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: fred wilson

  • Focusing on fundamentals

    When the financial crisis hit in 2008, I was living in the United States. At that time I remember developers and other people saying that it was going to take at least 20 years before the country would build another commercial office building. It felt that bad.

    Job opportunities had certainly dried up — especially for Canadians like me who were focused on real estate development. But of course, things eventually got better. New office buildings got built well inside of two decades, and the US went on to see its longest ever economic expansion.

    This past Monday we saw the financial markets suffer one of, if not the, biggest selloffs since the financial crisis. If you haven’t yet checked your portfolio and/or retirement savings, I suggest you hold off until the Fed “prints” some more money. The time to sell is not right now. (Not actual financial advice.)

    Now is, of course, the time to remain rational and disciplined, and focus on the relationship between price and value. Fred Wilson’s recent blog post on “market meltdowns” is a good reminder of this. So here are a couple of excerpts that I really liked:

    I’ve seen this movie before. I had just started working in the venture capital business in 1987 when the stock market crashed 23% on “black monday.” There was the Internet stock meltdown in 2000 when the internet sector went down something like 80% over that bear market. And then there was the financial crisis in 2008.

    Capital markets sometimes put out the for sale sign and if you are patient and wait for bargains to emerge, they will do that.

    But I do know that good companies with resilient businesses and strong balance sheets will survive these occasional crises and that they can be bought with confidence at the right time.

    👊

  • The re-allocation of capital (and predictions for this decade)

    I have stayed at two hotels over the last month where I did not need to interact with a human as part of the check in process. And in one of those two instances I didn’t even need to interact with a computer at the hotel.

    My room key was issued to me through an app and I used that (and Bluetooth) to open my hotel room door (after the app, of course, notified me that my room was ready).

    This is prediction #2 in Fred Wilson’s annual roundup of what is going to happen next in the world. Automation is reducing the costs associated with operating many businesses. Who is going to be the beneficiary of this consumer surplus?

    The other prediction that should interest most of you — because the impacts would be widespread — is this one here regarding climate change:

    The looming climate crisis will be to this century what the two world wars were to the previous one. It will require countries and institutions to re-allocate capital from other endeavors to fight against a warming planet. This is the decade we will begin to see this re-allocation of capital. We will see carbon taxed like the vice that it is in most countries around the world this decade, including in the US. We will see real estate values collapse in some of the most affected regions and we will see real estate values increase in regions that benefit from the warming climate. We will see massive capital investments made in protecting critical regions and infrastructure. We will see nuclear power make a resurgence around the world, particularly smaller reactors that are easier to build and safer to operate. We will see installed solar power worldwide go from ~650GW currently to over 20,000GW by the end of this decade. All of these things and many more will cause the capital markets to focus on and fund the climate issue to the detriment of many other sectors.

    For the rest of Fred’s predictions, click here. These are always great reads.

  • A non-zero probability of copycats

    Software businesses are generally high margin businesses. But along with this feature comes some risks. Here’s an excerpt from a recent post by Scott Galloway (which is actually about FedEx):

    With any software start-up, there is a non-zero probability that you wake up the next day and find that a better-resourced firm (Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, Adobe) has deployed 200 engineers to copy your product, bundle it with their stack for free, or near free, and … welcome to zero. I believe this is happening to Slack, but more slowly than Netscape, as Microsoft’s General Counsel has likely coached Satya to charge a nominal fee for Teams and let Slack bleed out, instead of putting a bullet in its head and stirring the DOJ from a 3-Ambien slumber.

    Real estate, by comparison, doesn’t get disrupted in quite the same way. A location/city can lose its economic purpose (Great Grimsby is just one example), but as long as there are growth tailwinds the real estate should do well.

    Venture capitalist Fred Wilson has on many occasions written about how he (and his firm) made a fortune in the dot-com era, only to lose it all and have to remake it again over the subsequent decades.

    One the lessons learned from that experience (according to his blog), was to take some of that second tech fortune and invest it into hard assets — namely real estate. That feels right to me.

