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.

Tag: MBA

  • Unlearning our biases

    I had coffee this morning with an engineer who is going back to business school in order to segue into real estate development. This is a fairly typical journey. Lots of people come into development from a related discipline. In my case, it was architecture (even though I never practiced architecture). It was also the case when I went to Rotman that something like a third of the class had a background in some sort of science or engineering field.

    However, one thing I did mention this morning was that he will likely find that he will need to unlearn certain things as he moves forward. Every discipline tends to indoctrinate us with a certain way of thinking about the world. Lawyers tend to be a certain way. Engineers tend to be a certain way. And architects tend to be a certain way.

    In my case, I found that architecture school taught me to be, among other things, an intense perfectionist. The modus operandi in design studios is that your project is never ever complete. The more you work on it, the better it will become. And as a result, you should feel a deep onus to work on it as much as humanly possible. But in business, this isn’t practical. In the vast majority of cases, speed over perfection will serve you better.

    I believe wholeheartedly in multi-disciplinary backgrounds, and maybe this is one of the reasons why. It shows you what you should unlearn. What would you say your biases are?

  • Need vs. want and what that means for pricing

    Seth Godin recently posted this four quadrant chart on his blog. It is for plotting different products based on price and based on want vs. need. In his post, he asks his audience to think about what they’re offering and which quadrant it fits within. It can only be in one.

    I am fascinated by questions of pricing. At at some point on this blog, I wrote about a pricing class that I took at Rotman while I was doing my MBA about a decade ago. It stands out to me as one of my favorite university classes.

    So let’s consider these four quadrants.

    In the top left, you have inexpensive products that are wants and not needs. This quadrant is where you’d place those novelty sunglasses you picked up for your friend’s theme party. Fun for that moment, but if they break or you lose them, that’s probably okay.

    In the top right are expensive wants. Seth uses the example of a Hermès purse. The need is a place to put your belongings, but that’s not how these sorts of items are priced. The real value, arguably, comes from their “signaling” and how they make the owner feel.

    This is the luxury goods category. Demand will likely be cyclical and sporadic, and so you’ll need to make sure that you have fat margins.

    In the bottom right are expensive needs — like a pacemaker. Seth’s point is that these products need to work exceptionally well, all of the time. In the case of a pacemaker, it is truly a matter of life or death. At the same time, there’s going to be less price sensitivity.

    In the bottom left are the inexpensive wants. Low cost products that people really want and are infinitely useful. Seth’s example is Amazon Web Services.

    This quadrant of products is attractive because demand will naturally be extremely high. Cheap and invaluable will do that. However, Seth’s caution is that you still need to sustainably deliver the goods. These aren’t novelty sunglasses.

    I find it helpful to think of products as existing in only one quadrant. But most offerings aren’t going to exist all they way in one corner. It’s perhaps important to consider the “job to be done.” (To borrow from the late Clayton Christensen.)

    Take, for example, housing. On a fundamental level, it’s a need. We all need shelter. But it can also be a want, or have aspects of want. I need a place to live. But I want a place in the mountains. This subtle difference means something very different when plotted precisely.

    Image: Seth Godin

  • 3 ways to get into real estate development

    The most popular post on this blog is this one here called, “What real estate developers do and why I became one.” This post alone has been responsible for a good chunk of the organic traffic that this site receives since I wrote it back in 2014. If you search for “real estate developer” in Google it usually comes up on the first page.

    Probably because of this post, the number one question I receive in my inbox is about how to become a developer or how to transition into development from some other discipline. Usually this comes from someone who is early on in their career and/or is in architecture (which is not surprising given my background as a fake architect).

    I have tried to respond to this question publicly and at scale with a number of different posts. But many of you probably haven’t seen them before, and so I figured it would be a good idea to summarize some of them here (they’re usually tagged with “developer dirt“):

    If you’re looking for a more succinct summary of what to do, here is what I would suggest to you. You basically have three options.

    1) You can convince someone to take a chance and hire you, even though you likely don’t have any development experience. Maybe you have a background in something relevant such as real estate law, architecture, or politics (good). Or maybe you don’t (less good). Either way, the best way to position yourself is to understand what it is that developers do and figure out a way to create value for them from day one. You want to be in a position to say, “Yeah, I know I don’t have any direct development experience, but I can do X, Y, and Z for you starting today and I think that would be helpful to you for the following reasons.”

