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: finance

  • The future is unknowable

    I am sure many of you are getting tired of the news. I know I am. But it turns out that when you’re in a global pandemic and you spend the entirety of your day looking at Zoom — while fidgeting your leg, I might add — there’s only so much else you can talk and write about.

    One of the more interesting things you could read is Howard Marks’ memos. Howard is the co-founder of Oaktree Capital Management and, from what I can tell, he’s been writing since 1990. Some years it’s an annual memo and some years — like this year — he writes a bunch more. His most recent is regarding, “Knowledge of the Future.”

    If I had to summarize it: The future is unknowable and none of us can say with any certainty what the next quarter or the next year is going to look like. In Howard’s words: “These days everyone has the same data regarding the present and the same ignorance regarding the future.”

    Most of the time, he explains, we simply extrapolate from the past and then apply our own biases to come up with a prediction. Howard describes himself as more of a worrier, whereas I would describe myself as more of an optimist. I believe, to a certain extent, in creating self-fulfilling prophecies.

    Notwithstanding our inability to predict the future (which isn’t a new phenomenon), I think it’s important to have opinions and take positions. Any decision is better than no decision, right?

    For a full archive of Howard Marks’ memos, click here.

  • Landed is helping teachers buy homes

    The average salary of a teacher in the United States was approximately $61,730 last year. This can make homeownership in high cost areas a challenge.

    Here is a chart from Curbed:

    Landed is trying to solve this problem by offering downpayment assistance to “essential professionals” — starting first with teachers — so that they can buy homes in and near the communities that they serve.

    The way it works is pretty simple.

    They’ll contribute up to half of a traditional 20% downpayment — so 10% of the value of the home — in exchange for a 25% share in any future gains, or losses.

    Put differently, for every 1% that Landed contributes, it takes 2.5% of any future appreciation (or depreciation). However, on an equity basis, they are actually putting up 50% of the required cash (in the maximum scenario) in order to get 25% of any future gains.

    There’s no monthly payment associated with Landed’s money, but it does need to be repaid at the end of 30 years or when the homeowner exits the agreement, whichever comes first. Homeowners are free to repay Landed at any time should they decide to sell the property or they just want to pay them out.

    Landed pitches the service as another version of “the bank of mom and dad.” And for many prospective homeowners, I am sure that it makes all the difference in the world.

    At first glance, it would seem that each homeowner also benefits from a kind of positive leverage. They only put up 50% of the required equity, but they get to enjoy 75% of the potential gains. However, each homeowner is also responsible for 100% of the carrying costs.

    I ran a couple of quick return scenarios, assuming a $500,000 purchase price and a 10 year hold, in order to test whether Landed or the homeowner would receive a higher IRR once the property gets sold.

    I didn’t carry any transaction costs, but I did factor in principal recapture, as well as utilities, insurance, and maintenance.

    My rough numbers suggest that it depends on the annual rate of appreciation. If appreciation stays close to the rate of inflation, it could tip in favor of Landed because they don’t put out any money after t = 0.

    But at higher rates of appreciation, the homeowner starts to benefit from the favorable 75/25 split at the end of the hold period.

    Either way, Landed is providing a service to people who may not otherwise be able to afford to buy a home. That has value. Here’s some more information on how it works, in case you’re interested.

  • The Apple Card fine print

    Apple announced a number of new products and services this week, including Apple TV+ and a new Apple credit card, which will initially only be available in the US.

    It all aligns nicely with their goal of growing their service/subscription businesses and weaning themselves off of an over-dependence on iPhone revenue.

    Below is a video summary of the new Apple Card. In typical Apple fashion, it sounds and looks like an elegant solution and I already want to one.

    I thought this topic would make an interesting follow-up to my recent post about whether cities should be banning cashless businesses so as to not discriminate against the “unbanked.”

    Because embedded in the above credit card is the following cashback reward structure:

    • 3% back on Apple purchases
    • 2% back on purchases made with Apple Pay (iPhone)
    • 1% back on purchases made with the (optional) physical card

    And so what this “card” will do is pay you to always use your phone. The cashback reward system is also instantaneous and you’ll be able to spend that Daily Cash (that’s the name) just like you would actual cash.

    Do you think this would change how you pay for things? I think for most people it will.

  • How impactful will the new First-Time Home Buyer Incentive be?

    This week’s federal budget announced two measures that are intended to improve housing affordability.