  • Grinding it out over the long-term

    Fred Wilson’s latest blog post about “grinding” tells the story of how Twitter solved the infamous “fail whale” problem that plagued its platform in the early days. I remember that whale, as I’m sure many of you do as well. It was a problem and, according to Fred, it was a real threat to the business. The solution wasn’t all that sexy; though sexy solutions were attempted. The team just rebuilt everything, piece by piece. And eventually the fail whale problem went away.

    The lessons here go well beyond just this Twitter example (or at least, it triggers something for me). Here’s how Fred ends his post:

    If given a choice between a flashy operator or a grinder, I will take a grinder every time. It is a much higher percentage bet. It requires faith and patience and the results are sometimes hard to see. But if you look at the results from grinding it out over a long enough time frame, you can see the power of that approach.

    This kind of long-term patient thinking can be difficult, especially in an increasingly instantaneous world. We are all drawn to magic solutions, hot stock tips, and new condos that are destined to double in value over the next year. I suppose that’s partially why so many people enjoy playing the lottery, even though the odds of winning big can be as low as 1 in a million.

    Being a grinder is largely a higher percentage bet because you’re taking a longer, more disciplined, view. Warren Buffet has, admittedly, no idea how stocks will behave over the next week or year, just as I have no idea how condo prices in Toronto will behave over the next week or year. Instead, Warren chooses to bet on “The American Tailwind” and I choose to bet on the role of Toronto as a global city.

    Warren first invested in an American business in 1942. He was 11. Over the next 77 years, the S&P 500 would go on to return an average of 11.8% annually. Had he invested in a no-fee index fund and reinvested all dividends, his gain would have been 5,288 for 1. In other words, a $1 million investment would have grown to $5.3 billion on a pre-tax basis. (See: The compound effect.)

    77 years is, of course, a long time. But I am sure you get the point: faith. patience, and tenacity — even when, sometimes, the results can be hard to see. Real estate development is very much that kind of business.

  • A taxonomy of moats

    Jerry Neumann’s recent blog post on the “taxonomy of moats” is a great summary of the ways in which companies — and perhaps even cities — can protect themselves against competition.

    Here’s an excerpt from his introduction:

    Value is created through innovation, but how much of that value accrues to the innovator depends partly on how quickly their competitors imitate the innovation. Innovators must deter competition to get some of the value they created. These ways of deterring competition are called, in various contexts, barriers to entry, sustainable competitive advantages, or, colloquially, moats. There are many different moats but they have at their root only a few different principles. This post is an attempt at categorizing the best-known moats by those principles in order to evaluate them systematically in the context of starting a company.

    And here is his taxonomy of moats. He identifies four main sources:

    As a sidebar, consider how this might also apply to cities.

    Scale, for example, matters a great deal. We know that as cities get bigger, people tend to walk faster, have broader social connections (the relationship is super-linear), and be far more productive and innovative.

    If you’d like to read Jerry’s full post, click here. And if you’re interested in this space, I recommend you also check out Fred Wilson’s recent post on, “The Great Public Market Reckoning.”

  • Patch Homes announces $5mm Series A round to grow fractional home equity platform

    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.

  • The new decentralized workforce

    A few weeks ago the WSJ published an article about Toronto’s growing tech talent pool, arguing that its base now rivals the top US cities, but that it may not be an entirely good thing for the city’s ecosystem. I wrote about it here.

    This morning venture capitalist Fred Wilson published a post on his blog talking about the necessity of scaling tech companies in lower cost locations. It’s a good follow-up to the above article/post.

    Here’s an excerpt from Fred:

    Last week I heard some shocking numbers about salary levels for certain kinds of engineers in the bay area. I checked them out with a few of our bay area portfolio companies and they were more or less corroborated.

    The tight technical labor markets in the bay area, NYC, and a number of other regions in the US are making it hard to scale software businesses without burning massive amounts of cash.

