Tag: real estate

• Toward positive ZOPAs

  This example, by Matt Levine, is a funny way to understand how many negotiations work:

  In negotiations, it is often helpful to have someone else, some “absent principal,” to blame for your position. You go to a car dealership, the salesperson says “this car costs $25,000,” you say “I want to pay $21,000,” she says “I like you, I want you in this car, but my boss won’t let me go lower than $24,000,” you say “$22,000,” she says “I really want this to work out, let me check with my boss,” she goes into the break room and watches TikToks on her phone for five minutes, she comes back and says “my boss is really mad at me but I talked him down to $23,500.”

  The boss is a crutch, an excuse. The salesperson is adversarial to you — she wants to charge more, you want to pay less — but wants you to feel like she’s on your side, so you trust her and agree to her proposals.

  Now, Matt ultimately goes on to talk about how in some situations, such as in the financial industry, this could be considered criminal behavior. But that’s a more nuanced topic for his column, and not for this blog. Here, we’re just going to use it as a lead-in to say that negotiating is kind of important for real estate.

  In fact, when I was in grad school, my mentors used to always say to me, “everyone should take a negotiating class.” And so I went and did that. It was a lot of fun. I remember us being given “positions”, and then we’d have to go out and see what we could negotiate.

  One particular concept that I often find myself coming back to is something referred to as the “ZOPA.” The Russians in my class were quick to point out that this sounds like the word ass in their language, but in the world of negotiating it stands for “Zone of Possible Agreement.”

  What it describes is whether there’s an overlap between what both parties are willing to accept. For example, if a buyer is willing to pay as much as $100 for a particular piece of real estate, and the seller is willing to go as low as $80, then there is a positive ZOPA of $20.

  This means that a deal should theoretically happen. However, interestingly enough, I discovered in my classroom simulations that negotiations can still arrive at an impasse, even with a positive ZOPA. Some people want to do deals, and some people like to extract everything they can from a negotiation.

  Of course, if you have a negative ZOPA (i.e. no overlap in what the parties are willing to accept), then it’s obviously pretty hard, if not largely impossible, to come to a deal. And since 2022, you could say that the real estate industry has been characterized by a greater number of negative ZOPA scenarios.

  But if my predictions for this year are correct, then 2024 will be the year where we start to see some more positive ones.

  2024.01.09

• More retailers are buying real estate in New York

  Last week we spoke about how many businesses don’t want to own their own real estate, but that some do. We then spoke about Prada’s recent acquisition of 720 and 724 Fifth Avenue for $835 million. However, they’re not the only ones. According to New York’s The Real Deal (thank you John Bell for the article), last year saw the following transactions:

  • Swiss fashion house Akris bought a property from SL Green for $40.6 million
  • Japanese coffee retailer Geshary bought a property on Fifth Avenue from the Riese Organization for $38 million
  • And Dyson bought a building in Soho for $60 million

  Now, some, or a lot of this, is strategic. New York is New York, and global brands need to be there. Another part of this is that there was less competition last year. Fewer real estate companies wanted to buy retail and office buildings, and so end users seem to have stepped in at what they presumably saw as favourable prices.

  But it’s also not totally foreign for retailers to want to own their own real estate. Perhaps the most famous example is McDonald’s, which owns its own real estate and then leases it out to franchisees. Though as I alluded to last week, it’s important to know what business you’re ultimately in. And McDonald’s knows it’s in the real estate business.

  2024.01.07

• Real estate commissions are probably going to come down

  Real estate commissions on homes in the US are typically between 5-6%. And it is usually split between the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent (or it goes all to one agent in the case of dual-ended deals). It is also customary for this commission to be paid entirely by the seller (through the proceeds of their sale), though you could argue that buyers end up paying for it indirectly. All of this is generally true in Canada as well.

  This is a good set up:

  • Sellers don’t pay until they sell and have fresh cash
  • Money being deducted from proceeds (the “take rate”) is a lot less noticeable and has a lot less friction than cash you just have to pay out
  • Buyers kind of don’t pay

  This last point is one of the most important features of how real estate commissions work. Because you have one side of the transaction that feels as if they’re mostly not paying, it generally helps to perpetuate the status quo. If both sides had to directly fork out cash, you’d likely have a lot more people saying, “hey, why don’t we consummate this transaction over here, on the side, and not pay these fees.”