    2) Get a relevant degree. I’m thinking an MBA in real estate or some sort of master’s in real estate development. The reality is that the development business has, in many ways, become more institutionalized. It has gone, though obviously not entirely, from rich private families developing with their own balance sheets to more institutional capital sources, such as pension funds. Because of this, there are going to be hiring managers out there who need to check off certain boxes. For example, does this person have a real estate degree? This may make it harder for someone to take a chance on you if you don’t have the right experience and/or credentials.

    3) Just go out and do it. Despite becoming more institutional, the development business remains, in my view, a deeply entrepreneurial endeavor. You have to be able to problem solve and you have to be creative. The best developers I know don’t focus on can’t, they focus on how. Because there are too many obstacles in this business. A can’t mentality wouldn’t get you very far. So consider renovating a triplex, building a laneway suite, or doing something else that allows you to take a piece of real estate and create some additional value. Because that’s all that development really is at the end of the day.

    If you found this post useful, please consider sharing it with someone that you think would benefit from it. And if there are other topics that you would like me to cover (or cover in more detail), please feel free to leave a comment below or to at me on Twitter. I prefer Twitter over email because it forces brevity. Happy Canadian Thanksgiving, all.

    Photo by Bernard Hermant on Unsplash

  • Applications to US business schools are declining

    Applications to American business schools, including MBA programs, have fallen for five straight years according to this recent WSJ article.

    Compared to last year, business school applications to US schools are down about 9.1%; whereas they have been rising in other parts of the world. If you look at the change in applications from international students, the drop is even more significant — about 13.7%.

    Here are two charts from the WSJ:

    There are a couple of possible explanations for this. Tech is/has been hot. I would imagine that space has been absorbing many people who would have historically gone to do an MBA.

    But perhaps more significantly, stricter immigration policies are making it harder for international students to come to the US. At the same time, top tier alternatives are emerging around the world, such as in China.

    China exports more business school students than any other country and they are by far the largest international student base in the US. But the numbers are coming down. At the peak in 2015, the US issued nearly 275,000 student visas to people from China. By 2017, that number had more than halved to 112,817.

    Out of curiosity, I decided to look up the class profile for the most recent Rotman MBA cohort (my alma mater). 70% of the class was born outside of Canada. That’s not surprising.

    Charts: WSJ

  • BARED: Michael J. Cooper, Dream Unlimited Corp

    In 1974, at the age of 13, Michael J. Cooper won his first sailing championship in Toronto. And at this very young age he quickly learned that if you’re good at something, people treat you better. You become influential.

    But the real lesson came when he and colleague Jason Lester started making money by cleaning and taking care of other people’s boats. What Michael learned was that different professions seemed to attract, or perhaps cultivate, different personalities.

    The doctors weren’t the best customers. They weren’t that engaged. And they weren’t that personable. The lawyers were marginally better, but even then they weren’t like the business people. The business people were engaging and overall better customers.

    But then, in Michael’s words, you got to the real estate people. Now, they were charismatic. These are the people that Michael wanted to hang around. They were funny and interesting. They were the people that young Michael admired. His career wasn’t a direct line to real estate, but this early experience would later impact its trajectory.

    Like David Wex (previous BARED post), Michael started out as a lawyer. He went through law school and loved every minute of it. He found it conceptually fascinating. It was a different way of thinking. But after his first day working in a firm, he said to himself: “I can’t believe lawyers do this for a living!”

    He quickly discovered that his personality wasn’t a good fit for law. Michael framed it to me in the following way: “I asked myself, was I going to be an airline pilot or a baseball player? As an airline pilot, like a lawyer, my job would be trying to be 100% mistake proof. However, as a baseball player, I could make audacious plays, only be right 30% of the time, and still be considered excellent.”

    He wanted to be a baseball player.

    I would argue that most entrepreneurial minds think of themselves more as baseball players than as airline pilots. Billionaire Mark Cuban has famously said: “All that matters in business is that you get it right once. Then everyone can tell you how lucky you are.” Nobody remembers all of the failures.

    So Michael decided to go back to school, get an MBA, and figure out a way to do the most exciting thing possible – which in his words was “ABL, baby!” (Anything But Law!)

