Trumps' tariffs are supposed to take effect today. Here's a quote from the Globe and Mail, published yesterday:
“Very importantly, tomorrow, tariffs, 25 per cent on Canada and 25 per cent on Mexico, and that will start. So, they’re gonna have to have a tariff,” Mr. Trump said.
But it's still not clear that he understands how these tariffs will work. Either that, or he's lying and trying to trick people. Because he continues to deny that tariffs represent a tax paid by US importers (and ultimately US consumers) on things coming from Canada and Mexico.
Here's another quote:
"It’s not going to be a cost to you [Americans], it’s going to be a cost to another country."
Yeah, that's not how they work:
When the US puts a tariff on an imported good, the cost of the tariff usually comes directly out of the bank account of an American buyer.
“It’s fair to call a tariff a tax because that’s exactly what it is,” said Erica York, a senior economist at the right-leaning Tax Foundation.
“There’s no way around it. It is a tax on people who buy things from foreign businesses,” she added.
In any event, in the real world, tariffs are bad. They're bad for everyone. So much so, that Warren Buffett recently described them in this way:
“Tariffs are actually, we’ve had a lot of experience with them. They’re an act of war, to some degree,” said Buffett, whose conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway has large businesses in insurance, railroads, manufacturing, energy and retail. He made the remarks in an interview with CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell for a new documentary on the late publisher of The Washington Post, Katharine Graham. “Over time, they are a tax on goods. I mean, the tooth fairy doesn’t pay ’em!” Buffett said with a laugh. “And then what? You always have to ask that question in economics. You always say, ‘And then what?’”
So let's look at "and then what" when it comes to the automotive sector.
The auto sector is the largest component of trade across Canada, the US, and Mexico. It makes up 22% of all the goods and services the flow across our borders. And in 2023, we produced some 16 million cars together, which generally include parts and materials from all three countries. We're extremely integrated. The WSJ recently broke this down, over here, and if you look at something like pistons, you'll see that this component alone typically crosses a border about 6 times:
What this means is that if you start forcing US importers to pay a tariff on Canadian and Mexican goods, and then Canada and Mexico retaliate with the same (because we/they have to), the entire model breaks down, unless of course consumers are comfortable paying a lot more. Of course, most of you already knew this. Last year, $1.6 trillion worth of goods moved back and forth across the US, Canada, and Mexico. It would be better for all three of us if this number went up, and not down, this year.
Cover photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
A branded residence is, as the name suggests, a residential building with a known branded attached to it. Historically, these have tended to be hotel brands. But it really just needs to be any brand that people know, care about, and will pay a premium for. So it could also be a fashion brand, a car brand, or whatever else.
This is a growing segment of the residential market. According to UK-based Savills, there were only 15 or so of these "schemes" in the 1990s (the UK uses scheme in lieu of project, which always sounds conniving to me), but by the end of this decade they expect the pipeline of branded residences to exceed over 1,200.
I would also argue that projects designed by celebrated architects and/or designers are a form of branded residence. And this is not being captured in Savills' number above.
Whatever your definition, today, the branded residence capital of the world seems to be Dubai, which feels right. And the biggest brands, by what appears to be a long shot, are Four Seasons and Ritz-Carlton (hotel side), and YOO and Trump (non-hotel side). Here are the full rankings from Savills:
This is an interesting part of the real estate business for a few reasons. One, it makes sense. A New Balance shoe that gets co-branded with Aimé Leon Dore unlocks additional value for both sides. ALD has a brand that certain people care about. So, of course the same would be true of real estate paired with the right brand.
Two, it's a growing market, and I think this is aided by the fact that development is an intensely local business -- so it can be hard to grow a globally-significant brand on your own. Sometimes you just need to borrow someone else's.
And three, it's usually a less risky approach to getting your name on buildings. Branded residences typically operate on a licensing model, which means developers pay for the right to use the brand. The brand may also capture some of the upside in the form of a percentage of sales. That's less risky than putting up your own money.
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?
