Brandon Donnelly

Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

Subscribe

Tag: entrepreneurship

  • Pulling the future forward

    I like the way that Scott Galloway describes entrepreneurship in this recent post about why he’s bearish on Tesla:

    Entrepreneur is a synonym for salesperson, and salesperson is the pedestrian term for storyteller. Pro tip: No startup makes sense. We (entrepreneurs) are all impostors who must deploy a fiction (a story) that captures the imagination and attracts capital to pull the future forward and turn rhyme into reason. No business I have started, at the moment of inception, made any sense … until it did. Or didn’t. The only way to predict the future is to make it.

    He then goes on to describe the difference between an entrepreneur and a liar:

    This is not the same as lying. There’s a real distinction between an entrepreneur and a liar: Entrepreneurs believe their story will come true, as they are laser-focused on making it true. A liar, well, they know they’re misleading people with false data. Usually for money (i.e., fraud). This is where Tesla turns gray.

    Scott continues to say things about Elon and Tesla. But that’s not the point of today’s post.

    The point I would like to make is that real estate development is an inherently entrepreneurial endeavor. You need to be a salesperson and a compelling storyteller, because that’s the only way you’ll be able to create the future. And creating the future is what developers do.

  • Toward a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship

    One way you could oversimplify the Canadian economy is to say that it revolves around three things: natural resources, real estate, and high immigration. (You can tell me I’m wrong in the comments below.) More recently, we’ve also been touting the growing number of tech workers in our cities. But in some ways this is a bit of a vanity metric. 

    I think of it in terms of two different categories of workers. There are tech workers that are the result of foreign companies opening satellite offices to take advantage of the weak Canadian dollar and our more enlightened immigration policies. And there are tech workers that are the result of Canadian-based companies innovating, growing, and needing more talent. Think Shopify.

    The former situation is not at all bad, but a lot of the value is going to accrue outside of the country. Whereas in the latter situation, we get to be the principal recipients and we get all of the positive externalities associated with innovation and entrepreneurship. One of these is a powerful compounding effect. Successful startups tend to beget even more new companies. 

    So even though I work in and benefit from one of the three things that I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I believe that we need to be much better at encouraging a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship in Canada. We’ve become too complacent.

    This is a critically important topic that we don’t seem to be talking about nearly enough. So I plan to do more of that here on the blog.

  • This may not actually work

    I am, of course, generalizing, but we live in a world of comparables and proof. In the slightly-modified words of Seth Godin, we have been trained to show up with proven and verifiable answers because that’s what will get us an A on the test or what will allow us to keep our jobs. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Risk mitigation is an important part of any organization. But if everything you’re doing is already proven, then by definition, and regardless of any claims, you are not innovating. Because if something is truly new, then it may not actually work.

    My friend David Wex — who is on a mission to develop modern condominiums all across Canada — once told me that if he were to hire consultants to prepare market studies for his projects (he doesn’t), they would almost always tell him never to build. And that’s because there are often no comparables to point to and say, “look at this thing over here, it shows that somebody has already done this before and has been successful.” Instead, he has been forced to ask himself, “is there no comparable product offering because the market doesn’t exist or because nobody has done it yet?”

    This is a risky proposition. Because if you’re wrong — and the market doesn’t exist — then you will likely fail. But if you’re right, and you get to introduce something new to people that want it, then you get the benefit of a commanding market position. You were right about something that most people thought was wrong and/or didn’t bother to explore. That’s why Seth Godin has argued that innovation really requires two things. It requires guts, because the thing you’re trying may not work. And it requires generosity, because innovation is, after all, about trying to make things better.

    I think this is a great way of putting it.

  • Super-entrepreneurs by region

    A super-entrepreneur, according to the common definition, is a rich person who has amassed a net worth of at least US$1 billion dollars by either starting a company or taking a small company and growing it into a big one. A super-entrepreneur is, by definition, not someone who inherited their wealth. Though I’m not sure what the cut off is. If you inherited $1 million and then started a massive company, does that still make you a super-entrepreneur? What about if you inherited $100 million?

    In any event, here is a chart from New Geography showing super-entrepreneurs by region:

    The USA is in the lead in this chart at about 3.1 super-entrepreneurs per one million inhabitants. But the highest rate in the world, at least according to this data set, actually belongs to Singapore at 4.7 per million. Europe, as a whole, doesn’t look all that great here. But again, if you get more specific, some European countries are actually doing quite well. Sweden, for instance, is sitting at around 2 per million, which is higher than Canada’s figure.