  But it turns out that the US Department of Justice isn’t happy about some of these policies and practices. More specifically, when the National Association of Realtors does things like this:

  • Prohibiting multiple listing services (“MLSs”) from disclosing to prospective buyers the amount of commission that the buyer broker will earn if the buyer purchases a home listed on the MLS (“NAR’s Commission Concealment Rules”);

  • Allowing buyer brokers to mislead buyers into thinking that buyer broker services are free (“NAR’s Free-Service Rule”);

  • Enabling buyer brokers to filter MLS listings based on the level of buyer broker commissions offered and to exclude homes with lower commissions from consideration by potential home buyers (“NAR’s Commission-Filter Rules and Practices”); and

  • Limiting access to lockboxes that provide licensed brokers physical access to a home that is for sale to only those real estate brokers who are members of a NAR-affiliated MLS (“NAR’s Lockbox Policy”).

  In fact, these practices were found to be anti-competitive; they were arguably keeping commissions artificially high. So much so that a federal court recently awarded $1.8 billion in damages. It was also decided that no rule or practice should exist that:

  • Prohibits, discourages, or recommends against an MLS or MLS Participant publishing or displaying to consumers any MLS database field specifying the compensation offered to other MLS Participants;

  • Permits or requires MLS Participants, including buyer brokers, to represent or suggest that their services are free or available to a client at not cost to the client;

  • Permits or enables MLS Participants to filter, suppress, hide, or not display or distribute MLS listings based on the level of compensation offered to the buyer broker or the name of the brokerage or agent; or

  • Prohibits, discourages or recommends against the eligibility of any licensed real estate agent or broker, from accessing, with seller approval, the lockboxes of those properties listed on an MLS.

  Some believe that this ruling — which will create more competition — could reduce the $100 billion or so of commissions paid each year (in the US) by as much as 30%. This is possible. I have no idea how this estimate was calculated. But it does make intuitive sense that commissions should come down. This ruling gets at the heart of what sustains the industry: one side of the marketplace needs to feel that they’re, mostly, not really, paying.

  2024.01.05

• What might happen in 2024

  Yesterday we looked in the rear-view mirror. Today we’re looking forward:

  • The market consensus right now is that this cycle of interest rate increases has come to an end, and that we should see rates start to come down next year. Having confidence that rates won’t go any higher in the near future is what markets need in order to start making more decisions. So this is, of course, positive. At the same time, I don’t think anyone should expect a return to ultra-low rates. Rates today are still low when viewed historically.
  • Lower rates are good for levered assets such as real estate, but I don’t think that our industry has fully felt and processed the impacts of higher rates. Unfortunately, I think that things will get worse (in 2024) before they get better (maybe toward the end of 2024 or perhaps in 2025). This is when a “risk-on” approach will return in commercial real estate. A year ago today, I thought 2023 would be the year for this, but as I said yesterday, I was overly optimistic in terms of my timing.
  • On the residential resale side, I think we will see greater optimism sooner, certainly for the most in-demand cities and areas. There is pent up demand waiting on the sidelines and, once we can get past the current bid-ask spreads and deadlock, I believe we’ll return to a more balanced market in 2024. To be clear, I’m not expecting bidding wars and the like. And because of our housing affordability crisis, I also think the Bank of Canada will be more resistant to lowering rates compared to other central banks. This will help the Canadian dollar.
  • If you’re a buyer of real estate, I generally believe that 2024 will turn out to be a pivotal year for you. Roughly speaking, you win acquisitions in one of two ways: either (1) you pay the most or (2) you believe in something that most other people in the market don’t. This second approach is harder to achieve in bull markets. But in slower markets, the door is open and history has taught us that it can be the foundation in which great fortunes are made.
  • As I mentioned yesterday, I agree with the prognostications that hard costs will soften further next year (perhaps even more than 5% on average). Obviously every market is different. But here in Toronto, I just don’t see us returning to the level of construction starts that we have seen over the last number of years.
  • Since 2021, I have used my hyper scientific Jimmy the Greek Reopening Index to keep tabs on office utilization and the overall return to office. And based on this, 2023 was a positive year. Initially, souvlaki consumption appeared dramatically lower on days like Monday. But I noticed discernible increases as the year went on. However, if you look at actual data, such as what we have from swipe cards, the great return to office seems to have stalled out at around 50%. I don’t think this will hold, though. I continue to believe that of the people who work in offices, most will spend > 50% of each week there. And we will see that in 2024.
  • 2023 was the year of AI. But Fred Wilson makes an excellent point, here. AI is 40+ years in the making. Last year only became the year of AI because a consumer-facing app — ChatGPT — was revealed that captured everyone’s attention. Crypto will eventually have this moment, but it will likely need to marinate a bit longer. Instead, I think 2024 will be the year of augmented reality (AR) and a further blurring of our offline and online worlds. Think digital art, fashion, and other collectibles (such as NFTs).
  • Right now, autonomous vehicles feel like they’re in the trough of disillusionment (within the hype cycle). There were moments last year where it felt like we were finally moving beyond this phase. But then some very suboptimal things happened. I think AVs are our reality in the next 5+ years, which means that for next year we likely want to be focused on the inputs: vision/LIDAR, battery tech, etc.
  • Zooming out, we should be thinking about the above two trends in the context of a broader shift toward greater automation. I think it will feel more insidious than immediate (certainly in 2024), but the longer-term impacts are going to be profound for our society. The so-called gig economy is likely to be impacted first. Eventually the overall economy will create new jobs, but we are still going to need to manage this transition toward more automation.
  • TikTok Shop is where to look for the future of shopping. I think the platform will continue to see strong adoption and ultimately prove to be a dominant e-commerce platform throughout 2024. Amazon, Meta, and others will see this, and try their best to catch up and copy it.
  • At the time of writing this post, the total crypto market capitalization is about $1.74 trillion. This is down from nearly $3 trillion at the peak of the market in 2021. The recent gains suggest that the so-called “crypto winter” might be over, and so combined with lower interest rates and more real-world use cases, I think that 2024 will be another strong year for crypto. Total crypto market cap at the end of the year will exceed its 2021 peak.

  And there you have it. My current thoughts for this upcoming year. I should note that I’m not an economist, analyst, or an expert on souvlaki demand for that matter. But I enjoy writing this post as an annual discipline. It forces me to think critically about the topics that interest me. And in the paraphrased words of Howard Lindzon, it gives me an archive that I can go back to and either cringe at or think to myself, “hey, I could have been a somebody!”

  And with that, a big thanks to everyone who has read this daily blog over the last year. This year marked its 10th anniversary. I wish you much success and happiness in 2024. Happy new year!

  2023.12.31

• What happened in 2023

  As per tradition around here, I like to bookend the new year with two posts: a post that revisits my random predictions for the year and a post that talks about what might happen in the year to follow. Today’s post is the former. So let’s see how I did:

  • I thought the interest rate hikes would come to an end in Q1-2023. But that didn’t happen until the summer. I also thought this would lead to a mild recession in Canada. Technically, we are not actually in one, but according to some, we kind of are.
  • I thought the real estate sector would start seeing some distress in the first half of the year, and that a new equilibrium would be found in the second half. This proved to be overly optimistic in terms of timing. A lot ended up being on pause for the entire year, and I now think that my forecast was at least a year too early. The sea change is still underway.
  • Given the overall slowdown in real estate, I felt that construction costs had to see some softening. This did, in fact, happen with some of the “earlier trades”, such as shoring and excavation, and we did see some specific trade pricing, such as concrete formwork, come down by as much as 30%. The smart cost consultants we work with now expect to see overall hard costs come down by a further 5-6% next year in Toronto. This makes sense given construction starts are way down.
  • With me expecting the interest rate increases to stop in Q1, I thought that pre-construction condominium sales would return in a meaningful way by the spring. While we did see some buoyancy around that time, it was short lived. Sales remained nearly shutoff for the entire year, but for maybe a handful of projects. The more successful projects tended to be outside of the Toronto core and at lower price points.
  • With respect to home prices in more tertiary/fringe markets, my sense then, as it is now, was that these prices would remain below the peaks for many years. In addition to the upward momentum created by low rates, my view was/is that some of this pricing was the result of a bet on urban decentralization. I don’t think that has played out as many expected it to, so that’s why I think it will be many years before the pricing we saw in early 2022 returns.
  • The momentum around “expanding housing options” in our low-rise neighborhoods is many years in the making. And a lot of progress was made in 2023. Here in Toronto, we adopted new multiplex policies that now allow fourplexes plus an accessory dwelling (so 5 homes in total) on an as-of-right basis. I continue to believe that this momentum is only going to grow. I also think we will see the arrival of more mixed-use opportunities.
  • I believed that, broadly speaking, urban transit ridership would remain below pre-pandemic levels for all of 2023. This proved to be the case for most US and Canadian cities. But things are improving. For Canada as a whole, it looks like we’ll see full recovery sometime in 2024 based on this trend line.
  • I thought 2023 was going to be the year I took my inaugural ride in an autonomous vehicle. Sadly, this didn’t happen. The sector as a whole also saw some setbacks. Hopefully I’ll get a chance next year.
  • I assumed that Apple would finally release its augmented reality device. And though they didn’t technically release Vision Pro, they did announce it. So I guess that counts for something. I also thought that 2023 would be a big year for “phygital” goods. Maybe it was. Or maybe it was more of a building year. A lot of people are curious to see how Vision Pro does in 2024. It’s not set up for the mass market, just yet, but I think it will do exactly what it is supposed to once it’s out in the wild.
  • Finally, crypto. I know that a lot of you like to skip over these posts, but it is something that I feel strongly about. A year ago, though, I was pretty bearish on Solana. Boy was I wrong. Solana ended the year as the best performing major crypto asset — up 933% at the time of writing this. Oops! However, Ether is also +91%, and I continued to dollar-cost average in all throughout the year.

  Next up: What will, or more accurately, what might happen in 2024.

  2023.12.30

• Are short-term rentals really a zero-sum game?

  The prevailing view on short-term rentals right now seems to be this:

  

  That is, it’s viewed as a zero-sum game between residents and tourists. There are only so many homes within a city, and so if any of them are to turn into short-term rentals, then it is a direct reduction in the supply of available long-term homes. This can also happen very quickly given the asset-light nature of Airbnb and the fact that these spaces aren’t usually purpose-built.

  It is for this reason that many cities have enacted strict short-term rental laws that basically only allow you to rent out your principal residence when you’re not around or if you happen to have extra space. In the case of New York, you have to be physically present when the dwelling is being rented, and so the use case is exclusively “I have extra space for you.”

  Either way, the basic idea is to stop people from removing homes from the long-term market. I do, however, find it curious that reductions in housing supply seem to be generally viewed as bad, but that increases in housing supply are often met with skepticism. Doesn’t housing supply work in both directions? Why aren’t more people clamouring for new homes to be built?

  Where my head is at on this issue is that I don’t see it as a zero-sum game. I believe that there should be rules and regulations around short-term rentals, but that they shouldn’t stamp out all use cases other than “here’s an air mattress in my living room.” At the same time, I think we should be viewing this as an opportunity. Clearly we need more homes, more hotels, and more short-term rentals.

  It’s only zero-sum if we make it that way.

  2023.12.22

• These are not unprecedented interest rates

  BlogTO recently asked: Is it a good time or a bad time to buy a condo in Toronto right now? My unsolicited opinion is that if you are someone who would like a home in Toronto, now is an excellent time to buy it. But that’s not actually what I want to talk about today.

  If you read the post, you’ll come across this line: “She emphasized that these are unprecedented interest rates…” Hmm. I think it’s important to point out that these are not unprecedented rates. Rates today are certainly higher than they have been for about two decades. But they’ve been even higher before and, if you go back to say the 1980s, rates today still look historically low.

  We just got used to ultra low rates and now we need to adjust to them being higher. And we will. The first step is feeling confident that rates won’t go even higher in the short term. Because if you think you know where rates are going to hang out, you can then make decisions around that.

  2023.12.09

• Cheap and wonderful

  One generally accepted investing adage is that you “make money on the buy”. Meaning, what you pay for an asset will largely determine your fate. Price matters a lot. Some/many would even argue that it’s the single most important thing when it comes to investing.