    In order to complete his MBA and not put himself deeply in debt, he decided to “pull a George Costanza.” Meaning, he continued to work full-time, but he also enrolled at the Schulich School of Business full-time. He would simply come into the office in the morning, put down a cup of steaming coffee, and then take off to class.

    Anything but law, baby.

    Upon graduating and upon reflecting on his childhood experience cleaning boats, he decided that real estate was the most exciting thing he could get into. So he drafted up a bunch of letters and sent them over cold to 10 different real estate developers. His offer was that he would work for free. (He had the ability to do this because of his clever George Costanza-like employment moves.)

    As luck would have it, he ended up getting a job with a man whose boat he had washed as a teenager. It was a man by the name of Walter Zwig. Walter Zwig had a 50-year real estate career in Toronto. He was responsible for developing over six million square feet of space in 13 downtown Toronto office towers, before eventually selling his portfolio to Olympia & York Properties; the legendary Toronto-based development company started by Paul Reichmann and his brothers. It was alleged to be largest development company in the world before going bankrupt.

    Michael started in 1986 and he would eventually work for Walter until 1993. However, Walter didn’t want him to work for free so he started him at $1,000 per month.

    Michael would cut his teeth with Zwig and eventually go on to develop office properties such as the Dynamic Tower at 1 Adelaide Street East, the Zurich Centre at 400 University Avenue, and the Atrium on Bay at 595 Bay Street. It was a small and flat organization without titles and Michael was able to learn a lot.

    But then the early 90’s hit and everyone went broke. The industry went into dormancy.

    However, as luck would again have it, he got a call from Ned Goodman who felt that there were great opportunities emerging in the market. (Ned also appeared in my BARED post about David Wex.) Michael had met Ned’s son, David, while he was looking for office space and Michael had greatly impressed him.

    Michael had brought David to five office buildings. Two of the buildings were owned by Zwig, but three of them weren’t. However, Michael knew that with the current economic climate, the buildings now had more debt on them than they were worth. So if the Goodman’s needed the space, he could simply buy the debt at a discount and take it over. Michael was showing buildings that his company didn’t own and he had a damn good reason why.

    On January 4, 1994, Michael, Ned, and Walter sat down for lunch at the Victoria Cafe in Toronto’s Financial District. The agenda was to figure out how to merge both Goodman and Zwig’s businesses into one and capitalize on what was starting to happen in the real estate market.

    However, Walter said that he was too old to join. He was out. But he encouraged Michael to seize the opportunity. In 1994, Michael Cooper became co-founder of what would eventually become Dream Unlimited Corp. He was 32 years old at the time.

    Remember, if you’re good at something people treat you better.

    Since 1994, Dream (TSX: DRM) has grown to over 1,000 employees and over $15 billion of assets under management in North America and Europe. They provide asset management services for 4 funds listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and they have operating businesses that span master-planned communities and condominiums to renewable energy infrastructure and retail centre development.

    But what is not necessarily obvious from the above numbers is that, alongside Dream’s incredible growth, Michael also became one of “the real estate guys” that he admired so much as a young teenager cleaning boats. After sitting down with Michael to learn about how he got to where he is, I can honestly say that he is one of the funniest and most charismatic people I have ever met. He is the kind of guy you want to do business with and then go out drinking with afterwards.

    Perhaps not surprisingly, when I asked Michael if he had any advice for young aspiring developers (which I know is a lot of you readers), he quickly suggested that people study the classics. Speech. Drama. He said: learn how to connect with people.

    Because as a developer, your job is to conceptualize what the future could be and then get other people to believe in that same vision. Michael describes navigating all of the constraints on building as one of the most creative things you can do. And in a market like today where you have to be willing to pay the most for a piece of land, it’s the best ideas that win.

    That doesn’t sound like a lawyer or airline pilot to me. That sounds like a real estate guy with one hell of a batting average.

    ———————————————————

    This is the second post in my blog series called BARED (Becoming A Real Estate Developer). A big thanks to Mariane for helping to coordinate this piece. More posts to come in the following weeks. Subscribe to stay in the loop.

  • I can’t spend unrealized gains

    image

    Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal published an article claiming that the celebrated venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz was lagging behind its elite peers in terms of returns.