    Why this data is potentially interesting is that it tells you a bit about these countries. It tells you whether they have strong property rights, whether it’s easy to conduct business, and whether it’s supportive of new ideas, among, of course, many other things. There also appears to be a clear link between the presence of super-entrepreneurs and unemployment. Turns out that the more people you have starting wildly successful businesses, the lower unemployment tends to be.

    For the full New Geography article, click here. In addition to what I just wrote about, it talks about Europe’s “entrepreneurial paradox” and issues of gender equality.

  • NFTs and real estate

    I have started using my NFT collection as a rotating face on my Apple Watch. The one you see below is a Cool Bean, but I have many others in the gallery. Lately, I have been gravitating towards NFTs on the Solana blockchain because of how fast and cheap it is to transact. Though I am still much longer with ETH.

    This is all pretty geeky stuff, but it reminded me just how early we are when it comes to web3. NFT art has exploded over the last year, but the broader ecosystem is still getting built out. We are all going to want mediums in which to display and experience this new form of art. And as soon as that happens, I suspect they won’t be thought of as “just JPEGs” anymore.

    (One of the nicest digital art displays that I have seen is the MONO X7. It’s currently available for pre-order but I haven’t yet pulled the trigger.)

    On a related note, I follow a human on Twitter who goes by 6529, because that is the Cryptopunk number that she/he owns. 6529 is incredibly bullish on crypto and NFTs, and tends to write long and insightful threads about it. One of the most recent ones is about real estate and I think that many of you will find it a worthwhile read.

    What I particularly like about it is that it reminds us that so much of what we consider to be normal and the status quo is actually just a construct that people before us created. Usually it’s not perfect and there are many inherent flaws, but it’s the best that could be done at the time. That or it just worked.

    And because it’s the way it’s been “always done”, it just recedes into the background and most of us don’t give it much thought. Of course, so much of entrepreneurship is about questioning the status quo and doing things differently. Why this way? Could it be better? And it’s precisely during these moments of change where lots of value is created.

  • Is entrepreneurship contagious? (And a bull case for urban clustering)

    The research isn’t absolutely conclusive, but Matt Clancy — who is an assistant teaching professor of economics at Iowa State — makes an interesting case (over here) about entrepreneurship being mostly contagious.

    The article cites a long list of studies that have more or less found that being around entrepreneurs can have a measurable positive effect on whether you yourself might also become one.

    There is evidence to suggest that this is true whether you’re a scientist working with someone who has previously commercialized a piece of research, a community with entrepreneurial neighbors, a student with an entrepreneurial mentor, or a child with parents who have started their own business(es).

    According to one Swedish study, the children of entrepreneurs are about 12 percentage points more likely to start a business at some point in their life compared to people with non-entrepreneur parents.

    But as I said at the beginning of this post, the research isn’t entirely conclusive. Could a proclivity for risk and independence be instead genetic? Could it be that entrepreneur types simply seek out other entrepreneurs to hang out with? Perhaps these associations aren’t causal. Maybe.

    But my gut tells me that there has got to be some contagiousness. Here’s an excerpt from Matt’s article:

    …being around someone who has done it plants the seed in your mind that it’s a possibility, something you really could do. For most of the studies, the population exposed to entrepreneurship is a population that wouldn’t normally consider it. For them, exposure has a measurable positive effect.

    What this once again tells me is that there’s immeasurable value in people clustering in cities, local communities, offices, coffee shops, and many other spaces. It’s a hard (probably impossible) thing to replace. And it could be the difference between taking initiative and starting a business, and not doing that.

  • The sources of wealth

    Back in the old days, and by the old days I mean the 1980s, there were a handful of ways in which you were likely to get rich. You either inherited it, or you made it in oil or real estate. The Forbes list of the 100 richest Americans was first published in 1982 and, at that time, 60 of the people on this list had inherited their wealth. Of the 40 new fortunes on the list, about 60% were primarily related to oil or real estate. If you couldn’t inherit your money, these two industries were a good place to start.

    But as Paul Graham explains in this recent essay about “how people get rich now,” this is no longer the case. On the 2020 list, there were 73 new fortunes, but only 4 stemmed from real estate and only 2 stemmed from oil. As you might imagine, today’s biggest driver is what we call tech and, more specifically, it is people founding tech companies (there are also a couple of examples of early employees doing very well). Of the 73 new fortunes last year, approximately 30 came from tech, including 8 of the top 10 fortunes on the list.