    The first is a modification to the Home Buyers’ Plan. This is a plan that gives first-time home buyers the ability to do a tax-free withdrawal from their RRSP (it does, however, have to be repaid within 15 years). The withdrawal limit was increased from $25,000 to $35,000.

    The second measure, which is the one that got everyone’s attention, is the new First-Time Home Buyer Incentive. Through this program, CMHC will offer first-time home buyers (who have the minimum down payment required for an insured mortgage) the option of a “CMHC shared equity mortgage.”

    What this effectively means is that CMHC will give first-time buyers an interest-free contribution for 10% of the purchase price of a new home (5% in the case of a resale). There’s no interest, but it does need to be paid back at the time of a sale. The higher percentage for new build homes is intended to stimulate housing supply.

    It is still not clear whether CMHC will be expecting to participate in any increase (or decrease) in the value of the properties. But presumably, yes, since it’s called a “shared equity mortgage.” All of this is expected to come into force by the fall.

    Here’s an example of how this program is intended to work.

    If a first-time buyer purchases a new home for $400,000 with a 5% down payment, the insured mortgage amount would normally be $380,000. This is the highest loan-to-value you can get with CMHC mortgage loan insurance. With this new measure, the mortgage size would reduce to $340,000 and so the purchaser’s monthly debt service would drop accordingly, thereby helping with overall affordability.

    The caveat to all of this is that this incentive will only be available to first-time home buyers with a household income under $120,000, and the insured mortgage and incentive amount cannot be greater than 4x the participants’ annual household income.

    What this means is that this program really only touches the sub $500,000 market. And in highly desirable cities like Toronto and Vancouver, that market isn’t all that big.

  • And we’re back

    Welcome to 2019.

    I am currently in transit and catching up on some internet reading and email on my way back to Toronto.

    At this time of year it is, of course, common to reminisce (or lament) about what happened over the last year, as well prognosticate what may come.

    Over the last few years, I have done a bit of that on the blog. But I clearly didn’t do that this year while in Brazil (and away from any semblance of a workspace).

    So here’s what others have been writing and thinking about over the holidays:

    – 2018’s tech trends and tribulations in 14 charts. Recode. Link

    – 2018 was the year of the YIMBY. CityLab. Link

    – A cool girl’s guide to Toronto. Vogue. Link

    – Amazon’s annual Christmas press release. Link

    – Best travel posts of 2018. Design Milk. Link

    – Here’s (Almost) Everything Wall Street Expects in 2019. Bloomberg. Link

    – Here’s what to expect in cybersecurity in 2019. TechCrunch. Link

    – Naive to hope Toronto can change in 2019? That means we have work to do. Shawn Micallef. Link 

    – The 10 largest US venture rounds of 2019. TechCrunch. Link

    – What is going to happen in 2019. Fred Wilson. Link

    – Will a recession hit in 2019? Alan Murray. Link

    – Year in search 2018. Google. Link

  • Two sides of the same bitcoin

    Warren Buffet recently said in a Yahoo Finance interview that when you buy cryptocurrencies you’re not actually investing. Instead, you’re speculating – speculating that “somebody else will come along and pay more money tomorrow.” Investments need to generate a return. And nobody is at all clear on how to value these crypto-assets. This is noteworthy, of course, because it’s Buffet.

    But I thought Fred Wilson wrote a good rebuttal on his blog where he points out that, while, yes, a discounted cash flow model isn’t going to be very useful in helping you determine value in this instance, what we are actually seeing is, “the creation of a new internet, built upon protocols that allow for decentralized networks to form…” We’ve talked about this many times before on the blog.

    So where I stand on this debate is that I agree with both Warren and Fred. I don’t see crypto-assets as something I want to start putting a lot of money into right now because I don’t know how to calculate what the IRR may be. But at the same time, if crypto-assets are creating decentralized infrastructure that will one day power the “new internet”, I am positive this new internet will eventually create businesses that will fit into Warren’s definition of an investment. 

  • More than a real estate company — a state of consciousness

    Matt Levine’s most recent Money Stuff article is classic Matt Levine. It is both entertaining and informative. This one is on WeWork – the coworking startup that has committed to 14 million square feet of office space around the world and will have $18 billion in rent payments due over the next decade.