    The firm then responded with a well-written blog post explaining why this accusation is off the mark. Their response was simply that you can’t measure returns on “unrealized gains.” Until there is a liquidity event – that is, the company gets sold or goes public – it’s just paper returns. And what matters is cash. 

    As the post clearly states: “I can’t spend unrealized gains.”

    But beyond just a rebuttal, the blog post is a great primer on how the venture capital industry works. We talk a lot about the tech space on this blog, so I thought some of you might find it interesting. 

    One of the reasons I like to follow the VC space is that there are many similarities to real estate development. Not only in the way that the funds are structured, but also in the way that the gestation periods are incredibly long.

    The post talks about this as a “J curve.” In the early years of a fund, the returns are negative. Money is going out the door to invest in immature and risky startups. And it’s not until the harvesting period (7+ years later) that the realized gains start getting paid out to investors (LPs).

    It’s also interesting to note that the exit timing for companies – at least according to Andreessen Horowitz – seems to be increasing (10+ years). This is yet another similarity to real estate development where it seems to be getting harder and harder to build and deliver new supply.

  • School of Real Estate

    I’ve been getting a lot of (email) questions lately about what to study in order to become a real estate developer. So I thought I would reblog this post that talks about exactly that. I wrote it over a year ago and I almost forgot it existed.

    At the same time, I’m reminded of something: I think these questions really speak to the fact that there’s a significant opportunity (particularly in Canada) in terms of real estate development education. 

    Oftentimes when I get these questions, I end up recommending the Master of Science in Real Estate Development (MSRED) at ColumbiaMIT, and USC. Why don’t we have something similar (and better) in Canada? We are falling behind.

    I have raised this with some Universities here in Toronto, but the response I got was that they felt the real estate courses being offered as part of their existing MBA programs were more than sufficient. I think we can do a lot better.

    One professor suggested that I line up a big donor and work with them to spearhead the creation of the (Insert Donor Name Here) School of Real Estate. I think that’s a great idea, but not something I have the capacity for right now.

    Hopefully somebody else out there is of the same mind.

    Post Update: 3 days ago the Schulich School of Business (York University) announced a one-year full time Master of Real Estate and Infrastructure (MREI) program – the first of its kind in Canada. 

    This is great news. 

    Now I would love to see the University of Toronto and Ryerson University (as well as others) step up and leverage their respective architecture schools. Schulich is already out of the gate on this one.

  • The psychological benefits of third places

    Photograph - by rinatus (rinatus) on 500px

    – by rinatus (rinatus) on 500px

    Today I’m thinking about extraversion and third places within cities.

    As many of you I’m sure know, the idea of a third place is that after your home (first place) and your work (second place), cities have what are known as third places. This could be a coffee shop, a barber shop, or a public space (to name only a few examples).

    This, of course, is not a new idea. For decades people have been arguing that third places are essential for establishing a sense of community, place, and belonging. In fact, this emphasis on third place is one of the ingredients that made Starbucks so successful.

    But with the rise of the internet and freelancing, third places are becoming even more important. That’s why coffee shops have become arguably the best example of a third place in today’s cities. They’ve even become the new second place for some (many?) people.

    But beyond just a place to meet and socialize, I’ve been thinking today (while I was at a third place) about the psychological benefits of these spaces.

    For example:

    One of the key differences between extraverts and introverts is where they draw their energy from. For introverts, they tend to draw it from within. In order to recharge, they often feel the need to retreat and be left alone. Extroverts, on the other hand, draw their energy from the outside world. They charge up by being around other people.

    When I was completing my MBA at Rotman, one of the things they had us do at the beginning and at the end of the program was complete the Myers-Brigg personality test

    In both instances, I was as extroverted as they come (I am consistently what is known as an ENTJ). And from experience, I can say that I definitely feed off the energy of other people.

    But the interesting thing about this – to tie both of these topics back together – is that there appears to be a clear correlation between extroversion and a preference for living in urban centers. And given what I just said, that probably makes sense to you.

    So if you too classify yourself as an extroverted person, then third places are more than just a busy coffee shop or a vibrant public space. They are where you derive your energy and where you feel alive. And that’s a pretty powerful thing in my view.

  • The 5 objectives of Rejection Therapy

    In the business world – particularly in the startup world these days – there’s a lot of emphasis on the importance of failure. The mantra is: “fail early and fail often.” Because if you’re not failing, then you’re likely not pushing yourself hard enough and getting out of your comfort zone. 