    Given how many people are starting new companies today (it has become easier and cheaper) and given how many of these companies are quickly growing to big valuations (things are scaling faster), it is perhaps tempting to think about this period of time as being entirely unprecedented. Never before have we seen so many young people getting rich by starting their own company. And never before have we seen such inequality.

    However, Graham argues in his essay that this period of time is the default. What we saw in the second half of the 20th century was actually an anomaly. Indeed, if you go back to the end of the 19th century, the richest people in the US were mostly people who were starting their own companies and taking advantage of new technologies, such as that of mass production.

    His claim is that for the most part it wasn’t really viable to start your own company in, say, the 1960s. Instead, most people simply went to work for a big company that had some sort of oligopolistic positioning in the market. And it turns out that was pretty good for maintaining a strong middle class. Less people were getting fabulously rich. I’d like to see some more data points around entrepreneurship and wealth during this era. But regardless, I think it’s pretty clear that the dominant sources of wealth have changed.

  • Shopify’s mission is to be an entrepreneurship company

    Howard Lindzon has a podcast called Panic with Friends. It was started last March (hence the name) and he uses it to interview entrepreneurs, investors, venture capitalists, and other business people about what they’re up to. In today’s episode he speaks with Harley Finkelstein, President of Shopify, about the future of ecommerce and about how they’re positioning the company. What was interesting but not surprising to hear was that in the early years people didn’t believe that Shopify had a large enough total addressable market. Supposedly, there weren’t enough people out there who might be interested in starting their own online store. That, of course, has proven to be false and there are new and successful ideas emerging all the time. We’re also now talking about how ecommerce is reshaping the landscape of our cities. Given all of this, the company has grown to think of itself as an entrepreneurship company. If you’re at all ambitious, then you’re an entrepreneur in their eyes and Shopify wants to be the platform for you. As a Canadian, it’s great to see them doing so well. If you can’t see the embedded Spotify player above, click here.

  • Three-legged stool

    A good friend of mine, who is also in the industry, once described real estate development as a three-legged stool. In order to develop, you really need three things: expertise, capital, and a site (i.e. land). This probably seems fairly obvious. I mean, you need to know what you’re doing, you need the money to do it, and then you actually need a place to build. But as simple and as obvious as this may seem, there are barriers to entry. Real estate is a capital intensive industry. And despite what the general public seems to believe about the pockets of developers, most are raising outside capital.

    The thing about this three-legged stool is that you don’t necessarily need to have all of the legs at once, and in many cases you won’t. If you have two of them in place, it’s usually feasible to figure out and get the last one. For example, if you know what you’re doing (expertise) and you have a site (owned or “under control”), then presumably you have a development pro forma that makes some economic sense. And with those things, you generally should be able to find the capital that you need to execute on your project.

    I’ve also met people who have managed to build this three-legged stool starting with only one leg. They didn’t have much development experience or capital connections, but they learned enough to figure out how to value development land. They then went out and started knocking on doors, eventually putting together a development assembly. They then took this assembly to developers (people with expertise) and the stool eventually got built. Starting with only one leg just means you’re going to have to work harder to fill in the others.

    A one or two-legged stool won’t stay upright on its own. But hustle will hold it up temporarily while you figure out a creative way to attach the missing leg(s).

    Photo by John Boatile on Unsplash

  • What motivates us

    Earlier this week it was announced that Instagram founders Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger have resigned from the company. Supposedly it had to do with weakening independence from the parent company, Facebook. But I’m not really in a position to comment on the specifics.

    Fred Wilson wrote a good post about the news this week. The point he makes is that it is extremely rare for founders to stay on, at least for extended periods of time, after their company has been acquired. So it is actually quite remarkable that Instagram’s two founders stayed on for 6 years.

    But what I really want to talk about today is this quote from Fred’s post: 

    “The truth is that many entrepreneurs don’t make for great corporate citizens. Entrepreneurs like to be in charge, to be able to move quickly without a lot of friction, and they like to feel a deep sense of ownership in what they are working on.”

    It stood out to me for two reasons. One, because I agree with it. And two, because it reminded me of Daniel Pink’s book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. His overarching argument is that motivation is intrinsic and that we are best driven by the following: autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

    That sounds pretty similar to the things that entrepreneurs also seem to like.