    Here is an excerpt:

    WeWork Cos. is a real-estate company with a couple of innovative twists on the model. First, rather than owning its buildings, it rents them: It leases office space from regular real-estate companies, adds … beer? … or whatever, and then subleases the space to tenants at higher rates. And second, rather than being valued like a real-estate company, it gets valued like a hot tech startup — “the sharing economy,” ping-pong tables, etc. — so it can raise gobs of money from SoftBank Group Corp. at a $20 billion valuation without ever getting particularly close to profitability. And look at all these words:

    “Indeed, to assess WeWork by conventional metrics is to miss the point, according to [Chief Executive Officer Adam] Neumann. WeWork isn’t really a real estate company. It’s a state of consciousness, he argues, a generation of interconnected emotionally intelligent entrepreneurs.”

    Really, what sort of multiple would you put on a state of consciousness?

  • Would it be insider trading if Kylie Jenner traded on her tweets?

    Lately I have really gotten into Matt Levine’s daily newsletter about “Wall Street, finance, companies and other stuff.” Maybe that’s how I should describe this blog: Cities, real estate, design, and other stuff.

    If you aren’t familiar with Matt’s writing, here is an article that he wrote about Kylie Jenner’s recent tweet concerning Snapchat. You know, the one that wiped out $1.3 billion of market value because she revealed – using only 88 characters, I might add – that she was no longer using the app.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The article was spurred on by this question:

    “Would it be insider trading for Kylie Jenner to buy short term out of money put options on Snap and tweet out that she’s no longer using Snap?”

    And this is the start of his answer:

    Insider trading, as I am constantly saying around here, is not about fairness; it is about theft. It is not illegal to trade on your own nonpublic knowledge of your own intentions. Warren Buffett can buy stocks before he announces that he’s bought them, even though that announcement will predictably make the stocks go up. 

    If I did describe this daily blog like Matt describes his daily newsletter, this post would clearly fall into the “other stuff” camp. But maybe you too will find it interesting. If you do, you can subscribe here. 

  • Depression babies

    Recently I’ve been seeing a number of posts/articles talking about the dot-com bubble. It seems to be driven by talk of a pending crypto bubble. 

    Whatever the case may be, the recounts are interesting. In this one by venture capitalist Fred Wilson, he talks about how 90% of his net worth went to zero following the crash. And the only reason it wasn’t all of his net worth was because he was fortunate enough to sell some tech stocks in advance of the crash to buy “two significant pieces of real estate.” The two properties were 10% of his net worth before the crash and 100% of his net worth after the crash.

    Fred goes on to talk about how he had to learn about diversification the hard way. And this reminded me of a theory that many of you are probably familiar with called “depression babies”. This is the belief that large macroeconomic shocks – such as the Great Depression and the dot-com boom – create a lasting impact on people’s propensity to take financial risks.

    And indeed, there’s evidence to suggest that this is in fact the case. In this 2010 paper by Ulrike Malmendier and Stefan Nagel, they came to the following conclusion: “Our results show that risky asset returns experienced over the course of an individual’s life have a significant effect on the willingness to take financial risks.”

    I often think about this with respect to my own career. I started working in real estate before the 2008 financial crisis. I also happened to be living in the U.S. at the time – where it was far worse than in Canada. We got off easy. I remember seasoned real estate professionals telling me that it was going to take at least 20 years before the U.S. would build another commercial office building. It was that bad. And that was the sentiment at the time.

    Of course, that wasn’t the case. It didn’t take two decades to resume building. But I like to think that 2008 will remain permanently etched in my mind. It’s my reminder that crashes can and will happen. Don’t forget that. Stay disciplined. At the same time, it’s my reminder that these periodic crashes create opportunities. Because fear invariably makes us overshoot the mark.

  • A new kind of homeownership

    Yesterday Andreessen Horowitz announced an investment in the startup Point. They led an $8.4 million Series A round.

    Point is an alternative to traditional home equity loans and HELOCs. The way it works is that you actually sell a portion of your property. Here’s an example:

    In this scenario, the home is worth $1M. Point makes an offer to buy 10% of today’s value in exchange for 20% of the home’s future appreciation on a 5 year term. You pay a 3% fee when the $100,000 (10%) is paid out, but you don’t make any monthly payments. You just give up potential future appreciation. (If the home doesn’t appreciate, Point doesn’t make money.)

    What’s interesting about this model is that traditionally “housing” has meant one of two things. Either you own 0% of the home (i.e. you rent) or you own 100% of the home (usually with the help of a mortgage).

    Point is making it easier for you to potentially own 95% or 90% of your home. They are taking an equity stake, which is why there are no monthly payments associated with it. 

    The investment angle is that homeowners get to diversify their wealth out, and (Point) investors get to diversify in, without having to worry about actually managing the property.

    Would you use this as a tool to unlock your home equity wealth?