    Some people think we’ve gone too far in our celebration of failure, but I think there’s a lot of value in not being afraid of making mistakes. I try and adopt the same mentality when I snowboard. If I’m not physically falling, then I’m likely not trying things I’ve never done before. (I may have taken that philosophy too far this winter.)

    Here’s a video from Gary Vaynerchuk’s #AskGaryVee show where Jack and Suzy Welch are guests and the first question has to do with this exact topic: the importance of failure.

    Given all of this, I was fascinated to learn about something new this week called Rejection Therapy. I was out for beers with some good friends of mine earlier in the week and one of them – who is an educator here in the city – started telling me the story of Jason Comely.

    Jason was a freelance IT guy from Cambridge, Ontario. His wife had recently left him for someone “better” and he went into a deep slump. Eventually, he realized that he had become terrified of rejection. His wife had rejected him and he never wanted that to ever happen again.

    Initially he withdrew from life. 

    But eventually he decided that he was going to experiment with the exact opposite approach. He decided that he was going to force himself to get rejected by someone every, single, day.

    It didn’t matter how it happened, but he had to get rejected. He would walk up to strangers and ask for a ride home. He would ask for a discount before buying something. The list goes on. 

    Eventually he thought it would be a good idea to start documenting all of his rejections: this is what I did today and this how I got rejected. It became a game for him. When he would get his rejection for the day, he would celebrate it. Then he thought to himself: why not turn this into an actual game that other people could purchase? And that’s what he did.

    He calls it Rejection Therapy and here are the five objectives that he lays out:

    1. To be more aware of how irrational social fears control and restrict our lives
    2. Smash the tyranny of fear and reap the treasures (treasures include wealth, relationships and self-confidence)
    3. Learn from, and even enjoy rejection
    4. To not be attached to outcomes, especially when it involves the free agency of other people
    5. Permit yourself to fail

    Playing Rejection Therapy may not be for everyone. But I think the lessons are universally applicable. There’s value in trying. There’s value in asking. There’s value in making mistakes. And there’s value in not being afraid of someone saying no.

  • But what about integrative thinking?

    After yesterday’s post about speed, price, and quality, a friend of mine from Rotman emailed me and said: but what about integrative thinking?

    When I was doing my MBA at Rotman and Roger Martin was the dean, integrative thinking was a significant part of the curriculum and the messaging for the school. 

    Here’s how Roger explains it:

    Over the past six years, I have interviewed more than 50 such leaders, some for as long as eight hours, and found that most of them share a somewhat unusual trait: They have the predisposition and the capacity to hold in their heads two opposing ideas at once. And then, without panicking or simply settling for one alternative or the other, they’re able to creatively resolve the tension between those two ideas by generating a new one that contains elements of the others but is superior to both. This process of consideration and synthesis can be termed integrative thinking. It is this discipline—not superior strategy or faultless execution—that is a defining characteristic of most exceptional businesses and the people who run them.

    So what my friend was getting at is why – when it comes to speed, price, and quality – do you only get to “pick any two?” Doesn’t that go against the rules of integrative thinking? Isn’t that a failure to look for a more holistic and integrated solution?

    It’s a great point. And it’s a thought that crossed my mind while I was writing yesterday’s post. The fact that “something had to give” made me second guess myself.

    In general, I’m a believer in integrative thinking. I think there are lots of opportunities to create new hybrid solutions and models that are superior to what might exist today.

    But what I was getting at yesterday was perhaps a bit more low level in thinking.

    Let’s say for instance you’re a developer constructing a new building and you and your construction manager are in the process of tendering for curtain wall. You receive 3 bids back and 2 of them are roughly the same, but one them is $5 million cheaper.

    My immediate thoughts would be: Why is that one bid so much lower? Did they bid on the same scope? Are they missing something? Will the curtain wall arrive on-site on time? And if it does, is it going to leak like a sieve?

    I’ll be the first to admit that the construction process is fraught with inefficiencies and ready for integrated solutions. I’m certain that the trade-offs between speed, price, and quality could be better managed.

    But more often than not, a rock bottom price usually means that something did in fact give. After all, great integrative thinking is a pretty rare trait.