    He goes on to argue that (startup) companies now need to think about scaling in other/remote locations sooner than they ever have before — basically as soon as the company hits about 50 engineers (or 100-200 employees).

    Many companies are now working with a distributed workforce. Supposedly 2/3 of the global workforce now spends at least one day of the week working remotely. I almost never work from home, but I do get how this is possible.

    So what is happening is that engineering talent is spilling over into secondary markets out of necessity. There’s an economic imperative to colonize. But I would imagine that, at least initially, most of the economic benefits accrue to the colonizer.

    Photo by NASA on Unsplash

  • Risk, uncertainty, and opportunity

    For two reasons, I really like Fred Wilson’s recent blog post on hypothetical value to real value. Firstly, it is structured in the way that I think good blog posts are structured. He starts with a personal story (about this son) and then uses that to take a position and impart some knowledge about the venture capital industry. It makes for a more engaging read. Secondly, I like how he describes the journey and spread between hypothetical value and real value:

    Venture capitalists and seed funds and angel investors make or lose money on the journey from hypothetical value to real value. And when the spread between the two narrows, the money we make is less. When the spread increases, the money we make is more. It is easier to drink your own Kool Aid in the world of hypothetical values. You handicap the odds of winning more aggressively. You trade ownership for capital at work. You accept the new normal. Real value doesn’t move so fast. Because it is right in front of you. You can see it. So it is not prone to flights of fancy. I try to keep this framework front and center in my brain as we meet with founders and work to find transactions that work for everyone. I find it to be a stabilizing force in an unstable market.

    All of this is related to the notion that you make real money when you’re right about something that most people think is wrong. Because that would be hypothetical value. If it were real value, then everyone would simply believe it. It would be “right in front of you.” And this is pretty much true of all competitive marketplaces, including the real estate industry. Risk and uncertainty create opportunity.

    Photo by James Sullivan on Unsplash

  • IPOs and home prices

    Fred Wilson made an interesting remark in his recent post about the current “IPO bonanza” that is taking place in the tech space. He is, of course, talking about the recent IPO of Lyft, the recent S-1 filings from Pinterest and others, and the expected filings from Uber, Airbnb, and so on.

    After listing the benefits of going public, he went on to say that this bonanza will surely also mean that it is going to become even more unaffordable in the Bay Area. Part of this is perhaps self-serving, since he operates a VC firm out of NYC. (Take your money and move to NYC.)

    But the data suggests that there is truth to this.

    When Twitter when public in 2013, it was estimated that it created some 1,600 millionaires. This is great for the local startup ecosystem as many of these beneficiaries could go on to found their own companies and create a whole new batch of jobs. The money gets recycled.

    But what does it do to the local housing market — especially a supply-constrained one like that of the Bay Area where it is difficult to build?

    In 2018, Barney Hartman-Glaser, Mark Thibodeau, and Jiro Yoshida penned a paper called, Cash to Spend: IPO Wealth and House Prices. In it, they looked at the impact of IPOs on local home prices in California from 1993 through to 2017.

    What they found, among other things, was a “positive and significant association between local house price changes and firms going public.” The price increases were also found to be the greatest the closer you get to the headquarters of the firm that just went public.

    If you’d like to download a copy of the paper, you can do that here.

  • Risk game

    “Francis is one of the most decisive people I know. He made a commitment to invest in our first venture capital fund in a five-minute cab we shared to work one morning.”

    —Fred Wilson, Co-Founder, Venture Capitalist, and Blogger, Union Square Ventures

    Francis Greenburger, who is founder and CEO of the real estate investment and development firm Time Equities, recently appeared on Barry Ritholtz’s Masters in Business Podcast.

    They touch on a number of topics, including why development sometimes produces more bankruptcies than billionaires; why development margins are compressed in Toronto; and how Francis popularized the co-op in New York. 

    Francis is also the author of Risk Game: Self Portrait of an Entrepreneur. So if you like the podcast – which is a great listen – there’s also a book for you. Click here for the podcast.