/365 of the asset and you get 1 day. You can choose to either use it yourself on this day, or rent it out and get the rental income sent directly to your crypto wallet. If you own all 365 tokens, then it would be similar to you just owning 100% of the asset.
The obvious question is how is this different from, say, fractional ownership, which can be similarly found in high-demand vacation spots? And the dumb answer is that, well, tokens exist on a blockchain and fractional ownership shares do not. So I guess the real question is whether or not tokens will make this ownership model any different.
There is a long history of trying to democratize the ownership of real estate. In fact, this was the general idea behind REITs when they were created in the 1960s. So again, we are back to the question of whether tokenization will be any different from what we already have.
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
This is a fascinating interview with John Andrew Entwistle, the founder of vacation rental company Wander. The way to understand Wander is that it is a vertically integrated travel company. So unlike Airbnb, for example, Wander owns all of their real estate (vacation homes in top destinations), they property manage, they asset manage, and they are building out the technology required to connect all of this stuff.
They have also created what they are calling the first ever vacation rental REIT, which means that you can buy a piece of their real estate portfolio (currently 13 properties). In addition to being a source of cash, this creates an interesting flywheel effect where maybe you stay in a Wander and then decide to become an investor in their REIT, or vice versa.
Eventually though, Wander hopes to be just as asset light as Airbnb (which again, doesn't own any real estate; they're a booking platform). The idea is that REIT unit holders will ultimately own the real estate and they will be the asset manager / technology platform that sits on top. But that they will still control the entire travel experience.
One of the ways that you can turn a traditional real estate company into more of a web3 company is talk about how you're going to tokenize the ownership of real assets. But what does that even mean and how would it work?
Here is one example that I recently discovered (but of course there are countless others and I'm not suggesting that you should use their product). Bricknest is a startup that is focused on buying vacation apartments in popular tourist destinations. They then split the ownership into 365 non-fungible tokens that live on the Solana blockchain.
Each token is intended to correspond to a day. And so if you own 1 token, you own 1/365 of the asset and you get 1 day. You can choose to either use it yourself on this day, or rent it out and get the rental income sent directly to your crypto wallet. If you own all 365 tokens, then it would be similar to you just owning 100% of the asset.
The obvious question is how is this different from, say, fractional ownership, which can be similarly found in high-demand vacation spots? And the dumb answer is that, well, tokens exist on a blockchain and fractional ownership shares do not. So I guess the real question is whether or not tokens will make this ownership model any different.
There is a long history of trying to democratize the ownership of real estate. In fact, this was the general idea behind REITs when they were created in the 1960s. So again, we are back to the question of whether tokenization will be any different from what we already have.
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
, 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.
John also gets into some of the specifics of how they run their business. For example, in each destination, they hire local cleaning crews and handy people (who are not Wander employees). They typically spend about 7% of the value of a property to furnish it (which is typically around $80-150k per property right now). And their average order size is around $4.5k, which suggests that people are willing to pay a premium for this vertically integrated travel experience.
But I think that most people are asking this same question of crypto/web3 in general -- why does all of this matter? And a big part of the problem is that crypto is generally hard to explain. One of the best explanations that I have come across is this one here by Albert Wenger.
Simply put, most internet companies today can be thought of as large privately controlled databases. Instagram, for example, is a database of all of our photos (among other things). But because it's Instagram's database, they get to decide what can be done with it. And naturally they are going to do what it takes to maintain their economic moat.
Blockchains are similarly databases. And right now they're not particularly good databases. However, the key differences are that (1) they are public, (2) they are not controlled by a single entity, and (3) anyone can read and/or write to them. And so they directly attack the thing that gives many companies today their economic advantage.
Does this mean that tokenized real estate is the future? Does it make a difference that rental contracts can be programmed into the blockchain so that distributions are automatic? It still feels too early to tell. But I do think that most people are underestimating how disruptive a seemingly small change like this might be.
, 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.
John also gets into some of the specifics of how they run their business. For example, in each destination, they hire local cleaning crews and handy people (who are not Wander employees). They typically spend about 7% of the value of a property to furnish it (which is typically around $80-150k per property right now). And their average order size is around $4.5k, which suggests that people are willing to pay a premium for this vertically integrated travel experience.
But I think that most people are asking this same question of crypto/web3 in general -- why does all of this matter? And a big part of the problem is that crypto is generally hard to explain. One of the best explanations that I have come across is this one here by Albert Wenger.
Simply put, most internet companies today can be thought of as large privately controlled databases. Instagram, for example, is a database of all of our photos (among other things). But because it's Instagram's database, they get to decide what can be done with it. And naturally they are going to do what it takes to maintain their economic moat.
Blockchains are similarly databases. And right now they're not particularly good databases. However, the key differences are that (1) they are public, (2) they are not controlled by a single entity, and (3) anyone can read and/or write to them. And so they directly attack the thing that gives many companies today their economic advantage.
Does this mean that tokenized real estate is the future? Does it make a difference that rental contracts can be programmed into the blockchain so that distributions are automatic? It still feels too early to tell. But I do think that most people are underestimating how disruptive a seemingly small change like this might be.