  Said differently, if you had to choose between paying above market for a high-quality real estate asset or paying below market for a low-quality real estate asset, you would choose the latter, because you have a higher probability of doing well.

  In some ways, I agree with this. If you’re buying an asset below what it’s actually worth, then in theory you could turn around and sell it tomorrow for the market price. So you are quite literally “making money on the buy.”

  On the other hand, if you’ve paid above market for even a high-quality asset, you’ve now just lost money (at least in the immediate term). Because if you also turned around and sold it tomorrow, you’d lose money.

  But is this always the right way to think about investing? One of Warren Buffett’s many famous lines is that he’d rather buy a wonderful company at a fair price, than a fair company at a wonderful price.

  And this would suggest that “cheap” isn’t the only metric to consider. Especially if you think like Buffett does and you want to hold assets forever and benefit from the compound growth that comes along with wonderful assets.

  So as obvious as it may seem, a better way to think about “making money on the buy” might be that you need to consider both price and the quality of the asset. Cheap could be a feature, or it could not be. But cheap and wonderful are generally always a good thing.

  2023.10.11

• Sam Zell dies at 81

  Sam Zell, the billionaire real estate investor, died this week at the age of 81. That seems young to me. Or maybe I’m just being overly optimistic about life expectancy. This is around the US average.

  Whatever the case, if you work in real estate, you likely know/knew of Sam. In my case, he spent a lot of time at Penn after he permanently endowed the real estate center (under both his name and his late business partner’s name).

  I used to go and listen to him speak at least twice a year, and I would hang off his every word as a young student of real estate. “So wait, how does this all work?”

  It was also at this time that he sold Equity Office to Blackstone for $39 billion (back in 2007, it was the largest private equity deal in history). Sam’s explanation for doing this deal was that Blackstone offered him more than what he thought the portfolio was worth, so he sold it. He took no credit for good market timing.

  If you’ve ever heard Sam speak, you know that he’s incredibly direct. Generally, he also didn’t seem to give a fuck, and was happy being the only person in a Hawaiian shirt among a sea of blue and black suits.

  In fact, he’s largely the reason that, as students, we used to all joke that the richer the speaker, the more funny and honest they would be. “Come on, let’s go to this one. She’s rich.” I guess this is just what happens when you no longer have anything to prove.

  But none of this is to say that he didn’t care. He cared a great deal about the school and about helping young students. And for that, I say: thank you Sam. Thank you for being generous with your time.

  2023.05.19

• Schwarzenegger’s real estate career

  I grew up watching Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, and I have always found him to be a super impressive guy. Bodybuilding, movies, and politics — he always seems to have the discipline and the confidence to accomplish his goals. But what some of you may not be aware of is that he actually had an illustrious real estate career before he became a movie star, and that this side hustle made him a millionaire before he ever starred in Conan.

  Here’s an excerpt from a recent interview that he did with Tim Ferriss:

  I did not rely on my movie career to make a living. That was my intention because I saw over the years the people that worked out in the gym and that I met in the acting classes, they were all very vulnerable because they didn’t have any money and they had to take anything that was offered to them because that was their living. I didn’t want to get into that situation. I felt like if I am smart with real estate and take my little money that I make in bodybuilding and in seminars and selling my courses through the mail orders, I could save up enough money to put down money for an apartment building.

  I realized in the 70’s that the inflation rate was very high and therefore an investment like that is unbeatable. Buildings that I would buy for $500K within the year were $800K and I put only maybe $100K down, so you made 300% on your money. You couldn’t beat that. I quickly developed and traded up my buildings and bought more apartment buildings and office buildings on Main Street down in Santa Monica and so on. The investments were very good and it was just one of those magic decades.

  Today you couldn’t do it in that same field. There’s another field in real estate where you can do it, but in this particular field I don’t think you will see those kind of jumps ever again. I benefited from that and I became a millionaire from my real estate investments. That was before my career took off in show business and acting, which was after Conan the Barbarian. In 1982 that movie came out. We shot it in 1981 and in ’82 it came out. From that point on my career took off because people saw that the movie was successful at the box office and then I signed a contract to do Conan number 2 and then that led to a contract for Terminator 1 and then Commando.

  To listen to the interview, click here. Or for the full transcript, click here. It’s great.

  2023.01.19