Trumps' tariffs are supposed to take effect today. Here's a quote from the Globe and Mail, published yesterday:
“Very importantly, tomorrow, tariffs, 25 per cent on Canada and 25 per cent on Mexico, and that will start. So, they’re gonna have to have a tariff,” Mr. Trump said.
But it's still not clear that he understands how these tariffs will work. Either that, or he's lying and trying to trick people. Because he continues to deny that tariffs represent a tax paid by US importers (and ultimately US consumers) on things coming from Canada and Mexico.
Here's another quote:
"It’s not going to be a cost to you [Americans], it’s going to be a cost to another country."
Yeah, that's not how they work:
When the US puts a tariff on an imported good, the cost of the tariff usually comes directly out of the bank account of an American buyer.
“It’s fair to call a tariff a tax because that’s exactly what it is,” said Erica York, a senior economist at the right-leaning Tax Foundation.
“There’s no way around it. It is a tax on people who buy things from foreign businesses,” she added.
In any event, in the real world, tariffs are bad. They're bad for everyone. So much so, that Warren Buffett recently described them in this way:
“Tariffs are actually, we’ve had a lot of experience with them. They’re an act of war, to some degree,” said Buffett, whose conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway has large businesses in insurance, railroads, manufacturing, energy and retail. He made the remarks in an interview with CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell for a new documentary on the late publisher of The Washington Post, Katharine Graham. “Over time, they are a tax on goods. I mean, the tooth fairy doesn’t pay ’em!” Buffett said with a laugh. “And then what? You always have to ask that question in economics. You always say, ‘And then what?’”
So let's look at "and then what" when it comes to the automotive sector.
The auto sector is the largest component of trade across Canada, the US, and Mexico. It makes up 22% of all the goods and services the flow across our borders. And in 2023, we produced some 16 million cars together, which generally include parts and materials from all three countries. We're extremely integrated. The WSJ recently broke this down, over here, and if you look at something like pistons, you'll see that this component alone typically crosses a border about 6 times:
What this means is that if you start forcing US importers to pay a tariff on Canadian and Mexican goods, and then Canada and Mexico retaliate with the same (because we/they have to), the entire model breaks down, unless of course consumers are comfortable paying a lot more. Of course, most of you already knew this. Last year, $1.6 trillion worth of goods moved back and forth across the US, Canada, and Mexico. It would be better for all three of us if this number went up, and not down, this year.
Cover photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
A branded residence is, as the name suggests, a residential building with a known branded attached to it. Historically, these have tended to be hotel brands. But it really just needs to be any brand that people know, care about, and will pay a premium for. So it could also be a fashion brand, a car brand, or whatever else.
This is a growing segment of the residential market. According to UK-based Savills, there were only 15 or so of these "schemes" in the 1990s (the UK uses scheme in lieu of project, which always sounds conniving to me), but by the end of this decade they expect the pipeline of branded residences to exceed over 1,200.
I would also argue that projects designed by celebrated architects and/or designers are a form of branded residence. And this is not being captured in Savills' number above.
Whatever your definition, today, the branded residence capital of the world seems to be Dubai, which feels right. And the biggest brands, by what appears to be a long shot, are Four Seasons and Ritz-Carlton (hotel side), and YOO and Trump (non-hotel side). Here are the full rankings from Savills:
This is an interesting part of the real estate business for a few reasons. One, it makes sense. A New Balance shoe that gets co-branded with Aimé Leon Dore unlocks additional value for both sides. ALD has a brand that certain people care about. So, of course the same would be true of real estate paired with the right brand.
Two, it's a growing market, and I think this is aided by the fact that development is an intensely local business -- so it can be hard to grow a globally-significant brand on your own. Sometimes you just need to borrow someone else's.
And three, it's usually a less risky approach to getting your name on buildings. Branded residences typically operate on a licensing model, which means developers pay for the right to use the brand. The brand may also capture some of the upside in the form of a percentage of sales. That's less risky than putting up your own money.
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?
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
